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.