COMMENTARY ON THE LIFE, WRITINGS, AND DOCTRINE OF ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM
WRITTEN BY HERMANN AGATHO NIEMEYER LICENTIATE IN THEOLOGY, DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, SENIOR OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. (Halle, at the Orphanage Press. 1825.)
PREFACE
I have added a third part, along with appendices, to the first and second parts of my commentary on Isidore of Pelusium, which were published two months ago in order that I might be granted the authority to teach theology at the Frederick University. Since, therefore, the entire work is now finally completed and must be submitted to the judgment of the learned, and since I fear that many might be surprised that I have discussed an obscure monk of the fifth century at such length and in such detail, I wish—before explaining the rationale of my undertaking—to set forth briefly how it came to pass that I chose this subject above others.
For the fact that Semler, who is often considered to have passed overly severe judgment upon the Church Fathers (in *Selectis historiæ ecclesiasticæ Capitibus*, vol. 1, p. 284), maintained that Isidore of Pelusium had opposed Theophilus and Cyril, and that his epistles, which are for the most part of a noble character, are far more useful than the vast corpora of many others, moved me in particular to inquire with singular zeal into the life, writings, and doctrine of this man. Nor do I regret the task I undertook. For since Isidore, a man excellent both in the wealth of his doctrine and in the integrity of his life, flourished at the same time that the prelates of the most powerful churches were contending among themselves, his epistles, from which it is apparent both what he himself thought and what others held regarding the dissensions of the bishops, are of no little importance.
To prove this, we point to the letters he addressed to the Emperor Theodosius *περὶ τοῦ ποιήσασθαι ἀσφάλειαν τῆς συνόδου*, "on providing for the security of the synod" (lib. 1, ep. 311; cf. Comment. p. 20). Closely connected to these are the letters written to Cyril at the time he was traveling to Ephesus, in which these most serious words appear: "Many are mocking you, among those gathered at Ephesus, as one who is merely avenging a personal feud and not as one searching orthodoxly for the things of Jesus Christ. They say that he is a nephew of Theophilus, mimicking his judgment. For just as that man cast clear madness upon the God-bearing and God-beloved John, so too does this one desire to boast, even if there is a great difference between those being judged" (lib. 1, ep. 310; cf. Comment. p. 20). From these words, one may easily gather how many of the Egyptian bishops, even if they rejected the doctrine of Nestorius, were disposed toward Theophilus (who was already dead) and Cyril.
Nor should those things be passed over in silence in this place which Isidore wrote to the monk Simon concerning John Chrysostom and Theophilus, whom he calls *λιθομανῆ καὶ χρυσολάτρην* ("stone-mad and gold-worshipper"—for so *χρυσολάτριν* should be written). By these words he signifies nothing other than this: that Theophilus, burning with an excessive desire for erecting buildings and an excessive love of gold, had acquired riches for himself even in an unjust manner. By this judgment of Isidore, it is exceedingly confirmed what Palladius—whom many have asserted to have written with anger and bias—handed down: that the Alexandrian prelate had employed excessive magnificence in building churches, and had sold the priesthood (see *Dialogus de vita S. Joannis Chrysostomi*). The remaining matters that pertain to this subject I either touched upon briefly or set forth in the first part of my commentary.
A Furthermore, the letters in which the Pelusiote sought out passages from Christian antiquities are not unworthy of mention. Let those things which he said be compared before others: concerning the gravity of deacons (lib. I, ep. 29), concerning the relics of the saints (lib. I, ep. 55; cf. lib. II, ep. 5), concerning the singing of women in churches (lib. I, ep. 90), concerning the formula: *Peace be to you*, which priests in that time were accustomed to use when preaching, and the response of the audience to them (lib. I, ep. 122), concerning the linen cloth which deacons used while celebrating the holy supper (lib. I, ep. 136), and concerning the small Gospels which women wore (lib. II, ep. 150; cf. Comment. [col. 97 A]). Nor must it be passed over that Emmanuel a Schelstrate, in his *Antiquitate Ecclesiæ dissertationibus et monumentis illustrata* (vol. II, diss. v, cap. v, § 1, p. 368, 369), showed—both by other testimonies and most especially by Isidore’s letter to Cyril (lib. II, ep. 127)—that the Metropolitan of Alexandria possessed the right and power to ordain, proscribe, and depose presbyters in all the provinces of Egypt.
By these examples, as I indeed judge, it is sufficiently and more than sufficiently proven that the letters of Isidore of Pelusium can be of great use to those studying the ecclesiastical history of that age, and that they are not unworthy of singular study. B Added to this is the fact that none of the learned men who have written about Isidore hitherto have treated his life, writings, and doctrine with the diligence that the subject requires, either because it was alien to their project or for some other reason. He who examines what Tillemont (Hist. eccl., vol. XV, p. 97 and 119), Dupin (Nov. auct. eccl. Bibl., vol. III, part II, p. 4-14), Fabricius (vol. X, p. 478), Ceillier (Hist. auct. sacr. et eccl., vol. XIII, p. 600-640), Schröckh (Hist. eccl., vol. XVII, p. 521-529), Richard Simon (Crit. commentat. N. T. hist., cap. 21, p. 307-314), Rosenmüller (Hist. interpr. LL. SS., vol. IV, p. 180-215), and Heumann (Diss. de Isid. Pel. ejusque epp.) have said, and what others have brought forth—some discharging the whole investigation of his life, writings, and doctrine in a few words, and others dealing with these matters only cursorily—will agree with me.
But lest anyone demand more in this commentary than I myself either wished or was able to provide, it remains that I briefly discuss the method of my undertaking. C What became known to me regarding his life, both from Isidore's own writings and from those of other Fathers, I set forth in the first part of the commentary, and in this place nothing is to be added or retracted.
Indeed, in the second part, I have discussed Isidore's writings. And so, first, having accurately enumerated his lost works, I spoke of the editions and the number of the letters which survive. Next, the opinion of Heumann, that most of them are specimens of eloquence to be imitated by those whom the author of the letters had as students of the art of rhetoric, was so refuted by me—with Schröckh leading the way—that I must confess that every reader will favor my side. Yet this refutation, since it was a very easy matter to judge, did not entail much labor or difficulty. For which reason it is the more to be wondered at that Christian Friedrich von Matthaei, in his *Admonitio de Isidoro Pelusiota* (cf. *Nov. ex Joan. Chrysost. eclog.* LII, p. xv), wrote these words: "Learned men have long since taught that most of these letters are fictitiously attributed." Regarding this matter, Weismann judged cautiously and much better in his *Historia ecclesiastica* with these words: "But if it were nevertheless true, as the venerable Heumann thinks, that Isidore indeed wrote letters of this kind but did not in reality send them to the persons to whom they are inscribed, there would have been no need for a private intent to write these things." (See the cited dissertation, where he adorns this hypothesis in his own manner with many and learned arguments. Cf. Weism. Hist. eccl., vol. I, p. 471, ed. alt.) D Finally, we have attempted to prove that very many of Isidore’s letters did not arrive at our age in the form in which they are printed in published copies, but were excerpted by monks. Yet in this, we did not see the whole truth. For, as my Reisig has taught me, there are found among Isidore’s letters not only those which were excerpted by monks, but even those which were interpolated by them. Wherefore, intending to judge which of the letters—those found twice in printed copies—proceeded from Isidore, we must be careful not to hold that any one is genuine on the grounds that it is contained in more words. For these can have proceeded from an interpolator or a glossator. He who reads my presentation of Isidore’s letters below with an attentive mind will undoubtedly perceive the truth of this opinion. Truly, as that same Reisig understood, in that letter which is in the second book, the glossator added "first" in order to explain *τὸ ἱερᾶσθαι*, the words *τὸν δοκοῦντα εἶναι πρεσβύτερον*; then, for the sake of clarity, he added the pronoun *αὐτόν*, and in place of *ἀντεπιστέλλω* he set the simpler and poorer *φήσαιμι*; next, he added *καὶ φιλαγάθου* for the sake of interpreting *μισοπονήρου* in the manner of scholiasts, and shifted *εἰκότως* with *δικαίως*. For the gloss exists in Hesychius and Suidas: *εἰκότως = δικαίως*. The same interpolator inserted *ἐστίν* before *ἄξιος*. For what is placed at the end, *ἐκκωμῳδῶν* for *ἐκτραγῳδῶν*, seems to have arisen from a diversity of scripture; but the *διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεός* which was mixed in perhaps seems to have been poured out by the interpolator's own quickened spirit. Moreover, in the next letters cited by me from book V, ep. 239, and from book IV, ep. 56, the former is interpolated by the addition of the words *μετὰ τὸ προληφθῆναι*; the reasoning of the subject matter proves the other to have been mutilated by a copyist's error in *μηδὲ καταδεξάμενος*. For previously it seems to have been written *οἱ δὲ μὴ διδαχθῆναι καταδεξάμενοι*. Finally, as for the epistle 272 of book I, which I mentioned in col. 49, Reisig thinks it was written after that which is book I, 303; wherefore he considers *γέγραφα* should be recalled from the manuscripts in place of *γέγραψας*.
To this second part, I have added three appendices [(a)]; in the first of which, among many of Isidore's letters,
those which were published in the Parisian edition and brought forth by the authors of the catenae are collated, with the intention of proving that many of his letters were not transcribed verbatim by the copyists. The catenae of the Greek Fathers which were at hand—and which we have collated—are these: 1. A *Chain on the Octateuch and the Books of Kings*, first edited in print by the request of Gregory Alexander Gika, under the supervision of Nicephorus. Vol. I, II. Leipzig 1772. 2. *Exposition of the Greek Fathers on the Psalms*, compiled by Balthasar Corderius. Antwerp, 1643. 3. *Chain of the Greek Fathers on blessed Job*, edited by the work and study of Patricius Junius. London, 1637. 4. *Symbols of the Greek Fathers on Matthew*, collated by Balthasar Corderius and Peter Possinus. Toulouse, 1646. Vol. I, II. 5. *Chain of the Fathers, Greek, on John*, edited in light by Balthasar Corderius. Antwerp, 1650. 6. *Cotelier’s Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta.*
When we collated the catenae of the Fathers which we numbered in the first and fourth places, fragments attributed by their authors to our Isidore appeared; and since I had sought for these in vain for a long time and at great length in the editions of this man's letters, I have taken care to have them printed. B Although I would not indeed affirm that not even one among all these fragments could be found in Isidore's letters or in another writer, yet since I have read through his writings attentively and repeatedly, and have found nothing in these fragments which conflicts with his mode of thinking or writing, I may be permitted to contend that they all originated from Isidore, at least until I am better instructed by someone else.
In the second appendix of this part, I have enumerated the catenae and the collections or selections of the sayings of the Fathers, which have not yet been edited, are preserved in libraries, and in which either letters or fragments of letters of Isidore exist. Finally, in the third, I have set forth the codices of the letters known to me, and, given the occasion, I have diligently noted the variation in reading at p. 143 from the Gudian codex, which the most learned Ebert has allowed me to use with the greatest generosity.
The third part of the commentary, in which Isidore’s doctrine is treated, could be fittingly divided into three chapters. In the first, what he felt regarding the most significant dogmas is declared, in such a way that it is recorded, first, what he established concerning the sources of the Christian religion, then concerning God, then concerning the divine counsels and institutions which look toward the repairing of human salvation through Jesus Christ, and finally concerning future things. Regarding all these, we have indeed accurately set forth his opinion, and we have taken care to have his most significant sayings on any given dogma printed in the notes; C but to prevent this entire discussion from becoming too long, neither has a judgment been added, nor has a comparison been instituted with the doctrines which were accepted by other Fathers of the same age.
In the second chapter of this part, we have spoken of Isidore the apologist; and thus his method of disputing against the heathens, Jews, and heretics has been declared in few words. Finally, in the third, we have dealt with Isidore as an interpreter of the sacred books, and we have attempted to prove by many examples that he is neither to be completely despised, as Croius and Heumann considered, nor worthy of the praises with which he is adorned by Dupin, Simon, and Rosenmueller.
But if anyone should perhaps reproach me because I have completely neglected the ethics and the precepts which he gave, let them understand that I wish to imply not that I have not dealt with these separately, but that in every part of the commentary which pertains to the doctrine of morals, I have had recourse to Isidore's tenets. To which is added the fact that anyone who wishes to reduce these to a system would undoubtedly be wasting his efforts, since Isidore, according to the exigencies of his counsel, taught that first this virtue, then that, and then several others, were primary. Moreover, Neander brought much that pertains to this in his book on John Chrysostom, a work no less golden than that of the ancient man of the same name.
It remains, therefore, to say a few things concerning the text's diversity, which, where Isidore's Greek words have been brought forward by us, has been diligently noted. The reading which we have noted as "Codex Bav." is repeated from the Rittershusian edition (cf. p. 37). The rest is taken from Peter Possinus’s *Collationes Isidorianae* (cf. p. 39 and p. 40); D these will undoubtedly be of the greatest use to one preparing a new edition of these letters. For he rightly says in his preface: "From these, countless errors are corrected, the author's meaning, not previously understood, is opened up, the most tangled knots are unraveled, and many things omitted by accident and necessary for the meaning are supplied." Since these things are so, if anyone should undertake the task of editing Isidore's letters anew, it is to be hoped that, if this writing of mine attains any praise, I myself shall perform the duty most gladly.
Written at Halle in the month of February, MDCCCXXV.