The Presbyters Project

Print:

ER 2084

Anonymous author of the "Incomplete Commentary on Matthew" compares the priests to the tenants of the vineyard of God. The mid-5th c., the Danubian provinces or Constantinople.

Homilia 40

"Aedificauit turrim." Hoc est legis fiduciam et altitudinem, ex qua sacerdotes uelut speculatores Christum specularentur uenturum. "Et locauit eam colonis." [Matt 21:33] Qui sunt coloni, quibus locatus est populus, id est, uinea, nisi sacerdotes? Plantatus est autem populus primum in Abraham, quando in primis loquutus est ad eum deus, dicens: "Exi de terra tua, et de cognatione tua" [Gen 12:1], etc. Ex eo enim facta est uocatio seminis eius. Locatus est colonis tempore Mosi, quando per legem constituti sunt sacerdotes et leuitae, et procurationem regendi populi susceperunt ad magnam suam gloriam, et ad grande periculum. Ad gloriam quidem, si diligenter tractauerint populum dei: ad periculum autem, si negligenter. Si enim ille pro negligentia debet timere periculum, qui procurationem suscepit terrenarum rerum de manu alicuius hominis potentis: quanto magis sacerdotes, qui de manu dei susceperunt animarum procurationem sanctarum? Plantatus quidem legitur populus in terra repromissionis, secundum quod scriptum est: Vineam de Aegypto transtulisti, eiecisti gentes, et plantasti eam [Ps 80 (79):9]. Sed illam plantationem hic intelligere non oportet, ne prius locatam eam colonis inueniamur exponere, quam plantatam. Quoniam autem diximus sacerdotes populum dei colere, deum autem reddere mercedem uitae: nemo sacerdos existimet, quoniam iuste pro merito operum suorum accipiet a deo mercedem, et non potius propter gratiam et misericordiam dei. Non enim sacerdotes praestant deo docentes populum eius, sed deus sacerdotibus committendo eis populum suum in spiritu. Nos autem mercedem doctrinae acquirere non poteramus, nisi nobis procuratio populi commissa fuisset. Ergo coloni sunt sacerdotes, qui colentes populum quasi uineam, cum acutissimo ferro sermonis faciunt eos bonos fructus iustitiae domino exhibere. Sicut autem duram terram ferrum emollit, sic et uerbum duritiam cordis relaxat. Sicut rastro ferreo herbae radicitus euelluntur a uinea, sic et acri sermone uitia de populo resecantur. Vt sicut colonus quamuis de suo munera obtulerit domino, non sic eum placat, quomodo si de uinea eius reditus ei obtulerit: sic sacerdos non tantum propter suam iustitiam placet domino, quomodo si populum dei in sanctitate docuerit: quoniam ipsius iustitia una est, populi autem multiplex.

(ed. Desiderius Erasmus 1530: 676; cf. PG 56, col. 852-53, ed. B. Montefaucon)

Homily 40

"And built a tower." That is, the trust in the law and the height from which the priests as watchmen saw Christ coming. "And let it out to tenants." [Matt 21:33] Who are the tenants to whom the people (that is, the vineyard) were leased out except the priests? But the people were first planted in Abraham when God first addressed him, saying, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house." [Gen 12:1] For from that time occurred the calling of his seed. It was leased to the tenants at the time of Moses, when the priests and Levites were established by the Law and undertook the care of ruling the people for their own great glory and at their own great risk. For their glory, to be sure, if they diligently governed the people of God, but at their risk, if they did so negligently. For if he ought to fear danger for his negligence who undertakes the care of earthly matters from the hand of some powerful person, how much more the priests ought to, who receive the care of holy souls from the hand of God.

To be sure, we read that the people were planted in the land of promise, as it is written, "You brought a vine out of Egypt; you drove out the nations and planted it." [Ps 80 (79):9] But here we ought not to understand that planting, lest we be found to explain that the vineyard was leased out to tenants before it was planted. But because we said that the priests cultivate the people of God but God pays the wages of life, let no priest think that he will justly receive pay from God for the merit of his works and not rather because of the grace and mercy of God. For priests are not above God when they teach his people, but God is above the priests when he entrusts to them his people in spirit. But we were not able to acquire a reward for teaching unless the care of the people had been entrusted to us. Therefore the tenants are priests who cultivate the people like a vine and with the sharp iron tool of the Word make them offer good fruits of righteousness to the Lord. But just as iron softens up hard soil, so also the Word relaxes the hardness of the heart. Just as weeds are plucked up roots and all from the vineyard by an iron-toothed hoe, so also the vices are curtailed from a people by a sharp sermon. Just as even though a tenant offers gifts to his landlord from his own, he does not appease his lord as if he gives him something from his own vineyard, so also a priest does not please the Lord on account of his own righteousness as much as if he has taught the people in the holiness of God, be cause his righteousness is that of himself alone, but that of the people is many times over.

(trans. Kellerman 2010: 317)

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), 1–38

Categories:

Religious grouping (other than Catholic/Nicene/Chalcedonian) - Arian

Described by a title - Sacerdos/ἱερεύς

Theoretical considerations - On priesthood

Pastoral activity - Teaching

Please quote this record referring to its author, database name, number, and, if possible, stable URL: M. Szada, Presbyters in the Late Antique West, ER2084, http://presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?id=6&SourceID=2084