Work dossier · summary and historical context
Didymus the Blind (c. 313–398), a leading Alexandrian exegete, wrote this fragment on 1 Corinthians, surviving only in catena excerpts. It reflects his allegorical and doctrinal reading of Paul, addressing a Corinthian denial of bodily resurrection. Didymus interprets Paul's reference to Christ's resurrection as a prototype for universal resurrection, insisting the risen body is 'incorruptible and spiritual' (ἄφθαρτον καὶ πνευματικόν), showing Origenist influence. The text is a fragment, not a continuous commentary, and its transmission depends on later catenists who selected passages for their own purposes, potentially omitting context or altering sequence. The source edition (khazarzar) provides no manuscript sigla or critical apparatus, limiting verification of provenance and completeness.
This fragment is significant for understanding late 4th-century Alexandrian exegesis of Paul, particularly on resurrection theology. It shows Didymus's Origenist influence in describing the risen body as 'incorruptible and spiritual,' anticipating later debates in Greek patristic thought. The fragment's survival in catena form illustrates how posthumous condemnation shaped transmission, making such excerpts key for reconstructing Didymus's thought.
Didymus the Blind (c. 313–398) was a prominent Alexandrian theologian and head of the catechetical school. This fragment on 1 Corinthians was likely composed in the late 4th century in Alexandria, a period of intense Trinitarian and Christological debate. The text reflects Alexandrian allegorical method and anti-Arian concerns. Didymus was posthumously condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) for Origenist views, which limited direct transmission of his works. The fragment survives only in catena excerpts, where later catenists selected passages for their own purposes, potentially omitting context or altering sequence. The Greek text is preserved in this form, with no continuous commentary extant. The source edition (khazarzar) provides no manuscript sigla or critical apparatus, so the reader cannot verify the fragment's provenance, completeness, or editorial interventions.
Apparatus · what the pipeline recorded
| Coptic | Rendering | Count | First |
|---|---|---|---|
| no glossary terms recorded | |||