COMMENTARY ON THE UNEDITED GREEK COMMENTARIES OF PROCOPIUS OF GAZA ON THE HEPTATEUCH AND CANTICLE
WRITTEN BY JOHANN CHRISTIAN GOTTLIEB ERNESTI.
(Leipzig, from the press of Sommer, 1785.)
Very recently, when I was in the library which the celebrated theologian Jo. Godfried Koerner had once collected—a library in which our Academy has recently suffered no slight loss—and was devoting my efforts there to noting down the inscriptions of the books, I happened upon a large volume whose external inscription indicated that it contained Procopius’s Commentaries on the Heptateuch and Canticle. But when I eagerly opened the book, we saw that it was entirely handwritten, with each page divided into two columns such that one presented the Greek text and the other its Latin version. We immediately recognized the hand of Gotfried Olearius, a supreme theologian of the past, which was known to me from various pamphlets written by his own pen and transferred into his archives through that close connection which had existed between Koerner and the Olearian family. His memory was still fresh in my mind from an old book by the lexicographer Suidas, on whose wide margin I had known many notes to be inscribed by Gottfr. Olearius—notes that, because of the immense learning which that most learned man had displayed in them, were worthy of being inserted into a future edition of Suidas. Furthermore, the elegance of his handwriting in both types of scripts held our eyes to such a degree that, before we scrutinized the subject matter of the book, we were struck with admiration for the man’s incredible diligence and assiduity, never surpassed or broken by such a great mass of volumes. But later, when the habit of observation had gradually tempered the fervor of our admiration, and the volume had been more accurately examined, I myself discovered that these three things were contained within:
1. A A funeral oration by the sophist Choricius, B inscribed on Procopius the sophist of Gaza: "The speech prays for Procopius of Gaza C (Olearius had conjectured 'begins' in the margin) having come to a necessity of such a theme, and honors the holy memory (Olearius wrote: supply 'memory') of the teacher who died to me, while rendering this as a recompense to the best of my ability." But Olearius had transcribed only a part of it and had not added a version, as he had in the other cases. However, this entire oration, along with the version by Jo. Christ. Wolf, is read in J. A. Fabricius’s *Bibl. Gr.*, lib. v, c. 51. Concerning this oration, Fabricius writes: "I had formerly sent it, transcribed from the Hotstenian codex, to our most lamented friend Gotfried Olearius, who intended to prefix it to Procopius’s Commentaries on the sacred books. But since, by the bitter death of that most learned man, the hope for that remarkable work was either intercepted or at least deferred for a long time, I asked J. Christian Wolf to translate that oration into Latin, which he did promptly and successfully." There followed D "On the collection of the epitome of the selections on Genesis, by Procopius the Christian sophist." And for this reason, Olearius called it Procopius’s Commentaries on the Heptateuch. For the Scholia on the books of Kings and Chronicles, which that same Augustan codex displayed, had been published long before by J. Meursius, Leiden, 1620. The last part was "By the voice of Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Origen, and Philo of Carpathus, Apollinarius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and various others, that is to say Didymus, the holy Isidore, Theodoret, and Theophilus." These Commentaries also lacked a Latin version. Moreover, because almost all the mystical explanations of those interpreters are today entirely useless, I shall say no more about these Commentaries in what follows, nor can I be the advocate for their eventual publication.
Having been made certain about the subjects of these books, I then suspected (for Olearius had nowhere indicated from where he had transcribed them) that they were all transcribed from a manuscript codex and perhaps not yet published; I was not remembering then either the Latin version of Procopius's Commentaries on the Octateuch, published by Andreas Clauser of Zurich in 1555, which I myself possessed, nor those things which could be known from the Catena of Nicephorus on the Octateuch in Greek. And so, having taken J. Alb. Fabricius (*Bibl. gr.*, lib. v, 4, p. 258) into council, I learned more accurately that the Greek codex of those Commentaries of Procopius, which had been in the Augustan library, had been transcribed by Gottfr. Olearius, and that the hope had been proposed that, since that version by Clauser was very faulty, he might publish it provided with a new Latin version. I soon found Cave stating the same. Nicephorus Theodotus, who published the *Seira* on the Octateuch in Greek, also provided more information, which could apply to the history of that Augustan codex in particular. For he, having been made certain about that Procopius manuscript codex lying in the Augustan library, and thinking it possible that a significant contribution might be added to the book he was preparing, but being entirely ignorant of that transcript of Olearius, asked the curators of that library to send him the codex to be used; he did not receive it alone, but from it also transcribed some things which seemed useful to him. He thus briefly describes the entire form and arrangement of the codex, which he himself maintained in handling it:
"It is bound in leather, the work of a hand both beautiful and orthographically correct, but it does not declare itself or the year in which it was written; containing excerpts from the Scriptures, namely from the Octateuch, the Books of Kings, and the Chronicles, the rest is entirely filled with explanations of them, of which very few..."
A remained, as we have learned from the comparison, and the inscription itself of this work makes clear. And with a few words inserted, he continues: "Having compared our copy with this codex, we have extracted from the codex such of the commentaries as were not present in our own, leaving very few behind." These are the words of Nicephorus. Procopius himself, at the beginning of his work, provides the reason for his undertaking as follows: "Although, with God granting the strength, we have previously collected the explanations of the Fathers and others concerning the Octateuch, gathering them from commentaries and various discourses, yet since we had set forth the very words of the authors verbatim, whether they happened to be in agreement with one another or not, and our work was extended to an infinite length thereby, I have now determined to gather the writing into a reduced measure, being eager, if a statement is made in agreement by all, to state it once; but if it is different, to set even this forth concisely, so that the body of the work might be rendered accessible through all of it, as if one and the same person were setting forth the voices of them all to us. We shall also add something from elsewhere for a clearer demonstration on occasion." Which Olearius translated into Latin as follows: "For formerly indeed, with God granting us strength, we gathered the explanations on the Octateuch from the Fathers and other writers, collecting them from various Commentaries and treatises. But since we had proposed the opinions of the interpreters themselves, without even changing their words, whether they agreed among themselves or not, and our volume had grown immeasurably from this, it seemed best to contract it into a proper bulk, so that they might be said once, with a hastening pace, in those things where we found them to agree; but those things in which they dissent among themselves, we set forth briefly, so that out of all of them one body of this whole work might arise, just as if one single person were rendering to us the opinions of all. So that everything might be clearer, we ourselves also add something, moreover, from time to time." B But in order that the reader may more accurately judge of those things which Procopius has promised in these, and of the whole method which he has used in compiling this work, and at the same time of those things which Nicephorus has professed to provide, and may be able, above all, to admire the learning and diligence which that Gotfridus Olearius declared in preparing a new version, let us first describe the place in the work which explains the first two verses of the first chapter of Genesis. Having set this forth, we shall then see whether it is sufficient to acquiesce in those things which the often-named Nicephorus has since published, or whether it is worth the effort to think about bringing that entire work into the public light.
(The explanation of the first two verses of Genesis having been brought forward for the sake of an example, which we shall place in its proper place below, Ernesti adds these things:)
Now that this place has been set forth, this must be admitted first of all: that in that Procopian work, compiled from the Commentaries of the ancient theologians, there cannot be very much help for advancing the art of interpretation, and there are even things found here and there which do not sufficiently suit our own times, and which, to us, who have been gradually instructed in better and more accurate things by the studies of the most learned men, occasionally bring a vexing suspicion of ignorance. But, if we were to wish to measure the use of those ancients by these standards and judgments, who among them would be the smoke that modern elegance could endure? Indeed, we do not so completely despise individuals today—Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and the rest—that we do not set some value upon them, read them, repeat examples of their opinions from them, and often esteem them the sole fountains from which we draw aids pertaining to theological doctrine, and especially to the sacred crisis. Why, therefore, do we not grant to this Procopian work, which exhibits all of them, the use which we do not deny to individuals? We praise the study of those who have edited the so-called Catenae of the Fathers, and we think that in them there is a most useful compendium for learning about ancient theological matters. Nor are we wrong. Why, indeed, should we not judge that this work of Procopius will provide, if not a greater, then certainly an equal utility, since by that method, which he says he has followed in setting forth the opinions of the ancients, he has truly brought about that there should be for us a more convenient understanding of those things which were noted by those interpreters regarding the Holy Scriptures? Nor did he, C which is seen to be especially considered in this case, approach the excerpting of the ancient Commentaries without judgment, but rather he treated them in such a way that, if you are unwilling to acknowledge elegance in many things, and a certain art as it were, you certainly cannot but admire his highest diligence and most patient study. And first of all, surely no one will fail to understand that it is of no small diligence and learning that, having determined not to exhibit the opinions of the ancients written down separately, but to gather them into a continuous series of discourse, he treated those vast Commentaries of the ancients in such a way that, by pruning and contracting things which had been said either twice or too diffusely, he rendered them easier to read and more concise, and in general he acted in such a way that not so much the words of those interpreters were exhibited, as their opinions and judgments.
Next, it is seen both from the things he added of his own and from the care which he placed in transcribing the passages of the Holy Scriptures, that Procopius was not a light or reckless compiler of the ancients. And those things which he added of his own, it must be observed, for the most part are either so brief or so hidden and interwoven with the other opinions of others, that they cannot be excerpted while keeping the rest intact, and thus Nicephorus, although he transcribed some things from Procopius into his own Catena, ought to be thought to have excerpted only a tiny part of those things which were truly Procopius'. Although, therefore, in that work described by us, many opinions and many judgments that belong only to Procopius are found, yet because they were scattered and brief in various places, Nicephorus left them entirely untouched. But as pertains to the passages of Holy Scripture brought forward by Procopius, he partly added other things to them, partly transcribed them more fully, and often also exhibited various readings, so that it is understood that he did not rest satisfied in merely transcribing them, but also applied judgment and a certain elegance. D But lest I seem to attribute too much to my own authority and recommendation, the more learned arbiters of these letters must rather be asked by me, so that, if the specimen placed above suffices for them to state their opinion, they may wish to judge whether those Commentaries are worthy of being printed at some time, or whether it is better, having cast aside the plan of publishing, to acquiesce in the fact that we are not ignorant that they exist. But if the former is approved, I shall take pains to satisfy, as much as possible, both the expectation and the desire of learned men. If not, I am so far from thinking that I have lost my labor, that I would rather rejoice greatly that I have performed it.
Written at Leipzig, in the month of October, MDCCLXXXV.