(ii.) 2 Corinthians.—44 homilies; also ranked among Chrysostom’s best work. The evidence of place is here unusually important, since it covers not only these homilies but others as well. In Hom. xxi. p. 188 E, Chrysostom urges that niggard- liness in almsgiving was especially inexcusable at Antioch (kat rafra év’Avrioxela, ev 7 mp@rov éxpnud- Ticav Xpirriavol ... é€v q mods 6 THs eXenuoo’vys TO mahadv éxdua xaprds); in Hom. xxvii. p. 242 C he cites Mt 187 and says he has already explained the passage at leneth, when dealing with the Gospel (radra pev eiptrepor év adr@ yevduevor TS Xwplyp dedéxOquev) ; and similar] sin Hom. vii. p. 53 A he refers to his exposition of jhe Gospels for fuller treatment of Jn 778 8! (dX) @ Tis 6 Tpdmos THs dva- yioews ravrns Kal rls éxelvns, \ev Tots ebayyeNlous Ady elpnraur Kal dore uh owexGs 46 adrd orpépew, exet Tapaméumrowey TOUS evTUYXAVOVTL The homilies on
* References to the Homilies are giy n in the paging of the
Benedictine edition, because this numer. tion is also to be found in the outer margins of Field’s pages. \
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES 503
1 Corinthians were therefore delivered at Antioch, but probably towards the end of St. Chrysostom’s residence there.
(iii.) 2 Corinthians.—26 homilies. A reference to Constantinople appears in Hom. xxvi. p. 625C: before the tombs of the tentmaker and the fisher- man at Rome the very emperor humbles himself to ask their intercession ; and so, too, at Con- stantinople, Constantius conceived he could pay his father no higher honour than to bury him ‘in the antechamber of the fisherman ’—that is, at the porch of the church which contained relics of the Apostles. Savile, although he rated the style of these homilies above the average, yet thought himself forced by this passage to place them at Constantinople ; but Tillemont, Montfaucon, and Field rightly deduce from it just the opposite con- clusion. Two citations from these homilies were made in the Second Council of Niczea (A.D. 787), the sixth session of which consisted of the reading of an elaborate refutation of the ‘decree’ of the Iconoclastic Council of 754. The latter had ap- pealed to St. Paul’s words in 2 Co 5? ‘by faith, not by sight,’ and 5'!° ‘even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet know we him so no more’; and in answer to that appeal exposi- tions of these texts are given from Cyril of Alex- andria (see below, p. 515*) and from Chrysostom. "TIwdvyns 6 bmép xpuolov Kat NlOov rluwoy didacKadlay kextnuévos is quoted for both verses,—Mansi, xiii. 288, 289 [Labbe-Coleti, viii. 1122, 1123]=Hom. xi. p- 514 C, Hom. x. p. 508 C,—and the quotations are of sufficient length (twenty-five and six lines respectively in Field’s text) to be of some value for testing the character of the MS tradition.*
(iv.) Galatians. — A continuous commentary without break of any sort, for the chapters into which it is divided by the earlier editors are in no way represented in the MSS. This continuity necessarily carries with it the absence of the ‘ethical’ sections which in the other epistles form the close of each homily ; but, curiously enough, the use of the second person, which would seem to be as alien to a commentary as it is characteristic of a homily, occasionally recurs, ¢.g. in the passage 673 E quoted just below, or in the comment on Gal 244, p. 688 D: unde atirn duds OoprBelro 7 rds. Either, then, the commentary was composed for ultimately homiletic purposes, or it may be that the direct speech of Chrysostom the preacher flowed naturally from the pen of Chrysostom the writer. Perhaps because of this uniqueness as a commentary among so many homilies, critics have differed much in their estimate of the literary value of this work; Savile and Tillemont rank it high enough to be allotted to Antioch, and the latter adds that the ‘ book’ on the change of name from Saul to Paul, referred to in this commentary (p. 673 D E), consists of homilies that were cer- tainly preached at Antioch (ed. Bened. iii. 98-140),
* Comparison of the two texts reveals the following variants : —(1) Field, p. 128, 1. 7, za? waéauy Tolrov wurou (sc. of being no longer zat& cdpua) d&pynyov tov Xpiorov ovr delnyuos 3 Cone. Nic. zo) xdduv rou wbrods “Apynyoy tov Xpirrov ovr e delzvuct, aS ifa second quotation from Chrysostom began at’ Apynyoy. (2) Field, 1. 15, &ar& viv odxéss: Conc. Nic. arrwe viv ouxess ywwoxouey. Gat eb xu) rabnrdv eyvdxopeey tov Xpiorov, eAAO voy ouxérs. Here the Council is clearly right, and the MSS have omitted a line through homeoteleuton. (3) Field, ll. 15, 17, heady [oev ss Xpiorod 36: Conc, Nic. ial yudv wiv. . « ext 8: Xpicrod, prob- ably wrongly. (4) Field, 1. 22 [Jn 1430], obx eyes ovdev: Conc. Nic. eSp4oe ovdé. Both readings have good support; but the latter is less likely to be the posterior insertion into Chry- sostom’s text, and is therefore probably genuine. — (5) Field, ]. 24, 7d turds capxis iver: Conc. Nic. omits cupxos, perhaps accidentally. (6) Field, p. 120, 1. 29, ive wades : Conc. Nic. iv paris. (7) Field, 1. 29, ean, dxobav Ors ExdnLOvILEY 5 Cone. Nic. clan, Th ody; Abyouros cov EvOnLovvTEs EY Ty TULeTI exDnweovmey. It is difficult here to decide. (8) Field, 1. 31, tevra: Conc. Nic. omits. (9) Field, 1. 33, ty éodarpw xob ev aiviymars : Cone. Nic., less pointedly, completes the quotation by prefixing aprs Pazropev and subjoining sore 82 xpocwrov xpos sporwsoy.