International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Reinhart Ceulemans
KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 
[e-mail]
Biblical Exegesis under Macedonian Rule
In the first part of this paper I wish to document the ways in which the Septuagint text was 
transmitted and commented upon in the Byzantine empire under the rule of the Macedonian 
dynasty. Not only did in those centuries major changes produce themselves in the context of the 
handwritten transmission of texts (e.g. the μεταχαρακτηrισμός perseveres), but also important 
shifts in exegetical procedures took place (e.g. the transformation of compilatory exegesis). All of 
those aspects strongly influenced the Septuagint tradition, as I intend to show.
In the second part of my presentation, I plan to interpret those changes and confront them 
with the historical context. In particular, I want to show to what extent the transmission and 
interpretation of the Septuagint was linked to the court of the Macedonian emperors. They are 
known to have used a literary program to promote their person, politics and authority (the so-called 
‘Macedonian Renaissance’), but the contribution of biblical exegesis to that program has hardly 
been studied. In want to explore this line of research and will adduce concrete examples from a.o. 
the Octateuch, the Psalms and the Prophets.

---

258
Vasilije Vranić
Saint Xavier University, Chicago IL, United States; 
[e-mail]
The Biblical Exegesis as a Polemical Tool: 
The Melchizedek Tradition of 
Heb 7:1-5
in the Exegesis of Theodoret of Cyrrhus
Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, is arguably one of the most prominent theologians and 
universally accepted exegetes of the fifth century Christian Antiochene milieu. His various historical 
and doctrinal works include an extensive exegetical corpus on the Christian Bible. The value of his 
exegetical work is best attested by the fact that, despite the condemnation of his Christological 
works at the universal Council of Constantinople in 553 CE, his exegetical works remain a point of 
reference in the Eastern Church to this day.
In his Commentary on the Letters of Paul, Theodoret provided an interpretation of Heb 7:1-
5 reflecting the theological debates of his time and betraying his Christological provenance. There 
he argued that Melchizedek, an enigmatic king-priest mentioned in Gen 14:18-20, in fact had an 
ancestry and genealogy. He also argued against the perennial priesthood of Melchizedek stating 
that Melchizedek was a simple man, who had been born and eventually had died. This statement 
arguably put Theodoret at odds with the actual text of Heb 7:1-5. Theodoret’s commentary strongly 
emphasized the divinity of Jesus, juxtaposing it to Melchizedek’s humanity. The latter fact becomes 
interesting if we take into consideration that Theodoret wrote his commentary on Hebrews around 
448 CE. That same year Theodoret (a fervent supporter and the literary champion of the Antiochene 
Logos-anthropos Christology) reached the peak in his battle against the Logos-sarx Christology of 
the Alexandrians, which, he believed, overemphasized Christ’s divinity at the expense of his humanity. 
The ultimate question in my paper is, “Why does Theodoret in so delicate a time for his 
Christological disputes open himself to possible criticism about being at variance with the sacred 
Scriptures?”
I argue that Theodoret’s commentary on Heb 7:1-5 is a polemical dialogue with an existing 
Melchizedek tradition that has either directly or indirectly threatened his theological and pastoral 
interests. A comparison between Theodoret’s commentary on Heb 7:1-5 and Epiphanius’ Panarion 
55 suggests that the polemic was directed against the Melchizedekians.

---

259