ON THE AMPHILOCHIA OF PHOTIUS
A ...drawn from Pseudo-Athanasius and Epiphanius, mostly in the question concerning the passage in Genesis ch. 4:26 and in the dissertation on gnomic wills, in which Photius mentions that one holy Maximus who treats this subject ought to be attributed to John of Damascus.
But what Photius avoids, and what we have already revealed elsewhere, is that he translated thirty-two exegetical questions from Theodoret into his *Amphilochia*, without mentioning him even once. The questions are for the most part the same, the responses are composed of almost the same words, and some things are abridged, others amplified, and most are seen to be but little changed. Hardly a sentence is found in these that has not been already expressed by the prelate of Cyrus. It seems certainly strange that Photius, who elsewhere—and indeed in the *Nomocanon*, which by its nature could not have been judged so strictly, and which he himself only revised with secondary care after it had been composed by another—reproaches most severely those who have dared to arrogate and steal the labors of others, should have decorated his own writings to such an extent with the spoils of Theodoret, and should have sold the work of another as if it were his own, without any shame. Nor, indeed, did those excuses with which this famous expounder of the Holy Scriptures defended himself—when he used the interpretations of older Fathers—prove useful here for the sake of Photius, for those who are concerned with the matters in question can see that he appears to have transcribed him word for word; he does not even cite him by name, nor join him with others, but rather, as a plagiarist, as they say, he claims alien work entirely as his own. B This is something that, even considering the more lenient judgment of the ancients in this matter, must still be considered grave. Furthermore, in elucidating the passages of the Holy Scriptures, he does not follow Chrysostom, whom most men of that time were handling day and night, but rather a less known author, so pressingly that his theft was perhaps not immediately recognized; and since he himself, who appears elsewhere as so generous in praising the Fathers, tries to deprive a most learned man, to whom he owed much, of honor and praise, this is altogether deliberate.
However, his sharp judgment shines through in that he preferred such a distinguished interpreter of the Bible to all others, and it is no less certain that in other matters, where the exposition of Theodoret was less pleasing, Photius departed from it entirely. For example, the literal explanation of Theodoret does not seem to have been entirely pleasing to Photius when he was dealing with the question of why Jacob anointed the stone; for he seeks the solution elsewhere. Again, in other subject matters he provides an exegesis far different from the interpretation of Theodoret, while in others he adopts only a few things from the same.
Justellus, in *Bibliotheca juris canonici vet.*, vol. II, p. 792, declares in that part which scholars agree is truly that of Photius, that the labors of those who came before are not to be disparaged, nor are they to be turned to one’s own use after the example of thieves. "The difficulty," he says, "of being recognized as having arrived at this from one's own study forced [some] to dare, and by the theft of another's work, it deceived the wisdom of those who puffed up their brows."
C “A foolish question: for he who said, *In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth*, did not mean that the earth was eternal, nor did he say that the earth was [always] existing in an absolute sense, but that it was unformed; for as yet it was invisible, with the water overlying it, and unformed, not yet having been adorned with vegetation, etc.
A most foolish and senseless question: for he who said, *In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth*, did not say that the earth was eternal, but that it received existence either after the heaven or together with the heaven. Otherwise, the writer did not even say it was simply or absolutely, ‘The earth was,’ but set it together in sequence: ‘The earth was invisible and unformed,’ that is, it was created by the God of all, but it was still invisible, with the water overlying it, and unformed, not yet having been adorned with vegetation, etc.
...things that are mutually related, but both were from the beginning for men... but that darkness is not necessary, it is clear... but that darkness is necessary... (Having exhorted those who read not to accuse us of theft, if they should find in our interpretations anything spoken by the Fathers; for we also admit that we have found from them the starting points of clarity; and such a thing is not theft, but a paternal inheritance; and the things we have taken from them we set down, but others we ourselves have discovered and added, and others still, which needed working out, we expand.) ...a marvelous, blessed man, (most useful in all respects).” D