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
day, according to the ancient Hebrew reckoning and also according to the Law, on the evening of which the Jews were about to sacrifice the typical lamb, the true Lamb himself was sacrificed: and thus the truth corresponded to the figure. As for the reason for these things, as is likely, it had been indicated only to the head of the house in whose residence he was eating the Passover, and to the twelve disciples themselves, of whom (Luke XXII) Peter and John had prepared the necessary things by the command of Christ, namely the wild lettuces and the staffs: for the lamb itself was being prepared on the tenth day of the month: the unleavened breads also, as is likely (Exod. XII), were prepared some days before, according to the size of the families; and so no one suffered any obstacle from this, nor for that reason could he be accused before a judge.
Again, Tertullian, a Latin author living close to the times of the apostles, speaks thus in his *Apologeticus* against the Jews regarding the day of the Passion of Christ: "Which Passion was completed within the times of the seventy weeks, under Tiberius Caesar, in the consulship of Rubellius Geminus and Rufus Geminus, in the month of March, at the time of the Passover, on the eighth day before the Kalends of April, on the first day of Unleavened Bread, on which it had been commanded by Moses that they should kill the lamb at evening." Nor indeed can it be said that he died on the first day of Unleavened Bread, according to the aforementioned words of Tertullian, because he had been captured on that night. Since by the testimony of all, our redemption was on the cross and not in the apprehension. And without a doubt it was brought about by divine Providence that in that year a double fourteenth moon occurred, so that by different respects, the immolation of the true lamb might correspond to the typical one on the one hand, and on the other, Christ might observe the law to the very end of his life, as even the Greek Chrysostom holds, and might eat the typical lamb on the true and legitimate fourteenth moon, just as Jerome says he ate it. And the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak indubitably of this fourteenth moon, according to the reckoning of Christ, when they say it was the first day of Unleavened Bread. For when these three Evangelists made great mention of this supper, and of the consecration of the Eucharist, they showed that Christ also observed the Law in this, namely according to his own true calculation, as we said before (John XIII). John, however, who dismissed the supper in a single word as having been treated more broadly by others, saying, "The supper being done," considered the fourteenth moon according to the ancient observance of the Jews; to exclude the error which could have arisen for some from the other Evangelists, namely that the truth did not correspond to the figure in the immolation of the true lamb. And therefore he says (John XIX, 14) that on the day on which Christ died it was the Preparation of the Passover, and that they did not enter into the praetorium lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover: where the term "Passover" can in no way be taken for unleavened bread, as some wish, both because it is taken that way nowhere else in the Scriptures, and because it is nowhere said that there is a requirement to eat unleavened bread; nor is it likely that it was necessary for them to be clean, since with the penalty of death threatened, it was prescribed to them that they must eat unleavened bread for seven entire, natural days (Exod. XII), and yet they contracted that uncleanness for very slight reasons.
As for what some say, that the Jews were busy the previous day with capturing Christ and had neglected to eat the paschal lamb, and that for that reason they were going to eat it on the following night, it does not become likely. Since even those who were held by a legitimate impediment on the fourteenth day of the first month were not able on the following day to eat the paschal lamb at will, but on the fourteenth day of the following month in the evening, as is contained in Numbers IX. Therefore, on the day of the Passion of Christ, since the solemnity of the Passover or of the Unleavened Bread had not yet begun according to the ancient observance of the Jews, it was permissible for them until sunset to exercise judicial functions, to accuse, to employ and examine witnesses, to pass sentence, to compel Simon to carry the cross, to bury, to prepare spices, and to do many other things, which the Jews would in no way have done if they had celebrated the fifteenth moon and thus the feast of the Passover and of Unleavened Bread on that day, since they were endeavoring to justify their deeds by the Mosaic Law, saying: "We have a law," etc., and especially Joseph of Arimathea, a good and just man, and Nicodemus, who buried the Lord, whom John says in the tenth chapter placed Jesus there because of the Preparation of the Jews, because the tomb was near. Regarding which words Augustine says: "He wants the burial to be understood as accelerated, lest evening should come, when something of the sort would no longer be permitted because of the Preparation, which the Jews commonly call 'Pure Supper' in Latin among us." For neither they, nor those pious women, had yet known that the legal observances were to cease with the death of Christ. Finally, to conclude in an epilogue, Christ celebrated his Passover according to the tenor of the Mosaic Law, but the Jews celebrated it on the following day according to the traditions of the Fathers; for they indeed corrupted the legal precept regarding the observation of the Passover with this tradition of theirs, which their historian Sedar Olam reports: of which tradition, with the Hebrew left out for the sake of brevity, these are the words: "Thus our masters, the judges of the great Sanhedrin, ordained in the age. When the second house of the sanctuary was built and finished, then appeared a most perfect, fiery throne, upon which sat the King of the world, standing very high between the portico: and they took the crown, and they hung the hidden seal, and they sanctioned and ordained a perpetual statute: and it is handed down in the hand of Rabbi Eliezer, who was greater than all the rest: and he ordained the day of the lots not to be observed on the second, fourth, seventh day of the week: nor the Passover on the second, fourth, sixth: nor the day of Retention on the third, fifth, seventh; nor the beginning of the year on the second, fourth, sixth: nor the day of Expiation on the first, third, sixth forever." This, if it should please anyone, he will be able to see more broadly in Paulus Burgensis on Matthew, chap. 26, and in the book which Paulus Middelburgensis, bishop of Sempronia, published about the celebration of the Passover.
A Nothing, therefore, among those things which our author possesses need you regard as an antidote; read, therefore, securely, what, if you arm yourself with these things, pious reader, will be of no small fruit for you to read.
OF THE SAME
Certain places in which our exemplar holds [readings] in a different way than those Greek exemplars which are commonly circulated.Excerpts from Matthew Matt. 2, 11. And entering the house (they saw) the child. For it has *eidon* [they saw], not *heuron* [they found]. The Complutensian exemplar agrees with us. 3, 11. But he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit. It does not add *kai pyri* [and fire]. The Complutensian edition also concurs. 6, 18. That you may not appear to men to fast, etc. After those words: "He will repay you," there is not added *en to phanero* [in public]. The Complutensian exemplar and the Vulgate edition have it conformably. Although in both our own and the Complutensian exemplar it had been added previously when the discourse was about almsgiving. 7, 12. For (so) it is the law and the prophets. Since it has *houtos* [thus], that is, so, not *outos* [this], here. The Complutensian exemplar reads it the same way. 7, 14. (How) narrow is the gate and strait the way which leads to life. For it has *ti* [what], not *hoti* [that or because]. The Complutensian exemplar and the Vulgate edition read it in the same manner. 8, 11. Many from the east and west shall come and recline (in the bosoms of) Abraham. For it has *en tois kolpois* [in the bosoms], not *meta* [with]. That Chrysostom read [it] with us is manifest from his 27th homily on Matthew. 8, 15. She arose and ministered (to him). For it has *auto* [to him] in the singular, not *autois* [to them] in the plural. The Complutensian exemplar agrees with us, as does the Vulgate edition in certain old exemplars. 10, 1. Having called his 12 disciples, he gave them power (against) unclean spirits. Neither in our own nor in the Complutensian exemplar is the preposition *kata* [against] expressed. And it seems that he who gave us the common/vulgar edition also read [it] in this way: for he says, "He gave them power of unclean spirits." We have added it, however, as the meaning demands it. 10, 3. James the son of Alphaeus and (Lebbaeus). For in every place it has *Lebbaios* with a simple *beta*. And the Vulgate edition always has it thus. 14, 16. It is similar to children sitting in the (marketplace). For it has *agora* [marketplace] in the singular, not *agorais* [marketplaces] in the plural.
The Complutensian exemplar and the Vulgate edition agree with us. Similarly below (v. 31) in the word Bethsaida, not Bethsaidan. 12, 8. The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. For *kai* [and] is not added. Thus also the Complutensian exemplar. 13, 32. It is greater than (all) herbs, or greatest among all herbs. For *panton* [of all] is added. And thus the Vulgate edition and the Complutensian exemplar have it as well. 14, 34. (Gennesaret) always has a light *tau* at the end, and double *nu*. However, Canaanite in the following chapter (v. 22), and often elsewhere, always has an aspirated *gamma* at the beginning. In both cases the Complutensian exemplar agrees with us. B 16, 20. Then he charged his disciples that they should tell no one that he was the Christ. The name *Iesous* [Jesus] is not added. And thus it is clear that Origen read [it] in his homilies. C 18, 8. Cut (them) off. For it has *auta* [them] in the plural, not *auton* [him/it] in the singular. The Complutensian exemplar also agrees. 18, 19. Again (truly) I say to you, that if two of you, etc. For *amen* [truly] is added also in the Complutensian exemplar. 18, 29. Falling down therefore (the servant) at his feet. For it has *doulos* [servant] in the singular, not *sundoulos autou* [his fellow-servant], although he was truly a fellow-servant. And below, in the same verse, "And I will pay thee": *panta* [all things] is not added. And in this latter part the Complutensian exemplar agrees with us. D 21, 1. And similarly Luke 19, 29, Bethphage, is written with a *sigma* interposed. The Complutensian exemplar agrees everywhere. 21, 7. And (sat upon them) namely the garments. For it has *ekathisen* [he sat] in the singular, and *auton* [them] in the plural. In the same way the Complutensian exemplar as far as the sense [goes], although the verb has a compound *e-kathisen*, but not as other exemplars have *epe-kathisan epano autes* [they sat upon her], meaning the ass.
21, 14. *And there came to him the blind and the lame.* A And this punctuation fits better: for the Complutensian exemplar also reads in this order: not as other exemplars in a different order, *the blind and the lame*. 22, 4. *Behold my dinner (is prepared).* Since it has *hetoimastai* in the third person passive, not *hetoimasa*, "I have prepared." 22, 35. *And one of them, a doctor of the law, asked him, tempting him.* For the word *tis* (h), "someone," is not added before "tempting." Both the Complutensian exemplar and the Vulgate edition agree with us. 23, 7. *And to be called by men (Rabbi Rabbi)* with a duplicated (i) term. Nor is it *rabbei* with a diphthong, but *rabbi*. The Complutensian edition agrees with us in all respects. 23, 13. 14. *Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour the widows' houses.* And after this lamentation follows that which says: *Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut the kingdom of heaven.* The Complutensian exemplar also reads in this order. 24, 45. *Who is the faithful and prudent servant, whom his Lord hath appointed.* For *autou* (k) is added. Similarly below (v. 49): *And he began to strike his fellow servants.* Since this was also added here, *autou*. In the former, the Complutensian exemplar indeed agrees with us, but in the latter, the Vulgate edition. 25, 2. *But five of them were prudent and five foolish.* The Complutensian edition also has this order, which is more natural and in accordance with the precepts of rhetoric. And similarly below (v. 4): *But the prudent took oil in their vessels with their lamps.* The aforesaid edition also adds *auton* "their" with us. 26, 18. *Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him: My time is near.* It does not have *ho didaskalos*, "the Master saith," nor does he make any mention of it in his Commentaries. It does have it, however, in Mark and Luke, as do other exemplars. And because the Complutensian edition also has it here, I fear it may have been omitted by the fault of a copyist. 26, 40. *And he says to Peter: So? Could you not one hour watch with me?* B And this punctuation fits better: for otherwise there is nothing that he would have spoken to Peter alone. The Complutensian exemplar also adds (m) a *hypostigma* after the word *houtos*; thus. 27, 42. *Let him descend now from the cross, and we will believe (in him).* For he does not have *autō* "in him" simply, but *ep' autō*. The Complutensian exemplar reads in the same way. 27, 54. *Now the centurion and they that were with him, watching Jesus, having seen what was done,* etc. Nothing is said here about the earthquake: for *ton seismon kai*, "the earthquake, and," was not added. Nor yet (n) does it seem to be omitted by the fault of a copyist: for in John, chap. VIII, v. 28, regarding that word: *When you shall have lifted up the Son of man,* etc. he cites these words in the same manner. 28, 19. *Going, teach all nations.* The word (o) *oun*, "therefore," is not added after the word "going." The Complutensian exemplar also reads in the same manner. C *From Mark.* 4, 46. *He saw Simon and Andrew his (Simon's) brother.* For *tou Simōnos*, "of Simon," is added, even in the Complutensian exemplar. 1, 35. *He went out into a desert place.* In our exemplar the name *Iēsous*, "Jesus," was not expressed. However, the Vulgate edition does this with us in this place. 3, 34. *And looking round about on them who sat about him.* He does not add (p) *mathētas*, "disciples," and so speaks more generally. Both the Complutensian exemplar and the Vulgate edition agree with us. 4, 21. *Does the candle come to be put under a bushel?* For it has *erchetai*, not (q) *kaietai*, "is lit." And here also the Complutensian exemplar and the Vulgate edition agree with us. 5, 11. *And there was there near (the mountain) a great herd of swine.* Since he has *pros tō orei*, not *tōn orōn*, "mountains," in the plural. Similarly, the two aforesaid editions also read here in the same manner. 6, 18. *It is not lawful for you to have your brother (Philip's) wife; for* *Philippou* *is added.* 6, 32. *And (they went) in a ship into a desert place.* Since he has *apēlthen*, "he departed," in the plural, not *apēlthon*, "they departed." Here also the exemplars agree. D Both rightly omit [them]; Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyprian, as Sabatier notes on this place. Of all the codices that I examined, only the Moscow *e* has the word *oun*, which is with the commentary and catena. Therefore some interpreter was beginning the interpretation anew here. Therefore, for the sake of connecting the discourse, he added *oun*. For it others read *nyn*, "now."
"» The Complutensian and the Vulgate edition, which even more A agrees with the preceding and the following. 6, 57. *"And gone away"* (emus), *they buy the loaves.* For it has *agorazomen* in the indicative mode, and not *agorazomen*, "let us buy," in the subjunctive. 6, 44. *"And there were those who had eaten"* (the loaves themselves). For *tous artous* is added. The Complutensian exemplar agrees with us. 7, 26. *"And the woman was a Greek"* (a Syrophoenician) *by birth*; not a Greek Syrophoenician by composition. In like manner also the Complutensian exemplar reads. 9, 6. *"For he did not know"* (what he was to say). For it has *lalēsei*, in the indicative, and not *lalēsē*, in the subjunctive. The Complutensian edition agrees with us; and the meaning is not the same in both places, as is evident from the interpretation of this saying in Matthew 17:4. 10, 43. *"But whoever wishes to become great among you."* For *hymōn* ("among you") is not added after "whoever." The Complutensian exemplar and the Vulgate edition agree with us. But that is not correct, because the Vulgate edition does not have these words at the end: *inter vos*, or *in vobis*. 11, 32. *"But"* (we say) *"from men"* so as to be understood, *no*. For *ean* ("if") is not added, so that it could be read: *But if we say.* Nor can it be so conveniently adapted to the following. The Complutensian exemplar agrees with us. 12, 29. *"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God"* (your) *"is one Lord."* Since it does not have *hēmōn* ("our"), but *hymōn* ("your"). And below, verse 30, it does not have, *kai ex holēs tēs ischyos sou*; "and with all your strength," which I believe, however, was done through the fault of the scribes, as we noted in that place. Also below, v. 31. *"And the second is like"* (to it). For it has *autē*, not *autē* ("this"); so that it may be read: *And the second is like to this.* It seems that the one who provided the Vulgate edition read as we did. 12, 36. *"For David himself said by the Holy Spirit"* (*He says*) *"the Lord to my Lord,"* not *eipen* ("said"). And in the scholia, he makes mention of this too: and the Complutensian exemplar has it so. 14, 32. *"Sit here while I pray."* For it does not have *apelthōn*, "having gone away," before *orabō*. Both the Complutensian exemplar and the Vulgate edition agree with us. 15, 28. In place of that which others read: *"And the Scripture was fulfilled which says: And he was reckoned with the wicked,"* B it has nothing. Nor do I think this was omitted through the carelessness of the scribes; otherwise he would surely have cited it in the scholia where Scripture says [something], just as he is accustomed to do in similar cases. I do not know whether this was first added to the margin by some studious person citing the prophet, and then, in the course of time, was mixed into the text. For *Oua*, not *oai*, "woe." The Complutensian exemplar and the Vulgate edition agree with us. 16, 11. In place of that which is said in other Latin editions from the Greek: *"And they, having heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, did not believe,"* our exemplar has nothing. Nor is it a wonder if someone added this, since most of the Greeks assert, as our author holds, that this whole chapter concerning the Resurrection is an addition: and among the Latins, the divine Jerome likewise reports in his Epistles that most say so. And besides, in the second book against the Pelagians, he says this concerning the reproached incredulity and the hardness of heart.
*From Luke.* 2, 33. *"And Joseph and his mother were wondering,"* etc. For it does not have *ho patēr*, but *ho Iōsēph*. The Complutensian exemplar agrees with us; indeed, the Vulgate edition does too, at least in some ancient exemplars. Similarly below, verse 43: *"And Joseph and his mother did not know,"* with the Complutensian exemplar agreeing here also, while others have: *Kai ouk egnōsan hoi goneis autou*, "And his parents did not know." 3, 33. *"And Jesus himself was about thirty years of age, walking,"* not "beginning." For it has *erchomenos*, not *archomenos*, which is also manifest from the author's scholia. Ibid. *"Who was of Eli."* It is to be noted in our exemplar that *Hēlias* has the smooth breathing. C Furthermore, *Elias*, as often as it is read in the evangelists. And that is more in conformity with the Hebrew language in which *Elias* takes its beginning from the letter Aleph; but this element, as it is commonly said, draws no aspiration with it. Although, to tell the truth, it should not be written *Elias*, but *Eliahu*, if we wish to imitate the Hebrews correctly: just as *Jesahiahu* or *Jesaeiahu*, not *Esaias* or *Hesaias* or *Isaias*. 3, 24. *"Who was of"* (Matthan) not *Mathat*, as is had in common Greek exemplars: In most of the names of this genealogy, and similarly of that which Matthew describes, the orthography varies from the common reading in our author. D I have noticed. Nor did Birchius, the most recent editor, note this defect from the codex. Another, too, a most diligent man, noted no defect here from the Viennese codices. Nay, on the contrary, from the codices he indicated *hēpistēsan* for the faulty reading of one codex, *ēpistēchēsan*. Either Euthymius himself or his scribes suffered something human.
A of all Greek exemplars, and frequently also from the genuine Hebrew reading. Therefore, the first intention was to reduce the orthography of these names to the true source of the Hebrews; but observing the matter more closely afterwards, and weighing that I was translating these not from the Hebrews but from the Greeks, it seemed better not to change so many things in the text of the Gospel, lest the reader occasionally falter, uncertain as to what the discussion was about. Yet I did not wish to abandon the Hebrew orthography of these names entirely, lest the studious reader should find something lacking, but I have gathered them into this place. Therefore, I shall briefly re-weave the series of the generation of the Evangelist in both cases with correct orthography.
"The book," says Matthew, "of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; and Judah begat Pharez and Zarah of Tamar, and Pharez begat Hezron, and Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon, and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab, and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth, and Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David the king, and David the king begat Solomon of her who was Uriah’s, and Solomon begat Rehoboam, and Rehoboam begat Abijah, and Abijah begat Asa, and Asa begat Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat begat Joram, and Joram begat Uzziah, and Uzziah begat Jotham, and Jotham begat Ahaz, and Ahaz begat Hezekiah, and Hezekiah begat Manasseh, and Manasseh begat Amon, and Amon begat Josiah, and Josiah begat Jeconiah and his brethren at the time of the Babylonian deportation. And after the Babylonian deportation, Jeconiah begat Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel begat Abiud, and Abiud begat B Eliakim, and Eliakim begat Azor, and Azor begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Achim, and Achim begat Eliud, and Eliud begat Eleazar, and Eleazar begat Matthan, and Matthan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
But Luke: "Jesus himself," he says, "was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, who was of Eli, who was of Matthat, who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Janna, who was of Joseph, who was of Mattathias, who was of Amos, who was of Nahum, who was of Hezli, who was of Naggai, who was of Mahath, who was of Mattathias, who was of Semein, who was of Josech, who was of Joda, who was of Joanan, who was of Rhesa, who was of Zerubbabel, who was of Shealtiel, who was of Neri, who D was of Melchi, who was of Addi, who was of Cosam, who was of Elmodam, who was of Er, who was of Jose, who was of Eliezer, who was of Jorim, who was of Matthat, who was of Levi, who was of Simeon, who was of Judah, who was of Joseph, who was of Jonam, who was of Eliakim, who was of Melea, who was of Menna, who was of Mattatha, who was of Nathan, who was of David, who was of Jesse, who was of Obed, who was of Boaz, who was of Salmon, who was of Nahshon, who was of Amminadab, who was of Aram, who was of Hezron, who was of Pharez, who was of Judah, who was of Jacob, who was of Isaac, who was of Abraham, who was of Terah, who was of Nahor, who was of Serug, who was of Reu, who was of Peleg, who was of Eber, who was of Shelah, who was of Cainan, who was of Arphaxad, who was of Shem, who was of Noah, who was of Lamech, who was of Methuselah, who was of Enoch, who was of Jared, who was of Mahalalel, who was of Cainan, who was of Enos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God.
5, 19. "And not finding by what way they might bring him in." The preposition *dia* is not expressed for "by." The Complutensian edition agrees with us.
5, 27. "He saw a publican named (Levin)." For it has *Leuin*. And immediately below, v. 29: "And he made a great feast for him (Levis)." *Leuis*, not with a diphthong in the latter syllable *Leuein* and *Leueis*. The Complutensian exemplar also agrees with us. Now these cases can be transformed into the Latin language as well, just as from the nouns *Emphasis*, *Protasis*, *Epitasis*, and the like.
5, 30. "And the scribes murmured (who were among them)." For *autōn* is added. Thus also the Complutensian exemplar.
6, 18. "And those who were vexed by unclean spirits, were being healed." For it does not repeat the conjunction *kai* (and) before the verb "were being healed." The Vulgate edition agrees with us.
6, 20. "And he, lifting up his eyes to his disciples (his)." For *autou* (his) is repeated. Both the Complutensian and the Vulgate edition agree with us, although the latter does not attach the reciprocal *suis* to the word "Eyes," and wrongly so.
6, 23. "Behold, for your reward is great in (heaven)," not *en tois ouranois*, in the heavens, plural. The Complutensian exemplar agrees with us.
6, 26. "Woe, when all men speak well of you." The word *hymin* (for you) is not added after the interjection "woe." And in this, besides the Complutensian exemplar, the Vulgate edition also agrees with us. In the fact that our author does not add *pantes* (all) before "men," the Complutensian edition agrees with us, and it corresponds better to the contrary beatitude.
6, 37. *(Et) nolite judicare.* A Indeed, *kai* (and) is prefixed in the Complutensian exemplar as well. 6, 40. *Perfectus autem erit sicut magister suus.* It does not contain *pas* (all) before *erit*. 7, 7. In place of those things which are found in others (namely, "Wherefore I also did not think myself worthy to come to you"), our author has nothing. Nor does he make mention of these things even in Matthew, when he is harmonizing the statements of the evangelists. Therefore, it does not seem to have been omitted through the negligence of a copyist. For in this chapter, in place of these words of the text: "For I am not worthy," etc., he puts in the place of the scholia the words that follow. Matthew also said these things, and they are explained in the aforementioned chapter. But if he had judged that it should be interpolated in this place: "Wherefore I also," etc., he would by no means have said that all things were spoken by Matthew and explained therein, since no mention of them is made there. 7, 28. For I say of the voice: *Among those that are born of women, there is no one greater than John the Baptist.* He does not add *prophetes* (prophet), nor does it seem to have been omitted through negligence, for the same reason which we reported in the previous note. 8, 5. *And the birds of the air (also) ate it up.* For *kai* (and) is added again. 9, 43. *But while all were marveling at those things which (Jesus) was doing.* For the name *Iesous* (Jesus) is added, as in the Complutensian exemplar. 9, 55. *But he turned and rebuked them.* The name *Iesous* (Jesus) is not added, nor is it in the Complutensian exemplar, nor in the Vulgate edition. Then, what follows in all versions, and in the Greek edition as well, namely: *And he said to them: You know not of what spirit you are. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them*, although we have added it, I fear [d] lest it has been omitted by the carelessness of a copyist: especially since he makes no mention of these in the scholia. 9, 57. *I will follow thee whithersoever (the Lord) shall go.* For *Kyrie* (Lord) is added, as in the Complutensian. 10, 22. *And turning to the disciples he said: All things have been delivered to me by my Father.* For [e] these words are also added in the Complutensian exemplar: *Kai strapheis pros tous mathētas eipe* (And turning to the disciples he said). 10, 23. *Blessed are the eyes which see the things which you see.* For *ymeis* (you) is not expressed in our author, nor in the Complutensian exemplar. I see both this, and other such trifles, which perhaps will seem to some unworthy of annotation; yet I did not wish to [f] omit them, lest anyone might think that anything was left out or changed through negligence or rashness. 10, 39. *Which also sitting at the feet of Jesus heard* (the words) *of him.* For the Complutensian exemplar also has *tōn logōn* in the plural. 11, 53. *(The Scribes) and the Pharisees began to press hard.* For it does not have *nomikoi* (lawyers/scribes of the law), but *grammateis* (Scribes). And immediately below in the same verse, it does not have *apostomatizein* (to question captiously), nor B with others *epistomizein* (to silence), but *apostomatizein*, that is, to question by word of mouth. For what this means, see the explanation of this place. 12, 18. *And there I will gather all things that are born to me.* For [g] *kai ta agatha mou* (and my good things) is not added. 13, 15. *(Hypocrites) doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose,* etc. For it has *hypokritai* in the plural. Both the Complutensian exemplar and the Vulgate edition agree. 13, 35. *Behold your house is left to you:* *Eremos* (desolate) is not expressed, which from the explanation it is evident was not done by the fault of a copyist. 14, 15. *Blessed is he that eateth (shall eat) the bread in the kingdom of God.* For it does not have *arton* (bread), but *ariston* (a meal/breakfast). C It agrees also with the Complutensian exemplar. 14, 21. *And returning the servant (that) reported,* etc. For *ekeinos* (that) is added, as in the Complutensian exemplar as well. 15, 26. *And having called one of the servants.* *Autou* (his) is not added , neither in the Complutensian exemplar nor in the Vulgate edition. 17, 4. *And if seven times in the day he turn to you saying: I repent.* It does not have *epi se* (to you). The Complutensian edition agrees. 17, 21. *Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there.* It does not [i] have *ē* (or), just as also below in verse 23, where the same words are repeated, it is not held in any exemplar. The Complutensian edition reads conformably.
A 17, 52. “Remember Lot's wife.” The *and* is not held, neither in the Complutensian exemplar, nor in the old translation. And similarly at the end of the chapter in the last verse, “There will the eagles be gathered together,” the *and* is not added, nor is it in the Complutensian edition.
18, 3. “But the widow was in that city.” It does not have *certain* [τις], and the Complutensian edition does not have it, nor does Chrysostom in his former homily on praying to God, where the present passage is cited.
19, 4. “He ascended into the (sycamore tree).” In our exemplar and in the Complutensian, the third syllable is held with an omega: lest Stunica reproach us on that account that “sycamore” [caprificum] is wrongly interpreted, because it is written with an omicron. However, the Complutensian has the penultimate with an epsilon, while our exemplar has the same with an alpha-iota diphthong: *sycomoraian* [συκομωραίαν].
19, 15. “He ordered those servants to be called to him.” It is not added, *to whom he gave the money* [οἷς ἔδωκε τὸ ἀργύριον]: “To whom he had given the money.” Which, however, we have added, just as in certain other places we have done the same, because it is held in other exemplars and even in the Complutensian edition; and yet I fear whether that was done by the carelessness of a scribe, especially since he makes no mention of these in the Commentaries.
20, 5. “If we say, From heaven, he will say: Why did you not believe him?” The *therefore* [οὖν] is not added, nor does the Complutensian exemplar have it.
20, 9. “A man planted a vineyard.” The *certain* [τις] is not added. And similarly below in verse 19, “And they feared,” the *people* [τὸν λαόν] is not added. The Complutensian edition agrees in both.
20, 20. “That they might catch his (speech).” It has *logon* [λόγον] in the accusative case: not *logō* [λόγῳ], so as to be said “in” or “by the speech.” The Complutensian exemplar also agrees.
21, 16. “But you shall be handed over by parents and kinsfolk, friends and brothers.” The Complutensian edition also reads in this order, so that brothers are placed in the last position.
B 22, 50. “That you may eat and drink at my table.” It is not added, *in my kingdom* [ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου]. Nor is there any mention of this in the interpretation.
22, 35. “When I sent you without a money-bag and wallet.” *And sandals* [καὶ ὑποδημάτων] is not added: nor is there any mention of this in the commentaries. But he argues that it is an addition, because below in verse 36, when it is said: “But now he who has a money-bag, let him take it, likewise also a wallet,” it is not added in any exemplar.
22, 47. “And he drew near to Jesus to kiss him.” It is added immediately consequently, even in the Complutensian exemplar: “For he had given them this sign, Whomever I shall kiss, he is [the one].”
23, 2. “We found this man perverting (our) nation.” For in our exemplar *our* [ἡμῶν] was added, just as the Vulgate edition also has it. At the end of the Gospel, the *Amen* is not added, just as it is not held in any exemplar at the end of the other Evangelists.
From John
1, 28. “These things were done in (Bethany).” Not *Bethabara*. The Complutensian edition and the Vulgate are conformable, although the author says in the scholia that *Bethabara* is read more truly. “This is he of whom I said, After me comes a man, who was before me, for he was my first.” Yet the same words were placed slightly above.
2, 22. “They believed (his) speech.” For it has *his* [αὐτοῦ], not that which Jesus said.
2, 24. “Because he himself knew (all things).” For he has...
A *all things* [πάντα], not *all men* [πάντας]. The Complutensian exemplar agrees.
3, 22. “And there he remained with his disciples, and were baptizing.” Indeed, it has the plural *were baptizing* [ἐβάπτιζον], which appears more clearly from the scholia.
4, 31. “Meanwhile his disciples were asking him, saying: Rabbi, eat.” For *his* [αὐτοῦ] is added, even in the Complutensian exemplar.
6, 2. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” No Greek exemplar that I have seen has *his* [αὐτοῦ] added, although Erasmus translated it: *That flesh of his*.
6, 70. “Jesus answered them: Did I not choose you, the twelve?” *Jesus* [Ἰησοῦς] is not added, nor in the Complutensian exemplar.
7, 1. “For he could not abide in Judea.” It does not have *he wanted* [ἤθελεν], but *he had authority* [εἶχεν ἐξουσίαν], namely, *he had power*, or, *he could*.
7, 12. “But others said: No, but he seduces the world.” It does not have *the crowd* [ὄχλον], but *the world* [κόσμον], which is also declared in the scholia.
7, 55. “Each one went to his own house.” For it does not have *he went* [ἐπορεύθη], but *he departed* [ἀπῆλθεν]. Immediately below, chapter VIII, 2: “But early in the morning he came again [Jesus] into the temple.” For *early* [βαθέως] is added, and the name *Jesus* [Ἰησοῦς]; nor does it have *he approached* [παρεγένετο], but *he came* [ἦλθεν]. And below, verse 3: “(They bring) a woman.” It does not have *they bring* [φέρουσιν], but *they lead* [ἄγουσι]. Nor is *to him* [πρὸς αὐτόν] added. In the same verse below: “In adultery,” not *in adultery* [ἐν μοιχεία]. It also has *they said* [εἶπον], not *they say* [λέγουσι]. Also, *tempting* [πειράζοντες] is added in our exemplar. Nor does it have *this woman has been caught* [αὕτη ἡ γυνὴ κατελήφθη], but *we have found this one* [ταύτην εὑρόμεν]. Below, verse 5: “But thou, what sayest thou (about her?)” For *about her* [περὶ αὐτῆς] is added. Nor does it say below in verse 6, “that they might have an accusation against him” [ἵνα ἔχωσι κατηγορίαν κατ' αὐτοῦ], that they might have an accusation against him. Moreover, when after a few words it is said in the following verse 9: “A beginning having been made by the elders,” it is added, *even unto the last* [ἕως τῶν ἐσχάτων]. Then in verse 10, where it is subjoined: “And when Jesus had raised himself.” Neither here nor in the Vulgate edition is it added consequently, *and having seen no one, except the woman* [καὶ μηδένα θεασάμενος, πλὴν τῆς γυναικὸς]. And that he had seen no one, except the woman; which, however, is held in the Complutensian edition and in other Greek exemplars: but instead of it, it has *he saw her* [εἶδεν αὐτήν]. Therefore, in the Complutensian exemplar, many things agree with us against other Greek exemplars; but some agree both with others and not with us. Furthermore, that exemplar even has some things which neither we have, nor other Greek exemplars: as when it is said in verse 6: “He was writing on the ground,” the Complutensian edition adds, *dissembling* [μὴ προσποιούμενος]. And below in verse 9, where it is said, “But when they had seen,” it adds, *And those convicted by their conscience* [καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς συνειδήσεως ἐλεγχόμενοι]. Many other things also vary here and there, which, because they are very small, we have not wished to recount. So great, therefore, is the variety of the exemplars, besides other things, that it sufficiently argues that this history is interpolated, as our author asserts with many others.
8, 40. “Who have spoken the truth to you, which I heard from (the Father).” For it has *from the Father* [πατρός], and not *from God* [θεοῦ]. And below in verse 49: “But I honor the Father.” *My* [μου] is not added. And immediately in the same verse: “And you dishonor me.” For it has *you dishonor* [ἀτιμάζετε] in the present tense, not *you dishonored* [ἠτιμάσατε]. It agrees with us in the final Complutensian exemplar.
8, 59. “But Jesus was hidden, and went out of the temple.” It is added immediately, also in the Complutensian exemplar: “Passing through the midst of them, and went...”
9, 8. Neighbors therefore, and they who had seen him before that he was (blind). It has *τυφλός*, not *πτώχος* (e) beggar. The Complutensian exemplar also agrees.
10, 8. All as many as came are thieves and robbers. “Before me” (*πρὸ ἐμοῦ*) is not added, either in the Complutensian exemplar or in the Vulgate edition.
10, 39. They sought (therefore) again to take him. “Therefore” (*οὖν*) is added, both in the Complutensian exemplar and in the Vulgate edition.
13, 9. Lord, not my feet only. “My” (*μου*) is not added.
13, 23. When therefore he was reclining (thus) upon the breast of Jesus. “Thus” (*οὕτως*) is added, which the author also declares in the scholia.
13, 30. And it was night when he went out. Then it is added: Jesus said. For “therefore” (*οὖν*) is not added before the word “went out” (*ἐξῆλθε*), so that it might not render a different meaning. The Complutensian exemplar agrees with us.
14, 1. Let not your heart be troubled. Before these words, there is not set out, neither in ours nor in the Complutensian exemplar, what is held in the vulgar Greek exemplars (f): “And he said to his disciples.”
14, 30. For the prince of the world comes. “Of this” (*τούτου*) is not added, nor in the Complutensian exemplar.
16, 3. And these things they will do, because they have not known. “To you” (*ὑμῖν*) is not added, nor in the Complutensian edition.
16, 5. And no one asks me: Where are you going? “Of you” (*ἐξ ὑμῶν*) is not prefixed before the word “asks” (*ἐρωτᾷ*).
16, 10. But of righteousness, because to (my) Father [he goes] and finds and finds not. For in the first edition he has it; in the rest he omitted it. Compare his note on this passage. Another question: Why did Jerome omit [it] in the Latin Vulgate? Clearly, here too the servile herd follows the mad Origen. Nor were Chrysostom and Cyril more diligent. Men commonly believe these things were stitched on from Luke iv, 30. Foolishly. In my own time I will demonstrate the whole matter before [your] eyes. This much the Vatican 1209 keeps at Birck’s.
16, 25. These things I have spoken (I say) to you. For it does not have (g) *λελάληκα* “I have spoken”: but *λέγω*, “I say.”
16, 33. In the world you shall have tribulation. For it has *ἕξετε* (h) [future], not *ἔχετε* [you have]. In the same way it is manifest that he who published the Vulgate edition had read it.
17, 11. Holy Father, keep them by thy name (which thou hast given me). For it does not have *οὓς* (“whom”), but *ᾧ* (“which”). The Complutensian exemplar has it in the same way. However, from the scholia our author seems to have read *ὅ*, which (k), perhaps is the name in the accusative case.
18, 25. He denied (therefore) and said: I am not. For “therefore” (*οὖν*) is repeated. In this way we also read in the Complutensian edition.
18, 28. Pilate therefore went out to them, and said. *ἔξω* (l) “without” is not added. In this way also we find it in the Complutensian exemplar.
19, 16. And they took Jesus and (led him away) (into court). First, therefore, he does not have *ἀπήγαγον* “led away,” but *ἤγαγον* “led.” And in this the Complutensian exemplar concordant. Moreover, there was added in our exemplar *εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον* “into the praetorium.”
19, 35. And he knows that he tells the truth (but) that you may believe. For it has *ἀλλά*, “but.” Nor does it have *καί*, “and,” before “you.” Indeed, the Complutensian exemplar does not have the conjunction *καί*, but neither does it have *ἀλλά*.
19, 38. And Pilate permitted. And immediately it is added: *ἦλθεν* (m) *οὖν, καὶ ἦρε τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ*, “He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.” Both the Complutensian exemplar and the Vulgate edition agree.
20, 29. Because you have seen me, you have believed. *Θωμᾶ* (“Thomas”) is not added, nor in the Complutensian edition.
21, 1. Afterwards Jesus manifested himself again (to his disciples) at the sea of Tiberias. For *μαθηταῖς* (n) “to his disciples” is added. The Complutensian exemplar and the Vulgate edition agree on this.
24, 15. Simon (son of Jona) do you love me more than these? A His exemplar has *Jona*, not *Joanna*; and thus the Complutensian follows the two.
BY THE SAME HENTENIUS.
In what follows, and in many other places, the Gospel writers have imitated the Hebrew phrasing, placing the present, and sometimes also the perfect, in place of the future.
Matt. 11, 3, and Luke 7, 19, 20, there occurs in the first place that most common saying: Are you the one (who comes) or do we look for another? Where *ἐρχόμενος* (“coming”) is placed for that which is: “Who is to come,” or rather, “Who was to come.” And in the same way John 6, 14: This is truly the prophet (coming) into the world, that is, he who was to come. Again, Matt. 17, 11: Elijah indeed (comes) first: *ἔρχεται* (“comes”) is placed for “he will come.” And indeed this is very frequent in this verb *ἔρχομαι*.
Matt. 10, 20. For it is not you (who are) (they who speak), but the Spirit of your Father (who speaks) in you. Where the present *ἐστε* (“are”) is taken for “you will be”; and *λαλοῦντες* (“speaking”) for that which is: “Who will speak”; and *λαλῶν* (“speaking”) for “he will speak.” These same things are also held in Mark 13, 11.
Matt. 22, 30. In the resurrection they neither (contract marriage) nor (are given in marriage), but as the angels of God in heaven (are). The word *γαμοῦσι* (“they marry”), which from the subsequent words, which are manifestly present, is also judged to be present, is taken for the future “they will contract”; and *ἐκγαμίζονται* for, “they will be given in marriage”; similarly *εἰσὶ* (“they are”) for “they will be.” In the same manner these words are held in Luke 20, 35, 36; Mark 12, 25.
Matt. 17, 20. If you (have) faith as a grain of mustard seed. *Ἔχητε* (“you have”) is taken for the future “you will have.”
Matt. 26, 11. For the poor you always have with you, but me you do not always (have). In this place the present *ἔχετε* (“you have”) is taken for the future “you will have.” And in the same way John 12, 8.
Matt. 28, 7. Behold, he (proceeds) before you into Galilee. *προάγει* (“he goes before”) is taken for the future “he will go before.” Similarly also Mark 16, 7 has it.
Mark 3, 29. Whoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, (he has not) forgiveness unto eternity, but is guilty (is) of eternal judgment. *Ἔχει* (“has”) is taken for “you will have,” and *ἐστὶν* (“is”) for “shall be.”
Mark 9, 12. When Elijah has first come, he (restores) all things. In this place the present verb *ἀποκαθιστᾷ* (“he restores”) is taken for the future “he will restore.” Chapter 9, 31: The Son of Man (is delivered) into the hands of men. Similarly in this place the present verb *παραδίδοται* (“is delivered”) is taken for the future “he will be delivered.”
Mark 11, 24. Whatever you ask when you pray, believe that (you receive) it and it will be yours. *λαμβάνετε* (“you receive”) for “you will receive.”
Luke 13, 35. Behold, your house (is left) to you. *ἀφίεται* (“is left”) for the future “shall be left.”
John 6, 28. What (do we do) so that we may work the works of God? *ποιοῦμεν* (“we do”) for “we will do.”
John 7, 27. When Christ comes, no one knows whence (he is). *ἔστι* (“he is”) for the future “he will be.”
John 7, 33, 34. I go to him who sent me: you will seek me and will not find me: and where I (am) you cannot come. *εἰμὶ* (“I am”) for “I will be”: and *δύνασθε* (“you can”) are taken for the future “you will be able.”
John 8, 31. If you abide in my word, my true disciples (you are). *ἐστὲ* (“you are”) is taken for “you will be.”
John 8, 46. Who of you (convicts) me of sin? *ἐλέγχει* (“convicts”) is taken for “he will convict.”
John 15, 8. If I do not wash you, you (have) no part with me. *ἔχεις* (“you have”) for “you will have.”
John 14, 17. But you (know) him, because he (remains) with you. *γινώσκετε* (“you know”) for “you will know”: and *μένει* (“he remains”) for “he will remain.” And the series of the letter itself declares this, as it does almost all other things.
John 14, 19. A little while longer, and the world no longer (sees) me, but you (see) me. Here, indeed, although (a) a certain author of no small name says that *θεωρεῖ* or *θεωρεῖτε* is of the present tense, yet they are, even according to the canons of Greek grammar, secondary futures. Similarly, chapter 15, 26, 27, when it is said: He will bear witness of me, and you (shall be witnesses). The same author also says *μαρτυρεῖτε* (“you bear witness”) is of the present indicative, so that it signifies: You are witnesses, or, Be ye, just as he renders it in this place. Yet it will be said much more conveniently to be a secondary future: especially since in Acts, chapter 1, 8, Luke, relating almost the same words, says: You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you and you will be my witnesses. Where the Greek text openly has the future *ἔσεσθέ*, after also having first made mention of the coming Holy Spirit, just as in this place also. Furthermore, when in the same chapter 16, 10 it is said: I go to the Father, and henceforth you (will not see) me. And after a few things, verse 16: In a little time and you (will not see) me. The same author asserts (b) that in both of these places the evangelist misused the present tense for the future. We, however, think that he properly placed the secondary future. Which is easy to gather from the fact that the future *ὄψεσθε* (“you shall see”) follows immediately. We know, however, that some grammarians D wholly...
to bear: who are nevertheless compelled to admit that the present indicative was often used for the future, which hardly ever happens. The same author frequently translates the verb A *aphiyontai* as "they are remitted," although it is not only an Attic perfect, but also Ionic and Doric, formed by the elision of the subjunctive vowel and the pleonasm of the ω. For the fact that he says the interpreter perhaps read *apheontai*, so that it might be a present from *aphiemi* and *phiomai*, is not probable, since this barytone verb is found only among the poets.
John 15:6. Unless anyone abideth in me, he is (cast) out as a branch, and (he is withered) and they (gather) them, and (cast) them into the fire, and (they are burned). In this passage where the past tenses and three presents are put for futures; namely, *eblēthē* for "he shall be cast," *exēranthē* for "he shall wither," *synagousin* for "they shall gather," *ballousin* for "they shall cast," and *kaietai* for "it shall be burned."
John 15:8. In this (*he is glorified*) my Father (that ye may bring forth much fruit). *Edoxasthē* for the future "shall be glorified," and *hina pherēte* for that which is: "if ye bring forth." In this place, therefore, both the perfect and the present are put for the future.
John 16:26. And I do not (say) to you that I will ask the Father for you: for the Father himself (loves) you. *Legō* for "I will say," and *philei* for "he will love," which, however, if it stood alone, could be a second future. See the exposition of this passage.
John 17:11. And now I am no longer (am) in the world, and these are in the world (are). *Eimi* is taken for "I shall be," and *eisi* for "they shall be."
JOANNIS MILLII EXAMEN OF THE EUTHYMIUS CODEX BAROCCIANUS
From his Prolegomena in N. T. § 1073 – 1079.And now, indeed, we come from that eminent deflorator B of the Commentaries of Chrysostom to another, namely, Euthymius Zigabenus; who, about the beginning of the twelfth century, from the Commentaries of various Fathers, but especially those of Chrysostom, wove together a certain Catena on the Gospels. In which, certainly—if I may note this in passing—that which is altogether peculiar is that the allegations or citations of the evangelical text were made perpetually according to the titles which are inscribed on the margin of the Gospels, or the greater *Kephalaia*. We have obtained not yet (among the Barocci codices) a copy of this work printed in Greek, though we have found one that is genuine and nearly complete; from which it may be seen what the text of Euthymius was like when he wrote these things. This text was, like almost all copies of the later age, interpolated in many places; yet so that, in many instances where it differs from the printed books, it exhibits the genuine reading.
And now regarding the interpolated readings, first behold the following: *Iordanē* for *potamō*, Matt. 3:6, many codices. Syr., Copt., Æthiop. *Diarpasē* for *diarpasei*, 12:29; so Chrysostom. The scribe took care that this verb should agree in tense with the preceding *dēsē*.
C ... entire; ... [the text] was, just as are almost all copies of later ages, interpolated in many places; yet so that, in many instances where it differs from the printed books, it exhibits the genuine reading.
(d) He speaks of the same person ibid. § 1462. (e) He thus calls the bishop of the Bulgarians of Theophylact. It seems, however, that he drew this word from the contaminated pouch of the barbarous Latinity of St. Jerome. He could have used something more honest and more Latin. *Apanthisai* is one thing in Greek, *deflorare* is another in Latin. (f) As if from a lofty palace, weary and exhausted to a humble cottage. (g) Catena—most learned Milli—is called a collection of passages from various writings of the Fathers, who in some way touched upon the individual parts of the Holy Scriptures in their discourse, collated without a continuous connection. Not without reason did I add "without connection," inasmuch as any catena ought to have a connection. But that has no place in these catenae. In Euthymius, however, there is a connection, because he made it a continuous work from many parts. He therefore exhibits a commentary, not a catena. Here is the distinction between a catena and a commentary, according to the usage of the more recent Greeks of the word *seira*. (h) description of chapters in most Greek codices, which could not have escaped you. For the Greeks recognize no other besides this and the canons of Eusebius. Both are in the Alexandrian codex. (i) That some learned men have affirmed that these commentaries have already been edited in Greek was noted above by D Fabricius. But in the new Cave edition this error has been corrected. See vol. II, p. 199, edit. Basil. 1745, fol. But Elias du Pin in the *Nova Bibliotheca auctorum ecclesiasticorum*, vol. IX, cap. xiv, p. 197, states that this Commentary was published in Greek at Verona in 1530, in which year, indeed, the Commentary on the Psalms appeared in the same place. Therefore, the Commentary on the Psalms is confused with this one on the Gospels. Oudin in his *Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, vol. II, p. 981, erred in another way. For he writes: Commentaries on the four Gospels edited in Greek in folio at Verona in the year 1630 (therefore a hundred years later) along with the Commentary on the Psalms.
(k) Much less, however, than the Alexandrian and Cambridge [codices], the lowest of all. (l) This pertains to the codices with scholia and catenae, which is learned from the Moscow codices d. and 10. There are other codices of the same kind a.e. Therefore it is easily excluded by a critic by the authority of the rest. (m) Chrysost. t. VII, p. 447 b. has: *Kai tote autou ta skeuē diarpasē*, which even Wetstein did not note. The Greeks were ignorant of the Hebraic custom of the sentence being bound in this way by the particle *kai*. The whole clause could have been absent. If, however, the Greeks had added it, they would have written *tote dē*, *tote de*, or *tote gar*.