The Presbyters Project

Print:

ER 2090

Anonymous author of the "Incomplete Commentary on Matthew" claims that only holy persons can truly be priests. Many priests act faithlessly but their good teaching still should be observed. The mid-5th c., the Danubian provinces or Constantinople.

Homilia 43

"Super cathedram Moysi sederunt scribae et Pharisaei," [Matt 23:2] id est multi sacerdotes, et pauci sacerdotes. Multi nomine, pauci opere. Videte ergo, quomodo sedetis super eam: quia cathedra non facit sacerdotem, sed sacerdos cathedram: non locus sanctificat hominem, sed homo locum. Non omnis sacerdos sanctus est, sed omnis sanctus sacerdos. Qui bene sederit super cathedram, honorem accipiet ab illa: qui male sederit, iniuriam facit cathedrae. Ideoque malus sacerdos, de sacerdotio suo crimen acquirit, non dignitatem. In iudicio enim sedens, si quidem bene uixeris, et bene docueris, omnium iudex es: si autem bene docueris, et male uixeris, tui solius condemnator es. Nam bene uiuendo, et bene docendo, populum instruis, quomodo debeat uiuere: bene autem docendo, et male uiuendo, deum instruis quomodo te debeat condemnare. Ad populum autem quid? "Omnia quaecumque dixerint uobis, seruate, et facite: secundum uero facta eorum nolite facere." [Matt 23:3] Id est uos qui sedetis in ecclesia, quasi iudices sacerdotum, et non auditores: aliena discutientes, et propria non consyderantes, ex uobis ipsis iudicate de sacerdotibus. Sicut uos omnes auditis, et non omnes facitis quod auditis: sic et sacerdotes omnes docent, sed non omnes faciunt quod docent. Nam in hominibus dignitas quidem diuersa est, omnium autem natura una est. Homines enim ab initio creati sunt propter se, postea autem ordinati sunt propter nos. Propterea ergo natura eorum, ipsorum est: ordinatio autem eorum, nostra. Si bene uixerint, eorum est lucrum: si bene docuerint, nostrum. Accipite ergo quod uestrum est, et nolite discutere quod alienum est. Sicut enim sacerdotes etiam infideles docent propter fideles, melius iudicantes propter bonos etiam malos fouere, quam propter malos etiam bonos negligere: sic ergo et uos propter bonos sacerdotes etiam malos honorate, ne propter malos etiam bonos contemnatis. Melius est enim malis iusta praestare, quam bonis iusta subtrahere. Frequenter enim et de homine malo bona doctrina procedit. Ecce enim et uilis terra pretiosum aurum producit. Nunquid propter terram uilem pretiosum aurum contemnitur? Non: sed sicut aurum eligitur et terra relinquitur, sic et uos doctrinam accipite, et mores relinquite. Nam ut apibus herbae necessariae non sunt, sed flores herbarum: flores enim illae colligunt, herbas uero relinquunt: sic et uos flores doctrinae colligite, et conuersationem relinquite, ut quasi inutilis herba arescat. Fidem praedicant, et infideliter agunt. Pacem aliis dant, et sibi non habent. Veritatem laudant, et mendacia diligunt. Auaritiam castigant, et auaritiam exercent. Quia ergo scire bonum et malum, in natura positum est, facere autem in uoluntate, ideo bene dicere, omnium est; bene autem facere, paucorum.

(ed. Desiderius Erasmus 1530: 695; cf. PG 56, col. 876-77, ed. B. Montefaucon)

Homily 43

"The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat," [Matt 23:2] that is, many priests and few priests - many in name but few in deed. See then how you sit on Moses' seat, because the seat does not make the priest, but the priest makes the seat; the place does not hallow the person but the person the place. For not every priest is holy but every holy person is a priest. Whoever sits well on the seat receives honor from it, but whoever sits badly injures the seat. And so a bad priest acquires reproach, not honor, for his priesthood. For sitting in the judgment seat, if you live well and teach well, you are the judge of all, but if you teach well and live

badly, you condemn yourself. For by living well and teaching well you instruct the people how they should live, but by teaching well and living badly you instruct God how he ought to condemn you. But what does he say to the people? "So practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do." [Matt 23:3] That is, you who sit in the church as the judges of the priests and not hearers, discussing other people's business and not considering your own, judge for yourselves concerning the priests. Just as you all hear and yet not all do what you hear, so also all the priests teach but do not all do what they teach. For in people there is a variety of honor, but the nature of all is the same. For people were created from the beginning for their own sake, bur afterwards they have been ordained for your sake. Therefore, for this reason, their nature is their own, but their ordination is yours. If they live well, that is to their benefit; if they teach well, it is to yours. Therefore take what is yours, and do not wish to discuss what does not belong to you. For just as priests teach unbelievers for the sake of the faithful, judging it better to cherish even evil people for the sake of the good people rather than to neglect even the good people for the sake of evil people, so therefore also you honor even bad priests for the sake of the good priests, so that you do not despise even good priests for the sake of evil priests. For it is better to offer righteous things to evil people than to take away righteous things from good people. For often good doctrine comes forth from a wicked person. Behold, even cheap dirt produces priceless gold. Is the priceless gold despised because of the cheap earth? No, but just as gold is chosen and the soil is left behind, so also take the teaching and leave their morality behind. For bees do not need plants but the flowers of plants, for they collect the flowers but leave the plants alone. So also collect the flowers of doctrine, and leave their lifestyle alone, so that it may dry up like useless grass. They preach faith and act faithlessly. They give peace to others and do not have it for themselves. They praise the truth and love lies. They chastise greed, and they practice greed. Therefore, because it has been planted in nature to know good and evil, but it has been planted in the will to do good and evil, so all can speak well, but few can behave well.

(trans. Kellerman 2010: 343-44)

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

Administration of justice - Administration of justice

Theoretical considerations - On priesthood

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, ER2090, http://www.presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?id=6&SourceID=2090