EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS: COMMENTARY ON THE FOUR GOSPELS
THE GREEK TEXT, NEVER BEFORE PUBLISHED, CAREFULLY EDITED FROM THE FIDELITY OF TWO MANUSCRIPTS FROM THE LIBRARIES OF THE HOLIEST SYNOD OF MOSCOW, SCRIBED IN THE AGE OF THE AUTHOR; REPUBLISHED WITH THE LATIN VERSION OF JOANNES HENTENIUS AND WITH HIS OWN ADDED OBSERVATIONS; EDITED BY CHRISTIAN FRIDERICH MATTHAEI, ASSESSOR TO THE RUSSIAN IMPERIAL COLLEGES AND PROFESSOR OF GREEK LITERATURE AT THE ACADEMY OF WITTENBERG. (Leipzig, 1792, in-8°.)
TO THE MOST SERENE PRINCE AND LORD ERNEST II LUDWIG, DUKE OF SAXONY, GULICH, CLEVES, AND BERG, ALSO COUNT OF WESTPHALIA, PROVINCIAL OF THURINGIA, MARGRAVE OF MEISSEN, PRINCELY COUNT WITH THE DIGNITY OF HENNEBERG, COUNT OF THE MARK AND RAVENSBERG, LORD OF RAVENSTEIN AND TONNA, ETC., ETC., MY MOST INDULGENT LORD.
Most Serene Duke, most indulgent Lord,
Among your many and great virtues, most Serene Duke, I have also recently had the chance to experience your singular grace, kindness, and prompt spirit for the advancement of letters, when you spontaneously and most liberally granted me the use of your most well-stocked library. This benefit I consider to be all the greater because the utility flowing from it did not accrue to me alone, but to many. I thought it proper, therefore, as a grateful man, to profess this publicly here and to show my mind as not unmindful of that benefit. I believed, moreover, that I would do this rightly if I were to commend to your grace, most Serene Prince, a writer most noble in his own age and once most favored by the Emperor Alexius Comnenus—now, after many centuries, brought back to light from the Moscow libraries—as an interpreter of my grateful mind toward you, and to present him to you.
Be pleased, therefore, to receive kindly—I ask, most indulgent and humane Prince—a man most worthy of light and fame, who once also, by the favor of his own prince and by his own virtues, moved in the greatest light and fame. At the same time, I also pray in the most humane manner that you preserve your favor toward me; I, who for you, most Serene Duke, and for your entire most Serene family, pray to God for all good things, equal to and most worthy of your virtues and those of your house.
Most Serene Duke, most devoted to your Serenity with all respect and veneration,
CHRISTIAN FRIDERICH MATTHAEI. Wittenberg, May 1, 1792.
PREFACE. TO THE LEARNED AND BENEVOLENT READERS, GREETINGS.
After so many excellent judgments by men of the highest standing regarding the author of these Commentaries—judgments which attest to his propriety of speech, learning, care, diligence, and acuteness—it seems unnecessary for me to recount many things in his praise. I will only add this: there are none, or at any rate very few, words of sacred Scripture occurring in the four Gospels that are less Greek or obscure, which he has not explained by using clearer and more probable terms. He observes and notes with great acuteness the sequence of the discourse and of the narratives, both of the individual evangelists and of the group; he reconciles their disagreements with ease and subtlety. Although he owes much to Chrysostom, the most outstanding among the ancients, and I might almost say his sole interpreter, he has also drawn much from many others; for he appears to have consulted all interpreters before him. Yet, those things which were added by his own learning, study, and talent are readily apparent. Therefore, to those to whom Euthymius is still unknown, I would advise that they peruse at least the last three chapters of the Gospel of Matthew so that he may become known to them. For I have found that this part of the evangelical narrative was treated more carelessly by Chrysostom, by Cyril, and by other ancients. From the Commentaries—or should I say quibbles—of Origen, even though he may have had all his writings at hand, he could achieve nothing. He treated the text, as they call it, of the Gospels much more modestly, accurately, and faithfully than was the custom of the interpreters of those and earlier times. For Origen, and his excessive admirer and imitator, Jerome, acted in many places lightly, and in others even perfidiously. Chrysostom, however, swept away by a flood of abundant eloquence, has disturbed, scattered, and suppressed many passages of the sacred writers. And indeed, if the books of the evangelists and the apostles had come down to us only through interpreters, dogmatists, homilists, and ascetics, we would long ago have been left in doubt as to what they had actually written. But now, many learned, attentive, and faithful scribes of codices, caring little A for the dogmatists and interpreters—whether out of levity and negligence, or out of fraud and malice—transcribed that which they found in their own New Testament codices for their own use, or for the use of other men, or for the public use of the Church, despite the readings and interpretations brought in against the faith and authority of the codices. B By applying attention, diligence, and moderation, and the faith of an honest man—which is owed primarily to these books—the true is not so difficult to separate from the false. But even though I have found Euthymius to be sufficiently diligent and faithful, he does occasionally cite passages of sacred letters not from the sacred Books, but from the commentaries of interpreters; regarding which matter I have warned the reader a few times in the notes. I have also detected words first introduced by him, and some others omitted, though these are fewer. Moreover, he had at hand codices of the Gospels with commentaries and catenae—such as those of Theophylact—of the same kind as my Moscow codices, A, D, E, G, 10, about which I expounded in the Preface to my New Testament edition of the Gospel of Mark. I have learned from Richard Simon, Lambecius, Treschovius, and most recently from Alter, that codices very similar to these are preserved in the Parisian and Viennese libraries. Birch also used similar ones in his Copenhagen edition, as I gather from some scholia published by him. If, therefore, Euthymius agrees with codices of this nature, or with Chrysostom and other interpreters, his authority against better codices can amount to nothing. C Another thing that displeases one in Euthymius, as in many Greek and Latin interpreters, is that he uses the word ἀντιγράφων [ancient copies] indefinitely, not only regarding New Testament codices, but also regarding the Commentaries of interpreters. But that was a common fault in the past. Thus, even in more recent times, with the invention of the art of printing, many critics and editors have called even printed books by the names of codices and exemplars. But as to why I chose to publish these Commentaries, I was moved primarily by the judgments of so many most learned men, especially Richard Simon, regarding them; secondly, by the two most excellent Moscow codices; and finally, by the extreme rarity of this little book. For it seems to have happened by a miraculous chance that, among so many editions of the Latin version by John Hentenius, hardly one can be found. Indeed, for twelve years I sought at least one copy in vain, and finally learned that it is also categorized by others among the rarer books. In the beginning of this edition, therefore, I used the nineteenth volume of the *Bibliotheca Maxima Lugdunensis* of 1677, which the illustrious Müller—counselor for secret military affairs to the most serene Elector of Saxony, and for the city of Leipzig D—had lent me from the library of the most distinguished Senate of Leipzig.
(a) I recall that the same opinion was expressed somewhere in the writings of the illustrious Michael; however, I could not find that passage now. But all the shrewder critics, alien to factional bias, know that the scribes of the Cambridge, Claromontanus, Sangermanensis, Augiensis, Boernerianus, and other codices of that kind, are by no means to be included in their number. But regarding the Cambridge and Boernerian codices, if they should appear, more learned men will judge more truthfully and accurately.
A consul of the Sienese. Having already printed page ninety-six, Heyne—a most illustrious man, who is also a privy councillor to the most august King of Great Britain—sent me an edition, which I believe to be the editio princeps, published at Louvain in 1544. I have used two Moscow codices of the Greek text, written on parchment in the age of the author, which have hitherto been unedited. The former, A, is in the library of the Synodal Press, folio number 1, comprising 274 folios. The latter, B, is in the library of the Most Holy Synod, folio number XLIX, at 410 folios. In the former, the text of the Gospels is written in slightly larger letters, the Commentary in smaller. In the latter, the letters are the same in both text and scholia, but the former are written in red, the latter in ink. In my edition of the New Testament I have called the former n, the latter i. I have set forth my conclusions regarding both in my notes on Paul’s Epistle to the Thessalonians, pp. 202, 203. I have exhibited copperplate specimens of the script from the Gospel of John in that edition. Codex B is superior to the other, written by a more diligent and faithful scribe. For the other scribe frequently erred and, in the scholia on John, omitted much either through laziness or dishonesty. In both codices, as in the Parisian and Hentenius’s manuscripts, many scholia are written in the margins by the same scribes, a matter I have pointed out to readers in each individual instance. It seems, however, that these scholia were added by Euthymius himself, following a revised reading of his own, by the same scribes. This becomes sufficiently probable both from other places and from the scholion on Luke ix, 55. For in the codices, all the words from *‘kai eipen ouk’* to *‘alla soosai’* are still lacking. For Euthymius had first removed these on the authority of Chrysostom; yet in his revised reading, as the scholion to that passage sufficiently teaches, he added them back by his own authority. Perhaps he undertook this task, as he did the *Panoplia*, at the command of Alexius Comnenus, and had several scribes hired at imperial expense. But later, more recent scribes imitated this, as we learn from Hentenius. For the Hentenius codex, although good enough, even in the estimation of Simon, must surely have been more recent than mine. Indeed, Hentenius himself complains of the many difficult sigla, which are few and well-known in mine. Moreover, it contains appendices from the scholia of Theophylact and others that appear in neither of my copies. Nevertheless, in many places I was able to use Hentenius’s version instead of a codex. I therefore left it intact for this reason as well: I did, however, add a few corrections, partly in the notes and partly at the end of the work. As yet, six Greek codices of Euthymius’s Commentaries on the Gospels have become known to me: two Moscow, Hentenius’s, two Royal Parisian (numbers 2393 and 2401), and (b) the Baroccian. In none of these codices is the name of the author found, unless perhaps in the Baroccian, which Mill handled, of which I am greatly doubtful. A more recent hand has inscribed the name of Nicetas Serrae, commonly called the Heraclean, on the Parisian manuscript 2401. The other Parisian, more recent in my judgment, attributes it to Theophylact, whom he calls B *ton hierootaton Boulgarias*, that is to say, Archbishop. My B, in place of an index, has a blank space, perhaps so that later a painter could add and adorn it with gold or other colors. I have provided the index for codex A on page 10. Hentenius does not seem to have found one, as can be gathered from his preface and interpretation on page 9. Richard Simon is grievously mistaken in this, taking the letters *am.* for *Ammonios*. For the name Ammonius, which is common in Greek catenae, I have never found written with a mu in the Moscow codices. *Am.*, therefore, which is also found in my A, signifies *amen*. From this it appears that the name of the author of these Commentaries is unknown. Whence, then, is it known that it was Euthymius? Obviously from his Commentary on the Psalms, which Hentenius, Montfaucon, and we ourselves have treated. But how? First, in the words of Hentenius, things are not as similar as an egg to an egg, as are these Commentaries to the Commentaries on the Psalms. Second, in the scholia on the Psalms, mention of this Commentary is frequently made, so that things mentioned there are found here. Third, the Commentary on the Psalms has the name of Euthymius added, although not in all codices. I have found two codices of the Commentaries on the Psalms, which are commonly attributed to Euthymius, in the Moscow libraries. A third, very similar to them, has been added. I have noted these below. But nothing is concluded from this, as they lack the author’s name. Nevertheless, regarding Philippus Saulus, who first published the Commentaries on the Psalms in Latin and attributed them to Euthymius, it seems probable that he found the name of Euthymius in one or more codices. Adding the fidelity and authority of Montfaucon, who encountered the same in the Coislinian codices. For thus it is written in *Bibl. Coislin.*, p. 178: *Euthymii Zygadeni (sic) Commentarii in Psalmos*. Add to this that on p. 58 he is called Zygabenus, and C ibid. pp. 200 and 425. Hentenius calls him Zigabenus. Those to whom the names of many later Greeks are known, they know that the etymology of those names is very obscure. However, in this name, the *y* could have arisen from *zygos*, the *h* from *baino*, the *d* from *ado*. From where the *i* came, no one will easily divine. Besides the codices of Euthymius’s Commentaries on the Psalms, I have also found at Moscow codices of his *Panoplia*. I have spoken of these a little below. Anna Comnena, lib. xv, p. 490, edit. Paris 1651, and Leo Allatius in *De consensu utriusque Ecclesiae*, page 638, have the following, from an unpublished book of that time: *Parapempo tous boulomenous ten holen hairesin toon Bogomilon diagnoonai eis to houto kaloumenon biblion, dog-*. It is handed down in a Bodleian codex. But since Mill, in his Prolegomena, made no mention of a Bodleian codex of Euthymius, the suspicion arises that Mill wished to write Baroccian instead of Bodleian. D
A These verses Macarius Chrysocephalus, a more recent writer, adapted for his own use, as is evident from Fabricius, *Bibl. Gr.*, vol. VII, p. 772. I believe, however, that Jo. Christoph. Wolf found these verses written thus in the Baroccian codex: All things, as is right, and well considered; And bringing something more, I dare to say; And all grace to the wise Chrysostom. A collection of many labors, accurate, All things, as is right, and well considered, Nothing superfluous, nor lacking here, Macarius joined with brotherhood. B He himself, however, as it seems, changed the order. But it is not a surprise that a Greek man used other verses for his own purposes. For those which I edited from the Muscovite codex of the Gospels, to the Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, p. 241, the same had been edited from another codex by Leo Allatius, *De libris eccl.*, in Fabricius, *Bibl. Gr.*, vol. V, p. 28, with slight variation.
Since, however, we have found a suitable opportunity here to discourse about Euthymius, we first added here certain supplements to the Tergobiste edition of the *Panoplia*: then we added scholia of one Psalm from the codices; and finally we noted other Euthymiuses, whose mention is found in the Muscovite codices.
(We have prefixed the supplements to the edition of the *Panoplia* itself to the *Panoplia* along with a review of the Muscovite codices; we have also placed the scholia to Psalm CIX beneath the text of this psalm. EDIT. PATR.)
*Concerning other Euthymiuses, whose mention is made in the Muscovite codices.*
a) Euthymius the monk wrote about the apostle Thomas. In the codex of the Holy Synod, no. 26 in-folio, which is a parchment of the 10th or 11th century, folio 64, it is read thus: *Euthymius the humble monk, an encomium for the holy apostle Thomas*; it begins, *The source of wisdom*. It is added, moreover, in the month of October, the 5th.
b) Euthymius the abbot. In the codex of the same library, in-folio, no. 41, which is a parchment of the 11th or 10th century, I found it thus. Folio 59. The index is: *A prologue of our father among the saints, Euthymius. To the most honorable and truly virtuous spiritual father George, presbyter and hegumen, dwelling in a manner pleasing to God in the place called Beella, near Scythopolis, Cyril the presbyter, greeting in the Lord. Let faith take precedence.*
Folio 40. *The life of our father among the saints, Euthymius.* Beginning: *The only-begotten Son.* This Life is divided into chapters. But in this codex it is mutilated. It is missing C D (s) This prologue was not written by Euthymius, but by Cyril, as will presently appear, in honor of Euthymius, and it is read before his Life.
in chapter 50. Fabricius has noted more on this in *Bibliotheca Graeca*, vol. IX, page 78.
c) Euthymius’s Life of Hierotheus. A manuscript of the same library in folio, numbered 181, on paper from the 16th century, contains on folio 330: *Encomium of Euthymius, the least of the servants of Jesus Christ, upon the holy apostle of Christ, Hierotheus.* Beginning: "I shall praise Hierotheus." His memory is celebrated in the Greek Church on October 4.
d) Euthymius the Bishop. In a manuscript of the same library in quarto, numbered 350, which is from the 14th century, on bombycine paper, it is held as follows. A Folio 388: *Encomium by the same Cyprian upon the holy Euthymius, Bishop of Madytus.* Beginning: "I think it is right for us to honor him."
e) Euthymius Tornice. A manuscript of the synodal printing house numbered 13, in quarto, on paper, written partly in the 16th and partly in the 15th century, and subsequently collected into one volume, folio 188, exhibits the following: *Of the same Tornice, the Lord Euthymius, upon the same.* Namely, *upon Saint Mary the Egyptian.* Beginning: "With delicate colors."
So much concerning Euthymius and the Euthymiuses. Now I desire nothing more than that this Commentary on the Gospels by Euthymius, recommended by so many most illustrious men, may provide utility to as many as possible, and that at some time his Commentary on the Epistles of Paul and the Catholic Epistles may be found and edited. For we have not yet obtained from all of antiquity any Commentary on the Catholic Epistles worth mentioning. I wrote this at Wittenberg, July 7, 1790. B
Richard Simon, *Critical History of the Principal Commentators of the New Testament*. Rotterdam, at Reinier Leers, 1693, 4to.
Chapter 29, pages 409 ff. — Concerning the Commentary on the Gospels which was printed in Latin under the name of the monk Euthymius alone, and of which there are two Greek examples in the King's Library.
There are few Greek commentators who have interpreted the text of the Gospels with as much accuracy and judgment as the author whom we ordinarily call Euthymius. The Greek author says (a) of Maldonat, "Euthymius is most diligent in observing the propriety of words." He searches with great care for the literal sense and the proper meaning of words. However, we have no clear proof that the Commentary which was published under the name of this monk, who lived at the beginning of the 12th century, is indeed his. Jean Hentenius, who translated it into Latin from a Greek manuscript that he had found in a library in Spain, does not himself know to whom this work should be attributed. He warns in his Preface that many believed it was by Oecumenius, of whom we have a similar collection on the Acts of the Apostles and on all the Epistles. Truly, to many this author seems to have been Oecumenius, who collected similar Commentaries from the same authors on the Acts of the Apostles, on the Epistles which are called Catholic, and on all the Pauline ones, as is gathered from certain arguments, even if he did not wish to state his name there. It is quite probable that these two excellent works are from the same hand; but it is not entirely certain, as will appear in the following of this discourse, that this latter collection is by Oecumenius. What could decide this fact is that Euthymius is cited by Saint Thomas at the beginning of his Chain on St. Luke. C But the name of Euthymius which is reported in that Chain is an addition which is not found at all in the good manuscripts, since it is not even in the first editions.
It is an astonishing thing that nothing has been published in Greek (if one excepts a fragment of his *Panoplia* and a Preface to the Psalms) from the books of this learned man; and that we have not even anything but inaccurate Latin versions; at least of his Commentary on the Psalms and of his *Panoplia*. Father Labbe, who had learned that they were all in manuscript in some libraries, wishes with passion that they be printed in Greek and Latin: "Will there be anyone who might at last elegantly publish these monuments of the most learned interpreter, which are said to lie hidden in libraries, in both Greek and Latin?" The King's library alone, where they all are, and even more than once, could have satisfied his curiosity.
We find in this library two very accurate copies of the Commentary on the Gospels alone, which is the rarest. One of these manuscripts, which comes from the library of Cardinal Mazarin, has at the beginning the name of Nicetas of Serres, as if this Nicetas, whose name is also at the head of some Greek Chains on the Gospels, were its author. D
But it will be remarked that this name was written A after the fact, and by a hand more recent than the body of the manuscript, of which here is the entire title: *Explanation of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which was collected with much labor, primarily from the Commentaries of Saint John Chrysostom, and also from other different Fathers: Ammonius who made this collection having also put something of his own into it.* Although one reads in the manuscript only “Am.” and the rest of the word is effaced, I have no doubt that one must read “Ammonius,” whose name is often in the Greek Chains on the New Testament, and who is an author of the 5th century—unless it be some other Ammonius who received it later.
The other manuscript copy in the Royal Library has a title quite similar, B if it be not that it is attributed to Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria. I produce it here in its entirety so that one may the better judge: *Interpretation of the Gospel according to Matthew, painstakingly compiled, primarily from the exegesis of our Holy Father John Chrysostom; and also from various other Fathers, with the most holy [Metropolitan] of Bulgaria, who compiled this version, also contributing something.* What may have caused one to believe that Theophylact is the author of this scholarly Commentary is that there are many things quite similar in these two writers, even down to the expressions, as if one had copied the other. And indeed, it could hardly have been otherwise in a collection that was primarily drawn from Saint Chrysostom. Euthymius, nevertheless (for this is how we will always name him), is more exact and more judicious than Theophylact. C He departs less from the text of the Gospels, and he adds, moreover, from time to time, critical remarks. The extracts that we shall give from it will make him better known.
He says at the end of his Preface, that Saint Matthew, who is the first of the evangelists, published his work eight years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ; that he wrote it in Hebrew for the newly converted Jews, and that it was subsequently translated into Greek, *d'où il fut ensuite traduit dans notre langue.* One reads something similar in Theophylact, who is less exact in that he says, following others, that Saint John is the author of this Greek translation: *and John translated this from the Hebrew language into the Greek, as*—Euthymius had more reason to speak of this version only in general terms. D One reads here in the margin of the manuscript that bears the name of Theophylact, *“para Ammoniou”* [or "by Ammonius"], as if this passage had been taken from Ammonius; and this is apparently what gave occasion to some Greeks to attribute the entire collection to Ammonius.
The Greek verb *paradeigmatisai*, which is expressed in our Vulgate by *traducere*, signifies, according to him, leading someone before the judges while denouncing their crime. A man, he says, was deemed to *paradeigmatisai*, to denounce his wife, when, suspecting her, he produced her before the Sanhedrin, and accused her, thus making her leave his house publicly. This is what Saint Chrysostom calls *ekpompuein* and *agon eis dikasterion* (to lead to a court).
The Jews who hear this passage of Hosea cited by Saint Matthew: *I have called my Son out of Egypt*, regarding their return from Egypt, object to Christians that the evangelist has twisted the meaning of this prophecy to accommodate it to his design. Euthymius answers them that it is one of the rules of prophecy that there are often things that are understood literally of certain persons, and which find their fulfillment in others. Which he justifies by examples, *that this is also a law of prophecy, that it often be spoken of some, but fulfilled in others.*
He remarks judiciously regarding this expression: "in those days," that it does not designate a veritable sequence of time, since several years elapsed between what is reported here and what precedes it. It is, he says, the custom of Scripture to state everything in a sequence "in those days," for every sort of time it wishes to mark, indicating only the time that the things it wishes to report occurred; as the evangelist has done in this passage, where he did not speak of the deeds that were between one and the other. He makes the same observation on these words: "then they presented to him a possessed man"; which it is appropriate to consider, otherwise one will search for sequence in the writings of the evangelists and the apostles in places where there is none. They joined together several deeds without having regard for the order of times, just as did the writers of the Old Testament.
He has interpreted the word *eis metanoian*, which signifies literally "for penance," as if it were *dia metanoian*...
A ...in that they confessed their sins or repented, [John] was baptizing. Nor furthermore did he read in this place, any more than Theophylact, "and with fire." He adds even that this word is only in Saint Luke. But there is a scholium in the King’s two manuscripts which notes that this addition signifies a more abundant grace. Hentenius read the same scholium in his copy, and thus the Greeks are divided among themselves on this reading.
He finds in chapter iv, verse 15, great difficulties in the explanation of the prophecy of Isaiah, which Saint Matthew has reported only in summary, and without even keeping the order of the words. After having recourse to the prophet himself, he adds this reflection, which one might apply to several other passages of the Old Testament cited in the New Testament: Do not be surprised if this evangelist has not produced the entire words of the prophet; for it is good to know in general that the evangelists sometimes report passages in their entirety, and sometimes they summarize them; B that they sometimes preserve the entire sense of the words to the truth, but that they change some of them which they do not retain, when that should not bring any prejudice to the sense of the discourse.
On chapter viii of the same Saint Matthew, verse 26, where there is in the Greek *epetimese*, which the new interpreters have translated as "rebuke," or "to speak with threats," according to the grammatical sense, he observes that it signifies simply "to command," which agrees with the Vulgate version. He has made a similar remark on chapter xii, verse 46, where there is also in the Greek and in the Vulgate *præcepit*, "he commanded."
On chapter x, verse 2, where Saint Peter is named the first among the apostles, he says that the evangelist placed him at the head of others, not only because he was older than his brother Andrew, but also because he surpassed them all in firmness, and that it is for this reason that Jesus Christ, having named him Peter, added, "Upon this rock I will build my Church."
C On these words, (n) "The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath," he makes a reflection which deserves to be weighed. After having said that Saint (o) Mark, who has also reported this response of our Lord to the Jews, has joined another to it which is not in Saint Matthew, he adds (p) that one should not be surprised that an evangelist inserts in his history things which another passes over in silence: for they did not write their Gospels at the same time that Jesus Christ was speaking, so as to be able to remember all his words; but several years later. Moreover, being men, it is likely that they forgot a portion of them. That is, he continues, the solution that one must give when one finds additions and omissions of this nature: some of them also have omitted things to summarize, and there are others that they have not judged necessary. This observation of Euthymius is of a great extent.
This learned commentator has remarked on these words, "many prophets," that one can understand them as all the prophets in general, because the word "many" is often in the New Testament for "all" (the *polloi*, instead of the *pantes*), which he confirms by various examples. He repeats this observation in other D places which are of greater importance; as in chapter xx, v. 28, where it is said that Jesus Christ came to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many; he says (r) that the evangelist has put in that place "many" for "all," according to the ordinary style of Scripture: for Jesus Christ gave his life for all, and redeemed the whole world, even though many have remained in servitude, because they have wished to remain there. On these other words (s): "This is my blood, the blood of the New Testament which is shed for many," he observes that in the Old Testament the blood of the Lamb was shed only for the Jews alone; but that the blood of Jesus Christ is shed generally for all men, the word "many" signifying "all" in this place. He remarks on these words which are in the same place, "For the remission of sins," that (t) as...
A (v) as we have explained above, *ōraion nēma*, a beautiful thought.
He extends this even further on the mystery of the Eucharist, interpreting the verse of the same chapter (x): Let us always believe, he says, in the word of God, and never contradict it, even if what He says to us appears contrary to our reasonings and to what we see: that His word prevails over what reason and sight represent to us. Let us act in the same way regarding the fearsome mysteries; not looking only at what is before our eyes, but believing the words of the Lord, since He says, "This is my body, and this is my blood." Let us be persuaded and believe: for it is the same with baptism, where water is the sensible truth; but regeneration is the gift which we know only by the intellect.
These words of the same (y) chapter of Saint Matthew, "The evening being come, Jesus sat down to table with His twelve disciples," give him occasion to treat a question which has formerly been agitated among the Greeks; namely, whether our Lord then celebrated the Passover which was ordained by the Law. There have been Greek writers, and among others Philoponus, who have maintained that He did not observe the Passover of the Jews in the year He died. One may consult thereon the *Chronicle of Alexandria*, and the B *Bibliotheca* of Photius, which make mention of some ancient authors who were of this opinion: but Saint Chrysostom having maintained the contrary, the majority of the Greeks have followed him. One should nevertheless take care, as the author of the *Chronicle of Alexandria* is not always accurate. Euthymius, who treats this question C in this place as well as Theophylacte, produces some of the reasons upon which the opinion opposed to that of Saint Chrysostom was supported; and I do not doubt at all that he had Philoponus in view. The first of these reasons is (z) that it was the thirteenth day of the month, whereas one could only eat the Passover on the fourteenth; the second is that the Law expressly commands to eat it standing, and He was reclining; the third consists in the fact that one offered entirely before the immolation of the lamb all that one could find of leavened bread, and that one burned it; whereas in this action of Jesus Christ there is ordinary bread, which He distributes by breaking it; the fourth is that it was permitted to eat only roasted meat, and here there is a decoction (soupe).
Our commentator responds to all these reasons in particular: but being prejudiced by the opinion of those of his Church regarding the day that Jesus Christ celebrated the Passover, his responses are less solid. He admits that our Lord anticipated the time of the Passover by one day, because He knew that the Jews would put Him to death on the fourteenth; it being just that He who was the true Lamb should be sacrificed on the day of the sacrifice of the typical Lamb, or that which was only the figure. Whence he concludes that He fulfilled the legal Passover, and that He gave to His apostles the spiritual Passover.
He believes that one can prove from these words (a), "I have had a great desire to eat this Passover before I suffer," that Jesus Christ anticipated the Passover of the Jews. This signifies according to him, "I have made all possible diligence to eat this Passover this year with you, not having waited for the time prescribed by the Law, for fear that the death which I must suffer upon a cross might be an obstacle to the legal and the mystical Supper." D In the second place, he responds that, as for the manner of eating, there is an appearance that they ate at first while standing, as it was ordained by the Law, and that they reclined
A after they had eaten the Passover to eat the supper. Regarding leavened bread and the soup, they put them on the table after they had eaten the Passover: for the 14th day, on which it was forbidden to keep any leavened bread whatsoever, had not yet come. But if this is so, he adds, why did the Evangelists not speak of the anticipation of the Passover? To which he responds that it is because it was not necessary for them to speak of it: for of what utility was that for Christians? That is why they have in truth passed over this fact; but they have treated with more exactitude what pertains to the mystical Supper, as it necessarily has a connection with our belief. B
If it were true, as the Greeks assert, that Jesus Christ had anticipated the day of the Passover, it would be, it seems to me, better according to this principle to deny that he had celebrated the legal Passover, as the Lamb could not be eaten except on the 14th day. But Saint Chrysostom and most of the other Greek commentators asserting that he always fulfilled the Law, as he himself testifies, it follows absolutely that he celebrated the Passover, as well in this last year as in the previous ones, and this is what embarrasses them; whereas there are far fewer inconveniences in the opinion of the Latins. Indeed, the sentiment of these Greeks, who have claimed that Jesus Christ had not eaten the Jewish Passover that year, has appeared so absurd to Maldonat that he did not believe it necessary to stop to refute it, judging that it was manifestly opposed to the words of the Evangelists: *Quod* [c] *cùm omnes evangelistae tam apertè testentur eum Pascha manducasse, refutatione non indiget*.
To return to Euthymius, the same Maldonat testifies that it is difficult to exempt from Pelagianism his remark on these words, *I* [d] *am not come to call the just to repentance, but sinners*, unless one softens his expression: for he makes Jesus Christ speak in this place as if he had not come for the just, who can save themselves by their own efforts, but only for sinners who have need of repentance. One cannot however accuse him of Pelagianism, because he has supposed with the other Greek Fathers a general grace which is given to all the world, and that he has recognized after them that the will of man, however good and inclined to the good it may be, C can do nothing without grace. [E] Thus this learned Jesuit has rendered justice to him, adding that he in no way condemns the Author, who is orthodox, pious, and learned, but only his expression, which appears too free: *Quanquam*, says he, *non auctorem qui et Catholicus et pius et eruditus est, sed auctoris minus cautum loquendi modum damno*.
There are several other places where this learned commentator could be suspected of Pelagianism, which nevertheless Maldonat has not touched upon; not believing that one should judge the doctrine of Euthymius in relation to that of Saint Augustine. He speaks the language of his Church in the remark that he has made on these words of Jesus Christ, *That it would have been better that Judas had not come into the world* [f]. Some, says he, assert that there was no fault in Judas, since he accomplished what had been determined beforehand; to whom we respond that he did not betray his Master because it had been determined beforehand; but it was determined because he betrayed him, God having foreseen all that was supposed to happen: for this man had to be truly such, not by his nature but by his will.
He observes on these words of Saint John, *In order* [g] *that all might believe through him*, that John has, in truth, rendered testimony so that all might believe, and that nevertheless all have not believed: for faith is not forced but voluntary: D Οὐκ ἐκ βίας γὰρ ἡ πίστις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ προαιρέσεως· He adds then on these other words, *He* *was the true light which enlightens every man who comes into the world*: if [i] he enlightens every man who comes into the world, how has it remained that so many men have not been enlightened? He responds that, as for Jesus Christ, he enlightens the whole world; that if there are some who remain without being enlightened, that comes from their own will: for the grace of the light, he adds, has been spread generally over all like the sun; but those who do not wish to enjoy the grace are themselves the cause of the fact that they are not enlightened.
The Books of the New Testament being filled with causal particles, which seem to destroy the liberty of man, he remarks, in imitation of the other Greek Commentators, that one should not...
consider them as causal, for they have been placed there merely to signify what was to follow. It is in this sense that he explains that expression of Saint John: "In order (k) that this word of the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled," A *Here, he says, "the 'in order that' does not denote causality, but eventuality, or the fulfillment of that which was to come."*
He extends this generally to all the places where this expression and other similar ones are met: for, as he adds, the things that the prophets have predicted did not happen because they predicted them; rather, they are predicted because they were to happen. He repeats the same thing regarding these words of the following verse, "This (l) is why they could not believe because Isaiah said," where he remarks at the same time that "not to be able" also signifies "not to be willing": *For "not to be able" signifies also "not to be willing."*
He adds another reflection on these other words which follow immediately after, and which seem at first to have something harsh: "He (m) has blinded their eyes, he has hardened their heart, lest they should see (n)," etc. This, he says, is also a manner of speaking peculiar to Scripture, to make God the author of what He only permits: for these words, "he has blinded," "he has hardened," are the same thing as "he permitted that they should be blinded and hardened," as being no longer able to be cured: for He draws no one by force, since each has his own liberty. This he confirms by several other expressions both of the Old and of the New Testament.
I would never have finished if I wanted to report in detail all the places where this learned Commentator takes precautions, for fear that one might attribute to God what comes purely from us. After having compared several passages with care, he assures us that these are ways of speaking peculiar to Scripture: something he had learned from the most ancient Doctors of the Church. I will insert here once more the reflection he made on these words: "In order (o) that he might give eternal life to all those whom you have given him." *"As much," he says, "as it is in him. If some have not believed, and have not received eternal life, it is their own fault: for it pleased the Father that the Son should give power to all through faith, and that all should be submitted to the yoke of his commandments. The Son has also given to all through the ministry of the apostles the Gospel, which is the knowledge of God, in which eternal life consists. But those who are not B submitted, and who have not received the Gospel, are themselves the cause of their perdition: for God constrains no one against his will; virtue coming from our own choice."*
Finally, I have reported in the first part of this work the critical observations that Euthymius made on the last chapter of Saint Mark, and on the seventh of Saint John, which are proofs of his great accuracy. He does not say, as Hentenius made him say in his version, that the twelve verses in question in that place had not been interpreted by any commentator, but only that Saint Chrysostom does not mention them, *Nor does he mention Chrysostom:* for so it is read in the two manuscript copies of the king’s library. This would be the place to note the other faults of this translator: but besides the fact that that would be long and even tedious, one could publish the Greek text of this excellent Commentary with a new translation. One must nevertheless admit that Hentenius is much more accurate in his version than he who gave us in Latin this author’s Commentary on the Psalms.
Hentenius, moreover, had a very good manuscript copy, as I recognized by comparing his translation with the two manuscripts of the king’s library, which are very accurate. One finds there, as well as in his, scholia which have been added, and which he caused to be printed in italics. What most deserves to be considered is that the Greek copyists who wrote these scholia do not always agree, there being more in some manuscripts than in others. They are in the margin in one of the king's manuscripts, and in the other partly in the margin and partly in the body of the book with the note C *schol.* (scholies); and sometimes even without this note. This different manner of writing the scholia which the Greeks add to most of their books has brought much confusion into it: for it has happened in the long run that many of these scholia have been confused with the text, as it would be easy for me to produce a great number of examples of, drawn from this Commentary of Euthymius. But it is enough to have made this observation in general, so that one may take precautions when reading the Commentaries of Greek authors, where many things have been inserted after the fact, as we have also seen happen with Theophylact. D
Jo. Albertus FABRICIUS in Bibliotheca Graeca vol. VII, pag. 474. Hamburgi 1727, 4.
The Commentary (of Euthymius Zigabenus) on the four Gospels, selected not without judgment from Chrysostom and other ancient Fathers. This excellent work also has not yet seen the light in Greek, although learned men, Cave, Elias du Pin, and others, affirm that it has. It was translated into Latin by J. Hentenius from a distinguished codex in the library of the monastery of the Mother of God of Guadalupe of the Order of St. Jerome in the kingdom of Castile, with Zino and Saulus as the more accurate interpreters, A whose version appeared first at Louvain in 1544 in folio, and was reprinted at Paris in 1547, 1560, and 1602 in octavo, and in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, vol. XIX, Lyon edition.
Richard Simon testifies in his *Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament*, chap. 29, that he examined two Greek manuscript codices of this Commentary in the Royal Library of Paris, which were provided with scholia similar to those Hentenius found; in one of which, the Mazarin codex, B the writing is of a more recent hand and is attributed to Nicetas—which is no more credible than the conjectures of those who wished to ascribe it to Ecumenius, or to some Ammonius I know not whom, or to Theophylact.
Simon mentions that he produced many Greek passages from this Commentary, both in this chapter and elsewhere (lib. I, p. 120, 145; lib. III, p. 84). He values it highly, especially, and agrees with Maldonatus, who observed (on Matt. XVII, 8) that Euthymius is most diligent in observing the propriety of words. Among the writers from whom the *Aurea Catena* on the Gospels of Thomas Aquinas was collected, the name of Euthymius is added in certain recent editions, but is missing in the older ones and in the Roman edition of 1670. See Simon’s *Histoire Critique du Nouveau Testament*, lib. II, p. 409 and 473.
From the first volume of the historical dissertation on Bellarmine by Fr. Phil. LABBE.
Euthymius Zigabenus, a Greek monk, lived at the beginning of the 12th century and was still alive in the year 1118, when the Emperor Alexius Comnenus died. He wrote a *Panoplia* of the orthodox faith against all heresies, divided into two parts, translated by the canon Petro Francisco Zino of Verona; Commentaries on all 150 Psalms, and the ten canticles of sacred Scripture, translated from Greek into Latin by R. P. Philippus Sauli, Bishop of Brugnato; Commentaries on the Gospels, interpreted by Joannes Hentenius of Mechelen. C This author is called by Sixtus of Siena a diligent expositor of the Scriptures; by Cardinal Baronius, a most accurate interpreter of the same; and by Joannes Maldonatus, most diligent in observing the properties of words.
Jo. Augustus ERNESTI in Institutione interpr. N. Test. Part II, chapter 9, § 24.
Nor should Euthymius Zigabenus, the writer of the *Panoplia Dogmatica* from the 12th century, be passed over; we have his Commentaries on the Gospels published in Latin by Joannes Hentenius, derived likewise for the most part from Chrysostom, but also from others, and highly approved by the learned, for I have found nothing but this: "From Euthymius, to whom I pay much heed as he refers to the sentences of Basil and Chrysostom in noting the Epistles of Paul," to Sadoleto.
Jo. Augustus Noesselt, On the Chains of the Greek Fathers. Halle, 1762, 4to, p. 23 ff.
Of the same kind D is Euthymius Zigabenus from the 12th century, a monk of the Constantinopolitan monastery, surnamed *tou peribleptou*, the writer of the *Panoplia Dogmatica*, and the Commentary on the four Gospels, which
A John Hentenius discovered in a monastery in the kingdom of Castile and translated from Greek into Latin. We have this work in volume XIX of the *Bibl. PP. maxima* (Lugd.), p. 475 ff. This exposition was compiled primarily from the writings of Origen, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Chrysostom, in such a way that, omitting all digressions which either smacked of rhetorical embellishment or concerned the correction of morals, it handles above all, briefly and succinctly, those matters which contribute most to the understanding of the grammatical sense. This intention of our author was well received by other learned men, and especially by Maldonado, who in his commentary on Matt. xvii, 8, noted that it is most diligent in the property of words. Some, however, have doubted whether Euthymius, or some other person, should be honored with the title of author; to this group belongs John Hentenius, who in his dedicatory epistle reports that to many, the author of this Catena appeared to be Oecumenius.
But since that matter seems most ambiguous, and no conjecture—such as that adduced by Rich. Simon, l. c. p. 410, by which he persuades himself that Theophylact is the author—proves anything more certainly, we must look further. For the consensus that exists between the two either flowed from Chrysostom as from a common source, or—if one looks to the treatment of certain singular dogmas—it implies the established articles of faith in the Eastern Church. Yet, examples prove that Euthymius more often departs from Theophylact, both in interpretation and in reading. Thus, for example, he indeed conspires with Theophylact and other codices in the readings mentioned above (x) at Matt. iii, 11; v, 47; Luke vii, 31, and others. Yet not infrequently he enjoys a singular reading, obvious only in certain codices of the N.T.; as in John viii, 40, where for *pará tou theou* Euthymius reads: *pará tou patros*, and he alone; and at xiii, 25, he adds *houtōs* to the word *ekeinos*: "Thus, therefore, he was reclining on the breast of Jesus," etc. Which he interprets: "In this way, just as he was reclining; that is, not raised, but only turned." Similarly, in John xix, 16, he reads *ēgagon eis to praitōrion*. In Matt. xiii, 27, the *sou* (y) is missing; and in Luke v, 19, we observe the omission of *dia* before *poiēsai*. In Luke xxii, 35, he correctly omits *kai hupodēmatōn*, along with certain codices. But caution and diligence must be applied here, because it has been ascertained that not all such varieties of readings proceed from Euthymius, but many rather A crept from the margin into the text.
For Hentenius reports in his preface that there were annotations (z) inscribed on the margin of the exemplar, which were then reduced to the order of the remaining scripture, and placed by himself after the explanation of the text of that particle to which they had been set. Whence it is not even surprising that it so often agrees with the Complutensian Greek exemplar (a) and the Vulgate interpreter, especially since the editor himself acted in bad faith in correcting it from time to time. Thus, in the recension of certain places where Hentenius’s exemplar had things other than those which are commonly circulated, the editor himself, loc. cit. p. 485, narrates that the words in Luke xix, 15, *hina eidē* (b) *ti argyrion* did not exist in Euthymius: Which, however, he says, “we added, just as we did in some other places, because they are found in other exemplars and in the Complutensian edition.” The editors could have easily remedied these flaws if they had collected Euthymius’s text from Greek codices, especially those of Paris and the Baroccianus 28, which was once of great assistance to Mill in gathering readings. B It must also be known that in places where an argument offers itself that was already clarified in another evangelist, Euthymius refers the reader to the stated exposition, having cited the chapter according to the Greek computation; Sixtus Senensis (*Bibl. S. L. III*, p. 166) mentions his method of citing according to the major *kephalaia* and reports: "Euthymius, or, as it seems to some, Oecumenius, distributed the Gospel of Matthew into titles or chapters (c) 48; Luke 83; enfin John 18; not numbering the section on the woman caught in adultery, which narrative, although passed over by Greek doctors, is explained by Euthymius (d)." Nor does he leave untouched those sentiments which are upheld by those who profess themselves to be addicted to the Greek Church. Such is that which gave birth, long ago, to the contention agitated between Greeks and Latins: namely, on what day did Christ eat the paschal lamb? Furthermore, the doctrine concerning the retribution of works, which does not take its beginning immediately from the death of anyone, but is deferred to the day of judgment: finally, also concerning the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father alone; to which opinion our writer is argued to have adhered by the places where he writes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
33 PREFACE. 34
asserts, without making any mention of the Son A (e). As for the rest of the writings that are carried under the name of Euthymius which have not yet been edited, we have no secure knowledge whether they originated from him. Certainly, as regards the Exposition of Paul’s epistles, B some attribute them to Euthymius, while Rich. Simon, in his *Bibl. crit. de Du Pin* (l. c., p. 323), judges that they have confused Euthymius with Oecumenius.
(e) Thus on John 14:10. And indeed it is given by the Father, as proceeding from Him, but it is sent by the Son as if cooperating, and not as an opponent. Similarly c. 15:26. See, however, that while the Son does indeed send Him, as being of the same honor as the Father; yet consider this as proceeding from the Father. It proceeds, therefore, from the Father, as if from His substance. Noesselt in *Notes* on this passage.
THE DEDICATORY EPISTLE OF JOANNES HENTENIUS OF MECHELEN
To the most illustrious and most reverend Lord, D. Francisco de Bobadilla, Bishop of Coria, Archdeacon of Toledo, etc., Joannes Hentenius of Mechelen, S.D.
If there is no one, even moderately instructed in moral philosophy, who doubts—most eminent prelate, guardian of virtues and letters—that a good is the more excellent the more common it is, there will also be no one who doubts that the public good is to be preferred to the private. And this is so true that even Christ held that most sacred life of His as cheap, so that salvation, once lost, might be restored to the entire human race. But lest anyone say that the works of Christ, being divine, are by no means to be brought into this number, let us also relate a few from the countless number of Gentiles who subordinated their own life and the lives of their own to the common good.
Among these, the first who occurs is that Junius Brutus, the first assertor of Roman liberty, who ordered his own sons to be struck down by the axe because they had been participants in the plan to restore the kings: though he himself was wounded with a heavy wound by their slaughter; for what love could be equal to the love of fathers toward their sons? Nor did that really escape Virgil, who speaks of him in this manner:
Would you see the Tarquins and the proud soul Of the avenger Brutus, and the recovered fasces? He, the first consul, shall receive the savage axes, And the father, for most beautiful liberty, Shall summon his own sons who stir new wars To punishment—unhappy, however future generations shall report those deeds: The love of country and the immense desire for praise shall prevail.
P. Decius Mus, fighting against the Latins with the consul T. Manlius Torquatus, when the response was given by an oracle that whichever army’s commander dedicated himself and his legions to the enemy, the victory would belong to that people and party: dedicated himself for the common safety of the army. And his son, called by the same name, did the same thing when he had already been consul for the third time, and censor once: whose memory the poet also preserves with these words:
Nay, behold the Decii and the Drusi together, and the savage Torquatus with the axe, and Camillus bringing back the standards.
Marcus Curtius, moreover, for the safety of the people, threw himself on horseback into the chasm in the earth. Sp. Post- B humius the consul, who had pledged and promised a shameful peace with Claudius Pontius, the leader of the Samnites, at the Caudine Forks, was the author to the senate that he, with his colleague and the tribunes who had been the authors of the pledge, should be handed over to the Samnites by the fetials, naked and bound, so that the Roman people might be freed from that peace.
Q. Ceditius, a military tribune, whom Titus Livy seems to call Calphurnius Flamma, in the first Punic War with four hundred soldiers, or, as Livy has it, with three hundred, unless perhaps this was another person, surrendered himself to death: so that while they were occupying a certain hill, they might turn away the enemies, [giving time] for the legions with the consuls, who had been surrounded, to pass through unharmed and liberated from the siege. The tribune Decius did the same thing with the consul P. Valerius C Corvinus, joined with the *hastati* of one legion (although fortune liberated them) so that the enemy Samnites would not fight against them. Among the Lacedaemonians, there is a huge wealth of examples of this kind: but the ones who offer themselves to me as primary are Buris and Spartis, who of their own will set out to Xerxes, King of the Persians: about to pay the penalties which the Lacedaemonians were bound to pay according to an oracle, because they had killed the envoys sent by the Persian. When these had therefore come to Xerxes, they ordered that they should be killed for the Lacedaemonians in whatever way seemed best. And when the king, having admired their piety toward their homeland and the fortitude of their spirits, had freed them from the punishment and asked them to remain with him: "How can we," they say, "live here, having left our homeland, and our ancestral laws and men, for whose sake we undertook such a journey, prepared to die?" Why should I relate the death of Codrus, the King of the Athenians, who, when he saw his region being devastated by iron and fire, and could see no other way according to the oracle of Apollo that such a grave war could be resolved, unless he himself died by the hand of the enemy—and this had been bruited about not only in all the Athenian camps but also in the opposing ones, and therefore an edict had been issued that no one should wound the body of Codrus—having laid down the insignia of his command, he donned the clothing of a commoner and threw himself into the crowd of the enemy, and drove one of them, struck by his scythe, to kill him, so that he might save his homeland; for by his death, it was brought to pass that Athens did not perish. D
Preface
I shall now put an end to this matter, if I first recount what was said by a pagan man—namely, Cicero, in his *Dream of Scipio*—truly Christian in its sentiment regarding the greatness of the common good. He says: "Know, Africanus, that for all who have preserved, aided, or increased their fatherland, there is a certain and defined place in heaven, where they enjoy the blessed life forever. For there is nothing more acceptable to that God who rules the whole world than the councils and assemblies of men associated by law, which are called societies: the rulers and preservers of these depart from here, and return here." Therefore, antiquity, desiring to repay those who either boldly gave themselves to death for the sake of the republic, or who discovered some craft, however humble or sedentary, for its utility, or anything else outstanding and pleasing to posterity, erected bronze statues or marble sepulchers, as far as it was permitted, to rescue their memory from oblivion. Furthermore, they preserved the books of the heathens, purchased at great cost and copied with great faith or rather with religion, in cedar chests, and after anointing them with cedar oil, they placed them most carefully in temples: partly so that the guardianship of so sacred and divine a thing might be entrusted to nothing less than the gods themselves, and partly so that neither decay nor rot might harm those monuments. Not content even with this diligence, they hid the codices like an incomparable treasure in the deepest caverns of the earth with such care that they would not perish in the fires or the storms of war, by which all sacred and profane things are wont to be mingled, and so that they would certainly survive for posterity. If this honor was shown even to superstitious books, such as those of Numa or the Sibyl, or to those containing the memory of human deeds, such as the books of the Egyptians, or to those transmitting some portion of human wisdom, such as those of Plato and Aristotle, how much more justly should Christians do the same in preserving their own monuments? For those who, inspired by the Holy Spirit, left us not so much books as oracles, by which, when read, one is filled not only with doctrine or the faculty of speech, but with virtues and piety toward God; whereas the loss of pagan books would certainly result only in us being less learned or less eloquent, not less pious.
There was, therefore, a certain Greek author, no less deserving than those who have handed down to us the writings of ancient authors and Fathers—especially Chrysostom, than whom no one has been more dexterously versed in interpreting the sacred volumes, and than whom you will not find anyone more accommodating to those preparing themselves for the duty of preaching—who, perceiving that the ancient sacred authors, and especially those who had labored most to interpret the books of evangelical doctrine (to teach which the Son of God had descended to earth), were by no means read according to their merit (whether this happened by reason of the multitude of books, or the reader's fastidiousness, or because of a lack of time), gathered into one volume whatever had been left behind regarding the Gospels, selected from that great mass of codices. And though he had bequeathed to posterity a work so useful and worthy of being embraced, such was the modesty of his spirit that he did not even claim it for himself, and he did not even deem it necessary to add his own name; rather, he attributed what he himself had gathered to Chrysostom and the others, whose works—as he ingenuously confessed—were the most important, although he himself had added A many things of his own which were also most excellent. From this you may conjecture how much he differed in character from those who, like the crow in the fable, adorn and advertise themselves with the borrowed feathers of others. This author seems to have been Oecumenius, who gathered similar commentaries from the same authors on the Acts of the Apostles, on the Epistles which are called Catholic, and on all the Pauline ones, as is gathered from certain arguments, even if he did not wish to express his own name there either; regarding which matter we shall speak at greater length when we soon bring that other volume to light.
Desiring, therefore, to share with the Latins a thing so fruitful, it seemed to me an act of envy, not to say impiety, to allow them to be deprived of it any longer, given that I had found this manuscript—copied by a Greek hand many ages ago, and known to us by many arguments, including the images of the evangelists themselves, which were depicted in a new style and are now nearly erased by age—in the library of the monastery of the Mother of God at Guadalupe, of the Order of Saint Jerome in the kingdom of Castile, where it still remains hidden. B Yet I was not unaware of how harsh and arduous a task I was undertaking: partly because, conscious of my own weakness and uncultivated talent, I had always intended to publish nothing for the public, and partly because I was dealing with a book of such a kind that even to read it was no small labor, being written for the most part in characters and abbreviations unfamiliar to me, despite the greatest care and diligence; even the shapes of the letters were mostly obliterated either by rot and damp, or gnawed by worms and silverfish, or depicted in such a new style that I would have to return to C childhood even to recognize the forms. I omit the fact that frequently in the context of the writing, words are not separated from one another; and letters or syllables of the same word are separated from each other by more than the just interval, so that the line often does not even flow with the syllable; commas and periods are scarcely added, or are inserted where there is no need: all of which generally creates no small difficulty. I knew, moreover, D how great a danger, to speak in general, those expose themselves to who publish in the light books translated from a foreign language; how many and how varied are the judges they take on, most of whom, having never even saluted the Greek letters from the threshold, immediately condemn everything because they do not see that rhetorical world on display, ignorant of the ways in which he is constrained who is forced to render into the light the deposit of a foreign language.
A For he must take the greatest care, he who translates something from one language to another, that while seeking elegance for his speech, he does not suddenly act as a paraphraser instead of an interpreter; and again, that he does not cling so closely to the words that he retains the idioms or dialects of the prior language: but rather that each language should have what is its own: otherwise he seems to speak neither Greek nor Latin. And that which has been cast as a joke upon the unlearned will be adapted to him—that he has made what comes from good Greek into not-good Latin; a thing which one might aptly say of many in this festering age. For who is there now who does not claim the holy Scriptures for himself, and before he learns them, twists them, tears them, and forces them to serve his own intellect—nay, his own passions—even when the Scripture opposes him? And just as we see unlearned and learned alike writing poems everywhere, so too do most men, although they might move happily within their own arena, when they have crossed their own boundaries, while they, like cobblers leaving their lasts, attempt to judge things unknown, they not rarely hallucinate quite miserably. For what has a physician or a jurist to do with the version or interpretation of the holy mysteries? And what is to be lamented much more is that, while they are imbued with perverse dogmas, they do not translate from Greek into Latin with sufficient fidelity: now indeed, as frequently happens, forced by an inexperience in these matters—which, however, if they did not approach the handling of sacred things with unwashed hands, might be more easily pardoned—but now, truly, B so that they do not go against their own dogmas, they return the sense to us either truncated or depraved. I shall show this more clearly than light itself when, with God’s favor, I have published the second volume, which, I hope, we shall do shortly.
Because of these and many other things which exaggerate the version with various difficulties, I am not one who does not understand how much of the dignity and splendor of this author a dim-sighted interpreter might have taken away. But however that may be, I believe I have reached the sense, even if I have adorned it with no cultivation: but no one of sound mind will require that in Commentaries, especially from one who, as I have stated, is tied to a foreign language. But if I have not been able to satisfy everyone, I will bear it easily, since I cannot even satisfy myself in all things. However, I have attempted to take up this burden, although it is far unequal to my own shoulders, because, with no one else offering himself, I would consider it a great sin if the faithful were to be deprived of such a treasure for too long. For what, as far as the account of the evangelical history is concerned, will you find in Chrysostom, or subsequently in Origen, Basil, or Nazianzen, which this man does not present most easily and most succinctly? And it is sufficiently clear that it was not the goal of Chrysostom to hand over to us a bare understanding of the Gospels, or the Acts of the Apostles, or the Pauline Epistles. Otherwise, he would not have left behind such vast volumes on a few books of holy Scripture, but he rather seems to have undertaken the task of forming the morals of the common people: and for this reason he treats topics common to the people, and distinguishes his narration with homilies. C Furthermore, Theophylact, although he is desirous of appearing to speak eloquently on history, and not to cling only to the literal narration, yet this author of ours had this one single goal: that he might succinctly open up the evangelical history to all. But if you also desire some exhortation for the correcting of manners, this author provides it too, briefly and more rarely indeed, but most happily. How aptly—good God!—when the evangelists seem to differ significantly, he so connects the passages that they appear clearly to have been spoken by the same person. And regarding this matter, in my judgment, no one has thus far kept watch as usefully and as seriously. In which, however, just as with the others, let no one put faith in my words, unless he finds far more things worthy of praise in reading this than I could achieve by enumerating them.
Therefore, that I should dedicate this work to you, most magnificent prelate, was brought about by your great kindness, among your countless other gifts: which, beyond the fame heard of, dispersed far and wide, I have experienced in you more than once: and by your kindness, as you always embrace most benignly all men, even those of the most extreme fortune, especially those devoted to studies, so too do you promote these same studies with all your strength whenever the least opportunity is given. Furthermore, I dared to undertake this all the more because, when you were visiting us by some stroke of fortune, I had shown you this first production of mine, which was still entirely unformed, together with the Greek original, and you did not at all shrink from it as from a monster, but like a beautiful little child, you kissed it eagerly: you also marveled at some hidden graces in it, not exposed to the eyes of just anyone. And if this had not happened, with what temerity would I have attempted to offer, to a man so wealthy in this regard as well, such a small gift: A small gift, I say: for although it may be a gift in itself, perhaps not to be despised, if it is compared to your immense and most precious assets, it will be deemed unworthy to find even a small place in your treasury. D For, to say nothing of these things meanwhile, what the Apostle says ought not to be lacking in a bishop: namely, that he should be irreprehensible, as a steward of God, watching over the flock, sober, not headstrong, not irascible, but modest, hospitable, apt for teaching, pious, temperate, holding fast to him who is faithful in doctrine, that he may be able also to exhort through sound doctrine and to convince those who contradict, not given to wine, not a striker, not greedy for filthy lucre, but fair and just, far from quarrels and from avarice, who presides well over his own house. (For if anyone, he says, does not know how to preside over his own house, how will he care for the Church of God?) not a novice in the faith, lest being puffed up he fall into the judgment of the devil: who also must have a good testimony from those who are outside. To leave all these things unspoken, I say, which no one who knows you more closely could fail to desire in you—nay, he will find most things even more abundantly than the Apostle has required—along with that most beautiful and most resplendent [virtue] of purity
A girdle. But who will not admire in a man born of such a distinguished family, to whom fortune, which seems never to have denied him anything that might be its own concern, has always smiled from every side, such varied and such hidden erudition, such certain judgment, such a sharp and almost divine talent, such a tenacious memory? In whom, besides an exact knowledge of both laws, who would not also admire a perfect skill in the three languages? For even as a boy he was most practiced in Greek and Latin; but in Hebrew, good God, how happily he has been versed, and how generous he was also toward his tutor. Therefore, who could doubt that he, approaching sacred letters so long ago with these companions, would achieve marvelous things, so that he would lack neither the knowledge of natural philosophy nor of theology, which they call scholastic? And so, you will find no passage in them, however abstruse, for which he cannot render an exact explanation B at once, in matters on which I have labored night and day, and yet I do not think I have attained everything I was seeking. O that all bishops and stewards whom the Lord has set over his family were such, that they might give them food in due season! Certainly, things would go more happily for the sheep of Christ—indeed, for the entire Christian republic. For the whole flock imitates the life and customs of their prelates and pastors. Therefore, most ornate prelate, I entreat you again and again, through your kindness which is known to the world, not to disdain this ornament of your ears. For you know that the commandment was given to Moses himself, that for the building of the tabernacle and sanctuary he should receive not only gold and silver, purple and fine linen, onyx stones and gems, but also, among the other things, the humble goat-hair. And you know that the widow's two mites were not only most pleasing to Christ, but were even preferred by Him to all the splendid gifts of the rich; and that he who offers a cup of cold water in the name of Christ shall by no means lose his reward. If, therefore, you compare this gift to the riches stored up in your house, it will surely be viler than the most worthless goat-hair; to which, nevertheless, just as to those things, there shall be a place kept for the outer parts of the Lord’s tabernacle. But if you look at the spirit with which this little gift is offered to your most illustrious Highness, I dare assert that it will be far more excellent than gold and silver, purple and fine linen, onyx stones, and gems. Indeed, if in any matter it is given to you to make a trial of the mind I have inclined toward you, I would refuse to undergo any sentence if you should find that I have deceived you in any way. Do not, therefore, consider this gift in itself, nor compare it to the entirety of your museum's collection; but turn your eyes for a moment to the spirit of the one offering it, by whom it is bashfully presented, and receive the little gift with a cheerful countenance; so that when I perceive that these things were not unwelcome to you, I may assume greater strength for such studies. Farewell, exquisite ornament of prelates. At Louvain, in the year from the virgin birth, 1543, on the sixth day before the Ides of August.
Admonition of the same author concerning the author of these Commentaries, from the Louvain edition of 1544, in folio
To the Studious Reader
When we brought these Commentaries to light some months ago, studious reader, and had nothing certain that we could conjecture about the author, following the judgment of others more than our own, we prefaced that it seemed to some that the author was D Œcumenius, whom you will receive in Latin from us shortly for the rest of the New Testament. Although (to tell the truth) the phraseology of this one seemed to me not to differ a little from that one. But now, having indeed found the same author for the Davidic Psalms, and for the Canticles which the Church sings together with the Psalms, you will receive both, but what I thought about Œcumenius is stated elsewhere. He is by no means to be compared with Euthymius. But Pseudo-Theophylact is very similar to Euthymius in the Pauline Epistles.
second A printed, we have dared with the greatest certainty to pass judgment that the author of these Commentaries is Euthymius [f] Zigabenus. For one egg was never so like another as this phrase is to his. You might see in both a pleasing brevity, combined with similar piety, and a concise explanation of Hebraisms. And just as there he concludes the Psalter, so here he concludes the expositions of the individual evangelists with a similar and very graceful doxology joined to a prayer. Add [i] that among other things he expounds the canticles of Mary and Zechariah, which Luke has in the first chapter: the interpretation of which you will see to be the same in both this and that book, with the words changed only for the variety of the interpreters.
And in both cases regarding that word, *He shall go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways.* What his ways are, he says, we have stated in the third chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew, where it is written: *The voice of one crying in the desert, prepare the way of the Lord.* Since we had these and many other most certain indications regarding this author, we preferred to indicate this to the studious reader in those copies which were not yet scattered, rather than to keep him in suspense any longer. Therefore, just as no one doubts that Euthymius Zigabenus is truly the author of those Commentaries on the Psalms, so let no one suspect that anyone else is the author of these subsequent Commentaries on the Gospels. Farewell. A.D. 1544, February 5th.
PREFACE OF THE SAME
— To the Candid Reader.
Lest you hesitate in any way while reading this author, candid reader, we have thought it necessary to warn you of a few things beforehand. First, then, let it be noted that in the copy which came into our hands, certain notes were sometimes placed [k] in the margins: which, since I judged them by no means worthy of being discarded, it was not my intention to cast aside entirely, lest you be defrauded of even this convenience. But so that the margins would not be filled with such annotations, and so that there might be space for placing the passages of sacred Scripture which are cited throughout by the author, we have reduced them into the order of the rest of the Scripture, and have placed them after the exposition of that portion of the text to which they were appended; yet with certain [l] signs, which on the one hand designate the annotation itself, and on the other hand the passage to which they correspond. Other notes, however, which indicated the sentences of a chapter in two words, we have left in their own places. Indeed, in a few places, where it seemed worth the effort, we have also added our own small annotations to the margin: especially when the letter of some word has a Hebrew or Chaldean origin, which passages our author, as one who was only Greek, had either omitted entirely or treated unfortunately. Right at the beginning of each page, we have placed the name of the evangelist, along with the chapter number according to the Latin enumeration; but above the verses of the page themselves, in capital letters, the number of the chapter according to the Greek calculation, because our author follows that alone throughout the whole work.
The passages from the Bible, or those concerning them, we have noted in the margin; designating the chapters with numbers according to the Latin distinction, because we believe these are more known to you. But where any cited passage has not been expressed in the margin, you should recur to the place of the same volume cited previously; for we have omitted it on purpose, so that we would not have to write the same chapter of the same volume so many times over. You will also forgive, out of your kindness, candid reader, the fact that we have not avoided certain words from which some in our own, happier age recoil; such as *savior, to save, to sympathize, compassion, incompassibility, dispensation, dispensatorially*, and similar ones, especially when I see the most learned and most eloquent leaders of the Christian religion…
I mean Tertullian, Lactantius, Cyprian, Jerome and Augustine, who even in book XIII *De Trinitate*, chapter 10, speaks thus: "If there were no infirmity, they would not need a physician, who in Hebrew is Jesus, in Greek Soter, but in our language Savior: a word which the Latin language did not have, but could have, just as it had it when it wanted." And Augustine rightly says these things. For who doubts that Cicero, if he had lived in our times and had received the dogmas of our faith, would have used many words which he did not use: although he did use the word *Salvare* himself in *In Pisonem*, and its passive voice in book II *De natura deorum*. Quintilian also, book XII, chapter 10, used the same word; which very learned men have noted before us. Although more recent correctors of typographers have dared to change these things: whether they did so by their own choice, or by the persuasion of others, who asserted that these were corrupt, because they were rare to find. I, however, had to accommodate myself somewhat to common usage. But because the same author explains any passage he happens upon, skipping nothing, so that whatever pertains to that matter—which either the same evangelist lists in another place, or others list—he sets forth equally, down to the smallest words of each individual case, and where the same thing afterwards presents itself, he remits it to the aforementioned interpretation in a chapter cited according to the Greek reckoning: therefore it is better, before we approach the author's words, to set forth the order and number of the individual chapters in the way in which they are distinguished among the Greeks, which we also, along with the author, will maintain in our version. Further, because in the Greek exemplar which we happened upon, the text of the Gospel often differs from the edition of the New Testament B which is circulated everywhere printed in Greek types: where this happens, it is usually conforming to the Greek exemplar of this author’s edition of the Bible, which the lord Franciscus Ximenez, once archbishop of Toledo and Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, at immense expense, labor, and vigils, with the greatest diligence, took care to have printed in our times in various languages: having summoned from everywhere men most learned in the knowledge of languages, and exemplars most correct and ancient, either from the library of Leo X himself, or transmitted by the Venetian senate, or acquired from elsewhere, taking no account of expenses or labors. Lest anyone therefore think that we have rashly changed the context of the Gospels, we have noted the discrepant places: although frequently the matter is of little moment, which might cause a disagreement. But where we have cited this Complutensian exemplar, we mean the Greek context, not the Latin: for in this nothing is changed from the Vulgate edition. Furthermore, in what respects the Vulgate edition differs from all the Greek exemplars, it will be easily apparent to anyone from the versions and annotations of others. Moreover, lest anyone immediately condemn the Vulgate edition in this part, because that which is spoken in Greek through time C occurs in the future tense, or the past are expressed in the present, has its inverse in the future, just as some are seen to have done frequently: it must be noted that the evangelists and apostles, since they were Hebrews by descent, in this matter as in many others followed the Hebrew idiom, in which they very frequently express the past for the present—which they do not have as a property—or for the future: and to speak universally, the Hebrews very often place one tense for another: which the evangelists also did not rarely, and not only Matthew, who wrote in his native language, that is, Hebrew, but also the others, who wrote in Greek. Some, therefore, from the countless places we have reviewed separately, in which the present, and sometimes also the past, is placed for the future: some of which we, with the requirement of the meaning, turn into the future: elsewhere also this will be clear from the context of the letter or from the Commentaries themselves: sometimes, however, on account of our author’s exposition, it was not permitted to change it. There is also another peculiar phrase of the Hebrews, which the evangelists often emulate, by which for an epithet or adjective noun, they add a genitive substantive, saying: God of peace, of mercy, of justice, of vengeance, that is, peaceful, merciful, just, avenging: law of death, that is, deadly; sons of disobedience, disobedient; judge of iniquity, unjust; mammon of iniquity, unjust; voice of one crying, crying; perhaps also reward of iniquity, unjust. Thus Judas is called the son of perdition, that is, perished, and countless others. It was not permitted to change this for the most part because of our author’s scholia, which interpret the letter through the genitive: sometimes also it was not pleasing, because another meaning had already been accepted by all long ago. D To these things, the Hebrews are accustomed to put this term 'word' or 'discourse' in place of a thing or deed: which indeed is most frequent in the Old Testament, as when it is said (Isa. 39): *There was no word which Ezechias did not show them in his house*, where however slightly lower it follows: *There was no thing which he did not show them in my treasuries*. And elsewhere (II Kings 1) when David says to the boy, who said he had fled from the camp of Israel: *What is the word that has been done?* tell me; and in countless other places. The same occurs in the New Testament also (Mark 1, Luke 1, 2, 4) in usage, as when he who was cured of leprosy is said to have spread the *discourse*. And most frequently in Luke; *No word shall be impossible for God*. *Let us see this word which has been done*. *What is this word, that with authority and power he commands the spirits?* And elsewhere frequently. Which Hebrew phrase, however, our author does not seem to have noticed for the most part, just as he did not the preceding one: because he was not skilled in Hebrew, but only in Greek. And for that reason also, citing anything from the Old Testament, he always brings it forth according to the Septuagint Interpreters. But although it is manifest to all that I act only as an interpreter, and publish nothing that is my own, whether it be to be approved or condemned, lest anyone should think less of this author, because in one or two places he seems to dissent from the opinion of common Latin theologians
as do other Greeks: namely, regarding the day of the month on which Christ celebrated the mystical Supper, and regarding the retribution of good and evil works: whether it happens immediately upon the death of each person, or is deferred until the day of the final judgment, as the Greeks once thought. Regarding the Holy Spirit also, that He proceeds from the Father alone—although our author nowhere says this—he seems, nevertheless, to think the same as the other Greeks, since he says once and again that He proceeds from the Father, without making any mention of the Son. And although in the aforementioned places we have forewarned you, kind reader, with a marginal note, yet for those two latter points you must consider that our author undoubtedly preceded by many years the time of the Council of Florence: in which Pope Eugenius IV, with the consent of the Emperor of Constantinople, and those holding the places of the patriarchs, and others representing the Oriental Church, on the day before the Nones of July, in the year of the Lord’s Incarnation 1439, in the ninth year of his pontificate, gave letters of holy union, to which all the aforementioned subscribed their names, containing these things among others.
B The Latins and Greeks, meeting in this most holy ecumenical council, employed great zeal with one another, so that among other things, that article concerning the divine procession of the Holy Spirit might be discussed with the greatest diligence and assiduous inquiry. For, with testimonies from the divine Scriptures and very many authorities of holy Oriental and Occidental doctors being brought forward—some saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others indeed from the Father through the Son, and all looking to the same understanding under different terms—the Greeks asserted that that which they say, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they did not bring forward with the intention of excluding the Son, but because it seemed to them, as they say, that the Latins assert the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as if from two principles and two spirations; therefore they abstained from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins, however, affirmed that they did not say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son with the intention of excluding the Father, as if He were not the fountain and principle of the whole Deity, namely of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or that, regarding that which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son does not have it from the Father, or that they posit two principles or two spirations, but that they assert there is only one principle and one unique spiration of the Holy Spirit, as they have asserted heretofore: and when one and the same sense of the truth is elicited from all these, they finally unanimously concorded and agreed upon the following holy, God-beloved union in the same sense and with the same mind; therefore, in the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, this holy universal Florentine Council approving, we define that this truth of faith may be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all may thus profess: that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence and His A being subsistent from the Father together with the Son and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration. Declaring that what the holy doctors and Fathers say, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends toward this understanding, that hereby it may be signified that the Son also is, according to the Greeks indeed a cause, but according to the Latins a principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just as the Father is. And because all things that are the Father’s, the Father himself gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting Him, except the being Father, this very thing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son himself has eternally from the Father, from whom He is also eternally begotten. We define, moreover, that the explanation of those words, *Filioque*, for the sake of declaring the truth and because of the necessity then imminent, was licitly and reasonably added to the symbol. And further down, concerning the retribution of works, it subjoins: And that the souls of those who, after receiving baptism, have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those who, after contracting the stain of sin, were purified either in their bodies or after they were divested of their bodies, in the pains of purgatory, as it was said above, are immediately received into heaven, and clearly behold God himself, triune and one, as He is, though in diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another. But the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, go down immediately into hell, to be punished, however, with unequal pains.
Furthermore, concerning that first diversity of the day on which Christ ate the paschal lamb, and that on which He died for our sake, there was always long contention between the Greeks and the Latins, the Greeks saying that He ate the paschal lamb on the thirteenth moon, but suffered on the fourteenth, so that the truth might correspond to the figure, and because of that of John (John XVIII, 28): *And they themselves did not enter into the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Pasch.* And that (John XIX, 14): *And it was the Parasceve of the Pasch*; and: *Therefore because of the Parasceve of the Jews, because the monument was near, they laid Jesus.* Since that Parasceve was nothing else than the day of preparation, on which the Jews prepared themselves to eat the paschal lamb. The Latins, however, assert that He did eat the paschal lamb on the fourteenth moon, just as the other Jews did: because, as the Greek Chrysostom also has it, He always kept the law until death: but they say He suffered on the fifteenth moon, because of the other three evangelists (Matt. XXVI; Mark XIV; Luke XXII) who assert it was the first day of the unleavened bread, on which Christ celebrated the last supper with his disciples. And both these and those seem to drag the dissenting Scripture, as it were, by the throat to their own sense. Wherefore, I shall seem to have done a work of merit if, for your sake, benevolent reader, I note down clearly in this place what I have collected into a compendium on this matter through various reading and great labors. First, therefore, it must be noted that the natural day among the Hebrews begins from the setting of the sun, and ends at the setting of the same for the following day, according to that, (Gen. I): *And there was evening and morning, one day.* But the month from
the conjunction, the middle of the luminaries; and it lasts for thirty days, twelve hours, and two thirds of one hour with three minutes, which calculation is invariably conformable with Ptolemy and other astronomers according to the mean course of the moon. The year, however, takes its beginning from the New Moon, or the conjunction of the sun and moon, nearest to the vernal equinox, according to the mean course of the sun and A moon (Lev. xxiii; Num. xxviii and xxix). Furthermore, all the feasts of the Hebrews, which are had by the Mosaic law, except the Sabbath, take their numbering and variation through the different days of the week from the first day of the aforesaid New Moon, from which, according to the law, the Hebrews count all their feasts: for instance, on the fifteenth day of the same first month was the feast of unleavened bread, and on the day before that day, that is, the fourteenth moon in the evening, the paschal lamb was eaten. But from the feast of Unleavened Bread, after seven weeks had passed, on the following day, namely the fiftieth, was the feast of First Fruits or Pentecost. But after six lunar months from the same first New Moon, that is, after one hundred and seventy-seven days, on the following day was the feast of Trumpets, namely on the New Moon nearest to the autumn equinox. On the tenth day thereafter, the most celebrated feast of Atonement. On the fifteenth day of the same month, the feast of Scenopegia or Tabernacles. And from this feast, on the eighth day, that is, after seven days of the same feast, occurred their last feast, namely of the meeting or gathering or retention: which alone signified the congregation and retention or perseverance of the faithful in the holy Church, which was accomplished after the finished figures and ceremonies of the old law. Then it must be noted that when, near the vernal equinox, the conjunction of the luminaries according to the mean course occurred after the eighteenth hour of the day, because more than three-quarters of the day had already passed, and it inclined more to the following day, it was therefore also celebrated on the following day, and from this all the aforesaid feasts were numbered. Furthermore, if the said first New Moon occurred on the second, fourth, or sixth day of the week to be celebrated, it was put off to the following day. For if it had been celebrated on the second day of the week, then the feast of Atonement, which was most celebrated, would have occurred to be celebrated on the sixth day; but if the said first New Moon or their first day of the year were celebrated on the sixth day, then the said feast of Atonement would have occurred to be celebrated by them on the first day, which we call the Lord's Day: both of which were considered very grave and quite onerous for the whole people, because on two continuous natural days, namely the feast of Atonement and the Sabbath, it was by no means permitted to prepare food or bury the dead: but dead bodies, or cooked vegetables, could not be kept until the third day, especially in hot regions. But if the aforesaid New Moon or first new moon were celebrated on the sixth day, then the seventh day of the feast of Scenopegia or Tabernacles would have occurred on the Sabbath day. But on this seventh day they showed many B signs of joy, which on the Sabbath day it would not have been permitted to do, circling the altar seven times with palm branches, in memory of the capture of Jericho, the first city, which in the land of promise the sons of Israel had taken by such a sevenfold circuit; in this, furthermore, on that day that reading of the Psalmist (Ps. cxvii), was publicly chanted: *O Lord, save, I beseech thee: O Lord, I beseech thee, send now prosperity. Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord.* For we also know that this constitution was in use among the Israelites when they were still in the Babylonian captivity. Since we gather from the Targum of Esther that on that day they cut palm branches, and plucked citrus fruits, cut off rosemary, and made for themselves *Hosanna*: and read in their books and prayed, were glad and cheerful in *Hosanna*, leaped and skipped like kids. Whence it is permitted to see, so that we may add this for the sake of instruction, that the Hebrew word *Hosanna* in the manner of the common people among the Hebrews, namely הושיעה נא, even before Christ was born, had been corrupted or they had used it in the Chaldean manner, and afterwards abused it for the solemnity of Palms, in which ceremonies were done with branches. And so, Christ being born afterward, when the people wished to honor him, and to lead [him] with triumph into Jerusalem, ignorant, they fulfilled the Davidic prophecy, occasion being taken from shoots cut from olives and spread in the way, crying *Hosanna*, that which they were accustomed to cry in the solemnity of Branches. With these things thus premised, it must be noted that in the year in which Christ suffered, the first New Moon, or the conjunction of the luminaries nearest to the vernal equinox according to the mean C course of the sun and moon, according to the true and exact calculation of the most expert Hebrews, occurred on the fifth day of the week after the nineteenth hour of the day, with some minutes: and thus, according to the aforesaid, it was to be celebrated on the following day. But because, on the sixth day, as has been said, it was never celebrated, therefore the Jews in that year celebrated that first new moon on the Sabbath day: and thus the fifteenth day of the same month, on which the feast of Atonement occurred, according to the Jewish observance, was also the Sabbath day: and therefore, on account of the concurrence of the two feasts, John says of it (John xix); that that day was a great Sabbath day, as also our author has to those words. Christ, however, did indeed celebrate the New Moon on the sixth day of the week; for since it had occurred after the nineteenth hour of the fifth day, reasonably as it has been said, it seemed to pertain more to the following day. But he did not wish to transfer it from the sixth day to the Sabbath with the Jews. For this the Jews did on account of the feasts that were to be in the seventh month, as has been said before; but Christ had known that by his Passion which was imminent, the obligation of those following feasts would cease, just as the other ceremonial things of the law. For this reason, therefore, and also because Christ was about to die on the following day, he ate the typical lamb on the true and legitimate fourteenth moon, which was on the fifth day; but on the fourteenth D