2 Theōria in Theodore’s and Theodoret’s Commentaries This chapter provides analysis of primary source material in the writingsofTheodoreofMopsuestiaandTheodoretofCyrusinorder toillustrateanddevelopadefinitionofAntiochenetheōria—oratleast theōria as understood by Theodore and Theodoret. Primary sources for this research include manuscripts of Theodore’s and Theodoret’s exegetical works found in the TLG database1 and in J. P. Migne’s Patrologia Graeca (PG).2 These are supplemented with recent translations such as those in the Fathers of the Church (FC) multivolume series and catenae such as the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ACCS).3 Despite the presence of significant research on Antiochene exegesis, there remains a relative dearth of serious study on Antiochene theōria in the primary sources of Theodore and Theodoret. My study builds on the foundation of Bradley Nassif’s 33 ANTIOCHENE THEŌRIA IN THEODORE AND THEODORET dissertation,which,amongotherconcerns,addressestheōriaprimarily in the writings of John Chrysostom.4 In this chapter I aim to help fill the first of Nassif’s five noted lacunae for research on Antiochene theōria—namely, to review other individual Antiochene writings and their use of the term theōria.5 Regarding such analysis, the Catholic patristic scholar Bertrand de Margerie writes: Thecomplexityofthematerialavailableshowsthatwestillundoubtedly awaitthedefinitiveworkthatwillgiveusanexactunderstandingofthe meaningofAntiochiantheoria,or,betterstill,ofthedifferentmeanings ofthetermfoundintheauthorsoftheSchoolandevenwithinthesame author.6 The reader will have to decide if the material inthis chapter provides such an exacting definition of theōria from the writings of Theodore and Theodoret. But first it is necessary to address a more preliminary issue. Defining the Antiochene School: Three Approaches Regrettably, little consensus exists regarding the definition of the “Antiocheneschool”oritsmembership.7Therearethreeperspectives and approaches to the issue. The first group of scholars regards practically any theologian or ecclesiastical leader of the fourth or fifth century from the Syrian Antiochene region as a member of the Antiochene school. This is the broad approach. The second or centristperspectivestartswiththecriterionofthebroadapproachbut includes only those church leaders who generally followed a literal interpretive method as the primary defining sign of the Antiochene school. The third and smallest group of scholars follows a narrow approach. They classify only those ecclesiastical leaders branded Nestorian heretics as from the school of Antioch. 34 THEŌRIA IN THEODORE AND THEODORET A Broad Approach Historically, all church leaders trained in the Syrian Antiochene region were deemed part of the Antiochene school. These include Lucian (d. 312), Eustathius, Diodore of Tarsus (d. 390), John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and others such as the Cappadocian three—Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa.8 But Johannes Quasten in his modernclassicPatrologyseparatesthe“writersofAsiaMinor”likethe Cappadocian Fathers from the “writers of Antioch and Syria.” The latter he equates with the “School of Antioch” especially the “most famous of this ecclesiastic province, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia,JohnChrysostom,andTheodoretofCyrus.”9Thisaligns with the centrist approach. A Centrist Approach AmediatingperspectiveexcludestheCappadocianthree(andothers) because their exegesis reflects more the allegorical methods of the school of Alexandria.10 D. S. Wallace-Hadrill supports this from the ancient Syriac writings of Barhadbešabba, who “contrast[s] the apostolic school of Antioch with the Jewish-Hellenistic school of Philo at Alexandria, where Scripture ‘was explained allegorically to the detriment of history.’”11 Despite even ancient support for the centrist approach, another more narrow definition arises. A Narrow Approach Recently some scholars have proposed a radical perspective suggestingthatthehermeneuticalmethodoftheAntiochenescannot be separated from their Nestorian Christology. Therefore, they 35 ANTIOCHENE THEŌRIA IN THEODORE AND THEODORET include only Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Diodore of Tarsus in the Antiochene school. The evangelical patristic scholar Donald Fairbairn is among the scholars who take the narrow approach,12 as is Jaroslav Brož. He does not see opposition between the Antiochene and Alexandrian “systems of exegesis” and believes that “both schools worked on the principle that scriptural texts have two basic senses.” He suggests that “all of the Church Fathers were convinced that inspired Scripture has another aspect that lies beyond the strictly literal sense.” He claims, further: For the Fathers, the non-literal meaning of a text was always related to the confession of orthodox faith andto the communion of the Church. These two elements were thought to be the conditio sine qua non for the discovery of the deeper meaning of inspired Scripture. All of the historical dates connected with a narrative and every detail that helped to clarify the literal meaning of a text were only secondary and relative tools in relationship to Christ and the life of the Church.13 ButevenacceptingBrož’spremisedoesnotprovethatno“opposition [exists] between the Antiochene and Alexandrian ‘systems of exegesis.’” He is reductionistic, though affirming that the “Antiochenes deepened the understanding of prophetic activity by demonstrating that prophecy simultaneously includes story and contemplation (theoria).”14 Brož appears to make the same mistake that Johann August Ernesti, Friedrich Münter and J. Ch. W. Augusti did about 200 years ago. Namely, Brož makes too little distinction between ἀλληγορία and theōria, even for the Antiochenes, despite theirownoutcriesandscholarshiptothecontrary.15Grantedthatthe Antiochenes also looked for a “spiritual sense” in the text, but not as the Alexandrians did.16 The issue relates to how that was (or should be) done. Donald Fairbairn offers a stronger challenge to accepting Theodoret and Chrysostom along with Diodore and Theodore into 36 THEŌRIA IN THEODORE AND THEODORET the Antiochene school. Essentially he argues that what separates the former pair from the latter pair is their Christology.17 Furthermore, Fairbairn argues (as had Wiles and Brož) that theology generally drove patristic exegesis rather than the other way around. He calls their exegesis “the cart” and their theology the “horse”: Ratherthanassertingthatexegesiswasthehorsepullingthetheological cart,astheolderviewdid,morerecent[patristic]scholarshiphasinsisted that to a great degree, theology was the horse and exegesis the cart. More specifically, patristic exegesis, according to recent patristics scholars, was a task of reading all of Scripture in light of a controlling theological idea.18 But whence comes this “controlling theological idea”? Of course, it must come from one’s own reading and interpretation of the text or from the reading and interpretation by others. This reality leads Fairbairntohedgeonhiscartandhorseanalogyandtoreplaceitwith acirclingofthewagons,forhethenarguesthatforpatristicexegetes “theology and exegesis were involved in a continual interplay.”19 This seems a more accurate description of patristic and especially Antiochene commentary and homiletical writing. But this will not do for Fairbairn, and soon he returns to his first assertion that “theology really lay behind [all patristic] exegesis.” This seems necessary to Fairbairn, because he wishes to prove that only Diodore, Nestorius, and Theodore are truly Antiochenes. They were “a tiny minority, and their thought was deemed to be heretical.”20 When determining the true makeup of the Antiochene school, of course the church’s evaluation of orthodoxy and heresy must be acknowledged. The Nestorian condemnations at the Council of Ephesus (431), the anathemas at the synod of the Three Chapters (546),21 and the Twelve Anathemas of the Second Council of Constantinople (Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553) should not be ignored, especially since the twelfth anathema condemns all who 37 ANTIOCHENE THEŌRIA IN THEODORE AND THEODORET defend Theodore’s exegesis.22 But consensus on Theodore’s role in the controversy was difficult to reach, and scholars even today are divided on whether he is the father of Nestorianism.23 It is conceded that Theodore sometimes overstates the distinctions between the deity and humanity of the Incarnate One. But he also develops the doctrineofcommunicatio idiomatum—insightsdeemedorthodoxmore than a millennium later.24 In The Case against Diodore and Theodore, John Behr reacts to support for Antiochenes, whom he believes ought to remain condemned as Nestorians.25 Behr believes that the modern guild’s support for Theodore’s exegetical methods is based on their own historical-critical biases and “sympathy for all things Antiochene, understood very much in terms of . . . twentieth-century prejudices and set in opposition to all things Alexandrian through . . . oppositions...inexegesis,[namely:]theōriavs.allegory.”Moreover, Behr concludes that this exegetical opposition between theōria and allegory “has been dismantled over recent years” by patristic scholars.26 So Behr believes that all support for Theodore is based on anachronisms and historical-critical biases. Furthermore, he believes thatthediscussionisoverregardingdifferencesbetweenAlexandrian and Antiochene exegetical methods. If Behr, Fairbairn, and the patristic scholars they cite are correct, then is there any “Antiochene school” beyond Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius? These scholars’ assertions place the burden of proof on those attempting to glean valuable insights from Antiochene hermeneutical methods as distinct from Alexandrian methods. For if there is no distinction, why trouble with isolating the meaning of Antiochene theōria for helpful exegetical methods? So, the narrow definition of the Antiochene school conveniently throws out the Antiochene exegetical baby with the Nestorian theological 38 THEŌRIA IN THEODORE AND THEODORET bathwater.27 It makes the analysis of Antiochene theōria appear pointless, especially if condemned theology drives Antiochene exegesis,asFairbairnemphasizes.Itshouldberemembered,however, that Theodoret participated in Chalcedon and promoted a Christology that balances Theodore’s concern (not to confuse the two natures) with the Alexandrians’ concern (not to divide the one person).28 Thus, aspects of Theodore’s and Theodoret’s (and the Bible’s) unconfused two-natures Christology are married with Alexandrians’ (and the Bible’s) undivided person or hypostasis Christology. If this is correct, then it can be argued that Theodore, with Theodoret’s help, played a role in affirming at Chalcedon orthodoxChristologythatisstillaffirmedtodaybyRomanCatholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. This reality, if accepted, raises further concerns about Theodore’s condemnation 102 years later. And thus is raises questions about Fairbairn’s linking that condemnation with the separating of Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius as the lone Antiochenes. Thus, I will attempt to show, first, that Theodore in his exegesis does have much in common with Chrysostom and Theodoret, and that these commonalities make all of their exegesis Antiochene and, therefore, distinct from Alexandrian exegesis. Certainly Antiochene exegesis exhibits an interplay between theology and exegesis, but it was also influenced by other factors that require discussion. One key factor is the distinction between Antiochene theōria and Alexandrian allēgoria. In chapters 3–4 I will interact with key patristic scholars (some who reject or nuance the distinction between Antiochene theōria and Alexandrian allēgoria). And here in chapter 2, I interact with primary sources of two Antiochenes, to make a case that some distinctions remain between Antiochene and Alexandrian exegesis. 39 ANTIOCHENE THEŌRIA IN THEODORE AND THEODORET The following section provides preliminary conclusions regarding the three (broad, centrist, and narrow) definitions of the Antiochene school, in which the centrist approach is affirmed. Conclusion: A Centrist Approach The broad definition of the “Antiochene school” pays too much attention to geographic regions and not enough to primary exegetical sources as evidence for or against a unified method of interpretation. On the other hand, the narrow definition places undue weight on council anathemas, without acknowledging clear historical links (not to mention similarity of exegetical method and support for Theodore’s christological concerns supported by TheodoretevenaslateasChalcedon)betweenthosedeemedheretical (and therefore Antiochene) and those not deemed heretical (and thereby not Antiochene). For example, Theodore and John Chrysostom both studied under Diodore and exhibit similar exegetical methods, especially an emphasis on the historical nature of the text. Nassif, who effectively chronicles scholarly research of Antiochenetheōriaover the last century notes: It is very important to emphasize at the outset that in tracing the scholarship, neither those authors nor I wish to advocate a radical revision of the prevailing view of Antiochene interpretation as being marked chiefly by its stress on the historical meaning of the Bible.29 Bertrand de Margerie anticipates this assault on the Antiochene school in his query: Is it fair to reduce the school of Antioch to its great masters, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus? Is not their fellow student and disciple, John Chrysostom, whose authenticity the universal Church recognizes to the point of calling him a Doctor, the chief figure of this school?30 40 THEŌRIA IN THEODORE AND THEODORET Philip Schaff answers affirmatively. He ably summarizes the relationship between four primary Antiochene representatives: Diodore, Chrysostom, Theodore, and Theodoret: Chrysostom belonged to the Antiochian school of theology and exegesis, and is its soundest and most popular representative. It was founded by his teacher Diodor of Tarsus (d. 393), developed by himself and his fellow-student Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 429), and followed by Theodoret and the Syrian and Nestorian divines. Theodore was the exegete,Chrysostomthehomilist,Theodorettheannotator.Theschool wasafterwardscondemnedforitsallegedconnectionwiththeNestorian heresy;butthatconnectionwasaccidental,notnecessary.Chrysostom’s mind was not given to dogmatizing, and too well balanced to run into heresy.31 There are clear distinctions among these four. Nevertheless, they are all members of the Antiochene school.32 Too much is lost by dismissing Theodore of Mopsuestia along with his interpretive method as a heresiarch, without taking the time to analyze and compare his method with others.33 Fairbairn claims that others in the region like Chrysostom were not condemned because they were not really Antiochenes. Further, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Demetrios Trakatellis agrees that recent patristic scholarship has reduced understandings of the distinctionsbetweenAntiocheneandAlexandrianexegeticalmethod. But when he compares Chrysostom, Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodoret, he clearly finds in Chrysostom a disciplined, tightly focused commentator with little foray into the NT and moderate christological application. This reflects some of the key distinctions of the Antiochene school.34 Historically the Antiochene School is defined by its more literal and historical approach to Scripture. While their emphasis on ἱστορία35 of the Scripture is informed by a Christology that places greaterweightonthedistinctionofthetwonaturesinChrist,itdoes 41 ANTIOCHENE THEŌRIA IN THEODORE AND THEODORET not necessitate a Nestorian distinction. For example, Theodore of Mopsuestia understands the typological relationship between Adam and Christ differently from other Antiochenes.36 But this does not necessarily mean that his interpretive method varies so greatly from theirs that they cannot both be called Antiochene. Furthermore, Theodore’s contemporaries did not isolate him (or Diodore). For example, Theodoret of Cyrus writes about the “school ofAntioch”inhisHistoriaecclesiasticaaswellasinmanyofhisepistles from the 430s and 440s. Adam M. Schor summarizes Theodoret’s writings as displaying Antiochene teachers and teaching as part of a larger, Nicene partisan effort—to build a regional coalition, to define a holy community, and to control the Syrian episcopate. Through his [Theodoret’s] works one can discern an Antiochene socio-doctrinal network, which linked Theodoret to three generations of Syrian clerics.37 For Schor that socio-doctrinal network does not exclude shared exegetical methods among the Antiochenes. Schor rightly includes threesharedexegeticalmethodstypicalamongalloftheAntiochenes: First in works of exegesis, these authors declared an interest in the “literal” (kata lexin) and the “historical” (kath’ historian) meaning of Scripture. Second, in the same commentaries, the authors attacked “allegory” and expressed skepticism about figurative interpretations. Third, these authors pointed to biblical typologies, links between the “prototypes” of Old Testament characters and the “reality” (alētheia) of Jesusorthe“types”oftheChristiansacramentsandthe“reality”offuture salvation.38 Schor’sthirdcharacteristicofAntiocheneexegesisrelatesmostreadily to Antiochene theōria. But acknowledging these three common expressions of Antiochene exegesis does not imply that their exegesis is monolithic. This is readily visible in the distinctions between 42