The Presbyters Project

Print:

ER 2091

Anonymous author of the "Incomplete Commentary on Matthew" criticizes priests who do not fulfill what they teach and exhorts priests to be forgiving to people and exacting to themselves. The mid-5th c., the Danubian provinces or Constantinople.

Homilia 43

Erant enim quidam qui onera legis quibusdam rationibus fabulosis commendantes, auditoribus quasi uinculis super humeros cordis eorum alligabant, ut quasi rationis uinculo constricti, non reiicerent ea a se, ipsi autem nec ex modica parte ea implebant, id est non dicam pleno opere suo, sed nec modico tactu, hoc est digito. Secundum consequentiam autem, tales sunt etiam nunc sacerdotes, qui omnem iustitiam populo mandant, et ipsi nec modice seruant, uidelicet non ut facientes sint iusti, sed ut docentes appareant iusti. Tales sunt et qui graue pondus uenientibus ad poenitentiam imponunt, qui dicunt et non faciunt: et sic dum poena poenitentiae praesentis fugit, cotemnit poena peccati futuri. Si enim fascem super humeros adolescentis, quam non potest baiulare, posueris, necesse habet ut aut fascem reijciat, aut sub pondere confringatur. Sic et homini, cui graue pondus poenitentiae ponis, necesse est, ut aut poenitentiam tuam reiiciat: aut suscipiens, dum sufferre non potest, scandalizatus amplius peccet. Deinde etsi erramus, modicam poenitentiam imponentes, num ne melius est propter misericordiam rationem dare, quam propter crudelitatem? Vbi enim paterfamilias largus est, dispensator non debet esse tenax. Si deus benignus est, ut quid sacerdos eius austerus? Vis apparere sanctus? circa tuam uitam esto austerus, circa alienam autem benignus. Audiant te homines parua mandantem, et grandia uideant facientem. Talis est autem sacerdos, qui sibi indulget, et ab aliis grauia exigit, quemadmodum malus descriptor tributi in ciuitate, qui se releuat, et onerat impotentes.

(ed. Desiderius Erasmus 1530: 696; cf. PG 56, col. 877-78, ed. B. Montefaucon)

Homily 43

There were some who commended the burdens of the Law to their hearers with certain arguments, as if they were binding chains around the shoulders of their hearts so that once they were bound by the chain of reason they could not cast it off of themselves, but they themselves were not fulfilling those things even in a modest way; that is, I am not saying that they fulfilled them in their own work but that they did not even touch it slightly, that is, with a finger. But in their train are now those priests who teach all righteousness to people and yet themselves neither moderately keep it, namely, not so that they may be just by their actions but so that they may appear just by their teaching. Such people are also those who impose a heavy burden on those coming to repentance, who say and do not do; and so the penitent despises any penalty for a future sin while he avoids the punishment for the present repentance. For if you impose a bundle on the shoulders of a youth, which he cannot bear, it is necessary either that he reject the bundle or that he be crushed under the weight; so also it is necessary for a person on whom you place a heavy burden of repentance to either reject your repentance or (if he receives it) to sin all the more since he is offended and cannot endure it. Furthermore, even if we are wrong to impose too gentle a repentance, is it not better to give an account for mercy's sake rather than for cruelty's sake? For wherever the head of the household is generous, the steward ought not to be stingy. If God is kindly, why is his priest austere? Do you wish to appear holy? Be strict with your own life but kindly with other people's lives. Let people hear you commanding little things and see you doing great things. For a priest who indulges himself and exacts burdens from others is like an evil collector of tax in a city who lightens his burden and burdens the weak.

(trans. Kellerman 2010: 345)

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 - Reconciliation/Administering penance

Theoretical considerations - On priesthood

Please quote this record referring to its author, database name, number, and, if possible, stable URL: M. Szada, Presbyters in the Late Antique West, ER2091, http://www.presbytersproject.ihuw.pl/index.php?id=6&SourceID=2091