a ci.=(vii. 277) 1, A.D. 993: Hebrews, Colossians.
a cil. =(vii. 275) 9, sec. x.-xi.; 2 Cor., 1 Timothy.
rf cill. =(vi. 275) o or 6, see. X.-xi.: 2Cor., Titus.
35 Civ. =(vii. 274) 7, see. ix.: 1 Corin- thians.
# ev.=(vil. 274) 2, A.D. 990: 1 Corin- thians.
BA cvl. =(vii. 276) 4, sec. xi. : Philippians, Hebrews.
aa CVii. =(Vii. 279) 5, sceec. x.: Hebrews,
Mosq. ¢viil.=(vi. 275) 8, sec. x.—xi.: Eph., Philippians, Philemon. ; op cix. =(Vvi. 276) a, seec. ix.—x.: 1 Tim., 2 Tim., Philemon, 1 Thess., 2 Thessalonians. In the ‘ Preefatio’ above referred to—a singularly perverse piece of writing—Matthei explains his reasons for devoting such special attention to the MSS of Chrysostom’s Homilies. To Chrysostom, he maintains, are largely due the difticulties which beset the attempt to reconstruct the original text of St. Paul. Partly through his copying Origen— the loss of whose commentaries Mattheei professes to regret only because he would like to apportion the amount which Chrysostom borrowed from him, -—partly through his own carelessness and inexact- ness of quotation, the text of the Epistles as used in his Homilies was seriously depraved; while, owing to the popularity he enjoyed, the text thus depraved, copied by John of Damascus, Theophy- lact, and others, reacted upon the current manu- scripts of the New Testament. Thus, in order to grasp the whole extent of the corrupting influence of the Greek Fathers upon our existing MSS, it is necessary to identify the Chrysostom reading of each disputed passage in turn ; for whatever else is right, that is sure to be wrong. But this identifi- cation must rest not on the editions of Savile or Montfaucon,—since neither used enough codices, nor followed those they used,—but on a fresh and thorough examination of a larger number of MSS. Matthei’s own work on the Chrysostom MSS was naturally limited to collation of the text of the Epistles as embedded in the Homilies: but a complete edition on a wider basis of MS authority, as demanded by him, was in fact produced for the Oxford Library of the Fathers by the Rev. F. Field, better known perhaps as the editor of the Hexapla. Collations were supplied—in Italy by Theodor Heyse, at Munich by J. G. Krabinger, at Paris and Vienna by other scholars. Among the MSS employed for the first time —and many of those that older editors had used were re-collated for the new edition — were (1) for ftomans : Paris gr. 1016 A, sec. xi.; Vatic. gr. 550, see. x.; Venice Marcianus 98, sec. xi., and 564, sec. xi.; Vienna Lambec. exli. (Hom. i.-xxix.) ‘antiquus.’* (2) For 1 Corinthians: Paris gr. 683 (imperfect), seec. xii., and suppl. 226 (Hom. xxi.- XXXIll.), sec. ix.; Munich gr. 373 (beginning in Hom. iv.: ‘omnium prestantissimus’), see. x.; Venice Marcianus 99, sec. x., and Append. 77, see, xii.the two latter only partially collated. (3) For 2 Corinthians: Paris gr. 742 (contains only the ‘ethical’ or homiletic portions), see. xiii:; Vienna Lambec. exxxv. ‘antiquus,’ exxxvi. ‘ per- vetustus,’ and exxxvii. ‘ pervetustus.’? (4) For Galatians: Paris gr. 725, seee. xii.; Munich er. 373 (as for 1Cor.); Vienna Lambec. exxxv. (as for 2 Cor.), and ex]. ‘antiquus’; and an unidenti- fied Venice MS. (5) For Ephesians: Munich gr. 353, sec, x.; Vienna Lambec. exxxvii. (as for 2 Cor.: only used in part), and exxxviii., sec. ples Florence Laurent. plut. viii. 2, see. xi.; Vatie: 551, see. x. (6) For Philippians: Mus. Brit. Burney 48, see. xiv., and Vienna Lambec. exl. (as for Gal.). (7) For Colossians: Mus. Brit. Burney 48 (as for Phil.) ; Vienna Lambec. exxxix. ‘pervetustus,’ and exl. (as for Gal. Phil.). (8, 9) For 1 and 2 Thessalonians: Mus. Brit. Burney 48 (as for Phil. Col.) ; Florence Laurent. plut. viii. 2 (as for Eph.). (10, 11) For Z and 2 Timothy : Mus. Brit. Burney 48 (as for Phil. Col. Thess.) For 2 Tim. only: Florence Laurent. plut. viii. 2 (as for Eph. Thess.). (12) For Titus: Burney 48 again, and Munich gr. 353 (as for Eph.). (13) For * These adjectives of Lambecius’ catalogue must be taken for what they are worth.
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
Philemon: again Burney 48.—Besides these, the Catenze published by Cramer are mentioned for every epistle except 2 Cor. ; the first of the two Catenz on Romans contained practically no Chry- sostom, but in every other case the Catena texts are stated to be of great value, and sometimes to preserve the true text against all the MSS of the Homilies themselves. ‘These latter MSS are divided by Field into two classes—the first contain- ing a purer and more original text, the second the recension of some later scholar. Since the first is represented more or less by the Verona edition, the second by Savile,—Montfaucon’s is set aside as being critically of less importance than either,— Field’s text represents to a large extent a return to the editio princeps. How well justified he was in doing this may be seen from the note to the
quotations by Facundus of Hermiana from Hom. |
in Eph. iii. (p. 503°, above) ; just as his dependence on Cramer’s Catena against the direct MS tradi- tion is in another case supported similarly by Theodoret (i0.). In fact, Field’s is the only edition which can be called in any real sense critical ; and although the number of MSS used might perhaps with advantage be increased and more use might be made of the Syriac, it is not likely that the work of this eminent scholar will for a long time to come be superseded.