Presbyters Uniwersytet Warszawski
ID
ER 2054
Anonymous author of the "Incomplete Commentary on Matthew" comments on the commandment forbidding to judge others as primarily directed to the priests (teachers). The mid-5th c., the Danubian provinces or Constantinople.
Homilia 17
 
"Nolite iudicare, ut ne iudicemini: nolite condemnare, et non condemnabimini." [Matt 7:1] [...] Sicut autem caetera uniuersa mandata generaliter cunctis mandauit, tam sacerdotibus quam laicis, praecipue tamen doctoribus, qui quanto maiores sunt in ordine, tanto perfectiores esse debent in disciplina. Sic et hoc mandatum de proximis non iudicandis, ad omnes quidem pertinet, praecipue tamen ad doctores. Vnde quaedam sunt mandatorum istorum, quae si diligenter aspicias, pene nec conueniunt laicis, nisi forte parum, doctoribus autem omnino conueniunt. Quale est hoc ipsum quod sequitur. "Quid autem uides festucam in oculo fratris tui, trabem autem in oculo tuo non uides? Hypocrita ejice primum trabem de oculo tuo, et tunc uidebis ejicere festucam de oculo fratris tui." [Matt 7:3-5] Videre enim festucam in oculo fratris, omnium est: ejicere illam posse non est omnium, sed tantum doctorum, qui per doctrinam, uel increpationem secundum deum possunt ejicere de mente fratris sui peccatum uel magnum, uel modicum. Sicut et illud quod dicit: "Nolite sanctum dare canibus, neque margaritas uestras miseritis ante porcos." [Matt 7:6] Habere enim uel sancta, uel margaritas, et posse dispensare uel bona, uel mala: et discernere qui hominum sunt canes, qui porci, non est omnium hominum, sed sanctorum. Vult ergo dominus doctores Christianorum sicut in omni iustitia, sic et hoc primum facere, deinde docere: ut doctrinam suam bonam meliori cum uita commendent, ut bene docendo scientiam inserant, melius autem uiuendo timorem: quia tales sales sunt terrae, condientes omnes suae uitae exemplo:  et luces sunt, doctrinis illuminantes. Quis audiat illum docentem, qui seipsum non audit? Ideo dicit ad omnes, praecipue ad doctores: "Nolite iudicare, ut non iudicemini." Quoniam si doctor memor sit iuiuriae et doloris, et memoriam malitiae seruet in anima sua, soluitur totus ecclesiae status, siue ad tempus respicias apostolorum, siue ad nostrum. Tunc enim, sicut legimus, difficile aliquos conuertebant ad fidem Christi, nisi multa prius paterentur ab ipsis. Nam quasi lassato diabolo et deuicto per sufferentiam eorum nimiam usque ad mortem, et relinquente corda infidelium, et iam non habente uirtutem amplius eos armare, accedente gratia dei conuertebantur ad Christum. Si ergo memores fuissent iniuriarum, quas fuerant passi ab eis, nunquam postmodum eos in charitate docuissent, nunquam eos libenter ad fidem Christi postmodum recepissent: sed et nunc cum frequenter doctores offendantur a laicis, siue iuste siue iniuste, diabolo seminante occasiones, si memores sint iniuriae et doloris, totam soluunt ecclesiam. Nam ubi recordatio iniuriae aut doloris in medio est, nec doctor beneuolenter docet laicum, nec libenter eum laicus ausculat: et doctor forsitan uel inuitus aperit os suum ad docendum laicus autem cum sit omnino sine timore dei, nec usque ad faciem contentus est eum audire, sed conuerso egreditur dorso, et illum spernens et se, et amplius se quam illum, et non sentit animae suae dispendium efferatus, sicut nec bestia iritata uulnus in se fixum. [...] Quoniam ergo dixerat praecipue, sicut dixi, doctoribus, nolite iudicare, ut non iudicemini: conuenienter addidit et dicit, "Quid autem uides festucam in oculo fratris tui, trabem uero in oculo tuo non uides?" id est, qui trabem in oculo tuo non uides, ut quid uides festucam in oculo fratris tui? Ac si dicat, melius est nec docere, nec reprehendere laicum, quam docere et reprehendere, et teipsum in reprehensione consistere: quoniam talis doctrina doctoris non est audibilis, sed derisibilis. Propter quod omnis sacerdos, si uult docere populum, prius seipsum doceat: si autem seipsum non uult docere de omni quod docet, nec ipsum arguere de omni quod arguit, nec alios doceat, nec arguat quenquam, ut si iudicium dei non euadit, uel hominum opprobrium non patiatur.
 
(ed. Desiderius Erasmus 1530: 558: cf. PG 56, col. 725-26, ed. B. Montefaucon)
Homily 17
 
"Judge not, that you be not judged. Do not condemn and you will not be condemned." [Matt 7:1] [...] Just as He [Jesus Christ] commanded all the other commandments in a general manner to all people - priests as well as lay people, but nonetheless especially to teachers, who ought to be more perfect in discipline to the degree that they are higher in rank - so also this commandment about not judging one's neighbors pertains indeed to all, but especially nonetheless to teachers. Therefore, if you diligently examine the matter, there are some commandments that do not apply to the laity at all or at most just a little, but by all means apply to teachers. An example of this kind of commandment is that which follows. "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." [Matt 7:3-5] Everybody can see the speck that is in the eye of a brother, and yet not everybody can remove it, but only teachers can, who can cast out sin (be it large or small) from the mind of his brother through teaching or godly rebuke. Just as that saying goes, "Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine." [Matt 7:6] Not everybody, but holy people have the ability to have holy things or pearls and to know how to dispense either good or bad things and to discern which people are dogs and which are swine. Therefore God wants all the teachers of Christians first to do this and then to teach it, just as in every other form of righteousness, so that they may commend their good doctrine with an even better life and implant knowledge by teaching well but implant fear by living well, because such people are salt of the earth, flavoring all with the example of their lives, and they shine brightly as they illuminate others with their teachings. But who would listen to any teacher who does not listen to himself? So he says to all, but especially to teachers, "Judge not, that you be not judged." If a teacher is mindful of an injury or grief and keeps the memory of the evil deed alive in his soul, the whole state of the church collapses - whether you look at the time of the apostles or our own. At the time, as we read, they found it difficult to convert others to faith in Christ, unless previously they had suffered many torments. For once the devil had been wearied, so to speak, and overcome by their suffering to the point of death, and as the apostles were leaving behind the hearts of the unbelieving and now no longer have any strength to further arm their hearers, the grace of God drew near and their hearers were converted to Christ. But if the apostles had been mindful of injuries that they had suffered from the unbelievers, the apostles would never have taught them afterwards in love and would never afterwards have willingly received them into faith in Christ. But since also now teachers are wronged by lay people, whether justly or unjustly, as the devil sows surprise attacks, if the teachers are mindful of injury and pain, they destroy the whole church. For wherever there is a recollection of injury or pain, the teacher does not gently teach the laity, and the laity do not gladly hear him. Perhaps the teacher opens his mouth unwillingly to teach, but because the laity altogether lack the fear of God, they are not content to hear him looking at him face to face but turn their back on him and exit, despising both themselves and the preacher - and themselves and the preacher - and do not perceive the loss of their soul, since they have been enraged just as a beast that has been exasperated by a wound that has pierced itself does not perceive anything. [...] Therefore, because he had spoken the words "judge not that you be not judged" chiefly to teachers, as we have noted, he fittingly adds and says, "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" That is to say, if you do not see the log in your own eye, why do you see the speck in your brother's eye? It is as if he were to say, "It is better not to teach or upbraid the laity than to teach and upbraid them and subject yourself to the reproach that such teaching of a teacher is not to be heard but laughed at. For this reason, let every priest first teach himself, if he wishes to teach the people. But if he does not wish to teach himself about whatever he teaches or to scold himself about everything that he is scolding, then let him not teach others or scold anyone, so that even if he does not escape the judgement of God at least he may not experience the reproach of other people.
 
(trans. Kellerman 2010: 138-41)

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), 1–38haeum”’, Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987), 267-284

Categories:

Religious grouping (other than Catholic/Nicene/Chalcedonian) - Arian
    Relation with
      Theoretical considerations - On priesthood
        Pastoral activity - Preaching
          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, ER2054, http://www.presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?id=6&SourceID=2054