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