Didymus on Protagoras and the Protagoreans

Didymus on Protagoras and the Protagoreans PAUL WOODRUFF "I'EsT[MONYABOUTPROTAGORAS,together with a possible fragment, has been buried in a commentary on the psalms attributed to Didymus the Blind. The passage was published by Gronewald in 1968, and the fragment was usefully discussed by Mejer in 1972 and by Mansfeld in 1979.' But no one has yet treated the context as a whole or appreciated the way in which the passage combines quotation or paraphrase with testimony and interpretation. Something is to be learned about Protagoras from this, and something too about the transmission of evidence within and across philosophical traditions. The Source. The first part of a commentary on the psalms (the Tura papyrus, discovered in 1941 ) was published by Aloys Kehl in x964 and attributed by him tentatively to Didymus the Blind (c, 3m-395 A.D.), the last great Alexandrian teacher in the allegorizing tradition of Origen. A later section of the commentary, containing our evidence for Protagoras, was published later by M. Gronewald. ~ In his discussion of the authorship of the work, Kehl explains slight differences in style between the papyrus and other surviving works of Didymus on the hypothesis that the papyrus represents an unrevised transcription of Didymus' lectures on the psalms. In material ways, he argues, the commentary is consistent with Didymus' other works. Like them, the commentary is philosophically eclectic, drawing on Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic doctrines. I. M. Gronewald, "Ein neues Protagoras-Fragment," Zeitschri/-t/~irPapyrologie und Epigraphik '-' (1968): 1-2. JCrgen Mejer, "The Alleged New Fragment of Protagoras," Hermes loo (1972): 175-78; repr. in Carl Joachim Classen, ed., Sophistic (Darmstadt, 1976), 3o6-1 i. Jaap MansR '[d, "Protagoras on Epistemological Obstacles and Persons," in G. B. Kerferd, ed., The Sophists aml Their Legacy, Hermes Einzelschriflen 44, (Wiesbaden, 198 l), 33-53, esp. 51-53. ~, Aloys Kehl, Der Psalmenkommentar yon Tura (Pap. Colon. Theol. i) (K61n, 1964). Fox"the auribution to Didymus, see especially 43-47. M. Gronewald, Didymus der Blinde: Psalmenkommentar ~Tura-Papyrus) Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen, Band 8 (Bonn, 1969). [483] 484 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY ~3:4 OCTOBER 1985 The attribution to fourth-century Alexandria is secure; the attribution to Didymus is a likely hypothesis. For our purposes, that is good enough. I shall assume that the author of the commentary is Didymus, but I shall say nothing about him save what can safely be inferred from the commentary itself. Didymus' work contains frequent references to a variety of Greek philosophers ; but evidence of filtering through Hellenistic sources implies that his knowledge must have been indirect. The source that taught him about Protagoras was probably the same one that gave him a possible fragment of the sophist Prodicus. In each case, the source betrays a Hellenistic interest in the dogmatism of the Sophist he quotes. 3A survey of Didymus' references to ancient philosophy shows that his acquaintance with the subject was broad; but it does not justify much confidence in his sources. He frequently cites Aristotle or makes use of Aristotelian distinctions, but he often employs Hellenistic or patristic vocabulary in what purports to be quotation. He knew indirectly, in addition to Aristotle, something of Plato's Symposium, and was informed in some way on Stoic doctrine and on the writings of Sextus Empiricus. The thesis of this paper is that a grain of truth survived these many distortions and transmissions. To show what this is, and how it can be defended , I must turn directly to the text and its interpretation. Afterwards I shall return to the question of authenticity and to the reconstruction of the relevant part of Protagoras' doctrine. Text and working translation. In the context of sin and salvation, and of the difference between original and acquired sin, Didymus has been considering the question of whether the same person can be both just and unjust. If the person is said by some to be just and by others to be unjust, then (says Didymus) Protagoras' followers would not agree that the person is both just and unjust. Instead, they would declare the matter non-evident (&~l~.ov). I have numbered the sentences for convenience: 4 Text rdg 86~ctv~'r~0ctvo~ neO~Ho...