PREFACE TO THE HOMILIES OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
1. Many more questions immediately present themselves for investigation here than in many other of Chrysostom’s commentaries on Holy Scripture. Indeed, the very inscription of the work raises questions not so easily resolved. For it is reported that this work was edited after the death of St. John Chrysostom by a certain Constantine, a presbyter of Antioch, who had extracted it from notes. The question is asked, therefore: who is this Constantine? What are those signs from which Chrysostom’s homilies were drawn? Has that exemplar, which Constantine issued, come down to us intact? And is it to be preferred before all other exemplars?
2. Savile and Tillemont think that this Constantine, the Antiochene presbyter, is Constantine the presbyter of Antioch; namely, he who went to Cucusus with Chrysostom, as we see above in Vol. 3, col. 612; who was present at Cucusus; and who remained by his side (col. 743). This is the very man whose letters we have brought forward, col. 740 ff. Nor should it trouble anyone that he is sometimes called Constantine and sometimes Constantius; for the confusion of these words is most frequent in the manuscripts; and as we have warned in col. 741–742, that Constantius who was close to Chrysostom, who wrote the epistle to his mother and others which we have published, it is certain in a certain codex called Constantine that this Constantine, or Constantius, was diligent in collecting and publishing Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
3. The inscription or title in both the editions and the manuscripts is: *John Chrysostom, etc., Interpretation on the Epistle to the Hebrews, edited from notes after his death by Constantine, Presbyter of Antioch.* The question is what these signs are, what these notes are. I, however, agree with Cangius, or rather the scholiast of the Basilics, who states that these notes were a form of shorthand, by which words and speech were transcribed more quickly: and it was in this way that Constantine produced these homilies in the form in which they were written in the common style. But no one agrees with Erasmus who, when he saw the title "after his death," confessed with great diffidence that this work was not by Chrysostom. For in these homilies, the style, the diction, the arguments, and the ethical precepts of Chrysostom are perceived by the expert reader immediately. Erasmus produced these censures not once but many times, appearing very superficial to those who treat these matters seriously.
4. It remains to inquire whether that exemplar which Constantine issued has come down to us intact, and whether it is to be preferred above all other exemplars. Certain it is that the Greek manuscripts, and even the editions, frequently do not agree among themselves or with Constantine’s exemplar. They often contain—even in those very few which we have seen—much more than that exemplar of the presbyter Constantine. Moreover, we have no other knowledge of this exemplar than what has been provided in the Latin Mutian version by the order of Cassiodorus. For Cassiodorus says in *De Divinis Lectionibus*, ch. 8: "Regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews, which the holy John, Bishop of Constantinople, treated in the Attic tongue, we have had it translated into Latin by the most learned Mutianus." This Latin translation of Mutianus was published at Basel in the year 1517 with this title: *The blessed John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, exposition on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, edited from notes after his death by Constantine, Presbyter of Antioch, translated by Mutianus the Scholastic.*
5. Erasmus afterwards edited this same Latin version. This interpretation also appears in Roman manuscripts under that title. But since this Latin interpretation was issued only about a hundred years after Chrysostom’s death, it is quite likely that it was edited according to the exemplar collected by Constantine, and from this, the quality of the collection can be known. Moreover, Henry Savile speaks wonders of Mutian's version in his notes, p. 551; he wants that recent version—which had been prepared and printed long before he wrote—to be rejected as inferior, and the old one, which he judges to be the best, to be placed alongside the Greek context. Because we wish to favor Savile’s hand, we place the interpretation of Mutianus at the bottom of the page: for as it was prepared by the order of Cassiodorus, it does not deserve to be neglected, even for this reason. In other matters, we deviate not a little from Savile’s opinion. For we do not think that we ought to put such faith in Constantine’s exemplar, nor do we think that this more recent version, which is generally different from Constantine’s exemplar and expresses the Greek series in another way, is to be entirely rejected; but we judge it should be emended, and we have placed the corrected text alongside the Greek columns; for Mutian's version, as it often differs from the Greek (as it stands today), could not be placed alongside it.
6. Therefore, although the commentary of Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews appears in few Greek manuscripts, a wonderful variety of readings is observed among them; such as is discovered A
Preface TO THE HOMILIES OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
1. Far more things here offer themselves for immediate inquiry than in many other of Chrysostom’s commentaries on Sacred Scripture. Indeed, the very inscription of the work raises questions not so easily solved: for it is reported there that after the death of St. John Chrysostom, a certain Constantine, a presbyter of Antioch, published this work, which had been derived from notes. It is asked, therefore: who is this Constantine; what are those notes from which Chrysostom’s homilies were derived; whether that exemplar which Constantine sent forth has reached us sound; and whether it is always to be preferred to other exemplars.
2. Savile and Tillemont think this Constantine, presbyter of Antioch, is Constantius, the presbyter of Antioch—namely, the one who visited Chrysostom when he was in exile at Cucusus (as you may see above, Tom. 3, col. 612), who was with him at Cucusus (col. 670), who clung to his side (col. 743), and the very one whose letters we have adduced (col. 740 and following). Nor does it trouble them that one is called Constantine and the other Constantius; for the interchange of those names is most frequent in manuscripts; and, as we have noted in cols. 741-742, that Constantius who was intimate with Chrysostom, who wrote the letter to his mother and others which we have edited, is called Constantine in a certain codex. It seems likely, then, though not entirely certain, that this Constantine, or Constantius, devoted his efforts to collecting and publishing Chrysostom’s homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
3. The inscription or title in printed editions and manuscripts reads thus: *Interpretation by John Chrysostom, etc., on the Epistle to the Hebrews, published from notes after his death by Constantine, presbyter of Antioch.* It is asked what those signs and notes are. I, however, agree with Du Cange—or rather with the scholiast on the *Basilica* whose words he cites—who asserts that those notes were the shorter strokes of the pen (*ductus calami breviores*) by which words and expressions were written down more quickly; it was from such notes that Constantine brought forth these homilies, transcribed in a plain and common manner. But no one agrees with Erasmus, who, when he saw "after his death" in the title, said that the title itself rather bashfully confessed that this work was not by Chrysostom. In these homilies, indeed, the style, diction, wit, and ethical precepts of Chrysostom are immediately perceived by the learned reader. Yet Erasmus quite lightly and more than once put forth censures of this kind which, to those dealing with the matter seriously, seemed very flimsy.
4. It remains now to inquire whether that exemplar which Constantine sent forth has reached us sound, and whether it is always to be preferred to other exemplars. The Greek manuscripts—and indeed the printed editions—often do not agree with each other or with Constantine’s exemplar; frequently, both those which we have seen (which are very few) and those which Savile used contain much more than that exemplar of Constantine the presbyter. Furthermore, no other knowledge of this exemplar remains for us than what is in the Latin version of Mutianus, produced by the command of Cassiodorus. For Cassiodorus says, in *De Divinis Lectionibus*, ch. 8: "We have had the Epistle to the Hebrews, which St. John, Bishop of Constantinople, treated in the Attic tongue, translated into Latin by Mutianus, a most eloquent man." This Latin interpretation of Mutianus was printed at Basel in the year 1517 with this title: *The Exposition of the Blessed John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of the Blessed Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, published from notes after his death by Constantine, presbyter of Antioch, translated by Mutianus Scholasticus.*
5. Erasmus afterwards published the same Latin version. This interpretation also appears with this title in the Roman manuscripts. Since this Latin interpretation was produced only about one hundred years after Chrysostom’s death, it is entirely likely that it was edited according to the exemplar collected by Constantine, and from this, one can learn what Constantine’s collection was like. Moreover, Henry Savile wonderfully extols the version of Mutianus in his notes (p. 551), and wishes that the recent one, which had been arranged and printed a little before he wrote, be rejected as the worst, and deems that old one as the best, to be placed alongside the Greek text. We concede to Savile’s wish, while we place Mutianus’s interpretation at the bottom of the page*: as it, being produced by the command of Cassiodorus, deserves not to be neglected for that reason alone. However, in other matters we deviate not a little from Savile’s judgment. For we do not think that faith should always be placed in Constantine’s exemplar, which Mutianus followed, nor did we judge that the more recent version—which for the most part expresses a Greek sequence different from Constantine’s exemplar—should be entirely rejected; rather, we judged it should be amended, and we have placed it, corrected, alongside the Greek. For it was not permissible to place Mutianus’s version alongside it, as it differs quite often from the current Greek texts.
6. And so, although Chrysostom’s commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews appears in few Greek manuscripts, a wonderful variety of readings is observed among them: such as is detected
INDEX OF THE WORKS OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THIS TWELFTH VOLUME.
1. Preface and 34 Homilies on the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrews, with the Latin translation by Mutianus Scholasticus added (at the end of the work), Savil., Vol. 4, p. 1. Morel., Vol. 6, p. 427.
There follow eleven homilies hitherto unpublished, and which contribute much to the history of that age.
† 2. First homily delivered in the Martyrion or in the church which is the ancient Petra: “That one ought to assemble frequently, and that one should not despair of salvation,” col. 469-470.
† 3. Second homily delivered when the Empress Eudoxia had accompanied the relics of the martyrs translated to another church, etc., col. 475-476.
† 4. Third homily delivered after the Emperor had come with his retinue to venerate the relics in the church of St. Thomas, col. 481-482.
† 5. Fourth homily delivered in the church of St. Anastasia concerning the struggles of Saint Job, col. 485-486.
† 6. Fifth homily delivered in the temple of St. Irene, concerning the zeal of those present and the sloth of those absent: “That one ought to sing psalms,” etc., col. 493-494.
† 7. Sixth homily delivered in the church of the Apostles on the day of the Emperor Theodosius, against the Cathars, col. 499-500.
† 8. Seventh homily delivered in the temple of St. Anastasia, col. 501-502.
† 9. Eighth homily delivered in the church of St. Paul, col. 507-508.
† 10. Ninth homily: “That one ought not to go up to the circus and theaters, and on the text, ‘My Father is working until now, and I am working’,” col. 519-520.
† 11. Tenth homily on the text, “The harvest indeed is plentiful, but the laborers are few,” col. 523-524.
† 12. Eleventh homily concerning Eleazar and the seven boys, col. 531-532.
13. Concerning the Sealing of the Scriptures, col. 539-540. Savil. Vol. 5, p. 689. Morel. Vol. 6, p. 158.
14. Homily on the text, “In the beginning was the Word,” col. 551-552. Savil. Vol. 5, p. 659. Morel. Vol. 6, p. 235.
15. Sermon on Gentleness, col. 555-558. Savil. Vol. 6, p. 759. Morel. Vol. 5, p. 538.
16. Eclogae or Florilegia from Savile, augmented, col. 567-568. Savil. Vol. 7, p. 665. Morel. Vol. 6, p. 666.
17. Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, col. 901-902. Savil. Vol. 6, p. 983.
SPURIA
18. On the New Sunday and on St. Thomas, col. 927-928. Savil. Vol. 7, p. 573.
19. On St. Stephen, col. 929-930. Savil. Vol. 7, p. 578.
20. On St. Stephen, col. 931-932. Savil. Vol. 7, p. 581.
21. On St. Stephen, col. 935-936. Savil. Vol. 7, p. 781.
22. On Pentecost, col. 931-938 [sic]. Savil. Vol. 7, p. 782.
23. On patience, and on the consummation of this age, etc., col. 937-938. Savil. Vol. 7, p. 435.
24. Encomium of Saint Gregory the Illuminator, translated into Latin from the Armenian by the Abbot of Villefroy.
[index: entries preserved]