THE TURA PAPYRUS OF

DIDYMUS THE BLIND’S

COMMENTARY ON JOB:
AN ORIGINAL TRANSLATION WITH
INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY

by

Edward F. Duffy

A thesis submitted in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Graduate Theological Foundation

Donaldson, Indiana

February 28, 2000

Ordinarius: Professor Margaret Amy Schatkin

Second Reader: Professor John C. Williams
 Table of Contents

Foreword 1

Introduction to the Translation 4

Didymus’ Prologue to the Job Commentary 33

The Commentary on Job

Chapter 1 40

Chapter 2 76

Chapter 3 91

Chapter 4 133

Bibliography 152

Abbreviations 163
 1

Foreword

This translation was undertaken at the suggestion of Professor Margaret Schatkin, who was

my instructor for four semesters of “Greek Patrology,” and “Latin Patrology,” at Boston College —

where I fulfilled half the course work for this degree program. The hermeneutical approaches of an

Alexandrian Christian in the wake of Origen would make an interesting counterpoint and contrast,

we reasoned, to the studies we had done in one of the Boston College seminars on exegetical

writings of St. John Chrysostom.

I undertook a translation because my own immersion in texts has always been based on

philology. I have tried to ground my systematic reflections and conclusions on a word-by-word

study of texts. I was drawn to the Alexandrian milieu because of my sympathy for those Christian

writers, such as the ones in Alexandria, who receptively acknowledged the weight and importance

in their contemplation of the language and concepts of classical culture.

At a practical level, when I undertook this project, I had just moved from Boston to

Litchfield, Connecticut. The fact that Litchfield is an hour’s drive from any research collection in

theology dictated some fairly self-contained project. A text study or translation seemed ideal — both

to my practical realities as well as my own bent for text study.

There were several questions in my mind, as I began this work, sometime in 1994. Chief

among these was the question: would there be enough commentary to harvest from these fragments

(chapters one through twelve) of the Tura manuscript, to make it worthwhile?

Within the first several paragraphs of Didymus’ Commentary on Job, it was clear to me that
 2

I would be working with some of the most challenging Greek I had ever encountered. This was not

the straightforward syntax or vocabulary of The Shepherd of Hermas. I continued with the project,

largely as a matter of intellectual stimulation, still unsure of the true value of what I was doing. In

time, however, I came to realize what a treasure this work was from a theological standpoint. Its

bold excursus on the “immortality of the soul” was alone worth the effort. The traces of Didymus’

theology, which are more fully explored in his other, more systematic works, were tantalizing

confirmations both of his authorship and of his significance, as a link between St. Athanasius and

the later Greek fathers. And my own readings in Origen, which have been ongoing, have convinced

me that Didymus was rightly associated with his predecessor by many voices (both those of hostile

critics, as well as those of his defenders). At many times, I have felt the work I have done with this

translation to be actually a devotional exercise, as well as an academic task. I was pleasantly

surprised that, with some notable exceptions, the lacunae (which many had warned would be an

impediment to any significant findings) were not destructive to the more important gleanings from

this text.

In the translation, I have erred on the side of a more literal rendering, adjusting sentence

structure and syntax only where the demands of reading and understanding in English seem to

demand it. For the biblical citations (which of course are originally from the Septuagint) I have

made my own translations.

I have chosen to submit the sections that follow since they take the reader from the valuable,

opening prologue through Didymus’ development of some of his most significant ideas. The

concluding sentences of his commentary on chapter three, sound like a perfect place to end. But I

decided to include the following section on chapter four, verses one to five, because of its intrinsic
 3

importance, as well as its contribution to the discussion of theodicy, and its allusions to the popular

heresies of its day.

I have used the symbols < > to enclose additions I have made to the text for easier

comprehension. The symbols [ ] enclose word(s) that clarify the text’s understanding. The

bibliography appended was the result of the work of one semester of Professor Schatkin’s Greek

Patrology seminar at Boston College. It is based on the pages of Bibliographia Patristica, through

1994.

My work could not have been completed without the faithful and devoted supervision of my

second reader, Professor John C. Williams, formerly Chair of Greek and Latin at Trinity College,

Hartford. I studied with Professor Williams first in the mid-eighties, when among other things, we

read St. Athanasius’ De Incarnatione. Professor Williams’ accumulated and formidable expertise

in the classics has been a great encouragement to my own absorption in the perduring legacy of these

in the Christian heritage, both in the fourth century, as well as today.

Edward F. Duffy

Litchfield, Connecticut
 4

Introduction to the English Translation

The works of Didymus the Blind were anathematized by the Second Council at

Constantinople in 553. The Council’s action was in part because of Didymus’ association — and

defense of — Origen. It was also due to his own teachings on the •pokatVstasiV and on the pre-

existence of the soul. As a result, Didymus’ works were mostly lost, except for his treatise “On the

Trinity”1; “On the Holy Spirit,”2 and “Against the Manichaeans3. Another piece of writing widely

accepted as the work of Didymus is what (in most editions) is printed as the fourth and fifth book

of Basil of Caesarea’s Against Eunomius.4

The treatise On the Trinity, survived, it is thought, because of its containing little Origenism.5

The treatise On the Holy Spirit survived in Greek only in fragments, and in its entirety in a Latin

translation by St. Jerome — a pupil of Didymus who acknowledges that the Alexandrian “certe in

Trinitate catholicus est.”6

In our own time, Quasten calls Didymus the “theologian of the Trinity,”7 whose grasp of the

1
J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Paris: 1857-66, XXXIX, 269-992.
2
Ibid., 1031-1086, and Didymus, Traité du Saint-Esprit, Louis Doutreleau (ed.), Paris:
Sources Chrétiennes, 1992.
3
Migne, 1085-1110.
4
Migne, XXIX, 497-669.
5
Johannes Quasten, Patrology, Allen, Texas: Christian Classics, 1996, III, 87.
6
St. Jerome, Apology Against Rufinus, II, 16.
7
Quasten, op. cit., 93.
 5

doctrine is summarized in the phrase m\a oÛs\a, treÃV ßpostVseiV8 (a phrase not even yet used by

St. Athanasius). Didymus does use the formula in his writings, and in this respect alone thus

constitutes a significant link between Athanasius and the later great Greek Fathers.9

In 1941, the accidental discovery of sixth and seventh century papyrus codices in Toura,

Egypt, brought to light hitherto unavailable works of Origen and of Didymus. The papyri, now in

the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, have been edited by Otto Guéraud. They contain Didymus’

commentaries on Job, Zechariah, Genesis,10 as well as Ecclesiastes and Psalms 20-46. The

commentary on Job has been published in four volumes of a critical edition, with German

translation, by Ursula Hagedorn, Dieter Hagedorn, and Lüdwig Koenen, completing the work

originally undertaken by Albert Henrichs. It offers the available critical edition of the Greek text,

and has been used in the making of this original English translation.11

The Toura manuscript for the Job commentary contains no title or author identification.

Ascription of it to Didymus is mostly based upon its literal word-for-word identity with surviving

Greek catena of Didymus’ Job commentary. The German editors note also — as a fair basis for

8
A still-definitive discussion of the phrase and its evolution through the writings of the church
fathers (though without any reference to Didymus) is found in G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic
Thought, London: SPCK, 1959, 166-78.
9
Didymus’ sophisticated development of the doctrine of the Trinity is in contrast with Origen,
on whom he relied so heavily in so many other aspects. For it is fair to say Origen’s treatment of
the Trinity is not nearly so systematic as that of his successor.
10
The commentaries on Genesis and on Zechariah are available in a critical edition, together
with French translation, O. Guéraud and J. Scherer, Sur Zacharie, Paris: Sources Chrétiennes,
1962, and Sur la Genèse, Paris: Sources Chrétiennes, 1976-78.
11
Didymos der Blinde, Kommentar zu Hiob, (ed. Albert Henrichs, Ursula Hagedorn, Dieter
Hagedorn, Lüdwig Koenen), Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag GmbH, 1968-85, I - IV,1.
 6

ascribing authorship to Didymus — the significant treatment, within this newly discovered

manuscript, of the pre-existence of the soul and of the •pokatVstasiV.12

The translation offered herewith is made with the view that the Job commentary offers

English readers a hitherto unavailable glimpse into the great Alexandrian exegete’s particular

understandings not only of these two signature topics. It also affords a new appreciation of his

allegorical approach to biblical hermeneutics, his understanding of good and evil, and of what the

Christian response to evil might be. It will also offer to scholars yet to come fascinating and fertile

ground for fresh study of words drawing from Stoic, Christian and other sources, including Philo.

In at least one other place, it briefly but explicitly rebuts those who hold to the doctrine of

“transmigration” — important as we shall see, since Origen (and perhaps later Didymus himself) had

been accused of that very teaching.

The Pre-Existence of the Soul

In his Job commentary, Didymus dilates upon his teachings on the pre-existence of the soul.

He does this primarily in the context of his exegesis of Job 3:3-5ff. In that passage, Job had cursed

the day in which he came into being. Didymus anticipates someone’s objection that it was not

“seemly” for the holy man to have done this. But such an objection, he avers, is grounded in a

“literal” — rather than an allegorical — understanding of the text.

Before explaining what he means by this, Didymus indicates he must first dwell upon his

conviction that the human soul is immortal. We shall soon see why the two issues, allegory and the

immortality of the soul, are for him, at least in this instance, related ones.

12
Ibid., I, 12.
 7

First, let us consider his excursus on the pre-existence of the soul. “The human soul is

immortal,” he declares. It was connected, or “sewn,” to the human body for one of two possible

reasons: either for remedial, purgative re-development or in order to form a partnership with “those

that needed help.” The soul pre-exists in this sense: that it does not evolve out of “corporeal seed”

— as he puts it.

The two possible reasons given by Didymus in his Job commentary for the soul to be sewn

together with the body trace back to Origen’s De Principiis.13 Here Didymus’ predecessor had

explained that the pre-existent soul, “so long as it continues to abide in the good . . . has no

experience of union with a body.” But when, “by some inclination of evil,” a soul “loses its wings,”

it is joined with human beings — or even ultimately with “insensate brutes,” or plants. (De

Principiis, I, 8,4)

But there are equally, for Origen and for Didymus, instances where the soul is joined with

a body for an entirely different purpose: to form partnership with those who need help. The supreme

example is that of the Lord himself. But in his Commentary on John, Origen explicitly speaks about

others. John the Baptist was, says Origen, “sent” into this world for that kind of benevolent

partnership with those who needed his help: “John’s soul was older than his body, and subsisted by

itself before it was sent on the ministry of the witness of the light.” Interestingly, Origen wants us

to remember Elijah in the same way, for according to scripture he too was “sent.” So also were

13
Didymus most explicitly states his conviction regarding two possible reasons in his
commentary on Job 4:1-5: “There are, without doubt, two bases for the sadness which befalls
humankind. One is on account of correcting sins. The other because of showing forth the
steadfastness and proven worth of the afflicted.”
 8

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others.14

Tellingly, when Didymus in his Job commentary treats the same topics, viz. the two possible

reasons why pre-existing souls are joined with bodies, he uses as proof-texts the same biblical

examples used by Origen in De Principiis and in the Commentary on John. These examples are the

story of the birth of Jacob and Esau, as well as the birth narrative of John the Baptist. The former,

Jacob and Esau, are apparently used with this thinking: if God preferred Jacob to Esau, then the two

must therefore have existed in some other time wherein their respective merits had been established

before God.15 The latter example, that of John the Baptist, as we shall see, is rather an example of

a soul being joined with a body in order to help others.

Didymus’ treatment of the soul’s pre-existence within his Job commentary makes a most

appropriate fit with what many consider to be the primary biblical case-study for “bad things

happening to good people.” In other words, we are permitted to consider his teaching on pre-

existence under the lens of theodicy. Job, after all, had every reason to curse the day in which he

was born. Only Didymus will not permit merely a surface interpretation of Job’s cursing that day.

For only a literal-minded person, he says, would ascribe such a motive to the holy man, who, after

all, (cf. below) personifies a kind of Alexandrian •paqe\a and •ndre\a reminiscent of Clement

of Alexandria’s Stromateis.

Even allowing for Job’s stoic comportment, Didymus knows we are still left with the

question of theodicy. Why do good people suffer? Origen had already taken up just that question,

14
Commentary on John II, 24.
15
Origen in De Principiis: “considering the soul of Esau, who was condemned in a later life
for ancient sins.” (II, 8,3)
 9

again in De Principiis. Only he treats the matter in the context of a somewhat less dramatic

narrative, than that of Job. His exegesis is of a passage from Paul’s letter to the Romans (9:18-21)

where the apostle declares “God will have mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth,”

a text used by many to argue for pre-destination.

For Origen, it is not pre-destination — for that would be inconsistent with the cardinal value

he ascribes to free will, our’s and God’s. Rather, the apostle’s words in Romans 9, point to the fact

that no capricious spin is intended by God’s will — as some might think.16 Anyway, as Origen says,

“there are certain older causes,”17 to account for lives that are seemingly blessed with fortune, and

those that are not, “in consequence of certain former righteous deeds,” or the reverse. But

everywhere he will preserve free will, so that those who will it, may amend their ways,18 and return

to an ever-loving God.

Why then does Job suffer? Is it indeed in consequence of certain former unrighteous deeds?

The answer appears to be both “yes” and “no.” It is not so, if we should take the passage only

literally. For to say that Job suffers because of evil he has committed either in this life, or another,

is to fall into the same confusion of those who surround him with their blandishments. But in a

figurative (i.e. an allegorical) way, he personifies all those that suffer. And as a “type” for all

humankind, he “curses the day on which he was born,” in the same way that a physician would

16
Origen remains the great defender of free will, as does Didymus (cf. the prologue to his Job
commentary).
17
De Principiis, III, 1,21.
18
De Principiis, III, 1,23.
 10

“curse” an illness — in order to heal.19

Therefore, we realize that Job was sent mostly to help. His soul has been wed with a body,

as with John the Baptist’s and Elijah’s and Ezekiel’s, and the others, in order to “help the fallen.”

When Job cursed the day on which he was born, then, it was done on behalf of “all the human race.”

His complaint is not the cry of dereliction that comes out of sheer personal angst; but rather, on

behalf of others, he “raises the argument against every cause.”20 Elsewhere in the commentary on

Job, in his exegesis of 3:11, Didymus even portrays Job’s occasional cursing of the day in which he

was born as a sign of his stooping to identify with the weakness of fellow human beings, not because

he is weak, but in order to encourage and later to instruct them:

He (i.e. Job) himself, however, he represents as tottering, even though he is steadfast. But
he takes the role of those who are morose, so as to allow the word of instruction - later -
to follow upon the word of doubt.

In a somewhat convoluted way, it now becomes apparent why Didymus has insisted upon

an allegorical approach to this passage — as he does so often elsewhere. For if, in this instance, he

had stopped at the literal approach, then — for him — we should have been limited in our

19
Didymus often uses the analogy of a physician and healing. The healing always entails some
“cutting,” “burning,” or in this instance, “cursing,” in order to effect a cure. Origen used the
same picture, as well. Cf. De Principiis, III, 13: “even as physicians (though able to heal a man
more quickly), when they suspect that there is hidden poison anywhere in the body, do the
reverse of healing . . . to heal the more surely (di tΠƐsqai boØlesqai •sfalXsteron toØto
poioØnteV).

20
A parallel example in Christian hermeneutics might be the received understanding — at
least among some Christians — that Jesus’ invocation from the cross of Psalm 22, “Why hast
thou forsaken me?, was not merely a despairing cry of abandonment, but rather a self-conscious
taking of a familiar psalm of lament, re-cloaking it with the saving drama of abandonment, loss,
and redemption.
 11

conception of Job. Job is not only so strong as to be able to identify with human weakness, he is also

able to encourage us by going beyond merely an all-too human complaint against the deity. But, if

we allow Didymus to contemplate the passage allegorically, and to comprehend Job as another

Ezekiel or Isaiah, sent from God, then we shall understand his complaint as being offered for all of

us, and in that sense, as a saintly encouragement to us in turn to bear with our sufferings just as

philosophically as he has.

Before leaving the topic of the soul’s pre-existence, it is worth noting, at least briefly, a

second instance in the Job commentary where Didymus turns to this topic. In this one, he echoes

the Origenist teaching of the so-called “double creation.” Origen had outlined a teaching on two

natures, a prior one for the invisible, incorporeal nature, including the soul, and a secondary one for

the visible, corporeal nature, including the body. Origen is understood to be drawing from a famous

passage from Plato’s Phaedo, in which Origen has found not only his concepts but also his

vocabulary: Socrates says: “Shall we assume two kinds of existences, one visible [the body], the

other invisible [the soul].”21

Origen extends Plato’s concept of two natures through a further development, that of two

“creations.” This he does (following Philo’s exegesis of Genesis) by repeatedly invoking Genesis

1:1 as a proof-text22 for just such a double-creation. “In the beginning God created the heavens [the

invisible, incorporeal] and the earth [the visible, corporeal].”

qämen oÞn boblei, §fh, dbo eÇdh tän Ðntwn, tÎ m¥n Òrat`n, tÎ d¥ •eidXV;
21

(“shall we assume then two kinds of existences, one visible, the other invisible?,” Phaedo
79A).
22
De Principiis II, 9,1; II, 9,6; III, 6,8; IV, 4,6.
 12

Didymus explicitly follows this train of thought, also — joining himself now with Plato,

Philo, and Origen. For in his exegesis of Job 10:8a, Didymus distinguishes God’s “making of the

soul,” from his “fashioning of the flesh.” The verse in Job, reads: “Your hands have made

(¦po\hsan) me and formed (§plasan) me.” It is “well-said,” says Didymus. By this, he means

that scripture has deployed parallel but contrasting verbs: “making” and “forming.” For it is in just

this way, he wants to say, that one is to understand the making of the soul and the forming of the

body: “made” refers to the soul, and “form” refers to the body. For Didymus, the soul’s creation is

prior — and certainly, he implies, a separate act of creation, from that of the body.

The •pokatVstasiV

The Greek word behind this dogma literally means “return,” “restitution,” (of something that

has been put down, or put into a certain condition, stVsiV). In theology, it stands for the belief that

“ultimately all free moral creatures — angels, men, and devils — will share in the grace of

salvation.”23

In his Apology Against Rufinus, (I,6), St. Jerome more than implies Didymus his teacher to

have participated in this teaching, as well. For just after listing those features of Origen’s theology

that have become objectionable to many in that time, he labels Didymus “the most open champion

of Origen,” thereby implicating Didymus with that very catalogue that includes Origen’s ideas on

the restitution of all.

Now, it has not been exactly easy for the modern reader to access those words of Didymus

23
F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,
London: Oxford, 1974, 70.
 13

that Jerome must be thinking of, and in which presumably he did champion such doctrines as the

•pokatVstasiV. This is for the simple reason that those works of his that might have included this

were precisely the ones that were ultimately destroyed. And those works that are most free from

Origenist teachings on universal salvation and the pre-existence of the soul (viz. On the Trinity and

The Holy Spirit) are the very ones that do survive.

But in the commentary on Job, the situation is now different. While there is no single place

in it where Didymus makes a systematic exposition of the teaching on universal salvation, all the

building blocks of such a teaching are here: the idea that God does not create evil (as the

Manichaeans had argued); that evil is a motion away from the good; that human beings, along with

other rational beings, have free will; that afflictions in this life are a corrective to something done

in a previous state, with the implication being that such chastening is with a view towards our

eventual restoration.

Didymus openly speculates about even the devil’s restoration. He asks whether the devil is

capable of repentance. Strongly he implies that, as a rational creature, he is. The reflection comes

about in the context of his exegesis of Job 1:8, where “the Lord said to the devil: “in your thoughts

have you considered my servant Job . . .”

For Didymus, the key word is “thought.” Is the devil, in fact, capable of thought? “Having

thoughts is the characteristic of a rational being,” (logikoØ gr oÆkeÃon tÎ dianoeÃsqai). And

rational beings — capable of having thought — are also capable of repentance. For Didymus, the

answer is self-evident, from the biblical texts he has cited (Isaiah 14:13, in addition to Job 1:8). In

each of them, the “thought” or “understanding” of the devil is addressed.

Even within the opening words of the prologue, Didymus has told how the devil is a rational
 14

being who “became an apostate from God.” He was not created as the devil, for God does not create

evil, but was “perfect and virtuous.” As such, the devil’s falling away from unity with God was a

most extreme example of the change and decay, to which all bodies are subject. “Bodies undergo

decay and growth,” says Didymus.

Didymus’ teachings on this in the Job commentary show the direct imprint of

Origen’s words about the devil in De Principiis:

. . . he who formerly was Lucifer and who It happened that a rational being became an
‘arose in the morning’ has fallen from heaven. apostate of God . . . This is the devil, who was
. . . Even Satan was once light, before he went not created as the devil . . . but perfect and
astray and fell to this place . . . That he is an virtuous . . . he himself shone as the
morningstar of heaven and an early-rising
apostate, or fugitive, the Lord also says in star; but was driven from the heavenly land.
Job, in the following words, ‘Thou wilt take
with a hook the apostate dragon (Job 40:20) - Didymus, Commentary on Job,
... Prologue
- Origen, De Principiis, I, 5,5

What may be of particular interest is that Didymus traces not only the same concept, but also

does so with evidently the same vocabulary and images. While we no longer have the Greek original

for this paragraph of Origin’s work, it so happens that in his translation of it into Latin, Rufinus had

transliterated the word apostate (•postVthV), followed by his choice of a Latin equivalent, refuga.

In at least this respect, if not more, Didymus therefore had once again followed his mentor very

closely. In the ancient world, as has been so often said, citation without attribution is no plagiarism,

but the highest compliment.

As we have already noted, Didymus is also — like Origen — a great champion of free will.

He says in the prologue, that “Job . . . brings to light the exercise of free will.” And, things happening

to us are not chance occurrences: for nothing happens “without God’s permission.” Therefore,
 15

“whatever is carried out by choice, and under the intentional activity of the one engaged in it, that

shows him to be blameworthy or praiseworthy.” The particular decay and decline which the devil

has suffered is surely from his own agency and choice.

While biblical exegesis of Job is perhaps not the place to find Didymus’ most systematic

explanation of the recovery or “restitution” of those who, like the devil, have been put down by their

own choice and agency, it so happens that there are places in the commentary on Job where an

Origenist understanding of that process is conveyed.

For example, in his commentary on Job 3:24-25, Didymus alludes to a “still greater

punishment” upon the devil. And as Henrichs has pointed out, the very concept of the punishment

of the devil points to an Origenist teaching on the •pokatVstasiV: “nach der alle Vernunftwesen

nach vielen Perioden der Laüterung wieder in den ursprünglichen sündenlosen Zustand

zurückversetzt werden.”

Still another clue to Didymus’ shared understanding, with Origen, of the •pokatVstasiV,

is his opinion that the scriptural allusions to the “wrath” of God are not to be taken in some literal,

worldly sense of “emotion.” For God, as incorporeal, does not have “feelings,” as we do. Rather,

in the commentary on Job 3:26, Didymus allegorically translates “wrath” as the “afflictions” which

have beset Job. His basis for doing so is that scripture refers, in this instance, to the wrath as being

“sent.” As Didymus is quick to point out, if it were emotion, it would not be “sent,” for emotion

“lies in the soul,” and is not “sent” anywhere. The point is, Didymus’ phraseology conforms to an

Origenist understanding of affliction as a purgative, and ultimately benevolent, action of a loving,

not wrathful, God.24

24
For Origen’s own explanation of the “wrath” of God, cf. De Principiis II, 4,4.
 16

Didymus’ Doctrine of God and the Soul

The afflictions which beset us in this life are not, as with much contemporary thinking25 the

mark of a loving but vulnerable God. Didymus’ deity is both loving and omniscient, if not

omnipotent. Almost everywhere in the commentary, he is careful to say that afflictions do not come

upon us “without God’s permission.” Neither will he shrink from saying that afflictions actually are

“sent” — and again, “sent” with a purgative, benevolent purpose.

There is a plan, or providence, then in the events of this life, according to Origen and

Didymus: a benevolent, if often inscrutable one. And when Didymus speaks, in the prologue to his

Job commentary, about innocent suffering, he uses the same vocabulary as Origen did. Both avoid

saying that God causes suffering to the innocent. But both are equally emphatic that nothing

happens in this life beyond the permission of God:

The story of Job also teaches us that it is not plundered . . . Divine scripture teaches us to
by chance attacks that we are assailed, if ever accept all things that happen to us as sent by
such losses come upon us . . . For observe that God, because we know that nothing happens
Job’s house would not have fallen upon his without him.
sons unless the devil had first obtained power - Origen, De Principiis, III,
against them . . . From these considerations it 2,6-7.
is shown that all those events that happen in
this world, which are regarded as things The words cited (viz. the same verse cited by
indifferent, whether calamities like the above Origen: ‘See, I <the Lord> give into your
or events of any other kind whatever, happen hand all that he possesses; only do not touch
neither by God’s doing nor yet without God . Job himself’) demonstrate that no one falls
. . Thus even in regard to Job himself it is said into any trials without God’s consent. For
that at a definite time he was ordained to fall God says: ‘See, I have given everything into
into the power of others and to have his house your hand.’ However, in order that it be

25
The view is most ably put forth by several thinkers in the theological sphere, William
Placher, Narratives of a Vulnerable God: Christ, Theology and Scripture, Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1994; Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991; and Eberhard Jüngel, God as the Mystery of
the World, trans. Darrell L. Guder, Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983, are
but recent examples of the argument for a God “strong in love, weak in power.”
 17

obvious that even God’s consent has been

qualified, a word is added: ‘Only do not touch
Job himself.’ So trials occur neither by the
allotment of fate, or spontaneously, but out of
the consent of God, in order to show forth —
as has already been said — Job’s virtue . . .
- Didymus, Commentary on Job 1:12

What is God’s purpose in allowing afflictions to befall humankind? Both Origen and

Didymus are not without an answer, as they would ascribe it inevitably, on the one hand, to a

benevolent mission (Job suffers so as to help other sufferers to display •ndre\a). Or, Origen and

Didymus would — in other human examples — ascribe it to the purging from “ancient sins”). Such

an answer is unlikely to be on the one hand palatable to the modern therapeutic mind set, with its

accent on freeing people from “blame and shame,” and “the tyranny of the shoulds.”26 It was to be

no more acceptable to Orthodox Christian understandings of “judgment” as the winnowing or

separating of good from evil, rather than the burning away or “purgation” of the soul.27

Nevertheless, there are certain essential and enduring values in Origen and Didymus’ teaching,

which should not go unnoticed, or unpreserved, by the Church today.

Chief among the strengths of Origen’s teaching is that we are not forced to make the choice,

26
Sam Keen, Inward Bound: Exploring the Geography of Your Emotions, New York: Bantam,
1992, p. 84.
27
Origen’s interpretation of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares is an interesting case in
point. Here, the fire at the “consummation of the age” is that time when “evil opinions” which
have grown upon the soul may be overturned and given over to the fire. The “evil opinions” and
not the souls themselves (which are immortal), are given over. (Commentary on the Gospel
According to Matthew, II, X, 2). How can this not be different from St. Augustine’s view in The
City of God, that “everlasting fire” is the “last punishment of the wicked.” (The City of God, XX,
12).
 18

so often encountered in twentieth century discussions of theodicy, between on the one hand a

powerful God, or on the other, a loving God.28 But Origen and Didymus’ deity is both all-powerful

and loving.29 Nothing happens in this world without God’s permission. Even the evil that befalls

us is part of an overall, mostly inscrutable process of salvation. For unlike the salvation experience

of a “river baptism” (“I gave my life to the Lord, and was saved”) — salvation with Didymus and

Origen is ongoing, and in fact happens continually in the road of the soul through different

embodiments, “both in those temporal worlds which are seen, and in those eternal worlds which are

invisible.”30

What Origen (and Didymus) mean exactly by the different “embodiments” of the soul is not

always precisely clear. What we do know is that Origen understands there to be a series of “worlds”

or “aeons” in which the soul may successively be embodied, since the soul itself is “immortal” and

“eternal.”31 Moreover, Origen somehow understands the soul’s progress through these worlds or

aeons to be either progressive or regressive (that is, either progressing toward God, or falling away

from Him).

The modern reader of Origen and of Didymus are left to parse for themselves just how

28
"Why then does He [God] not save them (i.e. those who are destined to perish)? If he is
unwilling, then he will not be good; if he is willing but cannot, he will not be almighty.” De
Principiis, II, 5,2.
29
Origen writes: “We have frequently shown by those statements that we are able to adduce
from the divine Scriptures that God, the Creator of all things, is good, and just, and all-
powerful.” De Principiis, II, 9,6.
30
De Principiis, I, 6, 13.
31
". . . in the many and endless periods of duration in the immeasurable and different worlds, it
may descend from the highest good to the lowest evil, or be restored from the lowest evil to the
highest good.” De Principiis, III, 1, 21.
 19

literally this progression is to be understood. It cannot be entirely inappropriate, it seems, to

understand it in some metaphorical, rather than a literal, way. For the entire character of Origen and

Didymus’ approach to scripture itself was of this metaphorical and allegorical character. And later

great orthodox theologians, indeed did understand the soul to be on a journey either to or from

fellowship with the Almighty. Most stirring of all such claims is perhaps Gregory of Nyssa’s

declaration (in The Catechetical Oration, 21) that there is:

a perpetual movement toward a different state . . . in the one case it is always directed
toward the good; and here its progress is continual, since there is no conceivable limit to
the distance it can go. In the other case, it is directed toward the opposite . . . our nature
cannot remain essentially unchanged. Rather does the will drive it toward some end,
desire for the good naturally setting it in motion.

For Didymus, as with the later Greek fathers also, both God and humanity have free will.

The freedom of God is that the deity is not ultimately limited by — or vulnerable to — evil. The

freedom of the believer is in the choice to follow the road that leads to re-union with God.

Rowan Greer, once again, has put it well when he describes “the journey”32 as one of a few

“dominant metaphors”33 in Origen’s thought. Indeed, that human freedom to choose the road leading

to God is sometimes in both Didymus and Origen’s work set over against the counterpoint of less

salutary “pathways” that are also available to us, such as temptation. And the choice between the

two can be another example of the moral “wrestling” or “athleticism” of the Christian that we shall

come to presently.

32
Rowan A. Greer (ed. and trans.), Origen, in the series, “The Classics of Western
Spirituality,” New York: Paulist Press, 1979, p. 18.
33
Greer uses this phrase because he understands the movement of the soul, in Origen, to be a
“drama” — the story of the soul’s struggle both in moral and spiritual spheres to return to
fellowship with God.
 20

In his commentary on Job 3:3-5 and 3:5-6, Didymus plays the two off against each other.

Origen has done much the same thing in numerous examples: in De Principiis, where one “enters

upon a narrow path, passing to a loftier and more sublime road,”34 and in Contra Celsum, where he

decries those who “tread other paths from us — men who deny the Creator.”35

It is clear that the sticking point, though, will remain just this: the nearness of the Origenist

ideas to words like “transmigration,” or “reincarnation.” Didymus’ word for the latter was

metenswmVtwsiV. But “re-embodiment,” or change-in-embodiment is better. For with Didymus

and with Origen, the soul’s pathway through different embodiments preserves the individuality of

that particular soul, unlike the description we seem to get with Plato, or with much eastern, non-

Christian spirituality.

That the individuality of soul is preserved in Didymus and Origen is attested by just the

examples we are citing, that of Jacob and Esau, and of Jeremiah (“Before I formed you in the womb

I knew you.” Jeremiah 1:5) Citations like this one are not to be found in the hitherto extant works

of Didymus. The discovery of the Toura papyri brings such speculations to the Church’s

consideration once again.

Now, having literally brought back to the light of day some of the proscribed and

anathematized portions of Didymus’ writings, we may still choose to disagree with him. But it will

not do, either, to “lump” his thinking on “re-embodiment” with a certain body of thought loosely

called “reincarnation,” if the latter simply means a “generic” soul floating endlessly between

different existences. For the soul, in the school of Didymus and Origen, has a particular “road” that

34
De Principiis, IV, 1,15.
35
Contra Celsum, VIII, 16.
 21

it will follow, as we have said. It is individual; it has identity. And it awaits a final consummation,

in which “the end is always like the beginning.”36 By this, Origen meant that, at the end, all things

would be restored to the original fellowship with and design of the creator. This does not undercut

the wonder of the resurrection, or take away from its surprise, but rather fulfills it, for in Origen’s

thought — as Rowan Greer has put it so well — “the soul has a characteristic form that generates

the new body of the resurrection.”37

So in several passages of his Commentary on Matthew and the Contra Celsum, Origen

explicitly critiqued, and distanced himself, from those who believe in transmigration of the soul.

These include presumably the Manichaeans Didymus attacked,38 as well as indigenous Egyptian

beliefs alluded to by Origen and surely also encountered by Didymus.39 In fact, when Didymus

describes the transmigration “straw man” he is attacking, it is the very concept that people had

accused Origen of advancing, viz. a notion of the soul’s re-embodiment through various orders of

life, bestial, vegetal, celestial.40

Now Origen and Didymus’ legacy on this point is admittedly confusing and at times

apparently contradictory. The one point of some clarity is that we now know (thanks to the

discovery of the Job commentary) that Didymus, like Origen before him, did not want his position

to be described by the word “reincarnation,” or “transmigration.” This is perhaps because of the

36
De Principiis, I, 6,2.
37
Rowan A. Greer, Op. Cit., 16.
38
Commentary on Job 3:3-5.
39
Contra Celsum, I, 20.
40
Commentary on Matthew, XIII, 1-2; Contra Celsum I, 20; III, 75; V, 29.
 22

uniquely individual nature of the soul of rational beings that they somehow preserve and hold onto,

as well as the doctrine of a final consummation (which would be undercut, if not ruled out, by a

continual “re-cycling” of souls through different embodiments).41 Above all, the point of the purging

of a soul through embodiment is loving: “the labors and chastisements inflicted upon the wicked by

God are a kind of medicine leading to conversion.”42

Didymus’ Methodology in his Job Commentary

In the opening words of the prologue to his commentary, Didymus declares that he will

“mark off” the basis of the subject under discussion. In a most systematic fashion, he does just that.

For with his Alexandrian training, he sees knowledge and contemplation themselves to be organized

around certain foundational principles. These principles, as with Origen also, are in Greek, •rcZ,

meaning either a “beginning,” or “first principle.” And as he will elsewhere point out, if we start off

41
It is worth pondering whether Origen’s treatment of the topic of “re-embodiment” does not
itself require a figurative or even an allegorical approach in order to be understood. As noted, he
explicitly distanced himself from Egyptian folk teachings about transmigration. But that being
said, he continues to come close to some such doctrine with his vocabulary of souls being “sent”
into the world, and of their “suffering” in this life toward some “improvement.” Since Origen
himself eschewed literal interpretation of scripture, it would stand to reason that we might call
upon a more figurative approach to understanding his own theology. What that figurative
approach would be, in the case of transmigration, remains to be seen. But the foundations of it
are perhaps already laid, if one joins those scholars (such as Rowan Greer) who doubt that
Origen or Didymus had in mind an endless “re-cycling” of souls through successive emodiments,
when these two fathers spoke of “re-embodiment.” And again, in some sense that doctrine, in
Didymus, seems to line up with Plato’s like notions, only differing in that the individual soul and
its individuality is in some measure preserved as individual soul.
42
Contra Celsum, III, 75.
 23

with the wrong principles, then all else that follows will inevitably be flawed.43

So he turns his attention to the “basis” or ßp`qesiV of the subject under discussion. What

is this basis? It is fundamentally, as we have shown, his grasp or “take” on God and creation itself

— that we do not live in a random universe.

Again and again, Didymus repeats his starting principle that the created world is good, and

that God does not create evil. The devil himself is a “fallen angel,” and was not created as the devil

by God (cf. Didymus’ Commentary on Job 3:8). This foundational principle becomes the starting

place for Didymus’ other ideas. These additional ideas include his understanding of free will (both

God’s and ours). For the goodness of God cannot be limited by any implication that God had to

accomodate evil in his good creation. And as overwhelming as human sin may seem, the soul’s one-

time oneness with God is the essential ingredient within it causing it to wish to choose return and

fellowship with God over sin and estrangement.

Didymus’ Use of Allegory

But now, let us take up another methodological question, and ask how allegory equips

Didymus and Origen to deal with just such questions as these that we have been examining: the

elusive providence of an all-powerful, all-loving God. In fact, the allegorical method is specifically

geared to reveal just such enigmas as these, and at the same moment to revere what must remain

ineffably unknowable. Hence the term dógma as it is used by Didymus, and by the Cappadocians

43
The beautiful example of this is Didymus’ commentary on Job 4:1-5, where he shows how
Arianism, Docetism, and Manichaeism make their errors early on, in taking off in a wrong
direction right at the start, from the wrong •rcZ.
 24

after him: the hidden, apophatic mystery to be contemplated, rather than explained.44

Throughout his commentary, Didymus holds at a distance a purely literal approach to

exegesis. His word for this is filistorXw — a word which was originally used by classical authors,

and afterwards in the patristic tradition. Particularly in the latter, it was used respectfully to refer to

those who “love learning.” But Didymus uses it almost disdainfully, (cf. his commentary on Job 3:3-

5).

For Didymus, as for the Alexandrian school in general, the promise of allegory is that, again,

it lifts up the elusive, and allows us to “linger” over what can not be known in a perceptible way.

In one telling comment within the Job commentary, Didymus explicitly contrasts “perceptible” with

“allegory,” (or more precisely, in this instance, with “anagogy.” For anagogy is a category of

allegorical interpretation seeking hidden meanings pertaining to the future life). So in his

commentary on Job 1:3, Didymus makes the contrast between simply interpreting the verse in a

“perceptible” way (prÎV tÎ aÆsqhtÎn) — by which we are to understand him to mean, “merely

literal” — that which can be seen, heard, tasted.45 But the “still better” way is that of anagogy

(•nagwgZ).

In reading Didymus’ commentary on Job, one is perhaps at first inclined to isolate those

instances in which he explicitly tells us that he will be dealing with a passage allegorically. Such

44
Allegory of course was also understood by Clement, and other Alexandrians, to be the way
to uncloak the biblical writing’s hidden meaning. Clement goes so far as to term the literal mode
of interpreting scripture, sVrkinoV: m¬ sark\nwV •kros2ai tän legomXnwn, “we
must not understand His words literally,” The Rich Man’s Salvation, 5.
45
Origen continually uses aÆsqht`V also in his Commentary on John to distinguish a
“sensible,” from a spiritual, gospel.
 25

examples — as we have seen — are several. But as it happens, his total approach and method is

allegorical. This means that the foundation of his allegorical method is his willingness to be literal,

in at least this sense: a close continual scrutiny of ipsissima verba of a text. But it also means

“translating” in the original sense of anagogy, itself, the words to reveal a deeper, spiritual impact.

A most useful apparatus in Henrichs’s edition of the Job commentary, then, is an index of

Greek words receiving an allegorical interpretation at Didymus’ hands. Here are: “drinking wine

in the house of the older brother,” as a form of receiving “godly instruction” (Job 1:13); the “lion”

as representative of those “who trust in themselves,” such as Nero himself (Job 4:10-12); the

“lioness” as “a person with the character of insatiable desire” (Job 4:10-12); “gold in abundance”

as “pure thinking” (Job 3:15); “the shaking of a person’s bones” as “the power of a soul” (Job 4:12-

16). These are but some of the innumerable examples of a total way of seeing, which is so typical

of Didymus’ practice.

The concept of •ndre\a in Didymus’ portrayal of the man, Job

In his commentary, Didymus always refers to Job as “the blessed one” (Ò makVrioV). Within

the opening pages of his work, Didymus begins to show what that blessedness consists in. Job, for

Didymus, is a kind of “athlete” who “wrestles” with the adversary devil.46 By his patient endurance,

he overcomes the devil.

•ndre\a brings to mind not only the strong development of that term in Plato (e.g. his

Laches). It also connects with the Greek epic tradition. Consider, for example, Didymus’ own

46
Cf. the commentary on 1:1-3.
 26

sometime use of the etymologically-related word •nZr, for Job. This we have translated “hero,” in

our text, rather than “man,” first because Didymus himself makes the distinction, saying that he will

not use –n2rwpoV with respect to Job, but rather •nZr. And secondly, the context is almost always

such as to accentuate Job’s heroism as “moral athlete,” or “epic hero.” From the opening pages of

the commentary, Job contends with evil as a wrestler would with an opponent.

Now, the topos of “wrestling” with the evil one is of course also used by Paul.47 Among the

Fathers, because of the experience of persecution, it becomes a commonplace. Perhaps most

memorable in this regard are sermons of John Chrysostom.48 Origen too uses the image, chiefly in

De Principiis,49 and oftentimes explicitly in reference to Job.50 Origen’s most exciting reference to

Job as “athlete” is in his treatise on prayer, De Oratione. Here, “the devil was conquered by the

athlete of virtue . . . Job wrestled and conquered twice, but he did not enter such a struggle a third

time. For it was necessary for three wrestlings to be kept for the Savior.”51

In Didymus’ commentary on Job, however, the portrayal is also evidently influenced by

47
Ephesians 6:12. Another Alexandrian, Clement, picks up on Paul’s metaphor of the athlete
contending against the “spiritual powers:” “This is the true athlete - he who in the great stadium,
the fair world, is crowned for the true victory over all the passions . . . and the contest embracing
all the varied exercises, is not “against flesh and blood,” but against the spiritual powers of
inordinate passions that work through the flesh.” Elucidations VII, 3.
48
Cf. Homily 39 on Acts 17:32-34, 18:1; Homily 1 on 2 Corinthians 1:1-4; Homily 1 on
Philippians 1:1-2; Homily 22 on Ephesians 6:5-8; Homily 8 on Colossians 3:5-7, among many
other references. And Chrysostom explicitly terms Job “the athlete”: cf. Homily 2, “On the
Power of Man to Resist the Devil.”
49
De Principiis, I, 5, 2 and III, 2, 3.
50
De Principiis, III, 2, 6-7.
51
De Oratione, XXX, 2.
 27

Philo, as well as Stoic and classical values and vocabulary, as they have come down to him, possibly

through interpreters like Clement of Alexandria. A key text in the Job commentary for

understanding this may be Didymus’ commentary on Job 5:19, where the birth of Jacob “supplants”

Esau. Didymus claims that the patriarch at first had been named Jacob because he had supplanted

emotion.52 “Later, <he was called> Israel, because he had more time for contemplation, after he had

wrestled with emotion. Jesus certainly said this to his disciples, ‘no longer are you of this world,’53

(for they had surpassed emotion, according to Didymus).”

So the contrast here, for Didymus, remains one of emotion and contemplation — a distinction

that would have been entirely understandable in the school of Clement. For it was Clement who had

described the wrestling of Jacob with a stranger at Peniel as a kind of “overcoming” by the “athlete

Jacob.”54 Origen also allegorically ascribed the “supplanting” of Esau to the “overcoming” of the

emotion of hatred.55

Now, in his own commentary on Job, Didymus tells us more specifically what that moral

“athleticism” of the blessed Job embodies: it is a “keeping a distance” from evil. It is to “distance

52
Clement of Alexandria also sees Job as one who overcame “emotion.” “Calmness is a thing
which, of all other things, is most to be prized. As an example of this, the word proposes to us
the blessed Job.” Fragments of Clemens Alexandrinus, “Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, from his
Catena,” II (on Job 34:7).
53
John 15:19. The tie-in with the fore-going seems to be the disciples’ “surpassing” (or
“supplanting”) of emotion.
54
Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, I, 7.
55
Origen, Contra Celsum IV, 46.
 28

himself (•pXPw) from every bad deed . . . and from all evil.”56 For evil does not exist, except as the

privation of good; and it does not exist until someone, exercising free will in a wrong-headed way,

chooses to take its path.

The moral “athleticism” of Job chiefly consists, however, in his being able to personify —

repeatedly for Didymus — the classical ideal of endurance and courage, •ndre\a. This word,

perhaps more than other available synonyms for “courage,” connotes manly strength and endurance

in military and athletic domains.57 The sufferings which come upon a person then, for Didymus, are

the occasions in which one may “show forth” courage and endurance in the way of a moral athlete.

Didymus (and Origen) of course also understand our suffering as a catechesis for the soul:

that is, that we learn from suffering. Their underlining of the redemptive edge to human sufferings

was undoubtedly schooled at least somewhat in the classical doctrine, pVqei mVqoV, “wisdom comes

through suffering.” For that doctrine is echoed in numerous sources, and almost always as if it were

a well-known proverb.58 And the saying is cited with just the same ring of authority in the New

Testament Letter to the Hebrews, when the writer declares that “though he were a Son, yet [Jesus]

56
Didymus, Commentary on Job 2:3. In the patristic period, the word has a special
significance of “abstaining or desisting from” something.
57
So Herodotus speaks of a kind of surprising strength and courage, which is not in the reach
of most mortals, but rather prÎV yuc­V te •gaq­V ka ÕfmhV •ndrh\hV “those of good
heart and manly strength.”(VII, 153). Or there is Plato’s Socrates, who scrutinizes that ideal of
•ndre\a, which is “superior to that of most men.” Apology, 35A.
58
One notable citation is in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, line 177, where the saying is preceded by
the direct object, as if it is introducing a “saying” or proverb. Another such proverbial rendition
of it is to be found in Herodotus’ Histories, I, 207, where Croesus the Lydian remarks that
“disaster (or literally “the graceless things”) has been my teacher,” (tV d¥ moi paqZmata
¦`nta •PVrita maqZmata gXgone.
 29

learned obedience by the things which he suffered,” (ka\per ën uÊ`V, §maqen •j’ ôn §paqe t¬n

ßpakoZn).

But with the Alexandrian tradition, the “things suffered” are not only a source of learning by

“default.” It is not, that is, a “passive,” but a chosen pathway to learn from suffering. It is in that

sense an exercise of the free will, to choose to learn rather than merely to moan about sufferings.

In his commentary on 4:1-5, Didymus even refers also to the moral athleticism of Job as

megaloyuc\a (the “high-souled way).”

In doing so, he invokes a phrase with a distinguished pedigree in the classical tradition.

Aristotle developed the concept at some length in his Nicomachean Ethics. The “high-souled”

person is most concerned with honor and dishonor. Because the claiming of the one, and the

avoidance of the other are such persons’s chief endeavor, they will “not rejoice overmuch in

prosperity, nor grieve overmuch at adversity.” In fact, read through the lens of Didymus’ Job,

Aristotle’s “high-souled man,” sounds remarkably compatible, at least with respect to his attitude

toward the things of this world, the material things, as well as other people’s opinions.59

Somehow, perhaps coincidentally,60 Chrysostom also picks up on this athleticism of the

“high-souled” person. In numerous places in the homilies, Chrysostom draws a picture of the “high-

souled” person in scripture — whether it is the patriarch Abraham or the apostle Paul — as the one

59
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, IV, 3, 17-18.
60
It is hard to find too many arguments for Origen or Didymus’ “influence” upon Chrysostom,
except perhaps in the notable story of the “tall brethren,” sheltered by Chrysostom in
Constantinople, after their worship of the transcendant ineffable had fallen out of favor with the
“anthropomorphites” in Alexandria — a deed for which he paid, with the suspicion on the part of
his critics of his being also “Origenist,” in his own thinking.
 30

who has a proper relation to riches, despising his own comfort in order to care for that of others;61

or being patient and “long-suffering” in affliction;62 and being properly oriented toward honor, strong

enough even to claim it.63 It is hard to believe that Chrysostom had not picked up the phrase rather

directly from Aristotle’s writing. It is fascinating to speculate how Didymus also, at about the same

time or even earlier, came to fold megaloyuc\a into his own treatment of Job’s moral athleticism,

as well.

The significance of Didymus’, Origen’s (and Chrysostom’s) accent on the moral athlete is

underscored — at least in the case of the first two — not merely as “window-dressing,” not merely

an aspect of their imagery and style. It is integral to their entire conception of good and evil, and the

struggle to remain faithful within life’s afflictions. By overcoming temptation and affliction, the

moral athlete gives glory to God. But he or she also — says Rowan Greer — is shaped by the

contest, by the wrestling, into someone purer and holier:

[With Origen] temptation not only tests what we are, it is also a providential process by
which we are fashioned into what we should be. God is a divine goldsmith who hammers
us into an object of beauty suitable for His grandeur.64

Didymus said it himself, again in his commentary on Job 4:1-5.

The afflictions which come upon anyone, as said before, occur without question on the
basis of two things: either on account of punishment or chastening, or so that one might
bear it in a great-souled way and receive crowns for strength and courage.

For Didymus, “the great-souled way” is the path of “strength and courage.” The two are

61
Homily XLVIII, on Acts 22:17-20.
62
Homily XXXIII, on 1 Corinthians 13.
63
Homily XII, on 2 Corinthians 6:1-2.
64
Rowan A. Greer, Op. Cit., 21.
 31

inseparably part of the same moral orientation. Whether it is palatable or not, God is the loving

teacher who instructs us through “tests,” just as certain schools of pedagogy continue to use the quiz

and test, not so much as a means of measurement, but as an actual instructional tool. Here the

disciple is shaped and formed, like precious metal in the fire.

It was noted at the outset that a key significance of Didymus’ work is that it serves as a link

between Athanasius and the later Greek fathers. For this writer, that is no empty, textbook

observation. Correspondences with Origen are patent and recurring, as this introduction has sought

to demonstrate. Those associations in fact go beyond mere “influence.” The two thinkers are of the

same “school,” in the sense that we may even reliably “fill in” the gaps in our understanding of

Didymus, by reference to those considerably more systematic expositions that are to be found in

Origen’s writing.65

Having secured the connection between Didymus and Origen, it remains to be said that

Didymus is thereby well within the lineage of influences who also shaped Origen’s thought: Plato,

Plotinus, and the Stoics, among others. Plato’s doctrine of “metempyschosis,” for example, as

developed in the Phaedrus, includes the notion that the soul’s chastisment is remedial, not

vindictive. There is motion therefore in the present life through a series of sufferings, the purpose

65
For example, when Didymus refers somewhat elliptically (in his commentary on Job 3:17)
to a certain parallelism between angels and souls, we are left somewhat in the dark. What does
he mean, for example, when he says that they have their rest or “cessation” in a “parallel way”?
Certainly by its very nature, the dogma will remain esoteric, yet Origen alone casts light on
Didymus’ thought in the latter’s teaching that angels in fact are souls who have only “lightly”
sinned in life. (De Prinipiis, I, 8,1).
 32

of which are to give us freedom to choose a better road.66 “Souls which attain any vision of truth,”

are preserved from harm until the “next period.” The wings however fall from those which have

forgotten the good, and they pass into human life: “all these are states of probation, in which he who

does righteously improves, and he who does unrighteously, deteriorates his lot.”67

It may even be that a key Origenist notion, that of free will - which also plays such an

important part in the pages of Didymus - traces its genesis from Plato’s Pheadrus, and from other

such dialogues. As the soul in Plato is ever drawn toward the lovely, so also with Didymus and

Origen, and (again) with Gregory of Nyssa whose teaching on epectasis posits no limit to the

positive motion for good that can come about when the soul moves in the direction of the Godhead.68

While its theological orientation is mystical and even esoteric, Didymus’ commentary on Job

is no arcane work of isolated scholarship. It situates itself squarely within the Alexandrian tradition

of allegory and of Christian universalism, and of revered classical teachings on the soul. The latter

it baptizes with a Christian orthodoxy that saves the doctrine of the soul from dualism. The former

it passes along to the Cappadocian fathers of the church, where such teachings take full flower in

the mystic “contemplation” (theoria) suggested already by Didymus.

66
Phaedrus, 245C.
67
As we have pointed out elsewhere, a key distinction between Plato and the Alexandrian
Christians is obviously in the different directions that we are taken by the former’s notion of
“immortality” as opposed to the latter’s “eternal life,” or “aeons.”
68
"There is no conceivable limit to the distance it can go . . .” (º pr`odoV stVsin oÛk
§Pei) when it is oriented toward the good. The Catechetical Oration 21.
 33

Prologue

It befits all those who undertake to examine a work to define, in advance, the basis of the

subject under discussion. This must now be done - especially since the present book [Job] is most

useful, and its thought is not to be disdained. For in this book, Job sets in motion the account of

everything concerning the judgements of God: that none of the adversities which occur to humankind

come to pass without God’s permission. In addition to these things, there are other dogmatic

contemplations (even in the prologue)1 with regard to: steadfastness and patience; despising things

which are neither good nor bad, such as money and possessions; having many children, even a

goodly race of children. To that end, <Job> also brings to light the exercise of freedom; as well as

teachings concerning various dogmas. God willing it, we shall see this in each of those passages in

which these <topics> are found. If such a marking off of the hypothesis is fitting, it is time now to

begin.

The change, to which the value of all beings is subject, appears in various ways. Bodies

undergo decay and growth. At the same time, a corresponding change enters into our chosen

intentions. Changes which relate to bodies make those to whom the changes happen neither

blameworthy nor praiseworthy. For no one is acceptable <to God> on the basis of the growth or

decay of the body, which lies outside what is in our control. However, whatever is carried out by

1
Basil distinguishes between dogma and kerygma (“On the Spirit” 27) in a familiar and
classic differentiation: dogma is the hidden, apophatic mystery to be contemplated. Kerygma is
the news or message to be proclaimed. In this instance, the subtlety of that distinction is perhaps
not to be read into Didymus’ use of “dogma.” Nevertheless, Didymus does seem to use the
word here as an indicator of deeper philosophical reflections which, in turn, must be “brought to
light” by the commentator who will “define, in advance,” the subject at hand.
 34

choice, and under the intentional activity of the one engaged in it,2 that shows him to be blameworthy

or praiseworthy. This is the case with the one who turns from wickedness to virtue or from virtue

to wickedness. Accordingly, it happened that a rational being became an apostate of God, “I have

exalted myself in the face of the Lord almighty.”3 This is the devil, who was not created as the devil,

for "God did not create death,-"4 but perfect and virtuous - for "God created all things exceedingly

beautiful."5 He fell nonetheless from the right condition and blessedness, and envies those who

change over to these things - "for through the devil's envy death came into the world."6 Mostly, he

thought of himself as an outcast: “I must hinder those who possess the heavenly citizenship, so that

they not ascend to that place from which I was driven away.” For he considers the progress of

humanity to be an accusation against himself, since he himself shone as the morningstar of heaven

and an early-rising star7; but he was driven from the heavenly land, in order to test those who later

2
As we have noted elsewhere, for the Alexandrians, it is the rational faculty that makes human
beings “like God.” As rational beings, they are also “free” in the exercise of their will. Cf.
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis II, 19,102.
3
Job 15:25. Didymus’ text differs slightly from our Septuagint. Such variants shall not
henceforth be noted, except where it actually seems to bear on some aspect of Didymus’
exegesis.
4
Wisdom of Solomon 1:13.
5
Genesis 1:31. By contrast, Origen was at some pains to show that the phrase “I create woe,”
(or even “I create evil”), as it appears in Isaiah 45:7, does not mean what at first glance it might
seem to indicate. “We, on the other hand, maintain that “evil,” or “wickedness,” and the actions
which proceed from it, were not created by God.” Evils, such as there may be in this world,
come about (Origen says) as sawdust and spiral shavings from the lathe of a carpenter. Contra
Celsum, VI, 55.
6
Wisdom of Solomon 2:24.
7
Isaiah 14:12. Origen also describes Satan as once having been light, cf. De Principiis, I, 5,5.
 35

would be illumined by the "Sun of Righteousness."8 Those however who have a stronger inclination

toward evil contend zealously with virtuous living. For "the thought of humanity is keenly directed

after evil."9

The apostle wishes to show this, when he says: "Will we not judge angels?"10 By this he

meant: We, who lead the heavenly life, will consign those to the earth, who have not kept to their

own fitting station. So also will the inhabitants of Ninevah condemn the Jews, who have shown no

belief in the Savior, whereas they themselves followed the message of Jonah, who published

repentance. Even that which was said about the Queen of Sheba indicates the same thought. For

although she was a woman and a queen, and lived at a distance, and had to traverse foreign regions,

she considered all this inconsequential, and pressed onward, to hear the wisdom of Solomon. The

Jews, on the other hand, had their teacher [the Lord] amongst them, and did not wish to draw any

advantage from this, even though he possessed much more than Solomon. The former [Solomon]

was of benefit because of the wisdom that came out of him. But the Savior, beyond the benefit

offered by his words, showed a miraculous power in wonders and signs sufficient to persuade even

the most unbelieving. He brought about awakenings from the dead, gave sight again to the blind,

cleansed lepers, and in short, healed "every illness and weakness."11 The envy then of the devil

8
Malachi 3:20.
9
Genesis 8:21.
10
1 Corinthians 6:3. Origen expounds upon the relationship of human beings and angels, and
upon the judgment of angels, in his Commentary on Matthew X, 13. Not all angels will be
judged, he points out, but only those who “have not been entrusted with this office.” For Origen,
it is not the station (i.e. “angel” as opposed to “mortal”) that is most important. It is rather the
appropriate or inappropriate exercise of free will, whether by an angel or a mortal that matters.
11
Matthew 4:23.
 36

consisted of this, that human beings were aspiring to attain those things for which he himself had

been driven out. Wherefore, he did not neglect spitefully to abuse the human race. For "our

adversary the devil goes about like a lion seeking someone to devour."12 Accordingly, he planted -

even in the mind of Judas - the inclination to avarice, and made him the Savior's betrayer, just as if

he had intentionally entered, as it were, into his own den.13

Likewise, the adherents of Hymenaeus and Alexander experienced "the shipwreck of their

faith", but still - <only> out of their willingness - became the tool of the devil. Therefore, even the

blessed Paul delivered them "to Satan himself, in order that they might be instructed not to

blaspheme."14 And the snare of the devil against humanity generally becomes full of wiles "working

among the sons of disobedience."15 And he does not hold himself at a distance even from the

virtuous, but assails also these. This then is what the saying signifies when it counsels: "If the spirit

of the rulers should rise up against you, do not leave your place."16 The devil assails and reaches up

to the one who is coming down; but the virtuous having become secure hinders the plot. Now Job,

who was by nature a perfect man, and distanced himself in every respect from evil and partook only

of virtue, "gave no opportunity to the devil."17 Accordingly, it is said of him: "just, truthful,

12
I Peter 5:8.
13
Continuing the metaphor of I Peter: the devil as a roving lion.
14
I Timothy 1:20.
15
Ephesians 2:2.
16
Ecclesiastes 10:4.
17
Ephesians 4:27.
 37

blameless, pious, distancing himself from all evil deeds,"18 and in this way shows him to be wholly

perfect, not only because he distances himself from evil, but also because he had reached the summit

of virtue. One truly possesses virtue when one will by free choice distance oneself from the

opposing state of affairs. For the blessed David teaches this, saying: "Turn aside from evil and do

good."19 And also this has the same <meaning>, "Desist from your evil, and learn to do good."20

Moreover, Job distances himself from evil, not in the way an infant does, but as one who perfectly

practices virtue.

On account of his heroic courage, then, he received praise, not because he was wanting in

the other virtues, (they all follow after it, because one depends on the other) - but because

steadfastness was the predominant one. The same held true for his blessedness. For the "poor in

Spirit"21 inherit the kingdom of God; whereby he is not only mild and just, he is adorned with the

other <virtues>. Job possessed also the other virtues, as is shown by the following: for as he was

inclined towards hospitality, so also towards pity, he "was father to the needy and helper of the

helpless, eyes to the blind and feet to the lame."22

Him then, who was protected on all sides through moral and intellectual virtue23 (for it is on

18
Job 1:1.
19
Psalm 33:15 (34:14) and Psalm 36:27 (35:27).
20
Isaiah 1:16.
21
Matthew 5:3.
22
Job 29:12-16.
23
As Didymus’ subsequent comments will amply demonstrate, he understands the godly
contemplation of God to be a pathway to “moral and intellectual virtue,” and these, in and of
themselves, are a part of the “whole armor of God.”
 38

account of the latter that he will be called "true" so that he is also blameless), <him> the devil

attempted to lead astray, from so great a virtue, since he suggested to him naturally frequent evil

thoughts, which the holy one did not accept as suitable, according to the one who said: "Evil will be

far from me, and I will know nothing of it,"24 which means: The adversary entered into me

frequently, however I did not submit to him, and in that way recognize his presence, <and> sin. The

holy one recognized the presence <of the devil> insofar as he contended <against him>, however he

did not so recognize him, that he should submit to his evil suggestions.

When the devil descended to the last treachery of his demands, believing that through this

assault on <Job's> virtue he might lead him astray, he did what he had done with the patriarch

Abraham (if someone wishes to take up the book of the testament <Old Testament>).

He very often assaulted the holy one and every time was defeated. Since Abraham was well-

disposed toward his late-born and beloved son, he hoped finally in this way to twist Abraham about.

He <the devil> proposed the demand for punishment of the child. God complied with this <wish>

of his own will, because he wanted to unmask the adversary, saying: "Take your beloved Son, whom

you love,"25 through these cunningly-wrought words wishing to awaken the love of the father, with

which he might make his heroic courage obvious. Abraham maintained his courage, reporting

neither to his wife nor to his domestic servants what was to happen, so that nothing should come in

the way of the good deed. He did not waver even in the face of his son's word, when he said:

"Father, see the fire and the wood, where is the animal for the sacrifice?"26 Therefore Abraham

24
Psalm 100 (101):4.
25
Genesis 22:2.
26
Genesis 22:7.
 39

trusted that God could raise up the child even if he were dead, and did not turn aside from the

command.27 He would have slaughtered his only son, if God had not recognized his readiness and

had not saved his son for him.

That Satan however, had such a cunning plan, the gospel teaches us, when the savior says

to his own disciples: "See, the devil demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat."28

The title of the book - having the same name as the man <Job> - has the superscription

marked accordingly, since all the book concerns his history - no one else vying with him. The

attribution then, from which the book derives, is itself significant, as some have attempted to show.

On the one hand, some attribute it to the holy Ezra [lacuna], while on the other hand, others — since

at the end of the book it says: [lacuna], [they] say that the friends of Job were pleased by his

accomplishment, and — since they were kings — deposited this writing concerning it in the

archives. Let the “lover of the beautiful”29 seek out <what he wishes> concerning it, if he does not

accept what is said.

27
Here, Didymus is likely alluding to Hebrews 11:19.
28
Luke 22:31.
29
fil`kaloV, as in the "Philocalia” assembled by Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Basil.
 40

Didymus’ Commentary on Job, Chapters 1 - 4:5

Job is the fifth <generation>30 after Abraham, as is told at the end of the book.

1:1-3 “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. And that man was honest,
blameless, righteous, devout, turning away from every evil deed. There were born to him seven sons
and three daughters, and in herds he had seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred
yoke of oxen, and five hundred grazing she-asses, numerous servants; so on the earth he had great
possessions.”

Since the narrative is at the point of relating the exceeding31 virtue of the blessed Job, it

accordingly makes mention also of the land, his blameless character, his having many children, his

being blessed with children, as well as his riches in herds and other things, so as to teach that it was

not cheap things that he looked down upon when all of these things were taken away in his trials;

for even when he had had all these things he did not pride himself in them.

Describing him also discloses the purity of his soul: the devil tested no careless man. And

it was necessary, before the wrestling with the adversary, to describe the greatness of this athlete, that

it did not suffice for him <Job> merely to avoid every evil deed, but <that he> cultivated the greatest

30
Didymus conflates Job with the patristic Iob (Genesis 46:13), who indeed was in the fifth
generation after Abraham: Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Issachar, Job.
31
ßperbVllousa as an adjective is here used in an abstract, generic sense, meaning
"exceeding," or "surpassing." (cf. Clement of Alexandria, The Rich Man’s Salvation, 5) But it
also had a more specific, material sense in much classical literature, meaning, "beyond all
boundaries or limits." So for example, Aeschylus Persians 291, and Euripides Bacchae 785.
The connotation of material goods is germane, for Didymus goes on to connect the kind of virtue
Job had with the fact of his having so many children and cattle, and so much land and goods. His
virtue was such that "it was not cheap things that he looked down upon when these things were
taken away..."
 41

perfection. This contradicts those who say that his children and animals avoided evil deeds. For he

is the one who was both righteous and blameless. If opponents say the same thing even also about

the first psalm, they are refuted. For they say, "Blessed will be the one who does not walk in the

counsel of the wicked and does not sit down in the seat of the pestilent"32 will also fit well33 with

animals and with the infants. But they are refuted by what follows. For it says: "But his will was

in the law of the Lord, and in His law he will apply himself night and day,"34 which is not

characteristic of infants and animals.35 It is also well (said) that this (man) lived in the land of Uz,

which is interpreted as "good counsel." For the righteous one does nothing unadvisedly, but pure

counsel is his home and city.

1,3 And that man was of noble birth among those where the sun rises.

This is possible in a literal (perceptible) way. However, if one should understand it in its

higher meaning,36 it may be said that the righteous one possesses a nobility which is illumined, not

32
Psalm 1:1
33
rm`zw is a favorite word of Didymus’ (cf. its appearance as the second word of the first
sentence of the prologue). It is also a familiar term in writings of both Pythagoras and Philo.
Here it denotes what is “essential,” or “characteristic,” or “appropriate” to infants and non-
rational creatures. In general, it assumes a familiar Hellenistic distinction between the abstract
and concrete domains.
34
Psalm 1:2
35
The translator is indebted to Rowan Greer’s suggestion to him that the argument here seems
to be that animals and children are not capable of perfect virtue, and that therefore Job’s
opponents are wrong to suppose this.
36
prÎV •nagwg¬n, Didymus seems to equate •nagwgZ with •llhgor\a.
 42

by human light, but by that of "the sun of righteousness."37

1,4 “His sons were coming together and held drinking banquets each day. They invited their three
sisters to join with them, to eat and drink.”

Being well brought up, the sons of Job did not so much make fellowship and drinking

banquets with others, as rather with one another, according to what is said in the Psalms: "Behold,

what is more beautiful or agreeable than when brothers dwell together."38 Since they harmoniously

demonstrated their virtue even in visible things, they were - without faction - brought together, and

not apart. And they came together in the dwelling of their older brother, not only according to their

age, but also perhaps doing this according to their virtue - and learning from him what was of benefit

to them. It was well also that they brought along their own sisters, for this is a clear sign of their

self-control and civility.

1,5 “And when the days of the banquets were over, Job sent and purified them, having arisen at
dawn, having offered sacrifices for them, according to their number, and one calf for the sins of their
souls.”

Following the one who says: "After nightfall, my soul awakens to you, O God,"39 and "My

God, to you I awaken,"40 and: "At dawn, I shall stand near to you and I shall watch you,"41 the blessed

37
Malachi 3:20
38
Psalm 132:1
39
Isaiah 26:9
40
Psalm 62:2
41
Psalm 5:4
 43

Job awakens at dawn only to make sacrifice to God on behalf of his children "according to their

number," which means individually and in order. For there is nothing intentionally disorderly. And

with that, he presented the calf on behalf of them according to his own custom and thereby

accustoming the training of his children42 <to this>. In this way then he purified them at the

completion of the banquet day. With the purification of visible things, he also showed that which

accomplishes the purification of mind. Consider whether - with the calf which was brought on

behalf of all - he did not refer to the Savior who "endured the cross"43 on behalf of the human race,

and who also is called "the fatted calf"44 in the gospel parable, because he is the teaching which

promotes the divine growth. But do not marvel if the calf intimates the Savior. Job was not

uninitiated in the visitation of our Savior, for about him, he said: "the one who will overcome the

great sea monster."45

1,5 "Job spoke: Perhaps my sons have thought evil in their minds against God."

In this is shown the great purity of the children. Since <Job> discerned no perceptible sin

on their part, he purposely presented the offering on their behalf, reasoning that human weaknesses

and softness are slippery46 in the young. On account of this, Saint Paul also said: "I am not conscious

42
Literally, the very Greek idea of pedagogy.
43
Hebrews 12:2
44
Luke 15:23
45
Job 3:8
46
There is the implication of a “snare.”
 44

of anything against myself, but in this I have not been acquitted,"47 and the psalmist: "purify me of

the hidden things in me."48 Wherefore it must be observed, that it was not on account of sins that

they were subjected to such a death.

1,5 "Therefore, Job did accordingly all the days of his life."

In this way, the unremitting strength49 of the holy one is made plain, in that he does not

exercise virtue one time but not another. David also said this about himself in the Psalm: "I will

praise the Lord at every opportunity."50

1,6 "And behold, one day it came to pass that the angels came to stand before the Lord, and the
devil came with them."

Expressings its form of speech in a more narrative fashion,51 the text recounts what concerns

the presence of the angels by saying: "one day it came to pass." Thus, we consequently understand

the time and the appropriate occasion for the presence before the Lord of the angels, who were

offering their own liturgies and their own labor to the Lord. And as they stood there, the devil was

also in attendance. And even though he is manifold and crafty, he does not escape God's notice. It

47
1 Corinthians 4:4
48
Psalm 18:13
49
Henrichs points out that the term used here is part of the Stoic vocabulary. Henrichs, Op.
Cit., p. 59.
50
Psalm 33:2 (34:1)
51
"form of speech" or "mode of diction", cf. Aristotle, Poetics, 1456b, where the difference
“between a command and a prayer, a simple statement and a threat, a question and an answer . .
.” are signified. Does it signify here more generally the narrator’s art in relating the dramatic
encounter between Satan and the Lord?
 45

(i.e. the text) says that he also came with the angels, not merely in order to stand before God, but that

he himself be recognized by the eye of God, who sees all things. The text also illustrates the

hypocrisy of the devil, who changes his form to that of an angel of light and in this way escapes the

notice of mortals, but is unable to escape the notice of God, who is the creator of all things and the

one through whom are all things, or that of the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is of the self-same substance

(oÛs\a). As it is said, concerning the Word, that "he is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of

the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare before his eyes.”52

So also with the Holy Spirit, "for the Spirit searches everything."53 And concerning the Father, the

apostles said: "You Lord know the hearts of all."54 And it naturally belongs to God alone to discern

our thoughts.55 If this very thing were obvious also to mortals, who do not have the goodness of

God, they would be alienated from sinners so as not to come to aid them, but rather to turn away, and

to shun them on account of the greatness of their evils, lest they <themselves> should fall into danger

while cultivating such people. If <the angels> caught on to the purpose of the devil from certain

signs, at least when they "attended the Lord," and when even the devil came with them under

disguise, then rightly they committed to God the judgment about the participation of the devil which

had taken place. God himself said the following to him <the devil>:

52
Hebrews 4:12 (NRSV).
53
1 Corinthians 2:10
54
Acts 1: 24
55
Origen believed that “God knows all things and not a single intellectual truth can escape his
notice — for God the Father, with his only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit, stands alone in his
knowledge not only of the things he has created but also of himself . . .” De Principiis, IV, 4,10.
 46

1,7 "And the Lord spoke to the devil: Where have you come from?"

This he said to him so that, in listening, we will understand the phrase: "Where have you

come from?" <in such a way as this>: These our angels, who have the charge from me to perform

divine service, attend to me, as they accomplish this things. Their attendance consists in this. For

their attendance to these things is not with respect to <a particular> place.

"But you, where do you come from? You are not serviceable to me. Where then, do you

come from?" One will understand in a similar way to this what God said to Adam: "Adam, where

are you?"56 The word: "Where have you come from?" should reveal the senselessness of further

movement on the part of the devil.

1,7 "And answering the Lord, the devil said: *I have come from around the world and walking up
and down in the world under heaven. And here I am.'"

If the devil’s answer to God’s question was a thought formed within him, then it would have

been foreseen by God. For God, when wishing to speak with a mortal, instills his wish in <that

one's> understanding. The devil, answering the Lord, did not <actually> thus answer, but it is meant

that he answered as <the Lord> deliberated. Let us see what his answer was. He said, "I have come

from around the world under heaven, and from walking up and down in the world." One should not

be astonished if, being a subtle spirit, he <the devil> should go down into the forenamed places.

For God did not expose him through cross examination. <The phrase>, "walk up and down"

is also well <expressed>, for he does not encompass it <the world>. He goes about as an adversary

56
Genesis 3:9
 47

"searching" for any one to swallow, in such a manner that he might "draw to himself"57 those

hearkening to his evil blandishments, while demanding the surrender of those offering resistance,

which also happened with Job. Whence the devil does not use force, nor does he come upon us

beyond our strength. Wherefore the invitation: "resist, be steadfast in faith"58 addresses itself to

those who have the strength to resist. And: "If the spirit of the one exercising authority rises up

against you, do not give up your place."59 That God also bestows power is declared: "he will also

provide the way out for anyone who is able to endure it."60 Next, it must be shown that the earth and

the space beneath heaven are different places; the earth indeed being beneath heaven, but the spaces

beneath heaven are by no means necessarily earth. The devil walks up and down those places, while

rejoicing in the demonic spirits61 of evil. "After I have walked up and down this place," he also says,

"Here I am." That is to be understood in this way: after I have gone through all these places, and

have found that blessed Job is not able to receive anything from us, Here I am, which means: I show

my hiddenness to your inescapable eye intending to demand Job.

57
1 Peter 5:8. The topos appears here yet again (as it did also in the prologue to the
Commentary): the devil as a ravening lion, prowling about seeking someone to devour. Because
of the characteristic, peripatetic nature of the devil, Origen — using once again the same Bible
text (1 Peter 5:8) that Didymus will avail himself of — says that “on this account [i.e. on account
of the devil prowling like a lion] a strict guard must be kept over our heart day and night.” De
Principiis, III, 3,6. The fact that a strict guard must be kept is the “set-up” of course — in
Didymus’ understanding — for why God puts a “hedge” around us, protecting us from the wiles
of Satan.
58
1 Peter 5:9
59
Ecclesiastes 10:4
60
1 Corinthians 10:13
61
"Demonic spirits” is used here to avoid the obvious confusion which would be caused by the
more literal translation, “spirit-filled.”
 48

1:8 And the Lord said to him <the devil>: in your thoughts have you considered my servant Job, that
there is not one like him upon the face of the earth, a blameless person, true, pious, abstaining from
every evil deed?"

One must understand <the phrase> "the Lord said to the devil" in the same way as the

preceding part. That is to say: it is not incongruous if, whatever God wishes the devil to think, he

will instill this in order to show - to the shame <of the devil> - that God does not stop planning.

One must realize this then, lest the conversation of God with the devil should seem pointless. For

nothing is pointless in the case of the one who created the entire universe. Rather, it is an advantage

that <the devil> is shamed by juxtaposition with the just and blameless man. The Lord

termed Job "servant"62 - in both senses of the word: For <Job> was indeed among his servants,

according to the saying attributed to the Psalmist: "I am your servant, a son of your servant girl,"63

he was his son on account of his service and the full-blooded servanthood, because he became

worthy of the grace of the Spirit and also because he himself says, with the wise Paul:" The Spirit

itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are children of God."64

For "whoever practices righteousness, has been born from God."65

That even the devil is a rational creature is signified by the saying, “Have you carefully

62
paÃV can mean both “son” and “servant.”
63
Psalm 116:16.
64
Romans 8:16.
65
I John 2:29.
 49

thought about...”66 For the capacity to reason is the peculiar characteristic67 of a rational being. This

observation about the devil will be made not only here, but also in the saying: “You spoke in your

understanding: I shall ascend to heaven.”68 Wherefore, this is clearly indicative of his being a

rational creature. Yet, if reasoning is characteristic of him, then it is to be carefully considered

whether he might also be capable of repentance. For with the capacity to think comes both reasoning

and repenting. And since the capacity to reason lies within his will, so perhaps also the capacity to

repent. Let him who does not see this as a given not unwittingly represent God as the author of <the

devil’s> evil, by supposing he possesses neither reason nor sense. If he also has become in a certain

respect something else, yet he shares being rational with those who also have this nature. For even

though human beings are mortal, we say that the commonality is not according to mortality, but

according to rationality which is common both to immortals and to mortals. Even having reason

does not belong uniquely either to the purely good or the purely evil. For just as sense perception

is common both to the good and the evil - the good to be sure, who rightly use it do not avail

themselves of it the way the evil one does, who glances up to heaven and makes himself like God.

So also having reason: it is to be found both in the good and the evil, though it is different with

respect to use.

“You have therefore,” says the Lord, “considered my servant Job, because among mortals

66
Job 1:8.
67
oÆkeÃoV is here more likely reminiscent of Plato’s use of it (e.g., as “the appropriate thing,”
(Phaedo 96D), than Aristotle’s oÆkeÃoV Ðnoma (Rhetoric 3,2,6) - the contrast between the proper
and the metaphorical sense of a name.
68
Isaiah 14:13.
 50

on the earth, there is none like him.”69 “Have you therefore,” says the Lord, “considered my servant

Job, that there is not one like him upon the face of the earth?”70 The addition of “upon the face of

the earth,” is not without meaning. For there are rational beings like him and rational beings who

are above the earth who are superior to him.71 It is not the same to say “there are none like him,” and

“there are none upon the face of the earth like him.” For why should he not be superior to all that

are upon the earth, since the Lord of all things gave testimony to him in the word: “A man, who is

a blameless person, true, pious, and abstaining from every evil deed.”72 He distances himself from

evil in the proper sense in which - by his nature - he is capable. Praise is especially fitting if one -

who is capable of being evil - distances himself from evil, because he hates it. For one does not say -

about each one who does nothing evil - that he or she has avoided evil. No one would assert, with

regard especially to infants, who have done no evil, that they - in the proper sense of the word - avoid

doing it. For whoever would act in this way does so on the basis of a rational decision. Whatever

has to do with evil and good, presupposes some kind of aptitude for it. Also no one indeed should

assert that the infant avoids debauchery or practices self-control. For in this, infants still possess no

discernment with respect to making decisions.73

When we explained this in the foregoing, and when we adduced that <verse> from the first

Psalm, we contradicted the idea that these (infants) are pious in the same way. For that one is pious

69
Job 1:8.
70
Job 1:8.
71
The angels, mentioned in Didymus’ comment on Job 1:7.
72
Job 1:8.
73
Didymus returns here to a theme he has alluded to previously, in his commentary on 1:1-3.
 62

in his or her being who reverences the life of piety, while those who revere what is not holy are

<themselves> unholy. It is characteristic of the blessed <Job> that he is “true”, in respect to his

contemplation of what is true and in his sincerity in his morals. And the one who practices virtue

on account of something else is not true.

1:9 The devil answered, and said before the Lord.

One can plausibly say <the phrase> “before the Lord” to be credible inasmuch as <the devil>

speaks “over against”74 the witness of God. This is because he loves evil; or has formed arrogant

opinions, for evil is shameless. Therefore - out of bad motives he reproaches <Job>, even with what

he brings up. In this way, he detracts from the virtue of the righteous one. What then does he say?

1:9-10 Does Job worship the Lord in vain? Have you not put a hedge around the outside and the

inside of his house, and all around the outside of his possessions? And have you not blessed the

works of his hands, and made his herds numerous upon the earth?

It is characteristic of those who love evil and hate virtue to hold the good deeds of their

fellow creatures not to be genuine. But always they say, “this one is righteous because of not being

capable of doing ill,” “this one is prudent out of so-called folly,” “still another one is not out for

money and means, but again, only because he does not need them.” Sometimes also, they <those

74
Didymus plays on the double meaning of ¦nant\oV: “before” meaning “standing before,”
and “over against,” or “opposing,” and “adversary to.”
 63

who love evil> deem the meek one to be a hypocrite; and generally allow no virtue to be ascribed

as genuine to any low-ranking person. As originator of this evil, the devil thought such things about

Job, and revealed them to the one who knew the secret, when he said Job was righteous - on account

of his outward goodness. He says, “you have put a hedge around him,” instead of “you have

secured.” For he wishes to make clear that on account of these things <the hedges placed around

him by God> Job is unassailable and <the Devil> has no opening. He considered the abundance of

things, which are neither good nor evil, as the cause of <Job’s> virtue. Wherefore, he showed

himself not to have spoken correctly. For when all these things are taken away from him, <Job>

remains just as unassailable. And actually an abundance of riches contributes somewhat to virtue

in the one who knows to use it rightly; in itself it is however in no way necessary. The blessed Job

showed that both in poverty as well as in wealth, his virtue was not distorted.143

1:11 “But put forth your hand, and touch all that he has. Truly he will bless you to your face.”

One must conceive God’s hand variously as either the chastening and ministering144 power,

143
It is useful to compare Didymus’ thought here with that of Clement of Alexandria who had
also identified money as being in and of itself neither “good nor bad,” for the responsibility is
with the one exercising choice as to its use: oÛ cr¬ to\nun tÎ ¦> ©autoØ m¬ §con mZte tÎ
•ga2În mZte tÎ kakÎn, •na\tion Ðn, aÆtis2ai, •ll tÎ dunVmenon ka kaläH tobtoiH
cr­s2ai ka kakäH, •N’ ôn ªlhtai . . .The Rich Man’s Salvation, 14.
144
ßphrXthV is a familiar and frequent New Testament word, generally as the objective
genitive, “servants of God,” or “ministers of the word.” In a classical use, it literally meant
“rowers” in the trireme, for example. Paul uses it to denote lowly servanthood (e.g. I Corinthians
4:1) - in distinction to diVkonoV - meaning a respected household servant. Here the word is
employed in a less familiar way to denote God’s servanthood.
 64

which holy writing customarily calls “vessels of wrath,”145 or rather as the sheltering and watchful

power <which is> consistent with the saying: “No one is able to snatch [them] out of my Father’s

hand.”146

It is possible to receive the Son into the hand that protects and supports those who are under

him, as it says in the Word: “The right hand of the Lord has lifted me up, the right hand of the Lord

has let his power hold sway.”147

The word, žyai, (touch) perhaps here signifies “beset,” comparable to “bringing affliction

upon.” We routinely find this usage in scripture. The phrase, “Do not touch my anointed ones,” 148

does not forbid simple “touch,” but the audacity to afflict the holy ones. And the word, “whoever

touches you touches the apple of my eye,”149 likewise signifies the one who touches in order to inflict

injury. If the devil became an apostate and stretched out his neck150 before the almighty, the creator

of all, nonetheless, he had a certain piety towards the creator of all things. For he says: “Truly, he

will bless you to his face.”151 He uses this expression instead of “he will curse you to his face.” . .

., for which reason he did not bring forth the harsh [saying] against God, when he expressed himself

in the way he just did.

145
Romans 9:22.
146
John 10:29.
147
Psalm 117:16 (118:16).
148
Psalm 104:15 (105:15).
149
Zechariah 2:8, literally “the pupil of his eye.”
150
Job 15:25.
151
Job 1:11.
 65

1:12 “Then the Lord spoke to the devil: ‘See, I give into your hand all that he possesses; only do not

touch Job himself.’”

The words cited demonstrate that no one falls into any trials without God’s consent. For God

says: “See, I have given everything into your hand.” However, in order that it be obvious that even

God’s consent has been qualified, a word is added: “Only do not touch Job himself.” So, trials occur

neither by the allotment of fate, or spontaneously, but out of the consent of God, in order to show

forth - as has already been said - Job’s virtue; sometimes also on account of other factors, all of

which will be discussed in the following <passages>.

1:12 “And the devil went forth from the Lord.”

It is more aptly said about the devil that he has gone forth from the Lord, than it is about

Cain. For concerning Cain, it was said: “Cain went forth from the sight of the Lord God.”152 The

<word> “going-forth” signified his not being seen by God. And this person also goes forth, always

happening upon those <who are> outside, even though he also came - affectedly - with the helpers

of God.

1:13 “And when that day had come, Job’s sons and daughters drank wine in the house of their elder
brother.”

Accordingly, it mentions both the day and the coming together of the children, so that

152
Genesis 4:16.
 66

likewise also the <circumstances of their> deaths might be believable, since they died together at the

same point as the destruction of their house. The writing is frequently misconstrued. For most

<interpreters> are of the view that those who participate in such a “coming-together” do so to drink,

whereas these [children of Job] not only drank, but also ate and spoke as is customary in such a

coming-together as this one. Consider the present citation in a more allegorical <way> - whether

it does not <mean> perhaps they drank “wine, which rejoices the heart of man” in the house of the

elder brother who offered godly instruction.

1:14 “And see, a messenger came to Job and said to him: ‘The yokes of oxen were ploughing, and
the she-asses were feeding near them; and the spoilers came and robbed them, and slew the servants
with swords, and I, having alone escaped, am come to tell thee.’”

Because of these things, it happened that the attack took place that day. For “the yokes of

oxen were ploughing and the she-asses were feeding near them.” By “messenger” is to be

understood the reporter <of these things> as indeed it is written in <the Hebrew book of> Kings. It

is worthy of consideration how the events reported by the messenger, which happened so suddenly,

throughout the account become still worse, and tend to cause Job endless sorrow. That the yokes

of oxen were robbed while plowing doubles the sorrow. On the one hand, this is on account of the

loss of the animals. The capture of the roaming she-asses (which, themselves, brought little income)

is still to come. On the other hand, it [the sorrow] is also on account of the increase in income and

property, which was to be expected from sowing. The slaying of the servants by the intruders -

reported with the others - also brought about enormous grief.

<All this> would be sufficient to bring anyone into sudden confusion, even if it were falsely
 67

reported. And yet, though events indeed were bad, the holy one in no way allowed himself to be

despondent. In one of the Psalms, it says about the holy: “He is not afraid of evil tidings; his heart

is prepared to hope in the Lord.”153 <For> with the blessed Paul, he said concerning this: “Who will

separate the believer from the love of God? Neither hardship, nor distress, nor persecution, nor

hunger nor sword.”154 Job with the greatest heroic courage remained unseparated from the love of

the Lord, even though such great hardships overtook him. One might say that it were possible <for

Job> to think animals and their field work to be of little account. But, the fact that Job even bore

courageously what he heard about the slaughter of his servants, this plainly shows the heroic courage

of the holy one, and his endurance.

It is however <now> to be attended to whether this one was the only one saved, in order that

he might report that he would be saved for a still greater trial. In case Job had not heard about these

events until the ulceration of his own body had begun, then the lesser evils would not have been such

sorrows, because the greater trials had already happened.

1:16 While he was still speaking, there came another messenger, and said to Job, ‘Fire has fallen
from heaven, and burnt up the sheep, and devoured the shepherds likewise; and I having escaped
alone am come to tell you.’”

The succession of distressing messages brings home the unusual and amazing heroic courage

of the blessed one. For consider the observation, that while the first messenger was “still speaking”

and reporting, the second messenger arrived - arriving not for the healing of these <calamities>, but

153
Psalm 111:7 (112:7).
154
Romans 8:35.
 68

that he might report additional, and even worse ones. To report distressing things in such a way

customarily causes a person’s mind to begin to whirl and to become confused, and he will be put out

of his proper mind, because he will be pulled about here and there through the different griefs.

However the holy one was not of such a kind <to react in this way>. But just as an unbreakable

<wall> in such a way remains standing unshaken, no matter how many things should fall upon it,

wishing to occupy it, so also the holy Job does not allow himself to shake. So also the holy Job,

having “the foundation” upon the salvation “stone,”155 when trials do come, he does not shake.156

The report of the second <messenger> is also worthy of contemplation: how it brings about

an increase in the sorrow. He says: “Fire has fallen from heaven, and burnt up the sheep, and

devoured the shepherds likewise.” For even if the holy one knew accurately the teachings of truth -

that trials do not happen outside the will of God157 — nevertheless, what happened him the greatest

pain because of those who had been overturned, as though God had himself turned against him.158

For the fact that the intruders, in their attack, carried off the beasts and slew the servants, the simple

ones could explain: that the intruders attacked - according to the custom of enemies - and held

155
Luke 6:48.
156
While Didymus’ language is so frequently reminiscent of Stoic vocabulary, the ndre\a of
the blessed Job has a salvific foundation, as it is actually based on the “rock of salvation,” here
referenced to Jesus’ metaphor of a house built on solid footing.
157
Literally, “Our trials do not happen outside the governance of God.” » ¦pitrop\a is
actually an unusual word, both in classical and patristic sources. Elsewhere, where Didymus has
expressed much the same thought, it has been the “permission” (sugcfrhsiV) of God.
158
Another way in which Didymus’ Job becomes a “type” of Christ. For He also — in the cry
of dereliction — wonders out loud whether perhaps God has forsaken him. In addition, the cross
itself becomes a “scandal,” St. Paul says, to the Jew, and a stumbling block to the Greek (1
Corinthians 1:23).
 69

themselves back out of lack of discipline as well as out of hatred, <meant> that therefore the event

was not sent by God. When however the fire was reported - as having come down from heaven,

there was something to be feared: lest one of the weaker ones could believe that virtue was nothing

worthy of wonder, if even God punishes the one who possesses it. However, even with this incident,

the holy one is not brought down, but concentrates on the whole of God’s <governance>. For the

devil does not have the authority to bring down fire from heaven. That happened out of a decision

by God, wherewith the same God that had given the devil authority over Job’s possessions, also

showed this one that the holy one did not concern himself with human things, even when <the devil>

binds many snares.159

For behold how God even has brought about that which he <the devil> could not bring about,

in order to cause, in this way, the greatness of champions to be demonstrated and the adversary to

be ruined. For Job did not bravely endure just some small and unimportant onslaught, but the

annihilation of seven thousand sheep, together with the shepherds, who were obviously not few in

number. The informer, on the other hand, was saved on account of the reasons above.

1:17 “While he was yet speaking, there came a different messenger and said to Job, ‘The horsemen
formed three companies against us, and surrounded the camels, and took them for a prey, and slew
the servants with the sword; and I only escaped and am come to tell thee.’”

Perhaps there was an army encampment in the region, which - divided into three units - fell

upon the camels. For it says - as if it is well-known: “The horsemen formed three companies.” But

159
Not only does Didymus say that Job remains secure in his faith no matter what happens.
He even wants us to believe that the more the evil that happened, the more he believed. For the
more concentrated and terrible the losses, the more the blessed Job was convinced that these had
to come from God, and not mere accident or fate.
 70

it is also possible that the continual attacks of the hostile horsemen, which took place then, were set

in motion at the instigation of the devil, and that the messenger (since the attacks were familiar to

him) had accordingly said: “The horsemen formed three companies against us.” They not only

snatched the camels, they also killed the servants.

But understand how, successively, the trials become steadily more distressing. For first the

yoke of oxen, being five hundred in number, and the five hundred grazing she-asses were taken

captive, then fire fell from heaven upon the seven thousand sheep and made the suffering even worse

than the previous one. On the third occasion, the three thousand camels were taken off - just as at

the time of the former attacks - a very costly matter and a well-known fact of a person’s wealth that

is not to be belittled - and then the servants were slain, just as at the time of the former <attacks>.

After these things the mass death of the children takes place, as it will be brought to light by

the citations <to follow>. For truly, if the death of the children had been announced first, everything

that had already taken place would have seemed slight. When it took place however under a

continual escalation of suffering, the sharpness of succeeding events was increasingly capable of

confounding the mind. Even this, the devil in his evil way had done, after he had made supplication.

However, he would be disappointed, because the blessed one in no way allowed his reasoning to be

moved.

1:18-19 “While he was yet speaking, there came another messenger, saying to Job, ‘While your sons
and your daughters were eating and drinking with their elder brother, suddenly a great wind came
on from the desert, and caught the four corners of the house, and the house fell upon your children,
and they have died; and I alone have been saved, and am come to tell thee.”

Not without reason is it added: “When your sons and daughters were eating and drinking.”
 71

For the arch-rogue the devil has taken even this in hand to augment sorrow <and> in order that the

serious news about events should cause great overwhelming sorrow in the blessed one. If the

collapse had taken place when the children were sleeping, Job would have reckoned that they had

not been conscious of the misfortune, and would not have been so grieved <about it>. But since the

devil brought about this trial when they were occupied with essential care of the body, this worsens

the pain. For it is without a doubt that, as with <other> occasions as this, very many people were

present. This the messenger did not mention, because he was content with the overwhelmingly

unpleasant <message about> the children, which took priority even over the fate of the others. For

such <an expression> lies within the customary <scope> of the writing. When the Savior broke the

five loaves, with which he satisfied the five thousand men, the evangelist mentions these <men>,

saying: “Without women and children.”160 He considered only the principal persons in his

enumeration.

Consider what this wind is which “came across the desert and struck the four corners of the

house” and caused it to collapse: whether it is a hurricane moving with exceeding force that slammed

into the house and demolished it, or whether it is a spirit ministering to the devil himself - for this

is a great, and evil spirit - to strike the four corners of the house and to demolish it. Both <views>

are possible, when we examine whether the messenger could know if it were a spirit serving the devil

which caused it, or the devil himself. If however he understood the wind to be a hurricane, then his

words are to be understood in much the same way as <we understood> the descent of fire from

heaven upon the cattle. What had been said of the one holds true for the other. For the devil is not

able to set wind in motion. The forceful word, “suddenly” is introduced, in order to bring to

160
Matthew 14:21.
 72

expression the fact that no one was able to escape destruction, since the event took place in that way.

Likewise, the messenger was found outside.

1:20-21 “Then Job stood up and tore his garments, and shaved the hair of his head, and fell on the
ground, and worshiped, and said: ‘I myself came forth naked from my mother’s womb, and naked
shall I return thither: the Lord gave, the Lord has taken away: as it seemed good to the Lord, so has
it come to pass; blessed be the name of the Lord.’”

The divine spirit forestalls the maliciousness of evil men and of the devil himself. For

perhaps such an <evil> person would have said that Job did not have love his children, since he did

nothing befitting sympathy. Yet both his sensitivity and his manliness alike are shown in that he

obviously did not suffer either unfeelingly nor in an unmanly way the misfortune of the lamentable,

mass death of his children. For by the fact that he “tore his garments and shaved the hair of his

head,” - this was especially customary among the ancients, when someone died - he showed his

feeling and his tender love.161 The following however brings out a completely clear proof of his

manliness and of his surpassing wisdom, when it says, “he fell on the ground.” He did not despair,

nor did a sound come out of him, that would have been unfit for a prudent man. He said nothing

neglectful, but fell down and worshiped the creator of all, in the believing conviction that these

events do not transpire outside divine judgments, and as they took place, they unfolded from the

beginning on, successively, and certainly according to some true plan. After the prayer, he added:

“I came forth naked from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, the

Lord has taken away: as it seemed good to the Lord, so has it come to pass; blessed be the name of

161
Filostorg\a. For a development of the concept of this kind of love, (which always
denotes familial love), in a popular account, cf. C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves.
 73

the Lord.”

Consider - alongside his manliness - how also wisdom is found in the blessed Job as he

carries forward in his words godly teaching which is useful for the entire human race.

He says, “I myself came forth naked from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return

thither.” <Here> it is well to question those who think nothing godly about the immortality of the

soul. For example, where will Job depart to naked? Perhaps into the womb of his mother? He

indeed did come forth naked from that place, according to the saying. But come away from the

falsehood of this understanding. For it is obvious that this was said in order to teach that the soul

is not sown <together with the body>162 as some assume. The blessed Paul writes in a way that is

similar to this: “. . . For we brought nothing into the world, so that we can take nothing out of it.”163

For just as the “taking out” signifies that the deceased lived, so also the one who did not bring

anything in, lived and comes from a certain place without being able to bring any such thing with

him. He also brings in that teaching - not known to many - “The Lord has given, the Lord has taken

away.” With this, he shows that his property was not unlawful and does not stem from some

improper counsel. “The Lord makes rich and the Lord makes poor,”90 not in a kind of irrational

inclination introduced by fate, as some take it, but rather in such a way that it will be known whether

he must live long in these circumstances, and endure in suitable ways.

162
In patristic times, suspe\rw comes to refer to the origin of the soul. With Origen, the soul
was generally understood not to be sown with the body, but to be pre-existent. For a discussion
of this, cf. Joseph Wilson Trigg, Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-century Church,
(John Knox Press, Atlanta: 1983), p.107.
163
1 Timothy 6:7.
90
I Kings 2:7.
 74

Beyond this, there are other reasons: some are comprehensible to mortals, and on the other

hand, others are not to be spoken of and are known to God alone. Understanding this well, the

blessed one said: “The Lord has given, the Lord has taken away; as it has pleased the Lord, so has

it happened.”91

As regards the phrase, “it pleased,” it is not to be construed lightly, but rather as representing

God’s firm judging. A like expression to this will be used in the Acts of the Apostles when the

apostles - writing a letter about those turning to faith not being circumcised - said: “It pleased the

Holy Spirit and us.”92 This they said not in a light sense, but completely advisedly. This steadfast

remark could also point to the adversary: that Job has been handed over not to bring gladness to the

devil who had demanded it, but rather in such a way that <through this remark> glory to the Lord

might be brought about93. This was what the Lord himself said to Job: “Do you believe that I would

have dealings with you for any other purpose than that you should appear righteous?”, and that Job

is not diverted from virtue, either on account of goods or of children.

Even his <Job’s> thankfulness is worthy of wonder, when he says: “May the name of the

Lord be praised.”94 Wherefore, it offers a refutation to those who - falling into such misfortunes -

express even such things which it is not well to mention. But the holy one who is not so witless is

unbendable with respect to the catalogue of so many such happenstances, <and> he becomes the

herald of godly and true teachings.

91
Job 1:21.
92
Acts 15:28.
93
Here it is not glory of but glory to the Lord, quoting the liturgy.
94
Job 1:21.
 75

In a corresponding way are these words to be received: “Thus Job rent his garments.” It

could even be persuasively said that he bared himself on account of this, first in order to show the

tempter that: if you covet even the last remnant, take then also this!, and secondly by showing in a

figurative way that he is like a champion athlete who lays aside his clothes before his opponent.

Even the removal of his hair symbolizes this, that he holds all unnecessary things to be a “big

nothing,” and contemptible in the eyes of a just and wise one - who neither boasts in moments of

peace and quiet, nor is vexed in afflictions.95 In order to show this, the blessed David also sang: “I

will praise the Lord at all times.”

1:22 “In all these events that befell him, Job did not sin at all before the Lord and showed no

foolishness to God.”

A powerful witness of the Holy Spirit is given by the blessed Job in the saying: “In all these

events that befell him, Job did not sin at all before the Lord.” It often happens that one does not

obviously sin, but in his mind a trouble arises, as the Word says: “I was troubled and did not

speak.”96 The appended <word> “before” shows that indeed no false step arose. For that would

have been perceived by God. It is not the same to say: “This person did not sin,” and “He sinned

in no way before the Lord.” <The latter> shows the overriding purity of the holy man that he did not

lapse either in word, or deed, or thoughts, or in his mind. In this at least, calling those who had

repented, God said: “Take away from before my eyes the evils of your way,”97 which means that not

95
2 Corinthians 8:13.
96
Psalm 76:5 (77:4). Didymus’ observation is a patent example of his “Christian stoicism.”
97
Isaiah 1:16.
 76

only in deed, but also in thought, we wish to abstain from evil, because God sees it <all>. The

Savior also said this in the gospel: “If you give alms, do not trumpet it before you, as the hypocrites

do,”98 and “The One who sees in secret will reward you.”99 For as the one who gives alms in this

way does not hear the praise of the crowd, so also is the one free from evils, who does not sin before

the Lord.

The saying is also well-put: “And he imputed no folly before God.” For whoever is

convinced that events are governed through the foreknowledge of God, imputes no folly before God,

who governs. Unbelievers, in this circumstances, often make reproach, saying: “This or that should

not have happened,” “This one or that one should not have been poor or rich, or sick or well,” Why

was this young person deprived of life while that old person is still here?” Such talk leads - godly

governance holds - generally to nonsense. However, the holy man praises the Lord, even in such

trials as these, being persuaded that God’s judgement is just.

2:1-2 “And it came to pass on a certain day, that the angels of God came to stand before the Lord,

and the devil came among them to stand before the Lord. And the Lord said to the devil, “Where

do you come from?” Then the devil said to the Lord, “I am come from going through the world, and

walking about through the whole earth.”

In his first audience with God, the devil received power over all of Job’s goods and kindred,

and he destroyed everything. Yet he had not been able to overturn the brave intention of the blessed

98
Matthew 6:2.
99
Matthew 6:4.
 77

Job. Owing to the greatness of his soul, Job remained the same, the same with respect to his

godliness. This is fairly reasonable: for he was of the mind that God both sends pleasant things yet

also takes them away.

<The devil> attempts to direct a second challenge against Job’s body, hastening to subjugate

him through deadly pains. Since the verses are the same as those before, what was said about those

suits these also, so that perhaps the same thing <commentary> would not be repeated. Only let it

be added that <now> the devilish [lacuna] is shown especially strongly. To the words: “Where do

you come from?” let it be said: The words spoken to the devil by the Lord are a complete refutation

<of him> since he had nothing he could honestly say about any right action100 or reproof of his own.

And beyond this it showed that he had been conquered, which out of his shame was the very thing

he himself did not wish to admit.

It is to be noted that the devil does not now respond as in the way <he had earlier>. At that

time, he said, “I am come from going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down in the

world.”101 Now however, he says: “I am come from going through the world, and walking about the

whole earth.”102 Consider also whether <the devil> - as a liar - perhaps did not wish to mention that

he had gone to and fro on the earth, so that he might make it believable that he had not first assaulted

Job. At that time, however, <he had mentioned it> out of shame. For he indeed knew that nothing

remains hidden before God. So, he did not say: “Those things over which you have given me

100
The predicate use of the adjective. The word can mean “right action” or also “success.”
101
Job 1:7.
102
Job 2:2.
 78

authority, here is what I have done. I have taken away Job’s possessions and killed his children.”

That would be the logical answer, and “he himself remained <unchanged>.” But he passed along

to a second demand, through which he reckoned on overturning the resolve of the holy man.

If even the devil, by this means, conceals his intention, so that instead of “the earth,” he says,

“the whole <world>,” then we shall nonetheless demonstrate from the scriptures that “the earth” is

often called, “the whole <world>.” It says, “the whole <world> will be filled with the knowledge

of the Lord,”103 And in the following, even Job says: “The one who made all (the whole of

everything) in highest heaven,”104 in which way, he wishes to say that God draws humanity - on the

basis of their virtue - from the earth to heaven.

2:3 “But the Lord spoke to the devil: ‘Have you then turned your thoughts to my servant Job, that

there is none like him among mortals, a just, godly, blameless man, abstaining from all evil? And

he still holds to his guilelessness.’”

As was said earlier, so it is once again: “You turned the thoughts of your mind to ...” This

is an analogy ¦pÊtasiV that - after the struggle - <the devil> will be disgraced. For the devil,

thinking that Job takes pleasure in external goods, said “Have you not made a hedge about him, and

about his household, and all his possessions round about?”105 But after his assault took place in vain,

it says: “You turned your thoughts to”. . . instead of “You know out of your own experience the

103
Isaiah 11:9.
104
Job 25:2.
105
Job 1:10.
 79

steadfastness of the God-fearing, blameless and guileless man who distances himself from every

evil.” Beyond these things, the Lord adduces by way of refutation, “He still holds to his

guilelessness. Consider also that he will “not bless me to my face,” as you used to.106

It is to be noted that in the foregoing, he said: “who distances himself from every bad

deed.”107 But now <it says> “from all evil.” From this it is known that “the evil” speaks of what is

bad. So also the scriptural saying: “You that love the Lord, hate evil,” 108 in lieu of “hate what is

bad.”

Different meanings can be understood for “guilelessness.” It signifies both negation of evil,

as well as singleness of heart. For whenever the holy man says, “Vindicate me, O Lord, for I have

walked in my guilelessness,109 “guilelessness” here means virtue. Whoever possesses virtue, is

deprived of evil. And in other places, “the guileless and simple of heart joined themselves to me”110

he calls the virtuous ones guileless. These are indeed simple of heart, but simplicity of heart is a

mark of virtue. When however it says: “They deceive the hearts of the guileless,”111 and “A guileless

person believes every word,”112 and again, “that He may give shrewdness to the guileless,”113 it

106
Job 1:11.
107
Job 1:8.
108
Psalm 96:10 (97:10).
109
Psalm 25:1 (26:1).
110
Psalm 24:21 (25:21).
111
Romans 16:18.
112
Proverbs 14:15.
113
Proverbs 1:4.
 80

signifies the “pure.” To these also, he prays that shrewdness be given which is equal in force, not

to evil, but to prudence. So Job still possesses that guilelessness which is right in every sense of the

word.

2:3 “whereas you have told me to destroy his property without cause?”

The Lord attests to the futility of the devil’s efforts against the holy man. For one who works

in some way or other without cause labors in vain. If even the devil then - in the hope of getting the

holy man into his power - attempted to destroy his possessions and children, yet knew that his effort

against the great courage of the holy man had been thwarted already, then he struggled in vain. For

nothing of what he had hoped for happened.

2:4 “And the devil answered and said to the Lord, ‘Skin for skin, all that people have they will give

as ransom for their life. No, but put forth your hand and touch his bones and flesh. Truly, he will

bless you to your face.”

There are three so-called good things: one comprises externals and is divided between those

that have to do with money and possessions, and health and other things having to do with the body.

The other two are virtues. The devil believes that good things are uniquely indistinguishable, and

he believes Job to be of the same opinion. And so he unashamedly says before the Lord the words

we already explained above: that people would pay any price not to suffer something themselves.

This is most persuasive, since it <applies> to most people. However <it is> not true of all. For many

have risked their lives for money. But the evil-loving devil - cheapening the courage of the blessed
 81

one and wishing to bring upon his body the very things he has brought, said that <Job> would easily

despise the possession of external things. So he maliciously conceals that many thousands have

promised to die for the sake of their children. For in this way wars also have come about on behalf

of children. For people will set themselves up as a bulwark for their own children, risking their lives

for them. Yet the adversary, yearning to damage Job, expresses himself in an unwelcome way about

the events that have come to pass.

As before, he says, “But put forth your hand and touch his bones and flesh. Truly, he will

bless you to your face.”114 For he knows that even though he had been cast out, he is unable to

accomplish anything against anyone unless God allows it. We have considered this consent to have

arisen wisely, since it arose with God.

2:6 “The Lord spoke to the devil, ‘Behold, I deliver him up to you; only spare his life.’”

For our benefit, the Lord permits even this - so that Job might be established as the likeness

and pattern of courage, like an engraved pillar, serving as the model,115 both for his contemporaries

and for those who will come after, for such virtue, which really happened <here>. And so from this

athlete and wrestler himself we hear the words: “I know that I shall be justified.”116

114
Job 2:5.
115
skopÎV has actually a dual meaning of “scout” and, on the other hand, of “object, aim,
significance.
116
Job 13:18.
 82

And when the Lord handed him over, the Lord said: “Only spare his life.”117 Wherefore, it

can be thought of this way: we often see that madness and perversions of reason118 arise in some

people. On account of these <people> again, God - who knows well the hidden things - understands

the bases <on which> people have thus been delivered up. What the Lord says then is this, ‘Cause

no torpor119 and confusion of his reason, but touch his flesh and bones, which you also demanded.’

Consider then, whether ‘Only preserve his life’ stands in place of ‘Do not kill him!’120

2:7 “So the devil went out from the presence of the Lord and inflicted Job with loathsome sores from

his feet to his head.”

Every sinner is outside of <the presence of> God - but the devil especially as the arch-evil

creature. This has been mentioned earlier. And because it says in the narrative that “the devil came

with the angels,”121 the plot continues accordingly. This is to be understood from the narration: when

the devil went apart from the Lord, he does not tarry, but immediately effects what he had asked for,

covering <Job’s> entire body with wounds. By means of this assault, he wishes to loosen the

strength of Job’s virtue.

He [the devil] mentions <Job’s> extremities to make it obvious that he touched also the mid-

117
Job 2:6.
118
ºgemonik`V is the “governing principle” or reason in Stoic natural philosophy.
119
kVroV - another Stoic term.
120
Job 2:6.
121
Job 1:6.
 83

parts.

2:8 “And he took a potsherd to scrape away the discharge.”

This verse signifies the loneliness and helplessness of him [Job], since no one was with him

to tend to him, but even his wife was away on account of her zeal toward her work, through which

she herself was nourished and probably he was too. For in the following <verses>, his wife was

saying, “I am a wanderer and a servant from place to place and house to house, waiting for the setting

of the sun.”122 So she proved what had been said.

His body was deteriorating to such an extent he was being destroyed by putrefaction.

Therefore, he scraped himself with the potsherd. Yet in spirit he himself was untouched by illness,

and unbent.

2:8 “he sat upon a dung-heap outside the city.”

It is understandable that persons having such a body would not be permitted to live in those

cities.123 Therefore, Job sat on a dung-heap outside the city and contemplated the overwhelming

change into which he had been changed by the tempter - from such a propensity and course of life

to such failure, that he is even without a home, and is seated on a dung-heap, with no servant at hand,

nor a friend, nor even his wife herself - as has already been said. And it does not appear that she had

122
Job 2:9d.
123
What is possibly signified by “those cities” are the small number of larger cities (by ancient
standards). The word is generally restricted to these.
 84

been inattentive towards him, as we have mentioned.

2:9a-e “When a long time had passed, his wife said to him, ‘How long will you hold out, saying,

Behold, I wait a little while longer, expecting the hope of my deliverance? For behold, the

remembrance of you has disappeared from the earth, your sons and daughters, the travails and

pains of my womb with which in vain I toiled with hardships, while you yourself should sit down

spending the nights in the open air in the rot of the worms. And I wander as a servant from place

to place and house to house, waiting for the sun to set, so that I might rest from my toils and my

pangs which now beset me. Yet, speak some word against the Lord and die!’”

Since the devil was weakened through such assaults as these - not being able to cast down

<Job> by taking away his wealth or by the annihilation of his children, and beyond all this not even

through unending damage to his body - he devises as his third device the conversation with his wife:

perhaps through her he might beguile Job as <he had> Adam through his wife.

When much time had elapsed and he himself had not been able to shake the champion,

<Job’s> wife spoke suggesting neglect of duty, perhaps wishing to release him from suffering, if he

should just speak a word foolishly to the Lord. And see how with each word she calls him to neglect

of duty, - thereupon saying, “How long will you hold out?” For a long period of his illness, she

suggested the plan to him of neglecting duty. Thereupon, the following: “See, I wait a little while

longer, expecting the hope of my deliverance” - in some way unable to turn around his expectation.

Perhaps often, while she was importuning, he himself was holding forth good hope, and <in this

way> was keeping back from her ridicule. Since she had a weak reasoning, she did not perceive
 85

<this as contempt>, as she kept enticing him into neglect of duty124 <by saying that> he was hoping

falsely. A soul lacking in reason always loves to hold expectations to be unreliable.

Having urged what, to her way of thinking, was the return for such absolute hopelessness,

she said: “Behold, the remembrance of you has disappeared from the earth.” “Neither son, nor

daughter, remain for you, for your descendants to have as a remembrance.” Therefore she nearly

said: “If you should become well, the enjoyment of your health would be in vain, since your children

are now no more, and your possessions have been destroyed. And if this were all, then your long-

suffering would have cause, she says, but beyond these things, you yourself sit in the rot of worms,

while I - out of my poverty - wander from place to place.

Having launched a bolt of her contempt, through all these words, she brought an end of her

most demeaning speech, saying: “Speak some word against the Lord, and die.” To which one might

say: “How did his wife come to this conclusion that <Job> would die if only he should speak a word

against the Lord?” One might, variously, respond to this, either: “She was prompted to say this by

the adversary, so that his pains might be fulfilled: “If only he will bless you to your face.” Or,

perhaps in those cities the one who blasphemed the Lord would die, either at the hands of a ruler or

of citizens. Perhaps she knew of no one who had blasphemed and was still living. For this perhaps

might happen when the evil had not yet spilled forth. Perhaps too she was thinking that God would

not permit him to live, if he sent forth a blasphemous word.

Through this <phrase>, “Behold, the remembrance of you has disappeared from the face of

the earth,” she manifests also that you will have no hope ever again to attain the same enjoyment of

124
Ïligwr\a is actually used twice in this passage, and with two different meanings: as
“contempt” (hers), and as “neglect of duty” (into which she was attempting to entice him).
 86

good things. This she thinks to be the only good <things>, while she pays no heed to the true good

<things>.

And without her knowing it, in another way she spoke a true word. For the remembrance of

those who disdained human life is in heaven. That the scripture might confirm this, the Psalmist

says: “The face of the Lord is over those doing evil that the remembrance of them will be entirely

wiped away from the earth.”125

Whenever any person sins and says “in their hearts there is no God”126 and whenever God

brings hardship <upon them>, it appears that - in order that they might be helped - the recollection

of them is taken away from the earth, and when they are changed to virtue “they are enrolled in

heaven.”127

She also spoke the things about the children - as <only> a woman does - thinking it to be the

only hope of saving them, and repeatedly saying she had given birth to them in vain.

By her constant visits, she also brought her distress before him.

2:10 “But he looked on her, and said to her, ‘You have spoken like one of the foolish women. If we

have received good things from the hand of the Lord should we not endure evil things?’”

Job’s strength of soul is shown also in this, that in such sufferings he does not submit to the

word which his wife has discordantly brought forth, but says: “You have spoken like one of the

foolish women.” This he earnestly said, looking straightforwardly, and from her complaints the holy

125
Psalm 33:17.
126
Psalm 52:2; 13, 1.
127
Luke 10:20.
 87

man knew she brought these forth at the inciting of the devil. Because he was wise, <Job> knew that

the first [i.e. Eve’s] transgression - brought about through the guile of the devil - was the cause of

Adam’s transgression.

For this reason, he says: “You have spoken like one of the foolish women.” Then he even

set before her a logical reasoning which was fitting, and then adds: “If we have received good things

from the hand of the Lord, should we not endure evil things?” For the same understanding applies

with respect to the pleasant things, which are indifferent, that <we> not be carried away <by them>,

and <yet> also to the painful things, not to be cast down by them. For whoever is well-versed in

affairs knows that those things presumed to be good are not such by their nature, but rather to the

extent that they <actually> correspond to the opinion of the one who partakes of them. So, indeed,

even bad things - I mean those that bring suffering - are not in and of themselves evil; but to that

person who finds himself in it, what he makes of it. So, many good and evil <things> were seen with

wealthy <people>, like Abraham or others like him - as well as Pharaoh and those akin to him.

When many misfortunes came upon them again, some of these gave up, others remained unmoved

in their thinking, as for example the blessed Job and Lazarus, who have received even such things

[sufferings] as from a doctor who used cutting and burning for restoration to health.128

2:10 “In all these things that happened to him, Job sinned not at all with his lips before the Lord.”

For the second time, now, has this been said. The first time was with respect to the first

affliction. Now, however, for the second time. Even <the first time> it said: “In all these things that

happened to him, Job sinned not at all before the Lord.” But now it says, “In all these things that

128
Again, a figure used by both Origen (De Principiis, III,13) and by Didymus.
 88

happened to him, Job sinned not at all with his lips before the Lord.” Some hold there to be no

difference between “sinned not at all with his lips before the Lord,” and “sinned not at all before the

Lord.” Yet, others take it to mean that upon the loss of his possessions and the death of his children,

“Job sinned not at all before the Lord,” neither in word or in thought. Yet now to this phrase is

added, “with his lips.” <This says> that perhaps some turmoil could have occurred - not the same

<as something> out of sin, for this indeed would be a defeat - but out of an action of human

weakness - forced by much affliction that was assailing his whole body. The spirit of what is written

therefore is to show the increase of <Job’s> distress, and <at the same time,> his courage: even if

<Job’s> courage be forced into unwelcome considerations, he is <still> not so troubled that he has

done or said anything out of faint-heartedness or pettiness.

The psalmist says a similar thing: “I was troubled and did not speak.”129 Clearly, something

had happened <to the Psalmist> that led him <also> to be troubled. Yet, since he had checked this

<inner> disturbance just short of this thought process, he did not then speak of it. This agrees with

what Paul writes to the Corinthians: “I do not wish you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction that

occurred to us in Asia, that we were burdened to an excess beyond our capability, so that we were

utterly at a loss, even concerning our life. But we ourselves carry within us the sentence of death -

so that we do not trust in ourselves, but in God who awakens the dead.”130

2:11 Now his three friends having heard of all the evil that had come upon him, came to him, each

from his own country: Eliphaz, the king of the Thaemans, Baldad, tyrant of the Saucheans, Sophar

129
Psalm 76:5 (77:4).
130
2 Corinthians 1:8-9.
 89

king of the Minaeans;” . . .

Astonishing things receive the most attentive hearing when they occur to notable persons.

Since on account of his wealth and his virtue, Job belonged to those who were best-known, it was

natural that his friends should hear of the harshness of the things that had happened to him, and that

they should then appear. They did not come from a single place, but each from his own land, moved

by sympathy. At the same time, they were kings, wherefore they did not however look down upon

the one into whose life such change had occurred. (“Tyrant” means “king,” for at this time the name

was not known as a term of opprobrium, nor does it represent a different governance than that of a

king. This also is found in Proverbs: “By me, kings reign, and tyrants rule throughout the earth.”131)

These <kings> now appeared before him. <Their sympathy> was the only reason for their being led

there. This saying is a useful reminder of sympathy, lest in the vicississitudes befalling us we

overlook the things which concern love and charity for one another.

2:11 And they came to him with one accord, to comfort and to visit him.

They came to accomplish both of these things. For <Job> had been afflicted also in each of

two ways: he had been deprived of possessions and children; and his entire body had been afflicted

with wounds. “With one accord,” they came to him, either because of their great zeal, or because

they - who had dwellings apart from one another - had decided to come together, so that they might

encourage him. Together, they saw that the evil things had not abated; but were still at work.

131
Proverbs 8:15-16.
 90

2:12-13 When they saw him from a distance, they did not know him; and they cried with a loud

voice, and wept, and rent every one his garment, and sprinkled <themselves> with dust. And they

sat down beside him seven days and seven nights.

The section cited here speaks to us in a two-fold way. On the one hand there is the courage

of the blessed one - while others are bearing with the happenings of fate with difficulty. There is also

the sympathy of the friends, who not only came. They also wailed, for seeing him, they did not know

him on account of his illness, which had altered the features of his form. Crying out with a loud

voice - each one rent his garment and sprinkled himself with ash. All of this, it is said, showed both

the courage of the holy one as well as their fellow-feeling. He remained unmoved, which one might

be astonished at. Despite all these things, Job was not pushed into the neglect of duty into which

suffering - where it occurs - usually strikes down others. The sympathy of these friends is also

<seen> in their remaining by him for seven days and seven nights. One ought not to minimize such

strength in the face of weakness and helplessness, because it is on account of such <traits> that

others are led to feel sympathy.

2:13 And none of them spoke, for they saw that his afflictions was dreadful, and very great.

Those who had come to encourage <Job> fell silent in the <face of the> magnitude of events.

Naturally, he was continually touched by their sympathy. One does desire this to be accomplished

first, among those who are to be comforted. With respect to such care, they had no resource - not

even a physician’s aid - that would surpass that of their sympathies. And since <his friends> held

the view that he was wise, it was normal that they should be in awe and keep silence before him -
 91

not daring to bring forth a word.

3:1 With this, Job opened his mouth, and cursed his day, saying:

The wise man is no idle talker; nor does he utter with his tongue what cannot happen. He

does not curse the day which is <merely> an interval of time, but rather the things that have

happened in it. For it is the custom in the scripture to use the term “day” to mean “happenings.” The

psalmist teaches this, saying: “The Lord will deliver him in an evil day.”132 By “day of trouble,” he

is not indicating a time difference, but the evil things which have happened within these <days>.

So also, what the apostle Paul said: “Because the days are evil.”133 This has the same meaning. Thus

one might say that for one or another, based on what has occurred, the day is either good or bad. For

the people Israel unexpectedly to traverse the Red Sea, it was a good day. For the Egyptians however

<it was> bad. For they sank like lead in a mighty water.134

3:3-5 Let the day perish in which I came into being, and that night in which they said: ‘Behold, a

male child.’ Let that night be darkness, and let not the Lord regard it from above, neither let light

come upon it. But let darkness and the shadow of death seize it.

It is worth contemplating: is it consistent with the all-wise Job and his courage to have cursed

both the day in which he came into being, and the night in which they said: ‘Behold, a male-child.’

132
Psalm 40:2, 41:1.
133
Ephesians 5:16.
134
Exodus 15:10.
 92

And how <he said> it (i.e. the night) should be in darkness, whereas in fact every night (already) is

just that. “He called” refers to “the light he called day and the darkness night.”135 And what does

it signify that he prays the day not be regarded by the Lord from above, nor light to come upon it;

but rather that darkness and the shadow of death should seize it? Some of these things have

happened by nature. For with respect to a day which is past (and which indeed has no more

continuing reality), to express such wishes would indeed not be seemly for a wise person <to do>.

But if even the lovers of the literal stayed with the literal meaning of the text,136 they always

thereby diminish the courage of the holy man, <a courage> which the devil has not been able to

diminish - since they [the friends] suggest that he has shown some neglect of duty. But if he really

had done this, then the devil would not have been so shamed by Job’s courage, and the Lord would

not have said to Job: “Do you think that I have spoken to you for any other purpose than to allow you

to appear justified?”137 Therefore, one must examine the text according to the rules of allegory,

because the literal interpretation produces no rational (and for the holy man, no suitable) meaning.

Before we begin this, it follows that we should first say what contributes to understanding of the text.

135
Genesis 1:5.
136
Didymus here more than implicitly suggests that even the “literal” is a springboard to a
deeper contemplation. It is not then that his approach is intended to depreciate a word-by-word
attentiveness to the text. It is rather that he believes such a literalism to be the beginning and not
the end of the interpretive task. Hence, he says, “if even the lovers of the literal stayed with the
literal meaning . . .”, for he means to say that they only stay with the literal, and fail to move from
that necessary and important stage to still deeper contemplations.
137
Job 40:8.
 93

The human soul is immortal. It does not merely have other states alongside that of the body,

but even a godly <state>. It was connected with <the body> for different reasons: either that out of

its own worth, and according to its own inclination and yearning, it had effected a partnership to

these bodies with itself, or that, for the sake of those that needed help, it was united with them. For

it is not sewn together with the body in the way that <some argue>, who fail to recognize <the

soul’s> magnitude.138 For out of corporeal seed no such incorporeal substance can arise, nor will it

(i.e. “incorporeal substance”) be formed later than the body, since it happens to be its antecedent.

For God did not establish anything out of “non-being” after “he rested from all his works.”139

<Scripture> says, “What is what has been other than what will be? And what is what has been done,

other than what will be done? And there is nothing new under the sun. Whoever will speak and say:

‘See, this is new!’ It has already been, in the ages before us.”140 Jeremiah is a witness to these

things: that <the soul> is introduced into life, and joined with bodies both on account of its own evil,

as well as its use in behalf of others.141 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before

you were born I consecrated you. I appointed you a prophet to the nations,”142 Jacob and Esau, of

138
"Though for most souls embodiment is a remedial punishment, some souls have taken on
bodies in order to serve their fellows. This is preeminently true of the human soul of Christ . . .”
Joseph Wilson Trigg, Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-Century Church, Atlanta,
1983, p. 107.
139
Genesis 2:2.
140
Ecclesiastes 1:9-10.
141
When Didymus refers here both to the soul’s own evil and to its use for others, he is almost
surely referencing Origen’s De Principiis, III,4,2, where his predecessor at Alexandria
distinguishes in a parallel way an upper and lower soul. The biblical examples cited by Didymus
are the same as those used by Origen in proving the soul’s pre-existence. De Principiis, II,7,4.
142
Jeremiah 1:5.
 94

whom God says: “I have loved Jacob and I have hated Esau,”143 when they were still in the womb;

and John - who in the belly of his mother “leaped and exulted.”144

These <verses> demonstrate that the souls <did not arise> simultaneously with the bodies.

For whoever exults in the womb of his mother and partakes of the Holy Spirit outside the womb of

his mother, and whoever is hated before he is born, or another who is loved <before he is born>, <all

these souls> submit to these conditions145 - and not without cause. It is not only toilsome, but also

most burdensome that it (i.e. the soul) is united with a body. Yet, this is not only on account of its

own faults, but also as a help to others.

Just as it is not seemly for the victor in war to applaud the cause of the war - it being the

cause of many annoyances, in the same way it follows that those who have kept to a straight and

narrow path should not commend their privilege of entry into life, but rather be persuaded that

alongside these, some who were led into temptation slipped back into utter evil; and as for those who

had come for the sake of others, it became causes of suffering.

Job indeed considered it a burdensome day, and worthy to be cursed - on account of the evils

which arose from such cause <as the foregoing>. For this reason, he said: “Let the day perish into

which I came into being.” He said this for all the human race. For since the holy man knew that all

who looked upon his circumstances were in some considerable confusion - knowing that he suffers

undeservedly - Job raises the argument against every cause. In it, he all but says: “If it were not a

143
Malachi 1:2-3; Romans 9:13.
144
Luke 1:44.
145
That is, to the limitations of being in a body.
 95

matter concerning the fall of so many, then the character of courage <on my part> would not be

needed.” For just as from a disorder - when many people have been subjected to suffering, the

loving physician rightly curses the disorder, likewise the blessed one - out of his impulse to heal -

curses the day of the fall of humanity, of which he speaks in general terms. <His cursing that day>

does not happen arbitrarily, but out of a logical “cause and effect” so that the fallen may be helped.146

He uses his words in a more narrative style, so that he might make his figure of speech clear.

Therefore, he says, may whatever the cause be that brought about my entrance into this life be cursed

and exist no longer. Then he takes up also the noun, “night,” since birth also often takes place in the

night: “May that night be dark.” By this he means: “No longer traveling, but as it were in darkness,

may they — thus hindered — not find the road that leads to the source147 of evil (as if one could

speak of those who have been afflicted to the point of confusion: “May the affairs of those leading

a disordered life no longer prosper.”)

“And let not the Lord look upon it (i.e. the day) from above.” For it was fitting for the holy

one to pray that those things pertaining to reason should aim towards virtue, and <should> no longer

suffer a turnaround towards a worse condition. For this would not be the same <condition>

according to those who posit transmigration.148

“Let not light come upon it (i.e. the day).” May the impulse towards what is inferior be

146
eÊrm`V is used by Christian writers in a quasi-Stoic sense to contrast what happens
arbitrarily to what happens out of a divine cause and effect (Athenagoras, de resurrectione
mortuorum, 1; Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Orations, 16, 6).
147
The word is gXnesiV, meaning here a source, or origin.
148
The Manicheans. But Didymus may also have in mind local teachings of the Egyptians on
this concept — just as Origen refers to Egyptian folk teachings on transmigration, Contra
Celsum, I, 20.
 96

checked: in that those who work <evil> remain without light, according to the word <of scripture>:

“the light of the ungodly will be put out.”149

“Let darkness and shadow of death take it.” <This is> so that for those inclined toward dark

evils, this intent might be foiled, and their impulse toward evil might be checked — since they

reckon their undertaking to be fatal. The word of the prophet is similar to this: “I shall build up its

roads among the thorns, and its path (i.e. of evil) you will not find.”150 For it is important that that

very evil which comes about through fear and ignorance should be checked. In this way, one will

come to have a loathing for it.

3:5-6 “Let blackness come upon it; let that day and night be cursed, let darkness carry them away.”

These <words> are to be considered not so much as imprecations, but prayers: that there be a pause

<in the occurrence of> evil things. For in accordance with what was related above, it is desirable

that the cause of his fall and its road151 should remain unknown, so that “there be no good road for

a person engaged in evils.”152 For the longing for virtue makes the road of evil unknown. Yet virtue

itself, when it is augmented, causes a complete forgetting of evil’s efficacy. This is what the saying

means: “Let darkness carry it away.” By “it” I mean evil itself, and it is worthy to be cursed — for

it provides no opportunity for those who work at the things worthy to be cursed to have it (i.e.

149
Job 18:5.
150
Hosea 2:8.
151
In these sentences, Didymus seems to contrast “road” and “path.” The orientation to the
good constitutes a “road.” Falling away from God is merely a “path.”
152
Sirach 20:9.
 97

evil).153 They cause the things they have brought into being to be worthy to be cursed.

3:6 “Let it not come into the days of the year, not let it be numbered with the days of the months, but
let that night be pain.”

The holy man does not desire that the day of his downfall should be numbered or

remembered. It becomes grievous to him154 on account of that dark-looking cause, which — due to

its distress and darkness — is also called “night.” This is so that there be some chastening for those

who, out of repentance, have kept themselves away from night, and so that the one who has repented

be made to be “of some account,” and that he be included in that year about which the Psalmist says:

“You will exalt the crown of the year with your goodness.”155 He then advances to sing: “You will

pay great heed to me in your plan and in your power.”156

3:7 “and let not mirth come upon it, nor joy.”

Since the holy man is fond of his companions, he prays that no one be joyful in his downfall,

or find any pleasure at all in this. For often, if we see someone hastening to do evil deeds, we might

pray saying, “May the things he has been striving for not come to pass.” In this frame of mind, the

153
In a complex, often convoluted way, Didymus is saying that “evil begets evil.” The idea is
consistent too with his often-expressed view that if our orientation is towards the good, then the
evil will cease to have a visible path: it will lose its reason for existence.
154
He might easily have said, “It only becomes grievous to him.” For Didymus believed that
Job suffered his sorrows with serenity borne out of his virtue. The holy man’s role is to give a
pattern or likeness after which others in their suffering may be led to chastening and correction.
155
Psalm 64:12, 65:11.
156
Psalm 137:3, 138:3.
 98

holy man also prays, and (without wishing ill) sings: “Let the deceitful lips be stilled, which with

arrogance and contempt speak what is unjust against the righteous.”157 What else would “stilling the

lying lips” mean but that the one who speaks unjustly, ceases, because the speaker recognizes such

<speaking> to be unsuitable?

Even this one <Job> then prays that no one be so perverted as to think that it makes joy or

cheer to sink into that state that leads to human weakness. The Savior himself says this: “It would

have been well for him, if that man had never been born.”158 In Ecclesiastes also it is shown that:

“Better than these both is the one who has not yet come into being.”159 If it is good for the one not

yet to have been born - that is obviously to say, by means of this birth - then it does not happen

without reason.

3:8 “But he who curses that day, will curse it, he that is ready to take in hand the great sea
monster.”

This prayer is for deliverance from the cause of those occurrences which, on the one hand,

are evil to those who come - out of their own <devices> - to the road of their origin, and on the other

hand, are toil to those who <come to it> for other <reasons>. He prays therefore that the cause of

human misfortune — which is really worthy of being accursed — fall under a curse. This is so that

even those who are within it might recognize that it is filled with curse, and they might flee it —

since they are cursed of God.

157
Psalm 30:19; 31:18.
158
Matthew 26:24.
159
Ecclesiastes 4:3.
 99

It is also well that he ascribes to the damning God no other agency of his than that one which

relates to his incarnation.160 Therefore, he did not say: “But he who curses that day will curse it.”

Nor did he continue: “the Creator,” or the “teacher.” Even these things do not follow. Rather, <he

said>: “he that is ready to take in hand the great sea monster.”

For since the devil (who is also called a sea monster) becomes the cause of the human fall,

for this <reason>, that it (i.e. the fall) might be put down, he lifts up the prayer and makes use of the

prophecy as follows, that “that one be destroyed who has the power of death, that is, the devil.”161

For in the purity of his soul, and moved by the Holy Spirit, he foresaw him (i.e. Christ) so that to the

holy ones also power might be granted to “tread upon snakes and scorpions and over every power

of the enemy,”162 and so that out of these things others also (having been made sober), might be

delivered from sin which stands in the way, and so that - on account of their progress in virtue, might

hear: “You will tread on the adder and the basilisk, and you will step upon the lion and the

dragon,”163that is, the devil. For concerning him, it is said: “Our adversary, the devil, prowls around

160
OÆkonom\a, here may mean, “incarnation,” rather than “economy,” or even “plan of
salvation.” For a rather comprehensive review of various patristic connotations to this word, cf.
G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, SPCK: London, 1959, pp. 57-67. He says: “. . . the
supreme instance of divine economy . . . was exhibited in the Incarnation, for which the word
“oekonomia,” without any verbal qualification, is the regular patristic term from the third century
onwards.” With Didymus, the soul is “sewn” to the body - as in Job’s case - in order to become a
positive example for others. Job becomes a “type” - sent to be a model of spiritual direction for
weaker souls.
161
Hebrews 2:14.
162
Luke 10:19.
163
Psalm 90:13; 91:13.
 100

like a lion, seeking someone to devour.”164 And again, “You have crushed the heads of the

dragon.”165

The <phrase> “is ready to” is appropriate, as it signifies the incarnation.166 For it was not

fitting to bring the devil to naught by means of unveiled divinity.167 Rather, it was by means of this

one (i.e. Christ)168 who became the temple of the Word, and who proceeded out of a seed which was

cheated and blocked by the devil. For it would have been the subject of boasting to him (i.e. to the

devil) if God had overcome him using unveiled divinity.

The various names for the devil signify his different operations, not his actual being. For

given his character, the devil is called adversary, evil one, lion, dragon, snake, monster, since his evil

is effected in various ways. Wherefore, the teaching of the Manichaeans is to be overthrown.169

3:9 “Let the stars of that night be darkened; and not remain, and not come into light; and let it
not see the morning star arise.”

164
I Peter 5:8.
165
Psalm 73:13; 74:13.
166
Here, the word is ¦nanqrfphsin, not oikonom\a.
167
Reminiscent of this is Gregory of Nyssa’s “fishhook analogy”:fbsin oÛk eÉcen ¦nant\a
dbnamiV •krVtå prosmÃxai t± toØ parous\‘ ka gumn¬n ßpostZnai aÛtoØ t¬n
¦mqVneian. . .Catechetical Orations, 24. The replication by Gregory of the same concept and
vocabulary here as found in Didymus’ suggests another of the “links” between Didymus and the
later Greek fathers.
168
Instrumental, to mark the parallelism and contrast with “unveiled divinity.”
169
Like other fathers of the church, such as Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus rebuts the
Manicheans’ teaching that the devil - as devil - was created by God. Rather, like Nyssa, he
maintained its character to be freely chosen. (cf. Catechetical Orations, 7)
 101

The stars that came about on the fourth day170 - and which <remain> the same until the

consummation171 of time - belong to every night, and not to this one or to that one - so that the

attached word, “that,” leads us away from the “literal.” For each night does not specifically have its

own (i.e. other) stars, so that one might also speak of them - how they should be darkened. Overall,

how can the praying of a wise man not be out of harmony if he were to pray that the stars be

darkened, which God made to shine,172 and to pray on account of the critical circumstances which

have befallen him, and which are to be demolished by his steadfastness. As a result, (i.e. of what

I have said earlier), one must render these things in the <spiritual> way that was presented earlier

(i.e. by means of allegory).

And so, the holy man prays that people should not consider these things to be desirable which

are not actually desirable. For since sin-loving souls have some things <within them> that lead

<them> to sin — either a learned <pattern of behavior> or <inner> reckonings that lead to these

things (this <Job> calls “light”) — since in a certain way it produces an advance toward evil.

He prays that these things (i.e. enticements) not become an aggregate and be the rationale for

those who are on the road to evil, and not serve them as a point of departure, saying: “Let the stars

170
Genesis 1:16.
171
suntXleia is classically a subscription, or joint contribution, to public funds. In its usage
in patristic times, it comes to mean, among other things, the consummation of the age, cf. St.
John Chrysostom, in pascha 5 (8.263a).
172
The implication is something like this: that if the wise and holy man Job were to curse the
night, and pray that the stars be darkened, tacitly he would be acknowledging that the creation
itself in some measure were evil. This would be to fall into the Manichaean camp. In fact, as we
have observed elsewhere, for Didymus, evil is not part of the original design of creation.
Therefore, Job’s “cursing” of the night must serve some other purpose - which we have
elsewhere described as a pedagogic purpose of “identifying” with weaker souls in this world.
 102

of that night be darkened.” He signifies by “night” the road that leads to the human condition. Let

nothing bright illumine souls, nor guide them on it (i.e. on the road that leads to the human

condition), since173 a fetter of many evils exists on it.

<The road> itself should not be lasting, since other rational beings turn from it on account

of the darkness. That is because <souls> find no inducement, nor will they become part of such

incentives that lead to it. The morningstar also should not break upon this same <road>. This

appears to be an illuminating thought, since he is persuaded that it is necessary that they find favor

in this road. For often one who loves sin will persist in his error, either because he finds pleasure <in

it> or because captivating thoughts awaken <within him> on the basis of which he reckons himself

not to err.

3:10 "Because it did not shut up the gates of my mother's womb"

The cause of the curse now appears, saying - as he does - wherefore, it is not in keeping with

the perceptible night. But it <is in keeping> with the condition we have mentioned that leads to life.

For if <the night> had not provided the opening for these things, then the "gates of my mother's

womb" also would not have opened, which means: "Then this sorrowful life would not have come

about, and through the sin of such a ?,174 original sin would not have resulted. If this were the case,

that one who "holds on" <here> on account of the plan of salvation would not have stayed in this

173
In later Greek, Êna will frequently mean “since,” rather than “in order that,” (cf. Liddell
and Scott, Greek Lexicon, II, 1,2 and Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, 8.
174
A lacuna, regrettably, in the text prevents our fuller understanding of an important passage.
What we have here translated as “original sin” is literally “the sin of birth.” What original sin
meant with Didymus is different, of course, from what it comes to mean, certainly, in an
Augustinian theology.
 111

condition [human].

The blessed Paul also knew this, when he said: "It is better to depart, and be with Christ."

"To remain in the flesh is more necessary for you." The one (i.e. the "holding out in this life")

is good with respect to some thing <else>; while the other (i.e. the departing) exists well

unconditionally. For it is blessed to be outside this life. For this reason, thus, Jesus says to his

friends: "You no longer belong to this world, but I have chosen you out of it." For it is better not to

have been tested, in the first place, with

such a road, even if one should chance upon it, on account of the plan of salvation. It would be

especially good if no one needed a physician, (being healthy). For that

would have as its result that one would no longer be in the same condition in which one conforms

even to sorrows, and unwelcome things, as <Job> adds in the following.

3:10 "For it would have removed sorrow from my eyes."

He is not only indicating the sorrow which afflicts him and surrounds him, but also that he

saw many ruined. For the eye of the just man is encumbered by lawless works, done by careless

people. To have to submit to life, in itself, is no small sorrow . . . From the unjust things, all these

things have . . . which did nothing, since it produced no evils. But even Habakkuk emits such a cry,

when he says: "To what end have you shown sufferings and toils to me, and to regard misery and

godlessness?"

3:11 For why didn’t I die in the womb? Or why didn’t I come forth from the womb and die
 112

immediately? And to what end did my knees support me? And to what end did I suck the breasts?

As it seems, he (i.e. Job) seeks - like Jonah - to avert the divine plan191 that exists on behalf

of those it helps. Moreover, he also demands a teaching on the judgments of God. This is

characteristic of the just, who are not completely ignorant of such things, but who personify a role

in their words so that others might learn <from it>. 192

At any rate, Jeremiah puts forth a question <to God>: “You are righteous, Lord; but I shall

speak to you with respect to your judgments.”193 This is a proof that he knows what is taking place

with those about whom he asks: “How does it happen that the road of the impious prospers?”194 The

judgment of God in reality takes many hues: when the unjust prosper, while the just are straitened

and “eat dirt” [partake of what is foul] - like Jeremiah himself - who is so holy that he was made holy

from his mother’s womb,195 but had to suffer such things as even to be thrown into a cistern of

mud.196 But even Lazarus and the rich man - (the former suffers ill, the latter lives with the greatest

luxuries),197- bring out sharply the inscrutable judgments of God. This he (i.e. Jeremiah) calls

191
oÆkonom\a
192
Didymus means that Job is not despairingly cursing the day of his birth. He is assuming a
role, that of frail mortal beings, in order to identify with them and to expose them to helpful
teachings of the “divine plan.”
193
Jeremiah 12:1.
194
Ibid.
195
Jeremiah 1:5.
196
Jeremiah 45:6.
197
Luke 16:19.
 113

“prospering” - according to the opinion of many. Thus, not out of idle talk, but for the instruction

of others, the blessed one pursues such things. To this belongs therefore also what is said in one of

the Psalms: “How good is God to Israel, to the upright in heart. But my feet were nearly overthrown;

my goings about almost slipped. For I was jealous of the lawless ones, when I contemplated 198the

peace of sinners.”199 That <the Psalmist> does not doubt, though, is clear. For he does say, “How

good is God to Israel.” These things cause those who have an upright heart to think. He himself,

however, he represents as tottering, even though he is steadfast. But he takes the role200 of those who

are morose, so that the words of instruction - later - should follow upon the words of doubt.

At any rate, by inquiring, Job also wishes to learn from God the reason for such a course of

life - for this <reason> he steps forth in this role. For he indeed does speak as one undertaking to

know the reason for this course in the body. For there are those who will fall into so much evil that

they pray for union with the body, and for those as helpers who come as a result of the divine plan.

For this reason, he utters the word cited here: “For why did I not die in the womb of my mother?”

Holy persons - out of piety - pray to be entrusted with the help of the weaker ones. For this very

reason, he himself says the following: “Why didn’t I come forth from the womb and perish

immediately?” Likewise also: “To what end did my knees support me? And to what end did I suck

the breasts?” For the holy one preferred that illness would not afflict any rational beings, so that pure

ones would not need to come in succession <to earth> for a way of healing <to those who are on

198
Didymus here uses the word qeorXw - the Neo-Platonic and Christian Alexandrian term
(e.g. Clement of Alexandria) for the “contemplation” of God.
199
Psalm 72:1 (73:1).
200
Literally, the mask - as in theater.
 114

earth>.

This phrase is also apt: “Why did my knees support me?” - which signifies a journey of life.

For some <people>, life <here on earth> came about as a consequence of their own blunders. But

to the holy ones, <life> happened not because they had to give an account of what they had done,

but because they were carrying out a divine plan.

3:13-14 “Now I should have lain down and been quiet. I should have slept and been at rest,
with kings and counselors of the earth.”

For if, he says, on behalf of those who are in need of healing, such a series <of things> and

such a train <of events> had not occurred, leading me on the road up to this situation. This means:

“if in my mother’s womb I had immediately died and had been taken away without ever leaving the

womb,” and “if my knees had not supported me,” and if I had not sucked the breasts,” which is to

say, “if the toilsome divine plan had not been taken in hand by us, then I, lulled, would have been

at rest. This, in turn, means, “I would have had rest, and would have spent my days in the same way

as the divine and heavenly rational beings pass the course of life.” The kings and counselors have

mastery over the land of the meek, of whom it is said: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit

the earth.”201 We take “kings” to be those in authority, “counselors” as those of a lower rank, whom

the kings command. A comparable analogy is embraced in the gospel parable, whether <“a master

201
Matthew 5:5.
 115

takes charge> be it over ten cities, or five.”202

3:14 “. . . who gloried in their swords.”

It is not the case - as some might suggest it to mean - that the holy one was some militarist

who was inclined to live among such kings who according to what is close at hand are ever-ready

to wage war - thinking journeys of life with such things to be beautiful, but <rather> knowing that

“for the holy, the struggle is not against blood and flesh,”203 - as the apostle says - “but against the

rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this darkness, against the spirits of evil.”

Against these, those who lead a good life put on the whole armor of salvation to contend in the front

line. He wishes to lead his life in the midst of these without being tested by human birth.204 But one

of those peacemakers happened to be even the “commander of the <forces> of the Lord” - whom

Joshua, the son of Nun, had seen and to whom he said: “Are you one of us, or one of our

adversaries?”205 Being discerning, and not hasty, the holy one knows well that even the opponent

in a suit often “disguises himself as an angel of light.”206 These are now also haughty, not because

202
Luke 19:17-19.
203
Ephesians 6:12.
204
Ephesians 6:13.
205
Joshua 5:13.
206
2 Corinthians 11:14.
 116

they esteem vanity, but because they are rejoicing over the victory over the adversaries, and rejoice

in God <over this>.207

3:15 “Or with rulers, who <possessed> much gold, who filled their houses with silver.”

The <quotation> above - which properly has the same interpretation <as the preceding one> -

we understand to correspond to the role of the holy one. For <Job> considered it desirable to live

with the wealthy, not because he was greedy or a parasite - he who nobly bore the destruction of all

his possessions and goods, and accepted no <riches> from his friends because he was no flatterer,

and having free choice and an unshaken mind. Accordingly, he wished to spend his life among such

rulers and kings, for whom riches were an adornment. The admirable Paul writes to those who

believe themselves to have acquired a good wealth: “Already you have become rich. Without us,

you have become kings. I wish that you had become kings, so that we might be kings with you.”208

For these <rulers> possess “much gold,” which signifies pure thought. Being pure

themselves, they approach in a pure way the light of knowledge. For these very same ones have also

“filled their own houses” with that which corresponds to <their pure> nature, namely with the

spoken word. They have, as a result, adorned the surpassing purity of their mind by their

participation in the Word. For they have nothing to do with such a spiritual state of mind as that one

207
Luke 1:47.
208
1 Corinthians 4:8.
 117

in which Job - on account of the divine plan - has come.

On account of his communion and sojourn with humankind, such a clear mind <as that of

Job> has no likeness with such a situation. Wherefore, this <state> is to be wiped clean, since it is

not sin, but something else, some accident, which has come about thanks to his helping others.

3:16 “Or I should have been as a miscarriage from my mother’s womb, or as infants who never
saw light.”

To this can be added the verse, “To what end did I suck the breasts?” - spoken in the midst

of those <verses> from, “Now I should have lain down and been quiet,” to “who filled their houses

with silver.” It may, then, have the same sense as the earlier citations. For just as it does not appear

desirable <to Job> to have been born, so it would even please him to be “a miscarriage,” so that he

no longer takes part in the fullness of the course of life and affliction which happens after such birth.

Or, if he even becomes a small child, he turns back, so that from childhood he should not reach the

stage of adulthood.

For, in reality, such a thing is not without difficulty - and would be surely worthy of

investigation: that whereas <on the one hand> these do not come into life, the others die right after

being born. So, the philosopher examining <these things> infers <them> not to happen accidentally,

for it just so happens that God is just and good and God has “ordered all things with reason, order,

measures, and weight.”209 The holy man himself knows this judgment. Not without care, he speaks

209
Wisdom of Solomon 11:20.
 118

about it. But, <he does so> so as to praise the better condition, and because he believes that it is

preferable.

3:17 “There the ungodly have burnt out the fury of rage; there the wearied in body rest. The
eternal <ones> are of one accord.”

The entire succession of things said by Job strives after the divine purpose and bring forth

teaching on the various kinds of human births. For treating of his heartfelt prayer not to associate

with the human way, and not to have been born, or right after birth to have been freed from this life,

he brings forth even a certain motive now, teaching that being born is pleasing to the opposing

powers and sought after by them not a little. For his discourse has shown that on account of their

trespasses souls have happened to have a differing genesis <of life>. Yet the devil and those with

him, love sin, so as to arouse to evil those who give themselves up to it(i.e. to sin). He explained

this very thing, saying: “There the ungodly have burnt out the fury of rage.” By “there” he is

indicating the other world in distinction to this one, as in this <word>: “Naked came I from the

womb of my mother, naked will I return there.”

Still, for all that, if some such thing is also pleasing to the evil powers, God foresaw it when

the world was established, and gave laws to each <person> to hinder them in sinning, so that those

living in this body might consider heavenly things and in like manner yearn after life there, so that

the one weary and bruised in body from wrestling with evil <here>, might <at least there> find rest.

For this is what is signified by, “There the unwearied in body rest.”
 119

For when the holy have pleased <God>, on account of many afflictions on earth in which

they have been bruised in body, but not in spirit, <then> they have a cessation <of their afflictions>

in a way parallel with the angels, who happen also to be eternal.210 But if the latter are eternal, and

if their cessation is parallel, then it is clear that souls also are eternal. For since they are immortal

and despise the transitory things, they also possess the things of eternity.

It is to be noted that “eternity” is used in many ways. In one sense, it signifies that which has

no beginning and no end, as in the <phrase>, “God is eternal.”211 For God is called eternal since his

existence has neither beginning or end. Yet, that “eternal” is somewhat different of which it was

said: “That which cannot be seen is eternal.”212 For these things are not eternal in the way God is,

but rather because they do not fall away and always remains in the same <state>. Still different is

that “eternal” when compared against the present, of which it was said: “The children of this age are

more shrewd in their own generation.”213 But, the time which stretches out over a life of a person

is said to be “an age.” At least this is laid down about the Hebrew who did not wish to be freed in

his seventh year: “He shall be your slave forever.”214 For he does not remain always a slave of a man

even after his death. In this sense, Paul also writes, signifying that “If meat is a cause of scandal to

210
Interesting that Didymus uses the expression, “happen to be eternal,” when he speaks of
angels. Is it really open to question that angels would be eternal? But we remind ourselves that
Origen taught that the angels are souls or minds which revolted against God only slightly, as
distinguished from the demons who sinned more deeply. “Each in turn received the reward for
his individual sin.” De Principiis, I, 8,1.
211
Genesis 21:33.
212
2 Corinthians 4:18.
213
Luke 16:8.
214
Deuteronomy 15:17.
 120

my brother, I will not eat meat forever,” instead of “in my life.”215

3:18 “They have not heard the voice of the tribute collector.”

For this age in which <Job> came - and in which he lives - is filled with taxes. <This is> on

account of a divine plan. For there are many who have come under the yoke of sin and furnish

tributes and taxes to the adversary. The prophet Jeremiah lamented that Jerusalam had become

indebted through these tributes, saying, concerning her: “She that ruled over the provinces has

<become encumbered with> tribute.”216 She who is the gathering place of believing souls, or . . .

who surrenders her own freedom to the cruelest tyranny . . . these holy ones show also the <word of

the> gospel when . . .

It is <characteristic> of kings not to be encumbered by tribute. These <kings> then - released

from fleeting things - either because they have not had the experience of these things, or even after

they have had this experience, because they are beyond these things - either way, they are beyond

the tax of foreigners, since with those who bring about the attempt . . . [lacuna]

3:19 “The small and great are there, and a servant that feared his lord, and has met with a

215
1 Corinthians 8:13.
216
Lamentations 1:1.
 121

shadow.”

The preceding shows <that God’s> conduct of affairs is without regard to <the station of>

persons. For the Lord comes to this earthly life in no other way than as a servant or as the poor. So

in the following: “Some king or tyrant”217, Wisdom declares, that <these kings or tyrants> “have not

had a different beginning of existence <from others>.”218 “There is for all <persons> one entrance

into life, and a common departure,”219 even if it is different with respect to the kind of motion <in

and out of it>. These did not come into being differently. But even the servant, who is doing hard

service for the master will - even though he is not a master - but servant of a master throughout his

entire road <of life>, will encounter a shadow. <This is> so that he might be led up out of this

shadow which has symbolic meaning - from the laws which have been given here <on earth>, and

thence to the heavenly realm.220

It can be taken in a different way; in this transitory life a difference was established between

small and great and slave, because greed brings about this very cunning. But in the coming age, Paul

217
Wisdom of Solomon 12:14.
218
Wisdom of Solomon 7:5.
219
Wisdom of Solomon 7:6. The word “common” here does not simply mean something
ordinary, but rather something which is shared equally by all, with no special conditions.
220
As Henrichs observes, Didymus would have been thinking here of the law as a shadow of
the heavenly realm, which is to come, (Hebrews 10:1ff). cf. Albert Henrichs, op. cit., p. 229.
Didymus indeed does refer elsewhere to the law as “shadow,” cf. De Spiritu Sanctu, 150, 5-6;
and 250,5 and 8.
 122

says there is “neither male nor female, nor slave nor free.”221 By the same token, he could have said,

“neither rich nor poor,” but <rather> the exposing of the works according to which it will happen

that the one who in this life is small or a slave, there is thought of as great and free. For he says, “I

saw slaves upon horses and masters who went on foot <like slaves>.222 Everything <which here on

earth> is taken to be great, there, will be found to be punishment.

Perhaps it is even possible so <to understand it> that thenceforth that which is great in each

thing - great as to virtue - there also will be found <great>, and so also with the small things. In this

sense, even that which Ecclesiastes offers is to be unfolded (i.e. “interpreted”): “Wherever the tree

should fall, there it remains.”223 With “tree” he speaks of the person who, if he has fallen into this

punishment - which is to say - if the end of this living is in acts of sin, so it (i.e. his “living”) will be

there. But if in virtue, then just so. For “all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that

each may be given recompense for what has been done in the body.”224 Even the servant, who

thoughtfully serves God is there happening up on a shadow and rest since he has escaped the fire of

life.” The thoughtful son will be saved from the fire.”225 He will not be consumed by the fire, as

with those in the parable226 who did not take seeds into the deep (soil) and they fell on the blazing

of sin. This promise is spoken to David in the Psalms: “The sun will not burn you by day, nor the

221
Galatians 3:28.
222
Lacuna, which is filled by reference to Ecclesiastes 10:7.
223
Ecclesiastes 11:3.
224
2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 14:10.
225
Proverbs 10:5.
226
Matthew 13:5-6.
 123

moon by night,”227 which we have not literally found (here). He himself, being just - while

overpowered by a visible fire, yet was not subdued by the fire of sin. For it is common both to the

just and the unjust to be on guard against those things happening outside of them, but it is peculiar

to the good to evade the fire that comes from evil.

3:20-22 “For to what end is light given to those in bitterness, life to the souls who are in

pain? Those which long for death and it does not come upon them, though they dig for it as for

treasures, and rejoice greatly when they find it <hit the mark>.

The holy one examines closely what is hidden, as well as <whatever> is not an evident

judgment of providence - so as to teach those who will listen. This is firstly so that they not be

dissatisfied with what occurs, and then that they know that it comes from God, lest they think they

think the cause for these things coming into being to be either accident or fate. For the mishaps

which follow people are of many sorts, so that the one lives in poverty, the other is changed from

riches to poverty. And yet there is a difference in this. The one is in different kinds of distress,

another however in evil, and since not only the common folk experience such testing, but also the

good, he inquires after the judgment <of providence>, asking: “To what end is light given to those

in bitterness?” For if he knows also this, then he wishes that we at least be patient <in suffering>

and so he teaches us that it is fitting that we should expect to receive the instruction on this from

227
Psalm 121:6, (120:6).
 124

God. He spoke also concerning those embittered on account of the injustices done by people: “To

what end is light given to those in bitterness?”

Jeremiah hints at something of the sort when he said: “I sat alone, because I was full of

bitterness.”228 However, he was full of bitterness because he was contemplating the inconstancies

and injustices among people. But even these (i.e. those who are inconstant and unjust) also suffer

distress. Or was Saint Paul not in distress when he said: “I have great pain and my heart is in

unremitting distress.”229 For might I pray230 that I be cursed, for the sake of my brothers, my kin,

according to the flesh,” who “on account of their turning away from the truth,”231 happen to be

outside of it? Moreover, they even yearn for death when they say: “It is better to depart and be with

Christ,”232 just as “digging for treasure,”233 they long for <death>. So one of the holy said: “Woe is

me that my stay has been lengthened.”234 And so Paul was to write about those in the like situation:

“Here they have no lasting city, but they seek the one that is to come.”235 Therefore, they are not

228
Jeremiah 15:17.
229
Romans 9:32.
230
eÛc`mhn - the imperfect in Hellenistic Greek frequently takes the place of (and has the
sense of) the optative.
231
Titus 1:14.
232
Philippians 1:23.
233
Job 3:21.
234
Psalm 119:5; 120:5.
235
Hebrews 13:14.
 125

enamored of life and are ready to die, as Saint Paul says: “Daily I die.”236 He wrote this <unusual>

thought because he is completely ready <to die>. One who clings to life237 would not say this.238 For

the holy ones believe239 that if they depart from this life, they will receive divine recompense.

Therefore, they are like “those who dig for a treasure,” even if the digging comes about as a result

of their labor.240 So then, just as the holy ones think that they are re-entering the kingdom through

many <toils>, nevertheless the hope lightens the toil - just so, also those striving in an athletic

contest work hard at many things because they have the crown of victory before their eyes. The next

verse <from Job> also applies to the same holy ones, when he says: “There is great rejoicing, if they

hit the mark.” None of the wicked departs with great joy - even if they <the wicked> are in difficult

circumstances and if because of these <adversities> they desire to leave life. For even if he puts

away his afflictions here <on earth>, yet chastisements that come as a consequence of the actions of

his life do close in <upon him>. Even when they (i.e. the wicked) depart, they take with them

236
1 Corinthians 15:31.
237
jil`xwoV, in classical times, has the sense of one who loves life, but in a cowardly way,
clinging to it. For Didymus, as we have seen, “despising life” is the virtue. This is not
necessarily in the way it would strike many modern ears. “Having contempt for life” for him is a
code word for having a greater attachment to that which is yet to come. It is fair to say that in
Didymus’ and Origen’s understanding, the person who has “died” to this world, continues to
participate actively in the affairs of this world, but has fixed the inner contemplation on heavenly
things - a posture which transforms the “here and now.”

239
In Herodotus, ¦p\stamai has the sense of “to be assured of,” “to believe.” In Attic Greek,
it is “know for certain.” Origen uses it to mean, “believe,” cf. John 1:16.
240
kVmatoV in Homeric Greek refers to that which comes about as the result of persistent hard
labors, as for example in the case of Odysseus. In the patristic period, it has the connotation of
spiritual disciplines. In the way Didymus uses it here it reminds us that Job is no “passive
victim,” any more than one would say that about Jesus’ passion.
 126

impulses of the soul, or appetites, or savageness, or other passions, all of which are firmly connected

or strengthened here <in this world> within <the soul>. On account of the chastisement that will

follow, they are not overly joyful. Then it also follows <that we should> understand this <saying>

as pertaining to the holy ones. Or, are they not greatly rejoicing, to be escorted by angels and to

attain Abraham’s bosom and the kingdom, and to receive this (i.e. the kingdom) in place of their

difficult circumstances which they experienced outside <the kingdom> and which as toils they have

endured for the sake of virtue? Even blessed David had these in his sight when - even though he was

a king - <he> reckoned life to be like a prison, and sang to God: “Lead my soul out of prison.”241

For he was not locked in a perceptible prison. It is also to be reckoned from the following words,

that he longed for deliverance from here. For he says: “The just will await me, until you deliver me.”

For this is equivalent to <the following>: “so that without us they should not attain perfection.”242

Those who truly have courage will also have the things promised. But if this is so, why should not

the holy people be exceedingly joyful - having attained the end of this life, at which point they will

receive the kingdom of the heavens?

3:23 “Death - for a man - is a cessation; for God hedges <us> in through it.”

If one wished to understand this according to the <sense which is most> at hand, it would be

241
Psalm 141:8; 142:7.

242
Hebrews 11:40.
 127

to say that for those who are in critical circumstances and toils, death is a cessation, since “God

hedges <us> in through it,” and <thereby> rebuts the contingencies <of life>. But whoever follows

<our> earlier understanding will in no way exaggerate if he says that not all things that die come to

a cessation, since the evil receive in turn their punishment. <Job> also noted this in passing, since

he did not say: “Death is for a person,” but “for a hero.”243 For whoever has courage and <dwells>

in virtue is not ensnared by death, being totally prepared for it and singing: “My heart is prepared,

“O God, my heart is prepared.”244 This very one will receive repose, receiving it in turn as the

promise. Even while suffering toils, he will find a cessation, because of that which “God hedges in”

through it (i.e. through death), on account of the sentence upon Adam which <applies> in common

<to all>, saying: “Earth you are, and to earth you will return,”245 being loosened for the future

through release from “grief and pain and sighing,”246 on account of hearing, “Go in the joy of your

Lord.”247

3:24-25 “My sighing has come before my food, and I weep oppressed by fear. For I
encountered the fear of which I was mindful, as well as that of which I was afraid.”

243
The word, in the epic tradition, is not just “man” but “hero,” as in the opening lines of the
Odyssey. That Didymus is thinking in some such way also about Job is suggested by his using -
in the very next line above - the word •ndre\a. This word (cf. preface) is of course
etymologically rooted in •nZr and demonstrates Didymus’ “take” on Job’s role as “moral
athlete.”
244
Psalm 56:8; 57:7.
245
Genesis 3:19.
246
Isaiah 35:10.
247
Matthew 25:21.
 128

Fear does not always signify emotion, nor spiritual goodness and perfection, but also

<actually> a “mean.”248 Neither “emotion” nor “spiritual goodness” correspond <exactly> to this.

<Rather> as one might say, <it is>someone who is nearer to these things on account of his usefulness

to others, rather than on account of the Fall. For if Saint Paul says: “I fear lest in the way the serpent

beguiled Eve . . .”249 <in this> he does not have fear in an affective way, nor is perfection and purity

signified in this, even if the wise Paul had it, but care for the salvation of others. <Here> he is

speaking about perfection: “Fear of the Lord surpasses all things.250 Concerning the affective things -

that they might not assail <us> - the scripture saying declares: “Do not fear their fear,”251 and “Do

not be afraid of those who kill the body,”252 “They were in great fear in that place, where there was

no fear.”253 And these things <are indicated> when it is said: “I weep, oppressed by fear.” But let

us see from the beginning (i.e. verse by verse) what has been expounded. “My sighing has come

before my food,” wherefore it is taught that other persons who are endowed with a delicate life and

who give themselves completely to self-indulgence and pleasure - considering nothing else - shout

248
Didymus here makes the traditional distinction between fear as the emotion and on the
other hand the proper reverence for things holy. But he develops another concept, a refinement
in fact of the former two. The “mean” is what is exemplified by those who have come “on
behalf” of others, cf. Commentary on 3:3-5.
249
2 Corinthians 11:3.
250
Sirach 25:11.
251
I Peter 3:14.
252
Matthew 10:28.
253
Psalm 52:6; 53:6.
 129

out through these deeds <themselves>: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow, we die.”254 But the holy

man - along with Saint Paul - says: “Who is weak, and I am not weak, who is made to stumble, and

I am not incensed?”255 Visible nourishment he takes in - not without a groan - this, on account of

human weakness, and not for pleasure. Rather, he ponders the pure and immaterial256 life and that

table which the Savior promised to his own disciples, saying: “that you may eat and drink at my table

in the kingdom of heaven,257 he bewails, and still taking this in, he sings with his thought. “My soul

longs and thirsts for the courts of the Lord.”258 Then because the holy man, however complete259 he

may be, knows that it is possible for a person to wander into sin so long as he is in life - and adds

to this: “I weep, encompassed by fear.” To weep in the midst of afflictions <shows> a vigorous

frame of mind, according to the verse: “Each night shall I bathe my bed <with tears>, and in my

weeping shall I drench my mattress?”260

254
I Corinthians 15:32; Isaiah 22:13.
255
2 Corinthians 11:29.
256
–àëïò comes also to mean “ascetic”, a meaning which would not seem to be entirely
supported by this particular context.
257
Luke 22:30.
258
Psalm 83:3; 84:2.
259
As in the gospels, the word tXleioV does not mean “perfect” in the normal sense in which
people nowadays tend to take that word. Rather, it functions here as an extension of žgioV -
“even so as to be perfect.” The context, once again, is Didymus’ belief that holy persons like Job
are “sent” to the earth in order to provide a positive example for those who are here to “chasten”
or purge their souls. Therefore, for Didymus, such a soul as that of Job’s would not be passively
awaiting but rather actively participating and preparing. One attractive, and possible,
connotation of the word tXleioV here is that combination of the contemplative and the active
which St. Athanasius and others use it to mean (cf. St. Athanasius, Commentary on Psalm 64).
260
Psalm 6:7.
 130

The holy ones do these things not puffing up themselves,261 but awakening their hearts so that

through these they may call upon God for aid, just as the blessed David, calling together an assembly

of his peers, also says: “Come, let us prostrate ourselves and fall down before him and weep before

the Lord who made us.”262

The concern about apostasy is a great good. Wishing the disciples to have this <concern>,

the Lord says: “Be watchful, for you do not know at what hour the thief is coming.”263 The holy ones

are no less vigilant throughout the trials that beset them, and do not give in to carelessness, but

prepare themselves for these <trials and tribulations>, fearing lest in preaching to others they

themselves should become remiss. And they do not excuse their stumblings. Not without heed for

that concern (their concern about their stumblings), they are ready to make preparation. On account

of this, even the blessed one himself always remains firm, bringing down the insurrections of the

devil. On the one hand, he was wishing not to be in critical circumstances, since human weakness -

whatever relates to its <human> limitation - does not bear an unlimited measure of afflictions, unless

a courageous attitude should overcome the weakness. On account of this, he continues: “For the fear

of which I was mindful came upon me, and of which I was afraid, <it> befell me.” Still, he was not

saying these things, cowering, but in the sense in which it has been rendered. For he had a fear - lest,

261
caun`w - a’ somewhat unusual word, and reminiscent, in this context, of fusi`w (“puff
up”) in 1 Corinthians 13:4. But cf. also Euripides, Andromache, 931, kakän gunaikän
eÇsodoi m’ apflesan, ži moi lXgousai tobsd’ ¦cabnwsan l`goul , “twas pestilent women
sought to me, and ruined, which spoke and puffed me up with words like these.” (Translation by
Arthur S. Way, Euripides, London, 1924, II.)
262
Psalm 94:6; 95:6.
263
Matthew 24:42, Luke 12:39.
 131

lingering in life - he should be touched by <the kind of> afflictions and misfortunes - which end up

bringing most <people> to their knees. For even if they (i.e. the holy ones) are unassailable they

<nonetheless> do not wish to bring on trials, lest either the adversary (i.e. the devil) should have still

greater punishment on account of them, or lest the human weaknesses - as we said - should make

them sink to their knees.

When even a helmsman, guiding a ship <dugout> straight forward, does not wish to be tested

against a storm, <it is> also lest he somehow might fall into misfortune. But that <the holy ones>

do not seek to avert misfortunes out of cowardice can be heard from one of them - who speaks for

them <all> in common: “God is our refuge and strength, a help in afflictions that have very much

found us.” Therefore, we shall not fear when the earth is shaken and mountains are moved into the

depths of the seas.”264

What the apostle says is in agreement with this: “Who will separate us from the love which

is in Jesus Christ?” Suffering, anguish, persecution, or famine,” and so forth.265 However, that they

submit - not “without perspiration”266 to these things, he adds: “But in all these things we are more

than conquerors through the one that loved us.”267 This is an example in the contested struggle, on

account of the victory that results. The <phrase> “I encountered,” is also appropriate, just as the

athlete encountered the wrestling match. For the devil does not contend with just anyone, as the

264
Psalm 45:2-3; 46:1-2.
265
Romans 8:35.
266
Job is consistent with his use of athletic metaphor for the hero Job.
267
Romans 8:37.
 132

Lord makes clear, saying to his disciples: “See, Satan has demanded to sift you, like wheat.”268 Even

<Job> encountered <fear>. For he was most prepared for the struggle, as even the circumstances

and the following commentary make clear.

3:26 “I was not at peace, or quiet, nor at rest; yet wrath came upon me.”269

By <all> of these things, <Job’s> preparation for his adversary is shown. For Paul also -

having the hope and the grace of the Spirit - and being watchful - took his stand in face of the

antagonist, knowing this, that: “For the holy, the struggle is not with blood and flesh, but with rulers,

with authorities, with the cosmic powers of darkness, with the spiritual forces of evil,”270 and with

the archevil one himself, the devil, who “goes about like a lion seeking someone to devour.”271

Although <Job> was alike watchful, and in <just> this way, the devil did not neglect to demand that

he should bring upon him, what he had brought upon him. <Job> calls this wrath, on account of the

afflictions, knowing that he was stuck with it <the wrath> - but not on account of evil. For he says:

268
Luke 22:31.
269
Didymus’ “take” on Job here seems to be this: that the holy one, Job, as a “moral athlete,”
is not at peace or quiet, or rest. He is “preparing” or training. While terms such as “peace or
quiet” would sound good to modern ears that evidently then is not the connotation of such a
phrase here - at least for Didymus.
270
Ephesians 6:12.
271
1 Peter 5:8.
 133

“I know that I shall appear just.”272 Elsewhere, it <scripture > seems to call afflictions, wrath. For

it says: “You have sent forth your wrath and it devoured them as stubble.”273 If we hear about the

wrath of God, we do not consider that to be his emotion - <understood> in some human <way>. For

such emotion cannot by its nature be sent, because it lies in the soul. The so-called wrath of God

will however be sent. For “you have sent your wrath,” which is the afflictions. For these are also

sent. He also then terms these things wrath, which have befallen him.

So this holy man stretched out such a narration - in which the judgments of God might be an

instruction - and godly mysteries. These we have set out274 as well as we could. It is clear that he

(i.e. Job) is not greatly distressed on account of what he has encountered, but even in these things

has the desire for godly contemplation275 and for heavenly longing.

4:1-5 “Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered, and said: ‘Have you not often been spoken to in
distress? But who shall endure the force of your words? For if you have instructed many and have
comforted the weak hands, and have raised up the failing with words, and have imparted courage
to feeble knees. But now that fear has come upon you and has touched you, you have been
troubled.’”276

272
Job 13:18.
273
Exodus 15:7.
274
"Setting out,” or “marking out” the parameters of his study was Didymus’ initial, stated
goal in the prologue.
275
Here Didymus points most clearly to his Alexandrian precursor, Clement, with his accent
on “godly contemplation.”
276
An almost uniquely Septuagint usage of spoudVzw to mean, “to trouble.”
 134

For every instruction and interpretation, there are principles. If these are sound, all things

go forward reasonably. But whenever the principles are not sound, many errors follow. This should

be <shown> from the example of heresies. For if one of the ungodly ones should reckon that the

Father existed before the Son, then many false things follow upon this unsound principle. He will

next assume the Son to be a created thing, one that is mutable - and not eternal, that it is impossible

for him to be an eternal, pre-existent being.277 If, however - according to the unsound hypothesis of

these persons - the Father exists beforehand, then the Son would not be eternal. Instead, it follows

that he is a “created thing” and a “fabricated thing,”278 from which it follows that he is divertible279

and changeable. If this is so, then - in his essence - he will not be God. Wherefore, if ever you

should fall in with unsound teachings, seek the principle of them. For if this should be overturned,

the whole of it goes away.280 Let a second example of this be set forth.

There are some who state the opinion that the Savior <only> appeared to be seen.281 It must

277
cf. Didymus’ writings elsewhere on the Trinity, De Trinitate I, 15; II, 6,7.
278
This is in contrast with gXnnhma (begotten, not made). The word “creature” while not
exactly ambiguous, does not perhaps sufficiently capture Didymus’ contrast between a Jesus who
is “created” and “made,” rather than “begotten.”
279
The adjectives “mutable and changeable,” represent a recurring hendiadys among the
Fathers, and in the Creed of Nicaea. In Origen’s First Principles I,2,10, it is “quoniam in
omnibus inconvertibilis est et incommutabilis.”

281
These are apparently the Docetists, whom Origen had also singled out in the opening
chapters of De Principiis, (I, 1,4): “this Jesus Christ was born and suffered in truth and not
merely in appearance.” But Didymus apparently also had in mind the Manichaeans, (cf. De
Trinitate, III, 21: “How would you know that Christ truly became flesh with a living soul, and
was not a mere phantasm, whereas the Manichaeans think that He had a body only in appearance
and the Arians that He was without a soul, if He had not said, ‘My soul is exceedingly
sorrowful,’ and showed a certain fear . . .”
 135

be ascertained, on what account he came to live among the people, and it is obvious that it was for

the salvation of human beings. If however, he were only apparently seen, and if the teaching only

apparently happened, then even the cross also and the ascension - upon which it follows that even

salvation only took place in appearance and not in truth. Wherefore, <all of this> follows as a

consequence of the absurd principle.

Even with the words of Eliphaz - which have just been set out - it is just this way. There are,

without doubt, two bases for the sadness282 which befalls humankind. One is on account of

correcting sins, the other because of showing forth the steadfastness and proven worth of the

afflicted.

This is the very thing the familiar saying signifies <when it says>: “Blessed is the man who

endures temptation,” because - being proven true - he shall receive the “crown of life,” which he has

promised to those who love him.283 And again, “Consider it all joy, my brothers, whenever you face

trials of any kind, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance, and endurance

<produces> character, and character, hope.”284 There are also expressions of the other kinds - <i.e.

punishment> - to show as a witness from the holy scriptures. For it says: “I shall bear the anger of

the Lord because I have sinned against him.”285 For he is saying that the onset <of afflictions> comes

about through sins. Affliction then is common both to the good and the evil, but the place of its

282
literally, sad countenance.
283
James 1:12.
284
Ibid.
285
Micah 7:9.
 136

origin differ.

Surely, at least, that which is in scripture is spoken of as “scourges” is inflicted upon sinners

by reason of evils they have brought to pass: “Many are the scourges of the sinner, but mercy shall

encompass the one who hopes in the Lord.”286 And again, “If his sons should forsake my law and

not walk in my judgments, and not guard my statutes and keep my commandments, I shall visit their

acts of lawlessness with a rod, and their sins with the scourge.”287 If the same misfortunes and the

same griefs and circumstances should be inflicted upon the righteous, they are not called “scourges,”

but “afflictions.” “Many are the afflictions of the righteous,”288 and, “in affliction, I remembered the

Lord.”289

But it also <has to do with> the righteous one who is in the greatest affliction - according to

the saying: “In all things, afflicted, but not crushed,”290 and it says: “And a scourge shall not draw

near to your dwelling.”291 The afflictions which come upon anyone, as said before, occur without

question on the basis of two things: either on account of punishment and chastening, or so that one

might bear it in a great-souled way292 and receive crowns for strength and courage. Not knowing

286
Psalm 31:10; 32:10.
287
Psalm 88:31-33.
288
Psalm 33:20.
289
Isaiah 26:16.
290
2 Corinthians 4:8.
291
Psalm 90:10; 91:10.
292
Aristotle, Ethics, 4,3,3ff. Aristotle devotes an entire chapter of his Nicomachean Ethics to
megaloyuc\a. The concept is likewise a key theme in several of Chrysostom’s homilies (cf. the
 137

this, the friends of Job - following the former way <of thinking> - thought that he was afflicted on

account of his having departed through sins. They certainly did not grasp the latter way, despite <the

fact> that they did not know any sins of Job. For how would that even be, when he gave witness that

each day he was boldly in the presence of God and carried in his sacrifices on behalf of his sons:

“Lest they have conceived evil things.”293 For no <sins> of theirs were apparent. Wherefore, he

performed his service also on account of their inner thoughts. But an even greater <example> of this

is that he also gave witness to God, saying that: “He <Job> was a just man, blameless” and so

forth.294 But likewise - as has already been said - the friend thought only in the former way, viz. that

the onslaughts were sent, and <he> did not dare to ascribe these things to a just man. They wished

to make the providence evident: that afflictions come upon <one> according to <one’s> deeds. On

account of this understanding of theirs, they said something that contradicts <the truth>. On this

account, even, God granted forgiveness to them and on behalf of their lack of perception, caused

<Job> to bring forth a sacrifice.295 This they did - not out of evil resolve - but rather to justify

providence. I have said this, even though they did not understand the exact <circumstances>. It is

also surely out of this opinion that the one who is first to speak says: “Have you not often been

spoken to in distress,” wherefore it is made clear that you yourself have often uttered words

concerning those upon whom afflictions have come, so that we have understood the <phrase>“it was

introduction to this translation).

293
Job 1:5. The goodness of Didymus’ Job is such that he sacrifices even for his son’s
possible sins of omission!
294
Job 1:1.
295
This, he actually did do, cf. Job 42:8.
 138

said,” in an “active sense,” as <for example, in the usage>, “it was carried out by you.” It is also

possible for it to be spoken in a passive sense,296 so that what is said is: “Now experiencing

sufferings perchance for the first time, do you have anyone speaking words of comfort to you?”

Then, the mZ is used instead of the oÛc\. For not only at that moment was Job encompassed <by

difficulty>. Probably he was in his afflictions for a longer time. Then he <Eliphaz> understood

differently the sense of the things spoken by Job, and - when he had heard the <words of Job>

making light of them, added: “Who might bear the force of your words?” You yourself have brought

much comfort; however, your words, which tend to make light <of the situation>, no one can endure.

This he said, unaware of the greatness of Job’s words. In truth, he took even him <Job> as an

analogy and said: “For inasmuch as you have instructed many,” and so forth, with which he makes

clear that “Whatever encouragement you have contributed to others, since you comforted those who

had surrendered, so to speak, to pain, regardless of which “you became zealous” - instead of troubled

- you have done so much to save and comfort the afflicted, that you have stretched out your right

hand to them, as it indicates in Isaiah with respect to the Lord: “beckon with the hand,”297 which

indicates harmony and sympathy. “To weak knees, you have imparted courage,”298 since he <Job>

supplies strength to people crushed by weakness through his attention to them. Whoever bows them

<the knees> has weak knees - in the sense alluded to: “whoever bows them to Baal,”299 whoever

296
paqhtikäV, Aristotle, Categ. 8,8.
297
Isaiah 13:2.
298
Job 4:4.
299
Romans 11:4.
 139

proclaims another god,300 whoever is a slave of the sin which he does. “But now suffering has come

upon you and has touched you.” By “has touched you,” is meant a great tightening in afflictions.

In addition to what has been said there, it is logical to consider that even worse than the afflictions

which crept in through circumstances were the inroad brought upon <him> through the words of his

friends. For in addition to the fact that his sufferings were without comfort, still more, their words

also, being vulgar, occasioned no small distress.

4:6 “Is not your fear <based on> folly, as well as your hope, and the evil of your way?”

While the spiritual <power> of the <sacred> writing301 testified to Job that he had shown no

folly before God, this one (i.e. Eliphaz) had a different “take” on those things that were oppressing

him(i.e. Job). He thought that [Job] was suffering on account of his sins. <For> he imagined that

he (i.e. Job) had uttered what he did, out of contempt <when he> said: “Is not your fear <based on>

folly - since you consider yourself righteous - as well as “your hope, and the evil of your way?” But

folly, he says, is also the hope you had that you would be perceived as righteous. For such things

do not occur to a righteous <person>. This very way will be called the way of evil by Eliphaz since

he is continually thinking that the blessed one suffers on account of sins. Thus he has also ascribed

300
ªteroV.
301
Here is an noteworthy combination of words, toØ sungranikoØ pnebmatoV. The sense
seems to be that the scriptures “give evidence” -- as opposed to those who think, along the lines
of popular imagination, that Eliphaz had the more “reasonable” understanding of Job’s “folly.”
For a similar use of the word, cf. Plato’s Phaedo, where sungranikäV ¦reÃn, has the sense, “to
speak like a book,” i.e. with “precision,” as evidence.
 140

folly to him (i.e. Job).

4:7-9 “Remember one therefore, who, being pure, has perished, or when were the true utterly302
destroyed? Accordingly, <as> I have seen those plowing wickedness, so those that sow them will
reap sorrows for themselves. From a command of the Lord, they shall perish, and from a breath of
his anger, they will be obliterated.”
Still holding the same notion that, on account of sin, Job had been beset by the trial of his

adverse circumstances, he says these things to him, believing that no one who is pure in life has

fallen into afflictions, and will be “utterly obliterated.” He speaks in a darkly foreboding way about

the destruction of children and money and possessions. For the phrase “were obliterated,” means

this to him. By way of comparison he refers to the bad and suggests <the idea> that they <always>

fall into misfortunes. <Here> he says something true, that “those sowing unjust things reap sorrows.”

He suggests <that we> consider the “payback,” which he says is sent from God. In response to this,

he is absolutely correct in his statement: “From the command of the Lord, they shall perish, and

from the breath of his anger, they shall be obliterated.” A similar word is found in Saint Paul: “who

will render to each one according to his works.”303

4:10-12 “The strength of the lion, the voice of the lioness, the boasts of the serpents were
quenched. The “ant-lion”304 has perished on account of not having food, and the lions’ whelps have
left one another. But if there were any truth in your words, none of these evils would have befallen
you.”

302
Literally, “with the whole root.”
303
Romans 2:6, 2 Timothy 4:14.
304
The “ant-lion” is not a lion, at all. Rather, it is a kind of dragonfly, who acts like a lion by
ambushing its prey.
 141

If even Job’s friends - <Eliphaz> among them - were proved wrong when they were disposed

<to think> concerning him that he had fallen into afflictions on account of sins, then they

nevertheless certainly have a human understanding (which however is not infallible). If we enter

therefore into their words, which are said out of <their> wisdom, we are not displeased with them

because we are disposed <to think> that they (i.e. Job’s friends) were <simply> not able to arrive,

completely, at the truth, according to what one should think.

<We see that> also from the conclusion of the <part> now cited: “If there were any truth in

your words,” he says, “none of these evils would have befallen you,” - wherefore, as we have said

this is neither properly nor intelligently expressed by him. For he holds this to be the sole cause of

his <Job’s> afflictions - that which I speak of <as coming about> through sin. He holds that the

changes a human <life> goes through are not void of understanding, when he says: “The strength of

the lion, the voice of the lioness, the boasts of the serpents were quenched.” This is expressed by

him in the genre of allegory.305 Many who were arrogant and thought very much about human things

fell into a change <of circumstances>, such as Nebuchadnezzar who from a kingdom came <down>

to the extreme <station> of a common man. But this is the sense of what was said by the rich man,

who says: “I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, you fool, this night they will take your

soul from you.”306 Therefore, on account of its being savage-hearted and haughty, the lion is

305
The word used here is tropolog\aV. Following Origen (Homil. Jer. 5:14), Gregory of
Nyssa defends the use of tropology as an allegorical, even mystical, reading of holy scripture, cf.
Johannes Quasten, Patrology, III, p. 266. Didymus uses the word to mean “allegory.” Didyme
l’Aveugle, Sur Zacharie: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes de L. Doutreleau,
Sources Chrétiennes 83-85, Paris, 1962.
306
Luke 12:18 and Luke 12:20.
 142

taken <as an example for Eliphaz> because he “trusted only in himself.”307 Wherefore, Saint Paul

also - thinking of Nero, said: “At my first defense, no one supported me . . . but the Lord stood by

me . . . and rescued me from the mouth of the lion.”308 But Jeremiah also says, “Israel is a wandering

sheep: the lions have driven him out”309 explains in the following who the lions <are>, saying: “The

king of Assyria first devoured him, and so forth. But also this, “God has ground down the teeth310

of the lions,”311 signifies the defeat of arrogant, savage-hearted persons.

“Lioness”312 could be taken to mean <a person with> the character of insatiable desire. <And

it is a well-known fact> that she has such a nature. For whenever she needs nourishment, she does

not roar lest those beasts which always serve as her nourishment should take flight. But <for the

sake of argument>,313 if this is also the nature of the male, yet it was mentioned on account of his

(i.e. the male’s) greater strength and with respect to his kingly and arrogant <nature>. And he has

made mention of snakes - speaking riddlingly of snake-like persons - that even these are destroyed

when a change <of circumstances> befalls them. These <people> are deceitful and work trickery,

concerning which <scripture> says: “I am afraid that - in some way as the serpent deceived Eve with

307
Proverbs 28:1.
308
2 Timothy 4:16-17.
309
Jeremiah 27:17.
310
Literally, the “grinders.”
311
Psalm 57:7.
312
The d¥ is adversative, completing the contrast between “lioness”here, and “lion” above.
313
There is no real doubt in Didymus’ mind as to the nature of the male, despite his use, in this
instance, of eÆ d¥. It is an appeal to a general understanding, rather than a dogmatic teaching.
 143

its trickery - your thoughts would be corrupted.”314 The “ant-lion” however is compared with an

arrogant and rash person, who, on account of his wavering and unsteady <character> falls away more

swiftly. It is said that this one (i.e. the ant-lion) is borne by a lion that has come together with an ant

- however not with the insect315 but with another, which indeed has the magnitude of a bear, yet it

is called <ant-lion>. The inquirers <into nature> say that the ant-lion — since his father is a meat-

eater and his mother is a grass-eater — is destroyed, perishes when he is unable to make use of

<any> one prey, because he is the descendent of both <kinds, a meat-eater and a grass-eater>. That

these things are so, let the reader judge.316

There are also those who take this (i.e. the ant-lion) to be the devil and persuasively say that

for the holy ones, he <the devil> is an ant-lion because of his weakness, but for the sinners he is a

lion since they “have given room to him.”317

“The lion-whelps have left one another.” This, he said, speaking riddlingly of the unruly and

savage people. For even lion-whelps are together as long as they are under their mother. But when

they have reached maturity, they part with one another. Thus even an unscrupulous and savage

person hides his wickedness as long as he has any advantage, a human one, I mean, alongside his

fellow human beings. However, when the thing for which he has striven comes to the moment of

314
2 Corinthians 11:3.
315
The diminutive form (zwbfion) of the word zèon is used here. In Patristic times, it has
come to signify an insect provided by God to feed the hungry.
316
Note: Ò ¦ntucfn, the active participle used as a substantive to denote “the reader,” (a
commonplace usage in Hellenistic Greek). Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Moses, 44.424.
317
Ephesians 4:27, “do not give room to the devil.”
 144

fullness,318 he despises319 his benefactor. By “true word,” is to be understood what proceeds from

honest dispositions. For “logos” is even in the soul. And this must be said: that it is not fitting to

believe the words of every character320 who is found in scripture, or their understanding, to be worthy

of significance. Certainly, in the gospels, the <words> of the Jews are void of understanding, and

even Nicodemus expresses himself in a way that is not sensible. For when the Savior said: “You

must be born again,” he said, “It is not possible for anyone to be born after having grown old, or to

enter into the womb of his mother a second time.”321 Therefore, one must not always expect

sensibility among every person found in the scripture.

4:12-16 “Will not my ear receive extraordinary things from him, with fear and the night’s
sound, fear fell upon people, horror and trembling seized me and greatly shook my bones, and a
spirit came before my face, and my hair and flesh bristled. I arose and did not recognize it. I
looked, and there was no form before my eyes, but I heard a breeze and a voice.”

Then <Eliphaz> expresses himself with more words. At first, it will seem to be with

encouragement; later with reproachful. It is as if Job himself became anxious,322 and that he had

318
The analogy seems to be that the lion also lies in wait until just the right moment before
springing upon its prey.
319
"thinks little of”
320
The word, from theatre, means a “role” which one plays. It presupposes our understanding
of Origen’s notion of a pre-existent soul, which is “sent” to the world in order to play a certain
“role.”
321
John 3:4.
322
Also, “zealous.” But in the Septuagint, the word has the special sense, “anxious.”
 145

suffered on account of his sins. For Eliphaz believed this right from the start, and in addition to

these things, that human affairs - even if they should be full of glory - experience much change. He

thought that someone hearing him might not pay heed to his words, and added these quotations, for

the sake of credibility: “Will not my ear receive extraordinary things from him.” <This is> all but

saying: “None of those listening should think me to be stupid. The ear of my understanding hears

wondrous things from him.” “From Him,” <here> means “from God.”

This indicates <God’s> supreme authority, as in <the following>: <I> myself <am> the one

speaking.323 And <it is found> in this: “The wise One himself brought evil things upon them, and

His law should not be frustrated,”324 obviously <the law> of God. For if human intelligence really

should give its attention to the things of God, it will be filled with fear, according to the saying: “I

considered your works and was astonished.”325 “Night’s dread” (i.e. a great obscurity) also falls upon

this very <situation>, out of which shuddering and fear befall the one who begins to consider any

of God’s judgments. Not just that, but also “the bones” of such a person (which <here> signify the

power of the soul) are shaken.326 This is (or, “this signifies) power of a soul. For all human

reckoning is utterly weak with respect to the accurate consideration of God. This very thing

Habakkuk also understood and said: “At the sound of the prayer of my lips, trembling entered into

323
Isaiah 52:6.
324
Isaiah 31:2.
325
Habakkuk 3:2.
326
Here is yet another example of Alexandrian allegory at work. Much like “silver” and
“gold” as allegorical “stand-ins” for, respectively, “speaking” and “thinking,” the “bones” are —
allegorically — an earthly token for a heavenly gift, “the power of the soul.”
 146

my bones.”327 That <person> therefore — as was said above — who desires to understand the

fearsome deeds of God, experiences a perception in his power of reasoning, which is inexact. This

is signified through <the words>: “And a spirit came before my face.” And it follows: “And my hair

and flesh quivered.” For a person endures no small torment if he should dare to take upon himself

the judgments and the wonders of God.

“I arose . . . and there was no form before my eyes,” so that its meaning is: “even if a person

should rouse himself to understanding, the exact sense - called “form” - escapes him.328 Comparable

to this would be: “a great depth, who shall find it out?”329

“But I heard a breath and a voice.” When one makes use of <one’s> intelligence, some

marvelous and faint traces330 of the administration which is from God are received - and one does

not have the power to grasp it in every way, and that is very completely understandable. For if Paul -

speaking in Christ - says: “O depth of riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable

are his judgments and inscrutable his paths!331 How much <more> will one exhaust himself who

327
Habakkuk 3:16.
328
God does not have “form,” if this means that He is “circumscribed” in terms of place (cf.
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, VII, 6). Nor can God be worshipped in anything
circumscribed by space and form: oÛ gr toiabthn ºgobme2a tÎn 2eÎn §Pein t¬n mornZn, »n
nas\ tineV eÆV tim¬n memim­s2ai (Justin, First Apology 9). Then, moröÞ is rather the image or
likeness of God, which (within us) can and is overshadowed by human pridefulness and sin
(Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 40, p. 161, 2).
329
Ecclesiastes 7:24.
330
By patristic times, •pZchma has come to mean merely a “faint trace,” as in an echo.
331
Romans 11:33.
 147

inclines toward the comprehension of the <the divine> by means of human reasonings?332

4:17 “What then? Can there be a pure mortal before the Lord, or a man blameless with respect
to his works?”333

Even in what was treated earlier, we have suggested that the friends of Job had a human

<way of> understanding. For it is indeed no small display of their understanding that although they

were kings, on the one hand they left their lands and on account of their sympathy for Job were near

at hand <to him>, even though - on the other hand - they thought that he was not free of sins.

Likewise, even if they posses <faculties of> human reasoning, still certainly they are also utterly

wrong. For as was said before, since they posit only one cause of afflictions, they think even Job to

have suffered on account of sins. They were led to this from a persuasive argument: since they are

considering the weakness of human nature. Therefore, even Eliphaz said the foregoing: “What then?

Can there be a pure mortal before the Lord, or a man blameless with respect to his works?”

This <idea of Job’s friends> is indeed persuasive. Yet if one should examine it - with one’s

thinking <faculty>, <then> one has <its> refutation. For if the one who falls into distresses is

assailed because of sins, then no one would be pure, and none would be beyond <such> distresses.

However, this is the line of thought of a <person in such straits>, whereas godly instruction teaches

332
In patristic writings, katVlhRiV connotes the apprehension of the divine by use of the
human mind, cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration, I, p. 13, 2: t­V toØ patrÎV
katalZRewV.
333
The interrogative form of the hortatory subjunctive.
 148

that even wicked persons who are completely in sin lead their own lives free from danger. Among

these is the rich man with Lazarus, who “daily feasted sumptuously, clothed in fine linen and

purple,”334 and until his last breath remained in a sweet way of life, while Lazarus was attested to be

a just person, yet had not rest here <on earth>. But concerning even the one hearing: “Fool, this

night your soul will be taken from you,”335 and “The things which you have prepared, whose will

they be?” - even he has not been put on record just because he has become intimately acquainted

with dire circumstances.

And this is what the divine Word teaches, even if this one (i.e. Eliphaz) expressed it in a

human manner: that even the pure one (i.e. a mortal)336 certainly was not such before the Lord. This

is shown by the <verse>: “Stars are not pure before him,”337 and by that one of the Psalms <which

says>: “No one living will be justified before you.”338 For he did not say: “No one will be justified,”

but “before you.” You will therefore find that all fall short before God, and that they have no

superiority <to God>. For Moses, “who however was instructed in all wisdom of the Egyptians,”339

says: “I am not worthy to speak, before yesterday, neither before the third day, nor since you began

to speak to your servant.”340 For when the superior is present, he appears to be less. Or, as he says

334
Luke 16:19.
335
Luke 12:20.
336
The phrase came to mean “baptized.”
337
Job 25:5.
338
Psalm 142 (143):2.
339
Acts 7:22.
340
Exodus 4:10.
 149

in another connection: “I am not eloquent.”341 But even Abraham, who was counted “a friend of

God,”342 says: “Since I began to speak to my Lord, I am earth and ashes.”343 He does not lower

himself once for all, but “after he began to speak to God.” If “mortal” and even “man” will be

spoken in a parallel <fashion> by Eliphaz, then we consider the expression more accurately and say

that “mortal” can refer to a woman. The word, “man,” however is not said about every human being.

4:18-20 “If he does not trust his children, and perceives some crookedness in his angels . .
. but as for the inhabitants of clay houses, out of which we also - out of the same clay - have come,
he struck them in the same way as a moth. And from morning to evening they are no more.”

From the weightier <argument>, he (i.e. Eliphaz) wishes to deduce <his> proof and make

it believable - that all humanity is under sin. He says “that even the servants of God are not trusted

by him,” which is to say, they are not like the immutable <angels>. Rather, “among his angels, he

perceives crookedness.” But if this <is the case>, how much more with those that dwell in clay

houses.

Those also - who are from the same clay - he will not spare when they sin, <but> will inflict

his punishment upon them as with moths, and from morning often until evening they will not

withstand his judgment.

341
Exodus 6:12.
342
James 2:23.
343
Genesis 18:27.
 150

On the one hand, then, this is the whole thought of his words. On the other hand, one might

inquire how he (i.e. Eliphaz) holds an opinion concerning the apostate angels, in whom - he says -

God has observed crookedness. Besides which, let it be said, that inasmuch as he is an intelligent

man, he (i.e. Eliphaz) knows that the angels are not by nature good, but changeable. It is not absurd

<to say> that even people who are possessed by demons, have given him this idea, concerning which

the divine teaching says: “The angels, however, who did not keep to their own place, he kept in the

gloom.”344

However, he says that the people inhabit “clay” — that is, “material” — houses. More

simply, he says, “that people arise from the same clay.” For the soul is not also from clay, since the

body is said to be clay. “He struck them in the way <one does> a moth.” <With this> he signfies the

punishment which will be inflicted upon these - the paltry <folk>. This is made clear in the book

of wisdom.

<lacuna>

But even the prophet says: “The prince begs, and the judge spoke peaceful words: it is the

desire of his soul. And I will take away their goods like a devouring moth, and as one who acts by

a measuring rod on a day of visitation.”345 Wherefore, the unexpectedness and suddenness of

punishment and judgment is made clear. For this is what is signified by “measuring rod.” For if “he

344
Jude 6.
345
Micah 7:3.
 151

does not inflict his wrath each day,”346 but “renders to each one according to his works,”347 he does

this with his measuring rod, with which he mingles good things.

4:20-21 “They have perished because they cannot help themselves. For he blows upon them
and they become parched. They perish because they have no wisdom.

Holding still to the same premise by which he (i.e. Eliphaz) believes that the <present>

circumstances have come to pass on account of sins, he also says these things. Since <people> could

not help themselves through virtue and repentance of their evil deeds, afflictions followed upon them

(i.e. the evil deeds). He suggests <us> to consider this: “Since they (i.e. the people discussed above)

— through weakness — were not able to shake off the harshness of those things that had come upon

them, they perished and showed the worthlessness of human strength. Indeed, the following appears

also to signify this: “For he blows upon them, and they become parched.” For indicates that it

required no extreme assaults against them, but solely one that “breathed upon” them. This was

sufficient for their murder, which he called their destruction. Having begun with the same afore-

mentioned sense, he adds to it: “They perish because they have no wisdom.” He recognizes that <in

this way> many wise people have come into extreme distresses.

346
Psalm 7:12.
347
Romans 2:6.
152
 153

Bibliography

Adorno, Francesco Protagora nel IV secolo d. C. Da Platone a Didimo Cieco. In: Protagora,
Antifonte, Posidonio, Aristotele, Saggi su frammenti inediti e nuove testimonianze da papiri
[Accad. Toscana La Colombaria Studi 83: Studi e testi per il Corpus dei filosofi greci e latini 2].
Firenze: Olschki (1986) 9-60

Angeli, A. Accessione a Idomeneo - BCPE 14 (1984) 147

Bentivegna, G. L’effusione dello Spirito Santo nel pensiero di Didimo il cieco (H 398). In: Credo
in spiritum sanctum, I (cf. 1984, 132) 209-217

Béranger, Louis Études sur la christologie du De Trinitate attribué à Didyme l’aveugle, Lyon:
Facultés catholiques, thèse de théologie, 1960. 368 pp. polyc.

Béranger, Louis Sur deux énigmes du “De Trinitate” de Didyme l’Aveugle - RechSR 51 (1963)
255-267

Bienert, W. A. “Allegoria” und “Anagoge” bei Didymos dem Blinden von Alexandria [PTS 13].
Berlin: W. de Gruyter 1972. XI, 188 pp.

Binder, Gerhard - Liesenborghs, Leo Eine Zuweisung der Sentenz oÛk §stin •ntilXgein an
Prodikos von Keos - MuHel 23 (1966) 37-43

Binder, G Heidnische Autoritäten im Ecclesiastes-Kommentar des Didymos von Alexandrien -

RBPh 5 - (1979) 51-56

Binder, G. - Koenen, L. - Liesenborghs, L. Ein neues Epikurfragment bei Didymos dem Blinden -
ZPE 1 (1967) 33-44

Bogaert, M. Fragment inédit de Didyme l’Aveugle en traduction latine ancienne - RBen 73

(1963) 9-16
 154

Brock, S. Didymus the Blind on Bardaisan - JThS 22 (1971) 530-531

Brock, S: A new testimonium to the Gospel according to the Hebrews - NTS 18 (1972) 220-222

Chavoutier, Lucien Querelle origeniste et controverses trinitaires à propos du Tractatus contra

Origenem de visione Isaiae - VigChr 14 (1960) 9-14
Daniélou, J. L’Adversus Arium et Sabellium de Gregoire de Nysse et l’origénisme Cappadocien-
RechSr 54 (1966) 61-66

Didyme l’Aveugle. Sur Zacharie. Texte inédit d’après un papyrus de Tours. Introduction, texte
critique, traduction et notes de Louis Doutreleau. (SC 83, 84, 85). Paris: Cerf 1962. 3 vol. 1210
pp

[Didymus Caecus] Didimo il Cieco. Lo spirito santo. Introduzione, traduzione, note e indici a
cura di Celestino Noce [CTP 89]. Roma; Città Nuova 1990. 173 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didyme l’aveugle. Sur la Genèse. Introd., ed., trad. et notes par Pierre
Nautin [SC 233]. Paris: Ed. Du Cerf 1976. 335 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didyme l’Aveugle. Sur la Genèse. Texte inéd. d’après un Papyrus de
Toura. Introd., éd., trad., et notes par Pierre Nautin avec la collab. de Louis Doutreleau [SC 244].
Paris: Éd. du Cerf 1978. 364 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymus der Blinde. De trinitate, Buch I (gr. u. deutsch). Hrsg. u. übers.
v. Jürgen Hoenscheid. Meisenheim am Glan: Hain 1975. 239 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymus der Blinde. De trinitate, Buch II, Kap. 1-7. Hrsg. und übers. v.
J. Seiler. Meisenheim am Glan: Hain 1975. XVIII, 262 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymus der Blinde: Kommentar zu Hiob Teil I. Kommentar zu Hiob
Kap. 1-4. In Zusammenarbeit mit dem Ägyptischen Museum in Kairo herausgegeben, übersetzt
und erläutert von Henrichs, Albert (PTA, 1) Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag 1968. 333 pp.
 155
[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymus der Blinde: Kommentar zu Hiob (Tura Papyrus) , IV,1: Kap.
12,1-16,8a. Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung von Ursula Hagedorn; Dieter Hagedorn; L. Koenen
[PTA 33,1]. Bonn: Habelt 1985. 199 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymus der Blinde: Kommentar zu Hiob (Tura Papyrus) Teil II,
Kommentar zu Hiob Kap. 5,1 bis 6,29. In Zusammenarbeit mit dem Ägyptischen Museum in
Kairo herausgegeben, übersetzt und erläutert von Henrichs, Albert (PTA, 2) Bonn: Rudolf Habelt
Verlag 1968. 219 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymus der Blinde: Kommentar zu Hiob (Tura Papyrus) Teil III,
Kommentar zu Hiob Kap. 7,20c-11. herausgegeben, übersetzt und erläutert von Hagedorn, Ursula
- Hagedorn, Dieter - Koenen, Ludwig [PTA, 3} Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag 1968. XXI, 280 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymos der Blinde. Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Tura-Papyrus), 2.

Kommentar zu Eccl. 3-4,12. In Zusammenarbeit mit dem Ägypt. Museum zu Kairo hg. und übers
von Michael Gronewald [PTA 22}. Bonn: Habelt 1977. 231 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymos der Blinde. Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Tura-Papyrus), V:

Kommentar zu Eccl. Kap. 9,8-10,20. Unter Mitwirkung von G. Binder herausgegeben und
übersetzt von M. Gronewald [PTA 24]. Bonn: Habelt 1979. 172 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymos der Blinde. Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Tura-Papyrus), I:

Kommentar zu Eccl. Kap. 1,1-2, 14,1. Herausgegeben und übersetzt von G. Binder und L.
Liesenborghs [PTA 25]. Bonn: Habelt 1979. XXXI, 254 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymos der Blinde. Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Tura-Papyrus), I. 2:

Kommentar zu Eccl. Kap. 1,1-2,14 (Erläuterungen) von Gerhard Binder [PTA 26]. Bonn: Habelt
1983. XV, 208 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymos der Blinde. Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Tura-Papyrus), T.

3: Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes 5-6. In Zusammenarbeit mit dem Ägyptischen Museum in Kairo
unter Mitw. von Ludwig Koenen. Hrsg. u. übers. von Johannes Kramer [PTA 13]. Bonn: Habelt
1970. XIX, 103 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymos der Blinde. Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes T. 6: Kommentar

zum Eccl. Kap. 11-12. In Zusammenarbeit mit dem Ägypt. Museum in Kairo unter Mitwirkung
von Ludwig Koenen. Hrsg. u. übers. v. Gerhard Binder u. Leo Liesenborghs [PTA 9}. Bonn:
Habelt 1969. XVIII, 259 pp.
 156

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymus der Blinde: Kommentar zum Johannes-Evangelium (loT), Kap.
6,3-33. Hrsg., übers. und erl. von B. Kramer. In: Kleine texte aus dem Tura-Fund. In
Zusammenarbeit mit dem Ägyptischen Museum zu Kairo hrsg., übers. und erl. von B. Kramer
[Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 34]. Bonn: Habelt (1985) 58-103

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymus der Blinde. Psalmenkommentar Teil II: Ps 22-26,10.

Herausgegeben, und übersetzt von M. Gronewald (PTA, 4) Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag 1968.
257 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymus der Blinde. Psalmenkommentar (Tura-Papyrus), Bd. 2:

Kommentar zu Psalm 29-34 [PTA 8}; Bd. 3: Kommentar zu Psalm 35-39 [PTA 6}; Bd. 5:
Kommentar zu Psalm 40-44, 4 [PTA 12}. Hrsg. und übersetzt von Michael Gronewald. Bonn:
Habelt 1969/70. VI, 429; VIII, 327; 255 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Didymos l’Aveugle, Sur le Saint-Esprit. Par Mélétios Kalamaras.

Salonique: Rigopoulos 1973. [en grec]

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes. Lage I des Tura-Papyrus. In Verbindung

mit L. Koenen hgg. und übersetzt von G. Binder und L. Liesenborghs. Köln 1965. 123 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes. Lage 22 und 23 des Tura-Papyrus. Hgg.
von L. Liesenborghs. Diss. Köln 1965. 211 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus] Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Tura-Papyrus), IV: Kommentar zu Eccl.

Kap. 7-7,18. Hrsg., übers. u. erl. von J. Kramer. Kap. 7,19-8,8. Hrsg., übers. u. erl. von B.
Krebber [Papyrol. Texte u. Abhandl. 16]. Bonn: Habelt 1972. XVII, 169 pp.

[Didymus Alexandrinus (?)] Der Psalmenkommentar von Tura, Quaternio IX [Pap. Colon.Theol.,
I]. Hrsg., übers. u. erl. von Aloys Kehl. Köln-Opladen: Westdt. Verlag 1964. 223 pp.

Doutreleau, L. Études d’une tradition manuscrite: le De Spiritu Sancto de Didyme. In: Kyriakon.
Festschrift Johannes Quasten I 352-389 (cf. 1970, 80)

Doutreleau, L. Deux pages de l’In Zachariam de Didyme l’Aveugle restituées par la lumière
ultraviolette - REG 83 (1970) 90-93
 157

Doutreleau, L. Incohérence textuelle du De Spiritu Sancto de Didyme dans le Parisinus Lat.

2364 - SE 18 (1967-68) 372-384

Doutreleau, Louis Le “de Spiritu Sancto” de Didyme et ses éditeurs - RechSR 51 (1963) 383-406

Doutreleau, Louis Le “De Trinitate” est-il l’oeuvre de Didyme l’Aveugle? - RechSR 45 (1957)
514-557

Doutreleau, L. Vie et survie de Didyme l’aveugle du IVe siècle à nos jours - Les Mardis de Dar
El-Salam 46-47 (1959) 33-92
Ehrman, Bart D. Didymus the Blind and the text of the Gospels [The New Testament in the
Greek Fathers 1]. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press 1986. XII, 288 pp.

Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus and the adulteress - NTS 34 (1988) 24-44

Ehrman, Bart D. The Gospel Text of Didymus: A Contribution of the Study of the Alexandrian
Text [Diss.]. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Theol. Seminary 1985. 385 pp.

Ehrman, B. D. The New Testament canon of Didymus the Blind - VigChr 37 (1983) 1-21

Gesché, A. La christologie du “Commentaire sur les Psaumes” découvert à Toura - Univ.

cathol. Lov. Dissert. ad grad. mag. in s. Theologia, series III, t. 7 Gembloux, 1962, XXXII, 452
pp., hors-texte 2

Grant, R. M.:Greek Literature in the Treatise De trinitate and Cyril Contra Iulianum - JThS 15
(1964) 265-279

Gronewald, M. Didymos der Blinde, Psalmenkommentar (Nachtrag der Seiten 248/49 des Tura-
Papyrus) - ZPE 46 (1982) 97-111

Gronewald, M. ¦bdom­nta - ZPE 2 (1968) 3-4

Gronewald, M. Ein neues Protagoras-Fragment - ZPE 2 (1968) 1-2

 158

Hadot, Pierre: Une source de l’Apologia David d’Ambroise, les commentaires de Didyme et
d’Origène sur le psaume 50 - RSPhTh 60 (1976) 205-225

Hagedorn, Dieter; Hagedorn, Ursula Kritisches zum Hiobkommentar Didymos Der Blinden - ZPF
67 (1987) 59-78

Hagedorn, Dieter; Hagedorn, Ursula Neue Fragmente des Hiobkommentars Didymos’ des
Blinden? In: Miscella papyrologica in occasione del bicentenario dell’edizione della Charta
Borgiana Edd. Mario Capasso et al. [Papyrologica Florentina 19]. Florenz: Connellini (1990)
245-254

Hagedorn, Dieter; Hagedorn, Ursula Zur Katenenüberlieferung des Hiobkommentars von

Didymos dem Blinden - BASP 22 (1985) 55-78

Hagedorn, Dieter - Merkelbach, Reinhold Ein neues Fragment aus Porphyrios “Gegen die
Christen” - VigChr 20 (1966) 86-90

Hayes, Walter M. Didymus the Blind is the Author of Adversus Eunomium IV/V. In: Studia
patristica 17 (cf. 1981/82, 283b) III, 1108-1114

Henrichs, A. Didymos in koptischer Übersetzung - ZPE 4 (1969) 219-222

Heron, Alasdair J. C. Studies in the trinitairian writings of Didymus the Blind. His authorship of
the Adversus Eunomium IV-V and the De Trinitate. 2 Bdd. [Diss. Tübingen 1973]. X, 246 pp;
123 pp.

Heron, Alasdair The Holy Spirit in Origen and Didymus the Blind: a shift in perspective from the
third to the fourth century. In: Kerygma und Logos. Festschrift für Carl Andresen zum 70.
Geburtstag (cf. 1979/80, 132) 298-310

Heron, A.: Zur Theologie der “Tropici” in den Serapionbriefen des Athanasius - Kyrios 14
(1974) 3-24

Hönscheid, Jürgen Didymus der Blinde: De trinitate, Buch I [Diss.]. Köln: 1972. 239 pp.
 159
Junod, Éric À propos des soi-disant Scolies sur l’Apocalypse d’Origène - RSLR 20 (1984) 112-
121

Koenen, L. - Müller - Wiesner, W.

Kramer, Bärbel Protokoll eines Dialogs zwischen Didymos dem Blinden und einem Ketzer - ZPE
32 (1978) 201-211

Kramer, Bärbel; Kramer, Johannes Les éléments linguistiques hébreux chez Didyme l’Aveugle.
In: Alexandrina (cf. 1985-87, 200) 313-323

Kramer, J. Einige Bemerkungen zum dritten Band des Ekklesiastes-kommentars des Didymos -
ZPE 7 (1971) 188-192
La chaîne palestinienne sur le psaume 118. Specialia in Vetus Testamentum Origène, Eusèbe,
Didyme, Apollinaire, Athanase, Théodoret, I: Introduction, texte grec critique et traduction; II:
Catalogue des fragments, notes et indices. Par M. Harl avec la collab. de G. Dorival [SC
189/190]. Paris: Éd. du Cerf 1972. 861 p. in 2 Bd.

Lamirande, Émilien La masculin et le fèminin dans la tradition alexandrine. Le commentaire de

Didyme l’Aveugle sur la “Genèse” - ScEs 41 (1989) 137-165

Leanza, Sandro Sul Commentario all’Ecclesiaste di Didimo Alessandrino. In: Studia Patristica
17 (cf. 1981/82, 283b) I, 300-316
Lührmann, Dieter Das Bruchstück aus dem Hebräerevangelium bei Didymos von Alexandrien -
NovTest 29 (1987) 265-279

Lührmann, Dieter Die Geschichte von einer Sünderin und andere apokryphe
Jesusüberlieferungen bei Didymos von Alexandrien - NovTest 32 (1990) 289-316

Marchal, Gerrit Wijnand Didymus de Blinde en zijn interpretatie van het boek Job [Diss.
Utrecht}. Sneek: Doevendans 1977. 197 pp.

Martini, Carlo M.:Is there a late Alexandrian text of the Gospels? - NTS 24 (1977/78) 285-296

McKay, T. W.; Griggs, C. W. The recently discovered papyrus leaves of Didymus the Blind -
BASP 20 (1983) 59-60
 160

Merkelbach, Reinhold Konjekturen und Erläuterungen zum Psalmenkommentar des Didymos -

VigChr 20 (1966) 214-226

Moeller, Ch. Une contribution importante à la christologie - Col Mechl 47 (1962) 611-615

Moraldi, L. Opere esegetiche di Didimo il Cieco nei papiri di Tura - AtPavia 48 (1970) 401-407

Moraldi, L.: Paleographica atque manuscripta Dai papiri di Tura e di Afroditopoli alla Pseudo-
Filone - AtPavia 51 (1973) 402-409

Nautin, P. L’activité littéraire de Jérôme de 387 à392 - RThPh 115 (1983) 247-259

Orphanos, Markos A. L’âme et le corps humains selon Didyme l’Aveugle d’Alexandrie [AnVlat
21]. Thessalonique: Institut Patriarcal d’Études Patristiques 1974. 293 pp. [en grec]

Photiades, Penelope Notes sur un commentaire paléochrétien - NDid 12 (1962) 49-53

Photiadès, Pénélope Notes sur un commentaire paléochrétien [pap. In psalmos de Didyme

l’Aveugle]. In: Oikoumene (cf. 1964, 67) 55-59
Prinzivalli, Emanuela Codici interpretativi del Commento al Salmi di Didimo - AnSEse 3 (1986)
43-56

Prinzivalli, Emanuela Didimo il Cieco e l’interpretazione dei Salmi [SMSR 2]. Rom: Aquila
1988. 142 pp.

Pruche, B. Didyme l’Aveugle est-il bien l’auteur des livres contre Eunome IV et V attribués à S.
Basile de Césarée? In: Studia Patristica X/I [TU, 107] 151-155 (cf. 1970, 96)

Psalmenkommentare II: Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung II, hrsg. von

Ekkehard Muehlenberg [PTS 16]. Berlin: de Gruyter 1977. XXXIII, 398 pp.

Psalmenkommentare II: Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung III, hrsg. von

Ekkehard Muehlenberg [PTS 19]. Berlin: de Gruyter 1978. X, 293 pp.
 161

Reuss, Joseph Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. Aus Katenenhandschriften

gesammelt und herausgg. von Joseph Reuss [TU, 89]. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1966. XXXV,
494 pp.
Ioh I, I

Reynolds, Stephen Craig Man, Incarnation and Trinity in the Commentary on Zechariah of
Didymus the Blind of Alexandria [Dissertation]. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University 1966.
[dactyl.] - Summary in HthR 59 (1966) 453-454 [microfilm]

Riedmatten, H. De Une édition des fragments exégétiques de Didyme et d’Apollinaire sur le

Psautier - Aevum 52 (1978) 228-234

Roey, A. Van Didyme l’aveugle. In: Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques (cf.
52). col. 416-427

Roendeau, M. J. propos d’une édition de Didyme l’Aveugle - REG 81 (1968) 385-400

Sanchez, Manuel Diego El “Comentario al Eclesiastés” de Didimo Alejandrino. Roma:

Augustinianum 1990. 118 pp.

Sanchez, Manuel Diego El “Comentario al Eclesiastés” de Didimo Alejandrino - Teresianum

(Roma) 41 (1990) 231-242

Sellew, Philip Achilles or Christ? Porphyry and Didymus in debate over allegorical
interpretation - HThR 82 (1989) 79-100

Simonetti, Manlio Didymiana - VetChr 21 (1984) 129-155

Simonetti, M. Lettera e allegoria nell’esegesi veterotestamentaria di Didimo - VetChr 20 (1983)

341-389

Staimer, E. Die Schrift De Spiritu Sancto von Didymus dem Blinden von Alexandrien. Eine
Untersuchung zur altchristlichen Literatur und Dogmengeschichte. München: L. Zink 1960. XIII,
184 pp. [photographice]
 162

Swensson, Gerd I. God’s Ikon in Man’s History. A Study of Exegesis, Doctrine and Spiritual
Teaching in the Commentary on Genesis by Didymus of Alexandria, I-II [Thesis]. London 1985
244; 69 pp.

Tigcheler, Jo Didyme l’Aveugle et l’Exégèse allégorique. Etude sémantique de quelques termes

exégétiques importants de son commentaire sur Zacharie. Trad. de D. F. L. Van Weelderen-
Bakelants [Graecitas christianorum primaeva 6]. Nijmegen: Dekker en van de Vegt 1977. 196
pp.

Torjesen, K. J.:Interpretation of the Psalms. Study of the exegesis of Ps. 37 - AugR 22 (1982)
349-355

Treu, K.: Palaeographica atque manuscripta Varia christiana - (1976) 113-127

Winden, J. C. M. Van Didyme l’Aveugle Sur la Genèse I, 10. A propos d’une première édition -
VigChr 32 (1978) 60-65

Woodruff, P. Didymus on Protagoras and the Protagoreans JHPh 23 (1985) 483-497

Woodruff, P. Protagoras on the unseen. The evidence of Didymus. In:

Y •rca\a sofistikZ. The sophistic movement. Papers read at the 1st international
Symposium on the sophistic movement Athens 1982. Athens (1984) 80-87
 163
Abbreviations
Aevum Aevum. Rassegna di Scienze Storiche, Linguistiche e Filologiche.
Milan
AugR Augustinianum. Rome
AtPavia Athenaeum. Studi Periodici di Letteratura e Storia dell’Antichità.
Pavia
BASP Basic and Applied Social Psychology
HthR Harvard Theological Review. Cambridge (Mass.)
JHPh Journal of the History of Philosophy. Berkeley. Los Angeles
JThS Journal of Theological Studies. Oxford
Kyrios Kyrios. Vierteljahrsschrift für Kirchen - und Geistesgeschichte
Osteuropas. Berlin
MuHel Museum Helveticum. Basel
NDid Nuovo Didaskaleion. Catania (Italy)
NovTest Novum Testamentum. Leyden
NTS New Testament Studies. Cambridge
PTA Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen. Bonn
PTS Patristische Texte und Studien
RBen Revue bénédictine. Abbaye de Maredsous (Belgium)
RBPh Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire. Brussells
rechSR Recherches de science religieuse. Paris
REG Revue des études grecques. Paris
RSLR Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa. Florence
RSPhTh Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et théologiques
SC Sources chrétiennes
ScEs Science et Esprit. Montreal. Canada
SE Sacris erudiri. Bruges
SMSR Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni. Bologna
TU Texte und untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur
VetChr Vetera Christianorum. Bari
VigChr Vigilae Christianae. Amsterdam
ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bonn