The Presbyters Project

Print:

ER 2103

Anonymous author of the "Incomplete Commentary on Matthew" says that priests should not only be faithful but also wise in order to be useful to others. Their teaching is especially needed in the time of persecution. The mid-5th c., the Danubian provinces or Constantinople.

Homilia 51

Fidelis quidem quaeritur propter deum, ut timeat deum: prudens autem propter homines, ut populum dei sapienter gubernet. Quoniam ergo deo non tantum prudentia hominis, quantum conscientia placet: hominibus autem non tantum conscientia, quantum sapientia prodest: Si fuerit tantum quis fidelis, laicum quidem facit, sacerdotem autem non facit, nisi fuerit fidelis et prudens. Ergo fidelis quaeritur, ut faciat priusquam dicat: prudens autem postquam fecerit, dicat, et dicat intelligens cui qualis doctrina conueniat, et quando. Item fidelis quaeritur, ut memor sit pauperum, sicut Paulus [Rom 15:26]: prudens autem, ut intelligat cui et quomodo debeat dispensare. Et hoc est quod dicit dare cibos in tempore et spirituales et corporales. [...] Quando misericordia dei non est acceptabilis? sed praecipue tunc est acceptabilis, quando necessitatis et angustiae tempus est. Sicut et semper pluuia bona est, maxime tamen grata est tempore siccitatis. Et uisitatio amicorum semper suauis est, multo tamen suauior in tempore luctus: sic doctrina et consolatio sacerdotis semper opportuna est, maxime autem in tempore persecutionis. Sciens ergo Christus sanctos suos sine tentatione nunquam futuros, ideo dicit in tempore opportuno: quia qui semper aegrotat, semper illi ars medici opportuna uidetur. Nam sicut nauis tunc praecipue gubernatore necessarium habet, quando tempestatem patitur: quando autem prosperata est, ipsa se dirigit. Et miles tunc praecipue necessariam habet annonam de rege, quando bellum et periculum instat: quando autem pax est, undecunque possunt se milites sustentare. Sic ecclesiae praecipue in tempore persecutionis doctrinam sacerdotis necessariam habent, quasi spirituales milites spiritualem annonam: quando autem securitas est, unicuique naturalis sufficit intellectus. Nam in persecutionibus, quando naturalis ille intellectus deficit in timore carnali, necessarius est sermo doctoris, ut quod deficit in timore periculi, reparetur per exhortationem doctrinae. Sicut autem tubicina commisso bello pugnantem exercitum circuit, et bellicos cantus in tuba decantans, milites animat ad uirtutem: sic et sacerdos, persecutione imminente exponens in populo fortissimorum martyrum gloriosa pericula, et inenarrabiles regni coelestis coronas uincentibus praeparatas, Christianum populum ad uirtutem patientiae uehementer accendit.

(ed. Desiderius Erasmus 1530: 736-737; cf. PG 56, col. 926, ed. B. Montefaucon)

Homily 51

A faithful person is sought for God's sake, in order to fear God, but a wise person is sought for humankind's sake, in order to govern the people of God wisely. Therefore the wisdom of a person does not please God as much as his conscience does, but his conscience does not help another person as much as his wisdom does. If someone is only faithful, he makes himself a lay person but not a priest, unless he is faithful and wise. Therefore a faithful person is sought in order to do something before he says it, but a wise person is sought to say after he has done something and to say it intelligently to a person whom such teaching could benefit and at a time when it could benefit him. Again, a faithful person is sought out in order to remember the poor, as Paul says, but a wise person is sought to understand to whom and how he ought to give out the alms. And this is what it means to give both spiritual and bodily food in season [...] But it is especially favorable at that time when there is a time of need and distress, just as rain is always good, but nonetheless it is especially pleasing during a dry spell. And a visit from friends is always pleasant, but it is more pleasant at a time of grief. So also the doctrine and the comfort of a priest are always timely, but especially so at a time of persecution. Therefore Christ knew that his saints would never be without persecution, and so he said, "at the proper time," because if someone is always sick, the art of medicine always seems timely to him. For a ship especially needs a helmsman when it is undergoing a storm, but when it is amid favorable weather, the ship directs itself; a soldier especially needs his rations from the king when war and danger threaten, but when there is peace the soldiers can support themselves somehow. In the same way churches especially need the teaching of a priest in a time of persecution, as spiritual soldiers need their spiritual rations, but when there is security, the natural understanding suffices for everyone. For in persecutions, when that natural understanding fails amid carnal fear, the sermon of a teacher is necessary so that whatever fails at a time of danger can be repaired by the exhortation of doctrine. But just as a trumpeter goes about a fighting army when war has been engaged and, repeating of ten martial tunes, rouses the army to courage, so also whenever persecution is threatening, a priest explains the glorious dangers of the most brave martyrs and the indescribable crowns of the kingdom of heaven prepared for those who prevail, and he mightily inflames the Christian people to the virtue of patience.

(trans. Kellerman 2010: 404-405)

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

Conflict

Devotion - Almsgiving

Pastoral activity - Teaching

Pastoral activity - Spiritual direction

Please quote this record referring to its author, database name, number, and, if possible, stable URL: M. Szada, Presbyters in the Late Antique West, ER2103, http://presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?id=6&SourceID=2103