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.