Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 80

BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE PATRISTIC ERA,

A ‘HANDBOOK OF PATRISTIC EXEGESIS’ AND SOME
OTHER RECENT BOOKS AND RELATED PROJECTS



JOHANNES VAN OORT

A: During the past ten years several books in the field of patristic exegesis have been
published and some major projects have started. The aim of this article is to provide an intro-
duction to this noticeably new trend of research and to evaluate some results.

I. ‘Handbook of Patristic Exegesis’

After more than a decade of preparation by the editor Charles Kannen-
giesser, and after several years of eagerly waiting for the results by many
students of patristics, Brill published, towards the end of 2004, two impres-
sive tomes entitled Handbook of Patristic Exegesis.1 Together these two volumes
comprise more than 1500 pages. Both books, magnificently designed and
beautifully printed and case-bound, constitute the official start of the new
series: The Bible in Ancient Christianity under the general editorship of D.
Jeffrey Bingham. Other volumes in this series, namely James D. Ernest, The
Bible in Athanasius of Alexandria; Elizabeth Ann Dively Lauro, The Soul and
Spirit of Scripture within Origen’s Exegesis; Angela Russell Christman, ‘What Did
Ezekiel See?’ Christian Exegesis of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Chariot from Irenaeus to
Gregory the Great; and Robert C. Hill, Reading the Old Testament in Antioch, have
been published and more volumes are announced to appear soon.
A series such as this one seems to be a telling sign of new scholarly inter-
est in patristic exegesis. Whether or not the series will be on a high scholarly
level remains to be seen, but the reputation of both the general editor,2 as

1 Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. The Bible in Ancient Christianity by Charles Kannengiesser.

With Special Contributions by Various Scholars (The Bible in Ancient Christianity,

Volume I), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2004, Volume I: XXXIV + 669 pp., Volume II: XIV +
826 pp., ISBN 90-04-09815-1, € 295 / US$ 339 (hardback).
2 Bingham authored, among others, Irenaeus’s Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Adversus

Haereses (Traditio Exegetica Graeca 7), Leuven 1998.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2006 Vigiliae Christianae 60, 80-103

Also available online – www.brill.nl
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 81

      81

well as the names of the members of the editorial board (Brian Daley, Robin
Jensen, Christoph Markschies, Maureen Tilley, Robert Wilken, and Frances
Young) are very promising, as is the remarkable range of quality volumes
that have been published within a one year’s period. In regards to the first
double volume, the Handbook, however, my feelings are regrettably mixed.

1. Main positive points

Let me start with an enumeration of the main positive points. By completing
such a Handbook, Charles Kannengiesser without doubt has turned his hand
to a gigantic task. Everybody faced with such a charge would shrink away
and, most certainly in a case like this, kindly ‘count others better than him-
self ’. However, looking throughout the worldwide community of patristic
scholars for somebody to set about such a singular task, many specialists
would make mention of Kannengiesser’s unique expertise. He has been
already the successful general editor of the project Bible de tous les temps, and
he has also published a considerable number of specialist studies in the field.
Moreover, with his German name (and, naturally more important, his
familiarity with German language and academic studies), his French edu-
cation and scholarly career, and his later professorships in the USA and
Canada, he may easily present the ideal profile to do such a border-crossing
job. And, not least, he is one of the few scholars who in the past decades
has demonstrated an intimate knowledge of both Eastern and Western
Fathers of the Church.
In the Handbook one finds several instances that illustrate the results of
such a long and relevant preparation. In his expert way Kannengiesser
begins with an overview of the last fifty years of international research in
the field of patristic exegesis. On the Handbook’s first page he makes it plau-
sible why he has opted for its present title: ‘For many readers, rather than
Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, a more accessible title might be Handbook of
Ancient Christian Exegesis, since the phrase “ancient Christian” has a broader
currency than “patristic”. On the other hand, if “patristic” has been pre-
ferred, it is because the precise focus of the Handbook is on the academic
achievements in the field, that is, on the work of modern “patristic” schol-
ars about ancient exegesis, rather than about ancient exegesis for its own
sake. Hence its goal is not to add another study to the many publications
already registered within its pages, but through analyzing relevant scholarly
contributions, to attempt a coherent understanding of scholarly achieve-
ments within the whole field of patristic exegesis for almost a century. Thus
an important goal is to provide a broader readership with an easy access to
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 82

82   

what has become highly specialized research and, on occasion, even to

inform the specialists themselves of what is going on in the discipline’ (p. 3).
One would readily agree with such a stance and its argument. As well as
being masterly devised and appropriately testifying to Kannengiesser’s orig-
inal upbringing in the French school of, amongst others, Henri de Lubac
and Jean Daniélou (once Kannengiesser became the latter’s successor at the
Institut Catholique in Paris), one will also appreciate the sections on ‘spir-
itual exegesis’, ‘allegory’, ‘typology’, ‘numerology’, ‘allegorism’, ‘tropology’,
‘anagogy’, etc. And one really would not like to miss an—as might be
expected—excellent (though brief ) paragraph on Athanasius (708-720), or a
section like the one on ‘Cappadocian Exegesis’ (740-766).

2. Shortcomings
However, in mentioning key concepts of the patristic exegetical métier such
as ‘spiritual exegesis’, ‘allegory’, ‘typology’, ‘numerology’, ‘allegorism’,
‘tropology’ and ‘anagogy’, one already touches upon a weak and, in the
end, even tiresome aspect of the Handbook. Only by reading or browsing
through the huge amount of pages can one find these and other essential
topics. It is a real surprise, not to say an amazing fact, that a handbook of
this genre does not contain an Index of Subjects, or any other table like e.g.
an Index of Biblical Texts. A very brief and thus quite general table of
‘Contents’ [p. VIII, recurring in Vol. II], an ‘Alphabetical List of Principal
Authors & Anonymous Works Discussed’ (pp. XI-XIV; idem) and, at the
book’s very end, an ‘Index of Names for the Introduction and Part A’ (1496;
less than half the page, and obviously very defective) is all that is offered to
assist one’s way through this real forest of information. No surprise that sev-
eral students (also advanced ones!) more or less desperately wondered where
they may find the material they are looking for. The reader who
consults the ‘Contents’ only learns that in Part A, entitled ‘General Con-
siderations’, the book deals with: I. Patristic Exegesis: Fifty Years of
International Research (23); II. Judaism and Rhetorical Culture: Two
Foundational Contexts for Patristic Exegesis (115); III. Patristic Herme-
neutics (165); and IV. Patristic Exegesis of the Books of the Bible (271).
However, Chapter III, i.e. the pp. 165-269 on ‘Patristic Hermeneutics’, dis-
cusses under its first heading ‘The Literal Meaning of Scripture’ a wide
range of topics such as i. ‘The sacred text in focus’, ii. ‘Philo of Alexandria
and the biblical “letter”’; iii. ‘Christian interpreters of the “letter”’; iv.
‘Hermeneia: The task of interpreting the “letter” in early Christianity’; and
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 83

      83

under its second heading ‘Spiritual Exegesis’ the same Chapter treats such
topics as ‘allegory’, ‘typology’, and the related ones just mentioned. All this
is very user unfriendly, and in the end even disappointing and frustrating.
One might say that such an inconvenience only applies to Part A (i.e. the
‘General Considerations’) and that Part B, the ‘Historical Survey’ in which
the authors, writings, schools etc. are being discussed in their chronological
order, is properly disclosed by the ‘Alphabetical List of Principal Authors &
Anonymous Works Discussed’. Indeed this is the case for the main authors
and for anonymous writings such as Acts of the Martyrs, Barnabas, Didache, etc.
But what about a student who is looking for a quick introduction to
‘Antiochene’ or ‘Alexandrian’ exegesis, or ‘Latin Christian Poetry’, to men-
tion only a few desirable entries? In point of fact, the Handbook supposes a
more or less expert knowledge of patristic matters. Even for specialists it will
often remain (too) difficult, and needlessly time-consuming, to find the infor-
mation that they are looking for.
Another rather confusing aspect of this Handbook is the phenomenon of
the ‘Special contributions’. Reading at random through the volumes, not
only undergraduate students, but also many others will often not immedi-
ately be aware who is addressing them: the author under whose name the
Handbook is published, or one of the eighteen other scholars who are listed
in the catalogue of ‘Special Contributions’ on p. VII. However, these schol-
ars have collectively made an invaluable contribution to the whole Handbook
and frequently (but vide infra) their studies, by and large excellently docu-
mented with references in footnotes and supplemented by accurate bibli-
ographies, belong to its best parts. In this context one may single out the
learned essays written by Christoph Schäublin (‘The Contribution of
Rhetorics to Christian Hermeneutics’, 149-163); Thomas Böhm (‘Allegory
and History’, 213-227, and also ‘The Exegesis of Arius’, 687-704);3 Norbert
Brox (‘Irenaeus and the Bible’, 483-506); Hermann Joseph Vogt (‘Origen of
Alexandria’, 536-556);4 Jean-Noël Guinot (‘Theodoret of Cyrus’, 885-918);5
and—last but not least—by Sidney H. Griffith on ‘Ephraem the Exegete:

3 Or 705? It remains unclear whether or not the ‘Complementary Bibliography on

Arian Exegesis’ (704-705) is compiled by Böhm, but in view of its inadequacies it may
be inferred that he is not its author.
4 Here, too, one may guess that the (defective) ‘Supplemental Bibliography Origen’

(556-574) has been added later.

5 With later additions to the list of ‘General Studies’ (914-918)?
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 84

84   

Biblical Commentary in the Works of Ephraem the Syrian’ (1395-1421).6

The reading of these specialist essays will certainly enrich every student
interested in a specific subject or person. However, due to the fact that, as
a rule, these essays have been included in a wider context, cross-references
made by the original authors are often misleading.
Soon the reader will find out that, unfortunately, the whole Handbook is
full of such unnecessary mistakes and, moreover, of many astonishing inac-
curacies. These defects abound in Volume II in particular, but also Volume
I has more flaws than one might expect when consulting a handbook. I will
spare the reader any attempt to enumerate the several thousands (sic!) of
errors, rather I shall only give some brief and, alas, typical indications. On
p. 31 Kannengiesser speaks of ‘philological celebrities’ like Diels (in stead of
Diehl), Loof (in stead of Loofs), and on the same page he mistakenly asserts
that the CSEL-series was originally called Corpus Vindobonense and after 1945
changed its title into Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. The follow-
ing pages inter alia contain mistakes like Willmart (for Wilmart) or ‘dizième’
(for ‘dixième’), but also bring to light oddities such as the contention that
Papias is ‘the author of the Diatessaron’ (51). Perhaps even more embarrass-
ingly, and more importantly, is the fact that these introductory pages on
Instrumenta studiorum such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, patrologies, journals,
series, bibliographies etc. unmistakably reveal that they are in large part out-
dated: after 1987, so it appears, the CCSL did not publish any edition that
was worth mentioning; the CCSG seems already to have come to an end
in the year 1986; a little better business is going with the Series Apo-
cryphorum of CC, but it conveys the impression of having stopped in 1995
(or, with Halewyck’s Clavis, in 1998); besides, the same dated information is
given in regard to other series: PO until 1986; SC till 1998; FC 1999; etc.
Perhaps it might be charming (but it is, of course, incorrect) to find the
Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae catalogued (last volume 1997) under the lin-
guistic area ‘Dutch’ as one of the sources to study patristic exegesis, but the
subsequent information provided under this rubric evidently demonstrates
that the author was not aware of such real and indisputably Dutch series of
patristic translations as Oud-christelijke geschriften in Nederlandse vertaling (edited
by H.U. Meyboom, 1907-1931); Monumenta christiana: Bibliotheek van Christelijke
Klassieken (Utrecht-Brussel 1948-1951); Klassieken der Kerk (1947-1953), or

6 With, once again, a great number of flaws in the—apparently added—list of ‘Studies’

(1421-1428).
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 85

      85

modern series like Christelijke Bronnen and Kerkvaderteksten met commentaar. The
simple consultation of patrologies like those of Altaner-Stuiber or Quasten
would have provided such data. As regards basic reference books like dic-
tionaries, encyclopedia’s and patrologies (45-46), the reader remains unin-
formed of the existence of the English translation of the fourth volume added
to Quasten’s famous three-part work: Patrology. Edited by Angelo Di Berardino,
with an Introduction by Johannes Quasten, Volume IV: The Golden Ages of Latin
Patristic Literature. From the Council of Nicea to the Council of Chalcedon, West-
minster, Maryland 1986 (19984). Moreover, in the enumeration of ‘Sources
of Patristic Exegesis’ and ‘Instrumenta Studiorum’, one misses a specialized
journal like the Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum, and series such as Studien und
Texte zu Antike und Christentum/ Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity and
Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese.7 Moreover, a very helpful and
model dictionary such as the Lexikon der Antiken Christlichen Literatur edited by
S. Döpp and W. Geerlings, the first edition of which appeared in 1998, has
been merely mentioned without any indication of its scope or value to the
student (55). One may suppose that, only near the end of the project, it was
at Kannengiesser’s disposal.8
It is difficult to say, but this Handbook abounds with inaccuracies, mistakes,
and omissions. A few may be indicated, faults that have been more or less
chanced upon whilst reading, rather than being the result of systematic
exploration. Early in the book it is stated that ‘in Part Two chapter 15, a
complementary list of such publications [i.e., primary sources] in the CSCO
notes non-Greek and non-Latin sources’ (25), but there is neither a Chapter

7 But see p. 915: R.A. Greer, The Captain of our Salvation. A Study in the Patristic Exegesis

of Hebrews (BGBE 15), Tübingen 1973, in the bibliography to Guinot’s contribution on

Theodoret of Cyrus. Another volume, namely B. Stoll, De virtute in virtutem. Zur Auslegungs-
und Wirkungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt . . ., Tübingen 1988 (BGBE 30), is mentioned by
Kannengiesser on p. 110 in the circumstantial ‘General Bibliography’ of the (patristic)
reception of Biblical exegesis, but this is a mistake: Stoll deals with the Sermon on the
Mount’s reception history from the time of the Merovingians until 1200.—Apart from
the BGBE, its parallel series Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Hermeneutik could have been
specified as well: it includes a number of special studies directly falling within the
Handbook’s scope.
8 Though later on in the book, and evidently in some late additions made at random,

it is suddenly brought up as LACL (an abbreviation not listed in the book’s official
‘Abbreviations’) in the context of some incomplete and rather puzzling references:
‘Röwekamp, G.: LACL 2nd ed., 1999, 38-41’ (p. 397); ‘Röwekamp, G.: LACL 2nd ed.,
1999, 38-41, with up-dated bibliography; in particular, one may note in it’ (p. 403).
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 86

86   

15 (better: XV) in Part Two nor such a specific list:9 all one finds is that in
Ch. XII only Syriac CSCO-editions and -studies are mentioned, and the
same goes for the (very fragmentary and, in actual fact, very unsatisfactory)
Ch. XIV on ‘Patristic Exegesis in Armenian, Georgian, Coptic, and
Ethiopian Christian Literature’. The information given on the series Studia
Patristica (pp. 62-63) focusses on a few early volumes and thus the non-expert
reader easily gains the impression that after the volumes XV and XVI of
the years 1984 and 1985 respectively there did not appear any relevant
material in this series. On p. 117 the birth of the Septuagint is briefly dis-
cussed; then one finds the both enigmatic and—for anybody only slightly
conversant in the origins of the Christian Church and its varied Gospel tra-
dition—surprisingly bold remark: ‘No wonder therefore if the earliest
Gospel communities knew no other texts of the Bible but the LXX (. . .)’.
P. 145 rather short-sightedly communicates that ‘the culture of the time [i.e.
the first century CE] required a written communication of sacred myster-
ies’, but this does not apply to the many influential mystery cults like those
of Isis and Cybele, nor to the then upcoming cult of Mithras. On p. 424
one finds a (completely unscientific) book on the so-called ‘Gospel of
Barnabas’ listed in a catalogue of studies of the 2nd c. letter of ‘Pseudo-
Barnabas’.10 On pp. 426-428 the Physiologos is described under the heading
‘Apostolic Fathers’. P. 449 reveals some hitherto unknown titles of Nag
Hammadi writings like ‘the Apocrypton of James’, ‘the Provider of Perfect Daniel’
and ‘The Interpolation of Knowledge’, and on the next page it is contended that
Marcion’s donation of 200,000 sesterces is ‘approximately $ 10.000’.11 And
so on.

9 Cf. the similar and even more detailed (and, accordingly, more deceiving) promise

on p. 31: ‘Patristic exegesis being a central concern in the Louvain Corpus [sc. CSCO],
the relevant fascicles will be listed below, in Part B, Chapters 15 and 16, in the chrono-
logical order of their publication and classified according to their original languages’. A
parallel phenomenon occurs on e.g. p. 380: Section III (read IV) on ‘Early Christian
Poetry’; IV (read V) on ‘Acts of (the) Martyrs’; VI (= VII) on ‘Montanism’; VII (VIII) on
the Gnostics; etc., and in the end three times the reference is to ‘Section VII’, although
in these instances the Sections VIII, IX, and X respectively are meant.
10 Similar awkward confusions have crept in, amongst others, on p. 577 (Ps.-Dionysius

Areopagites for Dionysius of Alexandria) and on p. 872 (Isidore of Sevilla for Isidore of
Pelusium).
11 As a matter of fact, the amounts remain conjectural as well, but rather one may

speak of 1.500.000-2.000.000 US$ or, put it differently, of the equivalent of a ship weigh-
ing approximately 400 tons, or the price of some 80 slaves. Cf. e.g. R.P. Duncan-Jones,
The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies, Cambridge 19822.
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 87

      87

Throughout the two volumes one finds double listing of studies (e.g. the
titles of originally unpublished dissertations and their subsequent official edi-
tion);12 misspelt names and incorrect titles (e.g. my own and rather easy fam-
ily name already occurs in five variants at least, not to speak of more
sophisticated names like C. Schäublin13 or G. Sfameni Gasparro)14 the all
too typical fact that the title of well-known FS for U. Bianchi evolves from
its correct rendering ÉAgayØ §lp¤w on p. 89 to ÉAgãph µ §lp¤w on p. 1260);
and far too many typographical errors than might be expected. It is not
clear why, in many cases, directly after a bibliography pertaining to the
treatment of a certain person or subject another ‘supplementary bibliogra-
phy’ has been added which, moreover, often lists the same titles.15 It is also
not apparent why, more often than not, all the Handbook says about a cer-
tain figure and his exegesis is a mere summary of material better arranged
in so many encyclopedias or patrologies.16 Nor is it apparent why the
Handbook does not even say anything about a certain person. To cite an
example. All one finds on p. 1436 is: ‘X. Symeon of Mesopotamia’, together

12 On p. 574 even twice in succession the same (unpublished) dissertation of R. Wetzel

is being mentioned, the first time as ‘Diss., Trier 1972/3’, the second time as ‘Diss.,
Tübingen 1978’.
13 For example p. 148: ‘C. Von Schäublin’, followed by the rather enigmatic, erro-

neous and incomplete record: ‘“V. Grammaire et Rhétorique”. In Nouvelle histoire de la lit-
térature latine, edited by R. Herzog, V. Schmidt, and P. Librecht. Brépols, 1993’. Cf. e.g.
1211: Schaublin.
14 E.g. on p. 1313 both as Sfameni Gasparro, G. and as Gasparro, G.S.

15 Besides, on account of the several German titles (even if it should be Spanish or

French ones; see e.g. p. 1194 s.v. Garcia) and also in view of a curious addition like
‘Zusammenfassung’ (e.g. p. 267 s.v. Scopello; p. 1148 s.v. Romero), one gains the impres-
sion that, at a certain stage in the Handbook’s compilation, titles have been rather indis-
criminately taken from a German database. But as a rule, so it is stated on p. 81, ‘it is
essentially on the basis of the Elenchus [sc. of Biblica] that the bibliography for the present
Handbook has been worked out, completed and cross-checked with other bibliographic
tools such as the bibliographies of Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique and of Année Philologique, or
the Bibliographia Patristica, and other resources of that sort’.
16 But e.g. on p. 1431 it is even far less: all that is said of Isaac of Antioch is: ‘Isaac

of Antioch (5th c.). Under the name of “Isaac of Antioch” the writings of several authors,
dating from 404 until after 477, reached posterity. Some of these authors call on
Chalcedon against Nestorius and Eutyches, others witness to their Monophysite persua-
sion’. Why has the rest of the blank page not been filled by any reference to the several
existing text editions, translations, and studies (by S. Brock, among others)? And why has
nothing been said about the importance of this Isaac’s sermons in the context of ‘Patristic
Exegesis’? Cf. e.g. P. Bruns in LACL s.v., or Altaner-Stuiber, Patrologie, 19788, 348 (and
622).
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 88

88   

with a reference to two scholarly articles. However, there is no mention here

nor elsewhere in the volumes that this same Symeon is famous under the
name of Macarius, and that a great quantity of studies has been published
on, among other things, the very influential ‘Fifty Spiritual Homilies’
ascribed to him. One may compare to this the very brief mention of
Theonas of Alexandria (late third c.), i.e. only one sentence on the otherwise
blank p. 582: ‘Little is recorded of Theonas, who succeeded Theognostos as
bishop of Alexandria in the final decades of the third century (281-300)’.
But why, then, is there this reference, and why is it in this manner? Is it
really because there are only ten persons (and amongst these, Ammonios of
Alexandria and Theognostos are granted a one sentence treatment as well)
that deserve to be mentioned under the heading ‘Third-Century Greek
Christian Literature’ (521-587)? One may assume that, in particular near
the end of the Handbook, and in certain sections for which both special
knowledge and interest was lacking, there was no longer the demanded
inspiration. A brief consultation of, among other things, a standard work
like Tarchnisvili & Assfalg, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur17 could
easily have resulted in much more than the meagre 1.5 p. on ‘Georgian’
patristic exegesis (1455-1456).

3. The development of patristic exegesis and its setting

Yet, apart from these shortcomings, which do not meet the expectations one
legitimately may have in regard to a handbook, there are other drawbacks as
well. In my view there is absolutely insufficient treatment of pivotal docu-
ments to illustrate the course of early Christian Bible exegesis like Pseudo-
Barnabas (p. 423, less than nine lines) and the Didache (eight lines on p. 413,
all of a sudden concluding with the remark: ‘Literary contacts with scrip-
ture are anyone’s guess’!), not to speak of the person of Justin Martyr (less
than a page, followed by a fairly long list of studies).
This insufficiency also applies to the nearly complete neglect of the role
of Gnosticism and related currents in the development of ancient Christian
exegesis. Although Kannengiesser rightly remarks that ‘For the reception
and interpretation of the Bible in the burgeoning churches of the second
and third centuries, the Gnostic crisis played a decisive role’ (448) and,
moreover, that ‘Christian exegesis began as a scientific discipline in some

17 M. Tarchnisvili, in Verbindung mit J. Assfalg, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen

Literatur, auf Grund des ersten Bandes der georgischen Literaturgeschichte von K. Kekelidze, Città del
Vaticano 1955. Cf. e.g. D. Rayfield, The Literature of Georgia. A History, Oxford 1995.
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 89

      89

Gnostic circles of Alexandria with the Commentary on John by Heracleon, a

disciple of Valentinus’ (ibidem), he fails to do justice to this observation. He
himself quickly brings this insight to the conclusion that ‘a thorough study
of the Gnostic use of Scripture still represents a task for the future’ (ibid.),
after which the floor is given to an essay on ‘The Valentinian Exegesis’ by
Anne Pasquier (454-470).18 But such a special contribution, while useful in
its own right, does not affect the general concept of the Handbook, nor its
outlook. On the contrary, one more than once cannot avoid the impression
that, according to the description of Kannengiesser, the development of the
‘patristic exegesis’ would have been the same whether or not there was a
Gnostic ‘crisis’. In actual fact, the foundational contexts for this exegesis are
pointed out to be the LXX, rabbinic literature, Graeco-Roman rhetoric.19
Consequently the contribution of Pasquier, like the fine essay by Norbert
Brox on Irenaeus, remains a corpus alienum. The real purport of their argu-
ments (e.g. Pasquier, 459: ‘The history of the interpretation of Paul’s letters
during the second century [. . .], is essentially the history of Gnostic exege-
sis’; Brox, 484: ‘. . . many gnostics claimed this same Bible for their own
[. . .]. The battle for the truth led to a battle about the Bible’) seems to van-
ish into thin air. Apart from such a neglect of the impact of Gnostic cur-
rents, more or less the same may be said of typical Jewish-Christian currents
to which already the late Cardinal Jean Daniélou paid pioneering atten-
tion.20 From the present Handbook’s design one gains the impression too
often that there was a permanent and rather clear antithesis between ‘ortho-
dox’ and ‘unorthodox’: studies like Walter Bauer’s Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei
im ältesten Christentum,21 and so many others in its wake, are not given their
due.

18 Here again one has to ask whether the Bibliography emanates from the original

author (who wrote in French?) or from the editor. In any case, it is hardly believable that
Pasquier would confine herself to mentioning only the first edition of J.M. Robinson’s The
Nag Hammadi Library in English (1977), to Scholer’s first Nag Hammadi Bibliography (Leiden
1971) without recording the so much more expanded second one (Nag Hammadi
Bibliography, 1970-1994, Leiden 1997), and to omitting a pivotal study like Chr.
Markschies’ Valentinus Gnosticus? (Tübingen 1992).
19 Thus the title of Ch. Two: ‘Judaism and Rhetorical Culture: Two Foundational

Contexts for Patristic Exegesis’ (115-163).

20 E.g. Sacramentum futuri. Études sur les origines de la typologie biblique, Paris 1950; Bible et

liturgie, Paris 1951; Les saints païens de l’Ancien Testament, Paris 1956; Théologie du judéo-chris-
tianisme 1958 (English edition: The Theology of Jewish Christianity, London-Philadelphia
1964); Études d’exégèse judéo-chrétienne, Paris 1966.
21 Zweite, durchgesehene Auflage, mit einem Nachtrag herausgegeben von Georg
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 90

90   

It goes without saying that such a rather old-fashioned perception of the

development of early Christianity affects the description of its exegesis. One
can easily demonstrate this by quite a different account of the so crucial
Second Century (377-519),22 or by a completely different rendering of what
Manichaeism really was and how it exerted its influence on so many a
Catholic Christian exegete. Perhaps the chapter on ‘Mani (216-276) and
Manichaeism’ (647-669), ‘a special contribution by Albert Viciano’, is the
Handbook’s nadir: it is not only extremely full of all sorts of minor errors
but, in point of fact, it is nothing more than a poor rendering of the once
groundbreaking, but also much disputed and now superseded, study by
Michel Tardieu, ‘Principes de l’exégèse manichéenne du Nouveau Testa-
ment’, in: Tardieu (éd.), Les règles de l’interprétation, Paris 1987, 123-146. To
this particular contribution no less than three bibliographies have been
added: the first that probably emanated from the author of this section
(666-667); a second, ‘Additional titles on manichaean exegesis of scrip-
ture’ (667-668); and finally a ‘Supplementary Bibliography Manichaeism’
(668-669). But all are defective, incomplete, and outdated.

4. Augustine
Perhaps the major and minor objections I have against both certain aspects
of the theoretical design and many a detail of this Handbook can be best illus-
trated by a brief analysis of the section on Augustine (1149-1233). In any
case, this important person is a central figure in the history of biblical exe-
gesis in the West and, furthermore, a church father who more than once
attracted Kannengiesser’s special interest.23 Besides, it is Augustine’s exeget-
ical oeuvre that seems to be an excellent illustration of what (with a minor
adaptation of Goethe’s famous dictum) may be termed a clearcut main line
in the development of the Early Church and accordingly in the history of
its exegesis:

Strecker, Tübingen 1964; Engl. translation: Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity,
Philadelphia 1971.
22 This period, including its varieties of Christian exegesis in reciprocal action between

e.g. ‘Gnostics’ and other Christians, is now excellently dealt with in A. Marjanen &
P. Luomanen (eds.), A Companion to Second-Century Christian ‘Heretics’ (Supplements to
Vigiliae Christianae 76), Leiden-Boston 2005.
23 See for example C. Kannengiesser, ‘Enarratio in Ps CXVIII: Science de la révéla-

tion et progrès spirituel’, RA 2 (1962) 359-381, apart from his several more recent stud-
ies on Augustine’s De doctrina christiana.
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 91

      91

Zwei Gegner sind es die sich boxen

die Gnostiker und die Orthodoxen.

As regards any awareness of the special position of Augustine, namely as a

former Manichaean who devoted no less than one third of his approxi-
mately one hundred writings to the refutation of his former coreligionists,
one may be brief: in Kannengiesser’s description there is no such an aware-
ness. Although, as a matter of course, it is stated that several of Augustine’s
works are directed against the Manichaeans, this obvious fact does not have
any real bearing on the depiction of Augustine, the exegete. It thus escapes
Kannengiesser’s notice that, among many other things, it is almost exclu-
sively biblical texts already brought up by the Manichaeans which are men-
tioned by Augustine during his ‘hermeneutical apprenticeship’ (1150-1154):
Mt 7:7 in Contra Academicos (or, preferably, De Academicis) II,3,9; John 14:6 in
De beata uita IV,34; John 18:36 in De ordine I,11,32; etc. Such a remarkable
fact should have attracted attention, and the same goes for the Confessiones.
It is stated, rather surprisingly, that ‘one must wait until near the end of
Book VIII (. . .) for encountering (. . .) the first explicit biblical quotation:
vade, vende omnia quae habes, da pauperibus et habebis thesaurum in caelis; et veni,
sequere me’. Any reader of Augustine will know that, from its very beginning,
biblical quotations permeate this masterpiece of literature; and, accordingly,
in all scientific editions over the past centuries its first sentences ‘Magnus es,
domine, et laudabalis ualde; magna uirtus tua et sapientiae tuae non est numerus’ have
been specified as being explicit quotations of biblical texts. Moreover, in
recent research it has been indicated that also in these very first sentences
one comes across Augustine’s explicit anti-Manichaean stance.24 Another
major objection one may raise to Kannengiesser’s account of Augustine, the
exegete is his separate paragraph on De Trinitate (1162-1165), which, in point
of fact, has little if anything to do with exegetical matters. Much more stress,
however, should have been laid on Augustine’s typical ‘christological’ exe-
gesis of the Psalms: not only it is highly characteristic of the exegesis of
Hippo’s bishop, but it also had a unique bearing on nearly all biblical
exegetes in the ages to come.

24 See e.g. J. van Oort, ‘Manichaeism and Anti-Manichaeism in Augustine’s

Confessiones’, in L. Cirillo & A. van Tongerloo (eds.), Atti del Terzo Congresso Internazionale di
Studi ‘Manicheismo e Oriente Cristiano Antico’, Arcavacata di Rende—Amantea, 31 agosto-5 settem-
bre 1993, Turnhout-Leuven 1997, 235-248; idem, ‘Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus Con-
fessionum libri XIII, Liber I,1’, in: J. Leemans & L. Jocqué (eds.), Corpus Christianorum
1953-2003: Xenivm Natalicivm. Fifty Years of Scholarly Editing, Turnholtii 2003, 243-248.
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 92

92   

A brief enumeration may suffice in regard to the ‘minor’ objections in

the section on Augustine, together with an overview of its main flaws. These
may serve to give an impression of the mode of operation in the bulk of the
book as well:
The listing of the section’s subsequent paragraphs on p. 1149 does not paral-
lel the actual titles of these paragraphs; 1150: read ‘invenietis’ or ‘invenitis’
instead of ‘invenieti’; 1152: read De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus
Manichaeorum; moreover, these books were not ‘written in Rome 388’, nor is it
correct to state that, in these books, Augustine ‘refers to many OT passages
also used by them’, i.e. the Manichaeans (ibid.); in the sentence ‘Tyconius, the first
Latin theoretician of biblical hermeneutics wrote his Commentary on the Apocalypse
at the time when he focused on his Liber Regularum’ (1154) the idea of any con-
temporaneity of the two works is purely speculative (and the title Liber Regularum
does not meet Kannengiesser’s thesis emphatically stated on p. 1139 ff. that it
should read Liber regularis);25 the same goes for ‘a few months before’ in the
immediately following sentence ‘Augustine does the same in starting De doctrina
christiana a few months before launching the redaction of the Confessions’ (1154);
it is pure speculation ‘to locate the composition of the first nine Books of
Confessions in the two years of interval between Book I and Book II of DDC’
(1155);26 Books XI-XIII of the Conf. do not deal with Gn 1:1-3 (1156), but with
Gn 1:1-2:3; it is, once again, pure speculation (for which, moreover, a handbook
is not the appropriate genre) to state that there is an interruption ‘between
DDC I and DDC II’ and to locate this ‘interruption’ in the years 396-397
(1157); ‘Hill 1996’ (ibid.) probably should be: Hill 1997, but it is not fully clear
which book of Hill is meant (one may suppose: the only one mentioned later
on, namely Hill’s translation of the ‘Newly Discovered Sermons’ of 1997,
referred to on p. 1182); the reference ‘Vercruysse 2000’ (1158) leads the reader
up a blind alley as there is no publication of Vercruysse listed in the bibli-
ographies. The author may have had in mind Vercruysse’s planned edition of
Tyconius, Le livre des règles, which finally was published in 2004 as volume 488
of the Sources chrétiennes; after so many publications on the subject (Courcelle,
Ferrari, etc.), it should be clear to the student of Augustine that one can not
speak of ‘his unfortunate nine years in the sect of Mani’ (1159): the period com-
prises more than ten years at least; that Augustine is ‘since April 397 sole
bishop of Hippo’ is very disputable (ibid.): among the specialists there still is

25 However, this thesis seems to be questionable and does have no other support than

the occasional wording ‘libellum regularem’ in some mss; cf. F.C. Burkitt, The Book of
Rules of Tyconius, Cambridge 1894, 1. On other occasions, Tyconius speaks of ‘regulae’,
like Augustine among others.
26 As regards the (possible) date of composition of works of Augustine like Conf. and

De doctr. chr., one may best consult the respective lemmata in the Augustinus-Lexikon and,
moreover, the acute observations in P.-M. Hombert, Nouvelles recherches de chronologie augus-
tinienne, Paris 2000.
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 93

      93

discussion about the summer of 395 or 396, but nobody opts for April 397
(maybe a confusion with April 387, the date of Augustine’s baptism? or with
the date of Ambrosius’ death?); as regards the sudden reference ‘Loeb 18,12’
(1160) the unacquainted reader may guess what is meant, but it is clear that
‘Soliquium’ (ibid.) is not the same as the correct title Soliloquia; it is incorrect to
suggest that Augustine directly proceeded from the writing of ‘the last books of
Confessions into the rigorous demands of composing the De Trinitate’ (1162); there
is no firm ground to write that ‘The first nine books of De Genesi ad litteram were
composed in 401 and 402’ (1165), neither to continue: ‘Books X-XII, like the
last books of Confessions, were progressively added to the unfinished work up to
415’ (ibid.): see for the most likely dates e.g. Hombert, Recherches, 139-188; the
same goes for the questionable dates of Ep. 130 (‘witten in 411’) and De Genesi
ad litteram (‘completed in 418’) (1169): see e.g. Hombert, Recherches, 250 for Ep.
130 (‘La date traditionelle de 412 est bien fondée’) and 141-188 for Gen. litt.
IIIb-XII (412-414); the reference ‘M.-J. Lagrange (1931)’ (1170) is not detailed
in any of the bibliographies and so the reader gropes in the dark (what is meant
is: M.-J. Lagrange, ‘Les rétractations exégétiques de saint Augustin’, Miscellanea
Agostiniana, II, Roma 1931, 373-395); it should be Qu 58 (in stead of 59) on
Matthew (ibid.); read Expositio quarundam propositionum ex epistula apostoli ad
Romanos (1172); the phrase ‘after the return to Hippo’ (ibid.) does not make
sense; the same goes for ‘in Rom 6 and 62 (in 394/5)’ (ibid.); Qu 1,2 of De diuer-
sis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum is on Rom 9:10-29 (and not Rom 9-29) (ibid.); on
the same page read ‘Perler-Maier’ for ‘Perler Mard’ (the reference is to the not
listed study by O. Perler, avec la collaboration de J.-L. Maier, Les voyages de saint
Augustin, Paris 1969); it is incorrect to state ‘the rest [sc. of diu. quaest. Simpl.,
after Qu 2,5] belonging to heresiology’ (1173): Qu 2,6, the only one after 2,5
and thus the last one of the book, is on 3 Kgs 22:2-23; the dates given for the
composition of De sermone domini and Adnotationes in Job are highly debatable
(ibid.); it should be De consensu euangelistarum (1174) and, above all, the question
arises why nothing is said about this work that is so very typical of Augustine’s
Gospel exegesis; read Quaestiones euangeliorum for Quaestiones in evangelium (ibid.);
the reference ‘De Bruyne, 1931’ (1175) is not detailed in any of the bibliogra-
phies (Kannengiesser may have had in mind: D. De Bruyne, ‘“Enarrationes in
Psalmos” prêchées à Carthage’, Miscellanea Agostiniana, II, Roma 1931, 321-
325); three (and not: one) of the sermons on the Psalms were preached at Utica
(ibid.); the sub-paragraph ‘Other sermons’ (1176-1178) makes the strong
impression of being little more than an excerpt from M. Pellegrino’s ‘General
Introduction’ to Edmund’s Hill’s translation in The Works of Augustine. A
Translation for the 21st Century, Part III, and it contains the further unidentified
reference ‘Willis 1962, 101’ (= G.G. Willis, St Augustine’s Lectionary, London
1962); the information provided on the sermones Dolbeau is haphazard (1178-
1179); it is too simple to suggest that Ambrose and Tyconius are the actual
sources of Augustine’s concept of the two cities (1180);27 Augustine character-
izes his City of God as ‘this immense work: ingentis huius operis’ in ciu. XX,5 and

27 See J. van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon. A Study into Augustine’s City of God and the Sources
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 94

94   

not in XXX,5 (1181); the extensive ‘Supplementary Bibliography Augustine’

(1181-1218) is of little or no avail to students, either to those starting their
research or in advanced stages: it not only has many evident mistakes (e.g. s.v.
Altaner: ‘Sextusaussprüche’ for ‘Sextussprüche’; s.v. Strauss: ‘Schriftgedanke’
for ‘Schriftgebrauch’), but also gives the impression of being composed at ran-
dom because many items do not have a specific bearing on Augustine’s exe-
gesis: for a handbook, a bibliographie raisonnée would have been most suitable;
one really misses a separate treatment of both the In Ioannis euangelium tractatus
CXXIV and the In epistulam Iohannis ad Parthos tractatus decem, which, like the En.
in Ps., have been of an extraordinary importance to the Middle Ages, the
sixteenth-century Reformation movements, and beyond.

II. Other recent books on Patristic Exegesis

In view of the fact that the ‘Handbook of Patristic Exegesis’ is, unfortu-
nately, not the authoritative, reliable and complete handbook one may have
hoped for, the question arises which books may be best consulted to obtain
information on the subject matter. The past decades have yielded a range
of books and other studies in the field of patristic exegesis, but none of them
have either the scope or the voluminous size of Kannengiesser’s enterprise.
Nonetheless, a few books and even series may be briefly highlighted.
From French soil we have the series written by the late Bertrand de
Margerie, aptly superscribed as an ‘Introduction à l’histoire de l’exégèse’ and
comprising the four volumes Les Pères grecs et orientaux (Paris 1980); Les pre-
miers grands exégètes latins (Paris 1983); Saint Augustin (Paris 1983); and
L’Occident latin de Léon le Grand à Bernard de Clairvaux (Paris 1990). Although
the third volume may be considered to be the weakest, and the small sec-
ond volume may be criticized on several points as well, the first and most
sizeable volume can still be considered to be of significant value. To give
only a few examples: everybody who has read the chapter on Gregory of
Nyssa (‘Saint Grégoire de Nysse, théoricien des enchaînements bibliques:
skopos, theôria, akolouthia’), or the elucidating chapters on Ephraem Syrus
(‘La poésie biblique de saint Ephrem, exégète Syrien’) and the so-called
Antiochene School (‘Histoire, “theôria” et tradition dans l’école d’Antioch’),
will have considerably enriched his or her knowledge. De Margerie’s
approach has the advantage to be ‘claire et distincte’, his notes and bibli-
ographies are trustworthy and, moreover, the books are supplemented by

of his Doctrine of the Two Cities, Leiden-New York-København-Köln 1991, 199-359, in par-
ticular 254-274 (Tyconius) and 276-281 (Ambrose).
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 95

      95

extensive indices. Even if much of his account is now outdated and, fur-
thermore, De Margerie did not have the intention to write a complete his-
tory of patristic exegesis but wisely confined himself to a small number of
well-chosen persons and topics, his enterprise still has value.28
The same can be basically said of Henning Graf Reventlow’s four vol-
umed work Epochen der Bibelauslegung. What makes the telling difference with
De Margerie is that Reventlow tries to give an outline of the history of bib-
lical exegesis from its beginning up to the present: only the second half of
volume one together with the first half of volume two is on patristic exege-
sis proper and, moreover, his emphasis is on the most significant features
and persons of western exegesis. However, the first two volumes still supply
an admirable amount of reliable information on biblical interpretation in
the patristic era.29
Concise, but highly useful and of supreme quality are both Manlio
Simonetti’s Lettera e/o allegoria. Un contributo alla storia dell’esegesi patristica,
Roma 1985 and his Profilo Storico dell’Esegesi Patristica, Roma 1981. The
latter book has been translated into English and appeared as Biblical
Interpretation in the Early Church. An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis,
Edinburgh 1994. It is admirable for its selection of the main points and the
acuteness of its diction. One can read, for example, many pages on
Tyconius and his influences (real or supposed), but Simonetti provides a
crystal clear exposé on both the seven hermeneutic rules of Tyconius’ Liber
regularum and the significance of his Commentary on the Apocalypse in one single
paragraph.30 And, as it might be expected, a reliable Scripture Index and a
General Index conclude the book.
Concise as well, but outdated, are amongst others Karlfried Froehlich’s
Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, Philadelphia 1984, and Robert
Grant’s A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (with update on modern
use by David Tracy), second edition revised and enlarged Philadelphia
1989. More recently, however, and with a number of generally dependable

28 This may be illustrated by its (partial) English translation as well: Bertrand de

Margerie, An Introduction to the History of Exegesis, Volume I: The Greek Fathers, Petersham,
Massachusetts 1993; Volume II: The Latin Fathers, Petersham, Mass. 1995; Volume III:
Saint Augustine, Petersham, Mass. 1995.
29 Henning Graf Reventlow, Epochen der Bibelauslegung, Band I: Vom Alten Testament bis

Origenes, München 1990; Band II: Von der Spätantike bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters,
München 1994.
30 M. Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. An Historical Introduction to Patristic

Exegesis, Edinburgh 1994, 95-99.

Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 96

96   

patristic contributions is the Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters

edited by Donald K. McKim and published by InterVarsity Press at
Downers Grove, Illinois and Leicester, England in 1998. Part I deals with
the patristic period and, after a fine introduction by C. Kannengiesser enti-
tled ‘Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church’ (1-16), there are (in alpha-
betical order) contributions on Athanasius ( J.J. Brogan); Augustine
(Kannengiesser, but again with some lapsus, particularly in the historical
account); Chrysostom (M.M. Mitchell); Clement of Alexandria (A.B. Wylie),
Irenaeus (R.A. Norris Jr); Jerome (D. Brown); Justin Martyr (W.A. Shotwell);
Origen (B. Nassif ); Tertullian (R. Kearsley); Theodore of Mopsuestia
(B.A. McDonald); and Theodoret of Cyrrhus (C.T. McCollough). This Part
One comprises the first seventy pages of a remarkable and really impressive
book of nearly 650 pages on all major (though only Christian) biblical inter-
preters from Justin Martyr up to the present time.
Perhaps the two best books currently in print and belonging to both the
general and (to a certain extent!) concise genre, but with a strong focus
on the patristic era and its backgrounds, are Alan J. Hauser & Duane
F. Watson (eds.), A History of Biblical Interpretation. Vol. 1: The Ancient Period 31
and, in particular, Magne Saebø (ed.), Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. The
History of Its Interpretation. Volume I: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until
1300).32
As regards the first book, it may be stated that it is excellently edited and
finely produced, as well as being written by internationally renowned
experts from the English-speaking world. Its subtitle, ‘The Ancient Period’,
refers to both a broad span of time and intellectual worlds, the description
of which is necessary to understand the biblical interpretation in the later
Christian communities like those of the patristic ages. Thus this book rightly
starts with the earliest beginnings, truly aware of the fact that biblical inter-
pretation began even before the texts came to be written down. After a fine
introductory essay by the editors, this broad orientation is demonstrated by
essays like those of Esther Menn, ‘Inner-Biblical Exegesis in the Tanak’
(55-79); Leonard Greenspoon, ‘Hebrew into Greek: Interpretation In, By,
and Of the Septuagint’ (80-113); Peder Borgen, ‘Philo of Alexandria as
Exegete’ (114-143); Philip R. Davies, ‘Biblical Interpretation in the Dead

31 Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans 2003, xxi + 536 pp., ISBN

0-8028-4273-9, US$ 45.00 / £ 32.95 (hardcover with jacket).

32 Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1996, 847 pp., ISBN 3-525-53636-4, € 112

(cloth with jacket).

Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 97

      97

Sea Scrolls’ (144-166); Martin McNamara, ‘Interpretation of Scripture in

the Targumim’ (167-197); Gary G. Porton, ‘Rabbinic Midrash’ (198-224);
James A. Sanders, ‘The Stabilization of the Tanak’ (225-252); James H.
Charlesworth, ‘The Interpretation of the Tanak in the Jewish Apocrypha
and Pseudepigrapha’ (253-282); and Donald H. Juel, ‘Interpreting Israel’s
Scriptures in the New Testament’ (283-303). The only criticism one may
perhaps offer is that—after the relative neglect of the importance of Jewish
biblical interpretation for the Christian Church at the advantage of ‘pagan’
rhetorical influences that has occurred in so many previous studies—the bal-
ance may well have tipped too much in favour of the Jewish influences. The
‘pagan imprint on Christian exegesis’, to use an expression of Christoph
Schäublin,33 is not dealt with in a separate chapter.34 However, notwith-
standing this possible omission, the studies devoted to ‘patristic’ exegesis are
more than worthwhile being all of a high scientific level: Joseph Trigg, ‘The
Apostolic Fathers and Apologists’ (304-333); Frances Young, ‘Alexandrian
and Antiochene Exegesis’ (334-354);35 Dennis Brown, ‘Jerome and the
Vulgate’ (355-379); Richard A. Norris, ‘Augustine and the Close of the
Ancient Period of Interpretation’ (380-408). There is also a separate treat-
ment of the canon issue in Harry Gamble’s ‘The Formation of the New
Testament Canon and Its Significance for the History of Biblical
Interpretation’ (409-429), and similarly there is the deserved treatment of
‘apocryphal’ writings and the multi-faceted phenomenon of Gnosticism in
Craig A. Evans’, ‘The Interpretation of Scripture in the New Testament
Apocrypha and Gnostic Writings’ (430-456). This latter contribution is
divided in three nearly equal parts (‘The use of Scripture in the apocryphal
Gospels’, ‘Interpretation of the Old Testament in the Gnostic writings’, and
‘The use of the New Testament writings in apocryphal and Gnostic texts’)
and offers a reliable summary of new trends in research. Neither in this
chapter, however, nor elsewhere in the book does the position of Marcion
or Mani receive thematic treatment. As regards the former, reference may

33 Chr. Schäublin, ‘Zur paganen Prägung der christlichen Exegese’, in: J. van Oort &

U. Wickert (Hgg.), Christliche Exegese zwischen Nicaea und Chalkedon, Kampen 1992, 148-173.
34 And, possibly indicative, his name is spelled wrongly on all four occasions his stud-

ies have been mentioned, though there is of course some incidental treatment of the
methods of the rhetorical schools, as for example in Frances Young’s article.
35 Though here, as in her well-known study Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian

Culture, Cambridge 1997, she tends to downplay the fact that history for the ‘Antiochene’
exegetes first of all meant real historical, i.e. palpable and tangible data as the basis for
their ‘literal’ exegesis.
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 98

98   

now be made to several of the impressive studies in a new volume on

Marcion;36 with regard to Mani and his exegesis it may be notified that the
first and updated edition of the dissertation of Alexander Böhlig on the
Bible in Manichaeism,37 together with some other pertinent studies of his
pen, is soon to appear in the series Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies.
The volumes edited by Saebø are slightly older and, according to their
title, more limited in scope. Nevertheless, one may argue that these two size-
able books still include the very best treatment of biblical interpretation in
the patristic era currently in print. Indeed the focus in these volumes is on
the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament, but this does not mean that not incon-
siderable attention is paid to the New Testament writings as well. And, as
in its recent counterpart, A History of Biblical Interpretation, Vol. 1, both the
beginnings of Scriptural interpretation in the Jewish milieu and its subse-
quent afterlife in (early) rabbinic literature receive ample treatment.
It is impossible to indicate in a few sentences the extremely rich contents
of the two volumes so admirably edited by the Norwegian scholar Magne
Saebø. The first volume, i.e. ‘Part 1: Antiquity’ deals in section A with
‘Beginnings of Scriptural Interpretation’. This section comprises important
studies like ‘Inner-Biblical Exegesis’ by Michael Fishbane; ‘The Inter-
pretative Character and Significance of the Septuagint Version’ by John
W. Wevers; ‘Early Jewish Interpretation in a Hellenistic Style’ by Folker
Siegert, who deals in this chapter with Philo among others; and ‘Scripture
and Canon in the Commonly Called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and
in the Writings of Josephus’ by Robert A. Kraft and Steve Mason. All these
studies are of great importance for understanding the background and (a
significant part of ) the Umwelt of ancient Christian exegesis. The majority
of section B: ‘Parting of the Ways: Jewish and Christian Scriptural

36 Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung / Marcion and His Impact on Church History.
Vorträge der internationalen Fachkonferenz zu Marcion, gehalten vom 15.-18. August
2001 in Mainz. Herausgegeben von Gerhard May und Katharina Greschat, in Gemein-
schaft mit Martin Meiser (Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Texte
und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 150), Berlin-New York
2002. Besides, from many passages of the recent Adolf Harnack: Marcion. Der moderne
Gläubige des 2. Jahrhunderts, der erste Reformator. Die Dorpater Preisschrift (1870). Kritische
Edition des handschriftlichen Exemplars mit einem Anhang herausgegeben von
Friedemann Steck (Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Texte und
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 149), Berlin-New York 2003,
one may learn how already young Harnack saw the immense influence of Marcion on
‘patristic’ exegesis.
37 A. Böhlig, Die Bibel bei den Manichäern, Inaugural-Dissertation Münster i.W. 1947.
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 99

      99

Interpretation in Antiquity’ focuses on Christian exegesis and hermeneutics

proper. It includes studies from leading scholars like Jarl Fossum, ‘Social
and Institutional Conditions for Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation
of the Hebrew Bible, with Special Regard to Religious Groups and Sects’
(239-255); Hans Hübner, ‘New Testament Interpretation of the Old’ (332-
372); Oskar Skarsaune, ‘The Development of Scriptural Interpretation in
the Second and Third Centuries—except Clement and Origen’ (373-442);
idem, ‘The Question of Old Testament Canon and Text in the Early Greek
Church’, i.e. from the New Testament to Irenaeus, focusing on Justin
Martyr (443-450); J.F. Procopé, ‘Greek Philosophy, Hermeneutics and
Alexandrian Understanding of the Old Testament’, a chapter in which the
Greek Umwelt of Christian exegesis is aptly delineated (451-477); J.N.B.
Carleton Paget, ‘The Christian Exegesis of the Old Testament in the
Alexandrian Tradition’, appropriately and admirably discussing the wide
range of evidence reaching from the forerunners of Clement, Clement him-
self, the great Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius up to and including the
Cappadocian Fathers Basil and Gregory of Nyssa (478-542); Sten Hidal,
‘Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Antiochene School with its Prevalent
Literal and Historical Method’ (543-568); Günther Stemberger, ‘Exegetical
Contacts between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire’ (569-586);
Michael Weitzman, ‘The Interpretative Character of the Syriac Old Testa-
ment’, i.e. on the Peshitta, a rather technical article (587-611); Lucas Van
Rompay, ‘The Christian Syriac Tradition of Interpretation’ (612-641);
Eva Schulz-Flügel, ‘The Latin Old Testament Tradition’ (642-662); René
Kieffer, ‘Jerome: His Exegesis and Hermeneutics’ (663-681); Christoph
Jacob, ‘The Reception of the Origenist Tradition in Latin Exegesis’ (682-
700); David F. Wright, ‘Augustine: His Exegesis and Hermeneutics’ (701-
730); and finally ‘An Epilogue’ by Magne Saebø entitled ‘Church and
Synagogue as the Respective Matrix of the Development of an Authoritative
Bible Interpretation’ (731-745). All of these essays are of a magnificent value
and presently I do not know of studies better meeting the needs of both
graduate and (first-rate) undergraduate students and, moreover, of many an
advanced student of patristic exegesis as well.
Part II of the HBOT’s first volume is entitled ‘The Middle Ages’,38 but
this title should not mislead patristic scholars. In point of fact one finds a
number of topical articles like those of Stephen Ch. Kessler, ‘Gregory the

38 Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000, 729 pp., ISBN 3-525-53507-4, € 94

(cloth with jacket).

Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 100

100   

Great: A Figure of Tradition and Transition in Church Exegesis’ (135-147);

Claudio Leonardi, ‘Aspects of Old Testament Interpretation in the Church
from the Seventh to the Tenth Century’ (180-195, dealing with Isidore of
Seville and the Venerable Bede, among others); and again Lucas Van
Rompay who in his second HBOT-contribution ‘Development of Biblical
Interpretation in the Syrian Churches of the Middle Ages’ (559-577) dis-
cusses the exegetical contributions of later Syriac biblical scholars who more
often than not heavily leant on their ‘patristic’ predecessors in the pre-
Islamic period.

III. New Projects

At the end of our overview, we may conclude with a few words on new pro-
jects. While several of the series mentioned in the previous lines are being
pursued and, moreover, a considerable number of separate studies on bib-
lical interpretation in the patristic era will be published in the near future,
two recent undertakings may be singled out.
The first is the large, rather popular, but nevertheless highly impressive
project, ‘Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture’, which is based at
Drew University in Madison, New Jersey, with Thomas C. Oden acting as
its general editor. When complete, the ACCS will comprise twenty-eight39
volumes encompassing the entire canon of Scripture ‘plus the Apocrypha’
(i.e., the Old Testament Apocrypha according to the Protestant point of
view). The books are finely published by InterVarsity Press and styled for
durable use (cloth with jacket). Particularly interesting is that the material
to illustrate a Bible text is not only taken from a wide range of patristic writ-
ings like sermons, homilies, letters and theological discourses roughly dating
from the second to the eighth centuries, but also from a wide range of lin-
guistic sources including Coptic and Syriac. As a rule the translations are
taken from the best translation series already available, but a considerable
amount of new translation work has been carried out as well. Besides, it is
particularly impressive that—when needed from the original sources—the
whole enterprise is scheduled to be translated into Spanish (General Editor
Marcelo Merino Rodriguez, Navarra; responsible publishing house Ciudad

39 According the latest information on the publisher’s internetsite; in the introduction

to the first published volume twenty-seven volumes are planned, i.e. fourteen on the OT,
twelve on the NT, and one on the ‘Apocrypha’.
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 101

      101

Nueva), Italian (General Editor Angelo Di Berardino; in collaboration with

Citta Nuova), Russian, Mandarin Chinese, Arabic, Russian, etc.40
A project of another kind and scope is the recently announced ‘Novum
Testamentum Patristicum. Ein patristischer Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament’. In principal this is a German language project and aimed at
addressing a scientific audience. Unlike the ACCS, the results will not be
presented in a sort of catenae, but full stress will be laid upon the original
historical, theological and liturgical setting of the patristic exegesis of the
subsequent books of the New Testament. Moreover, the development of a
certain patristic exegesis will be outlined from its earliest appearances as
well. Additionally, pivotal texts and key concepts will be rendered in their
original language. The first volumes are expected to appear in 2006/7.41

Universiteit Utrecht & Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen

[email protected]

P
After having completed the above lines, I happened to receive the follow-
ing new volume in order to be reviewed in this journal: 1 Corinthians.
Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. Translated and Edited by Judith
L. Kovacs. The book is finely produced and published by William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company in Grand Rapids, Michigan &
Cambridge, U.K. in October 200542 and is part of the new series: The
Church’s Bible, under the general editorship of Robert Louis Wilken. Both
this volume and the stated scope of the new series happily illustrate what
has been said about patristic exegesis as a new (and ecumenical) trend of
scientific research with an intended practical application in the article
above.
As regards the scope of the Series, Robert Wilken in his ‘Series Preface’
inter alia remarks that the volumes are designed ‘to present the Holy
Scriptures as understood and interpreted during the first millennium of
Christian history’ and that in those times (later on he speaks about the first

40 See for more and most recent information www.depts.drew.edu/accs/

41 Further info www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/Theologie/alte-kg/ntp/
42 Judith L. Kovacs, tr. and ed., 1 Corinthians. Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators,

Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans 2005, xxix + 340 pp., ISBN
0-8028-2577-X, US$ 35.00 / £ 19.99 (hardcover with jacket).
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 102

102   

eight hundred years of Christian history) ‘theology was called sacra pagina
(the sacred page), and the task of interpreting the Bible was a spiritual enter-
prise’ (vii). ‘Early Christian thinkers moved in the world of the Bible, under-
stood its idiom, loved its teaching, and were filled with awe before its
mysteries. They believed in the maxim, “Scripture interprets Scripture.”
They knew something that has largely been forgotten by biblical scholars,
and their commentaries are an untapped resource for understanding the
Bible as a book about Christ’ (viii).
From these quotes the intention of the Series may be clear, which pur-
pose, moreover, is stated as being ‘to make available the richness of the
Church’s classical tradition of interpretation for clergy, Sunday school and
Bible class teachers, men and women living in religious communities, and
all serious readers of the Bible’ (vii) and is supported by ‘the Center for
Catholic and Evangelical Theology’ (ix).
All this, however, should not be misunderstood. The volume edited by
Judith Kovacs (like Wilken’s fine introductory essay on ‘Interpreting the
New Testament’, x-xix) aptly demonstrates that we are dealing here with
sound scientific work made available for a wider audience. From a wide
range of Greek and Latin patristic sources Kovacs has gathered together
her material. She has divided this in well-balanced doses to illustrate the
subsequent texts and passages of Paul’s letter. As might be expected, a large
amount of the patristic commentary comes from Augustine, Chrysostom,
and Origen, but authors like Ambrose, the ‘Ambrosiaster’, Athanasius,
Basil, Clement and Cyril of Alexandria or Tertullian, Theodore of Mop-
suestia and Theodoretus are represented as well. A fairly original feature of
her work is the inclusion of a large portion of a ‘Dialogue of a Montanist
with an Orthodox Christian’ to illustrate 1 Cor. 11:5. Generally speaking,
it may be remarked that 1 Corinthians, with its discussion of true apostle-
ship, divisions in the church, baptism, eucharist, eschatology, the place of
women in the congregation, etc. is a rewarding subject for a ‘patristic com-
mentary’. But all the same, Judith Kovacs—evidently with the help of David
Kovacs, ‘who translated the excerpts form the Latin fathers’ (ix)—has
accomplished an excellent work.43 Several excellent indices, moreover, dis-
close the book’s rich contents.

43 A few minor flaws may be briefly indicated: it is not clear why for the translation

of e.g. Augustine’s Against Faustus use has been made of the antiquated and (since a long
time already!) superseded edition in MPL; the information on Augustine (‘He was a fol-
lower of Platonic philosophy and then of Manicheanism’, p. 293) is incorrect; add after
Vigiliae 60,1_80-103II 1/18/06 10:19 AM Page 103

      103

By and large it may be concluded that a book and a series like this new
one stands midway between the slightly more popular ‘Ancient Christian
Commentary on Scripture’—which, however, has the widest scope—and
the more scientific—but still only projected—‘Novum Testamentum
Patristicum’ that, among other things, is announced to include the texts in
their original languages.
In due course we hope to come back to the issue of ‘Patristic Exegesis’.
Evidently what seems to have become a new trend of research and impres-
sive publication endeavours moves on. There’s even a rumour that new pro-
jects are on the way.

Miscellanea Agostiniana (p. 318): Roma 1930; read ‘Alypius’ for ‘Alpius’ (320),
‘Katenenhandschriften’ for ‘Katenhandschriften’ (xxiii and 299) and ‘Chavasse’ for
‘Charasse’ as the editor of Leo the Great (319). Besides, the Liturgy of James was not pub-
lished in 1974 but in 1947 (by B.-C. Mercier in PO 126 / 26.2; reprinted by Brepols in
1997).