Commentary on the Letters of Saint Paul (review)

These two volumes, now rendered into English for the first time by the well known translator of Antiochene texts, Robert Charles Hill, are a welcome addition to any library. Evidently following the lead of Theodoret himself in order to "encourage those prone to easy ways to do some reading" (1, 36), Hill offers texts equally accessible to the layperson and the scholar. The Greek original employed for this translation comes from PG 82, which Hill argues is "generally reliable" (1, 5) because unlike Theodoret's Commentary on the Psalms, it rests on a rather straightforward tradition. Theodoret's Greek is itself very genial, and English readers with only rudimentary Greek skills will find a parallel reading of the Commentary a worthwhile endeavor. In fact, the Commentary would be an excellent pedagogical tool for the seminarian or graduate student who might want to gain a better understanding of patristic Greek, Antiochene exegesis and hermeneutics, and a christology conceptualized as intensely incarnational.

In his helpful introduction Hill focuses on a number of issues which he deems significant for understanding Theodoret's methodology and his views about commenting on Saint Paul's writings. Two instances are worth noting. First, the translator is quick to point out that Theodoret is not doing what moderns and postmoderns strictly consider exegetical work. Rather, he is fulfilling the role of a "desk theologian" or "desk commentator"—terms Hill uses throughout his introduction to capture the bishop's concerns for basic and intermediate instruction on the texts themselves. Ultimately, Theodoret is anxious to be "concise" and to do this "by the virtue of akribeia, precision both in biblical author and in commentator" (1, 14). Obviously Theodoret is not a rigorist in the sense of using an historical-critical exegetical methodology, nor is he concerned with a psychological or socio-political interpretive approach. Because Theodoret is not "doing" exegesis in a modern way, Hill's phraseology accurately captures the bishop's intent and merits further consideration.

Secondly, Hill places significant emphasis on what he believes is the bishop's theology (hermeneutic?) of spiritual egalitarianism. Twice the translator speaks about Theodoret's aversion to notions of spiritual supremacy held over the heads of lay Christians by the clergy. In the first instance Hill seems to suggest that this aversion is a certain principle in the bishop's theology (1, 3; 1, 20); in the second, the point is only implied (1, 6). Though Hill sees spiritual egalitarianism as an important aspect of Theodoret's thought, the significance of this idea in Theodoret's own mind is a bit more debatable. There were numerous opportunities for the bishop to argue or infer such a position by using the letters of the "Apostle to the Gentiles," but he seems not to have done so (cf. Eph. 2.25; 1 Tim. 3.1ff; 5.17). In fact, Theodoret appears neither concerned nor unconcerned about the topic. He certainly regards the offices of episkopos and presbyteros as matters of first importance but not the question of clerical effectiveness in things spiritual. In fact, it is almost as though this particular issue never enters his mind. Nonetheless, Hill has raised an important question which deserves reflection.

Hill does a fine job in rendering Theodoret's Greek. For instance, in Rom. 5.30 Theodoret plunges headlong into an argument in which he zealously tries to protect God's goodness and humanity's free will, all of which could be construed as rather confusing in the original. Nevertheless, Hill works it out masterfully despite the fact that he sees Theodoret as completely at odds with any sort of non-Antiochene soteriology. This fact, according to Hill, enables Theodoret to make occasional statements that "would give heart to the Pelagians"(1, 22). In regard to this point it might...