Commentary on the Psalms (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Commentary on the Psalms Everett Ferguson John Chrysostom. Commentary on the Psalms. Translated with an Introduction by Robert Charles Hill. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998. 2 vols., pp. 388, 387. $19.95 and $19.95 (pb). The first works of the church fathers to be translated were generally their doctrinal and then their spiritual writings. Now increasingly their commentaries and biblical homilies are being translated. (Hill previously rendered Chrysostom’s [End Page 476] homilies on Genesis into English for the Fathers of the Church series 74 [1986], 82 [1990], and 87 [1992].) The fathers themselves would have regarded their works on scripture as their most important works, putting much of their doctrinal and spiritual teaching into their comments on scripture. Chrysostom’s Commentary on the Psalms, as with much of the ancient church’s commentary material, was not exegetical according to modern standards but looked for moral instruction and spiritual insight. This was not one of Chrysostom’s better performances; Hill thinks it somewhat “immature” (from “an inexperienced teacher”—p. 5) and so regards it as an early work (but without venturing a date). The Psalms commented on in the collection translated here are (in the English numbering) 4–13, 44–50 (Vol. 1), 109–14, 116–18, 120–50 (Vol. 2). Hill argues in his introduction and notes from the contents that the lessons were delivered in a teaching situation, not a eucharistic setting, and that only men were present. These considerations raise the question if the sermons were intended for the clergy or an urban monastic community. Chrysostom’s interpretations are governed by a concern for akribeia (precision, not “accuracy”), an acknowledgement of synkatabasis (divine consideration or accommodation, not “condescension”), an interpretation by other scriptures (he loved scripture, but Paul was clearly his favorite), a literal but not literalist reading (theoria allows for a fuller sense but not for allegory), and an insistence on the divine inspiration of scripture. For the divine and human elements in scripture he compares the incarnation, in which he took great interest. The limitations of Chrysostom are readily apparent: he did not know Hebrew, and when he appealed to it he was often wrong. He cites other translations in addition to his Septuagint text but does not identify them. These displays of “false erudition” are little employed in the interpretation. The lyrical and figurative language of the Psalms presented a challenge to a preacher who preferred narrative. On the positive side, wherever possible Chrysostom sought a historical setting for a Psalm. Chrysostom’s negative views of women and polemic against the Jews find frequent expression. Among the emphases may be noted the concern to preserve human effort. Although there is some attempt to balance divine grace and human effort, more is said about the latter. Chrysostom typically speaks of “deserving” mercy. He finds the basic human flaw to be “indifference”; what he wants is “enthusiasm.” The other major failing he seeks to correct is attachment to the things of this life. Thus there is much said about avoiding a concern for material things, about seeking spiritual things, and about the contrast of wealth and poverty. Large parts of the commentary are uninspiring to a modern reader, but there are some very elevated and edifying sections (e.g. on Psalm 49). Liturgical notices are few, but occasionally verses are noted that were sung by the congregation as responses. Psalm 141 is referred to as daily recited in the evening and Psalm 63 in the morning. Rather than the words being simply repeated, Chrysostom wanted the Psalms to be sung with understanding. The comments on individual Psalms normally close with a doxology, most often to Christ and only rarely to God or to the Trinity. [End Page 477] As examples of the commentary and of the translation, I quote two sample passages. There is no truthful distinction [between rich and poor] based on reality, but rather only fine sounding words. I mean, just as people generally call the blind “visually challenged” whereas the term does not correspond to the reality, since on the contrary they most of all have no vision, just so do I claim also that in this life...