Gnat or Apostolic Bee: A Translation and Commentary on Theodoret's Commentary on Jonah

242 Pages·2015·1.58 MB·English

by  Jeanne Marie Heisler

Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2006
Gnat or Apostolic Bee: A Translation and
Commentary on Theodoret's Commentary
on Jonah
Jeanne M. Heisler
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

GNAT OR APOSTOLIC BEE: A TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY ON
THEODORET’S COMMENTARY ON JONAH

By

JEANNE M. HEISLER

A Dissertation submitted to the
Department of Religion
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester, 2006

Copyright© 2006
Jeanne M. Heisler
All Rights Reserved
The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of the student’s name defended
on June 20, 2006

________________________
David Levenson
Professor Directing Dissertation

_________________________
Svetla Slaveva-Griffin
Outside Committee Member

__________________________
Nicole Kelley
Committee Member

Approved:
__________________________

John Kelsay, Chair, Department of Religion

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee
members.
ii
Dedicated to the blessed Theodoret, who should be a saint!
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations v
List of Tables vi
Abstract viii

INTRODUCTION 1

1. THEODORET’S COMMENTARY ON JONAH: TRANSLATION 33

2. COMMENTARY ON THE PREFACE, LINES 1-74 83

3. COMMENTARY ON LINES 75-212 91

4. COMMENTARY ON LINES 213-285 123

5. COMMENTARY ON LINES 286-361 153

6. COMMENTARY ON LINES 362-440 179

CONCLUSION 204

APPENDIX A: INDEX OF THEODORET’S BIBLICAL CITATIONS 212

APPENDIX B: INDEX OF RABBINIC REFERENCES TO JONAH 215

BIBLIOGRAPHY 219

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 232
iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Lampe Lampe, G.W.H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1961.

LSJ Liddell, Henry George and Scott, Robert. A Greek English Lexicon.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996

NPNF1 The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. Series 1. Edited by Phillip Schaff.
1886-1889. Repr. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1994.

NPNF2 The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. Series 2. Edited by Phillip Schaff.
1886-1889. Repr. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1994.

PG Patrologia Graeca, ed. J.P. Migne (Paris, 1847-1886)

TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae
v
LIST OF TABLES

3:1 Jonah’s Identity 92
3:2 Nineveh’s Wickedness 94
3:3 Jonah’s Flight 97
3:4 Location of Tharsis 99
3:5 Jonah’s Fare 101
3:6 The Storm 103
3:7 The Reaction of the Sailors 105
3:8 Jonah’s Reaction 107
3:9 The Captain’s Actions 108
3:10 Jonah’s Judgment 110
3:11 Jonah’s Interrogation 111
3:12 Jonah as Servant of God 113
3:13 Jonah’s Reflections on his Attempted Flight 114
3:14 Jonah’s Death Sentence 116
3:15 The Hesitance of the Sailors 118
3:16 God’s Will 119
3:17 The Sailors’ Sacrifice 121
4:1 God’s Command 125
4:2 Number of Fish 127
4:3 Description of the Whale’s Interior 129
4:4 God’s Will as Mystery 131
4:5 The Meaning of Three Days 133
4:6 Type of Death 135
4:7 Description of the Storm 137
4:8 God’s Presence 139
4:9 Reed Sea or the End 140
4:10 Desperation, Seaweed, or Mountains 143
4:11 Description of Jonah’s Prayer 145
4:12 Forsaken Mercy 147
4:13 Jonah’s Sacrifice 149
4:14 Jonah’s Release 151
5:1 Jonah’s Second Message for Nineveh 155
5:2 Nineveh’s Greatness 157
5:3 The Speed of Jonah’s Preaching 158
5:4 Three Days or Forty Days 160
5:5 Nineveh’s Perception of Jonah 162
5:6 The Great and the Small 164
5:7 The Humility of the King 166
5:8 The Fast of the Animals 169
5:9 The Fast of the Ninevites 173
5:10 God’s Repentance 176
6:1 Jonah’s Grief and Death Wish 181
6:2 The Extent of Jonah’s Grief 184
vi
6:3 Correct Sequence of Events 187
6:4 Jonah’s Plant 189
6:5 The Appearance of the Worm 191
6:6 The Severity of the Wind and Jonah’s Second Death Wish 193
6:7 Jonah’s Anger 194
6:8 The Explanation of Right and Left 198
6:9 Identity of Flocks 199
6:10 Conclusion of Commentary 201
vii
ABSTRACT

This dissertation will translate and comment upon one of Theodoret’s previously
untranslated works, Commentary on Jonah.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, a key player in the political and theological controversies
between Alexandria and Antioch in the fifth-century CE, produced massive amounts of
literature. Although his exegetical works are concise, they reflect a plethora of traditions.
After providing a complete translation of Commentary on Jonah with critical
notes, the subsequent portions of this dissertation will address how Theodoret works as a
compiler of exegetical traditions. Each chapter will compare Theodoret’s understanding
of Jonah with other Christian and Jewish exegetical works which contain traditions about
Jonah, in the effort to isolate Theodoret’s original contributions and create a portfolio of
his sources. The Christian authors who will be compared with Theodoret are Theodore of
Mopsuestia, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Ephrem the Syrian, and
Hesychius of Jerusalem. The Jewish works for comparison with Theodoret include the
Mishnah, the Jerusalem Talmud, the Babylonian Talmud, midrashim, Pseudo Philo’s
Homily on Jonah, and Targum Jonathan.
As the conclusion of this dissertation will show, Theodoret refers to two
individuals as a source more than others, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of
Alexandria. This pattern of compilation is significant, especially when understood within
the context of the Christological controversy. It appears that Theodoret may be using his
exegetical works, such as Commentary on Jonah, to moderate the two opposing sides
represented by Theodore and Cyril. By responding to the overly literal approach of
Theodore and incorporating some of the style and vocabulary of Cyril, Theodoret
rehabilitates his own image in the eyes of Alexandria.
The conclusion of this dissertation will also present Theodoret’s original
contributions to the understanding of Jonah which he weaves in with his source material.
Although he has described himself as gnat, lowly in comparison to the apostolic bees
which have written before him, Theodoret’s work deserves attention. His ability to
assemble the materials of his predecessors into a clear and concise commentary, with the
viii
purpose of rehabilitating himself in the turmoil of ecclesiastical controversy, earns him a
place among the apostolic bees he revered
ix