Commentary on All the Epistles of St. Paul

THEOPHYLACT, ARCHBISHOP OF BULGARIA, COMMENTARY ON ALL THE EPISTLES OF DIVINE PAUL. PHILIP BUELLEN’S PREFACE (Basle edition, year 1554)

What we did some years ago in the revision of the commentaries which Theophylact had eloquently written upon the Gospels, we have deemed it worthwhile to do now, candid Reader, for those which he edited upon all the Epistles of divine Paul; namely, so that you might understand, at least in some part, as we bring forward certain corrected readings, how great a benefit we have endeavored to confer upon your studies: lest, as generally happens, you should think you were being deceived here too by the splendid titles of printers, and thus, through imprudence, be deprived of the fruit of our labors, whatever they may be—which we observed happened to the Germans in their revision of Chrysostom’s Commentaries, printed by Carolus Guillard under the sign of the Golden Sun, to the great disadvantage of scholars, since they did not follow even those points which D. Erasmus, having been advised by us, had himself corrected. These labors, which are not insignificant, we have undertaken not unwillingly for your benefit and for that of all students, hoping that they would prove, first of all, by no means ungrateful to God, the best and greatest (to whose glory all our efforts must primarily be directed, and relying on whose help we have attempted this work, whatever it is), and secondly, not unfruitful to you, candid Reader, or to any student of Holy Scripture. But that I may not delay you longer, receive in few words those things of which we desire you to be forewarned.

We have followed, as diligently as our modest abilities allowed, the fidelity of the Greek codex which D. Erasmus once used, unless somewhere the scribe seemed to have been nodding; for it would be thoroughly absurd to embrace the scribe’s slips everywhere in good faith—that is, together with the errors themselves, a habit which Lonicerus is found to have practiced quite often. He used, if I am not mistaken, the same copy we did, in which the text of divine Paul is frequently poorly distinguished from Theophylact’s gloss, or the chapters themselves are ill-marked, and sometimes one word is substituted for another (a state of affairs which has given us no small amount of trouble). In restoring these, we have carefully weighed what the author himself wrote in the preceding or following passages that touch upon the same place, and what Chrysostom wrote in his own treatment of that place, or Oecumenius, or even what a previous translator, Porsenna, had read. These findings we have set forth in their proper places in the margin of the Greek codex, which the printer has decided to set into type shortly; for example, at I Corinthians xiv, "apostles" had been written corruptly for "unbelievers," and at Galatians v, "scandal of Christ" for "scandal of the cross." I am greatly astonished that Lonicerus did not notice that these had come about by a slip of the writer, since the error could have been easily detected by any moderately learned and attentive person from the words immediately following. Likewise, at Ephesians i, it was read corruptly as "riches given," when it should have been read as "riches of glory"; for it was "doxes" (of glory) that should have been written, not "doseon" (given). Moreover, in the fifth chapter of the First Epistle to Timothy, we restored a passage that was mutilated in both the Greek and Latin texts using the writings of Porsenna, which seemed to be more correct in that place; for it was not sufficiently clear to us what Theophylact had written there, and thus we have enclosed what we took from there in these marks (), lest we should seem to have rashly added anything of our own beyond the fidelity of the Greek codex. However, the version by Porsenna—a man of learning, I believe, and eloquent—as it departs significantly from the Greek, not to say often dissents, inasmuch as it is...

^A rather a paraphrastic version, and even excessively free, since it adds for the most part things which are not contained in the Greek. On the contrary, it omits altogether in many places several verses which are, nevertheless, clearly contained in our Greek manuscript codex, and that a very ancient one. Having therefore skipped that version, I say, we have instead grasped at the interpretation of Lonicerus; and we have retained it throughout wherever it was tolerable. Indeed, we had intended to publish a new one upon the advice of certain friends, but when we had set to work upon the preface, we realized that we had neither sufficient leisure nor time for such a task, and so we have changed primarily those things which seemed either not to grasp the meaning of Theophylact or not to explain it sufficiently. In addition to this, we have added certain things in the margin in many places, without which a reader of the Latin could scarcely ever understand what Theophylact might mean, namely when he touches upon a various reading of the Greek text, or the composition of Greek diction, or a different significance, or anything else of this kind. We have also deleted the majority of things poorly added by the interpreter, which either added little to the matter or were in conflict with the sentiment of Theophylact. Some things, indeed, have been changed by us for the sake of clarity, or in order to avoid ambiguity, so that provision might be made for the moderately learned reader. For these things are written for those who are devoted to the truth and to the Holy Scriptures, to whom the naked and clear opinion of an author is more pleasing than the embellished and affected diction of an interpreter, which, by pouring darkness upon such students, causes them a great deal of trouble. Furthermore, we have for the most part retained the common version of the Pauline text, which the Church uses in various places, except where the interpretation of Theophylact has forced us to alter it: as, for example, in Romans chapter xii, it was necessary to change *conformari* [to be conformed] ^B into *configurari* [to be configured], because Theophylact posits a difference between *figura* and *forma*, and says that *figura* is attributed to the world, but *forma* to virtue. Likewise, in I Timothy vi, in place of *inutilia* [useless things], it was necessary to put *stulta* [foolish things], because Theophylact, interpreting it, says: "For how is it not foolish?" and shortly after, "These are foolish and harmful." For our common interpreter seems to have read ἀνοήτους, whereas Theophylact, with Chrysostom, reads ἀνοήτους. Likewise, in II Timothy i, in place of *ne quando* [lest at any time], it was necessary to put *si quando* [if at any time], or *si forte* [if perhaps] or *fortasse* [perchance]: for in that place, μήποτε is not of one denying, but of one doubting or asserting with doubt; in which sense Theophylact often takes it, as we have sufficiently demonstrated in the epistle prefixed to the Gospels. As for the version by Lonicerus itself, how many things were poorly translated or omitted entirely, one may infer from these things which we have culled, if you should be burdened enough to compare the whole work. And since a beginning is wont to be eager, let us examine how eager and diligent it was at the outset, yet culling few from many, lest, delayed for too long by the illustrious work of Theophylact, we lose more preeminent things. For our Theophylact, skillfully avoiding that Horatian line, "I labor to be brief, I become obscure," has embraced the mean so aptly that by teaching clearly, and by culling the best examples from approved authors after the manner of a bee, he is not annoying with prolixity. But so that we too might avoid that annoyance, take these few things. In the very preface of the work, where Theophylact discourses on the order of the Epistles and declares that the Epistle to the Romans is not placed in the first rank because it was written before all the others, Lonicerus had translated it in this manner: "Since to the Corinthians, and then to the Thessalonians ^C one, in which he secretly warns them all about transmitting the ministry to Jerusalem, these preceded it:" whereas the sense in the Greek is: *Since two which were sent to the Corinthians precede this one; and indeed, one, which is to the Thessalonians, also precedes these; in which, etc.* You see, candid Reader, regarding the order of the Epistles, that it is taught here that the one which was written to the Thessalonians precedes those which were sent to the Corinthians; and in this opinion is Chrysostom, which Lonicerus had plainly kept silent about. The Greek words, however, are thus: Καὶ γὰρ πρὸ αὐτῆς εἰσιν αἱ πρὸς Κορινθίους δύο· καὶ πρὸ τούτων [αἱ] ἡ πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς, &c. But let us come to the first chapter, and gather a few things from many. Concerning that place of Paul which is at the beginning of the chapter: *Of his Son who was born of the seed of David*, when Theophylact was dealing with the twofold generation of Christ—divine and human—it had been written thus: "Wherefore this Gospel is not about a base and low man, for it is of the Son of God; nor about a low God, for it is of the one born of the blood of David according to the flesh." Thus far the words of Lonicerus. You see how ineptly he infers that the Son of God is not a low God, because he was born of blood of David according to the flesh, when Paul himself, writing to the Philippians concerning the incarnation, says far otherwise: *He emptied himself*, etc., and a little later: *He humbled himself*. What Theophylact therefore denies, that this Gospel is περὶ ψιλοῦ θεοῦ, and a little earlier περὶ ψιλοῦ ἀνθρώπου, was not to be translated "Of a low or small God," nor "Of a base or low man," but "Of a mere, bare, and simple God or man"; that it might be

the sense: that this Gospel is not concerned with one who is only man, nor only God, but with one who is the same both God and man. ^A In the same first chapter, there where it says, *To whom I serve in my spirit in the Gospel*, etc., it was previously held: "For it has need of the labor of the service of the Gospel," etc.; we, however, more clearly: "For to whom the service of declaring the Gospel has been committed, it is necessary for him that," etc. And in the following Gloss where it says: "But St. Paul, while he prays assiduously as if he had seen them," etc., it ought rather to have said: "Moreover, that Paul prayed continuously that he might see them, or if it happened that he might see them, he did this out of fervent charity;" and a little later, where he exhorts that we be constant in our prayers, it was held thus: "For we are no better than Paul, who prayed even for his cross to be removed." The Greek, however, is this: Οὐ γάρ ἐσμεν Παύλου βελτίους, ὃς καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ σκόλοπος τρὶς τὸν Κύριον παρεκάλeσε, that is: "For we are no better than Paul, who thrice besought the Lord for his thorn," where he omitted the word "thrice," which pertained most importantly to the constancy and perseverance of prayer; and he even put "cross" for "thorn." And shortly after, ^B *ἐπὶ τῇ τῆς πίστεως ἐπιδόσει*, he translates: "Regarding the communication of faith," when it should have been translated rather "for the increase of faith." In the same first chapter, on the words, *As also among the other Gentiles*, he had written: "Committing them, he says, as also among the other Gentiles." *Συστέλλων δὲ καὶ αὐτούς, φησί, καθώς*, etc., that is: "Restraining their pride also, he says, as," etc. For what ought to be understood in this way, the following words declare sufficiently. In the same chapter, where he explains the passage of Paul: *He delivered them into desires*, etc., there Theophylact notes that "he delivers" is said for "he abandons them" and "he permits." But Lonicerus, for *καὶ ἐᾷ*, that is, "and he permits," had placed "friend": and perhaps this was because of the difficulty of the writing; for the scribe had strangely joined *καὶ* with *ἐᾷ* with a pen as if luxuriating, and therefore the interpreter looked perhaps to *ὠτάν* for *καὶ ἐᾷ*. ^C Also a little later when he declares that they had no need of others pressing them: "But themselves, he says, they covered with ignominy. For such are those impure affections;" where a far different sentiment was previously held, as also in what follows shortly thereafter, there: *As they did not prove (approve) God to have in knowledge*; where Theophylact: "The injury, he says, with which they affected God, proceeded not from ignorance, but from meditation and study," as we have restored it. Whoever wishes to note more that has been amended in this same first chapter will be able to do so easily by a collation of both. Yet I do not say this to detract from Lonicerus: for I candidly confess that I owe him a great deal: for if I had not been assisted by his version, I would not easily have recognized, in most places, the very ancient characters, to say nothing for the moment of their shape, which was unfamiliar to me; but lest the studious, as we have said, if they think that few or unimportant places have been amended here, be deprived of that fruit which we hope they will obtain from this recognition ^D *σὺν θεῷ*. There are perhaps some things that should be ascribed to the printer rather than the interpreter, such as that he expressed *Christum* (Christ) for *crucem* (cross); but lest I cause disgust, I pass over these along with many others: and therefore I shall transcribe fewer things here from the other chapters. In the second chapter, on that of Paul, *Thou therefore who teachest another, teachest not thyself*, there: "For if the Gentiles," etc., it seems to stray much from the mind of the author, and a little earlier the negation had not been omitted; and in the following gloss, after these words, *Otherwise*, these things were missing: "He did not say, 'It does not profit,' lest he might seem to be heaping insult upon himself, but he strips the Jew bare with these things, saying: 'Circumcision,' etc.," and soon where he had posited two foreskins, one according to the flesh, the other according to the spirit or the will, speaking of this latter one, Lonicerus had rendered it: "Which are as it was commemorated, when they had no carnal affections, as those who are taken away." But the Greek words are these: *ἥτις ἐστίν, ὡς εἴρηται, ὅταν τις μηδὲν ἔχει τῶν σαρκικῶν παθῶν περιῃρημένον*; where the word *ἥτις* refers to *ἀκροβυστίαν ἐκ προαιρέσεως*, which we have thus restored: "Which indeed is, as it was said, when anyone has no carnal affection circumcised or amputated"; which sentiment fits this place beautifully, which the former contradicted, and toward the end of this chapter strayed, if I am not mistaken, much from the author's mind. But it would be a long task to examine each chapter; I pass therefore to the sixth. On that of Paul: *Let not sin reign in the mortal*, etc., where he extols the grace of Christ, Theophylact says thus: "Therefore the body by its own nature does not harm, but to obey sin, that indeed harms most of all. Observe here the grace of Christ, how Adam sinned, though he did not yet have a mortal body: we, however, in the mortal body overcome and conquer sin." Thus far the words of the author restored to the Greek exemplar, which previously bore an impression of a far different or contrary sentiment, as will be plain by comparing; but if nevertheless you are loath to recur to the other edition, there it was written in this manner: "Therefore the body does not harm

nature, but to obey sin, that indeed does the greatest harm." Observe herein the grace of Christ, how Adam sinned, when nevertheless he did not yet possess a mortal body, whereas we in a mortal body abound in sin, and therefore are born in sins. » Do you see, Reader, how he says that it does not harm nature, as far as nature itself is concerned, and that we abound in sin, as far as we conquer sin, in a different and contrary sense? In the following chapter also, in the annotation: "And it is found," [item in another, "But now it is no longer I that do it,"] you will detect foul lapses if it pleases you to compare, as well as in chapters IX, XI, and XIII. ^A In this [passage] where Paul says: "That we may walk honestly in the day," there Theophylactus writes in this manner regarding the Romans who were zealous for honor and glory: "Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ πολὺς αὐτοῖς τῆς παρὰ τῶν πολλῶν δόξης ὁ λόγος, ἐφέλκεται αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐσχημοσύνης," that is: "Since they themselves set great store by the glory or honor of the vulgar, which is exhibited by many, it draws them away from honesty;" but previously it had been rendered thus: "For since the Romans themselves made many words," etc., where "πολὺς λόγος" signifies not "many words," but rather to have great care, concern, or respect for glory and popular renown. Then, what was added, "it draws them away from that turpitude of glory," was far from the purpose of Paul and Theophylactus; I suspect the interpreter thought that for "εὐσχημοσύνης" one should read "αἰσχρότητος." For beneath that word a line had been drawn, as if the writing were suspect, which nevertheless reads beautifully, as it corresponds to the Pauline text, where it says "εὐσχημόνως." ^B Sed de hac una Pauli Epistola nimium multa; pauciora igitur ex reliquis afferam; et ne longius abeamus, initio Epistolæ sequentis, ubi Paulus ait, "Per voluntatem Dei," in eum locum Lonicerus: "Animadverte hic deitatis vocabulum ad Patrem pertinere;" an excellent observation, indeed, as if the Arians had ever denied that the word "Deity" pertains to the Father. The Greek has it thus: "Σημείωσαι δὲ τὸ, διὰ ἐπὶ Πατρὸς κείμενον," that is: "Note however this expression 'by' (per) placed regarding the Father," or that it is said of the Father. Where Theophylactus brings forward this place against the Arians, declaring that this preposition "by" does not import diminution, as they themselves desired—since it is placed here regarding the Father, where it is said "by the will of God," as the same Theophylactus says more fully in that place of John, "All things were made by him," where the Arians wished to make the Son inferior to the Father, because the Father had made other things by Him as if by an instrument or servant—against whom he brings forward there this very passage, "By the will of God;" and likewise another from this same chapter: "God is faithful, by whom we were called into the fellowship of His Son," where the word "by," joined to the Father, by no means signifies that the Father is inferior to the Son. I have discussed this passage at greater length because it seemed quite obscure to many, and was indeed poorly translated by Lonicerus, as one who made "Deity" out of the preposition "delta"; ^C whereas it had been plainly omitted by Porsenna—for he is accustomed, if anything pleases him, to treat it more freely and to stuff in much of his own; and conversely, if anything does not please him, to omit it altogether: which seems to have happened here, if his copy matched ours, certainly a very ancient one. Nor do I see why we should doubt here concerning the genuine writing of Theophylactus, since he himself makes mention of this place of John in the first [chapter], as we have said. But that Lonicerus has sometimes omitted the whole gloss together with the text of Paul, I do not believe was done by his own will, but rather happened through his own negligence or, more likely, that of the scribe. ^D Here perhaps it would be appropriate to make an end: for from places of this kind restored according to our own modest ability, the candid Reader could easily conjecture as to the rest, and would desire no more, I think: yet for the sake of the more fastidious, I shall still add a few things, such as that in the fourth chapter of this Epistle, where he had posited the contrary sentiment: "Great is my glory;" and in the fifth chapter, on that place of Paul: "For the destruction of the flesh," it was written: "That is, that he may free him from disease, and loosen him," we have amended it thus: "That is, that he may macerate him with disease and cause him to waste away," for he speaks of the chastisement of the body, as what follows sufficiently declares. But in the seventh chapter, that most things were depraved and not a few omitted, whoever wishes to compare this whole chapter will easily detect; which one chapter alone may suffice to commend this work of ours as by no means superfluous, even to a fastidious Reader, if he be a student of truth. I could bring forward things from chapters IX, XI, and XV that are manifestly depraved and contain the contrary sentiment, but I have lingered longer than I intended on this first Epistle to the Corinthians. Indeed, in the first chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians, where it says: "And our hope is firm for you," the gloss of this text had been omitted along with the following text; and thus the gloss of the following text had been added to this one, which was also done at Romans XIII, by a foul lapse indeed, to pass over others of the same chapter. But in the second chapter he rendered the contrary sentiment twice. First, upon that word of Paul: "Lest we be circumvented by Satan," he had said: "For not by itself..."

Satan, but also plunders our own, when he ought to have said, "For Satan does not take things belonging to himself," etc. For in Greek it is: *Ο γὰρ διάβολος οὐχὶ τὰ αὐτῷ διαφέροντα λαμβάνει.* Then, a little later, on that passage of Paul: "To some indeed an odor of death unto death," instead of "being acceptable to God," he had said they were reprobate and not at all pleasing to God. But here he is to be excused in some manner, because the Greek codex had been corrupted, which he followed with, as we said, too much good faith; for in place of *ἀπρόσδεκτοι* should be read *εὐπρόσδεκτοι*, as is evident from Chrysostom and the ancient interpreter. But hastening to other things, I pass over the remaining chapters of this Epistle. ^A At the beginning of the first chapter to the Galatians, there: "But through Jesus Christ," Theophylactus objects to this passage that which is in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter XIII, saying, *Καὶ μὴν αἱ Πράξεις ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος δηλοῦσιν αὐτὸν ἀφορισθῆναι*· that is: "And yet the Acts of the Apostles indicate by the Holy Spirit that he was separated," etc. Lonicerus, however, understanding it of the works of Paul, had translated it thus: "The deeds and works themselves flowing from the Holy Spirit indicate," etc., which least of all suit this passage, nor do the things that immediately follow admit this interpretation; for he subjoins: "It is evident therefore that the power of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one and the same." He makes a similar objection at Romans first, there: "Through whom we have received grace." But I delay too long on these. If, however, anyone desires certain things from the other Epistles, let him compare the first chapter to the Philippians, where he will discover that not a few things have been much corrupted. ^B Let him also weigh what Theophylactus had written very beautifully upon that passage of Paul to the Thessalonians, chapter four: "He does not despise man, but God," and he will find it to have been greatly deformed: and he will perceive that certain things were omitted toward the end of that same chapter. And from there let him pass to the first chapter of the first to Timothy: and let him examine the gloss upon that passage of Paul, "But I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly," and he will note the interpreter to have stumbled not once in one and the same gloss. In the Epistle to Philemon, moreover, he will find what also makes against the version of Porsenna, where: "To command what pertains to the matter"; he has a contrary opinion. For Porsenna seems to have misunderstood *τὸ ἀνῆκον*, as if it were from a privative particle, since he translated it, "what does not pertain to the matter"; proceeding in which error, he perverts the entire explanation of Theophylactus, when *τὸ ἀνῆκον* rather signifies the contrary, namely, what does pertain to the matter, or *τὸ πρέπον*, as Suidas says, that is, what is fitting, what is convenient, just as *τὸ καθῆκον* is called duty. ^C For *ἀνήκω* means "I attain," "I pertain," "I reach," just as *καθήκω*, *προσήκω*, "I agree," "I am consonant." Thus Demosthenes says, *τὰ εἰς ἀρετὴν ἀνήκοντα*, "things pertaining to virtue," interpreted by Budaeus; which meaning suits this passage in the highest degree. But I think enough has been said before concerning this version, elegant indeed, but little faithful; I make an end, therefore, and add not a word; he who desires more, let him compare the whole work, if he pleases, and, unless I am mistaken, he will take our labors in good part. Farewell, candid Reader, and take in good part, I pray, the efforts of your Montanus who desires to be of service to your studies. Paris, from our Tornacensian museum, 12 October, the year MDLII.

MONITUM OF T. BAILIUS, THE LONDON EDITOR.

PREFACES

denser doctrine; Thomas Triplet, my only friend, and John Gregory; whom he took to himself as collaborators in the collation of the more recent copy. I myself, being conscious of the rest of his labors, have adorned this edition according to his intent, as far as possible. Deviating readings of the codices are affixed to the marginal area. The asterisk indicates a word absent from one or another codex, and one which can be deleted without great detriment to the meaning. The mark "Iơ. is the sign of a conjecture, to which we have indulged sparingly, so that you might have a more complete power of judgment. The Latin version, indeed, is that of Philip Montanus; but it is everywhere so interpolated by us and recalled to the truth of the Greeks, that (if the importunately hasty typographic presses had permitted) it would have been less tedious to compose a completely new one. That which will be clear to those who commit themselves to it. Farewell.

ANNOTATIONS ON THE ARGUMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL EPISTLES

^A The Apostle writes to the Romans from Corinth, whom he had not yet seen, though he was most eager to visit them, because he had heard much about them, whose faith he both accepts and praises, as he knew them to be famous and renowned by name and everywhere celebrated: and (to omit other matters) he discourses more copiously concerning the calling of the Gentiles.

No differently does he write an Epistle from Ephesus to the Corinthians, rebuking them because they disagreed most among themselves, and were sufficiently neglecting a certain primary person among their number who was living with his stepmother, and desiring under the pretext of celibacy some were wishing to perform divorces and abandon their wives: and many were eating things sacrificed to idols: and others, having clearly despised the rest, admired only those who had obtained the gift of tongues: and, which was more detestable, they by no means believed that human bodies would rise again after death.

Adjoining these, he writes another from Macedonia to the same people, since they had profited much from the former: inasmuch as they repented that they had tolerated that fornicator for so long, but having been seized afterward by the persuasion of most seditious men, they clung only to the letter of the Law, deeming the grace which had been bestowed upon many by Christ as indifferent: and they even boasted much of their teachers, and took glory in being followers, since they wished to champion the parties of either Apollo or Cephas, that is, to extol everyone whom each followed, whence many dissensions arose among them: otherwise they were contributing abundantly and liberally to the sustenance of the saints.

He gave a letter to the Galatians from Rome. For having instructed these previously in the faith as well as possible, and since they had believed in Christ Jesus at his preaching, after his departure they soon lapsed, and through the suggestion of wicked men were forced to have themselves circumcised. Which, indeed, Paul taking ill, because they had acted contrary to his instruction, he accuses them more sharply for having changed themselves so very quickly.

Besides, he writes from the City to the Ephesians, whom he had not yet approached himself, but had known only by hearsay that they were faithful, and believed in Christ Jesus best, and were affected by a certain wonderful charity toward all the saints, and otherwise greatly desired to be established in this faith by him. Wherefore he instructs these also by letter, and says that this ^C mystery of Christ is by no means counterfeit, or recently invented, but has existed from the age: and many other things which contribute most to confirming them in the faith.

Furthermore, he sends a letter to the Philippians from the City, whom he had indeed visited and instructed in the faith. To these, therefore, while Paul himself and certain saints were providing necessary things, there arose some who, by depraved persuasions, and under the shadow of the Law and the pretext of circumcision, corrupted the ears of some of the simple, asserting that no one could be justified without the Law. Upon hearing which, Paul first approves the faith of the Philippians, and confesses that he holds them in his memory during prayer, and commemorates how he had defended himself and the faith of Christ at Rome, and who besides had been troublesome to him in his bonds.

He also imparts a letter from the City to the Colossians, inasmuch as he perceived them to be in danger of being circumvented by captious and deceitful men with certain false arguments, who were most openly attacking the faith of Christ with Greek subtleties, while they followed the shadow of the Law and forbidden foods and extolled circumcision.

But from Athens, he writes to the Thessalonians, among whom he had previously stayed for a longer time: and since he had been much distressed when in Beroea, and in Philippi, a city of Macedonia, and in Corinth and Thessalonica, fearing lest they themselves might be offended by his trials and not be sufficiently stable, or be consumed by excessive grief over the departure of their own from life, by which they were certainly very much troubled after the manner of their country, he sent Timothy to them with the letter, that they might be strengthened in the faith, and that they might by no means fall away from it, whether they themselves were afflicted or saw others afflicted: and he exhorts them that they should lead their life just as they had received it from him. He reminds them, moreover, not to take the death of those who were dying grievously, and many other things. For this reason, he writes another Epistle to the same from the City, because there were among them some who were slower toward the good and men of no account, who were deceiving others with a wonderful art, asserting that the coming of Christ was now at hand, of which they falsely testified that Paul was the author, and affirmed that they had known the same through the Spirit. The Apostle, having been made more certain of this matter, first praises the faith increased among the Thessalonians by letter, and counts it as glory that out of the grace of Christ they were fervently straining manfully.

[331] and, loosening his bonds, asserting that God would one day avenge the injuries inflicted upon them.

He writes to Timothy from Laodicea for this reason: because at Ephesus there were many who observed Jewish rites, although he himself had instructed the Ephesians quite differently, and [those men] strove to teach and deceive those who were more innocent. Wherefore he urges Timothy to remain at Ephesus and to chastise and correct those corrupters, so that at length they might recover from their errors. He writes a second epistle to the same man from the City [Rome], and advises him to return to him. For the Apostle was already deserted by all who had traveled with him from Asia to Rome, terrified by the chains with which he was bound.

He writes a letter from Nicopolis to Titus; for Paul had wintered there. But he had left Titus in Crete, so that he might ordain priests throughout the cities. For there were many there who sought to seduce the people under the pretext of the law.

He writes from the City to Philemon, whose slave Onesimus had fled to Rome and betook himself to the Apostle, near ^A whom he dwelt when cast into prison and held in bonds. Since he served him very well, and having in a short time proved himself honest, for the sake of making him more acceptable, he commends him to Philemon by letter, and urges him to grant him freedom and to treat him not as a slave, but as a brother.

Finally, he writes to the Hebrews from Italy, who, even though they had accepted the faith of Christ, had not nevertheless departed entirely from the law. The Apostle, truly bearing this ill, even though he was destined for the Gentiles to preach the Gospel, did not, however, endure that these men should be wrapped in the shadows of the law, thinking that this epistle—in which he treats of the coming of Christ, and the law itself as being shadowy—would not be burdensome to these believers; he affirms that it [the law] had ceased and would have no validity in the future, because Christ, whom it had prefigured, had arrived.

By these Epistles, therefore, Paul laid such firm foundations that it was possible for the weight of a faith increasing for the future to be imposed upon them.

TO THE READER: THE VENETIAN EDITOR

The second volume of the Works of Theophylactus appears with that speed which we deem sufficient to fulfill our promise, by which, in the previous Declaration, we bound ourselves that a complete edition of the works of this illustrious author would be finished within four years. You have, in fact, in this volume his Commentaries on all the Epistles of Paul; which have indeed been published several times in Latin, but only once in Greek and Latin together, namely at London in the year 1636. We have clearly based our own edition on this one, which is sufficiently bright and accurate, except that we have removed certain manifest errors of the Latin version. The material which we have added here from our own resources consists mainly of variant readings taken from the codex of the library of St. Mark, collected by the industrious youth Georgius Constantini, a Greek by nationality, who has also rendered similar service for us in other matters. We have handed the collected material over to Bonifacius Finetti, of the Order of Preachers, so that at his own expense, and by his own ability and judgment, he might select those [variants] which could be of some utility. ^B We are indeed far from the opinion of those who take whatever variety they find in manuscripts as variant readings, and pour them all into their editions, thus not rarely burdening the pages with a useless heap. We, on the contrary, judging that variant readings are not to be considered as such unless they perfect and complete the phrase or the sense, or are at least such that you might rightly doubt whether these or those originated from the author's pen, have thought that all those things should be omitted which are either manifest aberrations of the copyists, or which, rather than completing the phrase or the sense, render them more imperfect. By this selection it has come about that, although our variant readings were quite numerous, they have been reduced to a moderate number. But there is also another cause why they did not grow to a greater abundance: namely, all those which (and they are not a few) agreed with the variant readings collected from the Oxford codices by the London editor and written in the margin (a) have been omitted. There will perhaps not be wanting those who might wish to have them noted here as well, because it is of some importance to know whether a certain reading is confirmed by the authority of not one only, but of several codices. But we did not think this matter to be of such value that it could deserve and demand this further labor. Moreover, those variant readings consist almost entirely in one word or another: which we have for that reason decided to append only in Greek, the more so because not a few of them pertain solely to the Greek phrase, and therefore [apply to the] Latin.

(a) All of these, as is our custom, we have collected in the lower margin. The letter O designates an Oxford [codex], [the letter] M designates the codex of St. Mark at Venice. EDIT. PATR.

PREFACES

They leave the character of the translation intact. Some, however, are a little more diffuse; we do not omit the Latin version of these, made by the aforementioned Bonifacio Finetti, but we place it at the foot of the page, so as not to break the series and established order of the variant readings themselves. Among these more diffuse variant readings, some are like certain additions which could be inserted into the published text itself, making it more complete; others, however, are rather different expositions, or the same ones in meaning but expressed in different words; and they are sometimes more extensive than the expositions of the published text; at other times more concise, which, namely, present the published text as if in a summary. It is therefore clear that most of the codices containing these Commentaries have experienced the hands of interpolators: for it cannot be that such diverse expositions, both shorter and more diffuse, could have flowed from the same hand of Theophylact. But which are to be ascribed to Theophylact, and which to some interpolator, no one, in my judgment, can define, who does not have before them Theophylact’s own autograph. Nor do we think that greater antiquity of a codex is sufficient for this purpose; both because it is difficult to have it sufficiently verified, since the marks of age are often uncertain, and because a more recent codex can be a faithful copy of an older and purer codex. If, however, anyone wishes to argue that the shorter expositions, rather than the more diffuse ones, are Theophylact’s, neither will he be affirming something likely enough, given that they are highly consistent with the summary style of commenting in which Theophylact delighted, and especially in these Commentaries, which in some codices are inscribed *Ἐξήγησις ἐν ἐπιτομῇ*, or "Summary Exposition." But if this is true, you indeed have, benevolent Reader, among our variant readings some expositions that, for this reason, are to be preferred to those found in the published text. Note here, however, that when the published passages are more extensive than the corresponding texts in our codex, we by no means reproduce them in their entirety, lest the page appear too empty; but, having removed those things which are in between, we indicate their absence by a few points ordered in a line. The codex from which these variant readings are taken has nothing peculiar that should be mentioned here. It is paper, and judged by the illustrious men who edited the *Catalogus manuscriptorum Graecorum bibliothecae S. Marci* to have been written around the fourteenth century. Our variant readings are followed by the *Observations* of Latinius Latinius, which, just as we did in the first volume, we also place here, so that nothing should be wanting to the ornamentation of our edition: for which reason we also include not only the Preface of Philippus Montanus, but also the *Annotations*, in which the argument of each Epistle is presented in brief, and the location from which each was written is indicated. Since these are extant in all the Latin editions we have seen, we think they are the work of Christoforus Porsenna, who first translated and published these Commentaries in Latin. Finally, two Indices close the volume, one Latin, the other Greek; each most copious: by this addition alone, our edition commends itself not a little above the others. But there is no reason for us to detain you longer, friendly Reader. Now enjoy these excellent Commentaries, and wait with confidence for the third volume, which will contain mostly works either completely unpublished or very rare, to follow after a short interval of time. Meanwhile, farewell.