Theodoret’s Commentary on the Psalms (CPG 6202), despite its rich attestation in manuscripts of the 10^th to 12^th centuries, seems to have faded in popularity during the 13^th and 14^th centuries, as Alfred Rahlfs noted in his Verzeichnis (p. 405sq.). Rahlfs explained this with the rise in popularity which the commentary by Euthymius Zigabenus (Zygadenus), compiled in the late 11^th century/early 12^th century, enjoyed during this period.

Since the first publication of Rahlfs’s catalogue, a number of manuscripts have come to light, at least two of which are datable to the 13^th century: Mt. Athos, Φιλοθέου 93 (Lambros 1857, Ra 9011, Diktyon 29458) and Ohrid, NI National Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and Museum, ZMO-U-459(42) (Mošin 19, Ra 9043, Diktyon 46776).

This article discusses the latter manuscript as a witness to Theodoret’s Commentary on Psalms – and as an early witness to John Skylitzes’ Synopsis historiarum.

1. The Ohrid Manuscript of Theodoret’s Commentary on Psalms: An Overview (Jonathan Groß)

The Psalms Commentary manuscript Ra 9043, mentioned already in V.I. Grigorovich's travelog of 1845, is housed at the Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments and National Museum in Ohrid, is preserved almost in its entirety. The first flyleaf and the first leaf with the beginning of the Protheoria in Psalmos are missing (inc. PG 80.860 ἐπε]νεχθείσας παιδείας), as are some pages in the middle and at the end. The manuscript’s pages (not the folia) are numbered in the top margin with some skips in the sequence: after p. 155 follows p. 160, after p. 439 follows p. 450, and after p. 549 follows p. 560. Quire numbers are still extant on many of the 36 gatherings, e.g. p. 14: end of 1 (α); p. 178: end of 11 (ια); p. 179: beginning of 12 (ιβ); p. 573: beginning of 36 (λϛ) – this last quire is missing three or four pages. The wooden book covers are inscribed in black ink by a librarian, who on the back cover noted the contents of the book in Latin and Cyrillic script: exigiton psaltiri гр[ъ]цкiи.

The biblical text and commentary are written in the style of a Textkatene, in two columns (just like the small 11^th century fragment Ra 9028) with 30–37 lines each, a somewhat unusual format for Theodoret’s Psalm Commentary but quite common for other commentaries like John Chrysostom’s. The scribe used a regular minuscule script with with a tendency to exaggerate the loop of the δ (slanted to the left) and elongate vertical strokes (especially λ). Majuscule Gamma is sometimes grossly enlarged. As nothing precludes us from assigning this manuscript to the 13^th century, I follow this dating from Vladimir Mošin's catalogue.

Apart from the beginning of the Protheoria, Ra 9043 is also lacking the leaf pp. 236–237 (end of Ps. 58, beginning of Ps. 59), which is torn, and another leaf after p. 507 (end of Ps. 118, beginning of Ps. 119) which is missing altogether. At the end, after the Theodoret’s commentary on Ps. 149:4 (des. PG 80.1993 ἀποφαίνει καὶ περιβλέπτους) and the biblical text of Ps. 149:5a, the commentary is conspicuously replaced by that of Euthymius Zigabenus (inc. PG 128,1320,42 καθ’ ἱστορίαν πρότερον τὰ ἐντεῦθεν ἑρμηνευτέον, des. PG 128,1325,32 διὰ τὸ εὐανάτρεπτον αὐτῶν καὶ δυσπαράδεκτον).

As of now (20 January 2026), the manuscript has been studied only from a black and white microfilm (https://pelister.org/manuscripts/pdf/NMOM42.pdf), which allows for checking the text in general. However, from one colour image we received from the Ohrid National Museum it became clear that the rubrications on some pages are so faint that it does not appear at all in the microfilm. For this reason, and also in regards to the codicological features, on-hands study of the manuscript is still a necessity.

1.1. Psalter Text and Commentary in Ra 9043: Paratextual Features

The biblical text (in red ink) and the commentary (in dark brown ink) each begin with a new line and enlarged initial. For the first few pages (until p. 20), the scribe added abbreviations in the margins to further aid the reader in distinguishing the biblical text from the commentary, labelling them κεί(μενον) and ἑρμη(νεία) respectively. The Psalm headings are decorated with simple ornamental bands, and the Psalm prologues are, throughout the whole manuscript, highlighted with ἱστορία in the margins, written vertically just like the signs ὅρα and ση(μείωσαι) (sometimes followed by ὅλον, τι λέγει) which appear throughout. This unique feature will be important in determining the manuscript’s Vorlage.

As can be seen from a sample colour photograph we obtained from the Ohrid National Museum (displayed below), the text in red ink is sometimes barely legible or even completely invisible in the microfilm. This affects the biblical text, the marginal and some additions to the commentary as well.

Ohrid, NI Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and Museum, ZMO-U-459(42), p. 1

Photo by courtesy of Kalina Kuzman Dodevska (Ohrid, NI)

Since Theodoret’s commentary was replaced with that of Euthymius Zigabenus at the end of the manuscript, the Vorlage may have been missing its last few pages. Through and assessment of some of the manuscript’s variants, its place in the stemma of Theodoret’s manuscripts can be determined with some confidence. In accordance with my allotted portion of the new critical edition of Theodoret’s Commentary on Psalms (to be published by end of 2026), I confine myself to the first 50 psalms.

1.2. Ra 9043 and its Place in the Stemma Codicum

In October 2025 I received an invaluable hint from my colleague Vadim Wittkowsky (who is editing Theodoret’s Commentary on Psalms 51–100) that the characteristic paratextual features of the Ohrid manuscript (Ra 9043) are also found in Mt. Athos, Vatopedi 242 (Ra 9006, Diktyon 18386, 12^th century). As it happens, this manuscript has a host of additions and corrections to Theodoret’s commentary from another tradition, some of which Wittkowsky found also present in the oldest extant manuscript from Mt. Athos, Vatopedi 191 (Ra 9003, Diktyon 18335, 9^th century), a witness whose importance has been discussed elsewhere (see F. Albrecht, Tracing the Odes Catena Appended to Theodoret’s Psalm Commentary, Göttinger Septuaginta, May 31, 2025) which is sadly missing its first part until Psalm 50. Since Vatopedi 242 is also not preserved in full (it has only Pss. 3–8 and 13–105), a comparison of variants found only in Ra 9006 and 9043 against the other manuscripts can shed additional light on an important part of the stemma codicum.

As the sparse remnants from Psalms 49 and 50 in Ra 9003 allow for no meaningful comparison, I am limiting myself to a comparison of Ra 9006 and 9043 for Psalms 3–50 against other witnesses. In this range, a number of marginal additions are found in Ra 9006 which are integrated into the main text in Ra 9043, and these are sometimes also found in other witnesses. I will quote just a selection of the more substantial additions and cite also some additional witnesses:

1. Tht. in Ps. 25:6–7 (PG 80.1048) τοῦ πράγματος τὴν φυγήν] + verba ἔλεγε μὲν, οὐκ ἔπραττε δὲ παραδοὺς αύτὸν αὐτοῖς add. in marg. 9006 9027; exh. in textu 9043 9073; om. 9001-9044-9046 rell.)
2. Tht. in Ps. 26:14b–c (PG 80.1056) καὶ τὰς θείας ἐπαγγελίας προσμένει] + verba καὶ τῆς γῆς τῶν ζώντων add. in margine 9006; exh. in textu 9001-9027-9044-9046-9073 9043; post σώματος tr. 9002 9011; om. rell.
3. Tht. in Ps. 39:7a–8a (PG 80.1156) ὠς κεφαλῇ σώματος] + verba ὡς ἀπαρχὴν φυράματος add. in margine 9006, exh. in textu 9050 9001-9027-9046-9073 9043
4. Tht. in Ps. 40.10 (PG 80.1165) ᾧ ἐπεποίθειν] + verba συνεσθίων μοι ἄρτον ἐμόν, κατεμεγαλύνθη μου ἀκολουθών add. in margine 9006, exh. in textu 9050 9043
5. Tht. in Ps. 47:3a (PG 80.1212) πρὸς τὸν μακάριον ἔφη Πέτρον·] + verba ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος add. in margine 9006; exh. in textu 9005 (om. ὅτι) 9043

Prima facie it is unclear whether these variants present scribal interventions or remnants of a fuller version of Theodoret’s commentary. The fact that the group comprised of Ra 9001-9027-9044-9046 (a. 1142/3)-9073 often preserves a fuller version of Theodoret’s commentary seems to point to the latter. While reserving judgement on this for the final edition, these variants can already be used to determine the relationships of the manuscripts cited.

Ra 9043 bears the closest resemblance to Ra 9006, not only copying its paratextual features but also integrating all of its textual additions into the main text. It is safe to surmise that Ra 9043 was copied from Ra 9006. This also seems to apply for the parts which are now lacking in the beginning of Ra 9006 (Protheoria and Psalms 1–3): The first (remaining) leaf in Ra 9006 (f. 1r–v, with the end of Psalm 3 and the beginning of Psalm 4) is still damaged, and Ra 9043 (p. 17) has a major lacuna (without any indication by the scribe) at the beginning of Psalm 4 which coincides with the damaged part in Ra 9006, f. 1. However, as Ra 9043 on p. 1 inserts ὅρα τί λέγεις (sic) in the main text of the Protheoria (at the beginning of Theodoret's discussion on the authorship of the Psalms), it is safe to assume that the phrase ὅρα τί λέγεις, which is found in no other manuscript and does not belong in the text, was written in the margins of Ra 9043's antigraph and mistakenly copied as main text by the scribe.

While no other manuscript has all of the additions found in Ra 9006 and 9043, some of them are attested in other witnesses of considerable age and value. No. 1 is found in Ra 9027 (likewise as a marginal note) and in the text of Ra 9073, No. 2 in the text of Ra 9001-9027-9044-9046-9073 (and, transposed to another place, in Ra 9002-9011), No. 3 in the text or Ra 9001 etc. as well as Ra 9050; No. 4 is found exclusively in Ra 9050 and No. 5 exclusively in Ra 9005. However, since these manuscripts are (almost all) older than Ra 9006 and in some cases transmit a better text, they must be considered independent of Ra 9006. We can therefore assume a common ancestor X for all of these manuscripts which either had these additions in the text (probably highlighted in some way) or, like Ra 9006, in the margins as corrections to the text itself. This X was used independently by (a) the scribes of the common ancestor(s) of Ra 9001 9027 9044 9046 9073, (b) the scribe of Ra 9050, (c) the scribe of Ra 9005 and (d) the scribe of Ra 9002, which in turn may be the antigraph of Ra 9011. Since none of abcd (which may or may not be considered hyparchetypes) had the full set of textual additions, Ra 9006 emerges as an important counterbalance to the majority transmission.

As to the identity of this X, a comparison of Psalms 51–105 will provide more stable grounds to place a hypothesis on. While contamination can play a part in the earlier stages of the stemma, it is intriguing to connect this X to Ra 9003, which may either be the antigraph of Ra 9006 or an older sibling going back to a common ancestor. This question may also shed some light on the provenance of these manuscripts: Ra 9003 and Ra 9006 are both kept at the library of Vatopedi, and while Ra 9003 predates the foundation of the monastery, Ra 9006 (and Ra 9043) may well have been produced at the Vatopedi monastery. Whatever the case, the point demands further study.

2. The Skylitzes Flyleaf (Peter Schreiner)

In the only printed catalogue of the manuscripts of the National Museum of Ohrid, dating from 1961, its author Vladimir Mošin, in his description of the Psalter manuscript Inv. No. 42 (Mošin catalogue no. 19), draws attention to a flyleaf at the end of the manuscript (p. 581 = recto, p. 582 = verso), of the same size as the Psalter manuscript but badly frayed at the edges. It originates from another manuscript and contains a fragment from a historical text in which, among other things, the persons of Emperor Michael II “the Stammerer”, a certain Bardanes, and Thomas the “Slav” are mentioned in connection with a usurpation. Mošin provides the incipit and desinit, and links the text to the historical works of Theophanes Continuatus and Joseph Genesios. He does not undertake further identification.

The fragment comes from the historical work of John Skylitzes, which for the events of the 10^th century used the two aforementioned historians as models and sources. John Skylitzes, a high-ranking Byzantine state official and judge, who presumably served for some years as an official in the theme (administrative district) of Bulgaria, composed at the end of the 11^th century a historical work covering the period from 811 to 1089 (including a continuation by Skylitzes himself). For the years 961 to 1034, it constitutes our sole narrative source for all events in the Byzantine Empire.

2.1. Philological and Palaeographical Observations

The fragment comprises pages 8, line 85 (ἐ]ποιή|σατο to p. 10, line 38 ἀποκαλῶν καὶ[) in Thurn’s critical edition of 1973, where Skylitzes in chapters 3 and 4 recounts a prophecy by a monk concerning the fate that would befall the usurper Bardanes. Thurn was unaware of this (unidentified in the catalogue) fragment. It brings no changes compared to the edited text. Here are some individual textual observations. In five places there are deviations from the edited text:

1. On p. 9, l. 90 Thurn, the edition reads Τοῦρκος τὴν προσηγορίαν. In the Ohrid fragment we find: †τοῦρἡ† τὴν προσηγορίαν. Here, the exemplar was illegible to the copyist.
2. On p. 9, l. 9 Thurn, the copyist has omitted τὸν ἐξ Ἀμωρίου.
3. On p. 10, l. 26 Thurn, he writes, with an itacistic error, εἴσεισοι (instead of εἴσεισι).
4. Noteworthy is a “correction for the worse” on p. 10, l. 37 Thurn, where the copyist writes θεότροπος (“turned towards God”, attested in George of Pisidia) instead of θεόπροπος (“prophet”).
5. On p. 9, l. 5 Thurn, the fragment shares with manuscripts C (Paris, Coislin gr. 136) and M (Madrid, Vitr. 26-2, “Skylitzes Matritensis”) the erroneous reading βούλημα instead of βούλευμα.

The small fragment cannot be assigned to any group in the stemma compiled by Hans Thurn. Even the sole agreement with C and M is without significance, as C and M belong to entirely different groups. The origin and interrelation of the early Skylitzes manuscripts – some possibly dating to the lifetime of Skylitzes – are highly complex and must be reconsidered, especially as the “Skylitzes interpolatus” postulated in Thurn’s stemma can never have existed.

Dating a short fragment solely on the basis of letterforms is always uncertain. One can compare the script with Vatican manuscripts Vat. Barb. gr. 319 (a. 1168, Diktyon 64862), Vat. Ottob. gr. 344 (a. 1177, Diktyon 65587), Vat. gr. 1853 (a. 1171, Diktyon 68482), British manuscripts Oxon. Barocc. 132 (a. 1143, Ra 9046, Diktyon 47419) and Oxon. Christ Church 33 (a. 1172, Diktyon 48544), and the Paris manuscript Par. Gr. 1232A (a. 1131, Diktyon 50839). This selection shows that the entire 12^th century is possible for its writing. The script has a very conservative character, and almost all abbreviations are absent (twice προς, once -ας). Even καί is always written in full. This observation supports a dating to the 12^th century, more likely to the first than to the second half.

2.2. Fragment and Transmission History of the Historical Work

The find location of the fragment is significant for the transmission history of the work. It was used during the rebinding of the manuscript, which certainly took place in Ohrid. Regarding this binding – unfortunately not documented in the digitization – we rely entirely on Vladimir Mošin’s description in the manuscript catalogue. He describes the binding and dates it to the 14^th–15^th centuries: “The two covers have the same rectangular decoration, a diamond with small iron palmettes, rosettes, and medallions. Headbands made of red and green threads” (translated from French). This binding, as described by Mošin, must have replaced at least one earlier binding, namely the original one. The Skylitzes fragment was added no later than this last rebinding, and perhaps even in an earlier one. One would also expect a flyleaf at the beginning of the manuscript, but this is missing, if it was ever present.

Thus, during one of these rebindings, remnants of a Skylitzes manuscript were present in Ohrid, whose parchment could be reused as scrap material. Striking is the poor condition of the lower edges of the flyleaf. Compared with other Skylitzes manuscripts, it belonged to the second quire of the lost manuscript. Nonetheless, as a flyleaf it fulfilled its function, since despite the poor condition of its edges, it protected the script of the last Psalter leaf from the rough wooden cover.

2.3. Skylitzes Manuscripts in Ohrid

From Ohrid there survives a (nearly complete) manuscript, largely unknown (and used by Hans Thurn only thanks to an old photograph of a single leaf), which until 1916 was held, along with the other manuscripts described by Mošin, in the library of the Cathedral Church of Ohrid. This manuscript, during the turmoil of the Balkan War, was taken (along with other treasures) to Sofia, where – after negotiations with the new Republic of Macedonia in 1990 – it was made accessible to the public as Bulgarian property.

This manuscript was copied in Ohrid around 1100 by Archbishop Theophylaktos, the famous scholar trained in Constantinople, and was provided with important marginal notes. It represents the earliest surviving copy of the historical work. The fragment described above, however, does not come from this manuscript.

Another manuscript of Skylitzes, today in the Austrian National Library in Vienna (hist. gr. 74, Diktyon 70951), is based on an exemplar that, according to the scribe’s subscription, likewise originated in Ohrid or a nearby episcopal see (Devol, between Ohrid and Korçë) in 1118.

Archbishop Theophylaktos of Ohrid (1035/40–1108/10) was a contemporary of John Skylitzes and demonstrably in contact with him. It is thanks to him that the historical work was also disseminated in several copies in the western Bulgarian region (the theme of Bulgaria). For this, the small fragment in the flyleaf of an Ohrid Psalter manuscript is another valuable piece of evidence.

3. Select Bibliography

Eustratiadēs, S./Vatopedinos, A.: Κατάλογος τῶν ἐν τῇ ἱερᾷ μονῇ Βατοπεδίου ἀποκειμένων κωδίκων, Paris 1924, 53.

Mošin, V., “Ракописи на Народниот музеј во Охрид = Les manuscrits du Musée national d’Ochrida”, in: Musée national d'Ohrid. Recueil de travaux. Édition spéciale publiée à l'occasion du X^e anniversaire de la fondation du Musée et dédiée au XII^e congrès international des études byzantines, Ohrid 1961, 198 (no. 19). accessible online through the Internet Archive

Rahlfs, A.: Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 2), Berlin 1914. accessible online through the Internet Archive

Schreiner, P., Йоан Скилица и Теофилакт Охридски. Иследования върху софийския ръкопис  на Скилица в Националния исторически музей [John Skylitzes and Theophylact of Ohrid. Studies on the Sofia Manuscript of Scylitzes at the National Museum of History], Sofia 2026 (in press).