Page 321

Page 321

321 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Theodore of Andida Theodore of Mogsnestia

Epistles. The authenticity of the unprinted fragments is by no means certain, and what actually comes from Theodore was not necessarily derived from a commentary on the book to which the catena refers. Thus some genuine fragments from Canticles may have descended from a letter; but that they were taken from a commentary is improbable, for Theodore regarded Canticles as a profane love-Song and, therefore, esteemed it of little value (Leontius iii. 16). He certainly did not comment on the Catholic Epistles (ib., p. 1365) and that he wrote a commentary on Mark is not probable , in view of the list of Ebed Jesus and his own references exclusively to the interpretations of the other Gospels. The fragment of De interpretntione symboli 318 Patrum (MPG, lxvi. 1016; Swete, ii. 327) and the symbol of Theodore (MPG, lxvi. 1016-1020; Swete, ii. 327-332) may without hesitation be referred to the work De fide. Only three printed fragments remain unassigned to the works mentioned by Ebed Jesu; namely, the hymn (E. Sachau, p. 58), the Liturgic Theodori (E. Renaudot, Liturgiarum orientalium collectio, ii. 616-621, Rome, 1716), and the citation from a work " On the Miracles " (MPG, lxvi. 1004; Swete, ii. 339). The hymn is from Ephraem; the citation may not be genuine; and the liturgy, though accepted by Leontius (iii. 19) and Swete as genuine on account of language and thought, yet may be of Nestorian origin and merely referred to Theodore even as early as the time of Leontius.

Theodore was the classical representative of the school of Antioch. For his christology see NESTORIUS; for Nestorius represented the same ideas, and, apart from the incipient antagonism to the

theotokos (" mother of God "), more Signifi- prudently than Theodore. The exe-

cance. getical method of the Antiochians,

however, is best represented by Theodore, although his most important hermeneutical work is lost (Adversus allegoricos). Photius states of him that " avoiding the tendency of allegory, he made his interpretation according to history " (codex 38; MPG, ciii. 72); and this statement is corroborated by theoretical discussions on the part of Theodore himself (Swete, i. 73 sqq.). The Old Testament he treated in the way which he assumed Paul followed; not by discarding its history, but by setting forth the resemblance of this to NewTestament materials in order to make it profitable for the present. He recognizes few direct messianic prophecies. The prophets and psalms are first explained with reference to their own times; but, convinced of the preparatory nature of the OldTestament economy, he frequently asserts that what was reported in the Old first reached its full meaning in the New. The complaint of Leontius (iii. 15) that Theodore rejected the superscriptions to the Psalms, in historical interest, is scarcely exaggerated. His depreciation of Canticles as a profane love-song (MPG, lxvi. 699-700) was due to his aversion to allegorizing; and his inability to appreciate the poesy of Job, to his prosaic historic interest (Leontius, xiii. 1365). His attitude to the canon did not exclude the relative value of books (cf. MPG, lvi. 697); it is probable that he rejected 1L-21

Esther and the Apocrypha (Kihn, § 54, pp. 64 65), but scarcely credible that he excluded Chron icles, Ezra with Nehemiah (Leontius, xvii. 1368), and that he rejected from the canon Canticles and Job (iii. 16, xiii. 1365) is improbable from the fact that he wrote a commentary on Job. Theodore appears to have had the ancient Syrian canon, which contained only the Gospels, the Acts, and the Pauline Epistles (see CANON OF SCRIPTURE IT., §_6). The high recognition of Theodore did not long con tinue undiminished after his death, although he had enthusiastic adherents even after the condem nation of Nestorius, wherever the Antiochian tradition prevailed, and his repute as exegete had not wholly subsided in the orthodox Church of the succeeding century, as proved by Photius and the catenae. Soon after the Council of Ephesus (431), which condemned his creed without mention or censure of him, he was included in the condemna tions of Nestorius. Independently of each other Marius Mercator, stirred by Theodore's attitude toward the Pelagian controversy, and Rabulas of Edessa, the apostate of the Antiochians, opened the attack. The latter called the attention of Cyril of Alexandria to the charge that Theodore was the father of the Nestorian heresy. Indeed Cyril had before 435 contracted ill-feeling toward Theodore, as is shown by his letters lxvii: Ixviii., lxxi: lxxii. (MPG, Ixxvii. 351 sqq.); further, he wrote Ad versus Diodarum et Theodorum, of which a few fragments are preserved (Liberatus, Breviartum, x., MPL, Ixviii. 991; cf. MPG, lxxvi. 1437-1452). The name of Theodore was henceforth involved in the partisan strife of the period, resulting in the final tragical transaction instigated by the polemics of the Scythian monks (Maxentius, MPG, lxxxvi. 85; Leontius iii. 7 sqq., MPG, lxxxvi. 1364 sqq.); Justinian condemned with the Three Chapters (see THREE CHAPTER CONTROVERSY) the person and writings of Theodore, and in spite of the resistance of the West pressed this anathema through the council of 553. (F. LOOF6.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The moat complete collection of the "works " of Theodore is is MPG, Lrvi. 1-1020, derived from the earliest of the following named works: Fragments patrum Grv;corum, ed. F. Miinter, vol. i., Copenhagen, 1788; Scriplorum veterum nova collectio, ed. A. Mai, vols. i., vi., vii., Rome, 1825-35, and the same author's Nova patrum btbliotheca, vol. vii., ib. 1854; Theodori Antiochesi, Mopauestina episcopi quce supersunt, ed. A. F. V. von wegnern, vol. i., Berlin, 1834; Theodore episcopi Mopsuestini in Novum Testamentum, ed. O. F. Fritzsehe, Zurich, 1847, the same scholar's ed. of the De incarnatione Filii Dei, ib. 1847 18; J. B. Pitra, SpiciZegium Solesmense, vol. i., Paris. 1852; Theodori . . eommentarii nuper detecti, ed. J. L. Jacobi, Halle, 1855-58; P. de Lagarde, AnaZecta Syriaca, Leipaie,.1858; Theodori Mopsuestini Jragmenta Syriaca . . . ed. . . . E. Saehau, ib. 1869; Theodori in epistolas . . Pauli commentarii, ed. H. B. Swete, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1880-82; F. Baethgen, in ZATW, 1885, pp. 53-101; his commentary on John, ed. J. B: Chabot, Paris, 1897; Prologue to a possible commentary on Acts by E. von Dobschiitz, in AJT, ii (1898), 353-387; J. Lietzmann, in SBA, 1902, pp. 334-344; G. Dittrich, ZATW, Beihefte; vi (1902).

On the life early accounts are: Chrysostom, Epiat. ad Theodorum lapsum; Theodoret, Hiat. eccl., V., zxxix.; Socrates, Hist. eecl., VL, iii.; Gennadius, De vir. ill., xii., Eng. transl. in NPNF, 2 ser., iii. 338. Consult further: DCB, iv. 934-948 (minute, searching, and comprehensive); Leo Allatius, in MPG, lxvi. 77-104; Tillemont,

M&wirea, xi., zii. 433-453, 673-674; Fabricius-Hades,