Evidence of composition, delivery, recording, transmission

+ Commentary on the Psalms and rhetorical where the previous one was concise. Likewise, in dealing with the opening verse of Psalm 50 he claims, "It seems to me that this is related to the previous psalm," and he clearly pre- . sumes his listeners are in a position to make a comparison of the two based on exposure to the content of both. Yet the reader is struck by the great difference in style of commentary in moving from one to the other; further, Chrysostom omits the usual variant translations of verses in Psalm 50 as well as its title, "A psalm to Asaph" —as Psalms 73-83 with a similar title are also missing from the extant series.

EVIDENCE OF COMPOSITION, DELIVERY, RECORDING, TRANSMISSION Such structural and stylistic inconsistencies in Chrysostom's extant psalm commentaries serve to lead us into that intriguing question about them: were they ever delivered from the pulpit, or composed and left on the theologian's desk? In either case, but particularly in the former, how were they recorded and transmitted? Comparison with Theodoret's commentary on that similar

"Lucianic" psalms text suggests a relative degree of orality, yet not to the level of the Genesis homilies. De Montfaucon insists a priori

(against historian Tillemont) that such an inveterate preacher could hardly have left a text of such pastoral richness to lie fallow on his desk, and the argument has some force. Yet biographer

Chrysostomus Baur would be convinced of actual delivery only by possession of both speaker's text and stenographer's copy, and by "an appearance of actuality" imparted by references to real life."

The practices and resources in antiquity for recording and transmitting scholars' and preachers' words are surprisingly well documented. Beyond classical authors like Cicero, we know (from Eusebius), for example, of Origen's use of the resources generously supplied him by his friend Ambrose of Nicomedia — taxvygaot

(tachygraphoi), BipdAwwyoagor (bibliographoi) and xahiriyoapar *PG 55,9.

*" C. Baur, John Chrysostom and His Times (1929) I, Eng. trans., LondonGlasgow, 1959, 222.

(kalligraphai) — for dictating his private commentaries and having his public homilies recorded, copied and touched up, and (from themselves) of Jerome's use of similar resources for his commentaries and of Augustine's use of notarii for preserving his oratorical works.*

I As is clear from the remark of Photius five centuries afterwards, we do not have such precise evidence for recording and transmission of Chrysostom's Commentary on the Psalms. But there is the statement from Socrates Scholasticus, historian from Constantinople who died in 450, that the great preacher's discourses survived to that point, some in the form he released them and some in stenographic transcription of his spoken word." Of course, stenographers could also have been employed in the former

| group, and the composer's proofing involved in the latter group.

| Into which group did this Commentary fall?

We have seen Dom Baur looking in the text for "an appearance of actuality," or for what we might term evidence of spontaneity, something conspicuously absent from Theodeoret's more measured, literary commentaries. We admitted above in section two that Chrysostom's Psalms commentary is lacking local reference by comparison with the Genesis homilies; but we have also to admit that stenographers could be responsible for excision of such irrelevant material. Correlatively, the evidence ofspontaneity Baur finds in the Genesis sermons by contrast, particularly that notorious example of the rebuke to the congregation for being distracted by the lamplighter in Sermon 4,*' could easily be "manufactured" by composer or bibliographoi at a late stage of production, as we know from classical authors." Spontaneity is an unreliable index of orality of texts.

* For details, see my "Chrysostom's Commentary on the Psalms: homilies or tracts?"; R. J. Deferrari, "St Augustine's method of composing and delivering sermons," AJP 43 (1922) 97-123, 193-219; J. De Ghellinck,

Patristique et moyen age, Etudes d'histoire littéraire et doctrinale, I Introductions et compléments a l'étude de la patristique, Paris, 1947, 214-224.

"ol te €xd00Evtes aag' adtod Adyor zai oi AEyovtos adtov bd TOV SEvyodquy éxknpOEvtes" (Historia Ecclesiastica 6,4; PG 67,672).

* One recalls the exiled Milo's ironic rejoinder to Cicero on the publication of the (revised) Pro Milone.

% Commentary on the Psalms Baur could have adduced textual, structural, and stylistic features we have noted above to support his case for the Commentary as a desk theologian's bookish exercise. There is that display of erudition by the composer, offering of alternative versions and | recourse to the Hebrew original; commentary on some psalms opens abruptly and in other cases closes just as abruptly; some are short, others long, some concise, others florid; and, as we shall see, scriptural testimonies are sometimes ladled out in indigestible lumps, at other times are completely missing. Yet it is not a clinching argument: would not a composer at his desk be in a better position to iron out such inconsistencies? And, as for the true and false erudition, would not such a composer be better able to avoid the solecisms linguistic and biblical which (the possibly immature)

Chrysostom gets himself into in the Commentary?

It is therefore probably an open question whether or not the present Commentary came from desk or pulpit. Equally ambiguous are stylistic features suggesting orality, like the cry of exasperation at sinner's contribution to their own fate touched on by Psalm 13.4: "Baai (Babai)! Bless me! what dreadful stupidity, what awful frenzy, to lend help to one's enemies against oneself!" There are other passages where the composer rises to poetic heights in his rhetoric and even versifying, as in the apocalyptic dimension he lends to Psalm 47.2 in a rhythm reminiscent of Qoheleth."

A compromise solution to the conundrum might be to see the extant text as a preacher's material prepared (even with the help of tachygraphoi) for delivery, and susceptible of development on the occasion as circumstances required. Other of Chrysostom's

. extant exegetical works have been thought likewise "less fin- | ished," "incompletement élaboré."™Alternatively, we may have

* See note 21 there; also Psalms 4, note 15; 6, note 31; 13, note 6; 49, note 50; ° Cf Quasten on the Homilies on Acts: "Their literary form is less finished than we are accustomed to expect of him. It seems that the text was drawn upfrom notestakenby stenographers during the preaching and that | Chrysostom never revised it" (Patrology 3, 440).

* Cf H. Sorlin (ed.), Jean Chrysostome, Commentaire sur Job, I (SC 346), Paris, 1988, 35, n.1: "Ne serions-nous pas en présence d'un texte incomplétement élaboré, de notes de lecture dans lesquelles Chrysostome se proposait de puiser ultérieurement, en vue d'éventuelles homélies sur le livre de Job?" to allow for the employment of a range of different stenographers on the different occasions of delivery of the commentary on individual psalms; even Cicero's works were at the mercy of such a range, if we can believe the letters ofMarcus Cornelius Fronto two centuries later.*

CuryYSOSTOM's SOCIETY AND CONGREGATION; ANTI-SEMITISM, SEXISM We have noted the absence in the Commentary, for whatever reason, of reference to the local situation and current events;

Chrysostom does not devote a whole treatise to the evils of going to the races, for example, as he does in Homily 6 on Genesis. We have to work a lot harder to divine the composition of his congregation and trends in the wider society, much less so to become attuned to the preacher's position on issues like the place of the Jews in God's plan of salvation and the role of women in Church and society.

The congregation(s) that gathered in the didaskaleion at evening time for a lengthy commentary by Chrysostom ona psalm seem(s) to have been exclusively male." This would not have helped him adjust his sexist attitudes, abundantly demonstrated in the commentaries, as we shall see. He need speak only of men as examples of endurance and character,* of men being under the guidance of the Spirit." His choice of scriptural references is at times inappropriate to women (e.g., Prv 5.17-19; 2 Tim 3.6). The evil people the listeners may need to avoid to be "hope-filled and secure" (Psalm

4.8) include "your wives, your friends, anyone at all" — no men- * Ep. 1,7, which speaks of certain of Cicero's books being pretiosores if transmitted by more gifted stenographers.

~ Cf my "On giving up the horses for Lent," CIR 68 (March 1983) 105-106.

~ Particularly when there is clear evidence of psalms being commented on in numerical sequence, the preacher presumes he is addressing the same congregation. Obviously, this cannot have been completely true of all fifty-eight psalms. Cf note 1 to Psalm 128, note 1 to Psalm 129.

~ See note 21 on Psalm 4, note 2 on Psalm 125, note 1 on Psalm 150.

~ See note 2 on Psalm 47. Amongst the problems for good people he cites on Psalm 128.1 is "a fiendish and crooked wife they live with."

+ Commentary on the Psalms tion of husbands. There were surely no women present to be told, on Psalm 148.10, that "desire managed with moderation makes you a father!" Women, being excluded from the assembly, could also be excluded from the pastoral perspective.

This male congregation comprised the "rich and poor together" of Psalm 49.2 if the commentary on that psalm is to be believed.

Chrysostom congratulates himself on "making no distinction between members of the congregation on the grounds of status," like the Church generally; "I propose the same teaching to everybody."

But the relish with which he depicts (to great effect, admittedly) the fate awaiting the rich fool, and the frequency of recommendations to almsgiving, suggest the audience was more rather than less affluent. Their level of biblical literacy, however, was not high

— demonstrating further the anomaly of the preacher's citing to them alternative versions and Hebrew original. In introducing two psalms which he believes have historical origins, Psalm 7 on Hushai, Absalom and Ahithophel and Psalm 44 on the Maccabees, he regrets that their lack of familiarity makes it necessary for him to rehearse the relevant biblical narrative. "Listen to this, all you who are heedless of your children, who ignore their singing diabolical songs, while you pay no attention to the divine stories," he says to them on the latter. Not that he presumes they have Bibles at home: it is by listening to the spoken Word that they come to familiarity with the narratives — hence the emphasis on silence and decorum in the didaskaleion in the passages cited in section four above (and note 32 there).

We may lament the relative lack of wider social comment in this work, despite Chrysostom's obvious experience and observation of legal and commercial practices in particular.' We do, however, get a picture of a society in which naked power and stark social divisions were accepted without demur except from moralists like this preacher. Not simply was it a society marked by clear separation of rich and poor such as emerges in his commentary on Psalm

13, where at the close he urges his congregation to take advantage of the fact that God hears the cry of the poor by earning their support through benevolence to them. What evidently struck him as a particular aberration was the squandering of wealth by the rich on © Cf note 5 to Psalm 9, notes 46 & 67 to Psalm 49. vain display — clothing, buildings, tombs, monuments —rather than using it to alleviate poverty. Psalm 49.10, "The brainless and the foolish will perish alike, and leave their wealth behind to strangers," moves him to savage satire of the wealthy fop striving in vain for lasting memorial, as also the abuse of power by domestic tyrants in the line of biblical Potiphar's wife; the relations of slave and master figure frequently in his metaphors. Women, as we have noted, enjoyed a less privileged position in society than men; to make a point on Psalm 6.2 that punishment for sin varies according to position, Chrysostom seems at first egalitarian in suggesting priests in Old Testament times rightly incurred greater punishment, but his example is less impressive: "For that very reason the woman of no rank who fell by the wayside was removed from the community, whereas the daughter of the priest was burntalive."

No one reading Chrysostom's works could be ignorant of his obsession with the Jews and their fate; his works on the Old Testament predictably elicit this obsessive attitude, and like the Genesis homilies® this Commentary is marked by digressions on the subject that interrupt the flow. His biographers attribute this attitude, in which he was not alone, partly to fear: "Tt was doubtless caused in part by their fear of a strong and flexible community which necessarily had many points of contact with the Church, not least in their common use of the Old Testament Scriptures." It was probably not Chrysostom that Theodoret had in mind in saying some commentaries on the Psalms had been too Jewish; but, even jealously, he can concede "the special privilege the Jews alone received in gift," as in the conclusion to Psalm 147, and the fact that Jews do

| spend time poring over this gift of the Jewish Scriptures (on Psalm 50.6). He is even prompted by the opening of Psalm 48 to see the | Jerusalem (of Old Testament times) as "the earth's didaskaleion."

~ See my "Chrysostom as Old Testament commentator," EstBib 46 (1988) 61-77.

" Wallace-Hadrill, Christian Antioch, 19. He adds: "A further cause of sensitivity towards Judaism may be found in the fact that the Antiochene

Church itself was seen by the rest of the Christian Church as lying too close to Judaism for comfort" (20). Cf Baur, Jolin Chrysostom and his Times I,

+ Commentary on the Psalms His quarrel is with the Jews under the New dispensation. He ' hardly needs his mentor Paul's encouragement (though he is probably citing implicitly 2 Cor 3.7-9) to class the Law, which wasa gift in the Old, now as "a ministry of condemnation and death" (opening Psalm 49). Without the encouragement of the text he can launch into polemic in which his text is left far behind and commentary becomes unbalanced. His preference to lend the psalms a Christological bent promotes this tangential invective. Psalm 8 would not seema likely locus for it, but a casual reference to "enemy and avenger" in v.2 has him giving deductive and inductive justification for the Jews' plight: they crucified Jesus, and so deserved to suffer; they are suffering wherever you find them, and so must have sinned ("if you ask me the reason," he says, "you will find none other than the crucifying of Christ"). In commencing a further piece of polemic on Psalm 50.6 he is honest enough to admit it is not the first time, and will not be the last — but pretends a motive of charity: better not to let the Jews go to their graves in any doubt.

Though in more than one place arriving at a fine statement of the unity of Old and New Testaments, he can articulate a quite adversarial position on the relation of the two communities: "You are one people, after all, whereas we are the whole world; Moses has not convinced you to the extent Christ has us; your time has come to an end, ours is still in force" (on Psalm 110.1, a psalm that nonetheless has him saying as well, "Do you see the harmony of Old and New Testaments?").

There is no similar satire of women in contemporary society in the Commentary: just a reflection of their position, the preacher's own blinkered viewpoint and societal attitudes. His unthinking use of Gvijg (aner) for GvOQwst0¢ (anthropos) in places results in some

| unconscious compliments to womankind — for example, in his lamenting "a dearth of good men" at the opening of commentary on | Psalm 12, and the platitude, "Nothing is more vile than a man undertheyoke ofevil"(Psalm6.8-9). Hisstatementoftherelative

| " Tt is interesting that Chrysostom does not cite the wealth of Jews as a basis for polemic, despite the evidence of wealthy Jewish families in contemporary Antioch (cf R. L. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews. Rhetoric and Reality in the late 4th Century, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, 1983, 57). maturity of children and adults comes out as a comparison of chil- : dren and men (Psalm 49.5). He is inclined to omit names ofwomen characters in the Bible, like Sarah and Lydia. Reflecting a deeper imbalance is his interpretation of sacred history (something emerging in the Genesis series® also): Adam and Eve both sinned, but her sin was worse (Psalm 6.2; 143.3); the exposure of Sarah to risk in the incidents in Gn 12 and 20 paled before possible unpleasantness for Abraham (on Psalm 4.3; 143); the incident in Numbers

25.6-15 of Phinehas's dispatch with one blow of the Israelite Zimri and the Midianite woman he had taken into his tent at Shittim is reworked to read, "Phinehas was so esteemed by God for doing away with a harlot" (Psalm 8.2); the "sinful woman" of Lk 7 becomes a prostitute. The nature of true human love is examined through an example of love between males (Psalm 13.1-2) — odd, even for an exclusively male congregation.

Are we safe to presume that in this exclusiveness Chrysostom | was but reflecting the attitudes and prejudices of his time?

His STYLE OF COMMENTARY, HERMENEUTICS, Wiper THINKING ON SCRIPTURE For Chrysostom's love of the Scriptures we do not need the testimony of historians like Socrates and Sozomen;" the text of his works makes this abundantly clear. "Exegetical" is applied to his commentaries on the Bible, however, only secundum quid. Despite his reputation in antiquity for classical scholarship, exemplified by his mentor Libanius's vain hope to have him as his successor®

~ Cf FOTC 74, 12-13. A deliberate compliment to women in the Psalms Commentary is rare: on Psalm 130.1-2 he cites women as examples of ardent prayer in his experience.

~ Elizabeth A. Clark would agree: "The often repeated assertion that the coming of Christianity benefited women in general is not borne out in our evidence from the period" (Women in the Early Church [Message of the Fathers of the Church 13], Wilmington, 1983, 156). Clark also believes the Fathers' appeal to Scripture reinforced prejudices, citing Chrysostom, though not this Commentary.

~ Cf Historia Ecclesiastica VII, 2-8 (PG 67,1513-37).

* Cf Sozomen, H.E. VIII, 2 (PG 67,1513).

+ Commentary on the Psalms and by the odd reference in this commentary to Homer® and Plato,"

| his nod in the direction of "the scholars" seems at best deferential, probably disparaging, hardly sympathetic." Libanius and Diodore could not leave him with a knowledge of Hebrew, an asset for this task, nor it seems did they succeed in communicating to him a spirit of critical scholarship. He retained a conservative view of the authorship of the psalms, even parting company with many of his peers in the case of Psalm 44, which they allowed to be a product of the age of the Maccabees, but which he attributed to the wide-ranging vision of David as inspired author, moogrtys

While it is the inspired author who recites this psalm, he recites it not in his own person but in the person of the Maccabees, describing and foretelling what would happen at that time. The inspired authors are like that, you see: they span all times, the past, the present, the future.

He could not be as liberal as Diodore about the psalm titles, either."

So it is commentary rather than exegesis we get from him —and a moral commentary at that. The Scriptures to him are primarily moral and hagiographical, and this accounts for the relative problems he has with the lyrical and figurative material in the Psalms.

He has difficulty recognizing a dogmatic stance in a biblical author; when on Psalm 7 he fills his congregation in on the story from the Former Prophets of David's friend Hushai, he attributes pious motives to him of which the text knows nothing, failing to recognise the purpose of the Deuteronomist to show the word of Yahweh at work." The theological purpose of the Yahwist is ig- | ® Hliad (on Psalm 50.8).

" Apology and Meno (on Psalm 45.1).

" Cf Psalms 9.4-6; 46.8-9; 132.1-2.

72 See Section 4 above. It is noteworthy that later in the "series," especially after the Pilgrim Songs, or "Songs of the Ascent" (Psalms 120-134), which | he regards as connected to the return from Exile, Chrysostom is loath both to speak of David by name and to include and comment on psalm titles.

Has his faith in Davidic authorship been undermined by the historical | basis? See note 1 to Psalm 137.

| 7 See note 4 to Psalm 7. In his vision of sacred history, the lions in Daniel's | den can outrank Joshua and Solomon (see note 10 to Psalm 145). nored by Chrysostom in adducing the Flood story in comment on i Psalm 143." Photius in the ninth century acknowledged the plus and minus of this level of treatment of the psalms: "I must always admire that blessed man for always and in all his works keeping this purpose in mind, the benefit of his listeners, and concentrating less or not at all on other purposes.""

In place of textual analysis of psalm texts we get much rationalizing; despite his limited resources he never admits defeat, even when by mistake he quotes a verse in two different forms. In commenting on Psalm 44 he explains v.19 to his satisfaction, "You have not diverted our paths from your way," then later inadvertently quotes it without the negative and has no difficulty rationalizing that version. He likes to find an historical reference in verses of a psalm; on Psalm 44.2 he brings to bear the story of Gideon's assault on Jericho in such a way that has his editors Savile and De

Montfaucon debating how much violence he is doing to the text of that story, and even he is sheepish enough to admit to his congregation, "In case you think what I have said is a kind ofguesswork."

There are real obscurities in some psalm verses, of course, like Psalm 48.2, which he renders as "rooting it firmly in the joy of all the earth;" a modern editor of the Psalms will have recourse to linguistic data (Ugaritic, in Mitchell Dahood's case, for example)" to clarify the obscurity, but Chrysostom just rationalizes his way out of it after admitting it is "a cause of great bewilderment in the person who reads it casually, whereas the one approaching it with precision will see the sense and precise sequence of the ideas."

That is one of Chrysostom's key principles of biblical interpretation, precision, akribeia, a virtue he inherits from his school of Antioch, of course." There could hardly be a better exponent of it

~ Bibliotheca (PG 103,505). A notorious crux interpretum like Psalm 110.3, classed "the most difficult and obscure verse in the entire psalter"

(Dahood), the Hebrew text of which "teems with difficulties," Chrysostom blithely rationalizes his way through — nothing is a problem.

~ Psalms I (Anchor Bible 16), New York, 1965, 289-90.

~ Cf my "Akribeia: a principle of Chrysostom's exegesis," Colloquium 14 (October 1981) 32-36. Precision, of course, is not identical with accuracy

(despite the translation sometimes offered, as in M. H. Flanagan, St John Chysostom's Doctrine ofCondescension and Accuracy in the Scriptures, Napier,

1948 — where "condescension" is also wide of the mark, as we shall see).

Chrysostom is often inaccurate, rarely imprecise.

+ Commentary on the Psalms J than he (except in an occasional case where he finds it inconve- | nient)." It is not a principle that he and his school light upon by chance: it is a consequence of their acceptance of the deeper theological principle of incarnation, in both the historical Jesus and the biblical Word. For Chrysostom, precision is both a characteristic of the biblical text and an obligation on the biblical commentator."

As he says in Homily 18 on Genesis, "Sacred Scripture says noth- . ing idly (Gc, haplos) or to no purpose; every single sound and | syllable has a treasure contained in it— all spiritual realities are like that."® And in the second of the six homilies on ch. 6 of Isaiah,

| "The mouths of the inspired authors are the mouth of God; such a mouth would say nothing idle. Accordingly, let there be nothing idle in our attention."* He follows his own advice to a large extent in this Commentary, too. He can pick up an apparently insignificant phrase and make capital of it (even if by rationalizing), as he does with the opening verse of Psalm 44:

Now, why did he not simply (haplos) say, 'We have heard,' instead of 'We have heard with our ears?' With what other part of the body does one hear? Surely the words are superfluous? Far from it: itis a common practice with human beings...

For him such details in the text serve to illustrate that wonderful divine considerateness for human limitations, synkatabasis, manifested again both in sacred history (preeminently the Incarnation) and in the biblical text. The language of the text keeps demonstrating that to him, as he says on Psalm 47.4:

78 CfAnne-Marie Malingrey, "John Chrysostom," Encyclopedia of the Early Church, A. Di Berardino (ed.), Eng. trans., I, Edinburgh, 1992, 441: "We can at least recognize that he is the most illustrious representative of the school of Antioch, whose exegesis is based on minute explanation of the texts."

™Of the Genesis homilies F. Asensio remarks, "La dxuoifeva (akribeia) humana en el estudio es la respuesta obligadaa la akribeia con que el binomio Espiritu Santo-Moisés ha querido ensefiar mediante la Escritura"

("El Criséstomoy su visién de la escritura en la exposicion homilética del Génesis," EstBib 32 [1973] 242).

® In Oziam 2,2 (PG 56,100). See my "St John Chrysostom's teaching on inspiration in 'Six homilies on Isaiah,'" VC 22 (1968) 19-37.

J He calls the nation 'his inheritance,' not as though disregarding the others, but to give evidence of the extent of his love, his affinity for them, and the added gift of his providence. For you to learn the inspired precision, see how he employs the expression of common people, which they adopt in matters of commerce...

That precision has its limits is clear when he can give meaning to a verse both with and without the negative in place, as we saw.

There are also limits on the precision (or, in this case, accuracy) possible for a preacher endeavoring from memory to recall biblical texts invoked in support of his theme. In elaborating on the title to Psalm 5 he quotes the Song of Songs but attributes it to Ecclesiastes; he wrongly includes Peter and James in the Matthean account of the Canaanite woman (Psalm 4.1); in some cases he quotes a psalm verse differently in two or three different places; in one case a psalm text is recalled in a form not corresponding to anything canonical; Gospel texts can be recalled imperfectly, words of one character or group put into the mouth of another character or group — and so on in the manner of a preacher pulling texts out of the air (less excusable in a theologian at his desk — or is the stenographer to blame in either case?).

These lapses are few compared with the frequency of his reference to the Scriptures to support his teaching. In place of exegetical conviction his words are reinforced with scriptural testimonies and his own rationalizing and the underlying theology of the Word.

This frequent reference is such a staple that its omission raises doubts about authenticity, as with Psalm 48, where the commentary has also some other unusual features — though it can point also to haste and/or lack of relish in the preacher, as in the case of commentary on the Songs of Ascent (Psalms 120-134). The other extreme is reached in many psalms with a long sequence of supporting texts on one verse (e.g., 4.4; 7.6; 12.28; 44.2; 49.12; 141.3;

143.6), which must have had a scattergun effect on the congregation, such that again one wonders about the maturity ofthe teacher, experience telling us not to indulge in overkill. In other cases his failure to keep his commentary in proportion results in an obvious sense of pressure of time, and the closing verses of the psalm (like

44, 45, 49) are atypically devoid of scriptural reference as the pace is on to bring things to a close. All in all, it is a rich scriptural diet his congregation is fed, if not qualifying as scientific exegesis.

Commentary on the Psalms :

It maybe immaturity again that is reponsible for his so frequently regaling his listeners with snatches of Hebrew (and even Syriac)* after quotation of variant translations; he would like to be seen as the scientific exegete — though, like many a teacher, he seems to grow out of it as the Commentary proceeds. (Is it a sign of greater maturity that in the Genesis homilies Chrysostom is content to admit ignorance of that language?) The ploy often comes to grief and proverbs frequently spring to our mind, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," "Pride comes before a fall." In his defense we may say he is not completely at fault, drinking froma tainted source.

The form of the Septuagint he is using as his text commits many solecisms in translating the Hebrew, especially in psalm titles. We noted above the confusion of a musical direction for "flutes" (Hebrew nehiloth) in the title to Psalm 5 with the verb nahal, "inherit," leading to a lengthy discussion of inheritances. A similar musical direction in the title to Psalm 45 "for the lilies" (apparently a cue to a melody), shoshanim, is rendered as "those to be changed" as though from shanah, "change." In the title to Psalm 46 the word for "maidens," alamoth, is read as "on the secrets" as though from alam,

"conceal." He comments thus on Psalm 9.6: "'Their memory disappeared with a crash.' Another version, 'with them,' while the Hebrew is em." His LXX text erroneously presumes a Hebrew text form ome, otherwise unattested, to give the sense "with a crash," though our Hebrew text reads emma, "with them," as the alternative version correctly suggests. Along with the LXX he renders

Psalm 7.6 as "Be exalted in the boundaries of your enemies," acknowledging a variant "in the rage" — from Symmachus, in fact, who thus rightly avoided the confusion of two similar Hebrew words. And so on.

In these cases we may say he is paying for the sins of others through his own ignorance and his anxiety to make a display of false erudition. He must share some of the blame, on the other hand, for giving a reading of Psalm 48.9 as "in the midst of your people" instead of "your temple," where the LXX has picked up, probably through a copyist's error, }ao0 instead of vaov; Chrysostom

* On Psalm 49.5 he cites the "Syriac" ria - the same form as the Hebrew for the not uncommon word "evil," occurring a score of times in the Psalter.

Another show of erudition? k all uncomprehending cannot resist offering the Hebrew once more — this time hecal, "temple" — hoist on his own petard! Mere carelessness is responsible for his incorrectly transliterating yedidoth in the title to Psalm 45 as idothoth. Rather worse is his misreading a transliteration of Hebrew zo'em, "(God) is angry," in Psalm 7.11 as Conjy and translating it as "the whole of life." Would it have been likely his congregation picked him up on any of his unnecessary solecisms? Photius thought they got what they needed, if not deserved.

Chrysostom thus set himself an unnecessary challenge in trying to cope with the original language of the Psalter on an inadequate formation. He could not escape, however, and he was no better resourced for, a different challenge presented to him by this lyrical material in the Bible. It was not narrative, and thus could notbe reduced to hagiography, as was his wont; only occasionally could a historical basis be traced for particular psalms, though moral examples from sacred history would be adduced to support ascetical principles arising from the psalmist's poesy, and the history of the Jewish people could not be prevented from looming large by reason of the preacher's obsession. Instead, it was the figurative character of the material that presented the moralist preacher from Antioch with a new and disconcerting challenge; and we seem to see him gradually coming to terms with it and developing a broader range of hermeneutical principles.

His mentor Diodore, whom in the Laus Diodori he commends as "this wise father of ours,"™had written a work on the difference between allegoria and theoria, and in a work on the Octateuch had expressed the view "that we esteem the literal sense as far superior to the allegorical." This was a fair summary of the reluctance of the school of Antioch to follow Origen's lead in Alexandria to * The comment of G. Bardy is therefore unduly harsh: "S'il a commenté, au cours de son ministére pastoral, un bon nombre de livres de la Bible, il na jamais cherché a définir ses régles d'interprétation" ("Interprétation chez les péres," DBSupp. IV, 581). See my "Chrysostom, interpreter of the Psalms."

* Frgm 93 (so Schaublin, "Diodor von Tarsus," 765, though Clavis of CCG acknowledges only 91 fragments, accepting 1-78 as genuine; text found in PG 33,1561-88).

++ Commentary on the Psalms ; move the accent from literal to spiritual senses in Scripture. In the terminology of modern hermeneutics, Antioch retained its preference for an adequate historical, spatio-temporal understanding of texts, more textand author-centered than reader-centered.**

Chrysostom might quote 1 Cor 10.11, "These things happened to them asa type," by way of support for recognizing a spiritual sense in Psalm 44.2; but Henri De Lubac is too categorical in suggesting that omnia in figura is an adequate summary for patristic herme- | neutics in general and Chrysostom in particular."

| So Chrysostom came to his hermeneutical task on liturgical | hymns in this Commentary with some inherited misgivings. Even on the narrative material in Genesis he had warned his congrega- . tion about the risk of taking anthropomorphic expressions in the text in a way that infringed divine transcendence, a constant pre- | occupation of this eastern theologian; on the poetry of the psalms

| he has to do this constantly, urging them (on Psalm 46.6, e.g.) not to take the xaybtys (pachytes) of the expressions as anything but an example of divine syikatabasis for human limitations, which they should respect by rising about the materialistic level to an intellectual one. With "earlier" psalms we seem to see him reluctantly con- | ceding that meaning is possibly operating at another level than

| the literal: on Psalm 7.2, "Lest like a lion he should carry off my ' soul," he admits that "some, on the other hand, take this verse in a spiritual sense, saying lions and pursuers are devil and demons."

He agrees about Psalm 8.5 that "this can be taken in botha literal anda spiritual sense."

Literal he may be in interpretation, but not literalist;" he can speak perceptively of the force of imagery in biblical texts." And 8 Cf A. C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics, London, 1992, 171-72.

*§ Tt is not always clear to what extent he adopts the threeor four-fold distinction of senses of Scripture elaborated by Fathers and medievals like

John Cassian and Gregory the Great, and whether the sense kata anagogen is for him merely spiritual or the specifically anagogical sense of those

: catalogues. (See my Making Sense ofFaith, Sydney, 1995, 66-67.) | ® Cf Thiselton on Chrysostom's usage: "The 'literal' may include the use

| of metaphor or other figures of speech, if this is the meaning which the purpose of the author and the linguistic context suggest" (New Horizons in Hermeneutics, 173).

' as the "series" moves on, he comes to urge his congregation to "rise above the literal sense" (on opening that Psalm 45 which so prompts the Fathers to explicate their thinking on biblical inspiration). He will even highlight the absurdity of staying with the literal, historical, face-value sense, and lecture on the need for theoria, the process of looking for a fuller sense arising from it (but, unlike the allegorical, not apart from it)," as he does on Psalm 9.8:

In some things, you see, it is possible to find a fuller sense (ewoéw., theoreo), whereas others should be understood only at face value — for example, 'In the beginning God made heaven and earth.' Other statements, by contrast, are to be taken differently from the surface meaning — for example, 'Spend your time with the hart you love, with the filly that has won your favor,' and 'Let those things be yours alone, and let no stranger share them with you, your well is for you to drink from.' I mean, if you take this saying as it occurs and do not depart from the surface meaning but stay at that level, it reflects little humanity, the counsel to share water with no one. The sense, however, is to do with one's wife. This is true of this verse, too, while in other places we must take the words as we find them, and the meaning arising from them, like this example, 'As Moses lifted up the serpent.' We must accept that this happened —it did happen, in fact-and what meaning comes from it, namely, a type of Christ."

He is thus prepared to find a fuller sense in texts, especially poetic texts (like Prv here), and not take every one at face value. By the time he reaches the psalm which the LXX numbers 147, in fact, he even offers to the "more studious" in his congregation, after a literal (xaté 6ntOv, kata rheton) interpretation, a whole reinterpretation of the nine verses xat& évaywyryv (kata anagogen) (where the See my "Psalm 45: a locus classicus for patristic thinking on biblical inspiration," StudP 25 (1993) 95-100.

* On Psalm 115.5 he comments: "It would have the opposite meaning to this if we were to take the words at face value superficially, and were not to have regard to the fuller sense (theoria) contained therein."

CfA. Vaccari, "La Qewpic nella scuola esegetica di Antiochia," Bib 1 (1920) 12: "La essenziale differenza fra teoria e allegoria consiste in cid, che l'allegoria esclude di sua natura il senso letterale."

*" Likewise on Psalm 115.16, "it would in fact conflict with the psalmist if we were to take his words at face value superficially, and were not to have regard to the fuller sense (theoria) contained in them."

30 + Commentary on the Psalms | , phrase, rarely, means anagogical, and not a general spiritual sense, as usual) — though "without doing violence to the historical sense

— perish the thought." To see typology operating (very rarely) in historical events in the text, whose historicity he accepts, he needs the support of Scripture, as in this case Jn 3.14. In fact, he is a great believer in his principle "Scripture interprets itself,""* which he formulates in connection with Psalm 45.4, where he says the meaning emerges "if you examine it precisely." In other words, be patient,

| stay with the text, apply axgifeta (akribeia) to it, and resist the temp- | tation to take to flights of fancy. So he rarely and briefly accepts an allegorical interpretation, and again only on the example of Scripture, as on the Lord's use of sword, bows and arrows in Psalm

7.12-13, claiming support from John the Baptist's words (in Lk and Mt) about laying the axe to the root and clearing the threshing floor:

What, then, is the axe? Retribution and punishment. And what are the trees? People. What is the straw? The unworthy. What is the grain? The virtuous. What is the winnowing fan? Judgement. Likewise in this verse sword and bow and arrows are punishment and retribution.

So it is fascinating to watch Chrysostom as an Antiochene coming to grips with this lyrical material, achieving some sense ofcomfort, and eventually devising — for the first time? - his own hermeneutical principles adequate for coping with such texts. He never abrogates the accents of his school and his mentors; but he seems to achieve a new synthesis, dismissed though he is by some modern commentators." It is against the backdrop of his overall theology of the Word, of which we need to be aware in evaluating the Psalms Commentary, that this synthesis is developed. Charles

® This is not a novel statement, according to J.-M. Leroux, "Relativité et transcendance du texte biblique d'aprés Jean Chrysostome," La Bible et les peres: Colloque de Strasbourg 1969, Paris, 1971, 73: "Le principe n'est pas nouveau; il fait méme partie des lois fondamentales de l'exégése patristique, et on peut le rencontrer en des termes presque identiques dans les écrits d'Origéne et d'Augustin."

* Cf B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed., Oxford, 1983, 18: "He was by far the best-known representative of Antiochene principles in the West and, at the same time, the author who could teach his readers least about Antiochene exegesis."

Kannengiesser rightly challenged patrologists in 1991 to raise that question, which he found neglected even of his own Athanasius: what is this or that Father's way of thinking about Scripture?"

Chrysostom, fortunately, has left his position on the scriptural Word patent: it is a Word spoken, an inspired Word, a Word incarnate with both human and divine aspects, and thus offered as a delicate gesture of considerateness, ovynataBaots (synkatabasis), which itis his privilege to minister to his congregations. The Psalms commentary confirms this position.

Unlike today's disciples of the Word, Chrysostom saw his own and the psalmist's congregations as listeners to a Word spoken" — as did the Creed of 381 in holding that "he has spoken through the inspired authors," prophetai, the word Chrysostom applies to all the Old Testament composers." The psalmist to which the Jerusalem and Antioch congregations listened was, like all these composers, inspired (€vOous, enthous) by the Spirit, he tells his listeners on Psalm 7 about Hushai and Absalom. So all were worthy of belief; but "if you do not believe the biblical authors, we can supply clear, unmistakable evidence that they were inspired, and that they told us nothing on their own account but with the inspiration coming from divine love." Commentary on Psalm 45 and especially its opening verse, "My heart belched good news; I tell my works to the king, my tongue the pen of a fluent scribe,""" enabled

" "The future of patristics," TS 52 (1991) 135-36. For Kannengiesser such "decisive questions concerning the Bible as received in the ancient traditions of Christianity" surpass in importance matters such as canonicity, authenticity, exegetical methods, hermeneutical principles. See, by way of response, my "The Fathers on the biblical Word," Pacifica 7 (1994) 255-72.

"Cf commentary on Psalm 45.4.

" See my "Chrysostom's terminology for the inspired Word," EstBib 41 (1983) 367-73. This is not an aspect of Chrysostom's thought on the Scriptures that interested his earlier commentators like S. Haidacher, Die Lehre des heiligen Johannes Chrysostomus iiber die Schriftinspiration, Salzburg, 1897.

Cf, by contrast, Leroux: "La premiére constation qui frappe un lecteur attentif est le refus de considérer la Bible comme un écrit... Pour lui, Dieu

'parle' par l'Ecriture" ("Relativité et transcendance," 74).

™Chrysostom makes much of this rendering by the LXX of the opening verb, a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew, according to Dahood (Psalms I,

+ Commentary on the Psalms .

Chrysostom — and a host of other Fathers,'' including Antiochenes Theodore and Theodoret — to articulate his thinking on the inspiration of biblical authors, including the Spirit's role and the role of the human author. That balance between divine and human in inspired composition is one he tries to maintain in his theology generally and, in this series, with regard to the spiritual life, the Incarnation remaining his paradigm. Though he is in awe of the voice of the Spirit in the Scriptures, he can thus speak of biblical composition in down-to-earth terms: "'I tell my works to the king' — or, in another version, 'my deeds.' What works are referred to? Inspired composition (propheteia). As it is the work of a smith to make a tool, a builder to build a house, a shipwright to build a ship, so it is an inspired composer's job to produce inspired composition." He scorns the passive role of the pagan seers, quoting Plato from the Apology and Meno; "the Spirit allows the heart to know what is being said," he maintains by contrast; "if the psalmist did not know, after all, how could he have said 'good news?'"!"

Chrysostom's understanding of Scripture, we can therefore assure Kannengiesser, is a thoroughly incarnational one, as is his

Christology. The divine comes to us in the human, which must therefore be taken seriously and examined with "precision" — be it biblical text or humanity ofJesus. In the opening to Psalm 5, "Heed my cry," where he sees the Church (unusually) speaking, he adds,

She did not say, Listen to my cry, but what? 'Heed,' that is, pay close attention. You see, even if she employs human expressions, nevertheless even in the human terms themselves she conveys what is being properly communicated, '® Rondeau includes in her survey eighteen commentators on the Greek text, plus sixteen Latin commentators (Les commentaires patristiques du

Psautier I). See also my "Psalm 45: a locus classicus for patristic thinking on biblical inspiration."

' Chrysostom thus gives the lie to the generalized statement of Bruce Vawter on patrisic thinking on biblical inspiration as "the prevalence of a concept of divine authorship that could lead to a practical forgetting of the claims of human authorship" (Biblical Inspiration, London, 1972, 38).

Hence, he does not dwell on the possibilities of Psalm 49.4, "I shall solve my riddle to the music of a harp," for a discussion of biblical inspiration, as that model was used in antiquity to illustrate precisely the passivity of seer under the influence of the demon akin to the inert plektrum in the hand of the musician.

↑ Back to top