The Presbyters Project

Print:

ER 2070

Anonymous author of the "Incomplete Commentary on Matthew" interprets the parable of the talents as referring to various states in the Church. The one who received five talents is interpreted as a presbyter, the one who received two talents to a deacon, the one who received one talent as a lay person. The mid-5th c., the Danubian provinces or Constantinople.

Homilia 53

"Statim autem abijt qui quinque talenta acceperat, et acquisiuit alia quinque." [Matt 25:16] De talento agnitionis Christi acquisiuit unam iustitiam bene uiuendo. De presbyterio autem ipso acquisiuit iustitiam solicite praesidendo ecclesiae. De uerbo acquisiuit iustitiam, uerbum ueritatis sinceriter praedicando. De baptismo lucratus est secundum Christi regulam baptizando, et dignos filios cum iudicio ecclesiae acquirendo. De sacrificio acquisiuit iustitiam, tam mundum et immaculatum sacrificium populo offerendo, et pro peccatis populi exorando. "Similiter et ille, qui duo talenta accepit, lucratus est alia duo." [Matt 25:17] Id est duas iustitias, unam bene uiuendo, quam acquisiuit a fide Christi: alteram synceriter ministrando, quam fecit ex ministerio diaconatus. "Qui autem unum accepit, abiens fodit in terram." [Matt 25:18] Primum uideamus, ut quid, neque ille qui duo talenta habuit, abscondisse talenta sua proponitur, cum multi diacones inueniantur inutiles: neque ille qui accepit quinque, cum multi doctores inueniantur inutiles, sed ille tantum qui unum accepit, id est, populus? Attende, deus secundum praescientiam suam, licet sciat qui iusti futuri sint, et qui iniusti: tamen omnes uocat ad fidem, dans eis gratiam credendi in Christum, quod est talentum bonis quidem ad salutem, malis autem ad praeiudicium, ut inexcusabiles fiant. Diaconibus autem et doctoribus secundum praeuidentiam suam, illis uidetur deus iniungere ministerium diaconatus, aut presbyteratus qui sunt justi: qui autem inueniuntur iniusti, illos homines ordinasse uidentur, non deus. Ab exitu ergo rei cognoscitur, qui a deo ordinatus est, et qui ab hominibus. Qui enim ministerium suum bene consummauerit, apparet quia ex deo fuerat ordinatus: qui autem ministerium suum non bene consummauerit, ex hominibus ordinatus est. Quomodo autem quidem sacerdotes ex hominibus ordinantur, manifeste in libro octauo canonum apostolorum dicitur. Qui autem ex hominibus ordinatus est, quantum ad deum non est diaconus aut sacerdos. Ergo in sacerdotibus quidem et diaconibus non est inuentus ut perdat talenta, qui secundum praescientiam ordinatur a deo. In popularibus autem euenit, quomodo etiam qui peccator futurus est, a deo accepit fidei gratiam. Secundum haec ergo quae diximus, si presbyter, aut diaconus peccator inuentus fuerit: quoniam quantum ad praescientiam dei (sicut iam diximus) non ex deo, sed ex hominibus factus uidetur presbyter aut diaconus, quasi laicus inuenitur inter eos qui unum talentum fidei acceperunt. Ac per hoc nemo ordinatus a deo peccat, nisi ut qui unum talentum accepit a deo. Ideo autem gratia fidei omnibus a deo praestatur, gratia autem clericatus non omnibus, sed dignis: quia in illa causa salutis est, in ista autem dispensatio mysterii. Nam et paterfamilias annonam quidem omnibus seruis praestat, negocia autem sua non omnibus committit. [...] "Accedens autem et qui duo talenta acceperat, ait: Domine, duo talenta tradidisti mihi, ecce alia duo." [Matt 25:22] Et si minor in opere, non minor in uoluntate. Videns autem dominus quia seruo illi non uoluntas operandi minor fuit, sed uirtus fidei: nam et ille uoluit similiter amplius operari, sed magis desiderijs ejus non suffecit modica fides. Ideo iustus iudex, etsi non similia lucra suscepit ab illo, quemadmodum ab isto, tamen sic beneuolentia istum suscepit, quemadmodum et illum: quia Christus non magis operum remunerator est, quam uoluntatum. Nec putet ergo diaconus, quod ex eo quod diaconus est, beatior erit, quam laicus studiosus. Non enim dignitas apud deum honorabitur, sed uoluntas. Nec diacono se beatiorem debet putare presbyter ex eo quod presbyter est, quam se, si fuerit bonus diaconus: quoniam gradus ministerii ex Deo est, perfecta autem uoluntas ex nobis. Propterea non sumus iudicandi, quia non fecimus quod in parte nostra non est: sed ex eo sumus iudicandi, quod in nobis est posse, si uolumus.

(ed. Desiderius Erasmus 1530: 743-744; cf. PG 56, col. 934-936, ed. B. Montefaucon)

Homily 53

"He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more." [Matt 25:16] From the talent of his recognition of Christ he acquired one form of righteousness by living well. But from the presbyterate he obtained another form of righteousness by diligently presiding over the church. From the word he obtained yet another form of righteousness by sincerely preaching the word of truth. From baptism he made a profit by baptizing in accordance with the rule of Christ and by acquiring worthy children with justice. From the sacrifice he obtained righteousness by offering so pure and undefiled a sacrifice for the people and by praying for the sins of the people. "So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more." [Matt 25:17] That is, he made two forms of righteousness: one by living well, which he acquired by faith in Christ, and the other by sincerely serving, which he did from the service of the diaconate. "But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money." [Matt 25:18] First, let us see why it is stated he who had the two talents did not also hide his talents, since many deacons are found to be useless, and why he who received the five talents is not said to have hid the talents, even though many teachers are found to be useless, but why only he who received the one talent, that is, the lay person, did it? Pay attention: although God knows who the righteous will be and who the unrighteous will be, in accordance with his foreknowledge, nonetheless he calls all people to faith and gives them the grace of believing in Christ, which is the talent for salvation as far as the good are concerned, but is a talent to pronounce judgment as far as the evil are concerned, so that the latter may be without excuse. But in his providence God seems to enjoin the ministry of the diaconate or presbyterate to deacons and teachers who are righteous. But those who are found to be unrighteous appear to have been ordained by people, not God. Therefore, from the outcome of a matter one can recognize who was ordained by God and who by people. For whoever fulfills his ministry well appears to have been ordained by God, but whoever does not fulfill his ministry well was ordained by people. But how some priests are ordained by people is clearly told in the eighth book of the canons. But whoever was ordained by people is not a deacon or priest as far as God is concerned. Therefore, among the priests and deacons there is not found a person who would lose his talents, since he was ordained by God in his foreknowledge. But it happens among the ordinary people that even one who will be a sinner receives the grace of faith from God. Therefore, according to what we have said, if a presbyter or deacon is found to be a sinner, because he does not seem to have been made a presbyter or deacon by God but by people (as far as the foreknowledge of God is concerned), he is found to be a lay person among those who received the one talent of faith. And by this fact nobody ordained by God sins except the person who received only one talent from God. Thus the grace of faith is offered by God to all, but the grace of clerical office is not offered to all but only to the worthy, because the grace of faith is a matter of salvation, but the grace of clerical office is a stewardship of the mystery. For also the head of a house gives rations to all the servants, but he does not entrust his business to all. [...] "And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more." [Matt 25:22] Even if he is lesser in work, he is not lesser in will. But since the Lord saw that the will to work was no less in that servant, but the power of his faith was, for he also wished to work more but his modest faith did not suffice for his desires, so the righteous judge, even if he did not receive the same profits from him as from the other, nonetheless in kindness so welcomed him as he had the other, because Christ does not reward the works as much as the wills. Therefore, let not a deacon think that because he is a deacon he is more blessed than a diligent lay person, for the office is not honored by God but the will is. The presbyter ought not to think that he is more blessed than the deacon because he is a presbyter, for if the deacon is good he may be better than the presbyter, because degrees of ministry come from God, but a perfect will comes from us. For that reason we will not be judged because we did not do what was not in our ability to do so, but we will be judged based on what it was possible for us to do if we want to.

(trans. Kellerman 2010: 414-417)

Discussion:

The author refers here to Book Eight of the Apostolic Constitution, see Metzger 1987.

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. Piedmonte (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. Metzger, Les Constitutions apostoliques. Livres VII et VIII, Sources Chretiennes 336, Paris 1987

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 - Presbyter/πρεσβύτερος

Described by a title - Sacerdos/ἱερεύς

Impediments or requisits for the office - Improper/Immoral behaviour

Ritual activity - Baptism and instructing catechumens

Described by a title - Doctor

Theoretical considerations - On priesthood

Theoretical considerations - On church hierarchy

Pastoral activity - Preaching

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, ER2070, http://www.presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?id=6&SourceID=2070