Theodoret. Euthalius. conjecture of Dom Pitra, that the great Hilary was their author. The true authorship was ascertained by Professor Hort' from a comparison with the Greek fragments of Theodore, and pointed out by him in the Journ. of Clas. and Sacr. Phil. IV. p. 302 (Camb. 1859). Though much marred by an indifferent Latin translator2, this commentary is inferior in importance to the works of Jerome and Chrysostom alone among the patristic expositions now extant. Theodore was a leader of religious thought in his day, and as an expositor he has frequently caught the Apostle's meaning where other commentators have failed3. Among his contemporaries he had a vast reputation, and was called by the Nestorian Christians 'the Interpreter' par excellence: see Renaudot Lit. Orient. II. p. 616. In the Catholic Church of a later date the imputation of heresy overshadowed and darkened his fame. On this writer see Fabricius x. p. 346 sq (esp. p. 359), Rosenmüller III. p. 250 sq, Schröckh xv. p. 197 sq. (vii) THEODORETUS († about 458), bishop of Cyrus, a native of Antioch and a disciple of Theodore. His commentaries on St Paul are superior to his other exegetical writings and have been assigned the palm over all patristic expositions of Scripture. See Schröckh XVIII. p. 398 sq, Simon p. 314 8q, Rosenmüller IV. p. 93 sq, and the monograph of Richter de Theodoreto Epist. Paulin, interprete (Lips. 1822). For appreciation, terseness of expression, and good sense, they are perhaps unsurpassed, and, if the absence of faults were a just standard of merit, they would deserve the first place; but they have little claim to originality, and he who has read Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia will find scarcely anything in Theodoret which he has not seen before. It is right to add however that Theodoret himself modestly disclaims any such merit. In his preface he apologizes for attempting to interpret St Paul after two such men (μerà Tòv deîva kai ròv deîva) who are 'luminaries of the world': and he professes nothing more than to gather his stores 'from the blessed fathers.' In these expressions he alludes doubtless to Chrysostom and Theodore. (viii) EUTHALIUS, afterwards bishop of Sulce (supposed to have been in Egypt, but as no such place is known to have existed there, probably Sulce in Sardinia is meant; see the Notitia printed in Hierocl. Synecd. p. 79, ed. Parthey), wrote his work while a young man in the year 458. On his date see Zacagni Collect. Mon. Vet. I. pp. 402, 536, Fabricius IX. p. 287. Euthalius edited the Epistles of St Paul, dividing them into chapters (kepáλaia) and verses (σríxo), writing a general preface and arguments to the several epi 1 Whilst the first edition of this work was going through the press, my attention was directed by Dr Hort to an article by J. L. Jacobi in the Deutsche Zeitschr. f. Christl. Wissensch. Aug. 1854, in which, unknown to him, his conclusions had been anticipated. A more recent writer (Reinkens Hilarius von Poitiers, Schaffhausen 1864) states fairly the objections to Dom Pitra's view, but is apparently ignorant that the question of authorship is no longer a matter of conjecture. 2 Thus for instance he makes Theodore fall into the common error of interpreting ovvotaxeî, Gal. iv. 25, ‘is contiguous to' ('affinis,' 'confinis'); but the context, as well as the Greek fragment which has ισοδυναμεί, shows that the blunder is the translator's own. 3 The first volume of a very careful edition of these Commentaries has recently appeared, by the Rev. H. B. Swete, Cambridge, 1880. stles, and marking and enumerating the scriptural quotations. The divisions into chapters and the headings of the chapters he borrowed from some earlier writer (Zacagni, p. 528), probably the same whose date is given as A.D. 396 (ib. 536). Mill conjectures this person to have been Theodore of Mopsuestia; Proleg. pp. lxxxvi, lxxxvii. Reasons however have been assigned for thinking that Euthalius in this work was largely indebted to a much earlier critic, Pamphilus the martyr († 309): see Tregelles in Horne's Introduction, p. 27. On the stichometry of Euthalius see Mill Proleg. p. xc, Scrivener's Introduction, pp. 49, 58, and especially Tregelles, 1. c. Though not a commentary, the work is sufficiently important in its bearing on the criticism of St Paul's Epistles to deserve a place here. It was first printed entire in Zacagni's Collect. Mon. Vet. I. p. 402 sq, and may be found in Gallandi x. p. 197 sq. (ix) *GENNADIUS († 471), patriarch of Constantinople. A few extracts Gennain the printed editions of the Ecumenian Catena bear the name of Gen- dius. nadius, and the number might be increased by consulting the Mss. I suppose these are rightly attributed to the patriarch of Constantinople, among whose works they are included in Migne's Patrol. Græc. LXXXV. p. 1611, for they can scarcely be assigned to any other of the name. So far as I know, there is no record of any work on St Paul by this or any Gennadius. The fragments on the Galatians indeed are so scanty that they do not in themselves warrant us in assuming a special work on this epistle, but the numerous extracts on the Epistle to the Romans in Cramer's Catena must certainly have been taken from a continuous exposition. (x) *PHOTIUS (+ about 891), patriarch of Constantinople. For the fullest Photius. information on the writings of this great man, see Fabricius x. p. 670 sq. Large fragments bearing the name of Photius are preserved in the Ecumenian Catena, taken it would appear from a Commentary on St Paul's Epistles no longer extant. Cave indeed asserts (II. p. 49) that a мs exists in the Cambridge University Library, and this statement is repeated by Fabricius, XI. p. 33, and others. This is a mistake. The мs in question (Ff. 1. 30), which is incorrectly labelled with the name of Photius, provesas far at least as relates to the Epistle to the Galatians-to contain a collection of notes identical with that of the Ecumenian Catena. It is accurately described in the new Catalogue. These fragments of Photius do not contribute much that is new to the criticism of St Paul, but they are an additional testimony to the extensive learning and intellectual vigour of the writer. (b) Latin Fathers. (b) Latin. (i) C. MARIUS VICTORINUS (about 360), an African, surnamed the Phi- Victorilosopher, converted to Christianity in old age, taught rhetoric at Rome nus. when Jerome was a boy. He wrote commentaries apparently on all St Paul's Epistles (Hieron. de Vir. Illustr. 101, præf. ad Gal.), of which the expositions of the Galatians, Philippians, and Ephesians alone are extant. They were first published by Mai Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. 11. 2, p. 1 (1828), and may be found in Migne Patr. Lal. VIII. p. 1145. It is difficult to understand the reputation which Victorinus had for eloquence. His work on the Galatians is obscure, confused, and as an exposition almost worthless, Hilary. Jerome. Augustine. but it now and then preserves a curious fact (e.g. about the Symmachians, p. 16) and is interesting as the earliest extant commentary on this epistle. There is a lacuna from v. 18 to the end of the chapter. On this writer see Mai's Preface, p. x sq, and the article in Smith's Dict. of Biography. (ii) AMBROSIASTER, so called because his commentary was wrongly ascribed to St Ambrose and is commonly printed with the works of that father: see the Benedictine Edition, II. App. p. 20 sq. It is however quoted by Augustine (cont. Duas Epist. Pelag. iv. 7, x. p. 472, ed. Ben.) under the name 'sanctus Hilarius,' and is generally ascribed in consequence to Hilary the Roman deacon who lived about the middle of the fourth century and attached himself to the Luciferian schism. The epithet 'sanctus' however is not likely to have been applied by St Augustine to this person, and it must remain doubtful what Hilary was intended, except that we cannot possibly ascribe these commentaries to the great Hilary of Poitiers. The author, whoever he was, wrote during the pontificate of Damasus (see his note on 1 Tim. iii. 15) who was bishop of Rome from 366 to 384. See Schröckh vI. p. 210, XIV. p. 310. This work, which includes the thirteen epistles of St Paul, is one of the best Latin commentaries. A good account of it is given in Simon p. 133 sq: see also Rosenmüller III. p. 589 sq. I have generally quoted this commentator as the Ambrosian Hilary, or as Hilary simply. (iii) EUSEBIUS SOPHRONIUS HIERONYMUS. His 'Commentarii in Epistolam ad Galatas' (VII. p. 367 ed. Vallarsi) were written about the year 387 (Hieron. Vit. XI. p. 104). In his preface he speaks of himself as undertaking a task unattempted by any Latin writer (he afterwards excepts Victorinus, of whom he speaks contemptuously), and treated by very few oven of the Greeks in a manner worthy of the dignity of the subject. It is clear from this that he had not seen the work of the Ambrosiaster, which perhaps had only been published a few years before. Of the Greeks he singles out Origen, whose labours he extols highly and whom he professes to have followed. Besides Origen, he mentions having read Didymus (of Alexandria, who died in 396 at an advanced age: see Fabricius IX. p. 269) whom in allusion to his blindness he calls 'my seer' (videntem meum), one Alexander whom he designates an ancient heretic (of whom nothing is known), 'the Laodicene who has lately left the church' (meaning Apollinarius; see Fabricius VIII. p. 589), Eusebius of Emisa, and Theodorus of Heraclea († about 355; see Fabricius IX. p. 319). Of these writers he speaks loosely as having left 'nonnullos commentariolos,' which were not without their value. All these he read and digested before commencing his own work. Though abounding in fanciful and perverse interpretations, violations of good taste and good feeling, faults of all kinds, this is nevertheless the most valuable of all the patristic commentaries on the Epistle to the Galatians: for the faults are more than redeemed by extensive learning, acute criticism, and lively and vigorous exposition. (iv) AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS; 'Expositio Epistolae ad Galatas,' written about 394 and apparently without consulting previous commentators (see p. 130, note 3), of whom he shows no knowledge. The great excellences of Augustine as an 'Interpreter of Scripture' are sufficiently vindicated by Archbishop Trench (in his introduction to the 'Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount') against the attacks of writers who had too little sympathy with his tone of mind to appreciate his merits: but spiritual insight, though a far diviner gift than the critical faculty, will not supply its place. In this faculty Augustine was wanting, and owing to this defect, as a continuous expositor he is disappointing. With great thoughts here and there, his commentary on the Galatians is inferior as a whole to several of the patristic expositions. (v) PELAGIUS, the great heresiarch, wrote his commentaries on the Pelagius. thirteen epistles of St Paul in Rome, and therefore not later than 410, before the Pelagian controversy broke out. Strangely enough in the middle of the 6th century, when Cassiodorus wrote, learned men assigned them to Pope Gelasius. Stranger still they have at a later date been fathered upon Jerome, and are generally printed in the editions of his works (XI. 2, p. 135 ed. Vall.). The true authorship however is established almost beyond a doubt by the quotations and references of Augustine and Marius Mercator, the contemporaries of Pelagius. On the other hand some of the passages given by Marius Mercator are wanting in the extant copies; but history supplies the clue to this perplexity. About the middle of the sixth century Cassiodorus (Inst. Div. Lit. c. 8), finding this commentary tainted with Pelagian errors, expurgated the Epistle to the Romans by removing the heretical passages, and thus set an example, as he tells us, which might be followed the more easily by others in the remaining epistles1. In its present form then this commentary is mutilated. The notes are pointed and good, but meagre. The high estimation in which they were held, in spite of the cloud which hung over their author, and the fact of their being attributed both to Gelasius and to Jerome, are high testimonies to their merits. Good accounts of this commentary will be found in Simon p. 236 sq, Schröckh xiv. p. 338 sq, and Rosenmüller III. p. 503 8q. (vi) MAGNUS AURELIUS CASSIODORUS († after 562). 'Complexiones in CassiodoEpistolas Apostolorum, in Acta, et in Apocalypsin,' first brought to light rus. and published by Scipio Maffei in 1721. It was reprinted by Chandler (1722 and 1723), and may be found in Migne's Patrol. Lat. LXX. p. 1343. This work consists of a few reflexions on detached passages, utterly valueless in themselves. It has a peculiar interest however as containing traces of I Joh. v. 7. See Schröckh XVI. p. 153, Rosenmüller v. p. 412 sq. 2. SECONDARY COMMENTARIES, excerpts, compilations, and collections of 2. LATER variorum notes, mostly of a later date. (a) Greek Writers. These are compiled from the Greek fathers already mentioned, but especially from Chrysostom. 1 Migne's Patrol. Lat. LXX. p. 1119 sq. The identity of the work of which Cassiodorus speaks with this commen. tary is inferred from his description, for he does not himself mention the true author, though protesting against assigning it to Gelasius. On the other hand Cassiodorus a little later mentions what apparently he regards as another COMMEN TARIES. (a) Greek. Damascene. Cramer's Ecumenius. Theophy lact. (b) Latin. (i) JOANNES DAMASCENUS (about 750). A commentary on St Paul's Epistles, being an epitome of Chrysostom (see Fabricius IX. p. 281, Schröckh xx. p. 207), printed in Jo. Damasc. Op. II. p. 1 sq (ed. Le Quien). (ii) ANONYMOUS CATENA (date uncertain), first published by Cramer (Oxon. 1842). The authorship of the comments is very frequently noted (though not always correctly) either in the text or in the margin, but sometimes they are anonymous. The portion on the Galatians seems to be made up entirely of extracts from four commentators. Chrysostom is by far the largest contributor; Theodore of Mopsuestia comes next; and a few fragments (enumerated above, pp. 228, 229) bear the names of Eusebius of Emisa and Severianus. Of the anonymous fragments, those which belong to Chrysostom and Theodore can be verified: and such as remain after this verification ought probably to be assigned to either Eusebius or Severianus. (iii) ECUMENIUS (10th century), bishop of Tricca in Thessaly. The work which bears his name is a catena on the Acts and Epistles, to which he is one of the less important contributors. See especially Simon p. 458, and comp. Fabricius vII. p. 693, Rosenmüller IV. p. 263. Though this commentary seems to be anonymous in the Mss, it appears on the whole more probable than not, from internal evidence, that Ecumenius was also the compiler of the Catena, adding to it a few notes of his own. The affirmative is maintained by Hentenius in the preface to his edition (Paris, 1630); the negative by J. F. S. Augustin de Cat. Patr. Græc. p. 366. There are considerable variations in the different мss of this work; see Fabricius 1. c. p. 696, and Cramer's Catena p. 411. The names on the margin of the printed editions in the portion relating to the Galatians are Photius (apparently by far the largest contributor), Joannes (i.e. Chrysostom), Gennadius, Severianus, Theodoret, Cyril, and Ecumenius. The Mss in some instances supply names to extracts which in the printed editions are anonymous. The few extracts from Cyril do not appear to be taken from a commentary on this epistle. (iv) THEOPHYLACTUS (latter part of the 11th century), archbishop of Acris in Bulgaria. His commentary on St Paul's Epistles is founded chiefly on Chrysostom, with the aid of some other of the Greek fathers. The manner of execution has secured it a high reputation, but it possesses no independent value. On this commentary see Simon p. 403, Augustin p. 346, comp. Fabricius VII. p. 591. To these should be added the commentary of EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS (about 1110), which is said to exist in мs, but has never been printed. (b) Latin Writers. These are derived from the four Latin commentators, Hilary (Ambrosiaster), Jerome, Augustine, and Pelagius, directly or indirectly. Primasius. (i) PRIMASIUS (about 550), bishop of Adrumetum in Africa, wrote a commentary on all St Paul's Epistles, including the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse. It is a brief and fairly executed compilation from the Latin fathers already noticed, the most successful of these secondary commentaries. The editio princeps is by Gagnée (Lyons, 1537). This work |
