procopius of gaza and his library

PROCOPIUS OF GAZA AND HIS LIBRARY

Bas TER HAAR ROMENY

Christians in Late Antiquity were, as the honorand of this volume has explained, responsible for the creation of a distinctive, sophisticated, and uncompromising discourse - a 'totalising Christian discourse' - within the context of discourses of society at large1• This Christian discourse was not as completely new as some Christians of those days would have wished or would have represented it, however. Of course, the Scriptures became a basis for intertextual references and a source of authority for Christian orators, replacing in many ways the Greek classics. However, even in the case of Paul, who rejected the 'wisdom of the world' as foolishness (I Cor. 3:19), his way of seeing things and expressing things did not change radically: in order to convince others he used the skills of classical rhetoric and he knew that he had to persuade people through that which they already knew2• In addition, the way the Scriptures were interpreted was according to the methods of interpretation taught in the pagan schools.

This paper discusses a small aspect of the development of Christian discourse: it studies the way just one of those Christians who contributed to it- Procopius of Gaza - related to existing texts: Which authors did he read and quote? Which genres and modes of expression did he adopt?3

Gaza is often mentioned as a place where pagan and Christian culture were in good balance4• This picture is mainly based on the literary output of the members of the School of Gaza, which flourished around the turn of the fifth and sixth centuries. Procopius was its chief member. He was born in Gaza, studied in Alexandria, returned to his home town, became

1. Averil Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire ( Sather Classical Lectures 55; Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1991).

2. Cf. Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire, pp. 33-34, and p. 40, where the latter expression is used in connection with Clement of Alexandria.

3. The idea to write about this subject first came up during preparations for a workshop on Gaza at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which unfortunately had to be cancelled because of the circumstances of that moment. Most of the papers were published in B. Bitton-Ashkelony and A. Kofsky ( eds.), Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity (Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 3; Leiden, 2004).

4. See, for example, N.G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (revd. ed.; London-Cambridge, MA, 1996), p. 30.

174 BAS TER HAAR ROMENY

known as 'the Christian sophist', and was head of the school until his death in 526.

There are not many references to libraries in Gaza, and certainly not to their contents, but the city must have had some repositories of books in this period. The study of Procopius' works may tell us at least which authors, Christian and pagan, were available to the man who was described by his successor Choricius as someone who found it hard to be without a books. Most attention will be paid to his exegetical works. In the past three decades there were important new developments in the research on this part of his reuvre. The situation with regard to his other works is much clearer, and the question of which authors he used has already been treated. Moreover, Procopius' exegetical works have been described as 'an original synthesis between pagan and Christian culture'6• Although we shall see that the word 'original' has to be deleted here, the genre of these works and the choice of sources do help us to understand a Christian teacher of rhetoric's approach to biblical exegesis.

THE SCHOOL OF GAZA

The School of Gaza7 flourished several decades after the campaign of Bishop Porphyry to convert the town. In this operation, organized with imperial support, the Marneion, the temple of the principal local deity, had been burnt down and replaced by a church - or so the Life of Porphyry wants us to believes. Although it would be naive to think that Porphyry's

5. Choricius, Oratio Funebris in Procopium Gazaeum 16; ed. R. Foerster and E. Richtsteig, Choricii Gazaei Opt;ra (Bibliotheca Teubneriana; Leipzig, 1929), p. ll5: ~~~A.ou oe dvat xwplt; OU0UfHi'1t; EKapTtpT}aev.

6. G. Dorival, Les chaines exegetiques grecques sur les Psaumes. Contributions a /'etude d'une forme litteraire 1 (SSL 43; Leuven, 1986), p. 114.

7. The classic general study is that of K. Seitz, Die Schule van Gaza. Eine Litterargeschichtliche Untersuchung(dissertation Heidelberg, 1892); see also G. Downey, 'The Christian Schools of Palestine: A Chapter in Literary History~ Harvard Library Bulletin 12 ( 1958 ), pp. 297-319.

8. The life of Porphyry of Gaza has been described by Mark the Deacon: H. Gregoire and M.-A. Kugener (eds.), Marc le Diacre. Vie de Porphyre, eveque de Gaza (Collection Byzantine Bude; Paris, 1930). The authenticity of this text is a matter of discussion, however, as is the original language of the document: see Z. Rubin, 'Porphyrius of Gaza and the Conflict between Christianity and Paganism in Southern Palestine', in A. Kofsky and G.G. Stroumsa (eds.), Sharing the Sacred: Religious Contacts and Conflicts in the Holy Land, First-Fifteenth Centuries CB (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 31-66, with further references. I find it hard, though, to accept a Syriac original, as Syriac (being Eastern Aramaic) was not spoken in Gaza. As the demonstration is based in part on the Syriac alphabet, one could of course think of Christian-Palestinian Aramaic. The written tradition of this language

PROCOPIUS OF GAZA AND HIS LIBRARY 175

work marked the end of all pagan cult in Gaza, it had perhaps become less self-evident that a public figure such as the head of a school of rhetoric would be a pagan, as Libanius was in the Antioch of the fourth century. Still, when reading the non-theological writings of Procopius of Gaza and his successor Choricius, it is sometimes difficult to believe that we have to do with Christian writers. The conservative, Atticist position with regard to the language, the genres of literature chosen, and the frequent references to Zeus and other members of the Greek Pantheon in their works all contribute to this confusion - to such an extent that now and then scholars even suggest a conversion at the end of Procopius' life, or even the existence of two completely unrelated individuals, who had the same name9.

This problem is not only ours. Photius already complained about Choricius that he unnecessarily mixed pagan myths and stories (f1l>8ouc; Ka.llmopla.c; EAAilVLKac;) into his writings10, and in the text of the funerary oration for Procopius, Choricius himself writes that a pious man in the audience blamed him for not making clear that Procopius was a Christian". This is, of course, nothing more than an occasion for Choricius to praise his vast theological knowledge and to tell us that the only thing that separated Procopius from the episcopate was the consecration. Yet it does indicate that Choricius wanted to stress that Procopius was different from others because he had both the full formation of a pagan sophist and the makings of a Christian leader. It would seem that the dominant discourse still belonged to the pagan, strongly Hellenized Gaza of the centuries before. Christianity had to be expressed in forms and words people were used to, in order to win their (rather conservative) hearts.

The sense of continuity seems to have been important. Porphyry's campaign seemed to have literally overturned some of the old institutions. Yet wherever possible, he is said to have introduced new ones that could be seen as continuations. Thus the festivals for which Gaza was famous were not abolished, but continued in a slightly Christianized fashion 12• The

seems to originate in northern Judaea, however, and though Aramaic was probably spoken at least by some people around Gaza, it is hard to believe that there, and at such an early date, the language had a status high enough to adopt it for an original composition (all known Christian-Palestinian Aramaic texts are translations from Greek). It would not impress the local, strongly Hellenized population at all.

9. Lastly G. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton, 1983), p. 171. 10. Photius of Constantinople, Bibliotheca, cod. 160; ed. R. Henry, Photius. Biblio

theque 2 (Collection Byzantine Bude; Paris, 1960), p. 122. 11. Choricius, Oratio Funebris 21; ed. Foerster and Richtsteig, p. 117. Cf. W. Aly, 'Proko

pios von Gaza', in RE 23.1 (Stuttgart, 1957), cols. 259-73, esp. 268-69. 12. On pagan festivals and games in Gaza, see now N. Belayche, 'Pagan Festivals in

Fourth-Century Gaza', in Bitton-Ashkelony and Kofsky (eds.), Christian Gaza, pp. 5-22,


School of Gaza should probably also be seen as a continuation of the rhetorical school which had earned the respect of Libanius a century beforel3. What is striking in Gaza is not so much the fact that Christians followed the traditional curriculum - this was the usual procedure, up to the fifth century at least14 - but that the use of the content of the classical models was not a matter of concern for them: it was not just the formal part of the rhetorical tradition that was followed.

PROCOPIUS' PROFANE WORKS

Most of Procopius' works appear to be connected with his position as a teacher in the rhetorical school: they functioned as schoolbooks, as examples of correct rhetoric. This is certainly true of his Metaphrases of Homeris, paraphrases in the style of a certain author. Arguably, however, also his collection of letters16, and, as we shall see below, his exegetical works were composed for the classroom. His panegyrics, one of which has been handed down to us, may have been delivered by virtue of his position- being a sophist, a teacher in the city's school, was a public function17 -,whereas their written form also had a paradigmatic purpose.

On the basis of the letters and the Panegyric on the Emperor Anastasius, Kilian Seitz already listed the authors Procopius and Choricius quoted, but he does not distinguish clearly between the two sophists1s. There is also some material to be added on the basis of texts that were published after Seitz' 1892 work, and modern editions and studies have given us extensive lists of loci similes and parallels which make clear, if not what

and Z. Weiss, 'Games and-Spectacles in Ancient Gaza: Performances for the Masses Held in Buildings Now Lost, ibidem, pp. 23-39.

13. Libanius, Orationes 55.33-34; ed. R. Foerster, Libanii Opera (Bibliotheca Teubneriana; Leipzig, 1908), pp. 125-26. I should therefore not speak about a sudden flowering of rhetorical studies at the end of the fifth century, as Glucker. seems to do: C.A.M. Glucker, The City of Gaza in the Roman and Byzantine Periods (BAR international series 325; Oxford, 1987), p. 51.

14. Cf. Av. Cameron, 'Education and Literary Culture~ in Av. Cameron and P. Garnsey, The Cambridge Ancient History 13. The Late Empire, AD 337-425 (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 665-79.

15. See A. Brinkmann, 'Die Homer-Metaphrasen des Prokopios von Gaza', Rheinisches Museum ftir Philologie NS 63 (1908), pp. 618-23.

16. Aly, 'Prokopios', col. 265-66, suggests the letters themselves were real, but they were selected to form a collection of examples for classroom use.

17. Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 160; ed. R. Henry, Bibliotheque 2, p. 122; about Procopius: a\mj) A.ax6v-n oocpt<rrwetv.

18. Seitz, Die Schule von Gaza, pp. 38-39.


Procopius quoted, at least how his compositions were anchored intertextually.

What immediately strikes the reader of the Panegyric is the fact that all comparisons refer to a distant, mythological or legendary past, or at least a Hellenic one. The Emperor is told by Procopius that he has the ambition of Sparta, that his ancestor is Heracles, and through him, Zeus. Procopius also sings the praise of the Emperor's home town, Epidamnus, possibly using Thucydides as a source19. He refers to Apollo's role in the city's success, and mentions the philanthropy of its founders, the Phaeacians, which can only refer to the way Odysseus was received by them20. On the other hand, Procopius also praises Anastasius' piety (not without reason: he is known to have preached in the Hagia Sophia and is also reported to have been proposed as bishop of Antioch, three years before he became emperor), but still without any reference that might betray the fact that a Christian rhetor was praising a Christian Emperor here. God is simply indicated as 6 Kpetnwv 'the Almighty', and the Emperor is contrasted with the mythical Eumolpus21 , who passed from kingship to priesthood after failing as a king. Other characters who serve as objects of comparison and contrast are Alexander the Great and Philip of Macedon. He alludes to a dialogue between Alexander and the Indian Porus, also mentioned by Plutarch22, and he borrows an expression from Hesiod23• Among the authors who figure most prominently in the collections of loci similes are Thucydides, Isocrates, Aristotle, Demosthenes, Plutarch, Aelius Aristides, Libanius, Temisthius, and Julian24. In general, the composition of the work conforms to the scheme of Menander, though he does not show himself bound to it25.

, 19. Panegyric 2, ed. A. Chauvot, Procope de Gaza, Priscien de Cesaree: Panegyriques de l'empereur Anastase Ier (Antiquitas 1.35; Bonn, 1986}, pp. 5-6, trans. ibidem, pp. 26-28. For the reference to Thucydides, see pp. 26-27 n. 2.

20. Panegyric 2, cf. p. 28 n. 1. 21. Panegyric 3, ed. Chauvot, p. 7, trans. p. 29. The form of the legend known to

Procopius is that echoed by Pausanias, cf. ibidem, p. 29 n. 1. 22. Panegyric 10, ed. Chauvot, p. 12-13, trans. p. 35-37; cf. p. 37. n. 2. 23. Panegyric 28, ed. Chauvot, p. 23-24, trans. p. 50; cf. p. 50 n. 1. 24. C. Kempen, Procopii Gazaei in imperatorem Anastasium Panegyricus (dissertation

Bonn, 1918}, 18-37, and M. Minniti-Colonna, 'Prolegomena a una nuova edizione del Panegirico per l'imperatore Anastasio di Procopio di Gaza', in J. Noret (ed.}, :Avrlowpov: Hulde aan Dr. Maurits Geerard bij de voltooiing van de Clavis Patrum Graecorum 1 (Wetteren, 1984}, pp. 89-99, esp. 93-96.

25. Chauvot, Pam!gyriques, pp. 114-16, who also refers to a discussion of the rules of Greek rhythmic prose followed by Procopius.


His Letters are directed to his pupils and important contemporaries26. Achilleus and Odysseus, as well as Muses and Graces, appear regularly. Authors mentioned specifically include Homer, Hesiod, Solon, Euripides, Pindar, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Demosthenes, Isocrates, and Epictetus. In one letter he actually presents himself as someone who imitates Herodotus, Thucydides, and Demosthenes27. The apparatus of loci similes suggests an even larger circle of authors close to Procopius, including Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Libanius, Menander, and Plutarch. The very few Declamations that have come down to us do not present a different picture. Interesting are his "EKcppacm; eha)voc; and "E~<cppamc; WpOAoy[ov28, not SO much because of the authors quoted, but because they once more confirm the connection between Procopius' works and his position in a school of rhetoric. An eKcppamc; is a rhetorical description of a work of art. It was one of the standard rhetorical exercises (7tpoyullvaalla1'a), and became quite popular in the second century CE.

Lucian's De domo and his Imagines belong to the same genre. Procopius' refutation of the neo-Platonist philosopher Proclus, finally,

may belong to a different category of works, though we have only a small fragment to go by. This is not the type of textbook one would need in a school of rhetoric, and we may assume that in this work his Chistian background would come more to the fore: it was most probably a piece of apologetic literature29.

PROCOPIUS' EXEGETICAL WoRKs30

Christians adopted pagan methods of interpretation, but substituted the classics that were the object of the hermeneutical exercise, Prances Young explains. The Bible became the new literary foundation of their

26. Edition: A. Garzya and R.J. Loenertz, Procopius Gazaeus: Epistolae et declamationes (Studia patristica et byzantina 9; Ettal, 1963). Since then, two more letters were pubished: L.G. Westerink, 'Ein unbekannter Brief des Prokopios von Gaza', Byz. Zeit. 60 (1967), pp. 1-2, and E. V. Maltese, 'Un'epistola inedita di Procopio di Gaza', La Parola del Passato 39 (1984), pp. 53-55.

27. Procopius, Bp. 161, ed. Garzya and Loenertz, p. 77. 28. The editions are listed in CPG 7437-38. On the art historical aspects and context

of the former work, see now also R. Talgam, 'The Ekphrasis Eikonos of Procopius of Gaza: The Depiction of Mythological Themes in Palestine and Arabia during the Fifth and Sixth Centuries', in Bitton-Ashkelony and Kofsky (eds.), Christian Gaza, pp. 209-34.

29. Cf. Aly, 'Prokopios', col. 269. On its authenticity, see also ibidem, col. 267-68, as well as CPG 7440, and cf. L.G. Westerink, 'Proclus, Procopius, Psellus', Mnemosyne 10 (1942), pp. 275-80.

30. This paragraph is an extended and updated version of my introduction to Procopius in A Syrian in Greek Dress (see note 52 below), pp. 22-25.


discourse31 . Christian rhetoric was informed by the classical tradition as well as by the scriptural corpus32 . In the case of Procopius, this substitution was a total one: in his profane writings he never refers in any way to the Bible; in his biblical commentaries we do not see any more references to Homer than those found in Procopius' sources: not exactly none, but very few indeed.

Photius knew Procopius' works on the Octateuch, Reigns, and Chron-icles, and writes33:

This is an exegete who is prolific and prolix, only he does not spend time on superfluous and irrelevant digressions, but often on recording differences of opinions on the same subject. In his preface he also says that this approach results in what he regards as an excessive bulkiness34, and his treatise contrasts very much with Theodoret's succinctness and care.

Procopius himself states in his introduction (PG 87.1, cols. 21-24) that he first worked on a collection of complete and unabridged fragments, the eKA.oyaL The commentary that has been handed down to us is his second project, a more convenient btt1'0f1~ eKA.oywv, which he started as the first collection became too bulky and cumbersome. He decided to leave out at least those remarks which did not add a new point of view - but, as Photius realized, leaving in all the differences of opinion without making a choice still resulted in a huge work.

Procopius' Epitome or Commentary on the Octateuch, his largest extant work, has often been called a catena. His method of working was different from that of a catenist, however. He also selected fragments, but combined them into a running commentary. This means that he left out all attributions, that he sometimes retouched or summarized his sources, or merged the texts of two or more authors into a new one35• This is

31. F.M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge, 1997), p. 47.

32. See also H. Amirav, Rhetoric and Tradition: John Chrysostom on Noah and the Flood (Traditio Exegetica Graeca [TEG] 12; Leuven, 2003).

33. Photius of Constantinople, Bibliotheca, cod. 206; ed. R. Henry, Bibliotheque 3 (Paris, 1962), p. 104: TioA.uxouc; f!EV ou-roc; Kal noA.ucrnxoc; 6 E~TJY'l'~c;, 7tA~V OUK eic; neptwic; 1"tvac; Kal E~aywv[ouc; cmo<'ita-rp[~wv napeKOpOf!Ct<;, aUa <<!> <'ita<popac; oo~<ilv nepl ·~c; au-r~c; imo6taewc; avaypacpetv 7tOAACtKtc;. Tou-ro ot Kal 7tpOOlJllCt(e-rat eic; oyKov au<<ji <'itanA.an6Jlevov, Kal JlaAtcr-ra npoc; -r~v E>eoowp~-rou cruvo'Jiiv -re Kal cptAoKaA[av -ro crilnayJla alpe-rat.

34. This phrase caused some trouble. Henry's translation is simply incorrect; Wilson tells us that the 'sentence is difficult, perhaps corrupt', and presents his translation as his 'best guess' (N. G. Wilson, Photius: The Bibliotheca [London, 1994], p. 185). He has: 'This he mentions in the preface as a feature designed to give substance to his work'; the problem here is the fact that this says exactly the opposite of what Procopius himself expressed (see below). The key to the correct understanding of the phrase is the pejorative sense of oyKoc;. I would like to thank Professor Henk Jan de Jonge (Leiden) for his help with this phrase.


especially the case in the first and in the final chapters of Genesis: the sections where the number of scholia was very large. Procopius was only concerned with the economical dissemination of information, whereas a catenist also enabled his readers to form a well-documented opinion on the basis of a comparison between different authors who were all mentioned by name36, Finally, a catena in the strict sense is centred on the biblical text, which is given in full. Procopius' Commentary refers to the verse commented on, but does not give the full text of the Bible37.

The striking correspondences in the choice of authors and fragments in Procopius' Commentary and in the Catena on the Octateuch, have caused much speculation about Procopius' dependence on this work or vice versa. It has even been suggested that Procopius' larger work, the eKA.oyal, was perhaps to be identified with one of the branches of the catena tradition3s. This is not the case, however. There are a number of authors whom the catena tradition (in its present state) and Procopius do not have in common39. Moreover, where they borrow from the same sources, there are sometimes differences in the order of fragments and Procopius often gives longer and more numerous extracts than the Catena. There are two possibilities: either the catenist used Procopius' initial collection; or the Catena antedated Procopius, and he made some use of it.

The possibility that the catenist had used Procopius' collection was put forward hesitantly by Devreesse in his 1959 edition. He concluded from the fruitless attempts at identification of the different branches of the catena tradition with Procopius' initial collection that the latter's Epitome was in fact a fourth type of catena. The four types would have been dependent on one common ancestor. In a footnote he then suggested that this common ancestor would have been the lost initial collection of

35. Cf. F. Petit, La Chaine sur la Genese. Edition integrale 1 (TEG 1; Leuven, 1991}, p. xvii. 36. Cf. F. Petit, 'La Chaine grecque sur la Genese, miroir de l'exegese ancienne', in

G. Schollgen and C. Scholten (eds.}, Stimuli. Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum. Festschrift fur Ernst Dassmann (JAC Erganzungsband 23; Munster, 1996}, pp. 243-53, esp. p. 244.

37. The Supplementum to the Clavis Patrum Graecorum (by M. Geerard and J. Noret; Turnhout, 1998} as well as the additions and corrections in Vol. 3A (by J. Noret; Turnhout, 2003} now reflect the more precise definition of genres.

38. A survey of the discussion until1928 is found in R. Devreesse, 'Chaines exegetiques grecques', in Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplement 1 (Paris, 1928}, cols. 1103-05.

39. The material proper to the Catena appears from the comparative tables in Petit's edition: La Chaine sur la Genese 1, pp. 318-28; Vol. 2 (TEG 2; Leuven, 1993}, pp. 233-41; Vol. 3 (TEG 3; Leuven, 1995}, 397-410; Vol. 4 (TEG 4; Leuven, 1996}, 475-91; La Chaine sur l'Exode 2/3 (TEG 10; Leuven, 2000}, pp. 335-45; and Vol. 4 (TEG 11; Leuven, 2001}, pp. 333-46. On the material proper to Procopius, see below.


Procopius himself4°. Earlier, in his 1928 article, Devreesse had called Procopius 'le fondateur des chaines' and their terminus a quo41• In 1959 he was more reserved, but this view, together with the suggestion that the lost initial collection of Procopius was the common ancestor of the Epitome and the different branches of the catena tradition, was elaborated by others. In 1979 Nautin argued, on the basis of his work on the edition of Origen's On Easter, that there was nothing to cast doubt on Procopius' affirmation concerning his initial project, and that this initial collection must have been the common ancestor42 • This argument was accepted by Dorival43•

Doubts had been expressed earlier by Petit in the introductions to her editions of the Genesis part of the Catena on the Octateuch44• However, in a 1996 article, she provided a fuller argument challenging Nautin's theory and elaborating the alternative. She had previously presented both theories as equally probable45• To begin with, she argued, it is difficult to believe that Procopius first completed an enormous collection of texts, later had second thoughts, realized that he had followed a rather cumbersome procedure, and decided to reduce his earlier work to an extract. Second, in Nautin's theory it is difficult to explain why the sources which Procopius and the Catena have in common all antedate the middle of the fifth century. Cyril is the last one. This observation is new; it was Petit's own research into the stemma of the tradition which had first made clear that Severus of Antioch (t 538), who is not cited in Procopius, did not form part of the group of authors cited in the original Catena. His fragments were added later on.

This discovery prompted Petit to suggest that Procopius used the original Catena. He may have thought of making a catena himself, he may even have started the project, but at some time he discovered that this tedious work had already been done. After all, as Petit says elsewhere, he does not present his work as the first of a new genre46• He then decided

40. R. Devreesse, Les anciens commentateurs grecs de l'Octateuque et des Rois (fragments tires des chalnes) (Studi e Testi 201; Vatican City, 1959), pp. xiii and xiv with note 1.

41. Devreesse, 'Chaines exegetiques grecques', col. 1094. 42. P. Nautin in: 0. Gueraud and P. Nautin, Origene. Sur la Pdque. Traite inedit publie

d'apres un papyrus de Toura (Christianisme Antique 2; Paris, 1979), pp. 83-86, 93-95. 43. G. Dorival, Chalnes exegetiques 1, pp. 105-106. 44. Thus already in her preliminary publication of one of the branches of the Catena:

F. Petit, Catenae Graecae in Genesim et in Exodum 1. Catena Sinaitica (CCSG 2; TurnhoutLeuven, 1977), pp. xx-xxi; and also in the integral edition that replaced this work: La Chalne sur la Genese l, pp. xvii-xviii.

45. Petit, 'La Chaine, miroir de l'exegese', pp. 244-45. 46. Cf. Petit in La Chalne sur la Genese 1, p. xviii note 17. A comparable argument

is also used by Aly ('Prokopios', col. 270): Procopius was trying to find a better way of presenting the large collection of el<Aoya[, so he would hardly have been its inventor.


to make his Epitome, following the thread of the Catena. If such was the case, we must assume that Procopius also decided to add new material by completing and correcting the fragments he found in the Catena. The material proper to Procopius has not been systematically studied, but Petit says, with some reserve, that Procopius probably did not tap new sources except, perhaps, in the beginning of the Epitome. His main activity was to expand the fragments already selected from the original sources, and to add some others from the same authors. Petit's view that Procopius went back to the original sources might not seem very obvious at first sight, but I would argue it is very possible; it is also the way Isho 'dad of Merv sometimes operated47.

That Procopius could not be the 'fondateur des chaines' had in fact already been known as early as in 1883, when Theodor Zahn had demonstrated the dependence of Procopius' Catena on the Song of Songs on the Pseudo-Eusebian Catena on the same book4B. The case of Procopius' Catena on Ecclesiastes now gives us an additional indication that he used both earlier collections made by others and the original sources. Although the title of this work in the manuscripts gives the term enrro~~. this is a catena in the strict sense (like the Catena on the Song of Songs just mentioned): comments of various authors are grouped around the biblical text, and the names of the authors are indicated. It has recently become clear that Procopius used the earlier collection of Olympiodorus49. As this collection does not give the names of the authors, Procopius must have used the original sources as well.

We can conclude that in the case of the Octateuch, Procopius followed the procedure he may have known from collections of scholia on Homer, leaving out the names of authors. This was partly also out of necessity, as he was combining different fragments into a new whole. For Isaiah, also quite a voluminous book, he decided to do the same. In the case of some

47. Cf. L. Van Rompay, Le commentaire sur Genese-Exode 9,32 du manuscrit (olim) Diyarbaktr 22, version (CSCO 484, Syr. 206; Leuven, 1986), p. L with note 47.

48. Th. Zahn, Der Evangeliencommentar des Theophilus von Antiochien (Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur 2; Erlangen, 1883), pp. 247-54. M. Faulhaber suggests the latter catena was compiled in the middle of the fifth century, using an original catena, which was also used by Procopius: Hohelied-, Proverbien- und Prediger-Katenen (Theol. Studien der Leo-Gesellschaft 4; Vienna, 1902), pp. 57-64. This is less probable, if only because ofProcopius' own reference to Eusebius, but would not change the point that there were catenae before Procopius. Dorival's amended form of this idea (in which the dating of Pseudo-Eusebius is changed and the original catena attributed to Procopius, so that he would remain the inventor of the genre) is problematic as well: Chaines exegetiques 1, pp. 106-107.

49. S. Leanza, Un nuovo testimone della Catena suli'Ecclesiaste di Procopio di Gaza, il cod. vindob. theol. gr. 147 (CCSG 4 Suppl.; Turnhout-Leuven, 1983).


smaller books, however, he did not feel the necessity to combine comments, and decided to adopt the style of a catena. He always worked on the basis of earlier collections and their original sources.

PROCOPIUS' EXEGETICAL SOURCES

Petit's investigations into the first parts of the Catena on the Octateuch greatly advanced the possibilities of research into Procopius' Epitome or Commentary on the Octateuch ( CPG 7430). The identification of Procopius' sources depends largely on this Catena as he does not give attributions himself. The first inventory of his sources was made as early as 1897 by Eisenhofer50, but this important study is now outdated in many respects. Progress has been made by the investigation of the Catena51 , and also by the discovery of some of the works used by the catenist. Thus, among the Toura papyri, a commentary of Didymus was found, and the Armenian translation of Eusebius of Emesa's Commentary on the Octateuch became known. Wherever they are available, the original works give us insight into the way Procopius and the catenist were handling their sources. Much has to be done in this field, but it is already clear that for the Greek tradition of Philo's Questions on Genesis and Exodus and for Eusebius of Emesa, Procop ius is as important quantitatively as the Catena52• Also for the recovery of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Greek text, Procopius can render us a great service, though here we are on less safe ground, as only small parts of the Syriac text of Theodore's Commentary on Genesis are extant, and we have to rely on such later East Syrian works as the Diyarbaktr Commentary, which presents Theodore's exegesis in a reworked form, using other sources as well.

50. L. Eisenhofer, Procopius von Gaza, eine literarhistorische Studie (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1897).

51. Petit gives lists of Procopius' parallels to the Catena: La Chaine sur la Genese 1, pp. 329-33; Vol. 2, pp. 242-46; Vol. 3, pp. 411-18; Vol. 4, pp. 493-500; La Chaine sur l'Exode 2/3, pp. 347-52; Vol. 4, pp. 347-53. Cf. also the tables mentioned in note 39.

52. Thus F. Petit, 'Les fragments grecs d'Eusebe d'Emese et de Theodore de Mopsueste: l'apport de Procope de Gaza', Le Museon 104 (1991), p. 352; a conclusion which is fully corroborated by my own investigations (see R.B. ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress. The Use of Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa's Commentary on Genesis [TEG 6; Leuven, 1997]). The importance of the agreement between Procopius and the Armenian translation had already been noted by A. Zanolli in the 1930s, see his 'Una interpretazione caratteristica di Eusebio Emeseno e la questione del pseudo-Cirillo', Bazmavep Handisaran (1934), pp. 184-92, and 'Nuove identificazioni ne! commentario di Procopio per mezzo del <<pseudo-Cirillo>>', Bazmavep Handisaran (1935), pp. 412-18.


The authors quoted in the Genesis and Exodus parts of the Commentary on the Octateuch include53: Acacius of Caesarea, Amphilochius of !conium, Apollinarius of Laodicea, Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus of Alexandria, Diodore ofTarsus54,

Dionysius of Alexandria, Ephrem, Epiphanius of Salamis, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa, Flavius Josephus, Gregory of Nazianzus (just once), Gregory of Nyssa, Hippolytus of Rome, Irenaeus, John Chrysostom, Melito of Sardes, Methodius of Olympus, Origen (also many Hexaplaric notes), Philo of Alexandria, Severian of Gabala, Succensus of Diocaesarea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophilus of Antioch. Of these, Basil of Caesarea, Cyril of Alexandria, Didymus, Eusebius of Emesa, Origen, Philo, Severian of Gabala, and Theodore of Mopsuestia have supplied most of the material.

The authors quoted in the Catena edition who are not found in Procopius are Severus of Antioch, Peter of Alexandria, Basil of Seleucia, Clement of Alexandria, and Eustathius of Antioch. As stated before, Severus of Antioch's fragments appear to be a later addition to the original collection, which did not quote works written after the middle of the fifth century. It seems, however, that also the few fragments attributed to Peter of Alexandria, Basil of Seleucia, and Clement of Alexandria did not belong to this original strand of material. Thus the single fragment from the Stromateis of Clement (Cat. Gen. 130), only appears in the margin of one manuscript (M). The single fragment attributed to the Seleucian Basil (Cat.Gen. 1278) is likewise only attested in this manuscript. Peter of Alexandria is found in MSS L and M, but not in B or the secondary tradition: a situation identical to that of the fragments of Severus55• The fragments of Eustathius of Antioch's De Melchisedech are more widely attested, but the Catena furnishes just three fragments (Cat. Gen. 927-29) which are given straight after each other in the manuscripts. In this case, the omission may be accidental in the sense that Procopius just did not decide to adopt these fragments: there are parts of the Catena where he leaves out more than half the fragments.

In some cases we need to make a distinction between the works quoted. Thus Eusebius of Caesarea's Onomasticon is quoted in the full tradition of

53. This list is based on the lists of sources of the Catena in the introductions to Petit, La Chaine sur la Genese 1-4 and La chaine sur l'Exode 2/3-4, which I confronted with the comparative tables at the back of these volumes, mentioned above in notes 39 and 51. On the material in Procopius not found in the Catena, see below.

54. On Diodore's presence in the Catena, see now F. Petit, 'Diodore de Tarse dans la tradition catenique sur la Genese et l'Exode', Le Museon 112 (1999), pp. 363-79.

55. Cf. Petit's remarks in the introduction to La Chaine sur la Genese 4, pp. xi-xii. Cf. also idem 'La Chaine, miroir de l'exegese', p. 243 n. 6.- .Cat. Gen. = La Chaine sur la Genese 1-4.


the Catena (especially in the latter part of Genesis), as well as in Procopius. His Chronicon is quoted twice in one or two branches (M and B), and would seem not to have been accessible to Procopius. For the Praeparatio Evangelica and the Commentary on Isaiah we find the same situation as for Severus: quoted only in L or Land M, and probably added to the original collection at a later stage. Striking is the fact that John Chrysostom's Homilies on Genesis were quoted neither in the original collection nor in Procopius; again the fragments of this work are only found in L and M, and only in the first part of Genesis. The exception to the rule is a fragment of Homily 3.4 (Cat. Gen. 13 ), which is quoted also in Procopius, and where Procopius actually has a longer quotation than the Catena- which does suggest that he had independent access to at least this fragment (none of the other 15 fragments in Land M has a parallel in Procopius, however). Some other Chrysostomian and pseudo-Chrysostomian material, especially in the latter part of Genesis, would also seem to have been added to the Catena later on, as it is only found in L and M. The same may be true of the fragments of Chrysostom's Ad stagirium a daemone vexatum, which are only found in B. On the other hand, we do find quotations of the Sermons on Genesis in the full tradition and in Procopius, and also Chrysostom's Quales ducendae sint uxores furnished a relatively high number of fragments in the Catena and Procopius.

The fact that most identifications could be made on the basis of the primary tradition of the Catena means that for the books of the Octateuch following Exodus, where only the secondary tradition is extant, less progress can be made. The situation in Reigns is different however. On the basis of Petit's research, this work is now seen as a separate composition ( CPG 743Qa56), Instead of the Catena, Procopius has now taken Theodoret's Questions as the axis. This reminds one immediately of the approach of the Collectio Coisliniana5"7, but here as in the Octateuch Procopius remains fully independent of this composition. His Commentary on Reigns also does not exhibit more than just a few points of agreement with the extant tradition of the Catena on Reigns.

The material proper to Procopius in the Commentary on Reigns often consists of parallels with Theodoret, which poses the question of whether Procopius was rewriting this source more drastically than he was used to

56. Thus Vol. 3A of CPG. See F. Petit, Autour de Theodoret de Cyr: La Collectio Coisliniana sur les derniers livres de l'Octateuque et sur les Regnes - Le Commentaire sur les Regnes de Procope de Gaza (TEG 13; Leuven, 2003), pp. xxxii-xxxiii.

57. Cf. F. Petit, Catenae Graecae in Genesim et in Exodum 2. Collectio coisliniana in Genesim (CCSG 15; Thrnhout-Leuven, 1986), pp. xvii-x:x.


do in the Commentary on the Octateuch. Petit gives an alternative explanation, however: Procopius may have chosen to use the actual sources of Theodoret. In one case, such a parallel can be attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea; in many others we may surmise that he used Diodore of Tarsus, but we have no means of checking this. The material that forms a real addition to the exegesis of Theodoret consists of Hexaplaric notes as well as fragments of Didymus, Eusebius of Caesarea (from the Commentary on the Psalms), Cyril, Athanasius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Irenaeus, and Origen. A large part of the supplements could not be identified, however.

In addition to a number of anonymous fragments, Procopius' Catena on the Song of Songs (CPG 7431) quotes Gregory of Nyssa, Nilus of Ancyra, Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Philo of Carpasia, Apollinarius of Laodicea, and once each, Didymus, Isidore of Pelusium, and Theophilus58• As we have seen above, his starting-point was probably the Pseudo-Eusebian Catena ( CPG C84); this work furnished mainly the fragments of Gregory of Nyssa and Philo of Carpasia. Procopius' Catena on Proverbia ( CPG 7 432; largely unedited) quotes Origen, Didymus, Evagrius, with some excerpts from Basil's In principium Proverbiorum, and single fragments of Gregory of Nazianzus and Eusebius of Caesareas9, His Catena on Ecclesiastes ( CPG 7 433 ), which exists in a modern edition by Sandro Leanza60, quotes Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, Evagrius, and Nilus of Ancyra. Procopius' Commentary on Isaiah ( CPG 7434), finally, quotes Cyril, Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodore of Heraclea, and Basil of Caesarea (from the dubious Enarratio in prophetam Isaiam, CPG 2911). As this composition again omits the names of authors, part of the texts quoted could not be identified61,

58. The lists differ slightly, depending on the manuscript quoted (the edition in PG 87 is unreliable). I am following M.-G. Guerard, 'Le contenu de l'Epitomt de Procope sur le Cantique', in M.F. Wiles and E.J. Yarnold, Studia Patristica 36 (Leuven, 2001), pp. 9-22. CPG C82 does not mention Theophilus, but adds Polychronius, Proclus, and Theodoret. The attribution of some fragments to Procopius himself may go back to a later hand.

59. The fragments of Evagrius were used by P. Gehin, Evagre le Pontique: Scholies aux Proverbes (SChret 340; Paris, 1987); cf. his introduction on pp. 65-68. A new fragment has been edited by C. Pasini, 'Resti della Catena sui Proverbi di Procopio di Gaza in un frammento pergamenaceo nel codice Ambrosiano B 85 Sup:, Aevum 74 (2000), 421-29.

60. S. Leanza (ed.), Procopii Gazaei Catena in Ecclesiasten necnon PseudoChrysostomi Commentarius in eundem Ecclesiasten (CCSG 4; Turnhout-Leuven, 1978), and idem, Un nuovo testimone (CCSG 4 Suppl.).

61. Eisenhofer, Procopius von Gaza, pp. 51-84. Cf. J. Ziegler (ed.), Eusebius Werke 9. Der ]esajakommentar (GCS; Berlin, 1975), pp. xlv-xlvii.


THE PROVENANCE OF THE EXEGETICAL SOURCES

If Procopius did indeed tap new sources for his Catena on the Song of Songs and his Commentary on Reigns, Petit's impression for the Octateuch, perhaps with the exception of the beginning of Genesis, is that he limited himself to the sources mentioned in the Catena on the Octateuch62 • In some cases he decided not to adopt a fragment chosen by the catenist, in other cases he added a fragment or enlarged an existing fragment on the basis of the original full commentaries which were available to him. Petit states that for all cases we can check, that is, for all works still extant in direct tradition or translation, it can be established that Procopius had access to the sources of the catenist63.

Some typical examples of Procopius' approach can be given on the basis of Philo's Questions on Genesis ( QG)64. Procopius presents a reworked version of QG 4.51, which still preserves its purport and enough of its terminology to remain helpful in establishing the Greek text of the fragment. In QG 4.52 Procopius gives a fuller quotation than the Catena, adding two sections. Here his quotation is literal and can only have been taken directly from Philo's work itself. In QG 4.88 only Procopius preserved some of the Greek text, but here it seems that Philo is quoted through an intermediate source, or Procopius himself made a combination of texts. In QG 4.144, finally, only Procopius preserves the Greek text, now again in a literal quotation6s.

According to Petit, the agreement between the sources of the Catena on the Octateuch and those of Procopius suggest that the catenist and Procopius used the same library66. This impression is strengthened by the fact that Procopius' quotations from Philo's Questions start and end exactly at the same points as those of the catenist: QG 1.55 (ad Gen. 3:22) is their starting-point, and QG 2.28 (ad Gen. 27:35) their last quotation from the Questions on Genesis. Neither the catenist nor Procopius quotes Questions

62. As noted above; see Petit, 'La Chaine, miroir de l'exegese', p. 245. 63. Petit, 'La Chaine, miroir de l'exegese~ p. 244 n. 11. 64. See F. Petit (ed.), Philon d'Alexandrie: Quaestiones. Fragmenta Graeca (Les reuvres

de Philon d'Aiexandrie 33; Paris, 1978), as well as the parallels in her edition of the Catena on the Octateuch.

65. Many comparable examples could be given from the edition of Philo just mentioned, from the edition of the Toura fragments of Didymus of Alexandria's Commentary on the Octateuch (P. Nautin and. L. Doutreleau [eds.], Didyme l'Aveugle: Sur la Genese; texte inedit d'apres un papyrus de Toura [SChret 233, 244; Paris, 1976-78]), as well as from my study of Eusebius of Emesa (A Syrian in Greek Dress, pp. 156-448).

66. For this suggestion, see Petit, 'La Chaine, miroir de l'exegese', pp. 244-45, and compare for the following data also Petit (ed.), Philon: Quaestiones, pp. 18-20.


on Exodus ( QE) 1, perhaps because they preferred to use Philo's Life of Moses for the passages of Exodus covered by this chapter. From QE 2 we find quotations from 2.1 up to 2.4967,

The question is of course, which library Procopius (and the catenist) used. The possibility of Caesarea has been brought forward68. Procopius stayed there for some time and it is indeed a place where it is very likely that the works of these authors were to hand69• Nautin even demonstrated that the Toura papyrus of Origen's On Easter shares an error with Procopius' text. He explains this by assuming that both texts go back to a common ancestor, which in his opinion was most probably a manuscript in Caesarea- the location of Origen's library70. Still, we should not be too hasty and conclude that Caesarea was the only place to find Origen's works and this whole collection of other authors71 . If they had a full copy of the Caesarean text of the On Easter with the error in Toura, why would they not have had one in Gaza- which was on the way from Caesarea to Egypt - as well? Actually, Nautin himself indicates that the error was probably not made by Origen himself72, so one could well wonder whether the model in Caesarea already exhibited the error. We should add that Procopius and the catenist are rather limited in their quotations of Eusebius of Caesarea on the Octateuch, whereas there are certainly works of Eusebius worth quoting, as the secondary tradition shows. Moreover, the Hexaplaric documentation in the Catena on the Octateuch and Procopius can be explained as references to marginal readings in biblical manuscripts. Thus I would ~uggest that it is possible that the catenist and Procopius both worked in a library in Gaza. But this remains a hypothesis; we should always remind ourselves that these scholars were more mobile than we might find likely today73.

67. Compare also Cat.Gen. 84, where the catenist and Procopius have a text which is rather different from that in the Toura papyrus; as Procopius gives a longer quotation, he must have had independent access to the same divergent text form as we find in the Catena.

68. Petit, 'La Chaine, miroir de l'exegese', p. 245, and Nautin, cf. note 70 below. 69. On the library of Caesarea, see now A. Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea

(Suppl. Vig. Christ. 67; Leiden, 2003). 70. Gueraud and Nautin, Origene. Sur la Paque, pp. 88-90. 71. Cf. the warning for 'Pan-Caesareanism' in D.T. Runia, 'Caesarea Maritima and the

Survival of Hellenistic-Jewish Literature', in A. Raban and K.G. Holum, Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective after Two Millennia (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 21; Leiden, 1996), pp. 494-95.

72. Gueraud and Nautin, Origene. Sur la Paque, p. 45. 73. Cf. Downey, 'The Christian Schools of Palestine', pp. 300-303. Even Eusebius of

Caesarea sometimes used other libraries: Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, pp. 69-74.


CONCLUDING REMARKS

The choice of sources and the comparison between the full commentaries and the fragments chosen also help to determine the kind of exegesis Procopius and his predecessors were interested in. If one considers the lists of authors just given, it seems that the different schools of exegesis were treated equally, and that doctrinal issues played no role: Antiochene exegetes such as Eusebius of Emesa, Diodore, and Theodore are presented besides Alexandrians such as Origen, Didymus, and Cyril, and this at a time when Origen had already fallen from favour. Even Jewish sources, Philo and Josephus, made it into Procopius' works and into the collections he took as his starting-point. Du choc des opinions jaillit la verite? In general I would contend that the catenists and Procopius were more dis- . cerning. It is true that here and there it appears that they were actually limited in their choice by what was available in their library- as for instance at the end of Genesis, where they started quoting Cyril more and more, for lack of anything better, it seems74. However, where they did have a choice, they did make one. Thus from Philo they may have known the Exposition of the Law and the Allegorical Commentary, but they chose his more detailed and more technical Questions. And they interrupt their quotation of the passages of the Questions they selected as soon as Philo comes up with speculative and allegorical explanations.

The catenists and Procopius were mostly interested in the solution of problems and questions posed by the text: they wanted to present an instrument d'etude that would serve a grammatical and historical explanation of the text75• There is hardly room for the philosophical, spiritual, and doctrinal here. As Petit remarks, on the basis of the Catena on the Odateuch one would not suspect that the majority of the exegetes quoted were involved in the Trinitariim and Christological debates of their era. This does not mean that Procopius and the catenists were not interested in doctrine, or against allegorical interpretations by way of principle. We should rather make the connection with Procopius' profane works: he was a sophist and wrote books that could be used as examples in the classroom.

As Choricius points out76, and as the Life of Porphyry also stresses77, in Gaza it was considered important for a priest to have a classical education,

74. Thus Petit, La Cha!ne sur la Genese 4, pp. xi-xii. 75. Thus Petit, 'La Chaine, miroir de l'exegese', pp. 252-53. 76. Cf. Y. Ashkenazi, 'Sophists and Priests in Late Antique Gaza according to Chori

cius the Rhetor', in Bitton-Ashkelony and Kofsky (eds.), Christian Gaza, pp. 195-208, esp. 195-201.

77. Life of Porphyry 8, ed. Gregoire and Kugener, p. 8 lines 11-12.


and the Bible had to be interpreted according to the rules learnt at school. Now Alexandria had its philosophical schools where allegorical interpretations were taught, but Gaza itself did not have such institutions, despite the close contacts with that city78• In sophist schools such as the one Procopius was teaching in, a text was read, its language elucidated, and finally it was explained at a basic, factual level. The goal was to 'solve the difficulties' in the text, as the Life of Porphyry has it. The application of the text, or its spiritual or doctrinal use (impossible without these first steps), were reserved for other places. A collection of answers to problems posed by the text would of course be of great help in this exercise, as it gave the student examples of how to treat the issues at hand. Just as the question-and-answer genre and its further developments had their Sitz-imLeben in schools where grammar and rhetoric was taught79, Karlfried Froehlich also connects the formation of catenae and other collections of scholia with the needs of the education systemso.

Procopius and his predecessors did not need to invent the idea of collecting fragments: already before them, people had started collecting scholia on Homer and other classical texts, and making excerpts from earlier commentaries. In his profane works as in his commentaries and catenae, Procopius followed earlier models for the benefit of his pupils. As a conservative sophist, he strictly followed the rules of each genre. Thus in a panegyric it was important to compare the person who was praised with characters from the mythological past. He would have felt uneasy blending in a comparison between the Emperor and King David, not only because of his mixed audience, but also because this was simply not done within this genre. And according to the principles of interpretation of his sophist school and the rules of the question-and-answer genre, one had to explain Homer on the basis of Homer, which entailed that one had to explain the Bible on the basis of the Bible. This conservatism explains the seeming dichotomy between his works. We may therefore assume that there was just one Procopius of Gaza, using the classical literature as well as the Christian exegetical works from the book collections of his home town.

78. For this point, see Glucker, The City of Gaza, p. 51. 79. Cf. Chr. Schaublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen

Exegese (Theophaneia 23; Cologne-Bonn, 1974), pp. 55-65, and R.B. ter Haar Romeny, 'Question-and-Answer Collections in Syriac Literature', in A. Volgers and C. Zamagni (eds.), Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Question-and-Answer Literature in Context(Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 37; Leuven, 2004), pp. 145-63.

80. Cf. K. Froehlich, 'Bibelkommentare - Zur Krise einer Gattung', Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche 84 (1987), pp. 478-80.

procopius of gaza and his library

Documents