* Theodoret appears to come into the question only through the mistake of Cramer’s index; the last three passages there ascribed to Theodorus Monachus are given in the text as Oxodaphrov.
+ Diodore: Cramer, 188. 19=105. 4; 199. 19=114, 16; 212.. 30 =120. 17; 226, 29=128. 21. Theodore: Cramer, 175. 7=94. 6; 202, 22=116. 10; 239. 32=131. 6; 248. 6=135. 30 and 137. 19,
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES 519
works (Paris, 1712, vol. ii., pp. 1-274) or in Migne’s reprint (Pat. Gr. 95, ec. 489-1034).
_ The very title of this work, as le Quien prints it, shows at once that John aims at nothing further than the selection of what is best and most authoritative in the exegesis of the past: é« 77s Kabddov épunvelas "Iwdvvov rod Xpvoosrdmov eékdoyal év émirouy éxdeyeloat mapa “Iwdvvov rod Aapackyyod. But the sources of the commentary are not, le Quien points out, confined in fact exclusively to Chrysostom, Although on the longer epistles John follows him closely, the case, it is said, is different with the shorter ones; attention is called to the note on Col 2°, where, in the technical language cf the Nestorian controversy, a merely ‘relative’ (cxeruxés or cuvamrixds) indwelling of the Word in Christ is expressly rejected: in the com- mentary on the epistles to the Ephesians, Colos- sians, Philippians, and Thessalonians, le Quien could find no trace at all of the use of Chrysostom, and according to the same authority the commen- taries both of Cyril (to judge by the parallels in the Oecumenian Catena) and of Theodoret are exploited by John. An obvious objection to le Quien’s view as thus stated is that we have seen reason to conclude (p. 515) that it was on the longer epistles only that Cyril wrote;* and a further analysis of John’s commentary is all the more desirable, because it may arabably be found to have exercised a dominant influence on later compilations such as those of Photius and Theo- phylact.
For this purpose, however, a new edition of the commentary would appear to be essential; le Quien based his text on an ancient but imperfect MS (Paris gr. 702 [= Reg. 2331], foll. 252-434, seec. x.), and warns us in his preface ‘codicem multis passim mendis scatere mutilumque esse, ut sensus sepe impervius sit et obscurus.’ But he had heard also of a MS at Patmos; and No. 61 (éa’) of Sakkellion’s new catalogue of the Patmos library (Athens, 1890) contains, in fact, the commentary of John. In its present condition this MS, which is attributed to the beginning of the 10th cent., has lost most of the commentary on Romans, and Sakkellion was therefore unable to fix the author- ship ; but the portions of the text which he prints, such as the argument for 1 Corinthians and the opening words of the commentary on the same epistle, are amply suflicient for the identification. In the Patmos MS, then, together with a re- collation of the Paris MS, material for the revision of the text is ready to hand.
It is interesting to note that, according to le Quien, the /emmata prefixed to the exposition give a text of the epistles which is not that used by St. Chrysostom—another reason for a new and completer edition.
22. Photius of Constantinople (commentaries on all the Epistles ?).—
In the person of Photius (A.D. 820-891), states- man, ecclesiastic, scholar, exegete, the illustrious line of Greek writers on St. Paul that began with Origen finds a fitting close ; and indeed his many- sided qualities and multifarious learning bring him, intellectually if not morally, into comparison rather with Origen than with any intermediate commentator. Considering the position of authority which Photius has enjoyed in the Byzantine Church, it is a little strange that his exposition of the Pauline epistles has neither been discovered in any direct MS tradition, nor yet extracted from the Catenz and separately collected either in the volumes of Migne (Patr. Gr. 101-104) or in
*J# John could be shown to have used Cyril through the medium of the Oecumenian Catena, this would constitute a further proof of the early date which recent discoveries (see p. 523, below) have vindicated for Oecumenius.
520 PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
the Greek edition of Photius’ works at present in process of issue. Yet the material is abundant, and could easily be worked, as the following con- spectus will show.
(a) A later recension of the Oecumenian Catena (see p. 488°, above) distinguishes itself from the original work exactly by a large use of Photius; in Karo and Lietzmann’s specimen (Ro 78) four passages are taken from Photius as against twelve from all other writers. The principal MSS known to give this recension are: at Milan, Ambros. D 541 inf., sec. x.; at Rome, Vat. Palat. gr. 204, sec. x.; at Venice, Marcianus 33, sec. xi. In these MSS the Photius passages are incorporated in the text: other methods of grafting the new matter on to the Oecumenian stock are illustrated (i.) by Paris coislin 27, sec. x., where the Photius passages are inserted in the margin by the second hand ; and (ii.) by Oxford Magd. Coll. gr. 7, seec. xi, ineunt. (containing, however, only Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians),* which adds at the end of each epistle 7a Aetrovra, that is to say, a large number of quotations from Photius and a small number from Gennadius.