Diodore the Theologian: Πρόνοια in his Commentary on Psalms 1–50 by Benjamin Wayman (review)

In Diodore the Theologian, Benjamin Wayman explores the theology of divine providence (πρόνοια) in Diodore of Tarsus’s (d. 394 c.e.) Commentary on Psalms 1–50. Wayman’s overarching goal is to rehabilitate Diodore and the Psalms Commentary in particular for modern theological reflection, by underlining the prominent role of divine providence—and so of sophisticated, Christian reflection on salvation-history—in Diodore’s reading of the Psalms. More specifically, Wayman argues that “the nature of God’s πρόνοια is for Diodore the main doctrinal question posted by the Psalter, to which his exegesis of the Psalms provides the answer . . . A view of πρόνοια that I describe as cooperative in that it preserves divine and human agency in the created order, reciprocal in that its specific benefits are contingent upon human action, and immanent in that God’s care can be observed and expected in the events and affairs of history” (2, author’s emphasis). This view of providence led Diodore to read the Psalms carefully with respect to both a “historical” or “literal” sense and a deeper, “spiritual” sense, rather than with recourse to allegory (3). In other words, “πρόνοια constitutes what Diodore regards as the meaning both of the ἱστορία (the narrative meaning) and of the θεωρία (the spiritual or Christian meaning)” (12).

Chapter One surveys scholarship on the Psalms Commentary, ably demonstrating that modern readers of Diodore have myopically focused on the categories of θεωρία and the “grammatical-rhetorical character” of the “Antiochene School” of exegesis in order to make sense of Diodore’s hermeneutical strategies, to their own detriment; rather, Diodore himself opens the Commentary by stating that his concern is to discuss πρόνοια. Chapter Two surveys evidence regarding πρόνοια in ancient philosophical sources, reviewing Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, and Epicurean doctrines. In Chapter Three, Wayman situates Diodore in the context of Christian ecclesiastical and Hellenic philosophical discourse about πρόνοια, providing brief overviews of ideas about providence in Philo, Didymus the Blind, Bardaisan, Eusebius of Emesa, and Nemesius of Emesa. Chapter Four tackles how Diodore uses the language of πρόνοια to explicate the inspired nature of the Psalms; Chapter Five, the Psalms’ “moral” nature; and Chapter Six, their “historical” nature. Wayman terms these the “cooperative, reciprocal, and immanent” senses of πρόνοια in Diodore’s commentary, wherein God inspires the Psalms for both David and his modern readers, assists individual beings who freely choose to cooperate with Him, and has laid out in the Psalms, via David, a historical account of Israelite history and human salvation-history alike.

Wayman’s study is convincing and enlightening. The early move (17) of tackling Diodore’s exegesis with reference to fourth-century philosophical and ecclesiastical contexts, rather than fifth-century Christological controversies, is quickly proven to be a wise one. Conversely, Wayman’s framing of the investigation as a response to modern readings that attempt to shoehorn Diodore as a grammarian slavishly devoted to caricatures of ἱστορία and θεωρία succeeds in justifying the greater enterprise. The book’s focus on the activity of πρόνοια in the enterprise of prophetic inspiration and literary production is thus an ingenious way to cull a greater Christian salvific-historical message from a commentary that is, as Wayman admits, hardly dedicated to Christology, and, ultimately, to exonerate Diodore from some of his modern criticisms (see esp. 242–43). The argument is clearly structured, presented, and argued, if written in a somewhat pedantic manner (116–18, for instance, is nothing but signposting). Typos are uncommon and usually not howlers.

The book’s weaknesses are apparent, but not crippling. Above all, Wayman indeed leans heavily on secondary literature. In general, primary sources other than Diodore’s Commentary are not engaged directly. A good example is the treatment of von Arnim’s 1924 apparatus of Stoic fragments (SVF), which is referred to as “a key source for ancient Stoic teachings,” opening its possible misconstrual as an ancient source rather than a modern collection. The matter is exacerbated insofar as Wayman gives block quotes of Dragona-Monachou’s (handy) summaries of SVF’s...