Exegesis of St. Isidore Pelusiota: point of intersection of the Alexandrian and Antiochene exegetical traditions

Abstract. This article is an attempt to reconstruct the exegetical method of St. Isidore Pelusiota. St. Isidore as a theologian and exegete was formed in the context of the Alexandrian theological tradition, but at the same time under the influence of the personality and works of St. John Chrysostom learned some principles of Antiochene exegesis, therefore, to reconstruct the exegetical method of St. Isidore, it is important to determine the sources of content and the possible scale of influence of both traditions. To do this, it is necessary to conduct a search and analysis of possible borrowings. In the commentaries on passages from the historical and legislative books of the Holy Scriptures, the influence of the spiritual and moral allegory of Philo and Origen predominates. Interpretations of messianic prophetic texts are dominated by the influence of the interpretations of Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and St. John Chrysostom. St. Isidore is a famous ascetic and church leader of the first half of V in 1. He had great authority in the Church and was a mentor for various people: bishops, presbyters, deacons, officials, teachers, and influenced the life of the Church. Spiritual care in many cases was carried out through correspondence. About two thousand letters have survived to this day. Most of the epistolary heritage of St. Isidore is associated with commentary on Scripture. As an interpreter, he is obviously in line with the Alexandrian exegetical tradition. However, thanks to acquaintance with the heritage of St. John Chrysostom 2, which made a strong impression on him, St. Isidore became interested in the traditional Antiochene approach to understanding the Bible. In his letters one can find connections with the works of St. John Chrysostom, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia. The influence of the latter two authors has not previously been discussed. The degree of influence of the Antiochians on the interpretation of St. Isidore is difficult to assess due to the lack of chronology in the extant corpus of letters. Nevertheless, this influence is important to take into account when reconstructing the semantic-interpretative model, which St. Isidore used. In some cases, the Alexandrian and Antiochene traditions merged into a single whole, in others they act independently. St. Isidore strove to take from his predecessors everything that seemed useful and correct to him. He was one of those who gave rise to a new synthetic approach to exegesis, based on the positive results of the work of his predecessors. 1. Necessary conditions for understanding the Holy Scriptures From the point of view of Rev. Isidore, purity of life and faith is the first necessary condition for a correct understanding of the biblical text. Piety and the right profession of faith direct the thought of the exegete in a direction authentic to the Bible and create the necessary conditions for the divine enlightenment of the mind of the exegete 3. Another indispensable condition is consistent research work, which consists of applying a set of exegetical methods 4 . A sign of a correct understanding of Scripture is an obvious logical connection between the text and the interpretation. “One must follow the Scriptures, and not show them the way and not impose meaning on them by one’s own will 5 . This principle is the basis of the exegetical method developed within Antioch. The Antiochians usually point to this, as a criterion for objective research, in polemics with an allegorical interpretation of Origen 6 divorced from the context. The beginning of the interpretation of the biblical text should be an analysis of the context of the speech of the biblical author, outside of which the interpreter builds exegesis solely on arbitrary principles. Yes, Rev. Isidore criticizes the allegorical interpretation of the words of the prophet Isaiah and the book of Job: “I commanded all the stars” (Is. 45:12); the stars are unclean before Him (Job 25:5). Based on the context, he proves that in this case we are talking about ordinary heavenly bodies, the movement and place by which the Creator determined and which, like all creation, are incommensurable with the Creator. “By nature, the stars are pure, as the Creator created them; but in comparison with the Creator Himself, they are as far from Him as an ant is from the sky, or from the sun, or from any of the other creatures 7 . Neglect of the context and general teaching of Holy Scripture in this case creates the preconditions for abstract reasoning that has nothing to do with the content of the biblical text. Discovering the meaning of Scripture requires attention and consistency. Thus, in the words addressed to Adam: “... thou art earth, and unto earth thou shalt return” (Gen. 3:19), there is hidden a divine indication of the future resurrection. “God’s definition, seemingly one-sided, expresses the Tsar’s love for mankind and gives rise to hope for return 8. We find the same case in the speech of the prophet Jonah about the destruction of Nineveh: “...three more days, and Nineveh will be destroyed” (Jon. 3:4). The Lord thus gives the Ninevites the last opportunity to repent: “I’ll put up with you for three more days. God's definition, apparently, included not one thing, but two things: either punishment for the unrepentant, or salvation for the repentant 9 . Likewise, after Adam’s fall, God did not turn man into nothingness, but gave him time on earth to repent. Thus, not only must a simple literal explanation of the biblical author's speech be conditioned by the composition and sequence of the text, but any spiritual interpretation must be a logical conclusion from what and how the sacred writer reports. Due to the real presence in the Bible of direct connections between the letter and its content, the literal meaning can be objectively accessible to a simple reader, and the spiritual meaning - to an enlightened researcher to the best of their spiritual and intellectual abilities. “[The author] dissolved the divine lessons in simple words, so that a woman, a child, and the most unlearned of all people would gain some benefit from just hearing. It did not neglect the wiser ones either, because in such clarity, like certain treasures, are hidden teachings so mysterious that the wisest and most learned people are perplexed by the depth of their thoughts and often cannot penetrate the incomprehensibility of wisdom 10 . At the same time, it is important to keep in mind the connection between the literal meaning of τὸ γράμμα and the spiritual τὰς θεωρίας καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα&#8202 11 . For this reason, Rev. Isidore, on the one hand, categorically rejects Origen’s approach, according to which some episodes of biblical history and the rulings of the Holy Scriptures do not have a literal meaning, and on the other hand, he criticizes the narrow literalism of Antioch 12. For example, in the interpretation: “An uncircumcised male who does not circumcise his foreskin, that soul will be cut off from his people, for he has broken My covenant” (Gen. 17:14), Rev. Isidore criticizes Origen's approach. According to the literal meaning, the child must be punished for the sin of the parents, which, from the position of Divine justice, is unjust and cruel. Therefore, this phrase, according to Origen's concept, hints at the presence of a hidden spiritual meaning in a given place. Based on this, the Alexandrian didaskal proceeds to an allegorical interpretation of both the fragment of Genesis 17:13–14 and the entire story of Abraham. According to his interpretation, the writer of everyday life speaks about the cleansing of the soul’s powers from passions and about entering the Church of Christ 13. St. Isidore does not criticize the very content of Origen’s interpretation, but at the same time considers it necessary to preserve the literal meaning of the phrase. The death of children is obviously an extremely severe shock for parents, so the divine warning was intended to keep them from violating the commandment and deviating from the faith 14. In other cases, Rev. Isidore regrets that many reject the spiritual meaning of the biblical text and thereby deprive themselves of spiritual benefit. “I could indicate the speculative (θεωρίας) meaning of this, because this contains excellent allegories (ἀλληγορίας) ... But since I know that many think that those who turn to speculative interpretation out of ignorance avoid resolving the issues, and that you are satisfied only with the matter itself and the direct interpretation of the Scriptures, I will give a direct answer without any circumstance 15. Spiritual meaning, from the point of view of St. Isidore, throughout Scripture accompanies history and is of great importance for the knowledge of faith and piety. At the same time, the literal meaning is also not devoid of spiritual content and is of great importance, including as the foundation for revealing the spiritual meaning of the Bible, without which the understanding of the biblical message will be incomplete and limited. That is why the interpreter always treats the literal meaning of the biblical text with care 16. So, for example, explaining the words of the apostle: “Every sin that a person commits is outside the body, but the fornicator sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18), Rev. Isidore identifies ten semantic facets. Nine moral conclusions follow directly from the very fact of adultery, the consequences of which extend to the person himself, his family and children. The tenth conclusion, which the author himself calls an allegory, takes the reader into the sphere of the mystical unity of the body of the Church (cf. Rom. 12:5): “the fornicator sins against all; because his offense extends to the entirety of the Church, from which the Apostle commanded that he be cut off until he repented 17 . The last conclusion, attributed by the interpreter to the sphere of spiritual meaning, corresponds to the general logic of the thought of the Apostle Paul and the context: “Shall I therefore take away the members of Christ, that I may make them members of a harlot” (1 Cor. 6:15). Consequently, it cannot be said that in this case the exegete uses the method of allegorizing the biblical text. In this case, spiritual interpretation continues to develop the thought of the biblical author, implicit in his speech. This approach could well have been approved by the Antiochian interpreters. 2. The Spiritual Meaning of Scripture St. Isidore sees an obvious literal meaning in all passages of Holy Scripture that contain a historical story or a description of legal regulations 18. At the same time, the authenticity of the literal meaning in no way prevents the search for spiritual meaning, which can show historical-typical connections of objects and events or present spiritual parallels between the subject of the text and the realities of spiritual life. In the first case, Rev. Isidore builds a spiritual interpretation on the basis of the prophetic similarity of the described events with spiritual objects or future events. In this he follows the example of the Apostle Paul, who in the Epistle to the Galatians considers the story of Sarah and Hagar to be a prophetic analogy of the two covenants (cf. Gal. 4:24). At the same time, Rev. Isidore, like Diodorus of Tarsus, calls this prophetic parallel θεωρία, and not ἀλληγορία, as could follow, according to the Alexandrian tradition, from the word ἀλληγορούμενα&#8202 19. So, for example, Rev. Isidore offers a spiritual interpretation of the fragment: “And she covered his hands and his smooth neck with the skin of kids” (Gen. 27:16). The dead skins of kids are an image of human nature, the passions of which Christ mortifies 20. Here, in the spirit of Diodorus of Tarsus, he calls the details of the historical story riddles - αἰνίγματα. The answer, the author believes, is hidden in the metaphorical parallels of the parable about the separation of sheep and goats (cf. Matthew 25:33). In the context of this parable, the image of goats indicates sinners who are subject to condemnation, therefore Jacob, as an image of Christ, by dressing in the skins of kids, shows that the Lord frees humanity from condemnation and sin 21 . Thus, the relationship between the riddles of the Old Testament and the revelation of the New Testament, which Diodorus speaks of in his interpretation of Psalm 118, lies on the plane of typological meaning 22. “Most of the riddles in the Divine Scriptures,” writes Diodorus of Tarsus, “refer to the Lord Christ, even if it seems that they are literally talking about other persons 23. Interpreters propose to see prophetic revelation in the persons, actions and events of Old Testament history. It is revealed by comparing Old Testament events with New Testament ones. At the same time, in the texts of the New Testament there may be direct and indirect allusions to the content of various images, as in the parable of the separation of the sheep from the goats. This rapprochement can be considered an outright stretch, but the author himself did not doubt the validity of his conclusions. Firstly, in his interpretation he continues the church tradition, and secondly, he is based on the conviction that the same objects (πράγματα) and images (τρόποι/μεταφοραί) in the Holy Scripture point to the same reality. The last principle was clearly formulated by Origen and was also conceptualized and applied in the works of St. John Chrysostom and other Antiochians 24. The difference between the two approaches is that in the Alexandrian exegetical tradition the word πράγμα of Scripture becomes τρόπος / μεταφορά, since the inspired text is an allegory, and the Antiochians fundamentally distinguish one from the other, since the πράγματα of history are the subject of speech in the Bible and through their consideration a person comes to the knowledge of God 25. In this regard, the approach of Rev. Isidora is closer to Origen's concept. So, in the expression: “Your innkeepers mix wine with water” (Is. 1:22) - these words of reproof of the prophet Isaiah become a metaphor. The decisive factor in this case is the meaning of the symbolic imagery of wine in Proverbs. 9:2 and the vine in John 15:1. From the point of view of Rev. Isidora, these images are part of a consistent usage of words in Scripture. Wisdom in the book of Proverbs and the vine in John 15:1–8 are symbolic images of Christ. The wine that Wisdom offers figuratively means divine teaching. The source of this wine is the Vine - Christ. Thus, concludes St. Isidore is talking about the perversion of divine teaching. “Therefore, those who distort the Divine teaching with false and powerless instructions, who disturb the heavenly dogmas... Scripture rightly calls innkeepers, who mix wine with water and add their cries to the pure wisdom of the Divine words 26. This interpretation goes back to the tradition of Origen. Eusebius of Caesarea explains this passage in exactly the same way, and Didymus the Blind, using the same scheme, explains in the same sense the first part of verse 22 of chapter 1 of the book of the prophet Isaiah: “Your silver is counterfeit” (Is. 1:22). However, in the interpretation of St. Isidore can be found, in comparison with the explanations of the mentioned authors, an important difference. The Didaskal does not exclude a literal understanding of verse 22. Another interesting example of this kind of spiritual exegesis is the interpretation of Christ’s words to the dove sellers: “Do not make My Father’s house a house of trade” (John 2:16). In a spiritual sense, “since the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, these words indicate priests who sell the gifts of the Holy Spirit 27 . St. Isidore Pelusiot proceeds from the interpretation of Origen, according to which the Temple of Jerusalem is an image of the Churches 28. Accordingly, what is happening is a depiction of the realities of church life. The interpreter also tries to establish a connection between the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove and this episode. Thus, if the church is the image of the Church, and the dove is the image of the Holy Spirit, then the speech and actions of the Lord serve as a warning to the church hierarchy not to turn their ministry into profit. Moreover, the literal meaning of the text in the interpretation of St. Isidora does not lose its significance 29. In other cases, Rev. In spiritual interpretation, Isidore forms semantic parallels between the facts of biblical history and the principles of spiritual life. Let's consider the interpretation of the words: “Jacob held on to Esau’s heel” (Gen. 25:26). This fact in the exegesis of St. Isidore becomes an image of the spiritual struggle of the human spirit with the flesh. The central point of this internal process is man's desire to meet God 30. This interpretation is first found in the comments of Philo of Alexandria 31. St. Isidore unites the thoughts of Philo, expressed by him in various works. According to interpreters, the life of Jacob is an image of an ascetic life. Just as in a typological interpretation the facts of history are a prophetic image of the future, so in this case the same facts depict the fundamental foundations of ascetic life 32 . The names Jacob and Israel complement this image: Jacob - Πτερνιστής - trampling on the heel, Israel - Ὁρῶν τὸν Θεόν - seeing God. These names reflect the ascetic nature of Jacob’s life and its spiritual fruits. Through this sequence of names, the paradigm of spiritual struggle is manifested. First comes a spiritual struggle and trampling of passions, and then a mysterious meeting with God. Thus, in this interpretation, history becomes an analogy of the mystical spiritual and moral life of man. This interpretation does not exclude the traditional typological and simple literal reading of the text, but complements them. The purpose of Holy Scripture is the salvation of man. And a person comes to salvation through faith in Christ through ascetic struggle. When considering this kind of interpretation, it is important to take into account the spiritually contemplative mood of the mind and the ascetic nature of the life of the exegete. Also a model of mystical-ascetic exegesis for St. Isidore could have become the work of St. Gregory of Nyssa “On the Life of Moses the Lawgiver,” which is also directly dependent on the interpretation of Philo of Alexandria 33. Thus, there is an obvious literal meaning and a hidden spiritual meaning in the Scriptures. The latter is divided into two parts in accordance with the purpose of Holy Scripture: typological and mystical-ascetic. Both types of spiritual interpretation of St. Isidore calls θεωρία. Beyond the framework of historical and typological research, St. Isidore uses, along with θεωρία, the term ἀλληγωρία&#8202 34 to denote spiritual interpretation. However, this does not mean rejecting the historical narrative as an empty external form. The literal meaning and spiritual content of the biblical message are inextricably linked, so the foundation for the study of the hidden spiritual meaning is invariably the text of Scripture and its literal meaning, therefore the principle of “following the Scriptures” is observed in the case of literal, typological and mystical-ascetic interpretation 35 . The term “allegory” indicates the presence in the narrative, in addition to the literal, also of a figurative meaning, and the terms θεωρία and πνεῦμα – to its spiritual character 36 . Typological connections between events are not for the exegete a figurative meaning in the proper sense, therefore, in the typological interpretations of St. Isidore does not use the term "allegory". From the point of view of Rev. Isidore Pelusiot, in the Old Testament, prophecies about Christ are combined with messages about contemporary events or events close to the time of the prophet. This feature is due to two reasons. First, the ancient Jews were unable to hear and accept the revelation of the Incarnation 37. Secondly, since Divine Providence invariably takes care of people at all times, prophetic revelation should be relevant for contemporaries. God in the prophetic books, as it were, “mixes” the revelation of the future and the story of the immediate events of the history of Israel, so that “both the listeners of that time could derive some benefit, and their successors, seeing the connection of events, could acquire accurate knowledge 38. So, for example, Psalm 71 simultaneously informs contemporaries about the imminent accession of a wise and just king, and to future generations of the messianic time about the coming of the Lord Christ. This concept was previously formulated by the Antiochian exegetes Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. “For there is one promise,” writes Diodorus in his interpretation of Psalm 71, “for the people, that is, for the Israelites, who descend from Abraham, and another for the nations... The prophets, foreshadowing events, adapted their speeches both to the times in which they pronounced them, and to subsequent (messianic) times 39. This idea is subsequently developed by Theodore of Mopsuestia. The Holy Scripture describes the Divine Providence operating in history, which takes care of the benefit of people in every period of the religious history of the Jewish people, the completion of which was the coming of Christ 40. For the first time, the combination of two meanings was clearly manifested in the promises to Abraham and David. In them, one part refers to descendants, and the other to the coming of Christ. Moreover, both parts of the promises are inextricably linked by the sequence of speeches 41, therefore it is important in the interpretation of the prophetic text to separate the future from the present. That which does not correspond to the “Divine Coming of the Savior” must be attributed to the time of the Old Testament, and everything “majestic, befitting the Divine dignity alone” – to Christ 42. So, in the interpretation of St. Isidore Pelusiot clearly demonstrates the division of the prophetic text into prophecy (message about Christ) and history (message about the events of the history of Israel) inherent in the Antiochene tradition. Attempts to connect different parts of the prophetic text lead to a distortion of the author’s thoughts and plunge the biblical narrative into the sphere of insoluble contradictions. “Let us not interpret prophecies forcibly and, in order to harmonize prophetic expressions, fall into empty rantings; but we will understand what is said historically prudently and what is said prophetically - in a spiritual sense (κατὰ θεωρίαν), and clearly historical (σαφῶς ἱστορηθέντα) without forcibly turning it into a spiritual interpretation (εἰς θεωρίαν), and what should be understood spiritually (θεωρηθῆναι) - into history; We will correlate a suitable and consistent meaning with both. In this case, Rev. Isidore reinterprets the interpretation of Psalm 71 of Diodorus of Tarsus. Diodorus also divides the psalm into two parts. One group of verses directly (ἱστορικῶϛ) refers to Solomon, and the other in a spiritual sense (θεωρεματικῶϛ) refers to Christ 44. The words of prophecy, from his point of view, can simultaneously be history and prophecy, that is, relate simultaneously to both the history of Israel and Christ 45. Thus, the prophet speaks of events that become prototypes of the messianic time. This feature of St. Isidore overlooks or, like Theodore of Mopsuestia, does not consider it fundamental, since in ancient times interpreters did not see a significant difference between verbal prophecy and typology 46 . The model followed by St. Isidore, used by St. John Chrysostom in his commentary on the prophet Isaiah. From his point of view, prophets usually do not separate prophecies about Christ into a separate thematic section, but “under the guise of consistency of speech, they cover up the prophecy 47. Thus, in prophetic books in many cases there is no obvious transition from one topic to another, so that the vivid messianic statements of the prophet stand out against the general background of the flow of the narrative. Against the background of this contrast, the details of the saving economy in Christ become more obvious, which helps the reader to penetrate deeper into the essence of the truths of faith. On the other hand, the fulfillment of some predictions in the near future makes it clear that something that obviously goes beyond the scope of the history of Israel 48 will also be fulfilled. In the exegesis of Diodorus of Tarsus, St. John Chrysostom and St. Isidore Pelusiot traces the consistent use of the relationship history - prophecy (προφητεία/θεωρία). Moreover, the term “history” means a prediction about Israel, and “prophecy” or θεωρία means a revelation about Christ and his time. Consequently, Evier is mistaken when, analyzing, in particular, the interpretation of Psalm 71 by St. Isidora writes that θεωρία indicates the mystical-contemplative illumination of the mind of the exegete 49 . Also, the influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia can be traced in the refusal of St. Isidore sees a messianic meaning throughout the Old Testament. The theme of Christ in the Old Testament is extremely important for Christian preaching and doctrine, therefore, each case of the messianic interpretation of the Old Testament books must be consistently substantiated. Theodore of Mopsuestia and St. Isidore sees a serious danger for the Church in the attempts of some exegetes to attribute most of the Old Testament writings to Christ, to the detriment of the context. From their point of view, this leads to arbitrary allegorization of the biblical text, which serves as a reason for criticism and complete rejection of church teaching. “Those who attempt to apply the entire Old Testament to Christ are not exempt from the accusation that both pagans and heretics who do not recognize this Testament are given strength in the fight against us. For, in a strained interpretation of what was said about Christ that was not said about Him, one raises doubts whether what is said about Him is also explained fairly 50 . The messianic interpretation must be entirely consistent with the letter of the biblical text. Of course, the divine prophetic word does not always describe the kingdom of Christ explicitly, but nevertheless this description has a sufficient number of expressed features by which one can recognize the time of Christ. God in some cases “depicted the future as in a sketch, and in others he clarified it with the help of paints and made the features of the image bright and alive 51. This is the expression of St. Isidora echoes the corresponding reasoning of St. John Chrysostom and expresses the author's confidence in the real presence of the messianic revelation in the prophetic words and events of the history of Israel 52. This cautious approach to messianic interpretation of the Old Testament is based on the general tenet of the Antiochene exegetical tradition: a correct interpretation must have a clear connection with and follow from the biblical text. Thus, in the interpretation of the prophecies of St. Isidore follows more the principles developed by the Antiochene exegetes. He considers the Christological reading of the entire Old Testament dangerous and harmful. The authors themselves left sufficient grounds for the messianic interpretation in certain places, so there is no need to be forced to attribute everything to Christ. Prophets generally do not explicitly divide their books into thematic sections. The prophecies about Christ and the events of Israeli history are intertwined in the text and outwardly represent a single sequential story, therefore expressions that are meaningfully suitable for the Person of Christ should be attributed to Him, and expressions that correspond to the events of the history of Israel should be attributed to the corresponding events. In the exegesis of St. Isidore Pelusiot is influenced mainly by two exegetical traditions: Alexandrian and Antiochian 53 . Influenced by the allegorical approach of Philo, Origen and others, Isidore sees a hidden spiritual meaning in the historical story of the Bible: typological and spiritual-ascetic. The search for spiritual parallels between the letter and the mysterious meaning is often based on a system of common spiritual meaning of objects and metaphorical images in Scripture, as in Origen or Philo. St. Isidore clearly borrows the basic motives, logic and content of spiritual interpretation from these exegetes. At the same time, he insists on the importance and spiritual nature of the literal meaning, which is a consequence of the direct or indirect influence of the works of the Antiochians. Thus, in the interpretation of texts of a historical nature, St. Isidore tries to combine the spiritual expansion of the literal meaning characteristic of the comments of St. John Chrysostom, the deeper spiritual-ascetic or dogmatic meaning hidden behind it, which was addressed by Philo and Origen, and the typological parallels that were revealed by all Christian exegetes. The interpretation of prophetic texts is dominated by the influence of the Antiochian tradition, namely: Diodorus of Tarsus, St. John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Only those prophecies should be attributed to Christ, the meaning of which without exaggeration corresponds to the messianic time. Otherwise, the messianic interpretation undermines the authority of the Church. Very often in prophetic speech predictions about the times of Old Testament history and the implementation of the New Testament economy are mixed. Thus, the words of the prophet remain relevant both for contemporaries and for future generations. At the same time, the opposition between the expressions ἱστορία (prediction about the events of Old Testament history) and προφητεία/θεωρία (prophecy about the Messiah), which is also characteristic of the works of Diodorus, St. John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Basilius Caesariensis. De Spiritu Sancto // PG. T. 32. Col. 68–217. Didymus Caecus. Commentarii in Zachariam. T. 3 // Didyme l’Aveugle Sur Zacharie, 3 vols. /ed. L. Doutreleau. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1962. (SC; vol. 85). Diodorus Tarsensis. Commentarii in psalmos I–L // Diodori Tarsensis Commentarii in psalmos. I: Commentarii in psalmos I–L, vol. 1/ed. J.-M. Olivier. Turnhout: Brepols, 1980. (CCSG; vol. 6). Diodorus Tarsensis. Prologus Commentarii in Psalmum CXVIII // Mariès L. Extraits du Commentaire de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes // RSR. 1919. Vol. 9. P. 79–101. Eusebius Caesariensis. Commentarius in Isaiam // Eusebius. Werke. Bd. 9/hrsg. J. Ziegler. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1957. (GCS; Bd. 56). Eusebius Emessenus. De arbore fici // Eusèbe d’Émèse. Discours conservés en latin / ed. É. M. Buytaert. Louvain: Spicilegium sacrum Luvaniense, 1953, pp. 256–276. (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense; vol. 26). Eusthatius Antiochenus. De engastrimytho contra Origenem // The “Belly-Myther” of Endor / ed. A. J. Malherbe. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007, pp. 62–157. (Writings from the Greco-Roman World; vol. 16). Joannes Chrysostomus. Interpretatio in Isaiam prophetam // PG. T. 56. Col. 11–94. Joannes Chrysostomus. In Matthaeum homiliae // PG. T. 58. Col. 471–794. Joannes Chrysostomus. De paenitentia // PG. T. 49. Col. 313–324. Joannes Chrysostomus. Nolo vos ignorare // PG. T. 51. Col. 241–253. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistulae // PG. T. 78. Col. 178–1646. Nicephorus callistus. Historia ecclesiastica // PG. T. 146. Col. 9–1274. Origenes. Commentarii in Romanos // PG. T. 14. Col. 837–1290. Origenes. Commentarius in Johannem // Origenes. Werke. Bd. 4/hrsg. E. Preuschen. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichsʼsche Buchhandlung, 1903. (GCS; Bd. 10). Origenes. Homilien zum Hexateuch in Rufins Übersetzung // Origenes. Werke. Bd. 6/hrsg. W. A. ​​Baehrens. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichsʼsche Buchhandlung, 1920. (GCS; Bd. 29). Origenes. Questions and Answers on Genesis / transl. M. Ralph. London: Harvard University Press, 1953. Philo Alexandrinus. De mutatione nominum // Philo Alexandrinus. Opera quae supersunt/hrsg. P. Wendland. Berolini: Typis et impensis Georgii Reimeri, 1898. Vol. 3. P. 156–203. Theodoretus Cyrensis. Commentaria in Isaiam. Vol. 1 // Théodoret de Cyr. Commentaire sur Isaïe. Vols. 1–3/ed. J.-N. Guinot. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1980. (SC; vol. 276). Theodoretus Cyrensis. Interpretatio in prophetiam Ieremiae // PG. T. 81. Col. 495–806. Theodoretus Cyrensis. Interpretatio in Ezechielelis prophetiam // PG. T. 81. Col. 807–1254. Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Commentarius in XII prophetas minores // Theodori Mopsuesteni Commentarius in XII Prophetas / hrsg. H. N. Sprenger Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1977. (Göttinger Orientforschungen; Bd. 5. Reihe: Biblica et patristica; Bd. 1). Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Ex principio commenti quod in duodecim prophetas // Consilium Universale Constantinopolitanum sub Iustiniano habitum / ed. J. Straub. Berolini: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1971. (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum; vol. 4, t. 1), pp. 53–54. Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Expositio in psalmos (in catenis) // Théodore de Mopsueste. Le Commentaire sur les Psaumes 1–80/ed. R. Devreesse. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1939. (Studi e testi; vol. 93). Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Fragmenta syriaca commentarii in psalmos // Théodore de Mopsueste. Fragments syriaques du Commentaire des Psaumes / ed. L. van Rompay. Lovanii: Peeters, 1982. (CSCO; vol. 435–436. scriptores syri; vol. 189–190). Theophilus Antiochenus. Ad Autolycum // PG. T. 6. Col. 1023–1175. Mikhailov P.B. Exegesis of the Holy Scriptures: Cappadocian Fathers: Textbook. allowance. M.: PSTGU, 2018. Évieux P. Isidore de Peluse. Paris: Beauchesne, 1995. (Théologie historique; vol. 99). Fouskas C. M. St. Isidore of Pelusium and the New Testament. Athens: [b. i.], 1967. Fouskas D. Saint Isidore of Pelusium. His Life and his Works. Athens: [b. i.], 1970. Mariès L. Études préliminaires à l’édition de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes. Paris: Édition des Belles Lettre, 1933. Nicephorus Callistus calls St. Isidore's disciple of St. John Chrysostom (Nicephorus Callistus. Historia ecclesiastica 14, 53 // PG. 146. Col. 1249). However, it is important to note that Rev. Isidore, most likely, never personally met the saint, which does not exclude the influence of the works and image of St. on him. John (See Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistulae 1. 152; 4. 224; 5. 32 // PG. 78. Col. 284D‑285A; 1317; 1347). Questions of the life of St. Isidore is discussed in detail in the studies: Fouskas D. Saint Isidore of Pelusium. His Life and his Works. Athens, 1970. P. 53–140; Évieux P. Isidore de Peluse. Paris, 1995. (Théologie historique; vol. 99). P. 295–329. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 1, 169; 2, 73:153; 3, 292 // PG. 78. Col. 293BC, 516D, 608B-609A, 965D. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 2, 106 // PG. 78. Col. 253CD. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 3, 292 // PG. 78. Col. 965. The same idea is expressed by St. Eustathius of Antioch, Eusebius of Emesa, Diodorus of Tarsus, etc.: Eusthatius Antiochenus. De engastrimytho contra Origenem 8:1–7; 9:1–13; 16:1; 22:7 // The “Belly-Myther” of Endor / ed. A. J. Malherbe. Atlanta, 2007. P. 80, 84–86, 110, 132–134 (Writings from the Greco-Roman World; vol. 16); Eusebius Emessenus. De arbore fici 5 // Eusèbe d’Émèse. Discours conservés en latin / ed. E.M. Buytaert. Louvain, 1953. P. 258, 20–21. (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense; vol. 26); Diodorus Tarsensis. Prologus commentarii in psalmos 124–146 // CCSG. 6. P. 7; Idem. Prologus Commentarii in Psalmum CXVIII // Mariès L. Extraits du Commentaire de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes // RSR. 1919. Vol. 9. P. P. 92, 22–29; Joannes Chrysostomus. Interpretatio in Isaiam prophetam 5, 3 // PG. 56. Col. 60; Idem. In Matthaeum homiliae 47, 1 // PG. 58. Col. 482; Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Commentarius in Ioelem 2. 25–32 // Commentarius in prophetas minores. Wiesbaden, 1977. S. 94:20–30, 97:29–98:1–11; Idem. Commentarius in Micheam 4. 2 // Commentarius in prophetas minores. Op. cit. S207:15–208:14; Idem. Le Commentaire sur les Psaumes 1–80/ed. R. Devreesse. Città del Vaticano, 1939. P. 120:8–122, 12. (Studi e testi; vol. 93); Theodoretus Cyrensis. Commentaria in Isaiam. Vol. 1 // Théodoret de Cyr. Commentaire sur Isaïe. Vols. 1–3/ed. J.-N. Guinot. Paris, 1980. 2:458–535:3; 550–562 (SC; vol. 276); Idem. Interpretatio in prophetiam Ieremiae // PG. 81. Col. 633C-634A; Idem. Interpretatio in Ezechielelis prophetiam // PG. 81. Col. 960, 1033, 1052. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 4, 153 // PG. 78. Col. 1237B‑1239A. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 4, 149 // PG. 78. Col. 1233. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 2, 5 // PG. 78. Col. 461. Idem. Epistulae 2, 81 // PG. 78. Col. 521C. Also see: Évieux P. Isidore de Péluse. P. 333; Fouskas C. M. St. Isidore of Pelusium and the New Testament. Athens, 1967. P. 102. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 2, 81 // PG. 78. Col. 524C. Compare: Origenes. Commentarii in Romanos 2, 13 // PG. 14. Col. 902–904; Idem. Homilia in Genesim 3:3–7 // Homilien zum Hexateuch in Rufins Übersetzung // Origenes. Werke. Bd. 6/hrsg. W. A. ​​Baehrens. Leipzig, 1920. S. 41, 21–50, 14. (GCS; Bd. 29). Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 2, 81 // PG. 78. Col. 524C Idem. Epistulae 3, 84; 2, 81; 4, 17 // PG. 78. Col. 789; 521; 1192. In the words: “...many people think that those who turn to speculative interpretation out of ignorance avoid resolving issues” - St. Isidore seems to be alluding to the criticism of allegorosis in Eusebius of Emesa. Compare: Eusebius Emessenus. De arbore fici // Eusèbe d’Émèse. Discours conservés en latin / ed. É. M. Buytaert. Louvain, 1953. P. 261. (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense; vol. 26). Particularly important St. Isidore considers the revelation of the literal meaning of the New Testament, since it sets forth the depths of divine dogmas on a literal level. See: Fouskas C. M. St. Isidore of Pelusium and the New Testament. Athens, 1967, pp. 100–101. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 4, 129 // PG. 78. Col. 1208A-1209D. See: Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistulae 2, 81; 2.99; 3. 84 // PG. 78. Col. 521D; 541B‑544C; 789CD. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 2, 274 // PG. 78. Col. 705C. It is important to note here that Origen sees in this place the apostle’s direct indication of the allegorical nature of the entire biblical narrative and the basis for the use of the allegorical method of interpretation (Origenes. De principibus 4, 13 // PG. 11. Col. 369AB). St. Isidore Pelusiot, applying a spiritual interpretation of the persons and events of the Old Testament, avoids the word "allegory", as did Diodorus of Tarsus Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 1, 193 // PG. 78. Col. 305. Diodorus Tarsensis. Prologus Commentarii in Psalmum CXVIII // Mariès L. Extraits du Commentaire de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes // RSR. 1919. Vol. 9. P. 94, 15–37. Compare: Basilius Caesariensis. De Spiritu Sancto 14, 31–33 // PG. 32. Col. 121C‑128B. Mariès L. Études préliminaires à l’édition de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes. Paris, 1933. P. 141. Johannes Chrysostomus. De paenitentia 6, 5 // PG. 49. Col. 320–321. St. Theophilus of Antioch argues that the path to knowledge of God lies through the consideration of divine actions in this world, therefore the literal meaning of Holy Scripture has eternal value for the theologian. It conveys how God has acted in history and intends to act in the future. “God cannot be seen with human eyes. He opens and becomes accessible to knowledge through His providence and actions...” (Theophilus Antiochenus. Ad Autolycum 1, 5–6 // PG. 6. Col. 1029–1033). Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistulae 1, 168; 1, 169; 3, 125 // PG. 78. Col. 293; 825D-828A. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 1, 106 // PG. 78. Col. 253CD. Origenes. Commentarius in Johannem 10, 133–137 // Origenes. Werke. Bd. 4/hrsg. E. Preuschen. Leipzig, 1903. (GCS; Bd. 10). S. 195, 8–30. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 1, 29 // PG. 78. Col. 200D. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 1, 192 // PG. 78. Col. 305. See: Origenes. Questions et responsiones de Genesi 4, 162–163 // Origenes. Questions and Answers on Genesis / transl. M. Ralph. London, 1953, pp. 447–448; Philo Alexandrinus. De mutatione nominum 12–13 // Philo Alexandrinus. Opera quae supersunt/hrsg. P. Wendland. Berolini, 1898. Vol. 3. P. 171:3–172:11. Λεκτέον οὖν ὅτι καὶ ταῦτα χαρακτῆρές εἰσιν, οἷς ἡ διδακτικὴ τῆς ἀσκητικῆς ἀρετῆς διαφέρει (Philones Alexamdrinus. De mutatione nominum 13 // Op. cit. R. 171: 19–20). St. Gregory demonstrates the same approach to the interpretation of Holy Scripture. The biblical text, from his point of view, can be read in a literal, typological and mystical-ascetic key. See: Mikhailov P.B. Exegesis of the Holy Scriptures: Cappadocian Fathers. M., 2018. pp. 78–91. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 3, 19; 84 // PG. 78. Col. 745AB, 789C Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 3, 292 // PG. 78. Col. 965D The French researcher Evieux shares the spiritual interpretation of St. Isidore into two groups: typology and allegory/θεωρία: Il en expose le sens typologique, et, s’il y a lieu, le sens allégorique ou spirituel, auquel il donne le nom de theôria (Évieux P. Op. cit. P. 335). However, the term θεωρία in the context of the letters of St. Isidore must be seen in a broader sense. Θεωρία can mean any spiritual interpretation, including typology, as shown above. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 4, 203 // PG. 78. Col. 1289. Compare: Idem. Epistula 2, 257 // PG. 78. Col. 933D‑936C. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 3, 105, also 1, 563. Cf.: Idem. Epistula 2, 63 // PG. 78. Col. 505C-508B. Mariès L. Études préliminaires à l’édition de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes. Paris, 1933. P. 141; Diodorus Tarsensis. Prologus Commentarii in Psalmum CXVIII // Mariès L. Extraits du Commentaire de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes // RSR. 1919. Vol. 9. P. 96. “God in the Old Testament arranged most of the events in such a way that what happened then would bring the greatest benefit to those living then, and so that there would be some news about what should be revealed in the future, and at the same time the significant superiority of the second over the first would become obvious. The ancient turns out to be a kind of prototype of the later, being some of its image, and at the same time brings benefit to its contemporaries” (Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Praefacio ad Ionam // Commentarius in prophetas minores. Wiesbaden, 1977. S. 170, 4–11). Maries L. Op. cit. P. 141; Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Praefacio ad Ionam. Op. cit. S. 169:20–170:2. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 4, 203 // PG. 78. Col. 1289. Maries L. Op. cit. P. 141. Let us note that Theodorus Mopsuestenus understands the interpretation of Diodorus in the same way. Expositio in psalmos (in catenis) // Théodore de Mopsueste. Le Commentaire sur les Psaumes 1–80/ed. R. Devreesse. Città del Vaticano, 1939. P. 469:18–470:5 (Studi e testi; vol. 93). Compare: Diodorus Tarsensis. Prologus Commentarii in Psalmum CXVIII // Mariès L. Extraits du Commentaire de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes // RSR. 1919. Vol. 9. P. 96–98; Johannes Chrysostomus. De paenitentia 6, 4–5 // PG. 49. Col. 320–321. Joannes Chrysostomus. Interpretatio in Isaiam prophetam 2, 5 // PG. 56. Col. 34. Joannes Chrysostomus. Interpretatio in Isaiam prophetam 6, 6; 7, 1 // PG. 56. Col. 75; 77. Compare: Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Praefacio ad Ionam // Commentarius in prophetas minores. S. 169:10–170:26; Maries L. Op. cit. P. 140–141; Diodorus Tarsensis. Prologus Commentarii in Psalmum CXVIII // Mariès L. Extraits du Commentaire de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes // RSR. 1919. Vol. 9. P. 96–98. “Cette theôria présente au plus profond des mots de la Bible ne peut être saisie par le lecteur que si lui-même entre dans la theôria. Le sens mystique n’est perceptible qu’au mystique” (Évieux P. Op. cit. P. 335). Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistulae 2, 63; 195 // PG. 78. Col. 508B, 611C. Theodore writes the following about this problem: “Those who do not want to think about this try to attribute all prophecies to the Lord Christ; so that what is said about the people (the Jews) is understood in a similar way and gives the Jews a reason to laugh when they point to prophecies that, in the context of Scripture, do not relate to the Lord Christ” (Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Ex principio commenti quod in duodecim prophetas // ACO. 4, 1. S. 53). Compare: Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Contra allegoristas // CSCO. 435. 189. P. 10:10–12. Isidorus Pelusiota. Epistula 2, 63 // PG. 78. Col. 508A. Compare: Ioannis Chrysostomus. Nolo vos ignorare 4 // PG. 51. Col. 247–248; Idem. De paenitentia 4–5 // PG. 49. Col. 320. Here we note that the obvious influence of the Cappadocians on St. Isidore, which Fuscas notes, has its origins in the works of Philo, Origen, and Diodorus of Tarsus. Compare: Fouskas D. Saint Isidore of Pelusium. His Life and his Works. Athens, 1970, pp. 113–124; Mikhailov P. B. Uk. op. pp. 33–43, 59.