The Presbyters Project

Print:

ER 2058

Anonymous author of the "Incomplete Commentary on Matthew" explains that the heretics are not Christians even if they have similar rituals and the order of priesthood as the orthodox Church. The mid-5th c., the Danubian provinces or Constantinople.

Homilia 19

"Attendite a falsis prophetis." [Matt 7:15] Primum scire oportet, quia sunt omnino falsi. Nulla res perdet uiros Christianos magis quam hoc: quia quoscumque uiderint dici Christianos, quasi Christianos eos aestimant. Si enim constat, quia sunt falsi Christiani, aut ille est falsus Christianus, aut tu. Si non tu, ille: si tu, non ille: si ille, ut quid illum Christianum aestimas, de quo tibi Christus mandauit? Quia Christianus non est, quem deus suum non confitetur filium: tu quomodo tibi aestimas fratrem? Sed forte dicis, Quomodo dicere illum possum non esse Christianum, quem uideo Christum confitentem, altare habentem, sacrificium panis et uini offerentem, baptizantem, scripturas sanctorum legentem, omnem ordinem sacerdotii habentem? Vir sapiens, si non confiteretur Christum, et manifesta esset gentilitas illius, et si seducebaris per eam, insania erat, qua seducebaris: nunc autem qui confitetur Christum, sed non sic quemadmodum mandavit Christus, negligentiae tuae est, si ab eo seduceris. Qui enim in occultam foueam cadit, negligens esse dicitur, quia non caute prospicit: qui autem in manifestam foueam cadit, non negligens dicitur, sed insanus. Quae autem de similitudine ecclesiasticorum mysteriorum dixisti, hic audi responsum. Quoniam et simia hominis habet membra, et per omnia hominem imitatur, nunquid propterea dicenda est homo? Sic et haeresis omnia ecclesiae habet et imitatur mysteria, sed non sunt ecclesiae. Deinde sciens dominus, quia non erant manifesti Gentiles, sed absconditi sub nomine Christiano: ideo non dixit, Aspicite: sed, Attendite. Aspicere enim est simpliciter uidere: attendere autem est caute consyderare. Vbi enim certa res est et indubitabilis, aspicitur: ubi autem incerta et dubitabilis, attenditur. Sciens ergo Christus, quia est in illis aliquid quod aliis pro alio uidebatur, aliud desuper positum, aliud intus inclusum, ideo dixit Attendite, ut scias quia non corporali aspectu attendendum est, sed uigilantia spirituali. Si enim corporaliter illos aspicias, cognoscere non potes, quia schemata Christianitatis habent.

(ed. Desiderius Erasmus 1530: 578: cf. PG 56, col. 736-37, ed. B. Montefaucon)

Homily 19

"Beware of false prophets." [Matt 7:15] First one ought to know that there are altogether false Christians. Nothing destroys Christian people as these do, because people count as Christians whomever they see being called Christians. If it is agreed that there are false Christians, then either he is a false Christian or you are. If you are not, then he is; if you are, then he is not; if he is, then why do you think him to be a Christian when Christ gave you a commandment about him? It is because he whom God does not confess to be his child is not a Christian. How then can you think of him as your brother? But perhaps you will say, "How can I say that he is not a Christian when I see him confessing Christ, having an altar, offering the sacrifice of the bread and wine, baptizing, reading the Scriptures of the saints, and having every order of the priesthood?" O wise person, if he did not confess Christ, his heathenness would be clear, and if you were deceived by him, it would be sheer madness by which you were deceived. But now it is due to your negligence if you are deceived by one who confesses Christ but not in the way that Christ commanded. Whoever falls into a hidden pit is said to be negligent because he did not carefully look ahead, but whoever falls into an open pit is not said to be negligent but crazy. But as for the things that you said about his imitation of the ecclesiastical mysteries, listen to this response. Because a monkey has the same limbs as a human being and by them imitates a human being, it does not mean that he should be called a human being for that reason, does it? So also every heresy of the church has and imitates the mysteries, but they are not churches. Moreover, because the Lord knew that they were not openly heathen but hidden under the name Christian, he did not say, "Look at them" but "Beware of them." To look is simply to see, but to beware is to consider cautiously. Wherever an object is certain and beyond doubt, it is looked at, but wherever it is uncertain and under doubt, one must beware. Therefore, because Christ knew that in them there is something that would seem to be something different to different people - to some it would look like something brought down from above but to others it would look like something closed inside - he said, "Beware," so that you may know not to pay attention by means of bodily sight but by spiritual vigilance. If you look at them from a bodily point of view, you cannot recognize them, because they have the outward forms of Christianity.

(trans. Kellerman 2010: 152-53)

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:

Described by a title - Sacerdos/ἱερεύς

Ritual activity - Baptism and instructing catechumens

Ritual activity - Eucharist

Relation with - Heretic/Schismatic

Religious grouping (other than Catholic/Nicene/Chalcedonian) - Unspecified 'heretic'

Devotion - Reading the Bible and devotional literature

Please quote this record referring to its author, database name, number, and, if possible, stable URL: M. Szada, Presbyters in the Late Antique West, ER2058, http://www.presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?id=6&SourceID=2058