The interpretation timeline

Exod 12:9

How this passage has been read — the sources, oldest to newest.

From the early Church Fathers to now.

Exod 12:9 · Douay-Rheims
“You shall not eat thereof any thing raw, nor boiled in water, but only roasted at the fire: you shall eat the head with the feet and entrails thereof.”
Patristic before A.D. 750
254
A.D.
Origen Patristic
c. A.D. 184–253
“One must not therefore eat the flesh of the lamb raw, as the slaves of the letter do in the manner of animals which are irrational and quite savage. In relation to men who are truly rational through their desire to understand the spiritual aspects of the world, the former [slaves of the letter] share the company of wild beasts.We must strive, however, in transforming the rawness of Scripture into boiled food, not to transform what has been written into what is flaccid, watery and limp. This is what they do who "have itching ears and" turn them away "from the truth" and transform the anagogical meanings so far as they are concerned to the carelessness and wateriness of their manner of life.”
Source
386
A.D.
Cyril of Jerusalem Patristic
A.D. 313–386
“Children of purity and disciples of chastity, let us celebrate the praises of the virgin-born God with lips all pure. Being counted worthy to partake of the flesh of the spiritual Lamb, let us take the head with the feet, understanding the head as the divinity and the feet as the humanity.”
420
A.D.
Jerome Patristic
c. A.D. 347–420
“"You shall eat it with its head and shanks and inner organs." To me, the head seems to be that of the Lamb, written of in St. John's Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God; he was in the beginning with God." The shanks represent the human nature that he deigned to assume for our salvation. Another interpretation, however, is also possible. The head may be taken to signify spiritual understanding; the shanks, historical narrative; the inner organs are whatever lies hidden within the letter, whatever is not perceived on the surface but is brought to light by exegetes only after they have well considered it in painstaking investigation.”
Source
184 years pass — nothing from this stretch is hosted yet
604
A.D.
Gregory the Great Patristic
c. A.D. 540–604
“Where it is also added: "You shall not eat any of it raw, nor cooked in water." Behold, now the very words of the history drive us from a historical understanding. Surely, dearest brothers, that Israelite people established in Egypt had not been accustomed to eat raw lamb, that the law should say to them: "You shall not eat any of it raw"? Where it is also added: "Nor cooked in water." But what does water signify except human knowledge, according to what is said by Solomon in the voice of heretics: "Stolen waters are sweeter." What do the raw flesh of the Lamb signify except His humanity considered without reflection and left without reverence of thought? For everything that we consider carefully we, as it were, cook with the mind. But the flesh of the lamb is neither to be eaten raw nor cooked in water, because our Redeemer is neither to be considered a mere man, nor is how God was able to become incarnate to be thought through by human wisdom. For everyone who believes our Redeemer to be a mere man, what else does he do but eat the raw flesh of the lamb, which he was unwilling to cook through understanding of His divinity? And everyone who attempts to examine the mysteries of His incarnation according to human wisdom wishes to cook the flesh of the lamb in water, that is, he wishes to penetrate the mystery of His dispensation through dissolute knowledge. Therefore, whoever desires to celebrate the solemnity of Paschal joy, let him neither cook the lamb in water nor eat it raw, so that he may neither seek to penetrate through human wisdom the depth of His incarnation, nor believe in Him as in a mere man; but let him eat the flesh roasted by fire, so that he may know that all things were dispensed through the power of the Holy Spirit.”
Source
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.