One of the most fascinating and, at the same time, most challenging aspect of establishing a critical text of an exegetical work such as Theodoret’s Commentary on the Psalms lies in the different principles governing the transmission of the biblical text and that of the commentary. The original psalter text used by Theodoret has been preserved in only a small number of manuscripts, since scribes occasionally adapted the lemmatic text to the version which they deemed preferable, either for theological reasons or simply because of habitual familiarity. By contrast, when the lemma is cited within the commentary and diverges from the reading found in (most) manuscripts, this provides a relatively secure indication of the original lemmatic text.^[1] For this reason, the commentary itself must first be established editorially before any conclusions may be drawn from the lemma quotation about the actual words of the lemmatic text.

An example illustrating the complexity of this procedure may be found in Theodoret’s commentary on Psalm 13:4a–5a. In the editions of Sirmond and Schulze, the text is printed as follows (lemma and lemma quotations are italicised):

(4a) οὐχὶ γνώσονται πάντες οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν;
(4b) οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὸν λαόν μου ἐν βρώσει ἄρτου τὸν κύριον οὐκ ἐπεκαλέσαντο.
(5a) ἐκεῖ ἐδειλίασαν φόβῳ, οὗ οὐκ ἦν φόβος.

Οὐκ ἠβουλήθητε, φησίν, οἱ κατεσθίοντες συνιδεῖν τόδε^[2]· δι’ αὐτῆς μαθήσεσθε τῶν πραγμάτων τῆς πείρας, ὡς οὐκ ἔσται ὑμῖν εὐάλωτος ὁ ἐμὸς λαός, οὐδὲ καθάπερ ἄρτον τινὰ ἐσθιόμενον δαπανήσετε αὐτὸν τῆς ἐμῆς προμηθείας καταφρονοῦντες. τοῦτο γὰρ λέγει· τὸν κύριον οὐκ ἐπεκαλέσαντο.

Without examination of the commentary, according to the editorial principle outlined above, οἱ ἐσθίοντες (supported by 9001 9016 9029 9043 9044 9077) in verse 4b would have to be replaced with οἱ κατεσθίοντες (= Rahlfs), and this is indeed the reading found in the majority of Theodoret manuscripts (9004 9006 9007^S 9018 9019 9026 9030 9035 9037 9038 9039 9040 9041 9046^S 9048 9049 9050 9051 9052 9053 9056 9061 9062 9063 9064 9065 9067 9068 9070 9071 9074 9075 9076 9079 9080; lac. 9002 9003 9005) as well as in the Church Slavonic translation (Pskov f. 38r: сънѣдающеи людие [lemma], f. 38v сънѣдающе [commentary]).

The commentary reading οἱ κατεσθίοντες, however, is not transmitted uniformly in the manuscripts. Some of them have the following instead:

Οὐκ ἠβουλήθητε, φησίν, οἴκοθεν συνιδεῖν τὸ δέον^[3]· (...)

At first glance, the variant reading οἴκοθεν seems a meaningless corruption of οἱ κατεσθίοντες, which in this context obviously makes sense, and changing the biblical text accordingly (from ἐσθίοντες to κατεσθίοντες) to align with the text printed by Rahlfs seems like an acceptable choice. But it is precisely for this reason that we have to be careful before jumping to conclusions and relying on the commentary reading οἱ κατεσθίοντες, even though this is printed in the editions and found in the majority of manuscripts. In order to establish Theodoret’s true commentary here, we first have to acknowledge that the reading οἴκοθεν is supported by a number of ancient manuscripts which belong to different strands of transmission: Ra 9049, Ra 9017, Ra 9044 und Ra 9035-9071(-9051-9075-9077); to these can be added the Catenae C25.1 = Type XIIa Karo-Lietzmann (Ra 1164, Ra 1224) and C16 = Type III K.-L. (Ra 1133, Ra 1215), whose value as witnesses we will discuss later.

We then have to consider which parts of the biblical text Theodoret is actually commenting upon in this section of his commentary, and in which order. The text printed in the editions suggests that Theodoret cites the ἐσθίοντες from Vers 4b first and mixes them into his explanation of verse 4a. This would not be entirely inconsistent with Theodoret’s pick-and-choose style of commentary, but conspicuous nonetheless. Following the order of the biblical text (καθ’ ἀκολουθίαν), Theodoret should first comment on verse 4a, then 4b, and finally 5a. Indeed his words ἠβουλήθητε ... συνιδεῖν are addressed to “those who commit lawlessness” from verse 4a (οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν). He goes on to cite τὸν λαόν μου from verse 4b and explain the subject of this verse (οἱ ἐσθίοντες) metaphorically (καθάπερ ἄρτον τινὰ ἐσθιόμενον). If the split in transmission between οἴκοθεν and οἱ κατεσθίοντες is not enough to make us suspicious, the lemma quotation ἐσθιόμενον (transmitted uniformly across all manuscripts) should indicate sufficiently that Theodoret read ἐσθίοντες in the biblical text.

Let us now consider the variant reading οἴκοθεν. This lexeme is used extremely rarely across Theodoret’s vast corpus: According to the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, it occurs only three times (hist. rel. 28,4 καὶ ἄλλα οἴκοθεν ἐπενόει ἀγωνίσματα; in Cant. 81.77 MPG ἀλλ’ οἴκοθεν ἔχοντα τὴν εὐπρέπειαν; in epp. Pauli 82.313 MPG τῶν μὲν εὐπόρων οἴκοθεν τὰ ὀψώνια κομιζόντων), contrary to e.g. John Chrysostom who was very fond of using this adverbial expression (see, for instance, Chr. in Ps. 55.460 MPG ἔδει αὐτοὺς μὲν οἴκοθεν συνιδεῖν τῆς φύσεως τὸ εὐτελές). Comparable to the German expression “von Hause aus”, οἴκοθεν is used by Chrysostom (and Theodoret) for “of one’s own accord”, a meaning attested in Lampe’s dictionary (p. 939f.) but absent from dictionaries of Classical Greek like Liddell-Scott-Jones (p. 1204) and Montanari (p. 1432).

Translated into English, the emended passages reads as follows (adapted from Hill’s translation, with my alterations underlined):

“You were unwilling, he is saying, to acknowledge this which is necessary of your own accord; so you will learn through practical experience itself that my people will not be easily taken by you, nor will you consume them like some bread for eating, since you despise my providence – which is what is meant by They did not invoke the Lord.”^[4]

Theodoret’s οἴκοθεν does not stand on its own either: It has a counterpart in the words δι’ αὐτῆς ... τῆς πείρας, “through practical experience itself.” All considered, the Greek text should be established thus:

(4a) οὐχὶ γνώσονται πάντες οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν;
(4b) οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὸν λαόν μου ἐν βρώσει ἄρτου τὸν κύριον οὐκ ἐπεκαλέσαντο.
(5a) ἐκεῖ ἐδειλίασαν φόβῳ, οὗ οὐκ ἦν φόβος.

Οὐκ ἠβουλήθητε, φησίν, οἴκοθεν συνιδεῖν τὸ δέον· δι’ αὐτῆς μαθήσεσθε τῶν πραγμάτων τῆς πείρας, ὡς οὐκ ἔσται ὑμῖν εὐάλωτος ὁ ἐμὸς λαός, οὐδὲ καθάπερ ἄρτον τινὰ ἐσθιόμενον δαπανήσετε αὐτὸν τῆς ἐμῆς προμηθείας καταφρονοῦντες. τοῦτο γὰρ λέγει· τὸν κύριον οὐκ ἐπεκαλέσαντο.

The editorial principle prevails: Theodoret’s original commentary on Psalm 13:4a–5a, as established by our analysis, proves that he read ἐσθίοντες in his biblical text, as per his quotation ἐσθιόμενον. The simplex ἐσθίοντες, also found in the Codex Sinaiticus, was marked as the L reading by Rahlfs. However, the Antiochene text is less than certain here. Chrysostom’s commentary on this psalm is not preserved, if it ever existed. For Diodorus of Tarsus, Olivier prints ἐσθίοντες with manuscripts CM while P has κατεσθίοντες.^[5] Theodore of Mopsuestia, according to the Latin translation by Julian of Eclanum (devorant, devorare),^[6] could have read either ἐσθίοντες or κατεσθίοντες, though the latter form is closer to the Latin in morphological terms. Whichever option one might prefer for the Antiochene text, is has become clear that Theodoret read ἐσθίοντες.