Presbyters Uniwersytet Warszawski
ID
ER 2049
Anonymous author of the "Incomplete Commentary on Matthew" claims that is a duty of the priests to take care about people living in the regions which are entrusted to them and to provide spiritual direction, especially by admonishing sinners. The mid-5th c., the Danubian provinces or Constantinople.
Homilia 8
 
"Et circumibat Iesus totam Galilaeam" [Matt 4:23] [...] Circuibat totam Galilaeam, sicut studiosus medicus circumibat grauiter aegrotantes, singulis quibusque passionibus adhibens congruas medicinas: quia debiles illi ad medicum uenire non poterant. Et dominus quidem circumibat singulas regiones. Nos autem qui sumus unius regionis pastores, et si regiones circumire necessarium non habemus, tamen singulas species passionum populi circumire et consyderare debemus: id est, diligenter attendere, qui sunt in populo, qui auaritiae morbo laborant, ut aliquem sermonem de auaritiae malo faciamus ad medicamentum sanitatis illius, qui auaritiae stimulis agitatur, secundum Pauli sententiam, dicentis: "Habentes alimenta, et quibus tegamur, his contenti simus. Nam qui uolunt diuites fieri, incidunt in tentationes, etc." [1 Tim 6:8-9] Item debemus illis prouidere, qui in populo ardentibus libidinis febribus ualde laborant: et ut ad remedium passionis eorum aliquod medicamentum in ecclesia proferamus de apotheca medicinali apostoli, dicentis: "Omne peccatum quodcunque fecerit homo, extra corpus est: qui autem fornicatur, in corpus suum peccat etc." [1 Cor 6:18] Quemadmodum paterfamilias studiosus, scit in domo sua quid unusquisque necessarium habet, ita et sacerdos singulorum mores, et actus, et conuersationem debet indiscere, ut quale quibusque medicamentum necessarium fuerit, subministret, cui consolationem, consolationem, cui increpationem, increpationem. Cum autem asperior increpationis medicina fuerit posita secundum qualitatem passionis illius, non debet indignari, quia nec infirmus irascitur contra medicum, si posuerit aliquam medicinam mordentem. Non enim consyderat asperitatem medicinae, et irascitur, sed consyderat beneuolentiam medici, et sustinet, quia prodesse illi desiderat, non nocere. Sicut autem infirmus qui ipse uenit ad medicum, ex parte iam sanus est: sic et ipse peccator, qui uenit ad sacerdotem, et doctrinae aut poenitentiae medicinam quaerit, ex parte iam iustus est. Illum autem grauis tenet infirmitas, quem sacerdos sequitur uerbis, et ille spiritualium uerborum medicamentum non sentit, nec melioratur, sed quasi stomachum patitur, quicquid manducauerit et biberit, iterum uomit. Sic et illa anima patiens quicquid audierit, statim de sensibus suis proijcit foras, sic illi infideles Iudaei de quibus dictum est: "Omnem escam abominata est anima eorum" [Ps 107:18], id est omnem escam animam nutrientem.
 
(ed. Desiderius Erasmus 1530: 528-29: cf. PG 56, col. 677, ed. B. Montefaucon)
Homily 8
 
"And [Jesus] went about all Galilee" [Matt 4:23] [...] He [Jesus] went about all Galilee, as a diligent doctor walks around those who are direly ill and applies the medicines appropriate for each individual affliction – because those who are weak could not come to the doctor. And the Lord was walking around each individual region. However, we who are shepherds of each single region although we do not have the need to go around the regions, we ought nonetheless to go around and consider the individual types of affliction of people; that is, we ought to attend diligently those among the people who labor under the disease of avarice so that we can make some sermon about the evil of avarice to serve as a medicine for the healing of him who is troubled by the goads of avarice, in accordance with the opinion of Paul, who says, "If we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation." [1 Tim 6:8-9] Again we ought to provide for those among the people who labor mightly under the burning fevers of passion so that, to remedy their affliction, we can also offer some medicine in the church from the medicinal apothecary of the apostle, who says, "Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body." [1 Cor 6:18] And as diligent head of a household knows what each one needs in his house, so also a priest ought to acquaint himself with the habits and actions and lifestyle of each one in order to minister such medicine as will be necessary for each: to whom consolation is needed, consolation; to whom rebuke is needed, rebuke. He ought not be angry to whom the more bitter medicine of rebuke has been prescribed according to the nature of his affliction because not even a sick person grows angry against the doctor, if he has applied some more biting medicine. For he does not consider the bitterness of the medicine and grows angry, but rather he considers the benevolence of the doctor and endures it because he desires that it help him rather than harm him. However, just as patient who comes to the doctor now is partially already healed, so also a sinner who comes to a priest and seeks the medicine of doctrine or of repentance is already partially righteous. But a grave illness holds one whom the priest pursues with words; and such a person does not sense the medicine of spiritual words or get better but, like those whose stomach ails, he throws up again whatever he has eaten or drunk. So is also the soul that endures whatever it has heard but immediately casts it out from its senses, and so are those unbelieving Jews to whom it was said, "They loathed any kind of food," [Ps 107:18] that is, every food of doctrine that nourishes the soul.
 
(trans. Kellerman 2010: 80-81)

Discussion:

The author uses the first person prular when speaking about "the shephards of the church", therefore, he was a clergyman. His exact rank is unknown, he might have been a bishop or a presbyter.

Place of event:

Region
  • Danubian provinces and Illyricum
  • East
City
  • Constantinople

About the source:

Author: Ps.-John Chrysostom
Title: Incomplete Commentary on Matthew, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum
Origin: Danubian provinces and IllyricumConstantinople (East),
Denomination: Arian
"Incomplete Commentary on Matthew" (Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum) is the name given to a Latin exegetical commentary on the Gospel of Matthew which has been handed down under the attribution to John Chrystostomus. The name of the Opus imperfectum also served to distinguish it from another commentary, John Chrystostomus' Homilies on Matthew (CPG 4424), which is complete. The Opus imperfectum does not contain a commentary on Matthew 8:10 to 10:15, Matthew 13:14 to 18:35, and Matthew 25:37 to the end of the Gospel. Therefore, the commentary can be divided into three parts: commentaries (called "homilies" in the mss.) 1-22 (up to Matthew 8:10), commentaries 24-31 (Matthew 10:13-13:13) and commentaries 32-54 (Matthew 19-25). In order to facilitate the description of the manuscript families and the transmission, Van Banning has proposed to divide the third section into two parts, so that he speaks of four parts in all:
- part A (hom. 1-22)
- part B (hom. 24-31)
- part C (hom. 32-46)
- part D (hom. 46-54)
Commentary (homily) 23, included in early modern editions (and printed in PG 56, 754-756), has been identified as one of the homilies to Matthew by Chromatius of Aquileia. New fragments of the commentary were identified by Étaix in 1974.
 
The editio princeps was published by Johannes Koelhof in Cologne in 1487. The next one, of much better quality, appeared in Venice in 1503. At that time, the work was still considered to be written by Chrysostom, but translated by an unknown person. The first doubts about its authorship were expressed by Andreas Cartander in the preface to the 1525 edition. The next editor, Erasmus of Rotterdam, made only minor changes to the text of the previous edition, but was the first to firmly reject the authorship of John Chrysostom on the basis of the text fragments he described as "Arian". He was also convinced that the commentary was not the translation from Greek, but was originally written in Latin, albeit possibly by a person who knew Greek.
 
To this day, the questions of authorship, date and the region in which the commentary was written remain unresolved, and many different hypotheses have been put forward in scholarship. Stiglmayr (1909, 1910) and Nautin (1972) argued that the Opus was a translation from Greek and suggested Timothy, the deacon of Constantinople mentioned in Socrates, as a possible author; Morin (1942) suggested that the author of the Opus could be identified with the translator of Origen's Homilies on Matthew into Latin; Meslin (1967: 174-180) attributed it to Bishop Maximinus, who translated it from the so-called Arian scholia in ms. Parisinus Latinus 8907; Schlatter (1988) suggested the attribution to Ananius of Celeda. The various passages reveal the author's hostility to Nicene theology, which maintains that the Father and the Son are consubstantial. He thus seems to have belonged to a non-Nicene theology that modern scholarship calls "Homoian" (referring to the creeds of Rimini 359 and Constantinople 360). Schlatter, on the other hand, focused on the passages he considered "Pelagian" and wanted to place the author in the context of the controversies about grace. Further research is needed to clarify the doctrinal position and theological context of the work, but one promising avenue is to search Homoian circles in fifth-century Constantinople or in the Danubian provinces.
 
The author has made an extensive use of the commentary on Matthew by Origen (Mali 1991) but he was also using a very wide range of sources both in Latin and Greek (see for example Dulaey 2004).
 
The author of the commentary mentions the Emperor Theodosius I as already deceased (PG 56, column 907). Furthermore, he refers to teaching held at the Capitol in Constantinople, and we know that the "university" there was founded in 425 (Codex Theodosianus 16.9.3). It is therefore likely that the enactment took place in the second half of the reign of Theodosius II (408-450).
 
However, the uniformity of the work is also not certain, and it has not yet been proven beyond doubt that parts A-D were written by the same person at the same time. Piemonte (1996) even claims that parts of the commentary were written in the 8th century by Johannes Scotus Eriugena.
 
The great obstacle in clarifying many questions about the nature of the text is the lack of a contemporary critical edition. Joop van Banning published an excellent introduction to the planned edition in 1988, in which he explains the intricacies of the manuscript tradition. The complexity of the tradition and the large number of manuscripts (about 200) contributed to the immense scope of the edition project, which is still not completed today (autumn 2023). The research group in Fribourg (Switzerland) is currently working on the edition of Part A, which will hopefully be completed in the next few years. Until then, the text can be read in early modern editions (1525, 1530) and in Patrologia Graeca 56, which reproduces the text of Bernard de Montefaucon's 17th century edition.
Edition:
Tertius tomus operum divi Ioannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani in quo homiliae in Matthaeum et Ioannem praeterea commentarii digni lectu in Matthaeum incerto autore, ed. Desiderius Erasmus, Basilea 1530, 474-752
Patrologia Graeca 56, col. 611-946
 
Translation:
Incomplete Commentary to Matthew, ed. T.C. Oden, trans. J.A. Kellerman, 2 vols., Downers Grove 2010
Bibliography:
J. van Banning, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum: its provenance, theology and influence (D.Phil diss., University of Oxford, 1983)
J. van Banning, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum. Praefatio, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 87B, Turnhout 1988
M. Dulaey, "Les sources latines de l’Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum dans le commentaire de la parabole des dix vierges (Mt 25, 1–13)”, Vetera Christianorum 41 (2004), 295–311.
R. Étaix, "Fragments inédits de l’Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum”, Revue Bénédictine 84 (1974), 271–300.
F. Mali, Das "Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum" und sein Verhältnis zu den Matthäuskommentaren von Origenes und Hieronymus, Innsbruck Wien 1991.
M. Meslin, Les Ariens d’Occident: 335–430, Paris 1967
G. Morin, "Les homélies latines sur S. Matthieu attribuées à Origène”, Revue Bénédictine 54 (1942), 3–11.
P. Nautin, "M. Meslin. Les Ariens d’Occident (335-430) [compte rendu]," Revue de l’histoire des religions 177 (1970), 74-80.
P. Nautin, "L’Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum et les Ariens de Constantinople”, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 67 (1972), 380–408; 745–766.
G.A. Piemonte, "Recherches sur les „Tractatus in Matheum” attribués à Jean Scot”, [in :] Iohannes Scottus Eriugena. The Bible and Hermeneutics, 1996, 321–350.
F.W. Schlatter, “The Author of the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum,” Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988), 365-375
F. W. Schlatter, “The Pelagianism of the ‘Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum”’, Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987), 267-284
J. Stiglmayr, "Ist das Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum ursprünglich lateinisch abgefaßt?”, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 33 (1909), 594–597
J. Stiglmayr, "Das Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum: Zur Frage über Grandsprache, Entstehungszeit, Heimat und Verfasser des Berkes”, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 34 (1910), 1–38m in Matthaeum”’, Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987), 267-284

Categories:

Travel and change of residence
    Described by a title - Sacerdos/ἱερεύς
      Ritual activity - Reconciliation/Administering penance
        Equal prerogatives of presbyters and bishops
          Pastoral activity - Preaching
            Pastoral activity - Teaching
              Pastoral activity - Spiritual direction
                Described by a title - Pastor
                  Please quote this record referring to its author, database name, number, and, if possible, stable URL: M. Szada, Presbyters in the Late Antique West, ER2049, http://presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?id=6&SourceID=2049