Questions on the Octateuch, Volume 2: On Levitcus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth (Library Early Christianity) - Hardcover
Synopsis
Shortly before his death (ca. 460), as his health was failing, Theodoret decided to undertake a monumental project of exegesis. In the more than two decades of his episcopacy, he had commented on both the prophets and the sapiential literature of the Hebrew Scriptures. Now he would expound the historical books. For his commentary on the Octateuch, he adopted the format of question and answer. This device allowed the expositor to focus attention on particularly challenging passages that could give rise to misunderstanding. Long experience had taught him that "careless reading of holy Scripture is the cause of error among ordinary people." Intimately acquainted with every detail of the text, well-informed about contemporary Judaism, and steeped in the works of previous interpreters, he makes his way through a massive body of text with concision, a sure sense for the significant and the controversial, and a thoughtful moderation respectful of the accomplishments of Alexandrian, as well as Antiochene, biblical scholarship.
THE LIBRARY OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY
The Library of Early Christianity will be a permanent enterprise that publishes one new volume approximately every other year.
The Library will publish texts in the original ancient languages of both East and West--Greek, Latin, Arabic, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Georgian--accompanied by contemporary English translations printed on the facing pages. In order to make the texts more accessible to the nonspecialist and to aid readers in comprehending the thought of the influential thinkers of the early church, each volume will include an introduction, notes, and a bibliography.
Editorial Director John F. Petruccione is associate professor in the Department of Greek and Latin at the Catholic University of America.
"synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title.
About the Author
ABOUT THE TRANSLATOR
+Robert C. Hill translated the Greek text for both volumes and wrote the introduction and commentary. A founder and honorary fellow of the Australian Catholic University's Centre for Early Christian Studies, Hill was a distinguished biblical scholar best known for his prodigious talent as a translator of patristic biblical commentaries on the Old Testament. Nearly 30 volumes of his translations have been published, many of them in the Fathers of the Church series. In recognition of this work in 2003 he was awarded the papal cross Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice by Pope John Paul II.
ABOUT THE EDITORIAL DIRECTOR:
John F. Petruccione, editorial director of the Library of Early Christianity series, is associate professor in the Department of Greek and Latin at the Catholic University of America.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
The Questions on the Octateuch
VOLUME 2 On Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and RuthBy Theodoret of CyrusThe Catholic University of America Press
Copyright © 2007 The Catholic University of America PressAll right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8132-1500-6
Contents
Abbreviations................................................................................viiBibliography.................................................................................xvConspectus siglorum..........................................................................xxv1. The Manuscripts and Their Contents........................................................xxv2. Signs and Abbreviations Used in the Greek Text and the Critical Notes.....................xxxiTHE QUESTIONS ON THE OCTATEUCHThe Questions on Leviticus...................................................................2The Questions on Numbers.....................................................................86The Questions on Deuteronomy.................................................................170The Questions on Joshua......................................................................260The Questions on Judges......................................................................308The Questions on Ruth........................................................................362Index scripturisticus........................................................................379General Index................................................................................399Index of Modern Authors......................................................................429
Chapter One
ON LEVITICUS
I
Why did God command the offering of sacrifices?
(1) I have already said much about sacrifice in my writings against the Greeks and the heretics, and, especially in my work against the Persian magi, as well as in my expositions of the Old Testament prophets, and in my commentaries on the epistles of the apostle. Nevertheless, I shall provide a brief treatment of this subject here as well.
I suppose not even a fool would deny that God is without need. Indeed, through the majority of the Old Testament prophets, he taught that he does not approve of these sacrifices. Since, however, the people in their long sojourn in Egypt had learned to sacrifice to demons, he allowed the sacrifices so that they might be freed from superstition. Proof of their delight in sacrifice appears in the episode of the calf. He indicated this also through the prophet Ezekiel: "I saw you sullied with your blood and said to you, 'There is life in your blood; increase'" -his meaning being, "I observed you rejoicing in the blood of the sacrifices and allowed you to enjoy the object of your desire."
Furthermore, by permitting sacrifice, he devised yet another means of safeguarding them from evil, for he enjoined the offering of animals that the Egyptians considered gods: of the quadrupeds, the calf, goat, and sheep; of the birds, the turtle-dove and young pigeons. As we are well aware, the Egyptians deified many other animals as well. Of those deified he assigned the tamest to sacrifice and declared the others unclean, his purpose being to prevent them from deifying those they abhorred as unclean and from taking as gods those they sacrificed, so that they would adore only the one to whom they sacrificed the animals. Now, because some were affluent while others were living in poverty, he bade the former offer a calf, a lamb, or a goat, the latter two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, and the poorest a little fine flour mixed with oil. As you can see, he required offerings commensurate with one's wealth.
(2) He called some sacrifices "gifts" because not imposed as a legal obligation but offered in a spirit of devotion, and others "sacrifices of salvation," a name suggesting liberation from sickness or some other affliction. Sacrifices were also offered for sins, error, and ignorance. "Sin" suggests deliberate transgression of a law, "error" the offense that arises from force of circumstance-for instance, unwittingly approaching a leper, a corpse, or a person suffering a discharge-while "ignorance" has an obvious explanation, since not everyone knew all the laws. They learned of the sins of the soul from nature but needed the instruction of teachers regarding those that applied only to the Jews.
In some sacrifices the victim was burned entire, in others only small parts of the victim: the membrane enclosing the belly, the kidneys, the fat on top of them, and the lobe of the liver. I have explained elsewhere the symbolism of each of these. The sacrifice for sin was offered without oil and incense, for those seated in the darkness of sin have no nurturing light, and those who ought to groan no joy-As the prophet says, oil makes the face joyful-and those who have not yet cast off the stench of wickedness no pleasant fragrance.
(3) Yet, as the holy apostle declared that "the Law contained the shadow of things to come, not the true form of the realities," and those under the Law served a shadowy sketch of the heavenly things, I do not think I am out of order in remarking that those who offer themselves to God resemble the various animal victims. Those embracing a life free of possessions and worries devote themselves wholly to the God of the universe and turn themselves into holocausts and whole victims; they put aside nothing for this life but transfer everything to the life eternal. Those who are inferior to these apportion some of their possessions to the altar, others to the priests, and the rest to their own bodily needs. Some offer the gentleness of sheep; others, in the manner of obedient calves, gladly bear the easy yoke of the Lord; still others following the apostolic law, "Your abundance meeting their need," imitate goats and, from their budgetary surplus, provide milk, as it were, for the poor. Some offer the continence of the turtle-doves and, like doves, shun the yoke of a second marriage; others adorn their mind with simplicity and innocence in imitation of young pigeons, who live in innocence and have not tasted intercourse. Note, he required the sacrifice, not of mature pigeons, since this creature is avid for mating, but of the young. The patriarch did not divide the winged creatures, nor did the lawgiver order their division; those with winged mind love God with their whole heart and do not divide it between earth and heaven but direct all of it upwards.
(4) If we follow this line of interpretation, we shall find that the law regarding sacrifices is appropriate to the weakness of the Jews, and that such legislation is not irrelevant even to evangelical perfection. This is how the divinely inspired Paul taught us to understand these passages. After citing the law which forbids the muzzling of oxen that tread the grain, he went on, "Is God really concerned about the oxen? Or does he speak entirely for our sake? Indeed, it was written for our sake, since the ploughman should plough in hope, and the thresher should thresh in hope of partaking in his hope." The materialistic and superficial in the Law is relevant to the Jews, the spiritual to those who have embraced the evangelical way of life.
Now, we should note that the whole burnt offerings were male, perfection belonging to men, whereas the offerings for sin were female, since the passions take over when our controlling intellect is weak. We should also point out that it was not lambs but goats that were offered for sin; Christ the Lord referred to this in the sacred Gospels when he likened the righteous to lambs but sinners to kids.
Even birds were offered in holocausts, since a life of perfection and wisdom is possible also for the poor. As neither the pelt nor the dung of the four-footed animals was offered to God, so the crop and feathers of the birds were thrown out far away from the camp-and not just anywhere but in a clean place where the ashes from the altar were also dumped. Now, for "crop" Theodotion put "gullet" and Aquila "feeder." It receives the food and conveys it to the rest of the body; hence, the Septuagint calls it "crop" [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] as it takes in [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] the food.
We should also point out that the offering of fine grain, the pan-baked loaves, the hearth-baked loaves, and the cakes from the frying pan were also termed a "sacrifice" to console the poor so they would not be upset at their lack of stock.
We should also point out that he used the term "man" of the one offering an animal: "If a man among you offers a gift to the Lord, he shall offer from the cattle, from the oxen, or from the sheep." On the other hand, he referred as "soul" to the one who offered the fine flour, "If a soul makes a gift of a sacrifice to the Lord, his gift will be of fine flour." It is the rational being that offers the irrational beast, the animate soul that offers the inanimate object.
(5 He forbade the offering of leavened bread for the reason I have already given, namely that they should retain nothing of the Egyptian way of life. He also forbade the offering of honey on the altar. Some commentators have claimed that this is because bees rest even on unclean places and gather material to make honey from anywhere at all. But others have said that this teaches us to offer sacrifices from the products of our own hard work in keeping with the exhortation of Solomon, which goes, "Honor the Lord from your righteous labors and give him the first-fruits of your righteousness." According to this argument, honey is the produce of the bees, not of our own work. But this explanation overlooks an important point; after all, honey-making is a human labor. Some are engaged in the cultivation of the earth, others in the tending of sheep, others in commerce, others in honey-making. So my view is that in the case of the leaven there is an obscure reference to ancient wickedness, and in the case of the honey, a prohibition of pleasure. Furthermore, he commanded that the first-fruits, even of leaven and honey, be offered to the priests, since they offer intercession for our sins. As he said of them through the prophet, "They will feed on the sins of my people."
He ordered that salt be thrown on the victims, in this signifying the soul's faculty of discernment. Cain's sacrifice had no salt; hence, he heard from the God of the universe: "[Have you] not [sinned] if you sacrifice correctly, but divide incorrectly?" And the holy apostle stated the law in these words: "Let your speech always be seasoned with salt"; and the Lord said to the apostles, "You are the salt of the earth. If the salt lose its taste, how can its saltiness be restored?"
(6 He commanded that all victims be without fault or blemish, different though they be and offered in different ways. Thus, he instructs people in every walk of life to keep free of fault: those embracing virginity to live according to its norms, those choosing the yoke of marriage to avoid impairing the conjugal bond in their intercourse, and those opting for the ascetical life to observe the norms of perfection-in a word, that people of wealth, people of poverty, people in servitude, people in power live an unblemished and unstained life in whatever position they have been stationed.
Of the things sacrificed, except the holocausts, a part was offered on the altar, and part was given to the priests; hence, the holy apostle said that they had a share at the altar. The part of the meat left over was devoted to the use of those who made the offering. They placed on top of the holocausts the partial offerings, such as the kidneys, the fat, and the lobe of the liver, and the loins of some victims-or, as the other translators say, "the tail"-since we who are imperfect depend on the intercession of those who are perfect in virtue and offer our prayers through them. On the victim the offerer placed his hands-his actions, as it were, since hands are suggestive of actions, and he was making the sacrifice on account of his actions. He bade them abstain from blood and fat and prescribed that both be offered on the altar, the former being the source of life, the latter indicative of virtue, and both very properly dedicated to God.
He commanded that if the high priest broke any law, he was to sacrifice an unblemished calf and offer on the altar the parts we have just mentioned but burn the meat, skin, and excrement outside the camp. This indicates that sin is foreign to the sacred precincts. He legislated that an equivalent sacrifice be offered whenever the whole people were guilty of such a transgression, his purpose being to bring out the dignity of the priesthood, which he had made of importance equal to the people as a whole. He proclaimed that when the ruler broke a law, he should offer, not a calf, but a he-goat, that is, a yearling goat-so far removed from the dignity of the high priest is the ruler entrusted with worldly governance. On the other hand, he ordered the sacrifice of a female goat when the offender is not a priest or a ruler, since the male is fitting for the ruler, and the female for the ruled, as we have already remarked.
(7) Whoever had touched any unclean forbidden thing, or heard someone take an oath and failed to censure him when he broke that oath, or himself promised to do something or offer something to God and failed to put his word into effect, although he had con- firmed it with an oath, was commanded first to confess his sin and then to offer a lamb or a she-goat in appeasement of God. The poor man was commanded to offer two turtle-doves or two young pigeons; but if he lacked even these, he was to bring a small portion of fine flour without oil or incense, for oil is indicative of joy and incense of sweet odor, but sin has no trace of either. Now, it was very fitting that he should link touching something unclean and concealing the sin of one who took a false oath; the clean person is defiled by touching what is unclean, and the person who did not swear an oath shares the sin of the oath-breaker by not denouncing the perjury. We ought to admire the kindliness of the Lord, who healed with a slight fine, rather than punishing as an ingrate or perjurer, the person who promised to make an offering and then failed to fulfil his promise, although he had confirmed it with an oath.
II
What is the meaning of "If someone is truly unaware and sins unwittingly in any of the holy things of the Lord"?
It often happened that busy people did not offer in due time something consecrated to God, like the firstborn, first-fruits, or something they had vowed. So he subjected anyone guilty of this inadvertence to a heavier loss. He commanded him first to pay his debt to God and to add a fifth to the amount due; next, for his inadvertence, to offer in sacrifice a ram worth fifty shekels and only then receive forgiveness for his sin.
Requiring this and similar things of involuntary sinners, he commanded the deliberate sinners, those who had taken a deposit and broken their pledge or committed an injustice and aggravated the sin with a false oath, first to restore to the wronged whatever they had taken illegally and to add a fifth to the sum; then to offer a ram and thus appease God. This is what the blessed Zacchaeus did. First, he made fourfold restitution of what he had wrongfully taken and then, apportioned a half of his possessions to the poor.
III
Why did he prescribe that the priest's sacrifice be burned entire?
To teach the priest to be perfect and to devote himself, not partially, but entirely, to the God of the universe.
IV
Why did they slay the sacrifices for sin in the same place they slew those for holocausts?
As encouragement to the offerers, so they would know that they were not forbidden access to the holy when they were being healed through repentance. Hence, he called these sacrifices "most holy."
V
What is the meaning of "Whoever touches its meat will be sanctified"?
This teaches them reverence, bids them take part in divine service with respect, and requires them to stand at a distance from the sacred sacrifices. It prescribes that the one who presumes to approach and then is spattered with blood serve in the temple as someone no longer his own master; though by "serving" I mean not the celebration of sacred rites but the performance of some other duty. Hence, he also commands the washing of garments spattered with drops of that blood, the careful scouring of bronze vessels, and the smashing of the earthenware.
VI
Why did he forbid the consumption of the sacrificial flesh after three days and impose a penalty for transgression of the law by declaring the sacrifice invalid?
So they would not feast alone but share the meat with the needy. Therefore, he commanded them to partake of the meat on the first and second days but burn the leftovers, so that, under pressure of this obligation, they would invite the poor to share in the feast.
VII
Why did he forbid a share of the sacrificial meat to anyone who had touched someone suffering a discharge, a leper, an animal carcass, or anything else declared unclean?
He used these slight ailments to cure the serious. If in the eyes of the Law natural things cause defilement, this is much more the case with matters of intention, which are properly referred to as "transgressions." The following verses confirm the truth of this. After commanding that all fat be offered on the altar, he allotted to human usage the fat from animals that had died or been killed by others. Yet as he declared all such things unclean, anyone touching one of these was also unclean. We gather from this passage as well that he legislates some things through others.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from The Questions on the Octateuchby Theodoret of Cyrus Copyright © 2007 by The Catholic University of America Press. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
"About this title" may belong to another edition of this title.
