Psalm 106 is a song of thanksgiving for the Lord’s mercy. It is divided into several episodes concerning various human groups who turn to the Lord through humble prayer, asking for salvation because of their actions or as victims of unforeseen events. Salvation is granted through God’s great mercy, but with a final warning: Whoever is wise shall observe these things and understand the Lord’s love. In verses 17 to 18 commentary, Theodoret states:

‘Neither the Jews nor the whole of human nature fell into this trouble for no good reason: both the one and the other paid the penalty for their sins. However, he granted salvation to both the one and the other, involved as they were in such great evils. The Jews, oppressed by the multitude of evils, were even averse to food itself; the prophet also says this in another psalm, as if from their side: For I have forgotten to eat my bread (Ps 101:5). Neither were the nations willing to listen to the teachings of their philosophers; hence, some condemned Socrates to death, others subjected Anaxarchus to an unusual chastisement, and still others harshly tortured the successors of Pythagoras and imposed an untimely death on them. Yet the God of all gave these a share in the immortal nourishment, persuaded them to hasten towards it with total enthusiasm and freed them from the gates of death’¹.

The verse 19, concluding this episode, discusses salvation by the hand of the Lord. Theodoret’s interpretation at this point in the psalm, where he continues to analyse Jewish history in a broader context, leads him, somewhat surprisingly, to introduce a host of classical Greek philosophers. The role of Socrates, Anaxarchus and Pythagoras is viewed in a positive light as they are used as a virtuous model in contrast to the people of their time, the cause of their deaths, and the Jews who committed sins. Before being qualified as pagans, the three philosophers represent men capable of transmitting sound and just teachings to live a virtuous and active life². They should have been an example to follow.

The aberrant rejection by their people allows these pagan martyrs to be placed on a plane of divine mercy since obtusely rejecting their teachings diverted their detractors and the actors of their death from the right path to wisdom and wisdom. Likewise, the Jewish rejection of the Lord as a spiritual guide led the Jews to error and loss of self, resulting in despair and a desire for death. The Jewish people, however, can be saved because God's mercy is great, and they, therefore, must not, like Socrates, Anaxagoras and Pythagoras, pass through the gates of death. But is the narration of these philosophical and pagan personalities within the commentary on the Psalms the product of Theodoret’s creative pen?

This passage³ is quoted identically in one of John Chrysostom’s works. This portion of the text, part of Homilies in Psalmos 101–107 (PG 55, 655–674: for the verses 17-18 of Ps 106, PG55, 669), is included in the section Spuria (PG 55, 635–636) since, as is specified in the Monitum, these are not only texts of uncertain attribution but also interpolated with texts of other authors, including, clearly, Theodoret. In CPG 4413.3 this text portion is indicated as part of the Fragmenta in Psalmos 103-106. In any case, the commentary on Psalms 103–106 by John Chrysostom, which is precisely fragmentary and whose text is said to be derived from a catena type III according to Richard’s studies⁴, has no reference to the philosophers cited by Theodoret. The collation of Ra 1215 (Cod. Marcianus gr. 17) and its comparison with the lessons of the “Paris Psalter” Ra 1133 (Cod. Parisinus gr. 139)⁵ allows us to establish a more satisfactory text that provides a fragmentary, no doubt, but probably faithful echo of John Chrysostom’s lost homilies on Psalms 103–106⁶. According to Malingrey's (1987, 374–378) reconstruction, the commentary on verses 17–18 of Psalm 106 would be the following:

Although the connections between Theodoret and John Chrysostom are certain⁷, what is reported in PG 55 (669) is probably a pseudo-Chrysostomic⁸ text supplemented with Theodoret’s commentary on Psalm 106. Already Adalma (1965, n. 424) reports the passage in question as taken from the well-known bishop of Cyrrhus and before that, Richard⁹ wrote that it was a heterogeneous commentary produced by combining a significant part of Theodoret’s commentary and a catena consisting of two elements, the first of which is a series of extracts of the Palestinian catena. The second part of the catena mentioned by Richard would then, in fact, consist of fragments by Athanasius, Cyril, Hesychius and John Chrysostom.

Rebus sic stantibus, the commentary on Psalm 106 involving such philosophical figures can result from Theodoret’s creative spirit and his great knowledge of and admiration for philosophy. However, given the link between Theodoret and John Chrysostom, it is not possible to rule out a probable hypotext used by the bishop of Cyrrhus in the drafting of his commentary, especially when philosophical figures such as Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato and others are well attested in John Chrysostom’s works. A topic that deserves attention and more in-depth study in the future.