Many manuscripts of Theodoret’s Commentary on the Psalms (CPG 6202) include marginal notes. Although that is not typically the case with Codex Parisinus Graecus 1051 (Rahlfs 9049)¹, a well-preserved ninth-century manuscript, – in this blog post I will focus on a particular marginal note found within it.

On folio 72r, beside Theodoret’s discussion of verse 3 of Psalm 27, we find the following marginal note, which I believe was written by the scribe:

ἐχθρὸς γάρ μοι| κεῖνος ὁμῶς Ἀεί|δαο πόλησιν ὃς| χ’ ἕτερον μὲν κεύ|φθῃ ἐνὶ φρεσί|

ἔτερον δὲ εἴπει².

Despite the presence of some errors, perhaps due to an incorrect recollection of the copyist himself³, the quote clearly can be identified with the following verses from book 9 of the Iliad (312 f.)⁴:

ἐχθρὸς γάρ μοι κεῖνος ὁμῶς Ἀΐδαο πύλῃσιν | ὅς χ’ ἕτερον μὲν κεύθῃ ἐνὶ φρεσίν, ἄλλο δὲ εἴπῃ·⁵

Here, the Homeric passage is clearly used as literary validation of the concept to which the verses of Psalm 27 also refer. The copyist’s marginal note draws attention to the close affinity between the two works. Despite the time that has passed and the complete difference in subject matter and history, some ideological principles remain unchanged.

For comparison, consider the passage concerning Psalm 27 as transmitted by Ra 9049:

Μὴ συνελκύσῃς⁶ μετὰ ἁμαρτωλῶν⁷, καὶ μετὰ ἐργαζο|μένων τὴν⁸ ἀδικίαν μὴ συναπολέσῃς με, τῶν λα|λούντων εἰρήνην μετὰ τῶν πλησίων⁹ αὐτῶν· |κακὰ δὲ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν¹⁰.

Theodoret, in his writings, uses Homer and the classical authors broadly and for different purposes¹¹; however, in this case, the commentary of the Bishop of Cyrrhus is limited to a literal explanation of the concept expressed in the verses of the Psalm:

Μηδεμίαν ἔχειν κοινωνίαν μετὰ τῶν διπλόην¹² κεχρη|μένων ὁ μακάριος¹³ ἱκετεύει Δαβίδ. Βδελυροὺς γὰρ εἶ|ναι φησὶν¹⁴ τοὺς ἕτερα μὲν φθεγγομένους, ἕτερα δὲ βουλευομένους¹⁵. | Οὗ δὴ χάριν καὶ πρόσφορα τοῖς ἐπι|τηδεύμασιν¹⁶ βούλεται αὐτοὺς τρυγῆσαι τὰ ἐπίχειρα¹⁷.

Through these words, Theodoret emphasises the importance of standing away from those who do not act truthfully and despising them (here, the use of the adjective βδελυρός has an essential role in communicating this feeling).

The theme of deceit is also central in Achilles' discourse (Il.9, 307–429). The words of the Greek hero can be applied dually to his direct interlocutor, Odysseus, but more precisely to the person who sent him on this mission: Agamemnon. The generosity of the gifts that the sovereign of Ithaca lists to the Pelides, to convince him to return to war, is just the next proof of the duplicity of the Atrides and his ‘deceiver’. Dishonesty is far from Achilles, who, between appearance and essence, fallacious truths and moral honesty, always chooses the path of integrity¹⁸.

It is precisely this principle of integrity that David’s prayer invokes when he implores the Lord to reward people according to their actions (and/or words) and according to the malice behind them¹⁹.

Duplicity remains a sin; it does not grant κλέος, nor does it secure σωτηρία.