* The comments on 824 93 ascribed to Diodore in Oramer, pp. 142, 162, are said to belong to Theodore (see Swete, Theodore of Mopsuestia, p. 1xxiiin.).
te.g. on Ro 516: ‘the sin of Adam was one, but... con- demned robs xoAdovs, because they imitated Adam,’ reading piihocatos for puohocoto (Cramer, 49. 33).
502 PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
entering into detail on the characteristics of the Homilies, or from attempting to explain their popularity, by the remark that any one who wished to gain an idea of their brilliance and attractive- ness had only to turn to their published form. He appears to distinguish between two classes of homilies—those that were published by Chrysostom himself, and those that were simply taken down, as he preached, by shorthand writers (of re éxdobévres map avrov Néyou kal of Néyovros avrod bard r&v dévypd- pov éx\npbérvres, HE vi. 4). The distinction thus made is borne out by such evidence, both external and internal, as we possess. On the one hand, the finished character of the homilies, for instance, on Romans seems certainly to imply that the preacher had himself prepared them for publication ; and with this corresponds the fact that references (intended to excuse the preacher from dwelling on topics which he had already elaborated elsewhere) are more than once made to previous discourses as still accessible in book shape, e.g. to the homilies on St. John and to the homilies on the change of name from Saul to Paul (Hom. vii. in 1 Cor., Comm. in Gal.: both passages are quoted in full below, pp. 502», 503). On the other hand, the less polished style of some other series of Chry- sostom’s homilies, such as those on Philemon, has suggested that in them we have only the report at second hand of unprepared addresses ; while those on Hebrews are known to have been first published after his death from notes taken by the presbyter Constantine.
The manuscripts (and Socrates, as cited in the previous paragraph) give to the Homilies the title Noyou; and this must be taken as their correct name, at least in the form in which they were prepared for publication. Photius, however, while admit- ting that he found them—he is speaking particu- larly of the homilies on Genesis—circulating under that title, urges that, as they consist throughout of direct addresses to an audience, they are really not Abyor but ducriac (cod. 172: as rapdyTas dpav rods axpoards, olrw mpos atrovds amorelverar kal epwra kat amoxplvera Kal brioxvetrat).
Photius also bears witness to the high place among all the writings of St. Chrysostom which is due to the homilies on the Pauline epistles, taken as a whole, and at the same time draws a distinc- tion, which develops rather than contradicts that suggested by Socrates, between different series among them: mayrayod yap rots Néyous adrod Td Kabapoy Kal apmrpdy Kal evKpivés pera TOD Hd€os TexvoupyGv, Tovras Te évradOa [sc. in his interpreta- tions of ‘the Apostle’ and of ‘ the Psalter”) uddora Owampémer kal ry Tov wapaderyudrwy ebmopla Kal rH Tay évOuunudrav apbovia Kal (et mov déor) Kat devvd- Tyre Kal awdhads &y te NéEE Kal cvvOjKy Kal webbdw Kal vorpace kal rp addy [v.2. Oy] KaracKevy dpicra Tdode TUS ouyypapas vmreorHoaTo. ANAM Tas pev els Tov "Ambarodov éorw €& airy éxelvwy emvyvdva, rota Te avray év’Avrioxela SiarplBovre é&erovAOncay, at Kal Maov OvnkplBwvrar, Kal mola apxeparevovT. ézrowi)- Onoov .. . el Tis THy Sivauw Kal Thy GAAnv dperhy Tov Adyou Oavpdgfwr, cxodkdfovra aitdv maAdNov AAN od mpdywart Kowors evotpepbuevoy ratras daly é&epyd- oacba.
In proceeding, therefore, to say something sepa- rately with regard to each set of homilies on the Pauline epistles, we shall rely not only on in- dications of place and time, but, where such precise data fail us, on the more general charac- teristics of careful preparation and literary finish.* But if evidence of this sort on the whole sug-
* Savile, Tillemont, Montfaucon, have all dealt with this sub- ject ; but the most complete and convenient discussion will be found in Field’s Preface to his edition of St. Chrysostom on the Hebrews, pp. xi-xvi. For an account of the editions of St. Chrysostom’s Homities, see below, pp. 5052-5074,
gests Antioch, we shall, on the other hand, not too hastily conclude that an authoritative and apparently episcopal tone epee points to Constantinople ; for Tillemont has collected refer- ences to such language in homilies indubitably Antiochene, and supposes that Flavian, on or- daining Chrysostom priest, entrusted him with a large share of his own episcopal authority (Meé- moitres, vol. xi. ‘Saint Jean Chrysostome,’ article xiii. ).
(i.) Romans.—33 homilies; in the earlier edi- tions arranged as 32, the first homily being treated separately as the ‘argument’ (so similarly for the Philippians). In this series Chrysostom perhaps reaches the zenith of his achievements as an expositor: in them more than anywhere else throughout his writings—such is the judgment of Isidore of Pelusium, himself no mean critic— ‘did John, the wisest of men, pour out the full treasures of his wisdom’; and he pays him the highest compliment in the power of any critic when he goes on to assert that ‘if the divine Paul had received the gift of Attic language so as to be his own expositor, his exposition would have coincided with that of Chrysostom, otrw kal evOuunuare Kal Kader Kal KuptoreEia KexbounTrar 1 épunvela (ad Isidorum diaconum, Epp. lib. v. 32). If, then, the rule of Photius holds good, these homilies must belong to the Antiochene period ; and in favour of this view may be quoted a pas- sage in Hom. ix. [viii.] p. 508 B,* ofda dru bard roy onkov éopev Tov avroy Kal Tov mouméva, and possibly another in Hom. xxxi. [xxx.] p. 743 C, wera rocodrov xpovov elovdyres évOa euewe Ilaidos, ev0a €d€0n, evOa oweKkdbice Kal diehéxOn, mrepovucba Kal mpos Ti pv nuny éxelyny ard Tév Térwy TrapaTeuroucba. ‘Tille- mont, indeed, reserves judgment on the ground that in the phrases used at the end of Hom. xxx. [xxix.] the preacher ranks himself among toiuéves and dpxovres ; but these words hardly appear to go beyond others which Tillemont himself, as above mentioned, had noted as belonging to Antioch. A series of comments on Ro 5-6? taken from Hom, xi. [x.] are cited, together with other pas- sages from St. Chrysostom, by Augustine (contra Julianum, I. vi. 27), in order to rebut the force of Julian’s appeal to Chrysostom’s authority in the Pelagian controversy. Yet how far Chrysostom was in reality removed from the standpoint. of Augustine may be illustrated by his explanation of Ro 8% (rots xara mpdeow kAyTots ofcw), where, in order to emphasize man’s contributory share in his own salvation, he erroneously interprets the mpo0eots AS Man’s and not God’s (ovx 4 KAjots udvov adda mpddects rv Kadoumévwv Thy cwryplay eipyd- caro, p. 595 B; quoted by R. Simon, Hist. Crit. des Commentatewrs du NT, p. 174).