Among syrians, greeks, latins

Theodore— called sometimes of Antioch, where he was born about 350, but more often of Mopsuestia, of which he became bishop in 392—was pupil of Diodore, friend of Chrysostom, and after the latter’s death the most influential teacher, whether as theologian or as exegete, within the Eastern Church.

Intel- lectually the greatest of the Antiochene writers, Theodore’s greatness was seriously qualified by the defect of one-sidedness: in exegesis he repre- sented the extreme of the reaction against the allegorizers, minimizing or explaining away the Messianic element in the Old Testament; in Christology he dwelt on the ethical value of the human example of Christ so exclusively as almost to make ‘the Master’ (6 deomérns Xpioroes) a different Person from the indwelling Word.

In both aspects Theodore’s thought may not unfairly be called rationalizing ; and yet there is both in his theology and in his exegesis an important element of truth, such as specially needed emphasis in his day and perhaps also in ours. He died at the end ob 428, ‘taken away from the evil to come,’ just as the theological tendency which he represented and fostered was coming to a head in the Nestorian controversy.

Naturally, Theodore became one of the great saints and doctors of the Nestorian communion. Throughout the long centuries of its prosperity he was to it, par excellence, ‘the Interpreter’: most, if not all, of his commentaries on Holy Scripture were translated imto Syriac, and were read in that language for at least 1000 years. Yet, so far, only the commentary on St.

John has been in this way recovered: we owe the greater part of our extant Syriac literature to the Monophysite monastery of Nitria in Egypt, and consequently writers of the school of Theodore are but scantily represented in it. Naturally, again, in proportion as Theodore became an authority among the Nestorians, he became an object of suspicion within the Church.

In the first generation, indeed, after the Council of Ephesus in 431, the ‘Churches of Syria and Cilicia’ remained faithful to the memory of their great teacher : ‘we believe as Theodore believed, long live the faith of Theodore.’ The Council itself, though in one of its later sessions it had condemned the use of a creed which appears in fact to have been Theodore’s, neither on that occasion mentioned his name nor took any other opportunity of aspersing his memory.

Cyril of Alexandria did not conceal his .own conviction that Theodore and Diodore ‘had borne down full sail upon the glory of Christ,’ and were the true parents of Nestorianism; he collected and answered a series of propositions taken from their writings ; but happily for the peace of the re-united Churches, and in spite of pressure from his more extreme adherents, he declined to commit himself to the fatal policy of post mortem anathemas.

For a century, therefore, after Theodore’s death it re- mained possible for orthodox Christians of the ‘East’ to study the Biblical writings of ‘ the Inter- prterg without being calumniated as fautors of eresy : and it is at least not improbable that it was within this period that the atenze in which PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES most use is made of him were originally compiled.

But the stubborn and protracted resistance which the Chalcedonian definition encountered in so many quarters, caused the centre of gravity in matters theological to shift further and further from the standpoint of the older Antiochene school ; while the sensitive orthodoxy which was engendered by the struggle made it easier for each party to pro- cure the condemnation of the extreme wing on the opposite side than to protect the extreme wing on its own.

When Justinian anathematized Theodore to please the Monophysites (as he had already anathematized Origen to please the Nestorians), he failed, indeed, to reconcile the separatists, but he might at least claim that his policy had in- curred no serious resentment among Greek church- men.

The accusation of Nestorianizing tendencies, repeated under a series of Monophysite emperors, had already driven the orthodox section of the school of Antioch to sacrifice Theodore; and if we may believe the evidence produced in 550 at a council at Mopsuestia, —held, it is true, under ressure from Justinian, —the name of Theodore tad been erased from the diptychs of that Church, and the name of Cyril substituted, as far back at any rate as the end of the 5th century.

For the Eastern empire the action of Justinian and his councils was final: the Chalcedonian party in the Greek Church had enough to do to maintain their own orthodoxy and that of the Fourth Council without taking ‘under their protection the favourite teacher of the :Nestorians; Theodore’s writings, Biblical as well as theological, were laced under a tacit ban, and circulated only, so ar as they circulated at all, in fragmen and emasculated form in the Catene.

But the Latins were less trammelled by fear of emperors or Mono- — physites ; the resistance, indeed, of pope Vigilius — was after a time overcome, but the Churches of Africa and North-eastern Italy broke off com- munion (and the latter body maintained their separation for over a century) from men who had | dared to anathematize not only the opinions, but the name, of one who had ‘ departed this life inthe | peace of the Church and the praise of the Fathers.

’ | Justinian employed force; the opposition resorted | to the pen. Rusticus, the pope’s nephew and | deacon, published an improved Latin version of | the Acts of Chalcedon. The Breviariwm of Liber- atus, archdeacon of Carthage, and the pro Defen- sione Triwm Capitulorum of another ican, Facundus, bishop of Hermiana, state the contem- porary case against the condemnation, Facundus — especially giving us valuable particulars in regard | to Theodore’s Sife and writings.

Junilius, an African official at Constantinople, introduced Theo- dore’s principles of exegesis to the West under the title Instituta reqularia Divine Legis; while it — was probably about the same time, and po also in Africa, that the commentaries of Theodore | on the lesser Pauline epistles were translated into | Latin and so preserved for the use of future genera- tions.

But the controversy of the Three Chapters died out at last, and the same silence about the person and history of Theodore as already pre- vailed among the Greeks overspread the Western a Church also, 2. GENERAL ESTIMATE OF THEODORE’S STYLE | (AS GIVEN BY PHOTIUS).—Before all first-hand knowledge of Theodore’s works had quite dis- — appeared, the patriarch Photius, in the 9th cent., — placed on record the only criticism we possess of | ‘the Interpreter’s’ literary style.

he three | books which came into Photius’ hands were (a) the | 25 or 28 books brég Bacwdelov xara Evvoulov, cod. 4, | with which in cod. 6 Photius compares and con- trasts the treatise, bearing the same title, by Gregory of Nyssa ; (8) the commentary in 7 tomes PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES on Genesis, cod. 38; (y) the 5 books IIpés rods Aeyovras pice kal od youn wralew tovs dvOpwrovs, cod. 177.

According to his custom, Photius sup- lements his account of each work with a summary judgment of the merits or defects both of its style and of its subject-matter; and, by combining the three notices, we may form a fair general idea of the impression made by Theodore’s writings on a competent and not wholly unsympathetic reader. Strong in power of thought and in his handling of Scripture, Theodore’s weak points, according to Photius, are obscurity and prolixity.

His style (ppdots) cannot be called lucid (cadis)—although his vocabulary is simple enough—stil! less brilliant (Aaprpés); it is, in fact, ungraceful and unpleasing (dxapis xat dydjs).

Its obscurity is due to long- winded periods (cxoworevést mepiddas); to the ac- cumulation of parentheses (mapeuBorais ddderah- pros), which distract the mind from the subject ; to fondness for oblique cases and participial con- structions (rats rv dvoudrwy mraylas Kai tals pero- _ xuxats MEeor) ; tocontinual and inartistic tantology, ,in which the repetitions are more circumstantial /than the original statements (ras éravaljyes m\éov Trav dipyicewy Tats mepiordceot meuetTaoOa), On the other hand, Theodore’s writings are packed close ‘with thought and argument (rats dcavotas Kai roils .

émixerpjuact Alay wuxvés); in fertility and in mas- siveness of proof (7d wAf00s roy émixepnudtwv Kal 7d yéviwov) he is as much superior to Gregor of Nyssa as he is his inferior in beauty, bril- liancy, and charm (xd\deu re Kal AawmrpdryTe Kal re qoutarw). Whatever his other faults, the con- tinuous labour he spent on Holy Scripture (¢:do- mormrepov diareOnvac), and his wealth of apposite cilations from it (ais ypadgixais dpisra mdovrdv papruptacs), deserve full recognition.

Asan exegete, he avoided allegory as far as possible, and inter- preted historically. The criticisms passed by Photius upon Theodore’s style and method would perhaps apply less seriously to exegesis than to some other departments of literature. A wide acquaintance with Scripture, an unwearied devotion to its study, when combined with unusual powers of thought, albeit not of ex- ression, are no contemptible equipment for ‘the nterpreter’ of St. Paul. 3. HISTORY OF THEODORE’S COMMENTARY ON