Commentary on Genesis
Overview
Blind since early childhood, the Egyptian theologian and monk Didymus (ca. 313–398) wielded a masterful knowledge of Scripture, philosophy, and previous biblical interpretation, earning the esteem of his contemporaries Athanasius, Antony of Egypt, Jerome, Rufinus, and Palladius, as well as of the historians Socrates and Theodoret in the decades following his death. He was, however, anathematized by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 because of his utilization and defense of the works of Origen, and this condemnation may be responsible for the loss of many of Didymus’s writings. Jerome and Palladius mentioned that Didymus had written commentaries on Old Testament books; these commentaries were assumed to be no longer extant until the discovery in 1941 in Tura, Egypt, of papyri containing commentaries on Genesis, Zechariah, Job, Ecclesiastes, and some of the Psalms. Certain features of the Genesis commentary, unfortunately not preserved in its entirety, seem to indicate that it may have been Didymus’s earliest work. In addition to his silence regarding his other works, remarks on specific heresies as well as Christological interpretations occur much less frequently here than in his Zechariah commentary. Moreover, the heavier reliance on Philo and Origen may indicate relative inexperience. Whereas Didymus specifically names Philo in this commentary, he never identifies Origen as one of his sources even when quoting the latter verbatim. Like Origen, he rejects anthropomorphic interpretations and proceeds to an allegorical approach when the literal meaning repels him. He does not, however, neglect the literal-historical level; see, for example, his examination of the story of the flood. All three of Origen’s levels of interpretation—literal, moral, and allegorical—are mobilized here. This previously untranslated text is crucial for studies of the fourth century and of the monumental influence of Origen.
Top Highlights
“‘It is a more blessed thing to give than to receive.’75 It is not the one who receives who imitates God, in fact; God is in receipt of nothing from anybody, instead being the source of all good things. So the one who imitates God gives.” (Page 165)
“Now, since we claim in another sense that the human being, who by an order was made in God’s image and likeness, is man’s intelligence (154), we take it, correspondingly, to be in control of those wild beasts whom the holy one mentions in offering his prayer: ‘Do not deliver to the wild beasts the soul that confesses to you.’ They would be the hostile forces from which he prays the confessing soul to be delivered, or evil thoughts prompted by them. Again, it is said by Job, ‘See, the wild beasts among you eat grass like oxen,’129 not that the wild beasts in the literal sense familiar to Job have changed their nature, but that the savagery of the hostile powers has been tamed so as to make no impact on the magnitude of the holy man’s virtue.” (Page 67)
“Let us take an example to clarify what is being said: the human being is rational; disposition to it is natural for an infant, but not reason itself. So the infant has (152) this potency, and will give evidence of it when reason is fully developed if it is amenable to correction. So, too, the character of image, as long as it is not overwhelmed, evinces the dignity of the original creation; but if vice and malice choke it, a broom is required, as the Gospel says128—namely, the process of repentance—in order that by clearing away the mist we may reveal the outline of the image.” (Page 66)