The Catena to James: Reading the Letter of James in the Ancient Greek Commentary Tradition 9004693084, 9789004693081

Table of contents :
‎Contents
‎Acknowledgments
‎Abbreviations
‎Introduction
‎1. The Contribution of This Study
‎1.2. Locating CatJas within Broader Catena Studies
‎2. The Catena Genre and Associated Terminology
‎2.1. Defining the Catena Genre
‎2.2. The Value of Studying Catena Traditions
‎2.3. Forms of the Catenae
‎2.4. Ancient Terminology for the Catenae
‎2.5. Further Terminology for Catena Study
‎3. Historical Background of the Catena Genre in Ancient Jewish Literature?
‎4. Historical Background of the Catena Genre in Hellenistic Education and Scholarship
‎4.1. The Catena and the Hellenistic Educational System
‎4.2. The Catena and Greco-Roman and Early Christian Use of Anthologies
‎4.3. Commentaries, Marginal Comments, and the Catena Genre
‎5. A Brief History of the Catenae
‎5.1. Procopius of Gaza and the Origins of the Exegetical Catenae
‎5.2. Catenae before Procopius?
‎5.3. Dates of Other Catenae Traditions
‎5.4. Palestinian and Constantinopolitan Catena Traditions
‎5.5. Compilers of the Catenae
‎5.6. Historical Changes in the Form of the Catenae
‎5.7. Analyzing Catena Traditions
‎5.8. Libraries and Catena Traditions
‎6. The Inclusive Nature of the Catenae
‎7. CatCE and Euthalian Traditions
‎7.1. Euthalian Chapter Divisions and Titles in CatJas
‎7.2. Other Introductory Material in the Euthalian Tradition
‎7.3. Relationship of the Euthalian Materials and CatJas
‎8. Manuscripts and Printed Editions of CatCE
‎8.1. Main Manuscripts of CatCE
‎8.2. Printed Editions
‎8.3. Translations of CatCE
‎9. Unattributed Sources of CatCE
‎9.1. The Anonymous Commentary (AC) on the Catholic Epistles
‎9.2. Staab’s Analysis of the AC
‎9.3. The Textual Witnesses of the AC
‎9.4. Profile of the AC
‎9.5. The Relationship between the AC and CatJas
‎9.6. The Glosses Source (GS)
‎10. Patristic Sources of CatJas
‎10.1. List of Patristic Sources for CatJas
‎10.2. Patristic Authors Cited in CatCE outside of CatJas
‎10.3. Old Testament Passages Used as Scholia
‎10.4. Individual Patristic Authors Used in CatJas
‎11. Date, Place, and Authorship: the Two Stages of CatJas’ Composition
‎11.1. Date, Place, and Authorship in the Compilation of the AC Materials
‎11.2. Date, Place, and Authorship of the Final Redaction of CatJas
‎11.3. The Purpose of CatJas
‎12. The Rhetorical Analysis of James in CatJas
‎12.1. The Letter of James as a Didactic Letter
‎12.2. The Analysis of Protreptic Speech in James
‎12.3. The Analysis of Paraenetical Speech in James
‎12.4. Further Examples of Rhetorical Analysis in CatJas
‎12.5. Conclusions
‎13. The Use of Patristic Sources in CatJas
‎13.1. Types of Patristic Sources
‎13.2. Techniques in the Use of Patristic Sources
‎14. The Exegetical Approach of CatJas
‎14.1. Synonyms or Short Explanatory Glosses
‎14.2. Explanatory Paraphrase
‎14.3. Analysis of Vocabulary and Linguistic Usage
‎14.4. Reading the Letter of James in Its Historical Context
‎14.5. Using Other Passages of Scripture to Elucidate the Meaning of a Scriptural Passage
‎15. The Other Apostle: Paul’s Pervasive Presence in CatJas
‎16. Selective Focus in CatJas
‎Text and Translation
‎Note to the Text and Translation
‎Interpretation of the Catholic Epistles: The Letter of James
‎Commentary
‎Appendix 1. Overview of Scholia in CatJas Manuscripts
‎Appendix 2. Sources of the CatJas Scholia
‎Bibliography
‎Index of Modern Authors
‎Index of Scriptural References (in Christian Canonical Order)
‎Old Testament
‎New Testament
‎Deuterocanonical Books
‎Index of Ancient Jewish References
‎Index of Ancient Christian References
‎Index of Greco-Roman and Other Ancient References

Citation preview

The Catena to James

Texts and Editions for New Testament Study Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Wendy J. Porter

volume 17

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/tent

The Catena to James Reading the Letter of James in the Ancient Greek Commentary Tradition

By

Martin C. Albl

leiden | boston

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at https://catalog.loc.gov lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2024006174

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. issn 1574-7085 isbn 978-90-04-69308-1 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-69309-8 (e-book) doi 10.1163/9789004693098 Copyright 2024 by Martin C. Albl. Published by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Brill Wageningen Academic, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau and V&R unipress. Koninklijke Brill nv reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill nv via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

This book is dedicated to my Marquette University professors Julian Hills, Carol Stockhausen, and William Kurz, s.j., who guided my first steps as an aspiring scholar.

∵

Contents Acknowledgments xi Abbreviations xii Introduction 1 1 The Contribution of This Study 1 1.2 Locating CatJas within Broader Catena Studies 1 2 The Catena Genre and Associated Terminology 2 2.1 Defining the Catena Genre 2 2.2 The Value of Studying Catena Traditions 4 2.3 Forms of the catenae 4 2.4 Ancient Terminology for the Catenae 6 2.5 Further Terminology for Catena Study 6 3 Historical Background of the Catena Genre in Ancient Jewish Literature? 8 4 Historical Background of the Catena Genre in Hellenistic Education and Scholarship 9 4.1 The Catena and the Hellenistic Educational System 9 4.2 The Catena and Greco-Roman and Early Christian Use of Anthologies 10 4.3 Commentaries, Marginal Comments, and the Catena Genre 11 5 A Brief History of the Catenae 15 5.1 Procopius of Gaza and the Origins of the Exegetical Catenae 15 5.2 Catenae before Procopius? 18 5.3 Dates of Other Catenae Traditions 19 5.4 Palestinian and Constantinopolitan Catena Traditions 20 5.5 Compilers of the Catenae 21 5.6 Historical Changes in the Form of Catenae 22 5.7 Analyzing Catena Traditions 26 5.8 Libraries and Catena Traditions 29 6 The Inclusive Nature of the Catenae 33 7 CatCE and Euthalian Traditions 36 7.1 Euthalian Chapter Divisions and Titles in CatJas 37 7.2 Other Introductory Material in the Euthalian Tradition 40 7.3 Relationship of the Euthalian Materials and CatJas 41 8 Manuscripts and Printed Editions of CatCE 41 8.1 Main Manuscripts of CatCE 41

viii

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 16

contents

8.2 Printed Editions 43 8.3 Translations of CatCE 45 Unattributed Sources of CatCE 46 9.1 The Anonymous Commentary (ac) on the Catholic Epistles 46 9.2 Staab’s Analysis of the ac 46 9.3 The Textual Witnesses of the ac 47 9.4 Profile of the ac 47 9.5 The Relationship between the ac and CatJas 49 9.6 The Glosses Source (gs) 55 Patristic Sources of CatJas 57 10.1 List of Patristic Sources for CatJas 57 10.2 Patristic Authors Cited in CatCE outside of CatJas 57 10.3 Old Testament Passages Used as Scholia 58 10.4 Individual Patristic Authors Used in CatJas 58 Date, Place, and Authorship: the Two Stages of CatJas’ Composition 91 11.1 Date, Place, and Authorship in the Compilation of the ac Materials 92 11.2 Date, Place, and Authorship of the Final Redaction of CatJas 93 11.3 The Purpose of CatJas 95 The Rhetorical Analysis of James in CatJas 103 12.1 The Letter of James as a Didactic Letter 103 12.2 The Analysis of Protreptic Speech in James 104 12.3 The Analysis of Paraenetical Speech in James 105 12.4 Further Examples of Rhetorical Analysis 107 12.5 Conclusions 107 The Use of Patristic Sources in CatJas 108 13.1 Types of Patristic Sources 108 13.2 Techniques in the Use of Patristic Sources 108 The Exegetical Approach of CatJas 109 14.1 Synonyms or Short Explanatory Glosses 110 14.2 Explanatory Paraphrase 110 14.3 Analysis of Vocabulary and Linguistic Usage 110 14.4 Reading the Letter of James in Its Historical Context 110 14.5 Using Other Passages of Scripture to Elucidate the Meaning of a Scriptural Passage 111 The Other Apostle: Paul’s Pervasive Presence in CatJas 112 Selective Focus in CatJas 112

ix

contents

Text and Translation Note to the Greek Text and Translation 117 Interpretation of the Catholic Epistles: The Letter of James 118 Commentary

194

Appendix 1: Overview of Scholia in CatJas Manuscripts 331 Appendix 2: Sources of the CatJas Scholia 342 Bibliography 346 Index of Modern Authors 370 Index of Scriptural References (in Christian Canonical Order) 373 Index of Ancient Jewish References 377 Index of Ancient Christian References 378 Index of Greco-Roman and Other Ancient References 385

Acknowledgments I gratefully acknowledge the help of the numerous institutions and individuals who have helped to bring this book to completion. To the University of Münster’s Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung for access to digital copies of New Testament manuscripts. To director Maria Pantelia and the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae project for permission to use their digital version of Cramer’s text of Ps.-Andrew’s Catena to James as my base text. To Presentation College for granting a sabbatical leave for Fall semester 2020. To the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine and the Catholic Biblical Association for a research grant (2020). I am grateful to Stanley and Wendy Porter for accepting this contribution in Brill’s Texts and Editions for New Testament Studies series.

Abbreviations Abbreviations follow the slb Handbook of Style, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: sbl Press, 2014), the Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), and the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), except for the following. ac ce CatCE CatJas cgpnt

Anonymous Commentary Catholic Epistles Ps.-Andrew’s Catena to the Catholic Epistles Ps.-Andrew’s Catena to James Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum. Edited by J.A. Cramer. 8 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1844. Cramer Cramer’s text of CatJas. Pages 1–40 in cgpnt Vol. 8. ga Gregory-Aland numbering system for nt manuscripts gr Gloss reference. A symbol, outside of a standard numbering system, that links a gloss to its corresponding scriptural text. gs Glosses Source. A general rubric for glossed mss, including Cod. ga 1845, used by CatJas for short glosses (see Introduction 9.6). intf Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (Münster) irht Institut de recherche et d’historie des textes. Centre national de la recherche scientifique (Paris) Matthaei Schol. Ep. Cath. = Scholia to the Catholic Epistles. ss Apostolorum Septem Epistolae Catholicae ad Codd. Mss. Mosqq. Edited by C.F. Matthaei. Riga: Hartknocht, 1782. na no attribution (of an author) nets New English Translation of the Septuagint. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition. O Codex Oxford New College 58 (ga 2818) P Codex Coislin 25 (ga 307) R Codex Casanatensis 1395 (ga 1840) Renoux La chaîne arménienne sur les Ėpîtres Catholiques. Edited by Charles Renoux, 4 vols. po 43/1, 44/2, 46/1–2, 47/2. Turnhout: Brepols, 1985–1996. Vol. i. La chaîne sur l’Ėpître de Jacques. Sch. Scholion / Scholia Staab Karl Staab, “Die griechischen Katenenkommentare zu den katholischen Briefen,” Bib 5 (1924): 296–353. V Codex Barberinus gr. 582 (ga 453) wsa The Works of St. Augustine: An English Translation for the 21st Century. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1990–

Introduction 1

The Contribution of This Study

Ps.-Andrew’s Catena to the Epistle of James (hence: CatJas) forms the first part of Ps.-Andrew’s Catena to the Catholic Epistles (hence: CatCE). The work was likely completed in its present form in the early eighth-century, probably in Constantinople (see sect. 11 for details). I am convinced that careful study of this relatively obscure text will make a significant contribution to a better understanding of Christian interpretation of the Letter of James in late antiquity. CatJas is an important example of the catena genre, an approach to biblical interpretation that dominated Byzantine exegesis in late antiquity. This genre, with its collection of exegetical comments from a variety of ancient authors (in the case of CatJas, ranging from Origen [c. 185–c. 254] to Maximus the Confessor [c. 580–662]), is an unparalleled resource for the study of both these individual authors (see sect. 10.4 below for a full list of author quoted in CatJas) and the exegetical principles of the catena editors who collected them. I discuss further the general value of catena study in sect. 2.2 below. I believe that this specific study of CatJas will advance scholarship on the reception of James in late antiquity in the following ways. 1. The Greek text of CatJas provided in this study is a significant improvement over previously available texts. In addition, this study’s English translation of the text is the first full translation of CatJas into any modern language (see sect. 8 below). 2. Building on, but also correcting, previous scholarship, this study provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the composition of CatJas and its place within the history of catena commentaries. 3. Again building on previous scholarship, this study significantly advances our understanding of individual exegetical comments (scholia) in CatJas. Several scholia have been identified for the first time. 1.2 Locating CatJas within Broader Catena Studies CatJas belongs to the catena literary genre. Given the relative lack of scholarly attention to catena literature, I begin by discussing catena scholarship in general, and then narrow the focus to CatJas.

© Martin C. Albl, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004693098_002

2 2

introduction

The Catena Genre and Associated Terminology

2.1 Defining the Catena Genre In the context of the history of Christian interpretation of Scripture, the word “catena” (from the Latin word for “chain”) refers to an interpretive literary genre in which a series, or “chain,” of exegetical comments drawn from authoritative early Christian interpreters accompanies discrete pericopes of an entire biblical book.1 In biblical and related studies, the term “catena” is sometimes applied to any series of quotations, especially biblical quotations, but this broader use of the term should not be confused with the specialized exegetical genre that arose in the late fifth- and early sixth-centuries.2 The beginnings of the genre are most often associated with Procopius of Gaza (c. 475–c. 578). From Palestine, the genre was adopted throughout the Byzantine Empire; its influence also spread into Latin, Armenian, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic scholarship. The genre continued to flourish until the end of the Byzantine Empire. Today hundreds of catena manuscripts are still extant.3 In the “classical” catena form, each individual exegetical comment (designated in this study as a “scholion”) is preceded by the name of the comment’s author (given in the genitive case). In the development of the catena genre, one finds many examples of texts (e.g., the scriptural commentaries attributed to Ps.-Oecumenius) where the names of the source authors have dropped out entirely, and one finds only the exegetical comments, often given in a reworked form. The great catena scholar Gilles Dorival argues for reserving the term “catena” for texts that name the authors of the exegetical comments, and labelling texts in which the originally attributed comments have been combined in an anonymous fashion simply as “commentaries” that are

1 A classic study of the catena genre is provided by Robert Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques grecques, DBSup (Paris: Letouzey et ané, 1928). More recent overviews are found in Gilles Dorival, “Des commentaires de l’Écriture aux chaînes,” in Le monde grec ancien et la Bible, ed. C. Mondésert, Bible de tous les temps (Paris: Beauchesne, 1984), 361–383; Ekkehard Mühlenberg, “Katenen,” tre 18 (1989): 14–21; Carmelo Curti and Maria Antonietta Barbára, “Greek Exegetical Catenae,” in Patrology: The Eastern Fathers from the Council of Chalcedon (451) to John of Damascus (750), ed. A. Di Berardino (Cambridge: James Clark, 2006), 605– 654. 2 Among the Qumran scrolls, for example, 4Q177, with its string of quotations, is also identified as 4QCatenaa. See Sidnie White Crawford, “Catena (i: Judaism),” ebr 4 (2012): 1060 and sect. 3 below. 3 See Dorival, “Commentaires de l’Écriture,” 361; ibid., Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes: contribution a l’étude d’une forme littéraire, 5 vols., ssl 43–46, 54 (Louvain: Peeters, 1986–2018), 1: vii.

introduction

3

partly or wholly based on catenae.4 I believe that Dorival’s distinction is useful for clearly analyzing this literature and will use the term “catena” in this narrower sense in this study. One should be aware, however, that many scholars do not recognize this terminological distinction, and simply refer to works such as Ps.-Oecumenius’ commentaries as “catenae.”5 The following elements are essential to the catena genre: 1. The entire biblical text of a particular book (or collection of books, e.g., the Catholic Epistles) is presented, typically divided up into distinct pericopes. 2. Each scriptural pericope is accompanied with a series of exegetical comments (commonly labeled as scholia) selected from a variety of commentators. In its classic form, the name of the original author in the gentive case introduces each scholion. 3. In addition to attributed scholia, many catenae manuscripts also add anonymous glosses that provide further exegetical information on a particular passage, e.g., geographical or etymological notes, or brief paraphrases or definitions of words in the biblical text. 4. The genre is characterized by its flexibility and adaptability. As manuscripts were copied, scribes freely added, deleted, rearranged, and adapted scholia. In this sense, William Lamb aptly refers to the catena genre as an “open book” (although cf. sect. 5.6.4 below for qualifications of this label).6 Another factor contributing to the fluidity in the textual traditions of the catenae is the tendency of author attributions of the scholia to drop out in the transmission process. Individual manuscripts thus frequently

4 See Dorival, “Biblical Catenae: Between Philology and History,” in Commentaries, Catenae and Biblical Tradition: Papers from the Ninth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, ed. H.A.G. Houghton, Texts and Studies 3rd ser. 13 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2016), 67. On the distinction between catena and commentary in the work of Procopius of Gaza, see Bas ter Haar Romeny, “Procopius of Gaza and his Library,” in From Rome to Constantinople: Studies in Honour of Averil Cameron, ed. Hagit Amirav and Bas ter Haar Romeny, Late antique history and religion 1 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007) 179–180; Karin Metzler, “Introduction” in Prokop von Gaza: Eclogarum in libros historicos Veteris Testamenti epitome Teil 1: Der Genesiskommentar, ed. K. Metzler, gcs n.f. 22 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), xi–xix. 5 See, e.g., H.A.G. Houghton and D.C. Parker, “An Introduction to Greek New Testament Commentaries with a Preliminary Checklist of New Testament Catena Manuscripts,” in Houghton, ed., Commentaries, Catenae, 2–3. The cpg places Ps.-Oecumenius’ work on the Catholic Epistles in the catena category but labels it “Ps.-Oecumenii commentarii in epistulas catholicas” (see C-176). 6 Lamb, trans., The Catena in Marcum: A Byzantine Anthology of Early Commentary on Mark (tents 6; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 60, 64.

4

introduction

have missing attributions, false attributions, and finally manuscript traditions such as that of Ps.-Oecumenius have no attributions at all (see sect. 2.5 and 5.7.3 below for further discussion on this phenomenon). 2.2 The Value of Studying Catena Traditions The study of catenae traditions is worthwhile for several reasons. Catenae provide a rich resource for the study of the biblical text and its transmission.7 The exegetical extracts from various authors frequently provide the only extant witness to lost patristic exegetical works. The catena scholar Robert Devreesse claims flatly that the catena tradition preserves “the greater, and—let it be said—the better part of Greek exegesis.”8 Finally, study of the development and flourishing of the catena tradition provides essential insights into the history of Christian scriptural interpretation, especially in the Byzantine Empire. 2.3 Forms of the Catenae Catenae were written in different forms; the two basic ones are the alternating catena and the frame catena.9 2.3.1 The Alternating Catena In this form, a given pericope of the biblical text is followed by one or more comments. Both biblical text and comments are written across the entire page. The biblical text is set off from the comments by a variety of methods (e.g., by using different scripts, or marking the end of the biblical passage with a special symbol).10

7

8 9

10

Work at the University of Birmingham’s Institute of Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing (itsee), including the Catena Research Project (2018–2024) funded by the European Research Council, has greatly advanced catena study in the context of New Testament textual criticism. For the role of catenae manuscripts in nt textual criticism, see Houghton and Parker, “New Testament Commentaries,” esp. 25–26. The Project has developed a database of nt catena manuscripts; see Georgi Parpulov, Catena Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament: A Catalogue, Texts and Studies, Third Series, vol. 25 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2021); updated online version of Parpulov’s Catalogue at https://itsee‑wce​ .birmingham.ac.uk/catenacatalogue. Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1098 (“la plus considérable et—disons-le—la meilleure partie de l’exégèse grecque”). In using the designations “alternating” and “frame” for catenae, I follow the terminology proposed by Houghton and Parker, “Introduction” 8–10. “Frame” catenae are often called “marginal” catenae, but, as Houghton and Parker note, this name does not distinguish them clearly enough from occasional annotations recorded in the margins of manuscripts. See Houghton and Parker, “Introduction,” 5–11, esp. 10–11.

introduction

5

2.3.2 The Two-Column Catena Here the biblical text is written on one side of the page and exegetical comments written on the other. Only a small number of catenae take this form. 2.3.3 The Frame Catena and Its Reference System In the frame catena, the biblical text is written in the center of each page, close to the inner margin. The exegetical comments are then written in the other three margins: top, outer side, and bottom.11 Text and commentary are usually distinguished in other ways as well. In some of the frame catenae, one sees a system of “footnotes” that link the marginal comments with the biblical text. A numeral precedes each comment; the same numeral is placed above the corresponding word or phrase in the biblical text. Such a reference system is found in the Codex Zacynthius Catena on Luke, and is typical of the Oecumenian catenae on the Pauline epistles.12 The system is also employed in some of the CatCE manuscripts: in manuscript O (fol. 178r), for example, α´ stands in the margin next to Scholion 1.1 and a corresponding α´ stands over the word δοῦλος in the text of Jas 1:1; Scholion 1.2 is also numbered α´, indicating that it also comments on Jas 1:1. In the Pauline catena, a later set of scholia were added to the original set of numbered comments; they are connected to the text with symbols rather than numbers so as not to break the numbering sequence.13 This phenomenon is also evident in the CatCE manuscripts. In manuscript P, the oldest manuscript, the second set of scholia, written in red ink, has been added to the margins (i.e., outside of the normal margins reserved for scholia in the frame catena layout) of the first, numbered set of comments.14 Later copyists, such as the scribe of manuscript O, incorporated these marginal comments into the body of the numbered scholia, although still retaining the separate, non-numerical reference symbols.

11

12

13 14

An infrequent variant is the scriptural text placed exactly in the center with comments on all four sides. See Curti and Barbára, “Exegetical Catenae,” 605; Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1090. H.A.G. Houghton, “The Layout and Structure of the Catena,” in H.A.G. Houghton and D.C. Parker, eds., Codex Zacynthius: Catena, Palimpsest, Lectionary. Texts and Studies 3/21 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2020), 62. See Houghton, “Layout and Structure,” 62; Karl Staab, Die Pauluskatenen nach den handschriftlichen Quellen untersucht. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1926), 183–186. See Staab, Pauluskatenen, 185 n. 1.

6

introduction

2.4 Ancient Terminology for the Catenae The name “catena” is not an ancient designation for the genre. Early terms for these collections include such titles as ἐξηγητικαὶ ἐκλογαί (exegetical extracts)15 and συναγωγὴ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν ἐκλογῶν (collection of exegetical extracts).16 By the twelfth century, the title συναγωγὴ ἐξηγήσεων (“collection of exegeses”) is widely used.17 The word ἑρμενεία (“interpretation”) is also attested in titles of catenae.18 Thus a catena to Acts is entitled, “Interpretation (ἑρμενεία) of Acts from Chrysostom and Various Others”.19 A catena to John’s Gospel bears the title Interpretation (ἑρμενεία) of John Chrysostom on the Gospel according to John.20 In the hypothesis (an introductory abstract of a work’s contents) of the Catena to Mark, the catenist distinguishes between the many who have composed commentaries (ὑπομνήματα) on the Gospels of Matthew and John and his own collection of the scattered sayings of the teachers of the Church on Mark, which he refers to as a “brief interpretation” (σύντομος ἑρμήνεια).21 The title designation of Ps.-Andrew’s Catena to the Catholic Epistles is consistently given as ἑρμενεία τῶν καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν (“interpretation of the Catholic Epistles”), although the title appears in different locations in the manuscripts.22 2.5 Further Terminology for Catena Study As noted above, the ancient Greek manuscripts typically designate an individual exegetical comment in a catena as an “exegetical extract” (ἐξηγητική 15

16

17

18

19 20 21 22

This is the title given to the original exegetical works of Procopius of Gaza. The terminology is also found in a title from a catena on Galatians, “Book One of the exegetical extracts (τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν ἐκλογῶν) on the apostle Paul’s epistle to the Galatians” (cpgnt 6:1; ga 1910 fol. 1r). The title given in the manuscript Oxon. Baroc. Gr. 235, the first part of the Palestinian catena on the Psalms. See Dorival, “Commentaires de l’Écriture” 362. For other examples of similar titles to catenae, see Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1088–1089. This title is found in Nicetas’ Catena to the Gospel of John, composed in the early twelfth century. See Michael Allen Clark, “The Catena of Nicetas of Heraclea and its Johannine Text” (Ph.D. diss., University of Birmingham 2016), 147. See Dorival, “Commentaires de l’Écriture,” 362. This word is often used for a general interpretation of scripture: Eusebius uses it in reference to interpretations of Scripture given by orthodox and ecclesiastical writers (Hist. eccl. 5.27.1; Bardy, ed., tlg). Justin uses the term to refer to the interpretation of a Psalm (Dial. 124.4; Marcovich, ed., 285). cpgnt 3:1 = cod. Paris Coislin 25 (ga 307) fol. 5r. cpgnt 2:178 = cod. Paris Coislin 23 (ga 39) fol. 209r. Cat. Marc. Pref. (cpgnt 1:263 (= cod. Coislin 23 (ga 39) fol. 133r); et in Lamb, Catena in Marcum, 215. Lamb translates hermeneia as “commentary.” In O (fol. 178r) this title follows the hypothesis of James, in P (fol. 191r) it follows the title of

introduction

7

ἐκλογή), but the term scholion (σχόλιον) can also be used. According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary, the term normally “refers to substantial sets of exegetical and critical notes written in the margin or between the lines of manuscripts.”23 The ancients, however, used the term “scholion” for any type of comment, regardless of its location relative to the primary text.24 It typically designates a brief exegetical comment on a particular passage, and it is in this broader sense that I use it in this contribution.25 In CatJas, the scholia range in length from one word (Sch. 1.10) to an extensive commentary from Maximus the Confessor (Sch. 5.17) that takes up 48 lines of J.A. Cramer’s printed edition. I also use the term “gloss” to refer to a short scholion that is designed to paraphrase a word or short passage of the focus text. As noted, in the classical catena form, the individual scholia are introduced with the source of the scholion given in the genitive (e.g., τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου “from Chrysostom”). This source identification is traditionally labeled as a “lemma”; in this contribution, I refer to this as the “author lemma,” to distinguish it from the “scriptural lemma”: the actual text of scripture on which the scholia comment. The author lemma is given in the text (for CatJas, codices O, P, V) or in the margin (codex R), sometimes written in red ink, and is regularly abbreviated. In the Ps.-Andrew manuscripts, for example, Χρυσοστόμος is regularly abbreviated as Χρ; in O and P, this abbreviation is occasionally written as a chirho monogram. As also noted above, the author lemmata are regularly missing or falsely attributed in the catena tradition. These lemmata were often written in after the scholia were copied, either by the scribe himself or by another scribe who would add the lemmata in a different colored ink. At times the space for the lemma would be left blank, and later copyists might fuse one scholion with the previous scholion, or simply leave a blank in turn.26 In some cases, the attri-

23

24

25

26

chapter one; in V (fol. 230 r) and ga 622 (fol. 225v) it is clearly written as a title before any other text. ocd, s.v., “scholia”; see also Eleanor Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, From their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 11 n. 25; Eric G. Turner, Greek Papyri: An Introduction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 121. See Fausto Montana, “The Making of Greek Scholiastic Corpora,” in From Scholars to Scholia: Chapters in the History of Ancient Greek Scholarship, ed. Franco Montanari and Lara Pagini, Trends in Classics—Supplementary Volumes 9 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 105–106. See Wolfgang Luppe, “Scholia, hypomnemata, and hypotheseis zu griechischen Dramen auf Papyri,” in Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter Volume 1, ed. W. Geerlings and C. Schultze, Clavis Commentariorum Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 55– 57; Günther Zuntz, “Die Aristophanes-Scholien der Papyri,” Byzantion 13 (1938): 548–551. See Devreesse, “Chaînes exégétiques,” 1090–1091.

8

introduction

bution to an author who was later deemed heretical (e.g., Origen, Severus of Antioch) would be changed or deleted by copyists. Abbreviation of the lemmata often led to confusing similar abbreviations.27 In addition to the accidental dropping out of the author lemmata, editors not infrequently deliberately dropped all author lemmata and reworked the scholia into a running commentary (see sect. 5.7.3 below).

3

Historical Background of the Catena Genre in Ancient Jewish Literature?

Scholars commonly trace the beginnings of the catena genre to Procopius of Gaza in the late fifth century, although they debate on whether he himself developed the genre or whether he took it over from predecessors (see sect. 5.1 below). Another disputed question is the identification of the precise historical, cultural, and literary background to this late fifth-century Palestinian beginning. One possible relevant background is contemporary Jewish scriptural exegesis. Several documents from Dead Sea Scrolls have been labeled as catenae or “catena-like” by their editors, due to their use of “chains” of biblical quotations.28 These documents, however, have no real connection, formally or historically, with the later Christian exegetical catenae. 4QCatenaa (4Q177), for example, is best understood as a midrash on a group of Psalms, and 4QTestimonia (4Q175) is a chain of (mainly) scriptural quotations, likely a collection of proof-texts. They bear little resemblance to the process of collecting extracts from authoritative commentators that we meet in Christian catenae. A possible historical connection between the form and function of the catenae with the Palestinian Talmud would bear further scholarly investigation, although I shall not pursue that line here. Günther Zuntz suggests that in the fifth century, manuscripts of the Palestinian Talmud were in the form of an alternating catena: the sacred text (Mishnah) followed by a chain of authoritative comments (Gemara).29 Marc Hirshman, while not drawing out specific

27

28 29

For examples, see Curti and Barbára, “Exegetical Catenae,” 607–609. For a general discussion on the causes for the frequent confusion in author lemmata in the catenae, see Michael Faulhaber, “Babylonische Verwirrung in griechischen Namensigeln,” OrChr 7 (1907): 370–387. See Crawford, “Catena,” ebr 4:1060–1061. Zuntz, “Aristophanes-Scholien,” 580. Zuntz also observes that, beginning in the eleventh century, manuscripts added further comments in the margins, so that now it took on the

introduction

9

historical connections, points out that Procopius’ work at Gaza on catenae took place at roughly the same time and place as the gathering of rabbinic traditions into haggadic midrashim such as the Midrash Qohelet.30 While there is no evidence of a direct relationship between the beginnings of the catena tradition and the Palestinian Talmud, the close formal connections and the shared geographical location suggest that some relationship is possible.31

4

Historical Background of the Catena Genre in Hellenistic Education and Scholarship

Most students of the catenae, however, rightly find the literary, cultural, and historical roots of the genre in Hellenistic education and scholarship. 4.1 The Catena and the Hellenistic Educational System Scholars commonly divide the classical Greek and later Hellenistic literate educational systems into primary, secondary, and higher education levels. Primary education focused on the basics of reading and writing, the secondary (taught by the γραμματικός) focused on the reading and interpretation of poetic texts, and higher education (rhetorical education, taught by the σοφιστής or ῥήτωρ) focused on prose texts and composition.32 A scholion to Dionysius Thrax’s classic treatise on grammar identifies four parts of the grammarian’s (secondary teacher’s) task: criticism of the text (διόρθωσις), accurate reading (ἀνάγνωσις), explanation (ἐξήγησις), and judgment (κρίσις).33 The ἐξήγησις is at the heart of the grammarian’s work: the term “exegete” (έξηγητής) can be almost synonymous with the grammarian (γραμ-

30 31 32

33

form of a frame catena. Here, however, Zuntz seems to refer to the added commentary (e.g., the Tosafot, Rashi, glosses) to the Babylonian Talmud. Zuntz does not distinguish between the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmud. Hirshman, “The Greek Fathers and the Aggada on Ecclesiastes: Formats of Exegesis in Late Antiquity,” huca 59 (1988), 127–128. See also the comments of Lamb, Catena in Marcum, 103. See Henri-Irénée Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956), 160; Raffaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 2. Cribiore notes that this classification is too rigid, but still provides a general sense of how students progressed. Alfred Hilgard, ed., Grammatici Graeci Vol. 3: Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam (Leipzig: Teubner, 1901), 10. See Marrou, History of Education, 165–169. In the original text of Dionysius, the word ἐξήγησις is more limited, applied to “the explanation of literary devices contained” (ἐξήγησις κατὰ τοὺς ἐνυπάρχοντας ποιητικοὺς τρόπους), a task listed

10

introduction

ματικός).34 This exegesis, in turn, can be divided into two main approaches: an analysis of the language (τὸ τεχνικόν) and an analysis of the historical and contextual aspects of a text (τὸ ἱστορικόν).35 The exegetical comments of the catena, then, in common with other genres of early Christian scriptural interpretation, has its roots in the traditional Greek approach to the study of texts.36 The Byzantine scholastic tradition, which included the production of catenae, grew directly out of classical Greek paideia. William Lamb points to the Hellenistic and Byzantine literary practices of constantly revising scholastic handbooks (e.g., Dionysiux Thrax Ars Grammatica), annotating texts with marginal scholia, and the production of anthologies as especially relevant for placing the catenae in the context of the ancient Greek educational system.37 4.2

The Catena and Greco-Roman and Early Christian Use of Anthologies As noted above (sect. 2.4), the most common term used by the ancients to refer to the catena genre is a collection of “exegetical excerpts.” Cateane, then, may also be located within the general ancient Greco-Roman literary habit of compiling collections of select literary excerpts.38 The context of this activity was often pedagogical: the use of anthologies was at the heart of primary and secondary literate education in the ancient Greco-Roman world.39 In the first century, for example, Valerius Maximus collected extracts arranged under various

34 35 36

37 38 39

as one of the six parts of the grammatical analysis (Grammatici Graeci Vol. 1.1: Dionysii Thracis Ars Grammatica, ed. G. Uhlig [Leipzig: Teubner, 1883], 5; et in Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, 185). Marrou, History of Education, 166. See Marrou, History of Education, 166–169; Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, 186, 206–215; see also Sextus Empiricus Math. 1.91–96 (Bury ed., 52–57). This is also the conclusion of Karlfried Froelich, “Bibelkommentare—Zur Krise einer Gattung,” ztk 84 (1987): 478–479. For the influence of Hellenistic literary exegesis on Christian scriptural interpretation in general, see Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002; orig. pub. Cambridge University Press, 1997), 76–89. Lamb, Catena in Marcum, esp. 76, 91–102. For an overview of this literary pratice, see Henry Chadwick, “Florilegium,” rac 7 (1969): 1131–1143. See Marrou, History of Education, 153–155; 162–164; Teresa Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge Classical Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 93. Morgan notes that in the papyri, collections of “gnomic quotations are clearly of prime importance, constituting by far the largest of all groups of schooltexts” (93; see 120–151 for a description of such anthologies). Already Plato (Leg. 811A) refers to anthologies used in education.

introduction

11

philosophical and moral headings, drawn from a variety of authors, including Livy and Cicero.40 The great collection of Joannes Stobaeus, composed of prose and poetical writers, arranged under various headings, was made in the early 5th century ce.41 Many influential early Christian scriptural exegetes received a grammatical and rhetorical education that would have included a use of anthologies. It can be demonstrated that Christian writers such as Clement of Alexandria and Gregory Nazianzus drew on Hellenistic excerpt collections in their own writing.42 It is not surprising, then, that Christians began to develop their own excerpt collections. During the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries, the genre of “dogmatic florilegia” developed, in which authors such as Cyril of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch collected extracts from the “church fathers” in order to support their distinctive theological positions.43 An example composed at around the same time as CatCE is the Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione Verbum.44 This pro-Chalcedonian work is divided into a series of theological proposition, with each proposition supported by extracts from such authorities as Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, the Cappadocians, and the Council of Chalcedon itself. 4.3 Commentaries, Marginal Comments, and the Catena Genre 4.3.1 The Hellenistic and Christian Commentary The development of the catena genre, in both form and historical function, is closely tied with the genre of the commentary (ὑπόμνημα) in Hellenistic culture. The ὑπόμνημα is a systematic commentary on a text. Typically, the commentary quotes a portion of the text (the lemma), followed by exegetical comments. It differs from an annotated text, however, in that it was usually a separate composition, “a self-standing commentary.”45 The genre likely has its roots in the notes of teachers.46 It was then developed by the great scholars

40 41 42 43 44

45 46

C. Kempf, ed., Valerii Maximi Factorum et dictorum memorabilium (Leipzig: Teubner, 1888). Curt Wachsmuth and Otto Hense, eds., Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium (Berlin: Weidmann, 1884–1923). Chadwick, “Florilegium,” 1143–1146. Chadwick, “Florilegium,” 1156–1159; Mühlenberg, “Florilegien i,” 216. For the specific relevance of such collections for Christian catenae, see sect. 10.4.12.3 below. Franz Diekamp, ed., rev. B. Phanourgakis and E. Chrysos. Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione Verbi: Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des siebenten und achten Jahrhunderts (Münster: Aschendorff, 1981). Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship, 5. See Turner, Greek Papyri, 113; Ilsetraut Hadot, “Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommen-

12

introduction

associated with the library at Alexandria, especially by Aristarchus.47 Commentaries were written on poetical (above all, on Homer), historical (Herodotus, Thucydides), mathematical (e.g., Euclid), astronomical (e.g., Ptolemy), grammatical (e.g., Dionysius Thrax), philosophical (e.g., Plato, Aristotle), and medical (the Hippocratic corpus) texts.48 Early commentaries had one author. By the first century bce, however, the Alexandrian scholar Didymus was composing lengthy commentaries on Homer, Demosthenes, and other literary works by using extracts from Aristarchus and other Alexandrian scholars.49 The scriptural catena’s use of extracts from a variety of authors is clearly similar to such “composite commentaries.” Works by Hippolytus, Heracleon, and Origen are among the earliest Christian commentaries on scriptural books; Origen seems to have modeled his work on Hellenistic philosophical commentaries.50 Of particular relevance for catena study are Christian commentaries that do not exegete a scriptural book line-by-line, but rather focus on exegeting particular passages that present particular interpretive challenges.51 This so-called “questions-and-responses” method may have influenced the development of the catena genre; once established in its own right, the catena genre found questions-and-responses commentaries to be a key source for scholia.52 CatJas draws three scholia from the

47

48 49 50

51

52

tar,” in Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter Volume 1, ed. W. Geerlings and C. Schultze, Clavis Commentariorum Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 184. For an overview of ancient commentaries, see Turner, Greek Papyri, 112–124; Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship, 3–10; Markus Dubischar, “Typology of Philological Writings,” in Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, ed. Franco Montanari, Stephanos Matthaios, and Antonios Rengakos, 2 vols., Brill’s Companions in Classical Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 1: 554–562. Dubischar, “Typology,” 1: 557–558. For a detailed overview of specific scholarship, see Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship, 18–71. Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship, 6–7; Dubischar, “Typology,” 561. See Alfons Fürst, “Origen: Exegesis and Philosophy in Early Christian Alexandria,” in Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad, ed. Josef Lössl and John W. Watt (Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate, 2011), 13–25 and Ronald E. Heine, “The Introduction to Origen’s Commentary on John Compared with the Introduction to the Ancient Philosophical Commentaries on Aristotle,” in Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible, ed. G. Dorival and A. Le Boulluec, betl 118 (Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, 1995), 3–12. Fürst and Heine disagree on the extent to which Origen followed an established pattern for Hellenistic philosophical prefaces in his own prefaces to his biblical commentaries, but they agree that his commentaries belong firmly in the philosophical commentary genre. On the roots of these Christian Problemkommentare in ancient Greek exegetical practices, see Christoph Schäublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Exegese, Theophaneia 23 (Cologne: Peter Hansein, 1974), 55–65. On the “questions-and-responses” method and its close connection with scholia and cate-

introduction

13

“questions-and-responses” commentaries of Theodoret (Sch. 5.21) and Maximus the Confessor (1.5 and 5.17). In addition, scholia from Isidore of Pelusium (1.18, 3.7, 3.8) are drawn from Isidore’s responses to exegetical questions posed by his correspondents, even though Isidore writes in the letter genre.53 4.3.2

From Commentary to Systematic Marginal Scholia: Preserving an Exegetical Heritage Coinciding with the development of minuscule script in the ninth century, one finds in European scholarship a systematic movement from free-standing commentaries to comments written as marginal scholia. Scribes recorded comments (drawn largely from the free-standing commentaries) in the margins of the focus texts themselves. These medieval scholia are typically “dense and systematic collections of extracts from different sources.”54 The collectors and recorders of these scholia have usually remained anonymous. This transition from free-standing commentary to densely annotated texts is closely tied to changes in the physical form of the book. One such change was the movement from papyrus scrolls to parchment codices, a transition that had already begun in the second to fourth centuries ce. The codex form facilitated a writing format that could leave enough space for extensive comments.55 While the move from the commentary to the catena involves a technical, formal change from the free-standing commentary to the marginal annotation, it also has significant cultural implications. According to Fausto Montana, the process of systematically recording discrete scholarly comments (taken from

53

54 55

nae, see Lorenzo Perrone, “Questions and Responses” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Scriptural Interpretation, ed. Paul M. Blowers and Peter W. Martens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 219–232, esp. 219. Philo’s Questions on Genesis and Questions on Exodus are important sources for early catenae; see Françoise Petit’s collection of the catenae scholia: Philo: Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum, fragmenta graeca, Les Oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 33 (Paris: Cerf, 1978). Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ Questions on the Octateuch were added at a secondary stage to the primary catenae on the Octateuch; see Françoise Petit, “Introduction” to La Chaîne sur la Genèse: édition intégrale i: Chapitres 1 à 3, ed. F. Petit, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 1 (Louvain: Peeters, 1991) xxii; Curti and Barbàra, “Exegetical Catenae,” 616. On the helpful distinction between questions-and-responses as a literary genre and questions-and-responses as an exegetical method, see Perrone, “Questions and Responses,” 198–199 and Margaret M. Mitchell, John Chrysostom on Paul: Praises and Problem Passages, wgrw 48 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2022), 7 n. 15 and the literature cited there. Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship, 12. Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship, 11–12. On the transition from papyrus roll to the codex, see L.D. Reynolds and N.G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (4th ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 34–37.

14

introduction

hypomnēmata, syngrammata, and other forms) in the margins of Greco-Roman literary codices, aimed at the “long-term selection, conservation and safeguarding of the exegetical heritage.”56 4.3.3

The Collection of Marginal Comments and the Rise of the Catena Genre Scholarship, however, is divided on the question of when to date the beginnings of the systematic effort to record the best of the free-standing comments on classical works into the margins of the focus texts themselves: suggestions range from the fourth to the tenth centuries.57 For our purposes, the question is of interest because the catena genre is so closely related to the practice of writing select excerpts in the margins of classic texts. If one dates the practice of selecting and recording these marginal scholia early, then perhaps they supplied a model for the catena composers; if one dates them late (ninth century and later), then perhaps the classical scholars were using Christian catena as their model. Arguing for an earlier date, Kathleen McNamee discusses a number of “new format” codices dating from the fourth to sixth centuries. A few examples contain literary texts, but most contain legal texts; many of the latter formed part of the curriculum of the famed Beirut law school. These codices feature relatively wide margins; the relatively lengthy and neatly written marginal notes seem to have been planned from the beginning and are not later additions. Some of the texts include excerpts from different sources. Linking the evidence of these “new format” codices with the tradition that Procopius of Gaza was the originator of the catena genre in the late fifth century, McNamee suggests that the practice of scholia commentaries, including the biblical catenae genre, may have begun in the fifth century in a symbiotic milieu in which developments in legal, literary, and ecclesiastical circles influenced one another.58 Günther Zuntz, however, argues for the later dating. In his view, the Christian development of catena genre was the inspiration for the later systematic 56 57

58

Montana, “Scholiastic Corpora,” 111. See Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship, 13, and Eric Scherbenske, “Scholia,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Scriptural Interpretation, ed. Paul M. Blowers and Peter W. Martens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 188–189. McNamee, “Another Chapter in the History of Scholia,” cq 48 (1988) 269–288, esp. 285–288. See also Reynolds and Wilson, Scribes and Scholars, 52–53. Devreesse (Chaînes exégétiques, 1085–1086) also finds in scholia on classical and legal text the milieu out of which the biblical catenae developed. On the general topic of legal commentaries in the Justinian era, see R.F. MacLachlan, “The Context of Commentary: Non-biblical Commentary in the Early Christian Period,” in Houghton, Commentaries, Catenae, 46–47.

introduction

15

collection of marginal scholia.59 Fausto Montana also cautions against the earlier dating, concluding that there is no evidence of a systematic, intentional effort to preserve the ancient Greek scholarship recorded in discrete works into marginally annotated codices before the ninth century.60 In the view of Reynolds and Wilson, the question of whether the catena genre is a forerunner of the classical scholia or an imitation of them remains an open question.61 The question of when scribes began to systematically record extracts from commentaries into Greco-Roman literary texts must be answered by specialists in the classics. For purposes of catena studies, it is significant that from the beginning, the catena compilers are self-consciously aware that they are preserving and transmitting an exegetical heritage: they are selecting what they consider to be the most illuminating comments from a variety of sources and handing this heritage on to their readers.

5

A Brief History of the Catenae

5.1 Procopius of Gaza and the Origins of the Exegetical Catenae The Christian rhetorician and biblical exegete, Procopius of Gaza is regularly associated with the beginnings of the catena genre; some scholars explicitly identify him as the inventor of the genre.62 Outside of his scriptural works, Procopius is also recognized as a distinguished representative of the “School of Gaza,” a group of Christian rhetoricians of fifth to sixth century Gaza, including Procopius’ own student Choricius.63 A native of Gaza, Procopius studied in Alexandria, and eventually returned to Gaza to lead a school of rhetoric. As part of his state-financed position as official rhetor, Procopius delivered public orations on special occasions.64 Pro-

59 60 61 62

63

64

Zuntz, “Aristophanes-Scholien,” 572–594, esp. 590–594. Montana, “Scholiastic Corpora,” 105–189. Reynolds and Wilson, Scribes, 53. E.g., Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1094; Dorival, “Philology and History,” 72–76. Ekkehard Mühlenburg states, “Procopius is doubtless the originator of the catena” (“Catena: ii. Christianity,” ebr 4 [2012], 1062). See N.G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium, rev. ed., (London: Duckworth, 1996), 30–33; Glanville Downey, “Christian Schools of Palestine: A Chapter in Literary History,” Harvard Library Bulletin 12 (1958): 308–319. See Karin Metzler, “Introduction” to Prokop von Gaza; Der Genesiskommentar. Aus den “Eclogarum in libros historicos Veteris Testamenti epitome,” trans. K. Metzler, gcs n.f. 23 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), xvi n. 8 and the literature cited there; Eugenio Amato, “Dati

16

introduction

copius’ letters are filled with references to classical authors, and many of his works are steeped in Hellenistic cultural tradition, including a metaphrasis of Homer, a panegyric of the emperor Anastasius i, and ekphraseis (rhetorical descriptions of works of art or other topics).65 Procopius’ panegyric, for example, describes the emperor as a descendant of Heracles (and thus of Zeus), and compares him favorably with Alexander the Great.66 Procopius and other representatives of the School of Gaza saw no contradiction between the classical rhetorical education and study of Scripture; to the contrary, Procopius’ student Choricius takes it for granted that a bishop needs to study both classical rhetoric and sacred scripture.67 Procopius’s preface to his Epitome of Extracts from the Historical Books of the Old Testament is a key text for gaining insight into the origin of the catena genre. Procopius writes, “Already earlier, as God provided the ability, we chose the fundamental exegetical remarks from the fathers and from others on the Octateuch, having gathered these from commentaries and various works.”68 Procopius then explains that, due to the unmanageable mass of this material, he now provides a condensed version in this present work. This earlier collec-

65

66 67 68

biografici d cronologia di Procopio di Gaza,” Rose di Gaza: Gli scritti retorico-sofistici e le Epistole di Procopio di Gaza, ed. Eugenio Amato, Hellenica 35 (Alessandra: Edizioni dell’ Orso, 2010), 2–5. Romeny, “Procopius of Gaza,” 173; Ruth Webb, “Procopius of Gaza,” Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, s.v. For a collection of Procopius’ rhetorical works, with commentary and French translation, see Eugenio Amato, ed., Procope de Gaza: Discours et fragments, Collection de Universités de France (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2014); see also Amato, Rose di Gaza. See Romeny, “Procopius of Gaza,” 177. See Procopius Pan. Anast. 2 and 10 (Amato, ed., 283; 293). See Choricius Laud. Marc. 2.9 (Förster and Richtsteig, eds., 30); Downey, “Christian Schools,” 299. Ἤδη μὲν καὶ πρότερον θεοῦ τὸ δύνασθαι χορηγήσαντος τὰς καταβεβλημένας ἐκ τῶν πατέρων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων εἰς τὴν Ὀκτάτευχον ἐξηγήσεις συνελεξάμεθα ἐξ ὑπομνημάτων καὶ διαφόρων λόγων ταύτας ἐρανισάμενοι (Metzler, ed., Genesiskommentar, 1). The more correct title for this work should be Epitome of Extracts from the Septateuch. When the editor Karin Metzler first published the portion on Genesis, she believed that Procopius’ work included comments on Kingdoms and Chronicles but has since been convinced that it did not (Metzler, “Introduction” to Prokop von Gaza: Eclogarum in libros historicos Veteris Testamenti epitome Teil 2: Der Exoduskommentar, ed. K. Metzler, gcs n.f. 27 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020], xxviii–xxx); cf. Reinhart Ceulemans, “The Transmission, Sources and Reception of Procopius’ Exegesis of Genesis: Observations in the Wake of the New Edition,” vc 71 (2017): 214–215. In addition, despite Procopius’ own statement in the preface that he will treat the Octateuch, his Epitome does not include the book of Ruth.

introduction

17

tion, now lost, is sometimes identified as the first catena. Scholars disagree on whether Procopius himself composed this earlier work, or whether (as seems more likely), this earlier work resulted from the hands of many editors (see sect. 5.2.1 below). One can make distinctions within Procopius’ own exegetical works.69 The Epitome of Extracts on the Historical Books, and his work on Isaiah, are based on catenae, but the authors’ names are omitted and the scholia are abridged and reworked into a continuous commentary.70 Procopius’ works on Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes fall clearly within the catena genre: the scholia are clearly distinct and the author of each is given in an introductory lemma.71 A further question concerns the original form of Procopius’ and other early catenae. Gilles Dorival and Günther Zunzt argue that the earliest catenae of Procopius and the first Palestinian Catena on Psalms were in the alternating catena format.72 Among their arguments: 1. All copies of Procopius’ exegetical work, both the ones that are clearly catenae, and the epitomes, are in the form of alternating catenae. 2. Syriac translations (dating to the eighth and ninth centuries) of the Greek catena are also in the form of alternating catena. 3. Procopius refers to the first collection of exegetical excerpts on the Octateuch as reaching unmanageable proportions. It is hard to imagine such a massive collection fitting into the margins of a frame catena. In addition, the discovery of papyri fragments of scriptural commentaries by Origen and Didymus of Alexandria at Tura, dated to around the year 600, demonstrate that these documents follow the model of the Hellenistic hypomnēmata by citing the scriptural lemma followed by comments. The first Christian catenae, then, would likely have also followed this model.73 69

70

71

72

73

For an overview of Procopius’ exegetical work, see Dorival, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes: contribution a l’étude d’une forme littéraire, 5 vols., ssl 43–46, 54 (Leuven: Peeters, 1986–2018); 1:100–110; cpg-7430–7434. Metzler, “Introduction” to Genesiskommentar, ed. Metzler, xv. The work on Isaiah is in pg 872:1801–2718. It is labeled as a catena in cpg-7434 (see sect. 2.1 above on debates on catena terminology). On the Song of Songs, see Jean-Marie Auwers, ed., Procopii Gazaei Epitome in Canticum Canticorum, ccsg 67 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011); on Ecclesiastes, Sandro Leanza, ed., Procopii Gazaei Catena in Ecclesiasten, ccsg 4 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1979), 5–39; ibid., Un nuovo testimone della Catena sull’Ecclesiaste di Procopio di Gaza, ccsg 4 Suppl. (Turnhout: Brepols, 1983). Zuntz, “Aristophanes-Scholien,” 579–580; Dorival, “Commentaires de l’Écriture,” 366. It is unclear to me whether Zuntz thinks that the original collection to which Procopius refers was an alternating catena or simply a free-standing collection of exegetical extracts without the biblical text. Dorival, “Commentaires de l’Écriture,” 366–367.

18

introduction

5.2 Catenae before Procopius? 5.2.1 Catenae on the Octateuch Several scholars have argued that Procopius did not originate the catena genre, since his own work shows dependence on previous catenae. Françoise Petit suggests that Procopius drew on an early version of a Catena on the Octateuch, a collection she dates to the second half of the fifth century.74 Bas ter Haar Romeny agrees with Petit’s conclusion, pointing to evidence that Procopius drew on earlier catena sources.75 Both Petit and Romeny suggest that Procopius also at times expanded on excerpts that he found originally in his catena source by going back to the original source of that excerpt.76 Karen Metzler, the editor of Procopius’ commentaries on Genesis and Exodus from his Epitome of Extracts, provides the fullest and most convincing reconstruction of Procopius’ work.77 She concludes that both Procopius’ Epitome and the Catena to the Octateuch draw on a previous compilation that she refers to as the Urkatene.78 She suggests that Procopius, perhaps in collaboration with other scholars, worked on this Urkatene in Caesarea Maritima (see sect. 5.8.1 below) before he began his work as a rhetor in Gaza. While working at Gaza, he may have returned to Caesarea to compose his Epitome; this work may even have been commissioned by the Emperor.79

74

75

76

77

78 79

Petit, “La chaîne grecque sur la Genèse, miroir de l’exégèse ancienne,” in Stimuli, Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum, fs Ernst Dassmann, ed. G. Schöllgen and C. Scholten, jac Suppl. 23 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1996), 244–245; Petit, “Introduction,” in La chaîne sur l’Exode: Édition intégrale ii–iii, ed. F. Petit, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 10 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), xiii. On the exegetical work on Genesis from the Palestinian catena to the Octateuch, see ibid., Chaîne sur la Genèse. Romeny, “Procopius of Gaza,” 182. Michael Faulhaber (Hohelied, Proverbien and Prediger Catenen. [Vienna: Mayer, 1902], 61–62) suggests that behind Procopius’ work on the Song of Songs was an Urkatene that was compiled around 100 years before Procopius. See also Curti and Barbàra, “Exegetical Catenae,” 628. Petit, “Miroir de l’exégèse,” 244–245; Romeny, “Procopius of Gaza,” 181–183. Romeny summarizes Procopius method, “He always worked on the basis of earlier collections and their original sources” (183). Metzler, ed. Genesiskommentar; Metzler, trans., Genesiskommentar; Metzler, ed., Prokop von Gaza: Eclogarum in libros historicos Veteris Testamenti epitome Teil 2: Der Exoduskommentar, gcs n.f. 27 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020; Metzler, trans., Prokop von Gaza: Der Exoduskommentar aus der Eclogarum in libros historicos Veteris Testamenti epitome, gcs n.f. 28 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020]). Metzler, “Introduction” to Genesiskommentare, ed., Metzler, xxi–xxiii; Metzler, “Introduction” to Exoduskommentar, ed. Metzler, xxii. Metzler, “Introduction” to Exoduskommentar, ed. Metzler, xxx–xxxii.

introduction

19

5.2.2 The Palestinian Catenae on Psalms The Palestinian catenae to the Psalms, generally considered to be among the earliest catena traditions, has received much scholarly attention.80 Gilles Dorival suggests that the first catena was most probably compiled in Caesarea by a student of Procopius between the years 530 and 550.81 Its main sources are the commentaries of Didymus of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus. It draws further (at least for certain Psalms) on the exegetical works of Origen, Asterius, Apollinarius, Basil of Caesarea, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius (Ps 118 only), and John Chrysostom. The work also draws on other sources: scholia (taken from a collection by Ps.-Athanasius) and exegetical comments taken from a wide range of other types of literature (including polemical and doctrinal tracts).82 5.3 Dates of Other Catenae Traditions 5.3.1 “Two-Author” Catenae Some catena scholars have suggested that the first catenae were simple “twoauthor” catenae that compared two distinct exegetical approaches (e.g., contrasting an Alexandrian and Antiochene exegetical approach). As examples, Faulhaber cites a catena comparing Gregory of Nyssa and Nilus of Ancyra on the Song of Songs (he dates it to around 450) and one comparing Hesychius and Theodoret on the Twelve Prophets (he dates it between 450 and 550).83 These early dates have been endorsed by leading catena scholars.84 Dorival, however, disputes this early dating, arguing that the simpler form (citing two authors instead of multiple authors) does not imply earlier composition. He

80

81 82 83

84

See Marcel Richard, “Les premières chaînes sur le Psautier,” Opera Minora iii (Turnhout: Brepols 1977), 87–98; Gilles Dorival, Chaînes exégétiques; Marguerite Harl, with G. Dorival, La chaîne palestinienne sur le Psaume 118, 2 vols., sc 189–190 (Paris: Cerf, 1972); Ekkehard Mühlenburg, Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung, 3 vols., pts 15, 16, 19 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975–1978). cpg-C12; cf. cpg-10–11. Dorival, Chaînes exégétiques, 1:112, 114. Richard, “Premières chaînes,” 88–93; Dorival, “Commentaires de l’Écriture,” 364–365; Curti and Barbàra, “Exegetical Catenae,” 618–626; cpg-C12. On the Song of Songs catena: Faulhaber, Hohelied, 6; on the Twelve Prophets catena: Faulhaber, Die Propheten-Catenen nach römischen Handschriften BibS(F) (Freiburg: Herder, 1899), 38–39. René Cadiou (“La bibliothèque de Césarée et la formation des chaînes,” RevScRel 16 [1936]: 479–482) argues that one of the sources for the Byzantine manuscript Vindobonensis 8 was an early catena on Psalms comparing Origen and Theodoret, compiled to show the harmony between Alexandrian and Antiochene theologies. On the two-author catena: Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1092; on Song of Songs: Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1158; cpg-C80; Curti and Barbàra, “Exegetical Catenae,” 628. On the Twelve Prophets: cpg-C55; Curti and Barbàra, “Exegetical Catenae,” 638.

20

introduction

suggests rather locating them in Constantinople within the broad framework of the Byzantine humanist revival of interest in the early fathers that flourished in the ninth to twelfth centuries.85 In her analysis of a two-author catena on Jeremiah, comparing Theodoret and Chrysostom, Mathilde Aussedat agrees with Dorival’s suggestion, dating it more specifically to the ninth or tenth centuries.86 5.3.2 New Testament Catenae Catena scholars agree that New Testament catenae were composed after the Old Testament catena, but their more precise dating is disputed. Joseph Sickenberger and Joseph Reuss place Matthew, Luke, and John in the sixth century.87 Dorival prefers a seventh-century date, as the basic author used for these collections is John Chrysostom; such primary use of Chrysostom is characteristic, in his view, of the later, Constantinopolitan stage of catena compilation.88 Codex Zacynthius on Luke, the earliest extant frame catena manuscript, is dated to the eighth century.89 Staab suggests that the first catenae on the Pauline Epistles were compiled in the seventh or eighth centuries, perhaps in Constantinople.90 5.4 Palestinian and Constantinopolitan Catena Traditions With Dorival, we can divide the production of catenae into two broad phases: the first, Palestinian stage and the later Constantinopolitan stage.91 Recent scholars working on catenae traditions in Galatians and Jeremiah have applied Dorival’s model to their work as well, helping them to locate their respective traditions in Constantinople.92

85 86 87

88 89 90 91 92

Dorival, Chaînes exégétiques, 1:32–41; ibid., “Philology and History,” 69, 74. Aussedat, “Les chaînes exégètiques grecques sur le livre de Jérémie (chap. 1–4).,” (Ph.D. diss., Université Paris iv-Sorbonne, 2006), 145. Luke: Joseph Sickenberger, Titus von Bostra: Studien zu dessen Lukashomilien, tu n.f. 6/1 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901), 39–41; Matthew: Joseph Reuss, Matthäus, Markus und Johannes Katenen nach den handschriftlichen Quellen untersucht, NTAbh 18,4/5 (Münster: Aschendorf, 1941), 19–20; John: Joseph Reuss, Matthäus, Markus, 154–155. Dates supported in Curti and Barbàra, “Exegetical Catenae,” 645–647 and cpg-C110.1, 130, 140.1. Dorival, “Philology and History,” 75–77. Parker, “The Undertext Writing,” in Houghton and Parker, Codex Zacynthius: Catena, 19–31. Staab, Pauluskatenen, 35–36; Date supported in Curti and Barbàra, “Exegetical Catenae,” 650 and cpg-C160. Dorival, “Chaînes exégétiques,” 1:25–33; cf. Dorival, “Philology and History,” 76–78. Galatians: Theodora Panella, “The Pseudo-Oecumenian catena on Galatians” (Ph.D. diss., University of Birmingham, 2017), 195–197; Jeremiah: Aussedot, “Livre de Jérémie,” 139–145.

introduction

21

5.4.1 The Palestinian Catena Tradition The first, Palestinian phase of the catena tradition began around the time of Procopius of Gaza and ended with the Arab conquest of Palestine in the 630s. Such catenae drew heavily on authors associated with Palestine or Alexandria, including Origen, Eusebius, Apollinarius, Didymus, Cyril of Alexandria. Catenae work centered in Caesarea, but Gaza and Jerusalem were also important centers93 (cf. sect. 5.8 below). 5.4.2 The Constantinopolitan Catena Tradition Dorival suggests a late Palestinian, or “intermediary” stage, in which catenists expanded their sources from commentaries, homilies, and scholia to include other genres (e.g., letters, polemical works). This took place in the seventh century. The production of catenae at Constantinople begins in the period 650– 700 ce and lasts until the end of the Byzantine period.94 This phase is marked by the addition of new authors and forms; for many catenae, the commentaries of John Chrysostom and Theodoret are used as the base structure to which other scholia are added.95 Dorival concludes that the Constantinopolitan stage was not a radical departure; rather it expanded and developed the Palestinian phase. Some catenae that have Palestinian characteristics may in fact have been compiled in Constantinople.96 5.5 Compilers of the Catenae Aside from Procopius, the identity of the compilers of the early catenae remains largely unknown. The manuscripts sometimes name a specific compiler, but such designations are not trustworthy: attributions of a Luke catena to Titus of Bostra,97 catenae to the four major Prophets to John Droungarios,98 and catenae to Peter of Laodicea have proven to be spurious. Dorival concludes that, in

93 94 95 96 97 98

Dorival, “Chaînes exégétiques,” 1:25–27. Dorival (“Chaînes exégétiques,” 1:29) dates the beginning to 700–750; a later publication (“Philology and History,” 77) revises the date to 650–700. Dorival, “Chaînes exégétiques,” 1:30–34; Dorival, “Philology and History,” 77–78. Dorival, “Chaînes exégétiques,” 1:33. See, e.g., Sickenberger, Titus von Bosra, 23–29. Aussedat, “Livre de Jérémie,” 139–140; Dorival, “Philology and History,” 79; Laurence Vianès, “Chaînes de Jean le Droungaire sur les grands prophètes ou chaînes pro-Sévèriennes?” in Receptions of the Bible in Byzantium: Texts, Manuscripts, and their Readers, ed. Reinhart Ceulemans and Barbara Crostini, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 20 (Uppsala: University of Uppsala, 2021), 410–411.

22

introduction

general, both the compilers and readers of the catenae, in both Palestinian and the Constantinopolitan phases, were clerics and monks.99 5.5.1 The Catenae of Nicetas of Heraclea One exception to the generally anonymous catena compilers is Nicetas of Heraclea (ca. 1050–early 1100s). After teaching grammar, Nicetas joined the theological faculty at the Patriarchal School at Constantinople. The Patriarchal School, with its associated schools, taught not only theology but also grammar, rhetoric, and other secular subjects. The three major roles for a teacher of theology at the school were teacher of the Psalter, teacher of the apostle (Paul), and teacher of the Gospels. Scholars generally assume that Nicetas compiled catenae on Psalms, the Gospels, and the Pauline Epistles for his own reference during his teaching career.100 In addition to the catenae, Nicetas’ extant works include grammatical lessons for students (some set to the melody of church hymns), letters, scholia on Gregory Nazianzus, Maximus the Confessor and other patristic writers, and a prosecutorial speech at a heresy trial.101 5.6 Historical Changes in the Form of the Catenae I have already described the basic forms of the catena: alternating, two-column, and frame (sect. 2.3). Here I sketch the historical developments associated with those changes, relying especially on the studies of Gilles Dorival. 5.6.1 From Commentaries to Alternating Catenae Dorival concludes that the first catenae, associated with Procopius, took the form of alternating catenae (see sect. 5.1 above). This form is an adaptation of the first Christian commentaries (by Origen and others) in which the lemma of a brief scriptural quotation is followed directly by the corresponding comment. The Christian commentary itself is a development of the Greco-Roman commentary (ὑπόμνημα) genre: whereas the Greco-Roman commentary was typically a separate volume that used reference numbers or signs to connect its

99 100

101

Dorival, Chaînes exégétiques, 5:286. Michael Clark writes, “It has been generally assumed by scholars that Nicetas compiled his biblical catenae for his own pedagogical use during his time as διδάσκαλος at Hagia Sophia” (“Catena of Nicetas,” 5). Sources: Robert Browning, “The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century,”Byzantion 32 (1962): 169; 33 (1963): 15–17; Clark, “Catena of Nicetas,” 4–5; Bram Roosen, “The Works of Nicetas Heracleensis,”Byzantion 69 (1999), 119–144; Dorival, “Commentaires de l’Écriture,” 376–379.

introduction

23

comments with the relevant text, the Christian model incorporated text and commentary in the same volume.102 By the tenth and eleventh centuries, however, the frame catena had became dominant, only to see a return to the predominance of alternating catenae in later centuries.103 Of the four main CatJas manuscripts, the two most recent, V (fourteenth-century) and R (sixteenth-century), are alternating catena. 5.6.2 Scholia-Catenae (“Two-Column” Catenae) In an important passage of the preface of Jerome’s translation of Origen’s Homilies on Ezekiel, Jerome writes that Origen employed three genres in his biblical interpretation: commentaries (volumina; Jerome notes that Origen himself called them τόμοι), homilies, and scholia (Jerome calls them excerpta, noting that the Greek term is σχόλια). Jerome describes Origen’s use of scholia, “In these in a brief and summary fashion, he lightly touched on things that seemed obscure or that contained some difficulty (in quibus ea quae sibi videbantur obscura aut habere aliquid difficultatis, summatim et breveritque perstrinxit).”104 The exact form and function of Origen’s scholia are unclear.105 There is a scholarly consensus, however, that by the fourth century, Christians were using scholia as one method of exegeting biblical texts. In line with Jerome’s description, these exegetical scholia are generally understood as brief comments on certain biblical passages that pose particularly challenging exegetical issues.106 It is most likely that the earliest Christian scholia were not written in the margins of biblical manuscripts, but rather separately.107 The exegetical scholia of the fifth-century monk Hesychius of Jerusalem represent a milestone in the development of the catena form. His exegetical work on the prophets is descriptively entitled, “From Hesychius, elder of Jerusalem, the text of the Twelve Prophets and Isaiah and Daniel, divided into lines, with interpretations of the most difficult (passages) in the margins” (Ἡσυχίου πρεσβυτέρου Ἱεροσολύμων στιχηρὸν τῶν ιβ´ προφητῶν καὶ Ἠσαίου καὶ [Δανιήλ], ἔχον

102 103 104 105

106

107

Dorival, Chaînes exégétiques, 1:51–56. See Houghton, “Layout and Structure,” 60. Jerome, “Preface” to Origen Hom Ezek. (Borret, ed., 30–32; Scheck, trans., 23). On Origen’s use of scholia, see Éric Junod, “Que savons-nous de ‘scholies’ (σχόλιασημείωσεις) d’Origène?” in Origeniana Sexta, ed. G. Dorival and A. le Boulluec, betl 118 (Leuven University Press, 1995), 133–149. On early Christian scholia, see Sandro Leanza, “L’esegesi biblica cristiana antica: scolii e catene,” in Esegesi, parafrasi e compilazione in età tardoantica: Atti del Terzo Convegno dell’Associazione di Studi Tardoantichi, ed. Claudio Moreschini, Collectanea (Naples: D’Auria, 1995), 209–227. See Zunzt, “Aristophanes-Scholien,” 552–557; Leanza, “L’esegesi biblica,” 214.

24

introduction

ἐν παραθέσι τὰς τῶν δυσχερεστέρων ἑρμηνείας.108 In his preface to this Epitome, Hesychius specifies that he has added (προσέθηκα) a brief explanation (σύντομον ἐξήγησιν) of various difficulties or ambiguities in the text in the margins (παραθεὶς αὐτὴν τοῖς στίχοις: literally “placing it next to the lines”) of the biblical manuscript.109 While it is clear that Hesychius wrote his exegetical scholia directly on the biblical manuscripts, the precise format is debated. Dorival believes that Hesychius refers here to a two-column format: the biblical text is written in one column, and the exegetical scholia placed opposite their corresponding passage in the second column. These scholia were the prototype for the two-column catenae that originated in sixth-century Palestine.110 Sandro Leanza, however, argues that Hesychius was referring simply to marginal comments, and not specifically to a two-column format.111 The evidence does not allow any sure conclusions on this point. As for the original Sitz im Leben of Hesychius’ scholia, Zunzt argues that the arrangement of the biblical text in στίχοι and the brevity of Hesychius’ notes show that these annotated texts were designed for the reading of scripture during a worship service.112 Substantial marginal scholia that anticipate later catena collections likely predate Hesychius. By the first half of the fourth century, Eric Scherbensky concludes, exegetical scholia (most likely from Origen) were being copied into the margins of Hexaplaric texts of the Septuagint. Scherbensky further argues that marginal scholia copied into the tenth-century nt Codex von der Goltz (ga 1739) (itself judged to be a copy of a fourth/fifth century archetype) “anticipate, mirror, and provide the elements of more extensive, catena compilations.”113 108 109 110

111 112 113

Hesychius Epit. prophet. (pg 93:1339–1340). Hesychius Epit. prophet. pref. (pg 93:1340–1341). See the discussion in Dorival, Chaînes exégétiques, 81–85 and Zunzt, “Aristophanes-Scholien,” 565–557. Dorival, “Philology and History,” 76; ibid., “Commentaires de l’Écriture,” 373–374; ibid., Chaînes exégétiques 1:81–85. Zunzt (“Aristophanes-Scholien,” 567) also envisions an originally two-column format, and Mühlenberg (“Catena [ii],”, 1062) agrees with Dorival on the importance of the two-column catena in the genre’s development. Maria Antonietta Barbára (“Note sulla tecnica redazionale dei commenti scoliastici di Esichio di Gerusalemme” in A Book of Psalms from Eleventh-Century Byzantium: The Complex of Text and Images in Vat. Gr. 752, ed. Barbara Crostini and Glenn Peers, StT 504 [Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2016], 383–413, esp. 412) also finds Dorival’s hypothesis reasonable, at least in the case of the work of Hesychius. For extant examples of the two-column catena, see Dorival, Chaînes exégétiques, 1:67–68. Leanza, “L’esegesi biblica,” 219–227. Zuntz, “Aristophanes-Scholien,” 567–568. Scherbensky, “Scholia,” 193–194. Scherbensky (189–191) also discusses the importance of the extensive exegetical scholia of Evagrius Ponticus (c. 345–399).

introduction

25

5.6.3 From Exegetical Scholia to the Frame Catena Dorival suggests the frame catena developed out of the two-column catena as scribes adjusted the format to make room for adding further scholia to a biblical text.114 The earliest manuscript witnessing the frame catena form is Codex Zacynthius on the Gospel of Luke. D.C. Parker concludes that it was composed in the eighth century, though noting evidence that Zacynthius is itself a copy of an earlier catena.115 Both the scripture text and the commentary text are written in majuscules; in the vast majority of later frame catena, the commentary text, and often the scripture text, is written in minuscule. As noted above, frame catenae flourished in the tenth and eleventh centuries; by the twelfth century, the alternating catena dominates. Of the four main manuscripts of the Ps.-Andrew Catena, the two earliest, O (twelfth-century) and P (tenth-century), are frame catena. 5.6.4 The Catena Collection as an “Open Book” William Lamb aptly refers to the typical catena tradition as an “open book.” Applying this label to the Catena on the Gospel of Mark, Lamb states, “it was a text that grew and developed over a period of time … a number of different scribes added material, as well as amending, abbreviating and omitting a number of different extracts … they have abbreviated, epitomized, transposed and paraphrased their sources.”116 Another aspect of the “open” nature of the work is the occasional juxtaposition of scholia that offer contradictory interpretations or explanations for certain passages.117 In Lamb’s view, this “open book” approach of the scribes makes questionable any scholarly attempt to identify an original author, an original Urtext, or even to identify clear recensions.118 While Lamb’s image of the “open book” helpfully emphasizes the high degree of fluidity that characterizes many catena traditions, one must clarify that there were limits to this “openness.” First, while recovering an original Urtext or identifying an original author are indeed often fruitless pursuits, catena scholars have demonstrated that one can recognize affinities among manuscripts 114

115 116 117 118

Dorival, “Commentaires de l’Écriture,” 373–375. Among other arguments, Dorival (Chaînes exégétiques, 1:56–81) shows how two-column and frame catena share common scribal techniques for the vertical marking and ruling of a page. He also refers to manuscripts where one can see the influence of both two-column and frame models of laying out scriptural text and exegesis (including Vaticanus gr. 752 and Codex Zacynthius). Parker, “Undertext,” 19–31. See also the earlier study: David Parker and J. Neville Birdsall, “The Date of Codex Zacynthius (Ξ): A New Proposal,” jts 55 (2004): 117–131. Lamb, Catena in Marcum, 60, 64. Lamb, Catena in Marcum, 70. Lamb, Catena in Marcum, 64.

26

introduction

that allow one to identify certain “types” within a given catena tradition (see the following section for details). Secondly, scholars are often able to identify a certain theological tendency that governed the selection of scholia. Lamb himself concludes that the Markan catenist’s scholia selection reveals a Christology that is “surprisingly consistent” and closely aligned with the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria and of the Emperor Zeno’s Henoticon.119 5.7 Analyzing Catena Traditions The literary traditions of the catenae are complex, due to several factors, including (1) catenae collections are by its nature open to expansion, abridgment, and adaptation for a variety of purposes, (2) the great expanse of time (from the fifth century until at least the thirteenth century) and geographical space (Palestine and Constantinople were the main centers of activity) in which the catenae flourished. 5.7.1 Types of Catenae Scholarship on catenae has distinguished several different “types” of catenae. One cannot speak, for example, of a single “Catena on the Psalms.” Rather, scholars distinguish between several types, distinguished by various factors, including sources used and purported compilers of the catenae. The influential catalogue of catenae manuscripts composed by Georg Karo and Hans Lietzmann, for example, identifies no fewer than twenty-seven types of Psalms catenae.120 This system has been refined by subsequent research.121 5.7.2 Primary and Secondary Sources of the Catenae Catenae scholarship makes a fundamental distinction between primary and secondary catenae. 1. “Primary” refers to catenae that draw directly on primary exegetical works as sources (e.g., from commentaries, homilies, or exegetical comments drawn from other literary genres) for their scholia. In addition to draw119 120

121

Lamb, Catena in Marcum, 72; 175–178. Lamb himself (178) recognizes that this consistent Christology qualifies the description of the Catena on Mark as an “open book.” Karo and Lietzmann, Catenarum Graecarum Catalogus, nkgwg. ph (Gōttingen: Lüder Horstmann, 1902), 20–66. For a critique of the inexact nature of the classification, see Harl, Chaîne palestinienne, 1:17–18. This catalogue has since been superseded by catalog of Georgi Parpulov: Catena Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament: A Catalogue, Texts and Studies, Third Series, vol. 25 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2021); updated online version at https://itsee‑wce.birmingham.ac.uk/catenacatalogue. See cpg-C10–41. For further discussion on catena types, see Houghton and Parker, “Introduction,” 22–25.

introduction

27

ing on the exegetical works of early Christian exegetes, however, these primary catenae regularly draw also on shorter, unattributed scholia or glosses. 2. “Secondary” refers to the numerous catenae that draw on previously composed catenae as sources. Primary catenae were regularly expanded, abridged, or otherwise modified in secondary catenae. As an example of the complexity of primary and secondary catena types, I briefly summarize scholarly analysis of the catena tradition on the Gospel of Luke.122 – “Type A” (cpg-C130) is the oldest type of Lukan catena; it is falsely attributed in the manuscripts to Titus of Bostra. The sources of the scholia are not identified, but research has shown that they are drawn primarily from Cyril of Alexandria’s homilies on Luke, together with comments from Titus and Origen, and from Chrysostom’s homilies on Matthew. As the sources are not identified, Reuss refers to it as “compilation commentary” rather than a catena. This collection is itself developed from earlier catenae on Matthew and John. Panagiotis Manafis identifies thirty-two manuscripts as belonging to this type. – “Type B” (cpg-C131) is an expanded form of “Type A,” with further scholia from the original sources. Manafis identifies eight manuscripts in this type. This type is the basis for Cramer’s edition (cgpnt vol. 2). – “Type C” (cpg-C132) is falsely attributed to Peter of Laodicea. In addition to scholia from Cyril of Alexandria, Origen, and Titus, it adds numerous scholia from Severus of Antioch. Manafis identifies sixty manuscripts for this type. – “Type D” (cpg-C133) is an expanded form of Type “C.” It draws on scholia from “Type B” and “Type E.” Manafis identifies nine scholia for this type. – “Type E” (cpg-C134). This type is based on Cyril’s Commentary on Luke along with scholia from many authors found in Type B. Manafis identifies only two manuscripts in this type. – “Type F” (cpg-C135) was compiled at the beginning of the twelfth century by Nicetas of Heraclea. Scholia authors are named; primary sources include Chrysostom (author of the majority of the scholia), Cyril of Alexandria, and the Cappadocians. Although Nicetas makes some use of earlier extract col-

122

Sources for the following summary: cpg-C130–139; Joseph Reuss, Lukas-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften (Berlin: Akademie, 1984), xi–xiv; Panagiotis Manafis, “Catenae on Luke and the Catena of Codex Zacynthius,” in Houghton and Parker, eds., Codex Zacynthius: Catena, 137–140. See also Max Rauer, Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus und die griechischen Reste der Homilien und des LukasKommentars, 2nd ed., gcs (Berlin: Akadamie, 1959), xxxvi–lx.

28

introduction

lections and catenae, in the great majority of cases he has taken his scholia from the original source.123 Manafis identifies nineteen manuscripts for this type. One manuscript includes 3,302 comments on Luke, drawn from seventy authors. – cpg-C136 is an expanded form of Type F and attributed to Macarius Chrysocephalus; Manafis identifies three manuscripts in this category. – cpg-C137 lists several individual manuscripts that do not fall into the above types, including Codex Zacynthius. – cpg-C139 is witnessed in four manuscripts.124 In addition, there are twenty-seven manuscripts of the catena-based commentary on Luke attributed to Theophylact. 5.7.3 The Catena-Based Commentary One example of the reworking of the catenae is the well-attested technique of dropping the author lemma of the scholia altogether, thus presenting the appearance of a commentary produced by a single author (see sect. 2.5 above). Commentaries attributed to Peter of Laodicea on Psalms, Matthew, Luke, and John illustrate this technique.125 In Peter’s work, one often finds the adverb ἄλλως ([interpreted] “differently”) at the beginning of individual scholia. Clearly the ἄλλως has replaced the original author lemma.126 Max Rauer believes that Peter’s Luke commentary was compiled in the seventh or, at the latest, the eighth century.127 A Peter of Laodicea did in fact live at this time, but little is known of him, and it is in any case unclear what role this Peter would have taken in assembling the complex materials (including an Urkatene, a collection of anonymous scholia, and further scholia from various patristic sources).128 Catena-based commentaries on the Pauline Epistles, Acts, and the Catholic Epistles have also been attributed to Oecumenius.129 Some scholars have iden-

123 124 125

126 127 128 129

See Joseph Sickenberger, Die Lukaskatene des Niketas von Herakleia, tu n.f. 7/4 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902), 74–75. cpg-C138 represents a Coptic version of a Lukan catena. Psalms: Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1115, cpg-C38; Matthew: Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1166, cpg-C111; Luke: Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1183, cpg-C132; John: Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1196, cpg-C141.1. Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1166–1167. Rauer, Der dem Petrus von Laodicea zugechriebene Lukaskommentar, NTAbh 8/2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1920), 68–69. Rauer, Petrus von Laodicea, 67. Acts: pg 118:25–308; Pauline epistles: pg 118:308–119:9–454; Catholic Epistles: pg 119:451– 722.

introduction

29

tified this author with the sixth-century author who commented on the Book of Revelation.130 Karl Staab, however, showed that the author of these other nt commentaries could not be this sixth-century Oecumenius.131 In the case of the Catholic Epistles, for example, the Oecumenian commentary clearly uses CatCE, dated to around the year 700, as a source. Traditionally, these works have been attributed to the tenth-century Bishop Oecumenius of Tricca (modern Trikala) in Thessaly.132 Recent scholars, however, question this attribution for the Pauline, Acts, and Catholic Epistle catenae; thus the label “Ps.-Oecumenius” is generally applied to the author.133 Another catena-based commentary on the Catholic Epistles is attributed to Theophylact (d. ca. 1125), the Byzantine exegete and bishop of Ohrid in Bulgaria.134 Staab characterizes Ps.-Oecumenius Commentary on the Catholic Epistles and Theophylact’s Commentary as two recensions of the same commentary.135 The commentaries of Euthymius Zigabenus also belong in this category.136 It should be noted that the commentary-based catena is not necessarily a late form. Already Procopius’ Epitome of Extracts takes this form (see sect. 5.1 above), as did the Anonymous Commentary used as a source of the CatCE. 5.8 Libraries and Catena Traditions How did catenists access their primary and secondary sources? Given the great number of authors cited in the many catenae, one thinks naturally of catenists 130 131 132

133

134 135 136

See Houghton and Parker, “Introduction,” 19; Theodora Panella, “Resurrection Appearances in the Pauline Catenae,” in Houghton, ed., Commentaries, Catenae, 119. Staab, Pauluskatenen, 93–99. See the comments of Bernardus Donatus, who published the work at Verona in 1532 (printed in pg 118:23–26). The Migne editors follow Donatus in identifying Oecumenius, Bishop of Tricca, as the author. Earlier scholarship identified this Bishop Oecumenius with the author of the commentary on Revelation, but this has been shown to be mistaken: see Franz Diekamp, “Mittheilungen über den neuaufgefundenen Commentar des Oekumenius zur Apokalypse,” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenshaft zu Berlin (Phil.-hist. Klasse) 43 (1901): 1046–1056 and J.N. Suggit, trans., Oecumenius: Commentary on the Apocalypse, fc 112 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006), 4–5. For the Pauline catenae, see Staab, Pauluskatene, 93–99. Among Staab’s arguments: the Pauline manuscripts themselves do not reference Oecumenius; individual scholia are attributed to Oecumenius, but there are no other examples of a catena compiler including his own scholia alongside those of the early authoritative exegetes. See also cpg-C177 (“Ps.-Oecumenius”). pg 125:1131–1288; pg 126:9–104. Staab, 353. See also cpg-C178. See Dorival, “Commentaires de l’Écriture,” 380.

30

introduction

working in libraries that housed exegetical works and biblical manuscripts.137 What type of library would the catenists have utilized? In his study of early Christian libraries, Harry Gamble identifies the following kinds of libraries: (1) private libraries (e.g., of figures such as Origen, Augustine, or Jerome), (2) congregational libraries (containing texts used in the liturgy, including scriptural texts, and for archival use), (3) larger libraries in Christian centers (Gamble identifies Caesarea, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome, Hippo, and Constantinople as most important), and (4) monastic libraries.138 For our purposes, categories (3) and (4) are most significant, as only these would have supplied not only the substantial number and variety of works on which the catenists drew, but also the trained scribes who would produce the catenae. I shall refer to category (3) as episcopal or patriarchal libraries, since these larger libraries are typically associated with the local bishop or patriarch. 5.8.1 Episcopal, Patriarchal, and Imperial Libraries Catena scholarship has identified the library at Caesarea Maritima as especially important for early catena traditions. Pierre Nautin suggests that Procopius used this library, including its collection of Origen’s works.139 Karin Metzler thinks it most plausible that the Caesarean library was the site both of the compilation of the Urkatene and of Procopius’ Epitome.140 One may also note that Caesarea must have had a scriptorium in which text-critical work was done and copies produced;141 some early Caesarean copyists included Origen’s scholia as they copied his Hexaplaric texts.142

137 138 139

140

141 142

See Dorival, Chaînes exégétiques, 1:25. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995), 144–176. Octave Guéraud and Pierre Nautin, Origéne. Sur la Pâque: traité inédit publié d’après un papyrus de Toura. (Paris: Beauchesne, 1979), 88–90. Nautin and Guéraud note that the Tura papyrus of Origen’s On Pascha and Procopius’ Epitome on the Historical Books share an unusual error, suggesting that drew from a common source: a copy of Origen’s work at the library at Caesarea is the most likely candidate. Petit (“Miroir de l’exégèse,” 245) also considers it possible that Procopius used this library. Metzler, “Introduction” to Genesiskommentar, ed. Metzler, xxv–xxvii; Metzler, “Introduction” to Exoduskommentar, ed. Metzler, xxxii–xxxiii. Metzler notes that many of the sources used by both the Urkatene and Procopius’ Epitome would have been available in Caesarea, including Philo’s exegetical works, Origen (including his text-critical work with the Hexapla), Didymus of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Caesarea. See Gamble, Books and Readers, 158–159. Andrew Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, vc Supplements 67, (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 14–15. Carriker quotes and translates the following subscription from a Roman manuscript: “Transcribed from the editions of the Hexapla and corrected from the

introduction

31

It is likely that catena production continued at Caesarea after the time of Procopius. As noted above (sect. 5.2.2), Gilles Dorival suggests that the first Palestinian Catena to Psalms was compiled in Caesarea by a student of Procopius.143 René Cadiou speculates that an early “two-author” catena contrasting Origen and Theodoret drew its Origen scholia from a florilegium preserved there.144 Other libraries in Palestine may have been sites of catena production: Romeny proposes that Procopius may have used the library at Gaza;145 the patriarchal library at Jerusalem also had a rich collection of books.146 For the Constantinopolitan phase of catenae production, the capital city offered abundant library resources. One of the later catenists, Nicetas, would have had access to the patriarchal library in his work at the patriarchal school.147 Although the existence of a theological academy for educating future clergy prior to the twelfth century is debated,148 Constantinople did have an imperial library that was certainly in operation by the time of Constantius ii (337–361). This imperial library or other state-sponsored institutions held a wide variety of books that may well have included copies of scripture and scriptural commentaries.149

143 144 145 146

147 148

149

Tetrapla of Origen himself, which he had corrected in his own hand and to which he had added scholia. From which I, Eusebius, provided the scholia” (μετεληφθη απο των κατα τας εκδοσεις εξαπλων και διορθωθη απο των Ωριγενους αυτου τετραπλων ατινα και αυτου χειρι διορθωτο και εσχολιογραφητο. Οθεν Ευσεβειος εγω τα σκοιλια παρεθηκα) (15 n. 44; Greek text in Giovanni Mercati, Nuove note di letteratura biblica e christiana antica, Studi e Testi 95 [Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1941], 9 = Codex Marchalianus [Vat. Gr. 2125] p. 568). Carriker’s note also provides a similar subscription at the end of a Proverbs manuscript. On these subscriptions see also Scherbenske, “Scholia,” 193–194 (see sect. 5.6.2 above). Dorival, Chaînes exégétiques, 1:114. Cadiou, “Bibliothèque,” 479. Romeny, “Procopius of Gaza,” 188. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.20–21) mentions a library at Jerusalem which preserved the letters of early Christian writers, see Cadiou, “Bibliothèque,” 475–476; see also Gamble, Books and Readers, 154; Metzler, “Introduction” to Genesiskommentar, ed. Metzler, xxvi; Christoph Markschies, Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire: Prolegomena to a History of Early Christian Theology, Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015), 275. Browning, “Patriarchal School,” 17. Browning states that the school “probably dates from the fifth century, if not from the time of Constantine” (“Patriarchal School,” 167–168), but see the far more cautious conclusion that no unambiguous evidence of an official theological school before the twelfth century in “Patriarchal School,” The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Kazhdan, ed.), 3:1599. Gamble, Books and Readers, 168–169. Gamble reports the comment of Nicephorus Callistus (h.e. 14.3; pg 146:1064) that Theodosius ii (401–450) collected a great number of

32

introduction

5.8.2 Monastic Libraries The monasteries of Constantinople also had their own libraries. Otto Volk refers to an undated testament of a Byzantine monk that includes a list of books in the monastery library of St. George of Mangana. The list includes books that may well have been used to produce catenae. These include: – Euthymius Zigabenus’ commentary on the letters of Paul – A commentary on Isaiah by Basil the Great (ἠξηγηένου παρὰ τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλ [είου]). – A commentary on the Song of Songs, Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes interpreted by various authors (ἠξηγηένον παρὰ διαφόρων).150 Volk also refers to other codices whose internal evidence links them with the monastery: a fourteenth-century manuscript including Gregory of Nazianzus’ orations and a Chrysostom homily, a tenth-century manuscript of Chrysostom’s thirty-four homilies on Hebrews, and an eleventh-century manuscript containing various works of Chrysostom bound with homilies of Basil of Caesarea.151 According to Nigel Wilson, the collection of a “typical monastic library” in Constantinople in the eleventh century would have consisted primarily of texts that were “biblical, liturgical and patristic, especially sermons by Chrysostom, Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, lives of saints and catenae on various books of scripture.”152 Monasteries were common in Constantinople well before the eleventh century. By 536, there were almost seventy monasteries in the capital.153 Monasteries affiliated with Theodore of Studios (759–826) were well known for their scriptoria: the development of the minuscule script is associated with these monasteries, and Günther Zuntz identifies these Studite monasteries with the development of the frame catena.154

150

151 152 153 154

books of Christian scripture and commentaries on them (ἱερὰς συνῆγε βίβλους καὶ τούς αὐτῶν ἑρμηνεῖς); these may well have been deposited in the imperial library. On the probable presence of Procopius’ Epitome of Extracts from the Historical Books in an imperial library in Constantinople, see Metzler, “Introduction” to Genesiskommentar, ed. Metzler, xxix–xxx; Metzler, “Introduction” to Genesiskommentar, trans. Metzler, xxx. Volk, Die byzantinischen Klosterbibliotheken von Konstantinopel, Thessalonike und Kleinasien (Ph.D. diss., Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, 1955), 24–25. For the text of the testament, see S.G. Mercati, “Un testament inédit en faveur de Saint-Georges des Manganes,” Revue des études byzantines 6 (1948), 36–47. Volk, Klosterbibliotheken, 30–32. Wilson, “Libraries of the Byzantine World,” grbs 8 (1967), 64–65. “Monasticism,” in Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Kazhdan, ed.), 2:1392. See Wilson, “Byzantine World,” 62; on the minuscule script: Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration,

introduction

33

We should be careful, however, in assuming that catenae were produced only in major cities of the Byzantine empire. Writing in the early fifth century, a certain Anianus notes in the preface of his Latin translation of Chrystostom’s homilies on Matthew, that the works of Chrysostom (the major scholiast for CatJas and for numerous other catenae) are available in “all the ecclesiastical libraries of the Greeks” (omnes jam ecclesiasticae Graecorum bibliothecae).155

6

The Inclusive Nature of the Catenae

Catena scholars routinely comment on the inclusive, non-polemical spirit that pervades this genre. Compilers of the catena seem to have been animated primarily by a desire to gather together the best exegetical material from a broad range of perspectives.156 For example, CatCE preserves comments from exegetes of the so-called “Alexandrian school” (e.g., Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Hesychius of Jerusalem) side-by-side with representatives of the so-called “Antiochene school” (e.g., Severian of Gabala, John Chrysostom). It includes both representatives of what become recognized as the orthodox tradition (e.g., Basil of Caesarea) and authors who were condemned as unorthodox (e.g., Apollinarius of Laodicaea, Origen). The quotations also cover a wide historical range: from the Shepherd of Hermas and Origen to Maximus the Confessor (d. 662). The catena scholar Françoise Petit writes, “The aim of the catenist is to inform, to transmit the exegetical tradition in its plurality, to facilitate the comparison of interpretations; never to polemicize, to elaborate a theology, to define a dogma, or to moralize.”157 A preface found in a variety of manuscripts points to the remarkably inclusive nature of the scholia employed in the catenae. I quote from Houghton’s translation of the preface to the Catena to Luke in the Codex Zacynthius:158

155 156

157 158

4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 18 n. 23; Zuntz, “Aristophanes-Scholien,” 584–591. pg 58:977–978. See, e.g., Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1093–1094; Dorival, “Commentaires de l’Écriture,” 369–372; Dorival, “Chaines exégètiques,” 5:287–291; Petit, “Miroir de l’exégèse,” 243–244; Jean-Marie Auwers, “Les chaînes exégétiques comme modèle de lecture polysémique. L’exemple de l’Épitome sur le Cantique des cantiques,” rtl 40 (2009), 213–235, esp. 220– 235 on the rich diversity of interpretations in Procopius’ catena. Petit, “Miroir de l’exégèse,” 243. Text and translation from Houghton, Manafis, and Myshrall, Codex Zacynthius: Text, 24– 25 (fol. 1r). Punctuation of the Greek follows (slightly adapted) the text of Cramer, cpgnt

34

introduction

Cat. Luke (Cod. Zacynthius) prol.

Houghton translation

Χρή δε τὸν ἐντυγχάνοντα τῇδε τῇ βίβλῳ γινώσκειν ὅτι ἐκ πολλῶν πονημάτων ἀγίων καὶ ὀρθοδόξων πατέρων, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀδοκίμων ἐξηγητῶν, καὶ τῆς τῶν αἱρετικῶν μοίρας τυγχανόντων, αἱ παραγραφαὶ ἔγκεινται, ἐκφευγοῦσαι ὡς ἔνεστι τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς παραδόσεως ἀπᾴδοντα δόγματα τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν αἱρετικῶν εἰρημένων. Καὶ τοῦτο δὲ οὐκ αὐτονόμως ἐποίησα, ἀλλὰ ἀκολουθήσας τῷ ἁγιωτάτῳ ἡμῶν πατρὶ τῷ τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου φιλοχρίστου μεγαλοπόλεως ἀρχιεπισκόπῳ Κυρίλλῳ, φήσαντι ἐν τῇ πρὸς Εὐλόγιον ἐπιστολῇ· “Οὐ πάντα ὅσα λέγουσιν οἱ αἱρετικοί, φεύγειν καὶ παραιταῖσθαι χρή. Πολλὰ γὰρ ὁμολογοῦσιν, ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁμολογοῦμεν·” καὶ τοῦτο δὲ προσθῆναι ἀναγκαῖον ᾠήθην τῷδε τῷ προοιμίῳ, πρὸς φανέρωσιν καὶ σαφήνειαν τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσιν.

The person who encounters this book ought to know that sections are inserted not just from many works of holy and orthodox fathers, but also from exegetes who were discredited and met the fate of heretics. These sections emerge as there are teachings in them unharmonious with church tradition, which were spoken by the heretics. I did not do this of my own accord, but I followed our most holy father, Archbishop Cyril of the great and Christ-loving city of Alexandria, who says in his Letter to Eulogius, “One ought not to avoid and refuse everything which heretics say. For they grant many things which we also grant.”159 I thought that it was indispensable to add this to the present introduction as a clarification and explanation for those who encounter it.

This preface is found often in other catenae to Luke, Matthew, and John.160 Versions are also found in prefaces to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, and Dan-

159 160

1:4. Lamb notes a very similar openness to a judicious use of theologically suspect authors by Jerome (Ep. 62.2; quoted in Catena in Marcum, 177). Here Jerome recommends the use of Origen’s learned scriptural commentaries while rejecting Origen’s theological errors. Jerome also lists several other theological suspect writes whom the orthodox may use judiciously: Tertullian, Novatus, Arnobius, and Apollinarius: “we should select what is good and avoid what is bad in their writings according to the words of the Apostle, ‘Prove all things: hold fast that which is good’ (1Thess 5:21).” Origen is to be valued for “his learning” (propter eruditionem); one should not altogether reject “the useful commentaries which he has published on the holy scriptures” (commentarios in scripturas sanctas utiles edidit; Hilberg, ed., 1:583–584; npnf2 6:133–134). The reference is to Cyril Ep. 44.1 (aco 1.1.4.35–37; McEnerney, trans., 186). See Houghton, “Layout and Structure,” 67. See also the references at the irht’s Pinakes site: https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/oeuvre/16587; cpgnt 1:4; Hermann von Soden,

introduction

35

iel.161 The preface to the Catena to Isaiah lists the cited “heterodox” (ἑτεροδόξοι) authors: “Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodore of Heraclea, Eusebius of Emesa, Apollinarius, and Theodoret.” The preface to Ezekiel lists Theodoret, Polychronius, and Origen as among the heretics (αἱρετικοί).162 A prefatory contents page, written in Latin, to codex R, one of the main manuscripts of CatCE, labels three of the scholia authors as “heretics” (heretici): Eusebius of Caesarea (it associates him with Arianism), Apollinarius, and Severus of Antioch. Dorival also lists a few examples where individual scholia explicitly label an author as heterodox.163 One should note, however, that the later catena compiler Nicetus of Heraclea expressly notes that he excludes certain authors from his catena: specifically, Apollinarius and Theodore of Antioch (= Theodore of Mopsuestia) because they “invent their own teachings” (ὑποθέσεις ἰδίας πλάττοντας) and “think in a Jewish way” (Ἰουδαιόφρονας); the latter characterization likely alludes to a more “literal” (i.e., less Christological) interpretation of scripture. He also excludes Didymus of Alexandria, because “he did not see the truth and fell into unguided thoughts that lead to the edge of cliffs” (ἀνοδίαις ἐννοιῶν καὶ κρημνοῖς περιπίπτοντα). Most (τὰ πόλλα) of Origen’s comments are rejected because “he went beyond what is proper” (τοῦ δέοντος περιερτότερον)—doubtless a reference to some of Origen’s heterodox speculations. Nicetas comments that he will include scholia from Eusebius of Caesarea, however, since the trustworthy fathers Athanasius and Basil used his work.164 Nicetas includes Theodoret among the orthodox, however, together with the “divine fathers” (θεῖοι πατέρες): Athanasius, Basil, Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzus), Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, and Isidore of Pelusium. In some cases the lemma of a theologically questionable author may have been suppressed: Manifis presents evidence for a scribe dropping Severus’

161

162 163 164

Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte. Volume i/1, 2 ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 605. See Faulhaber, Propheten-Catenen, 192–196. See also the French translation of these prefaces in Dorival, “Commentaires de l’Écriture,” 369–370. Faulhaber (197–202) argues that the preface’s author, John Droungarios, compiled the present form of the catena to the four major prophets in the seventh or eighth centuries. (Note that other catena scholars regard the attribution to Droungarios as spurious, see sect. 5.5 above). He thinks it possible that the prefaces from the Prophets catenae were later applied to the Gospel prefaces. Faulhaber, Propheten-Catenen, 192–193. Dorival, Chaînes exégétiques, 5:288. Greek text in Karo-Lietzmann, Catalogus, 34; discussion in Harl, Chaîne palestinienne, 1:36–38; Dorival, “Commentaires de l’Écriture,” 376–379.

36

introduction

name in the transmission of a Lukan catena,165 and Lamb notes a likely suppression of Apollinarius’ name in one manuscript of the Markan catena.166 With a few exceptions, then, catena compilers were inclusive in their openness to a judicious use of authors who had been labeled as heretical. Yet as William Lamb notes, this inclusiveness should by no means be construed as a “doctrinal neutrality” of the catenists. While the Markan catenist, for example, is willing to include theologically questionable authors such as Apollinarius alongside orthodox authors such as Cyril of Alexandria, this inclusivity is done in the service of presenting “a clear and coherent reading of Mark which is informed by Cyril’s Christology.”167 Françoise Petit’s contention that the “aim of the catenist is to inform, to transmit the exegetical tradition in its plurality, to facilitate the comparison of interpretations; never to polemicize, to elaborate a theology, to define a dogma, or to moralize” is misleading.168 It seems to be rather the case that when the catenae include a range of exegetical options, this range is always included within the catenist’s sense of orthodox Christian belief. Lamb is more accurate in noting that the catenae resemble rabbinic literature in the sense of “drawing together a disparate and eclectic range of voices—from Philo of Alexandria to Severos of Antioch—and creating a ‘staged conversation’ that would serve to underline and reinforce a particular understanding of orthodoxy.”169

7

CatCE and Euthalian Traditions

Many manuscripts of Ps.-Andrew’s CatCE witness a content summary (ὑπόθεσις) prefixed to each of the seven Catholic Epistles. For each Epistle, the biblical text with corresponding scholia are divided into chapters (κεφάλαια), each with a chapter title. These reading aids are not the work of the catenist, but rather are two elements of the so-called Euthalian Apparatus: prefatory material attached to hundreds of ancient and medieval manuscripts of the texts of Acts, the Catholic epistles, and the Pauline letters.170 In addition to 165 166 167 168 169

170

Manafis, “Catanae on Luke,” 153–158. Lamb, Catena in Marcum, 63. Lamb, Catena in Marcum, 176–177. Petit, “Miroir de l’exégèse,” 243. Lamb, “Conservation and Conversation: New Testament Catenae in Byzantium” in The New Testament in Byzantium, ed. Robert S. Nelson and Derek Krueger (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2016), 299. Two important recent studies of the Euthalian tradition are Louis Charles Willard, A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus, antf 41 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009) (essentially

introduction

37

the book summaries and chapter titles, these disparate materials include general prologues to Acts and the Pauline and Catholic letters collections, lists of quotations (mainly from the Old Testament) in the individual books, lection tables, stichometric notes, and a variety of traditions on Paul’s life.171 These materials are found in a few majuscules and in hundreds of minuscules.172 There is no scholarly consensus on the origins of the Euthalian materials; Willard reasonably suggests a date between 325 and the late fourth century.173 7.1 Euthalian Chapter Divisions and Titles in CatJas In CatJas, the ὑπoθέσις (summary of contents) is closely related to the chapter (κεφάλαια) headings that summarize the main theme or themes of each section, or chapter, of a work.174 The word κεφάλαιον is ambiguous, however, as it may refer either to a section or chapter of a text, or to the title of that section or chapter. For clarity, Blomqvist, following Hermann von Soden, distinguishes between κεφάλαια (“chapter”) and κεφάλαια-τίτλοι (“chapter titles”). These titles are a brief summary of the contents of a chapter, often beginning with πέρι, πῶς, or ὅτι. The κεφάλαια-τίτλοι were often associated with scientific works in antiquity.175 A work would have the κεφάλαια-τίτλοι prefixed to the beginning, and each title would then be written in the margins of the body of the work, thus facilitating the reader’s ability to locate quickly topics of interest. In some cases, κεφάλαια-τίτλοι are further broken down into subsections with subtitles, known as ὑποδιαιρέσεις. As manuscripts were transmitted, how-

171

172

173

174 175

Willard’s 1970 Yale dissertation) and Vemund Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions: Text, Translation and Commentary, tu 170 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012). For an overview of the Euthalian materials, see Willard, Euthalian Apparatus, 4–7; Blomqvist, Euthalian Traditions, 3–5. For a convenient text of the Euthalian materials to the Catholic Epistles, see pg 85:665–692. For a comprehensive summary of the manuscript witnesses, see Willard, Euthalian Traditions, 158–169. Willard’s list should be used with caution, however. For example, Willard rightly indicates that ga 307 (one of the CatJas manuscripts) lacks a list of chapter titles at the beginning of each letter, but the chapter titles are in fact found in the body of the text. One should add majuscule 049 to his list of manuscripts that have chapter titles and hypotheseis for the ce. For the history of research see Willard, Euthalian Apparatus, 111–27 and Blomqvist, Euthalian Traditions, 8–30; on the date, Willard, Euthalian Apparatus, 131; for suggestions of later dates, see Blomqvist, Euthalian Traditions, 3. On κεφάλαια in ancient Greek literature and in the Euthalian tradition, see Blomqvist, Euthalian Traditions, 121–142, esp. 121–125. As examples, Blomqvist (Euthalian Traditions, 121–122) refers to Cato’s De Agricultura, Plotinus’ Enneads, and Ptolemy’s astronomical work, Tetrabiblos.

38

introduction

ever, the distinction between the κεφάλαια-τίτλοι and the ὑποδιαιρέσεις was sometimes lost. The main manuscripts (O, P, V, and R) of CatJas all lack a prefatory list of κεφάλαια titles. P reads all titles; O witnesses most of them; both number them. R witnesses only a few, and several in abbreviated form. V reads and numbers the first four titles, but omits the rest.176 Below I present von Soden’s eclectic text of the κεφάλαια titles drawn from numerous manuscripts of James,177 along with an indication of how the titles are distributed in the text of codices O and P. Footnotes to each chapter title in the Greek text of this contribution provide further details on how the titles are numbered and witnessed (often in disparate ways) in the manuscripts, including the list witnessed in Ps.-Oecumenius’ commentary. Von Soden’s edition preserves the distinction between the main headings (Κεφάλαια τίτλοι) and the subheadings (ὑποδιαιρέσεις; translated as, e.g., 5a, 5b, in this contribution), but this distinction is lacking in the four CatJas codices used here. O and P, for example, number all titles consecutively with no indication of subordinating one heading under another.178 For the sake of consistency, however, I follow von Soden’s numbering in this contribution.

Κεφάλαια τίτλοι and ὑποδιαι- Translation and probable references ρέσεις (numbering from Von Soden, Schriften, 457–458)

Content covered in Codd. O and P

Α´· Περὶ ὑπομονῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀδιακρίτου καὶ περὶ ταπεινοφροσύνης πρὸς πλουσίους Α´ α´· Περὶ τῆς ἐν ἡμῖν πυρώσεως καὶ τῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς παθῶν, ὅτι οὐ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ αἴτιον· εἴ τι γὰρ ἀγαθὸν ἡμῖν, παρ’ αὐτοῦ

Jas 1:1–12

176 177 178

Ch. 1: Concerning perseverance (cf. Jas 1:2–4) and unwavering faith (cf. Jas 1:5–8), and concerning humility, in reference to (the) rich (cf. Jas 1:9–11) Ch. 1a: Concerning the fiery testing within us, and the passions (that arise) from it: that (its) cause is not from God (cf. Jas 1:13–15). For if (there is) anything good within us, (it is) from him (cf. Jas 1:16–18)

Jas 1:13–18

Kalogeras’ edition of codex R regularly prints full chapter titles, including those that are not actually witnessed in R. See von Soden, Schriften, 457–458. See also the text and translation of chapter titles in Blomqvist, Euthalian Traditions, 60–61.

39

introduction (cont.)

Κεφάλαια τίτλοι and ὑποδιαι- Translation and probable references ρέσεις (numbering from Von Soden, Schriften, 457–458) Β´· Περὶ πραΰτητος καὶ ἁγνείας καὶ πράξεως ἀγαθῆς μεταδοτικῆς ἐπὶ μακαρισμῷ, καὶ περὶ ἐπιστήμης καὶ συμμετρίας λόγου Γ´· Περὶ τῆς πρὸς ἕκαστον ἀγάπης ἀπροσωπολήπτου κατὰ τὸν νόμον Δ´· Ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἔργων, καὶ οὐκ ἐκ θατέρου ἰδικῶς ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἅμα δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος Ε´· Ὅτι ἡ προπετὴς καὶ ἄτακτος γλῶττα θανατοῖ τὸν κεκτημένον· ἧς κρατεῖν ἀνάγκη εἰς εὐφημίαν καὶ δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ Ε´α´· Περὶ ἀναστροφῆς καὶ ἀγαθῆς καὶ ἀμάχου πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐκ φιλοδοξίας ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ ἀνθρωπίνῃ Ε´β´· Περὶ θείας σοφίας Ε´γ´· Ὁτι ἐκ ῥαθυμίας καὶ φιληδονίας ἔρις καὶ ἀκαταστασία καὶ ἡ πρὸς θεὸν ἐχθρὰ γίνεται Ε´δ´· Περὶ μετανοίας πρὸς σωτηρίαν, καὶ περὶ τοῦ μὴ κρίνειν τὸν πλησίον. ς´ Ὅτι οὐκ ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἀλλ’ ἐν θεῷ τὰ διαβήματα ἀνδρὸς κατευθύνεται

Content covered in Codd. O and P

Ch. 2: Concerning gentleness and purity and Jas 1:19–27 good action (cf. 1:21–25, 27) that leads to blessing (cf. 1:25), and concerning understanding and moderation in speech (cf. 1:19–20, 26) Ch. 3: Concerning impartial love for each person Jas 2:1–13 according to the Law (cf. Jas 2:1–13) Ch. 4: That a person is justified not from faith alone, but also from actions; and not from each one separately, but from both together (cf. Jas 2:14–26)

Jas 2:14–26

Ch. 5: That the reckless and undisciplined tongue puts (its) owner to death; it is necessary to master it for the praise and glory of God (cf. Jas 3:2–8)

Jas 3:1–12

Ch. 5a: Concerning good and uncontentious conduct towards one another, instead of a love for fame based in human wisdom

Jas 3:13–16

Ch. 5b: Concerning divine wisdom (cf. Jas 3:17) Ch. 5c: That from lust and love of pleasure arise rivalry and instability (cf. Jas 4:1–2), and enmity towards God (cf. Jas 4:4)

Jas 3:17 Jas 4:1–7

Ch. 5d: Concerning conversion leading to salva- Jas 4:8–12 tion (cf. Jas 4:7–10) and concerning not judging (one’s) neighbor (cf. Jas 4:11–12). Ch. 6: That the steps of a person are directed not Jas 4:13–17 by a human, but by God (cf. Jas 4:13–17)

40

introduction

(cont.)

Κεφάλαια τίτλοι and ὑποδιαι- Translation and probable references ρέσεις (numbering from Von Soden, Schriften, 457–458)

Content covered in Codd. O and P

ς´α´·Περὶ πλεονεξίας πλουσίων καὶ τῆς ἐν κόσμῳ τρυφῆς αὐτῶν, καὶ περὶ δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ ς´β´·Περὶ μακροθυμίας καὶ ὑπομονῆς παθημάτων, καὶ περὶ ἀληθείας ς´γ´· Παραινέσεις ἰδικαὶ ἑκάστῳ προσήκουσαι μετὰ πίστεως ς´δ´· Ὅτι διακονητέον τῇ τοῦ πλησίον σωτηρίᾳ

Jas 5:1–6

Ch. 6a: Concerning the greed of the rich and their self-indulgence in the world, and concerning the just judgment of God (cf. Jas 5:1–6).

Ch. 6b: Concerning patience and perseverance Jas 5:8–12 in afflictions (cf. Jas 5:7–11), and concerning truth (cf. Jas 5:12) Chapter 6c: Specific exhortations, (given) with Jas 5:12–20 faith, appropriate to each person (cf. Jas 5:13–17) Chapter 6d: That one must assist with the salva- Jas 5:20 tion of (one’s) neighbor (cf. Jas 5:19–20).

Several aspects of the Euthalian chapter divisions and headings warrant comment: – The fifteen chapter divisions (counting subheadings) are more precise than the modern division into five chapters. In two cases, a heading covers only one verse in James (5b: Jas 3:17; 6d: Jas 5:20). – Several divisions correspond exactly with standard modern pericopes in both length and identification of the major topic.179 – Jas 1:19–27: “Hearing and Doing the Word” – Jas 2:1–13: “Warning against Partiality” – Jas 2:14–26: “Faith without Works Is Dead” – Jas 3:1–12: “Taming the Tongue” 7.2 Other Introductory Material in the Euthalian Tradition Von Soden notes that in some manuscripts, the Euthalian apparatus on James also contains the following note, “The epistle of James is placed before the others [i.e., the other Catholic Epistles] because he was the first bishop (ἐπίσκοπος) and because (his letter) is more catholic (general: καθολικότερα) than (the epis-

179

Using the nrsv as a representative example of modern pericope divisions and headings.

introduction

41

tle) of Peter, for (he writes) to the twelve tribes dispersed throughout the earth. The epigraph (ἐπιγραφή) touches on theology. For the name of ‘God’ and of ‘Lord’ makes it clear that Christ is truly God and Lord.”180 This note is lacking in the four manuscripts used for the text of this contribution. 7.3 Relationship of the Euthalian Materials and CatJas Although the catenist and the author(s) of the Euthalian materials were certainly distinct, there are similarities between the two. In terms of approach, both the catenist (especially the catenist of the ac) and the Euthalian materials place the Letter in the historical context of first-century Palestine. CatJas Scholia such as 1a and 5.7 are similar to the Euthalian materials in their content.

8

Manuscripts and Printed Editions of CatCE

8.1 Main Manuscripts of CatCE CatCE has been identified in thirty-seven manuscripts.181 Previous editions and scholarship have focused on four manuscripts to the CatCE; they will also be the focus of this contribution.182 I briefly describe these four manuscripts below. 8.1.1 Oxford New College 58 (ga 2818) = O Located in New College, Oxford. A twelfth-century parchment codex containing frame catenae on Acts and on the Catholic Epistles.183 James: fols. 178r–194r. Miniscule script. The biblical text of this manuscripts is placed in Aland’s Category iii: “Manuscripts of a distinctive character with an independent text, usually important for establishing the original text, but particularly important for the history of the text”.184 180 181

182 183 184

Von Soden, Schriften, 334–335. This last sentence is a reference to Jas 1:1. The most recent and reliable catalogue is found in the references to cpg-C176 in Parpulov, Catalogue; updated online version of Parpulov’s Catalogue at https://itsee‑wce.birmingham.ac.uk/catenacatalogue. For earlier discussion on manuscripts, see Karo and Leitzmann, Catalogus, 595–597; Michael Faulhaber, “Die Katenenhandschriften der spanischen Bibliotheken,”bz 1 (1903): 369–371; Staab, 298–306; Devreesse, “Chaînes exégétiques,” 1224–1225; Lamb, “Conservation,” 293. See also the irht Pinakes site’s listing of manuscripts of catenae on the Catholic Epistles: https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/oeuvre/​ 7834. See Staab, 298–305; see also Karo and Leitzmann, Catalogus, 597; Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1224–1225. For manuscript dates, I follow the judgments of the intf’s site (http://ntvmr.uni‑muenster​ .de/liste) and Parpulov’s Catalogue. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Crit-

42

introduction

8.1.2 Coislin 25 (ga 307) = P Located in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. The oldest of the four manuscripts, dated to the tenth century. This parchment codex contains a frame catena to Acts of the Apostles, followed by a frame catena on the Catholic Epistles. James: fols. 191r–206v. Miniscule script. The biblical text is in Aland’s Category iii; the editors of na28 state that the biblical text in this manuscript “represents an early branch of the Byzantine tradition which diverges from the mainstream.”185 8.1.3 Barberinus Gr. 582 (ga 453) = V Located in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City. A fourteenth-century parchment codex that holds catenae to Acts, the ce, and the Pauline epistles in alternating catena form. James: fols. 230r–245r. Minuscule script. The scriptural text, lemmas, and initial letters are in red ink. Staab finds a close relationship between V and P, although V is not a copy. He judges V and P to be closer to the common Urtext than O. Devreesse also notes the close relationship, although finding V to be “more correct” than P.186 Staab describes V as an “approximately 5% shortened recension” of the original catena, with the catenist leaving out certain scholia. He cites fol. 279r as an example where this editing is still visible: a lengthy scholion from Maximus has been dropped, but the author lemma “Maximus” has been retained, falsely ascribed to the following scholion.187 8.1.4 Casanatensis 1395 (ga 1840) = R Located in the Biblioteca Casanatense, Rome. A sixteenth century paper codex containing the Catholic and Pauline Epistles. James: fols. 1r–16v. Alternating catena that begins at Jas 1:18, as the initial part is missing. Staab finds that it follows a different, but parallel textual tradition in comparison with the above three manuscripts.188 A prefatory contents page lists the authors of the scholia, labeling three as “heretics”: Eusebius of Caesarea, Apollinarus, and Severus of Antioch. R occasionally combines two scholia that are separate in the other manuscripts, and at times places scholia in a different order. It

185 186 187 188

ical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 159, 161. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th rev ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 52*. Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1224. Staab, 300–301. For the original quotation from Maximus, see cpgnt 8:125, line 3–126, line 12. Staab, 303.

introduction

43

lacks some of the brief glosses found in the other manuscripts. Codex Vallicell. 78 (16th cent.) is a copy.189 8.1.5 Relationships between the Main CatCE Manuscripts Staab speaks of three lines of tradition by which Ps.-Andrew’s catena has been transmitted.190 He refers, apparently, to traditions represented by (1) O; (2) P and V; and (3) R. Referring to Staab’s conclusion, Devreese opines that it is perhaps also correct to speak of the textual tradition as a single family with three witnesses.191 Staab himself judges that all three lines of tradition are close to the original.192 Thus, in contrast to the multiple types found in catenae traditions of other biblical books (cf. sect. 5.7.1–2), the four manuscripts described here belong to a single type.193 The two frame catenae, P and O, use the same reference system for connecting the scholia with the biblical text (see Appendix 1). All four manuscripts use nomina sacra abbreviations for certain words, including the following: ἄνθρωπος, Δαυίδ (Δαβίδ in Cramer), θεός, Ἰησοῦς, Ἰσραήλ, Ἰωάννης, κύριος, μήτηρ, οὐρανός, πνεῦμα, σωτερία, σωτήρ, and Χριστός. 8.2 Printed Editions 8.2.1 Cramer’s Edition In 1840, John Antony Cramer published his edition of the CatCE in volume 8 of his Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum.194 Cramer used O as his base text, giving variant reading from P. For the Epistle of Jude, he used Codex Bodl. Misc. 169 (= Rawlinson gr. 157 = ga 832).195 Cramer’s editions of the nt catena have often been criticized for his reliance on a small number of manuscripts, his use of inferior manuscripts, and the substantial number of errors that Cramer (or the printer) added in transcribing the manuscripts that he did use.196 Staab judges that for work on the CatCE, one cannot rely on Cramer’s

189 190 191 192 193

194 195 196

Staab, 303–304. Staab, 305. Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1225. Staab, 305. Emanuele Scieri’s study of Acts catenae corroborates the close relationship of the manuscripts. Scieri groups O, P, and V, three mss that contain both CatJas and Acts, in the same subgroup type (C150.1a; “The Catena Manuscripts on Acts: A Revised Classification,” vc 76 [2022]: 286). Cramer, ed., cpgnt. Tomus viii: In Epistolas Catholicas et Apocalypsin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1840). Jas: 1–40; ce: 1–170. Cramer, 583–596. See, e.g., Staab, Pauluskatenen, 20–22; Konrad F. Zawadzki, Der Kommentar Cyrills von

44

introduction

edition alone, but one can use it cautiously, with constant comparison to the manuscripts.197 This is the approach I have taken in this contribution. 8.2.2 Kalogeras’ Edition In 1887, Nikephoros Kalogeras published an edition of the CatCE based on Codex R and compared with Cramer’s text.198 For this current contribution, I have used the tlg version of Kalogeras’ edition; readings have been verified in the manuscript whenever cited. Kalogeras incorrectly identified Euthymius Zigabenus, an early twelfth century Byzantine theologian (see sect. 5.7.3), as the catenist. Staab notes, however, that the introductory page of the manuscript itself identifies Euthymius only as the compiler of the scholia on the Pauline letters.199 Staab judges that this edition lacks critical worth, given its reliance on only one manuscript. 8.2.3 Matthaei’s Scholia Collection In 1782, C.F. Matthaei published an edition of scholia on the ce.200 The two primary manuscripts used by Matthaei were the Moscow codices cин. гр. 347 (= ga 103, labeled “D” by Matthaei) and cин. гр. 192 (= ga 463, labeled “H” by Matthaei). Matthaei’s collection in fact witnesses to one of the sources of CatCE, which, following Staab, I label the Anonymous Commentary = ac (see sect. 9.1 below). The editors of the cpg identify this as “Commentarius primigenius” of the catenae on the Catholic Epistles (cpg-C175). 8.2.4 Text of CatJas in This Edition I use the tlg edition of Cramer’s text as the base text in this contribution. Since, as noted in sect. 8.2.1, Cramer’s text used in isolation is unreliable, I have compared his edition systematically with codices O and P, and further checked readings from V and R whenever O and P disagreed. With Staab, I consider P

197 198

199 200

Alexandrien zum 1. Korintherbrief, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 16 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 23–25. One especially puzzling error in Cramer’s edition of CatJas is that he occasionally identifies readings that are found in both O and P merely as variant readings from P. Staab, 299. Kalogeras, ed., Ευθυμίου του Ζιγαβηνού, Ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὰς ιδ´ ἐπιστολὰς τοῦ Ἀποστόλου Παύλου και εἰς τὰς Ζ´ καθολικάς (Euthymius Zigabenus, Interpretations of the Fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul and of the Seven Catholic Epistles), 2 vols. (Athens: Brothers Perrē, 1887). CatJas: 2:475–518: CatET: 2:475–646. Accessed through the tlg. Staab, 304. Matthaei, ed. Apostolorum Septem Epistolae Catholicae. Riga: Hartknocht, 1782. Scholia from primary manuscripts on pp. 183–195; further scholia from other manuscripts are given earlier together with the scriptural text.

introduction

45

and V as the most reliable manuscripts. In addition, I have checked identifiable sources used in the scholia with modern critical editions. I follow two basic principles for establishing a reading and correcting Cramer’s text: – An agreement between O and P against Cramer – An agreement between P and V (often verified by R and critical editions of the scholia sources) against O and Cramer.201 Based on these comparisons, my edition offers numerous corrections of Cramer’s text. My suggested corrections are placed in square brackets in the Greek text and also in the translation when the correction alters the meaning of Cramer’s Greek. I have not recorded variant readings that reflect minor orthographical differences (e.g., προσωπολημπτεῖτε / προσωποληπτεῖτε, γλῶσσα / γλῶττα, or words witnessing or lacking a final ν). I have also omitted Cramer’s notes on such minor differences between his text and O. Finally, I have corrected or revised Cramer’s text without note in line with current standard conventions in the following ways: (1) changed Cramer’s capitalization of sacred names (e.g., Θέος; Κύριος) to lower-case; (2) changed Cramer’s use of a grave accent on an ultima before a comma to an acute accent; (3) read Δαυίδ for Cramer’s Δαβίδ. For the scriptural lemmas of James quoted in CatJas, I compare the readings with na28 and the Byzantine text, noting differences between those two textual traditions and corresponding differences with Codices O and P.202 Thus, unless otherwise noted, one may assume that the printed text represents an agreement between na28, Byzantine, O and P. Punctuation of the Greek text reflects my adjustments to Cramer’s text. 8.3 Translations of CatCE A twelfth-century Armenian translation preserves another version of the CatCE.203 This translation was completed in 1163 and corrected in 1176 by Nersēs Lambronacʿi, bishop of Tarsus. The translation is based on a Greek codex brought from Constantinople. It is largely a faithful version of the text preserved in the Cramer edition, although occasionally the readings are expanded and individual scholia are in a slightly different order. In addition, it includes some scholia not witnessed in the Greek manuscripts used by Cramer and 201 202

203

In a few cases, I have accepted an agreement between O and R against P and V if the reading makes the best grammatical sense. Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpoint, The New Testament in the original Greek: Byzantine textform. Southborough, MA: Chilton, 2005. Accessed through Accordance biblical studies software. Renoux, Charles, ed., La chaîne arménienne sur les Ėpîtres Catholiques. 4 vols. po 43/1, 44/2, 46/1–2, 47/2. Turnhout: Brepols, 1985–1996. Vol. i. La chaîne sur l’Ėpître de Jacques. cpgC180.

46

introduction

Staab. The translation’s editor, Charles Renout, thus concludes that the Armenian translator used a manuscript different from those known to these modern scholars. Attributions of the scholia are of three types: (1) unattributed; (2) attributed to the patristic author; (3) attributed to Nersēs Lambronacʿi. Most of the scholia in category (3) are reworked versions of unattributed scholia witnessed in Cramer’s text.204 The cpg also notes Arabic (C179) and old Slavonic translations (C181) of CatCE. To my knowledge, there is no modern translation of CatCE. Extensive portions, however, were translated into English by Gerald Bray for the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series.205

9

Unattributed Sources of CatCE

9.1 The Anonymous Commentary (ac) on the Catholic Epistles A consensus of scholars agree that the foundation of CatCE is a collection of unattributed scholia, which the cpg designates as “Commentarius primigenius” (cpg-C175) and Staab designates as the Anonymous Commentary (ac). I adopt Staab’s terminology in this contribution. 9.2 Staab’s Analysis of the ac Staab estimates that in CatCE 180 scholia are attributed to authors, and 240 are unattributed. The percentage of unattributed scholia increases as the CatCE progresses: in James, they account for about one third of the whole, in the letters of Peter about half, in the Johannine letters about three quarters, and in Jude about five-sixths. As Staab notes, these facts alone suggest the possibility that CatCE was originally composed of an Urkatene, a collection of anonymous scholia, to which a later editor added attributed scholia.206 Staab finds this Urkatene witnessed in the eleventh-century manuscripts Vat. gr. 1270 (ga 621) and the thirteenth–fourteenth century Vat. gr 652 (ga 1842), with another recension in the tenth century Codex Patmos 263.207 These manuscripts do in fact witness what Staab suggests: a string of unattributed scholia commenting on the text of the ce. CatCE and these other 204 205 206 207

Renoux, 11–22. Bray, ed., James, 1–2Peter, 1–3John, Jude, accs New Testament 11 (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000). Staab, 331. For a description of these manuscripts, see Staab, 331–333, 340. Parpulov identifies the Patmos manuscript as a witness of CatCE.

introduction

47

manuscripts clearly share a literary relationship, as the content and order of numerous scholia overlap considerably, and the wording of several passages is identical. 9.3 The Textual Witnesses of the ac In addition to the three manuscripts identified by Staab as textual witnesses of the ac, one can add the scholia to the ce printed by Matthaei (see sect. 8.2.3 above). Staab himself did not consider Matthaei’s edition a reliable witness to the ac: he thinks its scholia were drawn from CatJas.208 I find, however, that the James scholia in Matthaei’s edition and the texts isolated by Staab are remarkably close in both content and order, and thus that Matthaei’s edition is a reliable witness. This conclusion is shared by Devreesse, who finds that, putting aside some negligible differences, one can say that Matthaei’s text is quite simply the anonymous foundation of Cramer’s text.209 The editors of the cpg similarly list Matthaei’s edition as a witness to the ac (“Commentarius primigenitus” = cpg-C175). In his catalogue, Parpulov identifies a total of twenty-five manuscripts of the ac.210 I thus use Matthaei’s edition, ga 621, and ga 1842 as witnesses to the ac.211 In my commentary, I take agreement between two of these witnesses as a sufficient basis for attribution to the ac. 9.4 Profile of the ac As noted, the ac is comprised of unattributed scholia. By comparison with CatCE and other sources, however, one can identify the sources for many of them. Following is a list of sources for some of the scholia in the ac: – Chrysostom: Sch. 1.14, 4.22a, 5.12ab212 – Cyril of Alexandria: Sch. 1.7, 2.19, 5.14 – Didymus: Sch. 1.4, 1.9, 4.7 – Isidore of Pelusium: Sch 1.18, 3.7, 3.8 – Origen: Sch. 1.11, 5.13 – Severus: 1.13; 1.17; 2.18

208 209 210 211 212

Staab, 299 n. 1 and 315 n. 2. Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1225. References to cpg-C175 in Parpulov, Catalogue. I have not accessed Staab’s third witness, Codex Patmos 263. Staab (317) argues that the original ac did not contain scholia from Chrysostom, and that the passages identified here are later additions to the ac. I am unaware of any textual evidence for this assertion, however, and so I consider that they were original.

48

introduction

In addition to these authors, Staab also notes that scholia that are elsewhere attributed to Apollinarius and Theodoret are included in the ac.213 It is unclear whether the compiler of the ac drew his material from an original Urkatene with author lemmata and then suppressed the names, or whether he simply drew from various patristic authors without attribution. In his analysis of one of the ac witnesses, Staab comments that it makes little difference whether one labels it an Urkommentar that drew freely on patristics sources, or an Urkatene in which the author lemmata were suppressed.214 In my view, the original source of the ac did have attributions (see sect. 11 below). The sources of several ac scholia remain unidentified. It is likely that many of these were drawn from marginal glosses in biblical manuscripts rather than from works of patristic authors. It is also possible that they are the work of the compiler of the ac himself. The ac is by no means a comprehensive commentary; it is rather focused on the exegesis of certain select passages. In this sense it is connected with scholia commentaries and commentaries of the questions-and-responses genre (see sects. 4.3.1 and 5.6.2 above). Staab characterizes the exegetical comments of the ac as closely focused on the scriptural text, as using a “literal-historical” (as opposed to an Alexandrianstyle allegorical) approach, and as concerned especially with the ethical and pedagogical value of the biblical text.215 I find Staab’s characterization to be accurate. To illustrate, I briefly summarize the central interests of the scholia deriving from the ac authors identified at the beginning of this sections: – A careful exegesis of the meaning of certain terms in James – “double-minded” (Sch. 1.7), “world” (Sch. 3.8; 4.7), “wheel” (Sch. 3.7), “giving birth” (Sch. 1.18) – Reconciling the teaching of James and Paul on the relationship between actions and faith (Sch. 2.18–19) – Teaching on the value of trials with exhortation to bear trials well (Sch. 1.4, 1.9, 1.11) – Analysis of James’ teaching on the types of temptation to sin, with exhortation to resist temptations to evil (Sch. 1.13, 1.14) – Exhortation to literally follow the commandment prohibiting the swearing of all oaths (Sch. 5.12ab, 5.13, 5.14)

213 214 215

Staab, 338. Staab, 339–340. Staab, 340.

49

introduction

9.5 The Relationship between the ac and CatJas Von Soden had argued that ac textual witnesses ga 621 and ga 1842 took their texts from CatCE,216 but Staab concluded that the relationship is reversed: these texts are witnesses of an Urkommentar that is the foundational source of CatCE. His main evidence for his conclusion is his comparison of individual scholia shared by CatCE and ac: Staab adduces several examples where ac readings clarify or fill in lacunae in CatCE.217 The editors of the cpg have followed Staab’s judgment, referring to the ac as the Commentarius primignius, and stating that this commentary “fundus est catenae Andreae” (cpg-C176), i.e., the CatCE.218 My analysis of CatJas and the ac, however, concludes that the relationship between CatCE (at least as witnessed by CatJas) and the ac (as witnessed in the manuscripts identified above) is much more complex. In the following, I present evidence of this complex relationship, and then draw some conclusions. 9.5.1 Evidence That CatJas Uses the ac as a Source Some examples do indeed suggest that the ac witnesses an earlier text that was taken over by CatCE. For example, a comparison of the beginning of the versions of Sch. 1.28 in CatJas and in the ac (Matthaei, 187–188, to Jas 1:23; ga 621 fol. 59 and ga 1842 77v–78r) shows that the ac clearly provides the fuller context, and CatJas can be seen as an abbreviation.

ac (Matthaei, 187–188, to Jas 1:23)

CatJas to Jas 1:23b–25 (Cramer, 8, lines 19–22)

ὥσπερ ὁ παρακύψας, φησὶν, ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ ὁποῖός τις τὸ σῶμα ὁρᾶ. οὕτω καὶ ὁ διὰ νόμου τῇ πραξει τελειωθεὶς καὶ συνάπτων τῇ ἀκροάσει τὴν πράξιν, καὶ οὗτος διὰ τοῦ

Ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος τὸ σῶμα ὁρᾷ, οὕτω καὶ οὗτος διὰ τοῦ νόμου ὁποῖός τις γέγονε.

216 217 218

Von Soden, Schriften, 273, 686–687. Staab, 335–339. Comments to cpg-C175.

50

introduction

(cont.)

ac (Matthaei, 187–188, to Jas 1:23)

CatJas to Jas 1:23b–25 (Cramer, 8, lines 19–22)

νόμου, ὁποῖός τις γέγονεν ὁρᾷ. διὸ οὐδὲ πρόσωπον εἶπε μόνον, ἀλλὰ “πρόσωπον γενέσεως.” μανθάνομεν γὰρ, οἵους ἡμᾶς ἐποίησεν ὁ πατρικὸς νόμος ἀναγεννήσας διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας.

Διὸ οὐδὲ “πρόσωπον” εἶπε μόνον, ἀλλὰ “πρόσωπον γενέσεως.” Μανθάνομεν γὰρ οἵους ἡμᾶς ἐποίησεν [ὁ πνευματικὸς νὀμος] ἀναγεννήσας διὰ λουτροῦ παλινγενεσίας·

οἱ γὰρ μὴ ἐμμένοντες τῇ [τοιαύτῃ] θέᾳ διὰ τῶν πράξεων καὶ τοῦ χρίσματος,219 ἐπιλανθάνονται. ὁ γὰρ πράξεσιν ἑαυτὸν πονηραῖς ἐκδούς, οὐδὲ, ὅτι εὐεργετεῖται παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ μνημονεῖει.

εἶτα, μὴ ἐμμένοντες τῇ τοιαύτῃ θέᾳ διὰ τῶν πράξεων, καὶ τοῦ χαρίσματος [ἐπιλανθανόμεθα]. ὁ γὰρ πράξεσιν ἑαυτὸν πονηραῖς ἐκδούς, οὐδὲ ὅτι εὐεργετεῖται παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ μνημονεύει. εἰ γὰρ ἐμνημόνευεν ὅτι ἄνωθεν ἐγεννήθη, καὶ ἐδικαιώθη, καὶ ἡγιάσθη, καὶ ἐν υἱοῖς κατελογίσθη θεοῦ, οὐκ ἂν ἔργοις ἑαυτὸν παρεδίδου τοῖς ἀθετοῦσι τὴν χάριν.

At the same time, however, the last part of the passage shows that CatJas knows a fuller version of this scholion, and has not drawn directly on the ac. Several of the examples presented by Staab in order to demonstrate the priority of the ac do not in fact do so. Staab shows that several obscure, isolated comments in Cramer’s text are made intelligible as glosses on specific passages in James when one reads them in the ac (witnessed in ga 621 and ga 1842), since the ac manuscripts, in the form of alternating catena, explicitly show the connection between gloss and scriptural lemma.220 But such examples are only clarifications on Cramer’s printed text—in the O and P manuscripts (in the form of frame catena) used by Cramer, the passages are clearly marked as scholia by the scribe’s system of notation that matches scholia with scriptural passages. These examples, therefore, do not show a priority of the

219 220

D = χαρίσματος. Staab, 335–336.

introduction

51

ac over CatJas, but rather simply represent two different ways of glossing a text.221 In my estimation, none of Staab’s examples from the James scholia (I did not examine his two examples from 1Peter) show an unambiguous priority of the ac over against CatJas. 9.5.2 Evidence That CatJas Does Not Use the ac Directly The following comparisons show that in many cases where CatJas and the ac share scholia, it can be demonstrated that the ac is not the direct source for CatJas. 9.5.2.1 Cases Where CatJas Scholia Are Only Partially Witnessed in the ac In some cases, the ac witnesses only part of a CatJas scholion, and thus the ac cannot be the source for the entire scholion: e.g., Sch. 1.28, 1.29, 2.7, 2.19, 3.1b, 3.3, 3.4, 3.11, 4.13, 5.6, 5.12a. 9.5.2.2

Cases Where CatJas and the ac Attest Different Versions of the Same Scholion In a few cases, the CatJas and the ac versions of the same basic scholion differ significantly: e.g., Sch. 1.17, 1.24, 4.5, and 4.10. 9.5.2.3

Cases Where CatJas Reads Scholia in a Different Order or Has Different Combinations of Scholia In a handful of cases, CatJas and ac read common scholia in a different order, with no obvious reason for a change in order: cf. Sch. 1.19–20; 5.12–5.14. In other cases, scholia that are separate in CatJas are fused in the ac: Sch. 1.25–1.27; 2.5., and 4.5 /4.7. 9.5.2.4 Cases Where CatJas Witnesses a Fuller Primary Source In several passages where both CatJas and ac witness a scholion that is attested elsewhere, one can see that CatJas does not rely on the ac version, but rather witnesses a text much closer to the original source. For example, in Sch. 1.11 both CatJas and the ac witness a scholion that may derive originally from Origen. The following comparison between the ac, CatJas, and a fragment attributed to Origen in an Exodus catena tradition shows that the CatJas scholion goes beyond the ac text, and, with the editorial comment Καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα, shows an awareness that it is editing the original source. 221

One must recall that Staab did not have direct access to codices O and P, but rather had to rely on Cramer’s text, see Staab, 288–289.

52

introduction

Cat. Exod. to Exod 15:25 (Petit, Chaîne sur l’Exode, 4:7)

CatJas to Jas 1:13 (Cramer, 5, lines 7–13)

ac (Matthaei, 184, to Jas 1:13)222

Ὅτε ὁ θεὸς πειράζει, ἐπ’ ὠφελείᾳ πειράζει, οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ κακοποιῆσαι. Διὸ καὶ ἐλέχθη ὅτι Ὁ θεὸς ἀπείραστός ἐστι κακῶν,

[Ὅτε] ὁ θεὸς πειράζων ἐπ’ ὠφελείᾳ πειράζει, οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ κακοποιῆσαι. Διὸ καὶ ἐλέχθη ὅτι “ὁ θεὸς ἀπείραστός ἐστι κακῶν·” [τουτέστι διὰ τοῦτο πειράζει, ἵνα τύχωσι τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ ἀπαλλαγῶσι κακῶν.]

Ὅτε ὁ θεὸς πειράζει, ἐπ’ ὠφελείᾳ πειράζει, οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ κακοποιῆσαι. διό, φησιν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀπείραστός ἐστι κακῶν.”

ὡς καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα

Τουτέστι διὰ τοῦτο πειράζει, ἵνα ἐὰν ὑπακούσωσι τῷ θεῷ οἱ ἄνθρωποι, τύχωσιν ἀγαθῶν.

Καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα—

ἐπάγει ὁ λόγος· “Ἐὰν ἀκοῇ ἀκούσῃς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου, πᾶσαν νόσον, ἣν ἐπήγαγον τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις, οὐκ ἐπάξω ἐπὶ σέ.” Ὁ οὖν φέρων τοὺς πειρασμοὺς γενναίως, στεφανοῦται.

Ὁ οὖν φέρων τοὺς πειρασμοὺς γενναίως, στεφανοῦται·

Ἄλλο δέ ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοῦ διαβόλου· ἐκεῖνος πειράζει ἵνα τοὺς πειθομένους αὐτῷ θανατώσῃ· καὶ ὁ μὲν οὐκ ἀγνοῶν τὸ ἐσόμενον, ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἰδὼς μὲν τὸ ἐσόμενον, πλὴν διδοὺς τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ

Ἄλλο δέ ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοῦ διαβόλυ. ἐκεῖνος γὰρ πειράζει, ἵνα τοὺς πειθομένους αὐτῷ θανατώσῃ· καὶ ὁ μὲν ἀγνοῶν τὸ ἐσόμενον, ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἰδὼς μὲν τὸ ἐσόμενον, πλὴν διδοὺς τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ

222 223

ὁ δὲ διάβολος πειράζει, ἵνα τοὺς πειθομένους αὐτῷ θανατώσῃ· καὶ ὁ μὲν ἀγνοῶν τὸ ἐσόμενον. Ὁ θεὸς εἰδὼς μὲν τὸ ἐσόμενον,223 πλὴν διδοὺς τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ,

ga 621ff. 58r–58v reads essentially this same text. Note the ambiguity of the evidence: CatJas and ac agree on this line over against the more complete version read in Migne.

53

introduction (cont.)

Cat. Exod. to Exod 15:25 (Petit, Chaîne sur l’Exode, 4:7)

CatJas to Jas 1:13 (Cramer, 5, lines 7–13)

πράττειν ὃ θέλει διὰ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον

πράττειν ὃ θέλει διὰ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον.

ac (Matthaei, 184, to Jas 1:13)

ὃ θέλει διὰ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον.

We see this same phenomenon in Sch. 1.13, as shown in the following comparison. The original source of this scholion is a work of Severus.

Palestinian Cat. Pss to Ps 50:7 (Dorival, “Nouveaux fragments,” 109)

CatJas to Jas 1:13 (Cramer, 5, lines 17–28)

ac (Matthaei, 184–185, to Jas 1:15)

Τινὲς δὲ καὶ ἑτέρως τὸ προκείμενον ῥητὸν ἐπειράθησαν ἐξηγήσασθαι, φήσαντες,

Τινὲς δὲ τὸ προκείμενον ῥητὸν [οὕτως] ἐπειράθησαν [ἐξηγήσασθαι], φήσαντες, αὐτὴν τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀνομιῶνμητέρα καλεῖν τὸν [Δαυίδ]. Ἥτις διὰ τῆς ἀτοπωτάτης ὀρέξεως οἱονεὶ [συλλαβοῦσα] καὶ κύουσα τὴν πρᾶξιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀποτίκτει καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν ἁμαρτωλὸν [τὸν] ταύτην ἐνεργοῦντα καὶ πράττοντα, καὶ πέρας τῶν τοιούτων ὠδίνων ποιεῖται· τοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντος τὸν θάνατον. οὕτως γὰρ ἐπιστέλλων Ἰάκωβος ἔφησεν, εἷς [τῶν σοφῶν Χριστοῦ μαθητῶν·] “ἕκαστος δὲ πειράζεται, ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἐξελκόμενος καὶ

τὸ, “ἕκαστος δὲ πειράζεται,” τινὲς οὕτως ἡρμήνευσαν.

αὐτὴν τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀνομιῶνμητέρα καλεῖν τὸν Δαβὶδ, ἥτις διὰ τῆς ἀτοπωτάτης ὀρέξεως οἱονεὶ συλλαβοῦσα καὶ κύουσα τὴν πρᾶξιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀποτίκτει, καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν ἁμαρτωλὸν τὸν ταύτην ἐνεργοῦντα καὶ πράττοντα καὶ πέρας τῶν τοιούτων ὠδίνων ποιεῖται τοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντος τὸν θάνατον· οὕτω γὰρ ἐπιστέλλων Ἰάκωβος ἔφησεν, “ἕκαστος δὲ πειράζεται, ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἐξελκόμενος καὶ

Έπειράθησαν γὰρ αὐτὴν τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀνομιῶν μητέρα εἰπεῖν τὸν δαυίδ, ἥτις διὰ τῆς ἀτοπωτάτης ὀρέξεως οἱονεὶ συλλαμβάνουσα καὶ κύουσα, τὴν πρᾶξιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀποτίκτει. καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν ἁμαρτωλὸν τόν ταύτην ἐνεργοῦντα καὶ πράττοντα· καὶ πέρας τῶν τοιούτων ὠδίνων ποιεῖται τοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντος τὸν θάνατον.

54

introduction

(cont.)

Palestinian Cat. Pss to Ps 50:7 (Dorival, “Nouveaux fragments,” 109)

CatJas to Jas 1:13 (Cramer, 5, lines 17–28)

ac (Matthaei, 184–185, to Jas 1:15)

δελεαζόμενος, εἶτα ἡ ἐπιθυμία συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν, ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖσα ἀποκύει θάνατον·” ὑπὸ ταύτης οὖν τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ κεκισσῆσθαι καὶ συνειλῆφθαι καθὰ δὴ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν μητρὸς ἔφησεν ὁ Δαβίδ.

δελεαζόμενος· εἶτα ἡ ἐπιθυμία συλλαβοῦσα, τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν· ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία [ἀποτελεσθεῖσα] ἀποκύει θάνατον·” ὑπὸ ταύτης οὖν τῆς ἐπιθυμίας κεκισσῆσθαι καὶ συνειλῆφθαι καθὰ δὴ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν μητρὸς ἔφησεν ὁ [Δαυίδ].

ὑπὸ ταύτης οὖν τῆς ἐπιθυμίας κισσῆσθαι καὶ συνηλῆφθαι καθὰ δὴ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν μητρὸς ἔφησεν ὁ δαβίδ

Again, clearly CatJas does not draw directly on the ac; rather the ac can be understood as a shortening of the longer text witnessed in CatJas. Other examples where the reading of CatJas is clearly closer to the original source than the ac version: Sch. 1.7 (Cyril), 1.9 (Didymus), 1.14 (Chrysostom), 1.18 (Isidore), 2.18 (Severus), 2.19 (Cyril), 3.7 and 3.8 (Isidore), and 4.7 (Didymus). Staab himself recognized that in some cases the CatCE texts witness a richer and more correct version of texts vís a vís the ac, and thus CatJas could be considered as the source. He attributes such cases, however, to corruptions that have crept into the primary witnesses ga 621 and ga 1842, both of which he dates to the 13th–14th centuries.224 Such speculative claims, however, are not convincing. 9.5.3

Ambiguous Evidence of Literary Relationship but No Evident Priority The wording of several other shared scholia is virtually identical, and thus gives no indication that one text was borrowed from the other: e.g., Sch. 1.22, 1.24, 1:25, 1:31a, 2.10, 3.15, 4.11, 5.12b, 5.13, 5.14, and 5.22. To this ambiguous category we can

224

Staab, 339. More recent scholars (Parpulov, Catalogue; intf Liste) agree with his dating of ga 1842, but place ga 621 in the eleventh century.

introduction

55

also add the examples noted by Staab that can be characterized as simply two different methods of connecting scholia with their scriptural referent (see sect. 9.5.1 above). 9.5.4 Does the ac Use CatJas as a Source? The evidence presented thus far in section 9.5 seems conclusive: CatJas did not draw directly on the ac as it is witnessed in extant manuscripts (see sect. 9.3 above). We must consider the opposite alternative: did the ac use CatJas as source? This option should also be rejected. Very few of the cases discussed or enumerated in sects. 9.5.1–3 clearly support the ac’s use of CatJas: they are either ambiguous or clearly show that CatJas was not used. In addition, one must conclude with Staab that it is implausible that the compiler of the ac would have chosen to excerpt only anonymous scholia from CatJas and ignore such rich material as the numerous scholia from Chrysostom that are found in CatCE but not in the ac.225 9.5.5 Conclusions on the Relationship between CatJas and the ac The evidence considered in sect. 9.5.1–4 demonstrates that in spite of the clear literary relationship between many of the scholia found in CatJas and the ac, there is no direct literary relationship between the two works. The evidence points rather to the use by both CatJas and the ac of a common fund of exegetical materials (e.g., a common use of scholia collections, commentaries, or catenae). The conclusion that the ac is the direct foundation of CatCE, taken as established by Staab, Devreesse, and the cpg editors, must be qualified, at least for CatJas. For clarity’s sake, I shall refer to this common fund of exegetical materials as “ac materials,” as distinct from the ac (as witnessed in the manuscripts identified in sect. 9.3 above) itself. I conclude then, that both CatJas and the ac drew on this “ac materials” source. 9.6 The Glosses Source (gs) Staab identifies the tenth-century manuscript Vat. gr. 1971 (= ga 1845) as the source of several short, unattributed glosses in CatJas that are not witnessed in the manuscripts of the ac.226 In codices O and P, these glosses are not given

225 226

Staab, 337. Staab, 343. Parpulov (Catalogue, 177) dates the manuscript to the first half of the eleventh century. ga 1845 is not a catena, but rather gives the biblical text in two columns, with short glosses written in the margins. Staab notes that the biblical text and the marginal scholia are from the same hand.

56

introduction

sequential reference numbers as are most of the scholia; rather, each is given a special symbol (e.g. ÷) that connects the scholion with its referent in the biblical text. This reference system shows that these glosses were added at a later stage, after the main composition of the catena—they are given special symbols so as not to break the already established numerical sequence of the previously written scholia.227 Staab notes that ga 1845 could not be the direct source for the scholia of CatJas, since its tenth-century date is too late to have been the direct source for the glosses witnessed already in the tenth-century codex P. Staab therefore posits that ga 1845 itself depends on an earlier manuscript. He suggests that certain CatJas scholia, such as Sch. 2.23 and 2.24, lacking in the ac and in ga 1845, likely derived from this earlier source. The cpg identifies ga 1845 as a witness to what it labels as the Catena abbreuiata prima; a note explains that “The catena is formed from extracts of the cpg-C176 (= CatCE) catena.” As discussed above, Staab’s analysis does not support this conclusion. Rather the relationship is reversed: ga 1845 witnesses to a glossed manuscript (not a catena) that CatCE draws upon. The CatJas manuscripts incorporate scholia from ga 1845 in different ways. P incorporates some of the scholia (sometimes editing them) into its commentary text, locates others in the margins of the commentary frame, and omits still others. Codex V in general omits them, though some traces remain, as in a comment to 1Pet 1:12. O includes many of them, even when their original sense has been lost.228 They are lacking in Armenian CatJas. As Staab noted, ga 1845 is not the sole source of the glosses in CatCE. In this study, I will use the shorthand symbol gs (“Glosses Source”) to reference both ga 1845 and other related manuscripts that witness (generally) short glosses. Under this gs rubric, I include manuscripts used by Matthaei, 8–43. In this section of his edition, Matthaei used other manuscripts outside of “D” (ga 103) and “H” (ga 463)—the witnesses to the ac. Within the gs category are several glosses that are read in P but lacking in O, including the following: – Jas 1:5: P (fol. 192r) glosses the word “wisdom” with πνευματικὴ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρωπινή (“spiritual and not human”). – Jas 1:8: P (fol. 192r) glosses δίψυχος with δίγνωρος (“wavering [lit.: of two minds”] in his faith). gs (ga 1845 fol. 94r) glosses the same word with δίγνωρος, ὑποκριτίς.

227 228

Staab, 342–344. See sect. 2.3.3 above. See Staab, 342.

introduction

57

– Jas 1:9: P (fol. 192r) glosses ἐν τῷ ὕψει αὐτοῦ with ἐν τῇ πίστει αὐτοῦ (“in his faith”); gs (ga 1845 fol. 94r) glosses the same passage with ἐν τῇ πρὸς θεὸν πίστει: the humble person’s high or honored position is his or faith. – Jas 1:10: P (fol. 192r) glosses ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ with ὅταν ἑαυτὸν δουλώσῃ τῷ θεῷ (“when the person enslaves himself to God”); the gs (ga 1845 fol. 94r) witnesses the same gloss. – Jas 5:16: P (fol. 205v) glosses, ὅτ’ ἄν ὁ προσευχόμενος καὶ ὑπερ οὖ προσεύχεται σύμψυχοι ὦσι ἐπὶ τοῦ ζητουμένου (“whenever the one praying and the one for whom he prays are of one mind on what is requested”) (= Sch. 5.17). This gloss is also witnessed in gs (ga 1845 fol. 98r to Jas 5:16) Manuscripts of the gs not infrequently witness versions of scholia that are found in a more expanded form in the ac (e.g., Sch. 2.7).

10

Patristic Sources of CatJas

10.1 List of Patristic Sources for CatJas The following patristic authors have been identified as sources for scholia in CatJas; following each is the approximate number of authentic scholia.229 – Unattributed source – Apollinarius of Laodicea (2; neither authentic) – Basil of Caesarea (1) – Cyril of Alexandria (10) – Didymus of Alexandria (2) – Dionysius of Alexandria (1) – John Chrysostom (30) – Hesychius of Jerusalem (5; none authentic)

– Isidore of Pelusium (3; authentic, but unattributed) – Maximus the Confessor (2; authentic but unattributed) – Origen (3?) – Severian of Gabala (3) – Severus of Antioch (7) – Shepherd of Hermas (1) – Theodore the Monk (= Theodore of Mopsuestia?) (1) – Theodoret of Cyrrhus (1)

10.2 Patristic Authors Cited in CatCE outside of CatJas According to information from the studies of Cramer, Karo-Lietzmann, and Staab, scholia from the following authors are used elsewhere in CatCE but are

229

For other lists of patristic scholia sources in CatCE, see Cramer, 597–598; Karo-Lietzmann, Catalogus, 596; Staab, 307. For details on the authenticity see the individual entries in sect. 10.4 below.

58

introduction

not used in CatJas. Number of scholia are listed after the author’s name: – Ammonius of Alexandria: 1 – Athanasius: 2 – Ephraem: 1 – Eusebius of Caesarea: 6 – Eusebius of Emesa: 2230 – Gregory Nazianzus: 1231 – Philo: 1232 – Timothy: 1233 10.3 Old Testament Passages Used as Scholia In a few cases, a passage from the Old Testament is used as a scholion. – Sir 28:18–20 to Jas 3.5 (Sch. 3.6) – 3Kgdms 17:1 lxx to Jas 5.17 (Sch. 5.119) – Prov 27:1 seems to have been added independently to a composite scholion on Jas 4:14–17 (Sch. 4.22) – The lemma to Sch. 4.7 attributes it to Proverbs, but the scholion is in fact drawn from Didymus’ Enarratio on the ce. 10.4 Individual Patristic Authors Used in CatJas In my survey of each individual patristic author used in CatJas I utilize the following format. 1. List the author’s scholia as witnessed in the four main manuscripts of CatJas. If all four manuscripts witness an attribution (or all three of the extant witnesses to Jas 1:1–17; R is lacunose), I do not cite the individual manuscripts. 2. List the total number of the author’s scholia in CatCE 3. List the lemma or lemmata used to identify the author in CatJas 4. Discuss the authenticity of the scholia attributed to the author 5. Briefly place the author in his historical context, noting especially any information relevant for catena study. I rely primarily on the odcc for this information. 230 231 232

233

See Cramer, 597 and Staab, 309–310 for cases where it is unclear which Eusebius is referenced. Witnessed in ga 018 fol. 30v, but not in the main manuscripts. Staab (307) notes that it is unclear whether this references Philo of Alexandria or Philo of Carpasia, a fourth-century Christian commentator cited often in scholia on the Song of Songs (cf. cpg-C82, 84). Devreesse (Chaînes exégétiques, 1226), thinks it may derive from Philo of Alexandria’s Questions on Genesis, a source used often in early catenae. This attribution to an otherwise unknown Timothy is found only in codex P in a scholion to 1Pet 3:19.

59

introduction

10.4.1 Unnamed Author Scholion in CatJas: 1 – Sch. 1.1 to Jas 1:1 Total ce scholia: 1 In catena study, one must distinguish between (1) unattributed scholia (i.e., scholia not accompanied by any author lemma) and (2) scholia deliberately designated in the manuscript as unattributed with the author lemma Ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφου (“from an unnamed author”). This lemma is witnessed only once in CatJas (Sch. 1.1 to Jas 1:1). In other catenae the designation is more frequent: in Codex Zacynthius, for example, it is witnessed thirty-two times.234 The lemma may indicate not simply that the author is unknown, but rather that the catenist drew the scholion from a collection of scholia with the heading Ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφου.235 Staab suggests that the CatCE compiler refers to the entire ac,236 with all of its unattributed scholia, with this lemma, but it more likely that the term is limited to this scholion only. 10.4.2

Apollinarius of Laodicea (C. 310–C. 390)237

Scholia in CatJas: 2

O P V R attribution attribution attribution attribution Sch. 2.5 to Jas 2:6–7 Apollinarius na Sch. 2.6 to Jas 2:8–9 na

Lacking

Continuous with Sch. 2.4 (Chrysostom) Apollinarius Apollinarius Apollinarius

Total ce scholia: 2238

234 235

236 237 238

So Panagiotis Manafis, “The Sources of Codex Zacynthius and their Treatment,” in Houghton and Parker, eds., Codex Zacynthius: Catena, 100. See Houghton, “Layout and Structure,” 63, who cites Max Rauer’s (Homilien zu Lukas, lvii) judgment that scholia with this lemma derive from a scholia collection, “a sort of Urkatene.” Staab, 337. See also Staab, 308; cpg-3695. Numbers for total scholia are taken from Cramer, Karo-Lietzmann, and Staab. I have not verified them independently.

60

introduction

Author lemmata – Ἀπολιναρίου (“from Apollinarius”) Authenticity of the CatJas scholia I have been unable to find the two scholia in any writing attributed to Apollinarius; I have also been unable to identify any other source. Historical context Apollinarius, the son of a grammarian at Beirut, received a classical education. When the Emperor Julian forbade Christians to use pagan classics, he and his father rewrote much of the Bible in classical forms. He became bishop of Laodicea around 360. His reputation for both the quality and quantity of his ot and nt commentaries drew the catenists to his work; these original commentaries are lost. Scholia from these works appear in the Palestinian catenae on Psalms, and in catenae on prophets, Proverbs, and Romans.239 Although he opposed the Arian movements and was a close friend of Athanasius, he was criticized by orthodox Christians for denying the presence of a human mind and soul in Christ, and his teaching was condemned by synods at Rome in 374–380 and by Council of Constantinople (381). He is identified as a heterodox author in some catenae traditions; Jerome (Ep. 62.2) mentions him as a heterodox author whose scriptural exegesis is still useful (see sect. 6 above). 10.4.3 Basil of Caesarea (c. 330–379)240 Scholion in CatJas – Sch. 3.9 to Jas 3:6. Total ce scholia: 9 Author lemmata Staab reports all author lemmata in the ce refer to Basil as “saint Basil” (τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου); V also gives him the attribute “great” (μεγάλου).241 Basil, with Cyril of Alexandria and John Chrysostom, are the only three authors to receive the epithet ἁγίος (“saint”) in CatJas. Some lemmata reference specific works of Basil, including Sch. 3.9 (P, R), which refers to the specific Psalm verse on which Basil comments.

239 240 241

Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1127. See also Staab, 310–311; cpg-2907.12. Staab, 311.

61

introduction

Authenticity of the CatJas scholia The single scholion in CatJas is an authentic quotation from one of Basil’s homilies. Based on their moral and ascetic character, Staab conjectures that Basil’s ce scholia are drawn from his homilies242—this is certainly the case for the single James scholion. Historical context One of the three great Cappadocian theologians; brother of Gregory of Nyssa and Macrina. He received a classical education at Caesarea in Cappadocia, Constantinople, and Athens. In 370, he was appointed bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. He defended the value of a classic education for Christians.243 Basil is cited in the early Palestinian catenae on Psalms and is recognized by Nicetas as one of the “divine fathers” (θεῖοι πατέρες): (see sect. 6 above). 10.4.4

Cyril of Alexandria (Ca. 380–444)244

Scholia in CatJas

Scholion

O attribution P attribution V attribution R attribution

1.7 to Jas 1:6–7 2.19 to Jas 2:20–21 2.20 to Jas 2:22 2.21 to Jas 2:23–24 3.3 to Jas 3:2 4.19 to Jas 4:11–12 4.21 to Jas 4:13 5.3 on Jas 5:1–5 5.6 to Jas 5:7 5.13 to Jas 5:12

Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril

Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril

Cyril Lacking Cyril na Cyril Cyril Cyril Lacking Cyril Cyril

Lacuna Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril Cyril na Cyril Cyril Cyril

Total ce scholia: 38 Migne (pg 74:1007–1024) has collected the Cyril scholia from the Cramer edition of CatCE (1007–1012 on CatJas), but this listing is unreliable, as it includes 242 243 244

Staab, 310–311. Basil Leg. lib. gent. (Deferarri, trans., 4:378–435). See also Staab, 311–312; cpg-5210.

62

introduction

some spurious scholia and is missing some genuine ones.245 Philip Pusey’s collections of Cyril’s fragments on the ce in his edition of Cyril’s works is more reliable.246 Staab adds further examples.247 Author lemmata – Κυρίλλου (usual in O) – τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου (“saint Cyril”; P regularly uses ἁγίου; used occasionally in V and R) – τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου Αλεξανδρειας (“from saint Cyril of Alexandria”: P) – τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Αλεξανδρειας (“from saint Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria”) – Specific sources in Cyril’s work are also cited: – Cyril on Romans (Sch. 2.19, O, P, R) – Cyril on Luke (Sch. 4.20, P, R).248 Authenticity of the CatJas scholia CatJas draws from Cyril’s exegetical works on Genesis, Isaiah, Romans, Matthew, and Luke. Sources for Scholia 3.3 and 4.21 have not been identified. The catenae tradition attributes Sch. 5.13 to both Cyril and Origen; possibly Cyril used Origen in his own commentary.249 Historical context Cyril, bishop of Alexandria from 412 until his death in 444, was a major representative of the “Alexandrian” school of theology and scriptural exegesis, and a critic of such Antiochene writers as Theodore of Mopsuestia. He presided over the Council of Ephesus (431) that condemned the views of Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople. In later years, he sought to reconcile with more moderate Antiochenes. Both the supporters of the Council of Chalcedon (451), held after his death, and the miaphysite opponents of the Council (such as Severus of Antioch) claimed the support of Cyril for their views (see sect. 10.4.12 below).250 245 246

247 248 249 250

Staab, 311. s.p.n. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis evangelium, ed. Philip E. Pusey, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1872), 3: 445–451. Pusey includes scholia from codices O, ga 018, and Escorial Γ ii. 1. Staab, 311–312. Other specific sources are named in ce lemmata outside CatJas; see Cramer, 597. Devreesse (Chaînes exégétiques, 1134) also notes the attribution of the same scholia to both Cyril and Origen in certain catenae on Psalms. The term “Monophysite” is often seen as a misleading label for Severus’ teaching and has been rejected by many Oriental Orthodox Christians. I shall use the term occasionally, due

introduction

63

Cyril wrote commentaries on Isaiah, the Twelve Prophets, Psalms, the Gospels of Matthew, Luke (given as homilies), and John, and several Pauline Epistles. Much of this exegetical work is preserved only in catenae. He was known for his preaching, although few of his homilies, outside of those on Luke, have been preserved.251 Various catenae traditions make extensive use of Cyril’s work; he is considered one of the leading orthodox authorities. Lamb notes that the Catena on Mark is deliberately constructed to support Cyril’s Christology.252 Cyril is also the latest author cited in the Catena to Mark.253 10.4.5

Didymus of Alexandria (c. 313–398) and the Enarratio on the Catholic Epistles254 Scholia in CatJas255 – Sch. 1.2 on Jas 1:1 – Sch. 4.16 to Jas 4:6 Total scholia in CatCE: 5 Author lemmata – Διδύμου (“from Didymus”) Authenticity of the CatJas scholia See the detailed discussion below. Historical context According to Rufinus, Didymus of Alexandria (also known as “Didymus the Blind,” due to his loss of sight in childhood) taught, with the approval of Athanasius, at the church school at Alexandria (Hist. 11.7).256 Since later church

251 252 253 254 255 256

to its prevalence in scholarly literature, but prefer “miaphysite” as (to my understanding) a less polemical term. Sources: E.R. Hardy, “Cyrillus von Alexandrien,” tre 254–260; odcc, 446–447. Lamb, Catena in Marcum, 72; 175–178. Lamb, Catena in Marcum, 68. See also Staab, 314–320; cpg-2562. R (fol. 13v) also attributes Sch 5.2 to Didymus; the other three manuscripts attribute this scholion to Hesychius. Scholars frequently identify Didymus as the head of the catechetical school at Alexandria, but his exact role at the school, together with the exact nature of the school, is unclear. For a discussion on this passage, see Richard A. Layton, Didymus the Blind and His Circle in Late-Antique Alexandria: Virtue and Narrative in Biblical Scholarship (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2004), 15–16.

64

introduction

authorities (e.g., Council of Constantinople, 553) condemned him as a heretic for his Origenist views, much of his writing is no longer extant. Nicetas specifically excluded him from his catenae (see sect. 6 below). His numerous exegetical works are thus largely preserved only through catenae, scholia, and the 1941 papyrus finds at Tura.257 Analyzing the scholia of Didymus of Alexandria is crucial for the study of CatJas, as Staab argues that Didymus is the main source of scholia for the ac, which itself is the foundation on which CatJas and the entire CatCE was built. His view has been widely accepted.258 My research, however, reaches a different conclusion, as I explain below. 10.4.5.1 The Relationship of the Enarratio and CatCE Didymus’s Enarratio on the Catholic Epistles is the earliest extant commentary to all seven of the Catholic Epistles. Cassiodorus (485/90–c. 580) reports that he possessed in his library a manuscript of Didymus’ commentary on the Catholic Epistles, which he had translated into Latin (Div. inst. 1.8.6).259 Many scholars believe that this translation, In Epistolas Catholicas Brevis Enarratio, has been preserved.260 The question of the authenticity of the Enarratio has been closely tied with the analysis of Didymus scholia in CatCE, since CatCE has many scholia that correspond with passages in the Ennaratio. In addition to correspondences with attributed scholia, Erich Klostermann counts forty-two other correspondences with unattributed scholia; Friedrich Zoepfl counts sixty-nine.261 Based on his comparison, Klostermann concluded that the Enarratio was not actually composed by Didymus.262 He notes that only one of the five scholia attributed to Didymus in the CatCE are found in the Enarratio; alternatively, many passages in the CatCE that parallel passages in the Enarratio are anonymous or attributed to authors other than Didymus. Klostermann suggested that the

257 258

259 260

261 262

See Bärbel Kramer, “Didymus von Alexandrien,” tre 8 (1981): 741–742. See Staab, 319–320. Concurring with Staab: James Hardy Ropes, “The Greek Catena to the Catholic Epistles,” htr 19 (1926): 387–388; Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1225–1226; a note on the ac in cpg-C175 refers specifically to Didymus’ Enarratio on the ce as a source. Mynors, ed., 29–30. See Friedrich Zoepfl, ed., Didymi Alexandrini in Epistolas Canonicas Brevis Enarratio, NTAbh 4/1 (Münster: Aschendorf, 1914). A previous publication is found in pg 39:1749– 1818. cpg-2562. Klostermann, Über des Didymus von Alexandrien in Epistolas Canonicas Enarratio, tu n.f. 13 /2 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905), 6–7; Staab, 318. Klostermann, Enarratio, 1–8.

introduction

65

Enarratio was itself actually a catena with, at most, a few genuine fragments from Didymus. Staab defends the Enarratio’s authenticity, offering a detailed response to Klostermann. Among Staab’s major points: (1) several of the scholia attributed to Didymus in CatCE are likely drawn from other exegetical writings of Didymus, (2) two scholia witnessed in both CatCE and the Ennaratio were falsely ascribed to other authors, (3) many scholia in CatCE with parallels in the Enarratio are unattributed due to the fact that CatCE drew them not directly from the Enarratio, but rather from the ac, a source that used scholia from the Enarratio extensively, but without attribution.263 Staab thus concluded that the Enarratio is a genuine work of Didymus and that it served as the foundation for the ac. With many scholars, I find Staab’s argument that the Enarratio is a genuine work of Didymus convincing; I disagree, however, with his conclusion that the Enarratio is a fundamental source for the ac, at least as far as can be determined from a study of CatJas. The Enarratio comments on only eight brief passages in James. Of these, only five are taken over in CatJas (marked with an asterisk below). – Jas 1:1 * – Jas 1:2–4* – Jas 1:12* – Jas 1:17 – Jas 2:26 – Jas 3:2 – Jas 4:2–3* – Jas 4:4* The following summary compares the use of the same scholia in these three sources. – Sch 1.1 on Jas 1:1: CatJas attributes to “an unnamed author.” Partially witnessed in the Enarratio. Not witnessed in the ac. – Sch. 1.2 on Jas 1:1: Attributed to Didymus. A close parallel witnessed in the Enarratio. Not witnessed in the ac. – Sch 1.4 on Jas 1:2–4: Not attributed in CatJas. Partially witnessed in the Enarratio. Fully witnessed in the ac. – Sch. 1.9 on Jas 1:12: Falsely attributed to Chrysostom in CatJas. Fully witnessed in Enarratio. Partially witnessed in ac. – Sch. 4.4ab on Jas 4:3: Not attributed in CatJas. The scholion is from Origen; a close parallel is witnessed in the Enarratio. Not witnessed in the ac.

263

Staab, 315–319.

66

introduction

– Sch. 4.6: Attributed to Origen. A close parallel witnessed in the Enarratio. Not witnessed in the ac. – Sch. 4.7 to Jas 4:4: Falsely attributed to “Proverbs.” A close parallel witnessed in the Enarratio. The ac witnesses the first few lines only. Staab’s conclusion that CatJas did not draw on Enarratio directly, but rather through the medium of the ac is not tenable, at least for the Letter of James. As shown above, of the seven connections between CatJas and the Enarratio, only one is witnessed fully in the ac. Of the seven connections, three (Sch. 1.9, 4.6, and 4.7) show clear evidence of drawing on the Enarratio, one is probable (1.2), one is possible (4.4), and two are only partially witnessed (1.1, 1.4). In addition, CatJas makes no use at all of the extensive commentary in the Enarratio on Jas 1:17, Jas 2:26, and Jas 3:2. Finally, one should recall that the Enarratio itself is quite limited in its scope, commenting on only eight short passages (most are one verse only). Although it seems clear that Didymus’ Enarratio was a source for CatJas, the evidence, at least for James, does not support Staab’s conclusion that Didymus (through the medium of the ac) was the main scholiast (“Haupt-scholiasten”) of CatCE.264 10.4.5.2 Other Didymus Scholia in CatJas and CatCE As noted above, the CatCE attributes five scholia to Didymus; of these, two are in CatJas: Sch. 1.2 (discussed above) and Sch. 4.16 to Jas 4:6. The latter scholion is attributed to Didymus by all four major CatJas codices. Staab suggests that it may derive from a Proverbs commentary of Didymus, although it has not been found among the extant Didymus fragments.265 10.4.6 Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264)266 Scholia in CatJas Sch. 4.2 to Jas 4:1–2. O, P, and R attribute it to Dionysius; it is lacking in V. Some scholars attribute Sch. 1.11 to Dionysius but it is likely from Origen (see Commentary on Sch. 1.11). Total CatCE scholia: 1 Author lemmata – O: Διονυσίου (“from Dionysius”) – P, R: Διονυσίου Ἀλεξανδρείας (“from Dionysius of Alexandria”) 264 265 266

Staab, 319. Staab, 316. Didymus’ fragments on Proverbs see cpg-2552. See also Staab, 308; cpg-1592.

introduction

67

Authenticity of the CatJas scholion As it is found in another catena on Ecclesiastes that draws heavily on Dionysius, it is likely authentic (see Commentary on Sch. 4.2). Historical context Dionysius became bishop of Alexandria in 240. He may have been a student of Origen. His critical biblical exegesis led him to deny the common authorship of the Gospel of John and Revelation.267 10.4.7 John Chrysostom (c. 347–407)268 Scholia in CatJas See detailed discussion below. Total CatCE scholia: 50 Author lemmata: – τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (“from Chrysostom”). This simple attribution is by far the most frequently used – τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (“from saint John Chrysostom”; only in P, used only twice). – Πρὸς ταῦτα οὖν ὁ ἁγίος Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος έξηγούμενος φήσιν (“when interpreting these things, saint John Chrysostom says”) = P; V = Πρὸς ταῦτα οὖν ὁ ἁγίος Ἰωάννης ὁ τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπος έξηγούμενος φήσιν (“when interpreting these things, saint John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, says”) – The monogram chi-rho is also used for Chrysostom’s name on occasion by O, P, and V as an abbreviation. – On a few occasions, the specific Chrysostom work from which the scholion derives is cited: – Sch. 2.3: τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ῥητοῦ προκειμένου ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοὶ μὴ ἐκκακήσητε τὸ καλὸν ποιοῦντες (“from saint John Chrysostom concerning the passage, ‘Brothers and sisters, do not be weary in doing what is right’” [2Thess 3:13; P only]) – Sch 4:22a: Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος (“from Chrysostom from [the Gospel] according to Luke [on the passage] ‘it depends neither on the one willing nor on the one striving’ ” [O, P, R])

267 268

Source: odcc, 487–488. See also Staab, 320–321; cpg-4450.

68

introduction

– Sch. 5.10a: Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ῥητο[ῦ] προκειμένο[υ] “εὐχαριστοῦντες ἐν τῷ θεῷ” (“from Chryosostom on the passage ‘giving thanks to God’ ” [Col 1:12]). Authenticity of the CatJas scholia In the great majority of cases, scholia attributed to Chrysostom are authentic and easily verified by comparison with the direct tradition. There are, however, some exceptions, as discussed below. – False attributions: Sch. 1.9, a scholion taken from Didymus’s Enarratio, is attributed to Chrysostom by O, P, and V (R is lacunose here). As Leitzmann noted, later catena copyists would sometimes supply Chrysostom’s name as a best guess (given that Chrysostom was by far the most frequently cited author in many catenae traditions) when an author lemma had dropped out (see sect. 2.5 above).269 One sees this technique employed by the scribe of V in the CatJas tradition (cf. Sch. 1.6, 3.15; 3.17, 4.10, 4.20, 5.4). In all these cases, the other three codices leave the scholion unattributed, thus suggesting that V’s attribution has little credibility.270 One scholion, Sch. 5.20, attributed by all major witnesses to Chrysostom, is drawn from a work (Homilies on the Apostle Peter and the Prophet Elijah) that some modern scholars consider to be spurious. – In one case (Sch. 4.22), the author lemma reads, “from Chrysostom from (the Gospel) according to Luke (on the passage), ‘it depends neither on the one willing nor on the one striving.’” The passage, however, is Rom 9:16, and the scholion is in fact taken from Chrysostom’s homily on Romans. Historical context John was likely educated under the great rhetorician Libanius at Antioch. There he also studied theology with Diodore of Tarsus, representative of the so-called Antiochene School. He served as a deacon and was ordained as a priest in 368. His skill at preaching earned him the appellation of Chrysostom (“goldenmouthed”). He was made Patriarch of Constantinople in 398. Largely for political reasons, he was deposed in 404 and exiled.271 Chrysostom preached series of exegetical homilies on biblical, mostly nt, books at Antioch and at Constantinople. Stenographers took down his sermons as he preached; some notes were published as they were, while others were 269 270 271

Lietzmann, Catenen: Teilungen über ihre Geschichte und Handschriftlich Überlieferung (Freiburg i. B.: Mohr-Siebeck, 1897), 13–14. Staab (321) also gives little credibility to these isolated attributions. odcc, 345–346.

introduction

69

extensively reworked.272 Scholarly consensus on the date and location of these homilies has been challenged by Pauline Allen and Wendy Mayer.273 These homilies are the source for almost all the scholia used in CatJas. 10.4.7.1 Chrysostom in the Catenae Traditions John Chrysostom is by far the most popular source for catenae traditions as a whole. While scholia from Chrysostom appear already in the Palestinian stage (e.g., on Psalms), they are especially dominant in the catenae compiled at Constantinople. Indeed, Dorival identifies the systematic use of Chrysostom, together with Theodoret, as a defining characteristic of the Constantinopolitan stage of catena production.274 In the Constantinopolitan author Nicetas’ Catena on the Gospel of John, for example, Chrysostom scholia account for 40.5% of the scholia.275 CatCE, dated to the early Constantinopolitan era, is no exception: Staab counts fifty scholia attributed to Chrysostom; Cyril of Alexandria and Severus are a distant second with thirty-eight each. Chrysostom differs from most other authors used in the catena tradition in that the great majority of his scholia are taken from works that are still extant in the direct tradition. Comparison of the CatJas scholia with the direct tradition demonstrates clearly that the CatJas catenist cites his sources with great accuracy. 10.4.7.2 Collections of Chrysostom ce Scholia The Chrysostom scholia from Cramer’s edition are collected in pg 64:1039–1062 (James: 1039–1052). Sebastian Haidacher reviewed Migne’s collection, correcting errors, noting examples where scholia are combined, identifying scholia he thought to be spuriously attributed, and adding further Chrysostom scholia overlooked by Migne. He also identifies the specific source in Chrysostom’s extant works for most of scholia.276 10.4.7.3 Chrysostom Scholia to CatJas CatJas includes some twenty-nine scholia from identified works of Chrysostom. All are from homilies, except for one brief scholion drawn from his treatise On 272 273 274 275 276

See J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom: Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995), 90–94. See, e.g., Wendy Mayer, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom—Provenance: Reshaping the Foundations, OrChrAn 273 (Rome: Pontifical Oriental Institute, 2005). Dorival, “Philology and History,” 77. Clark, “Catena of Nicetas,” 6, citing J. Reuss, Matthäus, Markus, 208. Haidacher, “Chrysostomus-Fragmente zu den katholischen Briefen,” zkt 26 (1902), 190– 194. Cf. the further comments of Staab, 320–321. To Haidacher’s list can be added Sch. 3.14 and 5.9.

70

introduction

Contrition. Seven are based on the Gospels (five from Matthew), two on Old Testament themes, and nineteen from the Pauline epistles (both Chrysostom and the catenist treat Hebrews as a Pauline letter). The textual witness of these scholia is quite stable in CatJas: scholia are generally witnessed by all four major manuscripts and attributed to Chrysostom.

Scholia

Sch. 1.3 to Jas 1:2–4 Sch. 1.14 to Jas 1:15 Sch. 1.34 to Jas 1:27 Sch. 2.1 to Jas 2:1 Sch 2.2 to Jas 2:2–4 Sch. 2.3 to Jas 2:5–6 Sch. 2.4 to Jas 2:6–7 Sch. 2.9 to Jas 2:12 Sch. 2.12 to Jas 2:13 Sch. 2.14 to Jas 2:17–19 Sch. 2.15 to Jas 2:17–19 Sch. 2.16 to Jas 2:17–19 Sch. 3.1a to Jas 3.1 Sch. 3.5 to Jas 3:5 Sch. 3.12 to Jas 3:8 Sch. 3.14 to Jas 3:9–10 Sch. 3.16 to Jas 3:16 Sch. 4.8b to Jas 4:4

O attribution

Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom na Chrysostom Secondary attribution to Chrysostom Sch. 4.17 to Jas 4:8–9 Chrysostom Sch. 4.22a to Jas 4:14–17 Chrysostom Sch. 5.1 on Jas 5:1–3 Chrysostom Sch. 5.5 to Jas 5:5–6 Chrysostom Sch. 5.8 to Jas 5:8 Chrysostom Sch. 5.9 to Jas 5:8 Chrysostom Sch. 5.10a to Jas 5:9–11 Chrysostom Sch. 5.10b to Jas 5:9–11 Chrysostom Sch. 5.12a to Jas 5:12 Chrysostom Sch. 5.12b to Jas 5:12 na

P attribution

V attribution

R attribution

Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Secondary attribution to Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom

Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom na na Chrysostom Chrysostom να Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom na na na

lacuna lacuna Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom na Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom

Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom na Chrysostom na Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom

Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom Chrysostom

71

introduction (cont.)

Scholia

O attribution

P attribution

V attribution

R attribution

Sch. 5.20 to Jas 5:17 Sch. 5.21 to Jas 5:19–20

Chrysostom Chrysostom

Chrysostom Chrysostom

Chrysostom Chrysostom Lacking Chrysostom

10.4.7.4

Ps.-Andrew’s Pastoral Purpose in Collecting the Chrysostom Scholia277 One can broadly label the Chrysostom scholia as “pastoral” or “homiletical” as opposed to “exegetical” in a strict sense. In other words, Ps.-Andrew’s purpose in selecting Chrysostom scholia is normally not to shed light on particular exegetical issues in James.278 Rather, the catenist clearly chooses passages for their rhetorical value as exhortations or admonitions on ethical topics that appear in James. Many of the passages are lengthy, again suggesting that they are excerpted to preserve their full rhetorical force. Following are some examples to give a sense of the catenist’s interests: – Sch. 1.3: a brief encomium praising the value of tribulation for developing the spiritual life – Sch 2.1–3: exhortations to respect the poor and treat them as equals in the Body of Christ – Sch. 2.4: admonition to bear nobly the oppression of the rich – Sch 2.12: an encomium praising the value of charitable giving (cf. Sch. 1.34) – Sch 2.15: exhortation to combine faith with effort – Sch 3.14: admonition to avoid praying for the misfortune for others – Sch. 5.1: exhortation to follow the “narrow path” in preparation for the Day of Judgment – Sch. 5.5: exhortation to temperance – Sch. 5.8: encouragement to those oppressed by the wealthy that they will see justice done on the Day of Judgment 277

278

One should bear in mind that CatJas was compiled in two major stages: the compilation of the ac materials, and the final redaction by Ps.-Andrew. My comments on the Chrysostom scholia focus on the final redaction. Contrast this with Romeny’s comment on the purpose of Procopius and the exegetical work in the Catena on the Octateuch, “The catenists and Procopius were mostly interested in the solution of problems and questions posed by the text: they wanted to present an instrument d’étude that would serve a grammatical and historical interpretation of the text” (“Procopius of Gaza,” 189).

72

introduction

– Sch 5.12ab: Exhortation to follow James’ (and Jesus’) prohibition on swearing oaths literally. For the implications of this pastoral purpose in selecting Chrysostom scholia for questions on the purpose of CatJas as a whole, see sect. 11.3 below. 10.4.7.5 Ps.-Andrew’s Selections: Matching James with Chrysostom Scholia Although one finds a number of direct quotations of James in Chrysostom’s extant works, James is one of the few nt books to which Chrysostom did not devote homilies or other exegetical works.279 For Chrysostom scholia, then, Ps.Andrew by necessity had to excerpt passages from other Chrysostom writings (primarily homilies) that could shed light on passages in James. The catenist’s work here reveals a deep familiarity with Chrysostom’s work, as he typically does not simply choose passages where Chrysostom gives a secondary reference to a passage from James, but rather excerpts from passages from Chrysostom’s work on other subjects that share thematic connections with topics in James. A few examples follow. – Sch 1:14: Links James’s discussion on how desire gives birth to sin (Jas 1:13–15) with a Chrysostom homily on the rich man and Lazarus that uses the same metaphor. – Sch 2.1: Links James’s condemnation of partiality towards the rich (Jas 2:1) with Chrysostom’s comments on the Pauline idea of equality in the Body of Christ (cf. Sch. 2.2–3). – Sch. 2.15: Links Chrystostom’s homily on Heb 4:11, where Chrysostom insists that faith must be accompanied with effort, to James’ teaching that faith without actions is dead. – Sch. 3.1: Links James’ warning that not many should become teachers (3:1) with Chrysostom’s general comment on the need for integrity in teaching given in a treatise on contrition. – Sch. 3.5: James’ comparison between bridling the tongue and bridling a horse (Jas 3:3) is matched with the same simile from a Chrysostom homily on Matthew. – Sch 3.14: Links James’ teaching that the same mouth should not utter blessing and cursing with a similar point from Chrysostom’s homily on 1 Timothy that a mouth worthy of the Christian mysteries should not curse a fellow Christian. – Sch. 4.17: Links James’ teaching that the community should humble themselves and mourn (πενθέω) over their sin with Chrysostom’s allusion to 1 Cor

279

Rudolf Brändle and Verena Jegher-Bucher, “Johannes Chrysostomos i,” rac 18 (1998), 464.

introduction

73

5:2 (Paul’s admonition that the community should have mourned (πενθέω) over the sin of church member). – Sch. 5.8: links an encouragement to the poor to patiently await God’s judgment with Chrysostom’s comments on the oppressed Thessalonian church receiving eschatological justice. – Sch. 5.12ab: Links James’ prohibition on swearing oaths with Chrysostom’s exhortation to follow Jesus’ same prohibition in Matthew 5. 10.4.7.6 Ps.-Andrew’s Treatment of Sources in Chrysostom Scholia Historically, one major goal of catena study has been to reconstruct otherwise lost early exegetical works (sect. 2.2). If catenae are to be useful in this task, scholars must be confident that catena compilers are citing their sources accurately. As noted above, we are able to compare many of the Chrysostom scholia in CatJas with Chrysostom’s direct textual tradition, and thus have many opportunities to observe how Ps.-Andrew handles Chrysostom’s original text. One can discern three general guidelines employed by Ps.-Andrew: 1. Quoting extracts verbatim. Even a cursory glance at several of the synoptic comparisons in the commentary reveals how accurately the catenist has reproduced the target text. Allowing for inevitable textual variations in the transmission of both Chrysostom’s original text and of the CatJas manuscripts, it is apparent that the catenist usually strove for, and to a large extent achieved, a verbatim quotation of his Chrysostom extracts. 2. Crafting more concise and focused scholia by cutting out unnecessary or extraneous material. Curti and Barbàra note this as a common editorial method employed by the catenists (including the compilers of the Palestinian Catena): “he suppresses words, phrases, and entire periods which he judges not indispensable to the meaning.”280 For examples, see the Commentary on Sch. 1.3, 1.34, 2.2, 2.11, and 5.12ab. The one clear exception to this method is Sch. 5.9: here the source material has been reworked and rearranged extensively. 3. Fusing together scholia from different sources to produce a composite scholion. On a few occasions, the catenist combines one Chrysostom excerpt with another Chrysostom passage or with an excerpt from a different author. Examples include:

280

Curti and Barbàra, “Exegetical Catenae,” 611.

74

introduction

– Sch 3.1a–b: A sentence from Chrysostom’s treatise On Contrition is merged with an anonymous scholion to provide the introduction to a scholion from an unidentified source. – Sch 4.22: A scholion from Chrysostom’s homily on Romans is combined with a quotation of Prov 27:1 and another unidentified scholion. – Sch. 5.10: The catenist merges two Chrysostom comments on Job (from homilies on Colossians and Hebrews). 10.4.8

Hesychius of Jerusalem (d. ca. 450)281

Scholia in CatJas

Scholion

O P V R attribution attribution attribution attribution

Sch. 1.15 to Jas 1:15 Sch. 2.11 to Jas 2:13 Sch. 3.13 to Jas 3:8 Sch. 4.18 to Jas 4:10 Sch. 5.2 to Jas 5:1–6

Hesychius Hesychius Hesychius Hesychius Hesychius

Hesychius Hesychius Hesychius Hesychius Hesychius

Lacking Lacking Lacking Hesychius Hesychius

Lacuna Hesychius Hesychius Hesychius Attributed to Didymus

Total scholia in CatCE: 8 Scholia on the ce attributed to Hesychius are collected in pg 93:1389–1392.282 Staab (309) notes that a scholion to 1Pet 3:12 should be added to this collection. Scholia to 2Pet 2:5 (Cramer, 91) and to Jude 6 (Cramer, 156) are essentially identical and identify their source as Hesychius’s commentary (ἑρμηνεία) to the Psalms (on Ps 60:8). Staab (308–309) suggests that all eight Hesychian scholia are taken from a Psalms commentary.283 Some scholars attribute three Psalms commentaries to Hesychius: the Commentarius magnus,284 a series of glosses on the Psalms labeled De titulis psalmo-

281 282 283

284

See also Staab, 308–309; cpg-6554.5. Migne’s texts are taken from J.C. Wolf, Anecdota graeca sacra et profana (Hamburg: Felginer, 1722–1724), 4:52–65, who in turn takes them from O, the main codex used by Cramer. Jean Kirchmeyer (“Hésychius de Jérusalem,” Dict. Sp. 7 [1969], 402) also notes that Hesychian exegetical fragments on the nt are drawn for the most part from his Psalms commentaries. See also Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1135, 1227. pg 93:1179–1340; pg 55:711–784 (text transmitted with Chrysostom’s works); cpg-6554.

introduction

75

rum,285 and the Commentarius brevis,286 but these attributions have been challenged.287 To my knowledge, none of the scholia attributed to Hesychius in CatJas is found in these editions, nor in any other extant source. Author lemmata – Ἡσυχίου Πρεσβυτέρου (“from Hesychius, presbyter”) – Ἡσυχίου (“from Hesychius”) Authenticity of the CatJas scholia The CatJas textual tradition for Hesychius is unstable: V lacks three of five scholia; R twice reads the scholia in a slightly different order compared with the other manuscripts. Author attributions conflict: Sch. 4.18 is also attributed to Origen, and R attributes Sch 5.2 to Didymus. None of the CatJas scholia attributed to Hesychius have been found in the works of Hesychius or indeed in any other extant source. Historical context Hesychius was a monk in his early life, and later became a presbyter and teacher (διδάσκολος) in Jerusalem. Already in his own lifetime, Hesychius was renowned as a biblical exegete; he is said to have commented on every book in the Bible, using the genres of commentaries, scholia, and sermons. He was a supporter of Cyril of Alexandria in the Nestorian controversy, and of the Alexandrians in the controversies leading up to the Council of Chalcedon (451). He criticized the exegetical methods and Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia.288 Hesychius is one of the most frequently cited authors in the catenae.289 It is thus likely that later catena copyists simply supplied Hesychius’ name for unattributed scholia (cf. the supplying of Chrysostom lemmata for the same reason in Commentary to Sch. 1.9).

285 286 287

288 289

pg 27:649–1344 (text transmitted with Athanasius’ works); cpg-6552. V. Jagić, ed., Supplementum Psalterii Bononiensis (Vienna: Holzhausen, 1917); cpg-6553. See Kirchmeyer, “Hésychius,” 400–401; Sever J. Voicu, “How many authors? Hesychius on the Psalms” in A Book of Psalms from Eleventh-Century Byzantium: The Complex of Text and Images in Vat. Gr. 752, ed. Barbara Crostini and Glenn Peers, StT 504 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2016), 301–327, esp. 313–327. On Hesychian scholia in the Psalms catenae, see Robert Devreesse, Les anciens commentateurs grecs de Psaumes, StT 264 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1970), 243–301. Sources: odcc, 768–769; Kirchmeyer, “Hésychius.” Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1134.

76

introduction

10.4.9 Isidore of Pelusium (d. ca. 440) Scholia in CatJas – 1.18 on Jas 1:18a – 3.7 on Jas 3:6 – 3.8 on Jas 3:6 Total scholia on ce: 3 Cramer, Karo-Leitzmann, Staab, and other studies of CatCE did not identify Isidore as a source for the Catena’s scholia, but, given the three passages identified here for James, it is probable that other unidentified ce scholia are drawn from Isidore. Author lemmata: None cited. Authenticity of the CatJas scholia All three passages are drawn from Isidore’s genuine letters. Historical background Isidore was born and raised in Alexandria. He was most likely a teacher of grammar and rhetoric before he was ordained a priest. Later he served as a catechetical teacher in the church of Pelusium, lower Egypt.290 Isidore’s entire extant literary corpus consists of letters; over 2,000 still survive.291 Many of these letters are replies to exegetical questions about specific passages sent by his correspondents. Isidore’s focused, concise responses to the specific questions of his correspondents made him a favorite source for the catenists; comments on both ot and nt passages appear frequently in the catenae. The catenae at times cite the specific letter from which a given scholion is drawn.292 It is unclear why CatJas fails to cite Isidore’s name; Nicetas of Heralea identifies him as an orthodox author (see sect. 6 above). 10.4.10 Origen (c. 185–c. 254)293 Scholia in CatJas The following scholia are linked to Origen; see the Commentary on the individual scholia for details. 290 291 292

293

Sources: odcc, 856. Pierre Évieux, ed. and trans., Lettres. 3 vols. sc 422, 454, 586. Paris: Cerf, 1997–2017. Vol. 3 with N. Vinel. pg 78:177–1048. cpg 3:5557. See Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1133; cf. other references in the index. For references to specific letters, see Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1133, 1163, 1209; Manafis, “Sources of Codex Zacynthius,”106. See also Staab, 312–314; cpg-1592.

77

introduction

Scholion

O attribution

P attribution

V attribution

R attribution

Other witnesses to Origen’s authorship

1.11 to Jas 1:13

na

Origen

Origen

Lacuna

4.4ab to Jas 4:3 na

na

Lacking

“another”

Origen Sel. Exod. to Exod 15:25 lxx Origen Comm. Luc. to Luke 11:9

4.6 to Jas 4:4

Origen

Lacking

“another”

4.18 to Jas 4:10

Hesychius

“another” from Origen Hesychius

Hesychius

Hesychius

5.13 to Jas 5:12

Cyril

Cyril

Cyril

Cyril

Origen Sel. Ps. to Ps 118:153 Origen Comm. Matt. on Matt 5:34–37

Total ce scholia: 4294 Author lemmata – Ὠριγένους (“from Origen”) – ἄλλος Ὠριγένους (another [scholion] from Origen) Authenticity of the CatJas scholia Identifying authentic Origen scholia in CatJas is difficult for several reasons. 1. No scholion that plausibly can be attributed to Origen is witnessed in the direct Origen tradition, but only in other catena traditions. Author attribution in these other catena traditions is, of course, frequently unreliable. Three scholia, Sch. 1.11, 4.18, and 5.13, are possibly authentic but their authenticity depends on the reliability of their attribution in these other traditions. 2. In several cases, CatJas may have drawn from a source that was itself quoting Origen without attribution: Sch. 4.4ab and 4.6 (Didymus’ Enarratio),295 Sch. 5.14 (Cyril), and Sch. 4.8b and 5.12 (Chrysostom). 3. The author lemma in the four main manuscripts of CatJas are quite unreliable. Of the three scholia most likely to be genuine, two are not attributed

294

295

Staab (307; 312–314) considers that only two scholia attributed to Origen in CatCE are likely to be genuine: Sch. 1.11 to Jas 1:13 and a scholion on 1John 2:14. This number is certainly too low, as at least three scholia in CatJas alone have good evidence for their authenticity. Staab (314) notes that a scholion to 1Pet 1:4 is attributed to Origen in Cramer (manuscript O) and also found in Didymus’ Enarratio.

78

introduction

to Origen at all (all four attribute Sch 4.18 to Hesychius and all four attribute Sch. 5:13 to Cyril of Alexandria), and one (Sch. 1.11) is witnessed in only two manuscripts (P, V; lacuna in R). Historical context Origen’s reputation as a biblical exegete was second to none in the ancient Christian world. He was thoroughly familiar with Greco-Roman literature and philosophy and worked in his youth as a γραμματικός. He later taught in Christian schools both at Alexandria and Caesarea. Origen was a key figure in developing both the full commentary genre (sect. 4.3.1 above) and the scholia commentary (sect. 5.6.2 above). Due to his controversial teachings, however, only a fraction of this exegetical work survives, much of it in the catenae. Origen’s teaching was criticized already by Methodius of Olympus (d. ca. 311), later by Epiphanius and Jerome, and by a church council at Alexandria in 400. Yet he was also supported by such renowned orthodox leaders as Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory Nazianzus. Controversy continued in the sixthcentury Origenist controversy, leading to his further condemnation at a council at Constantinople called by Justinian (543), and again at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.296 Origen is referenced as a heterodox author in catenae traditions, but Jerome, for one, insisted that his exegetical work could be used, so long as his erroneous theology was avoided (see sect. 6 above). Origen is the first author to clearly cite the Letter of James. There is no extant commentary from Origen on James or any other Catholic Epistle, although he refers to James as an apostle and regarded his letter as canonical.297 It is possible that Sch. 1.11, 4.18, and 5.13 in CatJas derive from Origen’s own scholia work.

296 297

See “Origenism,” odcc, 1202. For Origen’s view of James, see Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James, ab 37A (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 130; David R. Nienhuis, Not by Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 55–60. Origen’s precise view of the Epistle of James is uncertain, as many of his references are found only in the Latin translation of Rufinus (c. 345–411), who is known to have adjusted Origen’s views to fit better with the orthodox views of his own time.

79

introduction

10.4.11

Severian of Gabala (fl. ca. 400)298

Scholia in CatJas

Scholion

O attribution P attribution V attribution R attribution

2.22 to Jas 2:25 4.11 to Jas 4:4 4.12 to Jas 4:5 4.13 to Jas 4:5–7 4.14 to Jas 4:5 4.15 to Jas 4:6

Severian na Severian na gr gr

Severian na Severian na gr gr

Cyril Lacking Lacking Severian Lacking Lacking

Severian Severian na na na na

Total ce scholia: 3 Author lemmata – Σευηριανοῦ Ἐπισκόπου Γαβάλων (“from Severian, bishop of Gabala” O, P) – Σευηριανοῦ (R = Σεβηριανοῦ) Authenticity of the CatJas scholia The catenae traditions often confuse the names of Severian of Gabala and Severus of Antioch,299 but there is no evidence of such confusion in CatJas. Sch 2.22 is authentic; it is drawn from a homily of Severian that was later attributed to Chrysostom. Codex V’s attribution of Sch 4.13 to Severian is not trustworthy, as it is the only witness, and its author lemmata are the least reliable of the four main manuscripts of CatJas.300 Historical context Severian was a bishop of Gabala (modern Jableh), a coastal city in northwestern Syria. He was renowned as a biblical interpreter of the “Antiochene school” and as a homilist. John Chrysostom delegated him to preach in his place during Chrysostom’s absence from Constantinople. The two men had a falling

298 299

300

See Staab, 308; cpg-4295.5. See Yonatan Moss, “How Severus of Antioch’s Writings Survived in Greek,” grbs 56 (2016), 790 n. 20; Gilles Dorival, “Nouveaux fragments grecs de Sévère d’Antioche” in αντιδωρον Hulde aan Dr. Maurits Geerard bij de voltooiing van de Clavis Patrum Graecorum Vol. i, ed. J. Noret (Wetteren, Belgium: Cultura, 1984), 103. See also Staab (308) on the scholion as inauthentic.

80

introduction

out, however, and eventually Severian took a leading role in helping to depose Chrysostom as bishop.301 10.4.12

Severus of Antioch (C. 465–538)302

Scholia in CatJas

O P V R attribution attribution attribution attribution Sch. 1.13 to Jas 1:14 Sch. 1.17 to Jas 1:17 Sch. 2.8 to Jas 2:11 (anonymous source quoting Severus) Sch. 2.17 to Jas 2:17–19

Severus Severus Severus

Severus Severus Severus

Severus Severus Severus

Lacuna Lacuna Severus

na

na

Lacking

Sch. 2.18 to Jas 2:20–21 Sch. 3.2 to Jas 4:2 Sch 4.3 to Jas 4.3

na Severus na

na Severus Severus

na Severus Severus

Continuous with previous (scil. Chrysostom) na Severus Severus

Total CatCE scholia: 38 According to Staab’s count, Severus and Cyril of Alexandria (38 scholia each) are, after John Chrysostom (50 scholia), the most cited authors in the CatCE.303 Author lemmata in CatJas – Σευήρου (“from Severus”): the usual designation in O and R – Σευήρου Ἀντιοχείας (“Severus of Antioch”): witnessed in P, V, and R. – Σευῆρος ὁ Ἀντιοχείας ἐπίσκοπος (“Severus, bishop of Antioch”): used by an anonymous source in Sch. 2.8 – Σευήρου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀντιοχείας (“Severus, archbishop of Antioch”: witnessed in V; often in P). Dorival notes a similar variety in the author lemma to the Severus scholia in the second Palestinian catena to Psalms.304 In CatCE, Severus is never designated ἁγίος, (“saint”) a title regularly used in many catenae traditions 301 302 303 304

Sources: odcc, 1501; Kelly, Golden Mouth, 182–190. See also Staab, 321–329; cpg-7080.17. Staab, 307. Staab (322–326) summarizes the CatCE Severus scholia in tabular form. Dorival, “Nouveaux fragments,” 104.

introduction

81

to designate authors recognized for their sanctity and considered to be orthodox. Severus, however, is designated as ἁγίος in other catenae traditions: e.g., in the second half of Codex Zacynthius on Luke,305 in a catena to Isaiah306 and others.307 In two instances in CatJas, the lemmata further identify the specific source of their scholia in Severus’ work, – Sch. 2.8: Σευῆρος ὁ Ἀντιοχείας ἐπίσκοπος, ἐν τῷ μϛ´ λόγῳ (“Severus, bishop of Antioch, in the Forty-Sixth Homily”) – Sch. 3.2: Σευήρου Ἀντιοχείας ἐπιστολῆς (“from a letter of Severus of Antioch”) (letter reference only in R) Historical context308 Severus studied rhetoric at Alexandria and law at Beirut, became a monk, and was the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch from 512–518. He has been described as the “leading theologian of the moderate ‘Monophysites,’” i.e., those Christians who rejected the Council of Chalcedon’s teaching that Christ has two natures.309 After the failure of an attempted reconciliation between supporters and opponents of the Chalcedonian definition, Severus was excommunicated by a synod at Constantinople in 536 and the Emperor Justinian ordered all of his writings to be burned. The vast majority of his (originally Greek) writings are extant only in Syriac, Coptic, and other translations and in catenae traditions. 10.4.12.1 Severian Scholia in Catenae Traditions One of the central questions in catena studies is how, despite his anti-Chalcedonian theology and despite the ban put on his writing by Emperor Justinian, large amounts of scholia from Severus have been preserved in a broad variety of catena traditions transmitted in orthodox Chalcedonian circles. Answering this question will, I believe, shed some light on the origins of CatCE.310

305 306 307 308

309 310

Houghton, “Layout and Structure,” 65. Devreesse (Chaînes exégétiques, 1151) reports that the 97 scholia from Severus are “generally” ascribed τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου Σευήρου (“from the most holy Severus”). See Moss, “Saving Severus,” 795 n. 29 for further references. Sources: “Severus of Antioch,” odcc 1501–1502; Pauline Allen, “Severus of Antioch: Heir of Saint John Chrysostom?” in Severus of Antioch: His Life and Times, ed. John D’Alton and Youhann Nessim Youssef, Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 7 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 1–13. “Severus of Antioch,” odcc, 1501. For an overview of Severus scholia in catenae traditions, see cpg-7090.

82

introduction

It is clear that large amounts of scholia from Severus were added to some earlier catena traditions at a later stage of transmission.311 But Françoise Petit’s assertion that Severus’ scholia were added to catenae on all biblical books, Old and New Testament, in a deliberate and massive way, needs qualification.312 First, as Yonatan Moss points out, in traditions such as the catenae on the Pauline letters, Severus scholia are minimal.313 Secondly, the manuscript evidence from several catenae that include substantial numbers of Severus’ scholia suggests that Severus was included in these compilations from the beginning.314 At the same time, the evidence from a substantial number of varied catena traditions does suggest an intentional and coordinated effort to include Severus scholia (along with scholia from other authors, often those associated with “Alexandrian” exegetical traditions), either in newly compiled catenae or as additions to existing catena traditions. Laurence Vianès describes this effort as a “vast editorial enterprise” carried out by one group of scholars using common methods. She likens this activity to a modern research program that publishes volumes that differ in content but follow the same style sheet.315 Synthesizing the observations of Moss and Vianès, we find that the following characteristics are shared by a broad array of catena traditions that incorporate significant Severian scholia. – Use of the frame catena form – A reference system using numbers to connect each scholion with its target scripture text – Regular use of scholia from a wide variety of Severus’ work (homilies, polemical tracts, letters), with a common designation of Severus either as a “saint” or as “bishop” or “archbishop.”

311

312 313 314 315

For the Octateuch, see Petit, “Introduction,” in La chaîne sur l’Exode i: Fragments de Sévère d’Antioch, ed. F. Petit, Traditio Exegetica Graece 9 (Leuven: Peeters, 1999), xi, but see the cautionary remarks of Vianès, “Jean le Droungaire,” 413 n. 26, 421. For Mark: Lamb, Catena in Marcum, 57. Both Vianès (“Jean de Droungaire,” 408) and, more cautiously, Devreesse (Chaînes exégétiques, 1151) posit that Severus scholia were added at a later stage to the Four Prophets catenae, but Aussedat notes that scholia from Severus are found in all extant manuscripts of the Four Prophets (“Livre de Jérémie,” 142). See Petit, “Introduction,” Fragments de Sévère, xii and esp. n. 6. Moss, “Saving Severus,” 790 n. 20; referencing Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1223. This observation is corroborated by the evidence in cpg-7090.16. See Aussedat, “Livre de Jérémie,” 142. The Severian scholia for CatCE belong to the first stage of composition,. Viennes, “Jean le Droungaire,” 424; cf. pp. 409–410 for common characteristics of the four catenae on the Major Prophets.

introduction

83

– Specific source attributions for Severus’ work. In Sch. 2.8 of CatJas, for example, the attribution reads, “from Severus, bishop of Antioch, in the FortySixth Homily.” Such specific references are rare in the catenae (generally only the author’s name is cited), but they are by no means unknown. CatJas, for example, witnesses such lemmata for certain scholia from Basil, Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria.316 The systematic use of these specific references, however, sets the Severian scholia apart. To give a sense of the range of catenae in which these common characteristics appear, I offer below a brief list of catenae traditions which give Severus the attribute “saint” or “most saintly” (ἅγιος or ἁγιώτατος) and regularly include detailed source attributions. The list is by no means meant to be comprehensive, but only suggestive. – Four Major Prophets317 – Luke318 – Acts319 Other traditions do not refer to him as a saint, but (at least in some scholia) do recognize his ecclesiastical position as “bishop, or archbishop.” – Octateuch320 – The second (“Monophysite”) Catena on Psalms321 – Matthew322 10.4.12.2 “Monophysite” Catenae? What was the motivation for this broad and apparently coordinated attempt to include Severus in catena traditions? Robert Devreesse attributes the inclusion of authors such as Severus to the “breadth of spirit” of the catenists: these compilers did not belong to any particular school of thought and had no polemical interest, but rather simply wanted to collect the best exegetical

316

317 318

319 320 321 322

See Sch. 2.3 (P), 2.19 (O, P, R), Sch. 3.9 (P, R), Sch. 4.20 (P, R), Sch. 4.22a (O, P, R). It is noteworthy that these three authors are also the only three designated as ἁγίος (“saint”) in the author lemmata of CatJas. Isaiah: Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1151; Ezekiel: Vianès, “Jean le Droungaire,” 416 n. 35. In the first half of Codex Zacynthius, Severus is identified only as “Archbishop of Antioch”; in the second half, the attribution ἅγιος is applied (Houghton, “Layout and Structure,” 65). For the detailed source attributions from Severus’ works in Codex Zacynthius, see Manafis, “Sources of Codex Zacynthius,” 114–115. See Moss, “Saving Severus,” 795 n. 29; cpgnt 3:43, 47, 82; Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1209; Vianés, “Jean le Droungaire,” 420 n. 49. Petit, “Introduction,” Fragments de Sévère, xii; 6, 10, 32. Moss, “Saving Severus,” 796–797. Dorival, “Nouveaux fragments,” 104–105. See cpgnt 1:59, 118, 122, 125, 235. I have not verified Cramer’s references in the manuscripts.

84

introduction

comments on Scripture from the past centuries.323 Yonatan Moss aptly characterizes this hypothesis as the “ecumenical solution.”324 While Moss acknowledges this inclusive spirit, he finds it lacking as a comprehensive explanation. Among other shortcomings, it fails to explain just some of the common characteristics mentioned above: the designation of Severus as a saint, an emphasis on his credentials as a bishop, and the systematic use of specific source attributions.325 Moss’s alternative suggestion is that the catenists responsible for preserving the Severus scholia were anti-Chalcedonian (miaphysite) scribes. After Justinian’s edict ordering the destruction of Severus’ books, his followers (working perhaps in Egypt) attempted to save what they could of their teacher’s work by inserting scholia into existing catenae traditions. After this insertion, Chalcedonian scribes allowed the Severus scholia to continue to be transmitted in the catenae tradition because of their conviction that Scripture has a broad range of senses.326 Other scholars speak of “Monophysite Catenae” that were compiled with scholia from Severus from the beginning. Richard labels an early collection on the Psalms as the “Monophysite Catena,” suggesting that it was compiled in Egypt. In his view only a “militant Monophysite” would have had the zeal to comb through Severus’ disparate works (Severus did not write a commentary directly on the Psalms) to find relevant passages to apply as scholia to Psalms.327 Laurence Vianès also believes that the catenae on the four major prophets must have been compiled by a member of a non-Chalcedonian church.328 For Vianès, the most persuasive point is the characterization of Severus as “most saintly” (ἁγιώτατος)—a title that only a close follower of Severus would apply to him. She suggests that these catenae were composed at the monasteries of Ennaton, an anti-Chalcedonian center, sometime between the death of Severus (538 ce) and the end of the seventh century; the last half of the sixth century being more likely.329

323 324 325 326 327 328

329

Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1094; Devreesse, l’Octateuque, vii–viii. Moss, “Saving Severus,” 793–794. Moss, “Saving Severus,” 794–797. Moss, “Saving Severus,” 798–799. Richard, “Premières chaînes,” 93–98, esp. 97. Vianès, “Chaînes de Jean le Droungaire,” 405–426. For the original arguments of Vianès, see La chaîne monophysite sur Ėzéchiel 36–48. Présentation, texte critique, traduction française, commentaire (Ph.D. diss., l’École practique des hautes études, 1997) and a summary of her dissertation in Annuaires de l’École practique des hautes études 106 (1997–1998): 569–571. https://doi.org/10.3406/ephe.1997.12821. Vianès, “Jean le Droungaire,” 418–419. She notes (418 n. 44) Lucas Van Rompay’s conclusion that Jacob of Edessa still had access to the Greek version of Severus’ Cathedral Homilies

introduction

85

Catena scholars Gilles Dorival and Mathilde Aussedot, however, reject the “Monophysite” label for catenae with many Severus scholia. Dorival points out that in the numerous manuscripts that feature a wealth of Severus scholia, Severus is still not the main author cited (e.g., in the “Monophysite” catena on Psalms, the catenist cited Hesychius of Jerusalem more often than Severus). In addition, catenae on a broad range of scriptural books contain numerous scholia from Severus: Dorival finds it scarcely credible that such a broad range of material all had a “Monophysite” origin.330 Aussedot notes that in the case of catenae on the major prophets, authors such as Chrysostom and Theophilus of Alexandria, who have no connection with the “Monophysite” movement, also receive the title of “saint” (ἅγιος)331 In her response to these authors, Vianès notes that anti-Chalcedonian writers may well have designated preChalcedonian writers such as Chrysostom as saints (she cites evidence that Severus himself had done so).332 As noted, she sees the common elements shared by a variety of catena traditions as evidence of a coordinated effort that could just as well have been mounted by anti-Chalcedonian as Chalcedonian scribes. In the following section, I offer reasons for my own conclusion that the Severus scholia were incorporated by scribes who were seeking to reconcile anti-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian churches. 10.4.12.3 Reconciling Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonian Churches Scholars who suggest that the scribes who collected the Severus scholia were miaphysite followers of Severus are certainly correct. The scholia are drawn not from commentaries on the relevant Scriptural books, but rather from Severus’s letters, polemical works, and homilies that treat a broad range of topics. The collectors would have needed an intimate knowledge of the entire range of Severus’ writings—a knowledge that can only a close follower of Severus would have. But here we must distinguish clearly between (1) the original compilation of the Severus scholia and (2) the later dissemination of the Severus scholia in circles that accepted Chalcedon. The original compiler was certainly a member of a miaphysite church, but the purpose of including Severus scholia in

330 331 332

when he revised the Syriac translation in 700–701. Earlier, Vianès (Abstract of La chaîne monophysite, 569–570) had also suggested Constantinople at the time of the Empress Theodora (between 538 and 565) as a possible provenance I consider such a provenance more likely; see section 10.4.12.3. Dorival, “Nouveaux fragments,” 118; Dorival, Chaines exégétiques, 5:288–291. Aussedot, “Livre de Jérémie,” 142–143. Vianès, “Jean le Droungaire,” 417–418.

86

introduction

larger catena collections seems to have been not so much to champion the miaphysite cause, but rather an effort to demonstrate the common exegetical understanding shared by both anti-Chalcedonian and pro-Chalcedonian approaches. Rather than speaking of “Monophysite” catena, then, it is more accurate to place this effort in a larger historical context: the ongoing efforts to reconcile the non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian churches. In the controversy between the proponents of Chalcedon and the nonChalcedonian followers of Severus, both sides appealed to the teachings of Cyril of Alexandria in support of their views. Shortly after the Council, a proponent of the Chalcedonian formula composed a catena (florilegium) of passages chosen from Cyril’s writing to demonstrate that Cyril’s teachings were compatible with the Chalcedonian formula that Christ was one person in two natures, human and divine. In his Philalēthēs, Severus attempted to refute this florilegium and prove that Cyril supported a non-Chalcedonian position.333 Later John of Caesarea (John “the Grammarian”) explicitly sought to reconcile the Chalcedonian formula with the Severus’ interpretation of Cyril.334 William Lamb writes that “in spite of these condemnations [of the writings of Severus], attempts to court the adherence of members of the miaphyisite party continued during Justinian’s reign up until and then beyond the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.”335 Efforts to reconcile the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonian churches continued well into the seventh century, leading to the “Monenergism” and “Monotheletism” controversies; Severus’ teachings continued to play a major role in these controversies as well.336 The inclusion of Severus in the catena traditions is best understood in the context of these ongoing reconciliation efforts. As Lamb notes, the inclusion of Severus in the Lukan catena of Codex Zacynthius “suggests that the catena was compiled at a time when the Christian church was continuing to wrestle with the legacy of the Council and mediate between the Chalcedonian and

333 334 335 336

See Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition 2/2 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 28–46. Grillmeier, Christian Tradition, 52–69. Lamb, “The Theological Significance of the Catena,” in Houghton and Parker, Codex Zacynthius, 131. Lamb, “Theological Significance,” 133–134. As late as the early twelfth century, Nicetas’ catena on Luke contains some sixty scholia attributed to Severus (Σεβήρου Ἀντιοχείας or simply Σεβήρου), see Sickenberger, Lukascatene des Niketas, 98. Nicetas makes no mention of Severus when he discusses heretical or problematic writers (see sect. 6 above; Dorival, “Commentaires de l’Écriture,” 376–379).

introduction

87

anti-Chalcedonian factions.”337 Scribes, whether they themselves were nonChalcedonians or Chalecedonians, drew on Severus’ writings to demonstrate that his teaching could harmonize with that of teachers such as Cyril of Alexandria or John Chrysostom. Karl Staab reached similar conclusions in his analysis of the CatCE. Several of the scholia on 1Peter witness to Severus’ distinctive non-Chalcedonian Christology.338 Staab notes how Ps.-Andrew cites a variety of scholia to interpret the Christologically charged passage 1Peter 4:1: Χριστοῦ οὖν παθόντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν σαρκί, (“Christ suffered for us in the flesh”): one scholion from Athanasius, two from Cyril of Alexandria, four from Severus. In Staab’s view, the purpose of this arrangement was to defend Severus’ Christology by showing how it harmonized with that of the Athanasius and Cyril, authorities accepted by both Chalcedonian churches and non-Chalcedonian churches. In a nod to readers who still have regarded Severus as heretical, however, the catenist does not grant him the title ἁγίος.339 In section 11.1.1 below I consider the implications of this discussion for dating the first phase of the composition of CatCE. To sum up: the evidence points to a process in which miaphysite scribes combed through the works of Severus to collect relevant scholia to comment on books such the Letter to James. I then envision these scribes working with Chalcedonian scribes either to integrate the Severian collection into already existing catena, or to use them as one of the building blocks in the construction of a new catena in a joint effort to demonstrate the compatibility of Severus’ comments with those of other exegetes acceptable to the Chalcedonian churches. 10.4.13 Shepherd of Hermas (Early Second Century) CatJas takes one scholion (Sch. 1.8) from The Shepherd of Hermas, introduced with a detailed author lemma, Ἐκ τοῦ Ποιμένος [ἐντολῆς] θʹ (“from The Shepherd, Commandment Nine”). This early second-century work is an unusual source for the catenae literature. The Shepherd’s extended discussion on the “doubleminded” person (ἀνὴρ δίψυχος; Jas 1:8, 4:8), however, make it a natural choice for use in a commentary on James.

337 338 339

Lamb, “Theological Significance,” 135. See Staab, 327–328. Staab describes the Christology of the scholia as shifting between orthodox (Chalcedonian) and “Monophysite” positions. Staab, 328–329.

88

introduction

10.4.14

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (C. 393–C. 460)340

Scholia in CatJas

5.11 5.21

O attribution

P attribution

V attribution

R attribution

na Theodoret

na Theodoret

Theodoret Lacking

Theodore the Monk Theodoret

Total ce scholia: 8 Author lemma – Θεοδῶρητ Authenticity of the CatJas scholia Scholion 5.21 is clearly authentic, taken from Theodoret’s Questions and Answers on Kingdoms and Chronicles. Scholion 5.11 is almost certainly not from Theodoret; see Commentary. Historical context Theodoret was a monk and later bishop of Cyrrhus (Cyr) in northeastern Syria. A native of Antioch, he was educated in its monastery schools. He criticized Cyril of Alexandria’s Christology, considering that it tended towards Apollinarianism and the denial of the true humanity of Christ. After a conflict with Dioscorus, Cyril’s successor at Alexandria, he was deposed from his see and exiled, but later reinstated. His writings against Cyril later became involved in the Three Chapters controversy and were condemned by the Council of Constantinople (553). Theodoret commented on much of the Bible, including Paul’s letters and most Old Testament books. Two of his exegetical works, on the Octateuch and on Kingdoms-Chronicles, are in the questions-and-responses (ἐρωταποκρίσεις) format (see sect. 4.3.1 above). Theodoret’s Questions on the Octateuch were added at a secondary stage to the primary catena on the Octateuch.341 Scholia from Theodoret figure prominently in the “Two-Author” catenae (see sect. 5.3.1 above); his work, along with that of Chrysostom, is used systematically in many of the catenae of the Constantinopolitan era.342 340 341 342

See also Staab, 310. Petit, “Introduction” to Chaîne sur la Genèse i, xxii. On the importance of the questionsand-responses method in the catenae, see sect. 4.3.1 above. Dorival, “Philology and History,” 73, 77.

introduction

89

Staab thus remarks that it is surprising that Theodoret, who is often considered the greatest of the Antiochene exegetes, and whose scholia are so liberally employed throughout other catenae traditions, is employed so little in CatCE.343 The restricted use of Theodoret may perhaps be attributed to the catenist’s desire to avoid an author who was suspect in the eyes of nonChalcedonian churches. 10.4.15 “Theodore the Monk” Codex R (fol. 14v) attributes Sch. 5.11 to “Theodore the Monk” (Θεοδώρου μοναχοῦ). Codex V (fol. 243v) attributes the same scholion to Theodoret (O and P give no attribution), and so there may be a simple confusion of the names “Theodore” and “Theodoret” here.344 It is also possible that “Theodore the Monk” refers to another Theodore: likely candidates are Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428) or Theodore of Heraclea (fl. c. 328–c. 355), two authors prominent in other catena traditions outside of CatCE.345 The Armenian translation of Sch. 5.11 follows R in attributing the scholion to “Theodore the Monk,” but also clearly distinguishes this person from Theodoret (mentioned in Sch. 5.20). The author list of one of the Armenian manuscripts of CatCE includes Theodoret, Theodore the Monk, and Theodore of Heraclea.346 Codex P (fol. 210v) to 1Pet 1:24 attributes a scholion to “Theodore of Heracleia” (Θεοδώρου Ἡρακλείας), distinguishing him from Theodoret on the same folio page. The author lemma “from Theodore the Monk” is also witnessed in other catena traditions. The Catena to Matthew distinguishes it from other references to Theodore of Heracleia and Theodore of Mopsuestia.347 Devreesse notes that some of the scholia bearing this lemma in the Pauline Epistles have been identified as deriving from works of Theodore of Mopsuestia. He suggests that the 343 344

345

346 347

Staab, 310. This confusion is witnessed in the Catena on Psalms, which cite scholia from Theodoret under the name of Theodore. The same collection also witnesses scholia from Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is called “Theodore of Antioch” (Richard, “Premières chaînes,” 94). On Theodore of Mopsuestia in catena traditions, see cpg-3827–3848; on Theodore of Heraclea see cpg-3561–3567; see also Matthew R. Crawford, “Theodore of Heraclea,” in Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online. https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/​ brill‑encyclopedia‑of‑early‑christianity‑online. Renoux, 65 n. 14. See cpgnt 1:36, 125, 243. Cramer’s edition also witnesses the variant Θεοδώρου Μονάκου several times (e.g., pp. 51, 56, 75). It attributes numerous scholia to Theodore of Heracleia (e.g., pp. 24, 25, 33) and to Theodore of Mopsuestia (e.g., pp. 65, 67, 96, 118, 122).

90

introduction

lemma Θεοδώρου μοναχοῦ may well be a corruption of an abbreviated form of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s name.348 In the end, the general nature of the scholion’s content, and inconclusive external evidence do not allow us to draw a confident conclusion on the identity of “Theodore the Monk.” 10.4.16

Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662)349

Scholia in CatJas

O attribution P attribution V attribution R attribution 1.5 to Jas 1:2–4 na 5.17 to Jas 5:16 Maximus

na Maximus

na Maximus

Lacuna Maximus

Total ce scholia: 9 Author lemmata – Ἐρώτησις Μαξίμου (“Question for Maximus”) – Μαξίμου (“from Maximus”) – Ἐρώτησις Ἀπόκρισις (“Question, Answer”) Authenticity of the CatJas scholia Both scholia are authentic; the first is unattributed. Historical context After serving as imperial secretary for the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, Maximus became a monk and later an abbot. He played an active role in the Monothelitist controversy, an effort to reconcile the miaphysite and Chalcedonian churches (see sect. 10.4.12.3 above). Maximus, defending the existence of both a human and divine will in Christ, refused, even under torture, to accept the reconciliatory formula proposed by the Emperor Constans ii.350 In his exegetical and other writings, Maximus often employed the literary genre ἐρωταποκρίσεις (“Questions and Responses”) which was commonly

348 349 350

Devreesse, Chaînes exégétiques, 1173; 1223. The abbreviation for Μοψουεστία may have been taken by a scribe as an abbreviation for μοναχός. See also Staab, 329–331; cpg-7711.11. odcc, 1067–1068.

introduction

91

used in early Christianity.351 The two scholia in CatJas are taken from his work Responses to Thalassios on Various Difficulties in Sacred Scripture. Maximus also wrote several other works in this genre: Questions and Doubts, Responses to Theopemptos, the Ambigua to John, and the Ambigua to Thomas.352 Maximus died in 662; he is the most recent author to be cited in CatCE.

11

Date, Place, and Authorship: the Two Stages of CatJas’ Composition

One must distinguish between two stages in the composition of CatJas. The first stage was the compilation of the materials found in the Anonymous Commentary, as this forms the foundation of CatJas. While Staab and the cpg editors identify the ac itself as the foundation of CatJas, my analysis in sect. 9.5 makes it clear that this conclusion is inaccurate, as the evidence points rather towards both CatJas and the ac drawing on common sources. I thus refer to this first stage with the generic label, “the compilation of ac materials” (see also sect. 9.5.5). The second stage is the final redaction of CatJas by a catenist whom scholarship labels Ps.-Andrew. We can be reasonably sure that Ps.-Andrew’s contribution to the ac materials included (1) a systematic incorporation of often fairly lengthy scholia from Chrysostom’s homilies,353 and (2) the incorporation of two substantial scholia (1.5, 5.17) from Maximus Confessor (d. 662). It is possible that Ps.-Andrew added scholia from other authors not witnessed in the ac materials, including a scholion from Shepherd of Hermas (Sch. 1.8) and biblical quotations used as scholia (3.6, 5.19).354

351 352

353 354

On the importance of the question-and-responses method in the catenae, see sect. 4.3.1 above. See Maximos Constas, “Introduction” to On Difficulties in Sacred Scripture: The Responses to Thalassios, trans. M. Constas, fc 136 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018), 6–7. I noted above (sect. 9.4) that the ac does witness some scholia from Chrysostom; the point here is that many more Chrysostom scholia were later added in a systematic way. CatJas includes one scholion from Theodoret and one from Basil that are likewise not witnessed in the ac materials. Theodoret, however, was included in the ac witnesses elsewhere in CatCE (Staab, 339), and Basil is included in some of the early Palestinian collections (Curti and Barbára, “Exegetical Catenae,” 618), thus making it likely that scholia from Basil were included in ac material as well.

92

introduction

11.1 Date, Place, and Authorship in the Compilation of the ac Materials 11.1.1 Date of the ac Materials Composition It is clear that the earliest catena traditions focused on books of the Old Testament; all the extant exegetical works of Procopius, for example, treat Old Testament books (sect. 5.1 above). Scholars debate on whether New Testament catenae had their start in the sixth or seventh centuries (sect. 5.3.2). The inclusion of scholia from Severus of Antioch in the ac provides a clue for the provenance of the ac materials. As argued above (sect. 10.4.12.2–3), these scholia must have been originally selected by a follower of Severus who had access to Severus’ exegetical and polemical works, as well as to his letters, in Greek. One can assume that Severus’ writings had been collected in the episcopal archives at Antioch when Severus was bishop (411–418); perhaps Severus took these writings with him when he was exiled to the monastery of Enaton near Alexandria—this would support the thesis of Vianès that the Severus scholia were first collected there.355 I argued above that the incorporation of Severian scholia took place in circles that sought reconciliation between anti-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian Christians (see sect. 10.4.12.3). We know that efforts to reconcile Chalcedonian theology with the teaching of Severus had begun already in Severus’ lifetime with a contribution of John the Grammarian.356 With Vianès, I think it more likely that catenists would have had access to Severus’ writings in Greek in the second half of sixth century than at a later date. We do have evidence Severus writings in Greek were still accessible in the seventh century, however, so this later date cannot be ruled out.357 The ac materials also draw on the letters of Isidore of Pelusium; this represents an innovation where catenae use source material outside of commentaries, homilies, and scholia. Dorival dates this innovation to the seventh century (sect. 5.4.2 above). As Dorival also dates the composition of the first New Testament catenae to this century (sect. 5.3.2); we may thus provisionally conclude that a seventh century date is most probable for the composition of the ac materials. 11.1.2 Place of the ac Materials Composition The most likely place of compilation is Constantinople. The capital city was the site of numerous efforts to reconcile pro and anti-Chalcedonian camps. 355 356 357

On Severus’ exile, see Pauline Allen and C.T.R. Hayward, Severus of Antioch (London: Routledge, 2004), 25–30; on the thesis of Vianès, see sect. 10.4.12.2 above. See Grillmeier, Christian Tradition, 52–69. Vianès, “Jean le Droungaire,” 418–419.

introduction

93

Already in 482 the emperor Zeno proposed his Henoticon, and we know that despite Justinian’s ban on Severus’ writing, the Alexandrian deacon Theodosius led the anti-Chalcedonian movement for thirty years after Severus’ death in 538 from his exile in Constantinople, where he enjoyed the protection of the Empress Theodora.358 Library resources for the catenist—imperial, ecclesiastical, and monastic—would have been plentiful (see sect 5.8.1–2). In Dorival’s terms, the compilation of the ac materials belongs to the late Palestinian or early Constantinopolitan phase of catena production.359 11.1.3 Profile of the ac Materials Catenist The compiler of this first phase of the CatJas materials is unknown. He was likely a member of the clergy or a monk (see sect. 11.3). One need not assume a single compiler; it may have been a joint effort of several catenists; one can easily imagine members of both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian groups working together, for example. Thus my use of the term “catenist” in the singular is simply for the sake of convenience. In any case, the catenist clearly is interested in demonstrating the harmony between the exegesis of Severus and that of other exegetes accepted by the Chalcedonian churches as orthodox. As discussed in sect. 9.4 above, the catenist pays close attention to the exegesis of key terms as well as central theological and moral teachings in James, including the relationship of faith and works, the value of bearing suffering and trials, and the nature of temptation to evil and how to resist that temptation. 11.2 Date, Place, and Authorship of the Final Redaction of CatJas As noted at the beginning of sect. 11, the main additions of the final redactor of CatJas to the foundation of the ac materials was apparently the systematic addition of scholia from John Chrysostom and the two lengthy scholia from Maximus Confessor. The terminus a quo for final redaction of CatCE can thus be fixed after the death of Maximus (the latest author cited) in 662. The terminus ad quem for this final redaction is the tenth century, the date of Codex P, the earliest of the main CatJas manuscripts. Staab’s suggests that the second half of the seventh-century or the beginning of the eighth is the most likely timeframe, since CatCE shows traces of the “Monophysite” controversy and especially the disputed status of Severus’ writings within that controversy.360 Certainly Staab 358 359 360

Allen and Hayward, Severus of Antioch, 30. Dorival (Chaînes exégétiques, 1:33) notes the possibility that catenae with “Palestinian” characteristics were also produced during the “Constantinopolitan” period. Staab, 345–346.

94

introduction

is correct to place the final redaction in the context of ongoing disputes over Chalcedonian Christology and (in my view) efforts to resolve those disputes. The attribution of CatCE to Andrew of Crete (c. 660–740), even if he is not the actual compiler, also supports this timeframe (see below for further discussion on Andrew’s authorship). Given that the likely provenance of the compilation of the ac materials is Constantinople and given that Dorival has identified the systematic use of Chrysostom scholia with the Constantinopolitan phase of catena production, we can confidently conclude that CatJas in its final form was compiled at Constantinople. 11.2.1 Andrew of Crete as the Final Redactor of the Catena? As noted, the final redactor of CatCE has been identified with Andrew of Crete (c. 660–740). Andrew was born in Damascus around 660 and became a monk at the monastery of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. He spent time at Constantinople, where he administered an orphanage and poorhouse and was ordained as a deacon. He was later named metropolitan of Gortyna in Crete. Andrew is most noted for his homilies, panegyrics, and hymn writing; the new hymnic genre of the canon is often attributed to him.361 The suggestion that Andrew of Crete is the final redactor of CatCE is based on an attribution to “Andrew, a presbyter,” appearing at the end of Codex P. The text reads, Ἀνδρέου δὲ τοῦ ἐλεεινοῦ καὶ ταπεινοῦ πρεσβυτέρου τοῦ συναγαγόντος καὶ παραθεμένου τὰς ἐμφερομένας τῇ βίβλῳ ταύτῃ παραγραφὰς οἱ έντυγχάνοντες ὑπερεύχεσθε, ἵνα ὁ θεὸς δωρήσηται αὐτῷ ἔλεος ἐν φοβερᾷ καὶ ἀδεκάστῳ τῆς κρίσεως ἡμέρᾳ. Παρακαλῶ δὲ τοὺς γράφοντας ταύτην τὴν βίβλον καὶ τὴν προκειμένην εὐχὴν μετἀ τῆς παρακλήσεως τάσσετε.362 You who are reading, pray for Andrew, the pitiable and humble presbyter who gathered together and set down the comments contained in 361

362

See Siméon Vailhé, “Saint André de Crète,” Échos d’Orient 5 (1902), 378–387; “Andrew of Crete,” Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Kazhdan, ed.), 92–93. It is noteworthy that a panegyric on James, including a paraphrase of the letter of James, is attributed to Andrew of Crete: Bios kai Marturion tou hagiou Iakobou (Life and Martyrdom of the holy James Laud. Jac.). See Jacques Noret, ed., Un Éloge de Jacques, le frère du Seigneur (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1978). Noret, however, considers the attribution to Andrew of Crete as unreliable and dates the work to the first half of the seventh century (Bios, 90–91; 100). P fol. 254v. Text printed in Staab, 346.

introduction

95

this book, that God might grant him mercy on the fearful and just Day of Judgment. I implore you who are writing down this book to preserve this prayer together with its plea. Von Soden suggests that this presbyter Andrew is to be identified with Andrew of Crete.363 In rejecting von Soden’s proposal, Staab points to the meager textual support for this note from the presbyter Andrew. Only Codex P and a 14thcentury manuscript (Athos Panteleemon 770 = ga 1678) witness it; Staab thinks that the latter manuscript simply copied Codex P. Citing other versions of this same note from Andrew in manuscripts of catenae to Isaiah, Staab conjectures that a later scribe simply took the note from an Isaiah manuscript and added it to P. In the end, the lack of textual support for the note, the vague selfidentification “Andrew the presbyter,” and the lack of any corroborative evidence from the life and literary work of Andrew of Crete prevents us from making any positive identification. The Ps.-Andrew label must suffice.364 We can safely assume, however, that Ps.-Andrew was either a cleric or a monk (see following section). Other than adding the voice of a new authority (Maximus the Confessor), the final redactor seamlessly continues the theological and moral interests of the catenist of the ac materials (see sects. 9.4 and 11.1.3). 11.3 The Purpose of CatJas Given the paucity of direct information, I shall begin my study of the purpose of CatJas by discussing the purpose of catena production in general, beginning with its Palestinian origins around the time of Procopius and then sketching the broad outlines of its history. Gilles Dorival comments, rightly, that the catena is a scholarly genre and thus reveals nothing about popular religion in Byzantium. In the first, Palestinian, phase catenae were used by a small circle of Christian scholars, monks, and clerics. In the Constantinopolitan phase, Dorival believes that only two basic groups were readers of catenae: clerics and monks (as evidenced by preservation of catenae in the great monastic centers of the Empire such as Mount

363

364

Von Soden, Schriften, 529–530. Von Soden references a manuscript that contains a copy of CatCE followed immediately by a commentary on Paul’s letters from John Damascene (c. 660–c. 750). Andrew of Crete was born in Damascus and was associated with John Damascene during his lifetime; von Soden suggests, rather unconvincingly, that these associations lend credibility to Andrew of Crete’s authorship (Von Soden, Schriften, 278– 279; 683–686). A conclusion also reached by the cgp-C176 editors.

96

introduction

Athos or St. John’s on Patmos).365 I believe that Dorival’s view is essentially correct but will attempt to add detail to sharpen our view of this general picture. 11.3.1 General Purpose of Catena Traditions 11.3.1.1 Catenae as Reference Resources in Episcopal Churches Procopius himself was apparently a layperson, not a priest or monk; it is unclear where he received his specifically Christian education in scripture.366 Choricius, Procopius’ student and successor as head of the Gaza rhetorical school, describes the theological education of Marcion, bishop of Gaza in Procopius’ time, as one centered on the study and interpretation of scripture. He notes that Marcion was trained in the sacred sciptures for the priesthood (συγγράμμασι τοῖς ὁσίοις πρὸ τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἐγγυμνασάμενος).367 Choricius praises Marcion for working hard to master what he heard from the divine instructions (πρὸς ἀκρόασιν θείων ὤδινες ἀκουσμάτων); such an education (παίδευσις) would allow him to become well-versed in the holy scriptures (ἐπιστήμων τε γένοιο τῶν ἱερῶν συγγραμμάτων) and enable him to interpret these scriptures to others in a more understandable way (καὶ δυνήσῃ τοῖς ἄλλοις εὐμαθέστερον ἑρμηνεύειν).368 Procopius’ catenae and related commentaries, with their wealth of classic interpretations from authoritative Christian teachers, would have been a helpful resource in attaining this goal. While both Christians and non-Christians would have shared instruction in classical rhetoric in Gaza and elsewhere in the Empire at this time, it is unlikely that this scripture-based education for the priesthood took place in the rhetorical school itself. Choricius states that for his theological education, Marcion went to the [school] of the teacher (φοιτήσας ἐς διδασκάλου), i.e., his uncle, a bishop.369 As Claudia Greco concludes, this likely refers to individual instruction.370 We see this type of individualized or small-group theological education 365 366

367 368 369 370

Dorival, Chaînes exégétiques, 5:285–286. Yakov Ashkenazi (“Sophists and Priests in Late Antique Gaza according to Choricius the Rhetor,” in Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity, ed. Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony and Aryeh Kofsky, Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 3 [Leiden: Brill, 2004], 200) suggests that a Christian layperson such as Procopius of Gaza would have received his theological education in the rhetorical school at Gaza. I agree with Claudia Greco, however, that this is unlikely (see her “Late Antique Portraits: Reading Choricius of Gaza’s Encomiastic Orations [i–viii F.-R.],” Wiener Studien 124 [2011]: 99 n. 10) and further discussion in this section. Choricius Laud. Marc. 1.7 (Foerster and Richtsteig, eds., 4). Choricius Laud. Marc. 2.8–9 (Foerster and Richtsteig, eds., 30). Choricius Laud. Marc. 8 (Foerster and Richtsteig, eds., 30). Greco, “Reading Choricius,” 99. Cf. the use of this phrase in Plato Alc. i 109D (φοιτῶν εἰς διδασκάλου) in reference to an individual teacher.

introduction

97

also in the case of Severus of Antioch and Zacharias Rhetor of Mytilene—two contemporaries of Procopius who also spent time in Gaza and the surrounding region. While still studying law in Beirut, these two privately pursued theological studies, reading books of the church fathers (including Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria) owned by Zacharias;371they also had access to Christian books through one of the clergy, who was “sharing and giving” his Christian books.372 This individual or small group education might develop to a larger scale: Origen began as an individual teacher in Caesarea, but his school, and library, grew as it become more closely associated with the office of bishop (see sect. 5.8.1). Glanville Downey has shown how easily Christian teachers and students moved from city to city both within and outside of Palestine: the catenae traditions likely used by those teachers and students would have quickly spread throughout the Byzantine Empire.373 In the early 1100s, Nicetas (see sect. 5.5.1 above), was no doubt using his catenae as a reference for his teaching at the “Patriarchal School” or “Patriarchal Academy” at the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople; one can assume that Nicetas’ students were primarily “future clergy or monks.”374 The origins of this school are much debated. Hans-Georg Beck insists that not only is there no solid evidence for its existence prior to 1107, but that there is no solid evidence for any institute of higher theological education for clergy before that date. Throughout the Empire, there was no formal requirement of theological study before a man could be ordained; the higher studies of Scripture or the church fathers that did take place were matters of private instruction.375 One should bear in mind that the catenae, by definition, are scholia written on full manuscripts of biblical books, and thus they would typically (especially after Constantine) be produced in Christian scriptoria. These scriptoria in turn are associated with episcopal or patriarchal churches.376 Thus one would expect episcopal churches to be major centers of catena production. To sum up this section: the evidence suggests that catena manuscripts were produced, circulated, and stored at episcopal or patriarchal centers (e.g., Gaza,

371 372 373 374 375 376

Zacharias Rhetor, Vit. Sev. 48–49; 52–54 (Ambjörn, trans., 48–54). See also Linda Jones Hall, Roman Berytus: Beirut in Late Antiquity (London: Routledge, 2004), 199–200. Vit. Sev., 64–65 (Ambjörn, trans., 64). Downey, “Christian Schools,” 300–302. So “Patriarchal School,” Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Kazhdan ed.), 3:1599. Beck, “Bildung und Theologie in frühmittelalterlichen Byzanz,” in Ideen und Realitaeten in Byzanz: Gesammelte Aufsaetze (London: Variorum, 1972), iii, 69–81. On the association of scriptoria with episcopal centers, see K. Aland and B. Aland, Critical Editions, 70.

98

introduction

Caesarea Maritima, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople). These centers would have had the resources (libraries [see sect. 5.8.1] and scriptoria) to produce the catenae manuscripts. In these settings, these catenae may well have been used in instructing aspiring clerics, especially bishops. Before the time of Nicetas, however, these catenae traditions do not seem to have been used in a formal, institutionalized school, but rather to have used by small groups of scholars associated with a particular bishop. 11.3.1.2 Catenae as Reference Resources in Monasteries In the time of Procopius, a network of monasteries surrounded Gaza; from the second half of the fifth century and the early years of the sixth century these monasteries were a center for the anti-Chalcedonian movement.377 We have good evidence of interaction between the monastic community, the bishop of Gaza, and the rhetorical school. One may note especially the following points: – Interaction of bishop and monasteries. Yakov Ashkenazi writes of “the vast numbers of monks that were appointed to that office [scil. of bishop] in Palestine in late antiquity.”378 – Interaction of monasteries and the rhetorical school. The early anti-Chalcedonian Abba Isaiah (d. 491) consulted with Aeneas (c. 430–520), a leader of Gaza’s rhetorical school, about the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus.379 Derwas Chitty writes that the contact between Zacharias Rhetor of Mytilene (Severus’ companion and biographer) and Aeneas “suggests a close relationship between our highly-educated monastic circles and the more secular literary school of Gaza.”380 Interaction of the bishop and the rhetorical school. Choricius delivered two public encomia in praise of Bishop Marcion381 and a funeral oration for the bishop’s mother.382 Yakov Ashkenazi gives further evidence for this close relationship.383

377

378 379 380

381 382 383

See Aryeh Kofsky, “What Happened to the Monophysite Monasticism of Gaza?” in BittonAshkelony and Kofsky, eds., Christian Gaza, 183–184; Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony and Aryeh Kofsky, The Monastic School of Gaza, vc Supplements 78 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 20–81. Ashkenazi, “Sophists and Priests,” 197. Vit. Isa. 12. See Bitten-Ashkelony and Kofsky, Monastic School, 21–22. Chitty, The Desert a City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967), 105. See Zacharias Rhetor of Mytiline, Vit. Sev. 90 (trans. Ambjörn, 92–93). Choricius Laud. Marc. 1–2 (Foerster and Richtsteig, eds., 1–47). Choricius Or. fun. Marc. (Greco, ed., 41–55). See Ashkenazi, “Sophists and Priests,” 200–201. But see the criticisms of Greco, who thinks

introduction

99

Given these close relationships, it is likely that Procopius’ catenae, along with other early catenae traditions, could well have been circulated in the monasteries around Gaza, and from thence into monasteries or to other scriptural scholars or teachers throughout the Empire. The monasteries of Constantinople, with their libraries and scriptoria, played a central role in the production and dissemination of the catenae. Especially important were the Studite monasteries, where it is likely that miniscule writing and the frame catena were developed (see sect. 5.8.2 above). 11.3.1.3 Catenae as Reference Resources for Clergy and Monks Bas ter Haar Romeny and David Westberg rightly place the catenae of Procopius and other early catenae traditions in an educational setting.384 I believe that their assumption that they were used directly in the classroom setting in a rhetorical school, however, is incorrect.385 More convincing is the suggestion of Karin Metzler that Procopius’ Epitome would have been held as a reference work in a well-stocked library.386 Metzler’s comment can be applied to the catena tradition in general: with their frequently huge number of scholia, catena served as reference works for scholars, teachers, and students rather than for direct use in the classroom.387 It is clear that Nicetas of Heraclea, the only catena compiler for whom we have reliable historical information, compiled his catenae for his own reference, not for direct use in his classroom teaching (see sect. 5.5.1). Nicetas, in comments given at the end of his catena on Psalms, writes, “This work will be for me a remedy against forgetfulness and a resource of memory; if it should seem useful to others, grace be to God from whom every successful thing (comes to) foolish humans” (ἔσται δέ μοι τὸ σύγ-

384

385

386

387

that Ashkenazi and others exaggerate the closeness of the relationship (“Reading Choricius,” 107 n. 35). Westberg, “Rhetorical Exegesis in Procopius of Gaza’s Commentary on Genesis,” in Studia Patristica 55 Vol. 3: Early Monasticism and Classical Paideia, ed. Samuel Rubenson (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), esp. 102–108; Romeny, “Procopius of Gaza,” 189–190. Romeny writes that Procopius “was a sophist and wrote books that could be used as examples in the classroom” (“Procopius of Gaza,” 189); Westberg (“Rhetorical Exegesis,” 105) agrees with this point. Both scholars seem to assume that instruction with the catenae took place in Procopius’ rhetorical school, which I also dispute (see sect. 11.3.1.1). Metzler, “Introduction” to Exoduskommentar, ed. Metzler, xxx; cf. Metzler, “Introduction” to Genesiskommentar, trans. Metzler, xxx. She thinks here specifically of a library at Constantinople that held a copy of Procopius’ Epitome that became the archetype for copies throughout Western Europe. To offer but one example: the Catena to Genesis has 2,270 scholia (Gilles Dorival, The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople: Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021], 136); cf. Metzler, ed., Genesiskommentar, xxix.

100

introduction

ταμα τοῦτο λήθης φάρμακον καὶ μνήμης ἐμπόρευμα· εἰ δὲ καὶ ἄλλοις δόξειε χρήσιμον, θῶ χάρις παρ’ οὗ πᾶν ἀνοῖς τὸ κατορθούμενον).388 Similarly, the suggestions of Romeny and Westberg that locates Procopius and the ensuing catenae traditions in the more basic levels of education389 has also rightly been critiqued by Karin Metzler.390 She argues that Procopius does indeed include “higher level” interpretations (such as allegorical exegesis), that the sheer size of his collections militates against their classroom use, and that the manuscripts of Procopius’ work show no evidence of divisions for pedagogical purposes.391 While the catenae traditions certainly do emphasize the elucidation of the historical and grammatical aspects of the scriptural text (see examples from CatJas in sect. 14), they are by no means limited to it. The catenae also emphasize, for example, the moral lessons of the text (as Westberg also rightly notes).392 The evidence suggests, then, that catenae were produced, held, and circulated as reference works in scriptoria and libraries associated with episcopal churches, imperial libraries, and monasteries. They were produced as a resource for Christian scholars, clergy, and monks, but it is unlikely that they were used directly in formal Christian schools before the 1100s. 11.3.1.4

Catenae and the Moral and Theological Formation of Clergy and Monks Procopius’ student Chorcius identifies the two types of paideia necessary for a future bishop: a rhetorical education that grants one fluency of speech (τῆς μὲν εὐγλωττίαν χαριζομένης) and education in Scripture that benefits one’s soul (τῆς δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν ὠφελούσης).393 Choricius’ comment is a reminder that Christians of late antiquity saw the correct interpretation of Scripture not as an end in itself—rather it was simply one aid in helping individuals to commit them388 389

390

391 392 393

Greek text from codex Coislin 190 printed in Karo and Lieztmann, Catalogus, 34. French translation in Dorival, “Commentaires de l’Écriture,” 377. Westberg writes, “Procopius operates on a basic level of exegesis … the rhetorician whose authority is restricted to the preliminary stage of theology” (“Rhetorical Exegesis,” 107); he focuses on “a grammatical and historical explanation of the text” (quoting Romeny with approval; 105). Romeny writes that in Procopius’ classroom, “a text was read, its language elucidated, and finally it was explained at a basic, factual level” (“Procopius of Gaza,” 190) …. “There is hardly room for the philosophical, spiritual, and doctrinal here” (189). See Metzler, “Introduction” to Genesiskomentar, ed. Metzler, xxvii–xxx; Metzler, “Introduction” to Genesiskommentar, trans. Metzler, xxix–xxx; Metzler, “Introduction” to Exoduskommentar, ed. Metzler, xxx. Metzler, “Introduction” to Genesiskommentar, ed. Metzler, xvi and n. 40. Westberg, “Rhetorical Exegesis,” 105–106. Choricius Laud. Marc. 2.9 (Foerster and Richtsteig, eds., 30).

introduction

101

selves more fully to the Christian way of life. In this sense the catena can be employed as a protreptic speech (λόγος προτρεπτικός) designed to convert, or more fully convert, a person to the Christian life (see sect. 12.1.2 below). This moral education would take place in any of the episcopal or monastic settings sketched in this section. Again, the catenae were not used directly in a classroom, but rather as a resource for the Christian scholars, clergy, or monks engaged in the work of calling themselves or other Christians to live the Christian life more fully. One can imagine, for example, an abbot or bishop consulting the catenae interpretations as he prepares his homily. In general, the moral exhortations and theological clarifications of the catenae served as a resource for those who were responsible for the formation of aspiring and actual clergy and monks in these settings. 11.3.2

The Moral and Theological Purposes of CatJas in the Final Stage of Composition As Dorival notes (see sect. 5.4.2), the transition from the Palestinian stage to the Constantinopolitan stages was organic and gradual. Thus the basic purpose for CatJas and other catenae traditions would have remained the same: they were produced, revised, expanded, and adapted as resources held in episcopal libraries and monasteries. The basic moral and theological purpose also remains the same: by focusing on basic ethical and related theological issues, the catenae is a resource to help in the conversion of monks and priests to a deeper following of the Christian life, so that they in their turn might help others in their conversion. The final redactor of CatJas continues this ethical and theological focus (sect. 11.2.1). Similarly, the development of CatJas itself from the ac materials stage (see 9.4 and 11.1.3) to its final redaction in Constantinople was organic and gradual. As noted above (sect. 11.2) the main contributions of the final redactor, Ps.-Andrew, were the systematic introduction of Chrysostom scholia and the two lengthy scholia from Maximus (11.2). With his addition of lengthy passages from Chrysostom’s homilies, Ps.-Andrew seems to signal a special pastoral purpose. As discussed above (sect. 10.4.7.4), the selection of passages from Chrysostom that focus on moral exhortations is not strictly exegetical, but rather broadly pastoral. One can envision at least two purposes: (1) for the moral education and exhortation of a monastic community and aspiring clergy and (2) for providing material for priests or bishops to incorporate in their own homilies.394 But the directly exegetical pur394

Dorival also suggests this last point (Chaînes exégétiques, 5:287); cf. also Metzler, “Introduction” to Genesiskommentar, ed. Metzler, xxix.

102

introduction

pose was not abandoned. While the incorporation of scholia from Maximus the Confessor may indicate a desire to balance the scholia of Severus with a writer well-known for his opposition to the “Monophysite” and “Monothelite” positions (see sect. 10.4.16), the more likely motivation is simply a desire to add the penetrating insights of a more recent, respected exegete to shed additional light on two difficult passages in James. I shall conclude this section with some general comments on the overall purposes of CatJas, with no attempt to distinguish the two stages. The favorite authors of CatJas are Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Severus of Antioch (sect. 10.1)—again suggesting that the catenist was interested in reconciling pro- and anti-Chalcedonian churches. Reference to Severus is muted in comparison with other catena traditions: he is never given the epithet “saint” and two of his scholia are unattributed. CatJas pays close attention to the language (τὸ τεχνικόν) and to the historical and contextual aspects (τὸ ἱστορικόν) of the Letter of James (see sect. 14). This is done not as an end in itself but rather to shed light on the moral and theological issues raised in the Letter of James. The following theological issues are of particular interest (cf. sects. 9.4 above and 16 below): – Explaining the distinction between different types of trials / temptations (πειρασμοί), including how this distinction helps to reconcile Jesus’ teaching in the Lord’s Prayer (“lead us not into temptation”) with James’ teaching (1:3: “consider it all joy when you fall into various temptations”) and how this distinction helps to explain James’ teaching that “God tests no one” (Sch. 1.5; 1.10–13, 1.16a) – Explaining the relationship between faith and actions, including reconciling the teaching of Paul and James on the relationship of faith, actions, and salvation (Sch. 2.14–19) – Explaining the efficacy of prayer, including the question of why God does not seem to answer certain prayers (Sch. 4.3–4; 5.17–21) – Several issues cluster around what we may term “Christian anthropology”: elucidating James’ teaching on human nature (including double-mindedness, the relationship of desire and sin, the image of God in humans, the human spirit: Sch. 1.7–8; 1.14–15; 1.22; 1.24; 1.28; 1.30; 4.10–13) Among the important moral issues: – Explaining the value of enduring suffering (Sch. 1.3–5; 1.9; 4.9) – Exhortations to respect the poor within the church community (Sch. 2.1–3) – Admonition to bear the unjust actions of the wealthy with patience (Sch. 2.4; 5.8–9) – Warning against the evils of uncontrolled speech (3.3–13) – Warnings against self-indulgence (Sch. 5.1–5) – Exhortation to avoid swearing oaths (5.12a–5.14)

introduction

103

The connection between theological and ethical concerns is close. Discussing the ethical issue of the value of suffering, for example, is tied closely with theological and anthropological questions of whether God tests humans, or whether such testing arises from a person’s own desire. The editorial hand of the catenist is light. Ps-Andrew’s own comments are largely limited to brief introductory comments and attempts to smooth the transition between scholia and the preceding text (cf. sects. 10.4.7.6 and 13.2). He takes seriously his task of presenting the authoritative voices of the “Church fathers” as they comment on James, and not allowing his own work as an editor to get in the way.395 CatJas was developed as a resource to aid in the moral and theological formation of aspiring and actual clerics and monks.

12

The Rhetorical Analysis of James in CatJas

CatJas uses three key terms in its rhetorical analysis of the Letter of James: didactic (διδασκαλική), protreptic (προτρεπτική), and paraenetical (παραινετική). I consider each term in the following sections. 12.1 The Letter of James as a Didactic Letter The Euthalian hypothesis to CatJas categorizes the letter as a “didactic epistle,” and then summarizes its didactic lessons. The first three lessons listed are the following: “He writes a didactic epistle (διδασκαλική ἐπιστολή), [1] teaching about the distinction between trials: which kind are from God, and which kind are from people’s own heart. And [2] [that it is necessary] to demonstrate faith not by speech alone, but also by action. And [3] not the hearers of the Law, but rather the doers are justified.”396 The Euthalian tradition identifies two other nt epistles as written in the style of the “didactic epistle.” It states that “Peter himself writes a didactic epistle to the Jews who were in the dispersion and become Christians”397 and describes Paul’s Letter to the Romans as a didactic epistle “concerning the calling of the Gentiles.”398

395 396 397 398

One should note, however, that in a few cases the catenist seems to have added biblical quotations from Paul to scholia (see comments on Sch. 1.17, 1.31b, 3.17). Cramer, 1, lines 7–11. cpgnt 8:41 line 4. cpgnt 4:1, lines 12–13.

104

introduction

The διδασκαλική epistolary style is listed in Ps.-Libanius’ handbook Epistolary Styles.399 It is defined simply as the style “in which we teach about something to someone” (διδασκαλικὴ δι’ ἧς διδάσκομέν τινα περί τινος).400 Intriguingly, a further description of the style provides a specific example that parallels Jas 1:13–16: one should not attribute evil to the divine: “Do not think God (τὸ θεῖον) caused the terrible things that have befallen you. For God is completely free of evil (πανταχοῦ γὰρ τὸ θεῖον ἐλεύθερον κακῶν ὑπάρχει). For he who orders others to flee evil would never cause evil to someone.”401 It is unclear whether the CatJas hypothesis intends to categorize the entire Epistle of James as a διδασκαλική ἐπιστολή, or whether this label refers to only certain didactic passages. See further discussion in the Commentary on the hypothesis. 12.2 The Analysis of Protreptic Speech in James Aristotle (Rhet. 1.3.3 [1358b]) identifies the protreptic (προτρεπτικός, hortatory, exhortative) speech as one mode (along with dissuasive speech) of deliberative (συμβουλευτικος) rhetoric. In the philosophical schools, τὸ προτρεπτικός is paired with censure (ἐλεγχός) to refer to a method of encouragement and rebuke designed to bring a person to accept the truth taught in a particular school. The λόγος προτρεπτικός was thus especially associated with efforts to convert the hearer from one way of life to another.402 Some modern scholars identify the Letter of James itself as an example of protreptic discourse.403 The verb προτρέπτω occurs four times in the CatJas: – The Euthalian hypothesis uses προτρέπτω to summarize Jas 5:7–9: James exhorts his readers to be patient until the coming of the Lord.404 – Schol. 1.4: A scholion from Didymus of Alexandria describes James’ message in 1:3–4a, “Exhorting (προτρέπων), then, to a perfection (maturity) based on courage and patience, he appropriately calls them ‘brothers and sisters’ not ‘children’ or ‘sons.’”405

399 400 401 402

403

404 405

Ps.-Libanius Char. ep. 4 (Foerster, ed., 28; Malherbe, trans., 67). Ps.-Libanius Char. ep. 31 (Foerster, ed., 32; Malherbe, trans., 71). Ps.-Libanius Char. ep. 78 (Foerster, ed., 43; Malherbe, trans., 79). See “Protreptic Literature,” in David E. Aune, The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 383–384. E.g., Johnson, Letter of James, 16–24; Carol Poster, “Words as Works: Philosophical Protreptic and the Epistle of James” in Rhetorics for a New Millenium, ed. David Hester (New York: T&T Clark International, 2010), 235–253. Cramer, 1, lines 14–15. Cramer, 2, lines 26–29.

introduction

105

– Schol. 1.9: Focused on Jas 1:12, this scholion from Didymus of Alexandria comments, “Having exhorted (προτρεψάμενος) (them) sufficiently to withstand trials with joy so that a tested and true result and a complete perseverance might come about (Jas 1:2–4) … by another word of encouragement (δι’ ἑτέρας παραινέσεως) he tries to persuade (πείθειν) (them) to complete successfully what lies before (them) ….”406 Here the scholion closely ties a protreptic discourse with paraenesis. The encouragement is tied to the Lord’s promise of the “crown of life.” Ps.-Libanius’s handbook also closely links protreptic discourse with paraenesis: “The paraenetic style is that in which we exhort someone by urging (προτρέποντες) him to pursue something or to avoid something. Paraenesis is divided into two parts, encouragement and dissuasion” (Παραινετικὴ μὲν οὖν ἐστι δι’ ἧς παραινοῦμέν τινι προτρέποντες αὐτὸν ἐπί τι ὁρμῆσαι ἢ καὶ ἀφέξεσθαί τινος. ἡ παραίνεσις δὲ εἰς δύο διαιρεῖται, εἴς τε προτροπὴν καὶ ἀποτροπήν).407 – Sch. 4.4a on Jas 4:3a: The scholion (from Origen, likely by way of Didymus’ commentary) comments, “[To] the one who does not [come] in this way, it must be said to him, ‘You did not come to him, as you were exhorted (προετρέψω) (to come).’”408 In context, the scholion presents the scenario of a student who comes to study with a teacher but lacks the commitment to study his teachings carefully and intensely. This scholion thus provides a classic example of a λόγος προτρεπτικός: a teacher exhorts a student to convert and following the way of life he teaches, but in this example, the student lacks the commitment to follow the exhortation. These three scholia from Didymus present a consistent understanding: the epistle of James employs protreptic discourse to persuade its readers to follow (or perhaps to follow more faithfully) the way of life to which they have been called. 12.3 The Analysis of Paraenetical Speech in James The verb παραινέω (“to encourage”) occurs four times in CatJas, along with four occurrences of the noun παραίνεσις. – Sch. 1:9: We have already seen (sect. 12.1.2 on Sch. 1.9) that CatJas closely links paraenetic and protreptic speech.

406 407

408

Cramer, 4, lines 19–23. Ps.-Libanius Char. ep. 5. (Foerster, ed., 29; Malherbe, trans., 69). Aristotle (Rhet. 1358b) categorizes προτροπή and ἀποτροπή under deliberative (συμβουλευτικόν) rhetoric (Freese, Striker, trans., 32). Cramer, 25, line 33–26, line 1.

106

introduction

– Sch. 1.17 to Jas 1:17c: This scholion, attributed to Severus, comments that God’s unchanging nature is reflected in the firmness of Christians, introducing the quotation of Rom 12:2, “Thus Paul was urging (παρῄνει) certain people, saying, ‘Do not be conformed …’”409 – Sch. 2.10 to Jas 2:13: This unattributed scholion reads, “The exhortation (ἡ παραίνεσις) is about correct judgment,”410 referring to the exhortation in Jas 2:12, “Speak in such a way, and act in such a way, as people who are about to be judged by the law of freedom.” – Sch. 2.15 to Jas 2:17–19. Commenting on James’ well-known teaching on the inseparability of faith and actions, this scholion, drawn from Chrysostom’s Homily on Hebrews, refers to Paul’s paraenesis: “Paul also encourages (παραινεῖ) those who are already considered worthy of the mysteries, saying, ‘Let us make every effort to enter that rest’” (Heb 4:11).411 – Sch. 3.11 to Jas 3:8 (“But no human being can tame the tongue; it is an uncontrollable evil, full of deadly poison.”): This unattributed scholion, attempting to show that Jas 3:8 should not be taken literally, refers to the admonition in Jas 3:10b, “These things ought not to be so, my brothers and sisters.” It then asks James, rhetorically, “What are you saying? Why do you encourage (παραινεῖς) things that are impossible?”412 – Sch. 4.10 to Jas 4:5–6. This unattributed scholion refers generally to exhortations that James makes throughout the epistle, “Therefore the apostle, recalling his own exhortations” (ταῖς ἰδίαις παραινέσεσι).413 – Sch. 5.7 to Jas 5:7–20. This unattributed scholion summarizes Jas 5:7, “he fittingly encourages (παραινεῖ) those who have been treated unjustly to be patient while awaiting the coming of the Lord.”414 The summary of Jas 5:7 in the hypothesis uses the verb προτρέπω instead: προτρεψάμενος αὐτοὺς μακροθυμεῖν ἕως τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κριτοῦ (“exhorting them to be patient until the coming of the Judge”).415 – Chapter 10 title (Euthalian materials): “Specific exhortations (Παραινέσεις ἰδικαί) (given) with faith, appropriate to each person.”416 This title covers the imperative teachings of Jas 5:12–18 on prayer, singing psalms, calling the elders for the sick, and confessing of sins to one another. 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416

Cramer, 6, line 32. Cramer, 13, line 4. Cramer, 15, lines 25–26. Cramer, 22, lines 29–30. Cramer, 29, lines 14–15. Cramer, 34, lines 22–23. Cramer, 1, line 14. Cramer, 36, line 31.

introduction

107

In sum, the verb παραινέω is used twice to describe Paul’s teaching; the verb and noun are used a total of six times to describe James’ imperatives. David Hellholm and Vemund Blomkvist have shown that the terms παραίνεσις / παραινέω / παρεινετικός are used extensively in the Euthalian apparatus on the Pauline and Catholic letters as genre designations for specific sections of the letters, but not for any letter as a whole.417 The terminology for ethical exhortation is flexible, however, especially in the hypotheses; παραινέω and προτρέπω are used almost as synonyms.418 12.4 Further Examples of Rhetorical Analysis in CatJas Following are other examples of the use of standard Greco-Roman rhetorical vocabulary and approaches in CatJas: – Hypothesis (ὑποθέσις): CatJas itself begins with a summary of the Letter’s contents – Sch 1.1 describes the literary habits of the apostles in the preface (προοίμιον) of their letters. – Sch. 2.13 refers to the examples (τὰ ὑποδείγματα) of Abraham and Rahab used in Jas 2:20–26 to support his thesis that faith without actions is not true faith419 – Sch. 3.11 refers to eloquent speeches (ῥητορείαι) of Paul – Sch. 4.10: Jas 4:5b–4:6a is identified as a digression (μεταξυλογία) – Sch. 5.10 refers to an encomium (ἐγκώμιον) on Job; Sch. 2.12 is itself an encomium on mercy. 12.5 Conclusions The designation of James as a didactic letter is limited to a single statement, albeit one that occurs in a privileged position in the hypothesis of CatJas. It is unclear whether this designation was meant to describe the entire epistle, or only certain “didactic” sections. The verb προτρέπτω is used to describe certain passages in James, never the epistle as a whole. This term is especially associated with scholia from Didymus of Alexandria. The verb παραινέω and the noun παραίνεσις are used to describe

417

418 419

Helmholm and Blomqvist, “Parainesis as an Ancient Genre-Designation: The Case of the ‘Euthalian Apparatus’ and the ‘Affiliated Argumenta,’” in Blomqvist, Euthalian Traditions, 299–344. Helmholm and Blomqvist, “Parainesis,” 340. On the use of the ὑποδείγματα (Latin: exempla) in the rhetoric of Jas 2, see Duane F. Watson, “James 2 in Light of Greco-Roman Schemes of Argumentation,” nts 39 (1993): 114– 116.

108

introduction

James’ admonitions. The terms παραινέω / παραίνεσις are used interchangeably with προτρέπτω, so it may well be that CatJas accepts Ps.-Libanius’ understanding of protreptic exhortation as part of paraenesis. In addition to these terms, CatJas employs several other terms common in ancient Greek rhetorical analysis. It is apparent, then that CatJas applies classical Greek rhetorical analysis in its exegesis of the Letter of James.

13

The Use of Patristic Sources in CatJas

I have distinguished between the two catenists in analyzing CatJas: the catenist responsible for collecting the ac materials, and the final redactor, Ps.-Andrew. For most of the following comments, however, I make general comments that are relevant for both, except when a clear distinction can be made. 13.1 Types of Patristic Sources I listed the authors used for scholia in CatJas in section 10 (see also sect. 9.4) above. As in the catena traditions in general, CatJas draws on of a wide variety of authors, ranging from the Alexandrians Origen, Didymus, and Cyril to the Antiochenes Chrysostom and Theodoret. A relatively small number of scholia were originally exegetical comments focused directly on the text of James itself: the scholia from Didymus’Enarratio (sect. 10.4.5.2), the comments of Isidore on Jas 3:6 (Sch. 3.7–8), Maximus’ comments on Jas 5:16 (Sch. 5.18). Other scholia are drawn from occasional writings on other topics that include a secondary reference to James (e.g., 1.7; 1.13; 1,18; 3.2; 5.3). Most scholia from patristic authors, however, have no direct connection with James at all. The catenist has chosen them because they illuminate a particular topic that occurs both in James and in other early Christian writings. 13.2 Techniques in the Use of Patristic Sources The following techniques and approaches are used by the compilers of CatJas: – Quoting extracts verbatim: In the great majority of the cases where a CatJas scholion can be compared with its original source, one finds that the catenists have quoted the material carefully and accurately (cf. 10.4.7.6). – Crafting more concise and focused scholia by cutting out unnecessary or extraneous material. In addition to the examples in 10.4.7.6, see Scholia 1.5, 1.35, 2.18, 3.9, 3.16. Scholion 5.9 is an exceptional case in which the source material has been reworked and rearranged extensively (cf. also 1.11). – Fusing together scholia from different sources to produce a composite scholion (see the examples in 10.4.7.6).

introduction

109

– Adding further comments. Evidence from the following scholia suggests that the catenists added their own editorial comments to the scholia; these comments generally serve simply to introduce a scholia or to connect it more smoothly with the preceding text (see Commentary on Sch. 2.8a, 2.10, 2.16, 3.7, 3,17, 4.3, 4.8, 5.22).

14

The Exegetical Approach of CatJas

Staab characterized the exegetical approach of the compiler of the ac materials (first stage of CatJas) as one closely focused on the biblical text in a “literalhistorical” fashion (in contrast to employing Alexandrian-style allegory), while emphasizing the moral and pedagogical value of the text.420 Broadly speaking, one can apply Staab’s characterization to both stages of CatJas’s composition, with the qualification that stage two shows a greater interest in moral exhortation (see sect. 11.3.2). To be more accurate, however, one should move beyond contrasting the overly broad categories of “literal” and “allegorical.” Instead of using the term “literal,” it is more precise to note that CatJas works with the methods that characterized grammatical analysis of texts taught in the Greco-Roman schools (see sect. 4.1). This grammatical analysis characterized Antiochene commentators such as Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia,421 but as scholars such as Frances Young have shown, these same grammatical approaches were also employed by “allegorists” such as Origen.422 Thus, we can characterize the CatJas exegetical approach as one that applies the analytical methods taught in the Greco-Roman schools to interpret texts, with a particular concern to draw out the moral lessons taught by the texts. In addition, however, the catenists worked with specifically Christian hermeneutical principles, such as that all Scripture is a unity and so it is legitimate to interpret one Scriptural passage in light of another.423 In the following, I give examples of where CatJas practices the ancient Greek exegetical task of elucidating the language (τὸ τεχνικόν) of a text (sects. 14.1–3) while sect. 14.4 shows CatJas illuminating the historical and contextual aspects of a text (τὸ ἱστορικόν) in its exegetical efforts (cf. sect. 4.1 for these terms). 420 421 422 423

Staab, 340. See, e.g, Schäublin, Antiochenischen Exegese, 55–65. Young, Biblical Exegesis, 82–89. Even this principle, however, has parallels in Greek literary analysis, see sect. 14.5 below.

110

introduction

14.1 Synonyms or Short Explanatory Glosses Here the exegete provides short clarifications of words or phrases, ranging from a one-word synonym to fuller descriptions. Examples: Sch. 1.16a, 1.16b, 1.19–30, 1.31a, 1.32–34, 2.10, 2.23, 2.24, 3.17a, 4.5, 4.14–15, 4.20, and 4.22c. 14.2 Explanatory Paraphrase424 Closely related to the explanatory gloss, the exegete here rewrites particular phrases in order to clarify their meaning. Examples: Sch. 3.4, 3.10, 4.11–12, 5.4, 5.15–16. 14.3 Analysis of Vocabulary and Linguistic Usage Scholia often comment on the linguistic meaning and usage of key words in a specific rhetorical context. These comments frequently draw on other Scriptural texts to illuminate a word or usage in James, presupposing the underlying unity of all Scripture. – Sch. 1.18: One must discern whether James uses the verb ἀποκυέω in Jas 1:18 precisely and properly (κυρίως) or uses it in a looser, improper way. – Sch. 2.13: The word “faith” is meaningless unless accompanied by actions. – Sch. 3.7: Psalm 64:12 is quoted to affirm that Jas 3:6 thinks of time as circular and cyclical. – Sch. 3.8: The word κόσμος is sometimes used in Scripture to refer to a multitude. – Sch. 3.10: James “transfers” (μεταφέρω) the meaning of the word “tongue” from one metaphor to another. – Sch 3.11: Explanation of why Jas 3:8 should be understood as a rhetorical question and not as a declarative statement. – Sch. 4.4a: Statements such as “ask and it will be given to you” cannot be taken at face value. If one does not ask with the proper disposition, the person is not really “asking” at all. – Sch. 4.9: Asks whether the word “tribulation” is properly used to describe the misfortunes of people who lack virtues or whether this is this an ambiguous or equivocal use of the term. 14.4 Reading the Letter of James in Its Historical Context Although the ancient Greek exegetical task of elucidating the historical and contextual aspects (τὸ ἱστορικόν) does not correspond precisely with modern

424

For Theodore of Mopsuestia’s use of this technique, see Schäublin, Antiochenischen Exegese, 139–143.

introduction

111

conceptions of history,425 it does recognize the importance of historical context. Antiochene exegetes such as Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, for example, insisted that an essential step in exegesis is to determine the specific historical context to which each Psalm refers. Several scholia in CatJas share this contextual concern. These scholia assume that the Letter is written by James, the brother of the Lord and leader of the Jerusalem church (see, e.g., Acts 15), and thus that details in the Letter refer to first-century Jerusalem. A fuller picture of the historical context presupposed by these scholia can be gained by comparing them with the exegetical comments of the full commentaries of Bede and others (see details in the Commentary). A few examples follow. – Jas 1:1: James, brother of Jesus, and head of the Jerusalem church, is the Letter’s author. (Hypothesis; Sch. 1.1a). – Jas 2:6: The “rich” who are oppressing the community are first-century Jewish and Roman leaders (Sch. 2.5). – Jas 3: Other teachers in the Jerusalem community are challenging James’ authority (Sch. 3.1b, 3.15, 4:1). – Jas 5:1–5: The “rich” are first-century Jewish religious leaders who were enriched by collecting offerings from the people (Sch. 5.3). 14.5

Using Other Passages of Scripture to Elucidate the Meaning of a Scriptural Passage Perhaps the most widely employed exegetical technique is the use of other passages of Scripture to interpret a particular passage in James—a technique founded on the hermeneutical principle that Scripture is to be read as a unity.426 Scholia that employ this approach include 1.3, 1.4, 1.5., 1.9, 1.13, 1.17–19, 1.29, 1.30, 1:31b, 1:35, 2.1–3, 2.5–6, 2.8ab, 2.14–22, 3.3abc, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7–9, 3.11, 3.14, 3.17b, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4a, 4.7a, 4.7b, 4.8a, 4.9, 4.13, 4.17–19, 4.22ab, 5.1, 5.5, 5.10a, 5.10b, 5.12a, 5.12b, 5.14, and 5.18–23. Occasionally, other passages within James itself are also used to elucidate individual passages (Sch. 1.6; 3.11).

425 426

See, e.g., Young, Biblical Exegesis, 78–80. This Christian principle has parallels in Greek exegesis: one must interpret Homer from other passages in Homer; see the discussion in Schäublin, Antiochenischen Exegese, 159– 160; Young, Biblical Exegesis, 32.

112 15

introduction

The Other Apostle: Paul’s Pervasive Presence in CatJas

A specific example of the hermeneutical principle of the unity of all Scripture is the systematic use of the apostle Paul to interpret the Letter of James. The relationship between the two apostles is made explicit in Sch. 2.18–19, where the attempt is made to reconcile the seemingly contradictory views of James and Paul regarding the justification of Abraham. For the most part, however, the relationship is implicit, as texts from Paul’s letters are employed in comments on James’s text. Examples include Sch. 1.4, 1.9, 1.17–19, 1.31b; 2.1–3, 2.8b, 2.15–16, 2.18–19, 3.3a, 3.4; 3.6, 3.11, 3.14; 3.17b, 4.1, 4.9, 4.13, 4.19, 4.22a, 5.5 and 5.14. Several scholia explicitly mention Paul, including 1.17, 2.3, 2.8b, 2.15, 2.18–19, 3.3a, 3.1, 3.17b, 4.1, 4.9, 4.19 (cf. also 1.31b). In several cases, scholia are drawn from a commentary on Paul’s works but do not explicitly cite a Pauline passage (e.g., 5.8–5.10a). The use of the term, “the Apostle,” without further specification is ambiguous in CatJas. In Sch. 4.10 it refers to James (cf. also Sch. 1.1a which calls James an “apostle of the circumcision”), but in Sch. 4.9 (twice) and 5.14 it references Paul. Vemund Blomkvist notes that in the Euthalian hypotheses to the Pauline and Catholic epistles, the simple title “Apostle” “is given to Paul alone.”427 The catenist’s special interest in Paul may also be signaled by the catenist’s addition of Pauline quotations to scholia.428

16

Selective Focus in CatJas

The scholia in CatJas are not intended to comment on every verse of James. Rather, they are clearly grouped around select pericopes. The following chart summarizes the focus passages in the letter of James, revealing interests in specific exegetical problems as well as larger theological and ethical concerns.

Pericope in Jas

Exegetical focus

Scholia

1:1 1:2–4, 12

Identity of the author Value of persevering through trials (πειρασμοί)

1.1–2 1.3–5, 1.9, 4.9

427 428

Blomqvist, Euthalian Traditions, 194. The hypothesis to 2 Peter, for example, refers to Peter’s command to “love the writings of the Apostle (Paul),” alluding to 2 Pet 3:15–16 (ibid, 92). See comments on Sch. 1.17, 1.31b, 3.17 and sect. 11.1.3 above.

113

introduction (cont.)

Pericope in Jas

Exegetical focus

Scholia

1:6–8 1:13–14 1:15 1:18 2:1–4

Interpretation of “double-mindedness” Different types of trials and their respective origins Relationship of desire (ἐπιθυμία) and sin Explanation of vocabulary in 1:18 Exhortations to treat the poor equally with the rich in the church The relationship between God’s judgment and God’s mercy on the Day of Judgment The relationship between faith, actions, and salvation Reconciling James and Paul on faith, actions, and salvation The necessity of controlling one’s tongue The dangers and evils of the tongue Interpretation of “You ask, but do not receive, because you ask wrongly” Interpretation of “friendship with the world is enmity with God” Interpretation of “the spirit” in Jas 4:5 Critique of self-indulgence Commandment forbidding swearing Interpretation of Jas 5:16c: “The petition of a righteous person accomplishes much when it is made effective” Interpretation of Elijah’s prayer regarding rain (1 Kgs 17–18) Interpretation of Jas 5:19–20 on the conversion of a sinner

1.7–8 1.5, 1.10–13, 1.16a 1.14–15 1.18–21 2:1–3

2:12–13 2:14–26 2:14–26 3:1–12 3:6–8 4:3 4:4 4:5–6 5:1–5 5:12 5:16 5:16–17 5:20

2.9–12 2.13–16 2.17–19 3.3–5, 3.9–11 3.6, 3:8, 3.12–13 4.3–4 4.5–8b 4.10–13 5.1–5.5 5.12a–5.14 5.17–18 5.19–21 5.22–23

Text and Translation

∵

Note to the Text and Translation The Greek text of this contribution is based on Cramer’s edition (see Introduction 8.2.1); my suggested corrections to Cramer’s text are enclosed in square brackets. For further details on the Greek text, see Introduction 8.2.4. In the translation, I have tried to follow the Greek wording and syntax as closely as possible while still producing a readable and grammatically correct English. My aim is to allow the reader to compare my translation more readily with the original. Any words or phrases that I have supplied beyond the Greek text to clarify the sense are placed in parentheses. In contrast, words or phrases placed in square brackets indicate my suggested correction of Cramer’s text when it has altered the meaning of Cramer’s original (see Introduction 8.2.4). I have thus translated short paraphrases or glosses on the biblical text simply as they are, with no attempt to provide the context; any contextual or other explanatory information is provided in the Commentary. Bold type indicates that a word or phrase is treated in the Commentary. I use the term “scholion” in a broad sense (see Introduction 2.5) to refer to any discrete exegetical comment in CatJas, ranging from a one-word gloss (Sch. 1.10) to extended commentaries (e.g., Sch. 5.17).

© Martin C. Albl, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004693098_003

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων1 ιακωβου επιστολη2 [Hypothesis] Ὑποθέσις τῆς Ἰακώβου ἐπιστολῆς3 Ἐπειδὴ αὐτὸς Ἰάκωβος ταύτην γράφει τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν δώδεκα φυλῶν διασπαρεῖσι καὶ πιστεύσασιν εἰς τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. Γράφει δὲ διδασκαλικὴν τὴν ἐπιστολήν, διδάσκων περὶ διαφορᾶς πειρασμῶν· ποῖος μέν ἐστιν ἀπὸ θεοῦ, ποῖος δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἰδίας καρδίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐστί· καὶ [ὅτι οὐ λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔργῳ δεῖ] δεικνύναι τὴν πίστιν·4 καὶ οὐχ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ τοῦ νόμου, ἀλλ’ οἱ ποιηταὶ δικαιοῦνται· περί τε τῶν πλουσίων παραγγέλλει,5 ἵνα μὴ προκρίνωνται τῶν πτωχῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ἀλλὰ καὶ μᾶλλον ἐπιπλήττωνται6 ὡς ὑπερήφανοι· καὶ τέλος παραμυθησάμενος τοὺς ἀδικουμένους, καὶ προτρεψάμενος αὐτοὺς μακροθυμεῖν ἕως τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κριτοῦ, καὶ διδάξας [περὶ ὑπομονῆς καὶ διδάξας]7 ἐκ τοῦ Ἰὼβ τὸ χρηστὸν τῆς ὑπομονῆς, παραγγέλλει προσκαλεῖσθαι τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας, καὶ σπεύδειν ἐπιστρέφειν τοὺς πλανηθέντας ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν, εἶναι γὰρ τούτου μισθὸν παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. Καὶ οὕτως τελειοῖ τὴν ἐπιστολήν. [Chapter 1 κεφ. Α´]·8 Περὶ ὑπομονῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀδιακρίτου καὶ περὶ ταπεινοφροσύνης πρὸς τούς πλουσίους.9 Jas 1:1 Ἰάκωβος θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος, ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ δια-

σπορᾷ χαίρειν.10 [Scholion 1.1a to Jas 1:1] Ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφου· Ἕκαστος τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐπιστέλλων προοίμιον τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τὸ ἀξίωμα ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖται· τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τὸ καταξιωθῆναι

1 O = Title ἑρμηνεία τῶν καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν follows hypothesis; P = title follows ch. 1 heading; V = overall title. 2 O, P = Ἰακώβου ἐπιστολή directly before the text of Jas 1:1; V = top of first column. 3 P, V = ὑπόθεσις τῆς Ἰακώβου ἐπιστολῆς (V reads before Jas 1:1 text); O omits this heading; Cramer = υποθεσισ. 4 O = ὅτι οὐ λόγῳ μόνῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔργῳ δεικνύναι τὴν πίστιν; P = καὶ ὅτι οὐ λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔργῳ δεικνύναι τὴν πίστιν; V, Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (452c), Euthalian apparatus (von Soden, Schriften, 334) = ὅτι οὐ λόγῳ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔργῳ δεῖ δεικνύναι τὴν πίστιν; Cramer = οὐ λόγῳ μόνῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔργῳ δεικνύναι τὴν πίστιν. 5 O = παραγγέλε; P, V, Cramer = παραγγέλλε. 6 O, V = ἐπιπλήττονται; Cramer, P = ἐπιπλήττωνται. 7 O, P = καὶ διδάξας περὶ ὑπομονῆς καὶ διδάξας ἐκ τοῦ Ἰὼβ τὸ χρηστὸν τῆς ὑπομονῆς; Cramer (1 n. c) notes that he omits περὶ ὑπομονῆς καὶ διδάξας; V = καὶ διδάξας περὶ ὑπομονῆς καὶ δείξας ἐκ τοῦ Ἰὼβ τὸ χρηστὸν τῆς ὑπομονῆς. 8 P, Cramer, Euthalian apparatus (von Soden, Schriften, 457), Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (453b) = ch. 1; O = unnumbered superscription to hypothesis. 9 P, V, Cramer, Euthalian apparatus = πρὸς τούς πλουσίους; Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath., some Euthalian mss omit τούς; O omits πρὸς τούς πλουσίους. 10 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz.

© Martin C. Albl, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004693098_004

Interpretation of the Catholic Epistles: The Letter of James Hypothesis (Summary) of the Letter of James Because James himself writes this (letter) to those from the twelve tribes who were scattered and who were believers in our Lord Jesus Christ. He writes a didactic letter, teaching about the distinction between trials: which kind are from God, and which kind are from people’s own heart. And [that it is necessary] to demonstrate faith not by speech alone, but also by action. And not the hearers of the Law, but rather the doers are justified. He also hands down instructions concerning the rich, so that they (the rich) should not be treated preferentially over the poor in the churches, but rather should be rebuked as arrogant. And finally, having comforted those who have been wronged, having exhorted them to be patient until the coming of the Judge, [and having taught (them) about perseverance, and having taught (them) with (the example of) Job the value of perseverance], he directs (them) to summon the elders to those who are sick, and to be eager to turn back to the truth those who have wandered away, for the reward for this from the Lord is forgiveness of sins. And in this way he completes the epistle. Chapter 1: Concerning perseverance and unwavering faith, and concerning humility, in reference to (the) rich. James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes in the Jas 1:1 diaspora, greetings. [Scholion 1.1a to Jas 1:1] from an unnamed author: Each of the apostles, in his writing, makes his own honor the preface of the letter, i.e., (the honor of)

120

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

δοῦλος κληθῆναι Χριστοῦ· ἅτε δὲ ὡς τῆς περιτομῆς ὢν ἀπόστολος, τοῖς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα φυλῶν ἐπιστέλλει πιστεύσασιν. [Scholion 1.1b] Ἰστέον μέντοι ὥς τινες νοθεύουσι τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ταύτην καὶ τὴν Ἰούδα, ὥς φησιν Εὐσέβιος ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησιαστικῇ Ἱστορίᾳ. Ὅμως πάντες ἴσμεν καὶ ταύτας μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων καθολικῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἐμφερομένας. [Scholion 1.2 to Jas 1:1] Διδύμου· Ὡς γὰρ οἱ τοῦ κόσμου ἄνθρωποι, ἐν ταῖς συγγραφαῖς τῶν βιωτικῶν συναλλαγμάτων, ἐκ τῶν περὶ αὐτοὺς ἀξιωμάτων χρηματίζειν θέλουσιν, οὕτω καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς τῶν συγγραμμάτων αὐτῶν, δοῦλοι θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ χρηματίζειν ἀξιοῦσιν. Jas 1:2 Πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε, ἀδελφοί μου, ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις.1

[Scholion 1.3 to Jas 1:2] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου·2 Δεσμὸς γάρ τις ἐστὶν ἡ θλίψις ἀρραγής, ἀγαπῆς αὔξησις, κατανύξεως καὶ εὐλαβείας ὑπόθεσις. Ἄκουε γὰρ τοῦ λέγοντος· “Εἰ προσέρχῃ δουλεύειν τῷ κυρίῳ, ἑτοίμασον τὴν ψυχήν σου εἰς πειρασμόν.” Καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς δὲ πάλιν ἔλεγεν· “Ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ θλίψιν ἔχετε, ἀλλὰ θαρσεῖτε.” Καὶ πάλιν· “Στενὴ καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδός.” Ὁρᾶς πανταχοῦ τὴν θλίψιν ἐπαινουμένην, πανταχοῦ παραλαμβανομένην ὡς ἀναγκαίαν οὖσαν ἡμῖν. Εἰ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἔξωθεν ἀγῶσιν οὐδεὶς ἂν ταύτης χωρὶς στέφανον λάβοι, εἰ μὴ καὶ πόνοις καὶ σιτίων παρατηρήσει καὶ νόμου διαίτῃ καὶ ἀγρυπνίαις καὶ μυρίοις ἑτέροις ἑαυτὸν ὀχυρώσῃ, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐνταῦθα. Jas γινώσκοντες ὅτι [τὸ]3 δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν· ἡ δὲ ὑπο1:3–4a μονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω.

[Scholion 1.4 to Jas 1:2–4] Εἰς τελειότητα οὖν τὴν κατ’ ἀνδρείαν καὶ καρτερίαν προτρέπων, ἀκολούθως ἀδελφοὺς ὀνομάζει, ἀλλ’ οὐ τέκνα οὐδὲ υἱούς. Τοσοῦτον δὲ ἀπέχει τὸ συμβουλεύειν αὐτοῖς λυπεῖσθαι διὰ τοὺς πειρασμούς, ὡς καὶ πᾶσαν χαρὰν αὐτοὺς ἡγεῖσθαι πείθειν· ἵνα τὸ ἐναντίον αὐτοὺς λυπῇ τὸ μὴ πειράζεσθαι. Εἰ γὰρ οἱ πειρασμοὶ χαρὰ αὐτοῖς, καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς χαρά, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσα, δηλονότι τὸ μὴ πειράζεσθαι λύπην προσάγει. Καὶ [διατί;]4 Δοκιμήν, φησίν, ἐργάζεται. Τί δὲ ἡ δοκιμὴ τοῖς ἔχουσι ποιεῖ; Δηλονότι εἰς ἔργον τέλειον ἄγει. [Scholion 1.5 to Jas 1:2–4] Ὁ κύριος καὶ θεὸς ἡμῶν, πῶς δεῖ προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς οἰκείους διδάσκων μαθητάς, καὶ τὸ κατὰ γνωμὴν εἶδος τῶν πειρασμῶν ἀπέχεσθαι, φάσκειν ἐκέλευε· “Καὶ μὴ [εἰσενέγκῃς]5 ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν·” τῶν ἡδωνικῶν δηλο-

1 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 2 O, V, Cramer = Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου; P = Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννουω τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου. 3 P, V = τό δοκίμιον (= na28 / Byz); O, Cramer omit τό. 4 O, Cramer = διατί δοκιμήν; cf. Matthaei’s (183) text of the ac: διατί; ὅτι δοκιμήν, φησίν, ἐργάζεται. 5 O, Cramer = εἰσενέγκεις; P, V = εἰσενέγκῃς.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

121

being considered worthy of being called a slave of Christ. Inasmuch as he is an apostle of the circumcision, he writes to the believers from the twelve tribes. [Scholion 1.1b] One must indeed note that some consider this letter and the (letter) of Jude to be inauthentic, as Eusebius says in the Ecclesiastical History. Nevertheless, we all know that even these, along with the other catholic (letters), are accepted in the churches. [Scholion 1.2 to Jas 1:1] from Didymus: For as people of the world, in the documents of (their) business contracts, wish to be named on the basis of their social rank, so too the apostles, in the beginnings of their writings, consider it honorable to be named “slaves of God and of Christ.” Consider it nothing but joy, my brothers and sisters, when you fall into various Jas 1:2 trials. [Scholion 1.3 to Jas 1:2] from Chrysostom: Tribulation is a kind of unbreakable bond, (an opportunity for) an increase of love, a foundation of contrition and piety. Listen, then, to the one who is saying: “If you come to serve the Lord, prepare your soul for testing” (Sir 2:1). And again Christ said, “In the world you will have tribulation, but be courageous” (John 16:33). And again, “narrow and constricted is the way” (cf. Matt 7:14). You see that everywhere tribulation is praised, everywhere it is accepted as being necessary for us. For if in worldly contests no one receives a prize (lit.: a crown) without this (tribulation), unless he strengthens himself with hard work, by following rules concerning food, with a disciplined way of life, with sleepless nights, and in countless other (ways), how much more in this case? since you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. But let Jas 1:3–4a perseverance have (its) full effect. [Scholion 1.4 to Jas 1:2–4] Exhorting, then, to a perfection (maturity) based on courage and patience, he appropriately calls them “brothers and sisters,” not “children” or “sons.” As much as he refrains from advising them to be distressed because of trials, to the same extent he persuades them to consider them (trials) nothing but joy (Jas 1:2), so that, on the contrary, not being tested by trials distresses them. For if trials are a joy to them, and not simply joy, but nothing but joy, clearly not being tested brings on grief. And why [?] He says it produces a proven character [cf. Rom 5:3–4]. What does proven character do for those who have it? Obviously it leads to a perfect result. [Scholion 1.5 to Jas 1:2–4] Our Lord and God, having taught his own disciples how one ought to pray, and to keep away from the kind of trials (or temptations: πειρασμῶν) that are within the realm of the human will, commanded them to say, “Do not lead us into temptation (πειρασμόν)” (Matt 6:13a /

122

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

νότι καὶ γνωμικῶν καὶ ἑκουσίων πειρασμῶν μὴ ἐγκαταλειφθῆναι πεῖραν λαβεῖν· τὸν δὲ μέγαν Ἰάκωβον, πρὸς τὸ τῶν ἀκουσίων πειρασμῶν εἶδος διδάσκοντα μὴ συστέλλεσθαι τοὺς ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας ἀγωνιζομένους, φᾶναι· “Πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε ἀδελφοί μου, ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις,” δηλονότι τοῖς ἀκουσίοις καὶ παρὰ γνώμην καὶ πόνων ποιητικοῖς πειρασμοῖς. Καὶ δηλοῦσι σαφῶς, ἐκεῖ μὲν ἐπάγων ὁ κύριος, “ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ,” ἐνταῦθα δὲ “γινώσκοντες, ὅτι [τὸ]1 δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν, ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, ἵνα ἦτε2 τέλειοι καὶ ὁλόκληροι, ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι.” Jas Ἵνα ἦτε τέλειοι καὶ ὁλόκληροι, ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι. Εἰ δέ τις ὑμῶν λείπεται σοφίας, 1:4b–5 αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος θεοῦ πᾶσιν3 ἁπλῶς καὶ οὐκ4 ὀνειδίζοντος, καὶ δοθήσεται

αὐτῷ. [Scholion 1.6 to Jas 1:4b–5] Τὸ αἰτίον ἡμῖν λέγει τοῦ τελείου ἔργου· τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν ἡ σοφία ἡ ἄνωθεν, δι’ ἧς ἐνδυναμούμενοι, ὁλόκληρον δυνησόμεθα πρᾶξαι τὸ ἀγαθόν. Jas Αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει, μηδὲν διακρινόμενος· ὁ γὰρ διακρινόμενος ἔοικε κλύδωνι θαλάσ1: 6–7 σης ἀνεμιζομένῳ καὶ ῥιπιζομένῳ· μὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω [ὁ]5 ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος ὅτι λήψεται

[τι]6 παρὰ κυρίου.7 [Scholion 1.7 to Jas 1:6–7] Κυρίλλου·8 Ὑβριστὴς γὰρ ὁμολογουμένως ὁ διακρινόμενος. Εἰ γὰρ μὴ πεπίστευκας ὅτι τὴν σὴν αἴτησιν ἀποπεραίνει, μηδὲ [προσέλθῃς]9 ὅλως, ἵνα μὴ κατήγορος εὑρεθῇς τοῦ πάντα ἰσχύοντος διψυχήσας ἀβουλήτως. Χρὴ τοιγαροῦν τὴν οὕτως αἰσχρὰν παραιτεῖσθαι νόσον. Jas Ἀνὴρ δίψυχος, ἀκατάστατος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ. Καυχάσθω δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὁ 1:8–11 ταπεινὸς ἐν τῷ ὕψει αὐτοῦ· ὁ δὲ πλούσιος ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ· ὅτι ὡς ἄνθος χόρ-

του παρελεύσεται. Ἀνέτειλε γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος σὺν τῷ καύσωνι καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν χόρτον, καὶ τὸ ἄνθος αὐτοῦ ἐξέπεσε, καὶ ἡ εὐπρέπεια τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἀπώλετο· οὕτως καὶ ὁ πλούσιος ἐν ταῖς πορείαις αὐτοῦ μαρανθήσεται.10 [Scholion 1.8 to Jas 1:8] Ἐκ τοῦ Ποιμένος [ἐντολῆς]11 θʹ· Ἆρον σεαυτοῦ τὴν διψυχίαν καὶ μηδὲν ὅλως διψυχήσῃς αἰτήσασθαι12 παρὰ13 [τοῦ θεοῦ λέγων ἐν σεαυτῷ ὅτι 1 O, P = τὸ δοκίμιον; Cramer omits τό. 2 P = ἦ; O, V, Cramer = ἦτε. In the quotation of Jas 1:4 in the lemma, however, P = ἦτε. 3 P, V, Cramer = πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς (= na28 / Byz); O omits πᾶσιν. 4 O, P, Cramer = οὐκ (= Byz); na28 = μή. 5 O, P = ὁ ἄνθρωπος (= na28 / Byz); Cramer omits ὁ. 6 P, V = λήψεται τι (= na28 / Byz); O, Cramer omit τι (‫ א‬has this same omission). 7 na28 / Byz = τοῦ κυρίου; O, P, Cramer omit τοῦ. 8 O, Cramer = Κυρίλλου; P = τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου Αλεξάνδρειας; V = Κυρίλλου. 9 O, P, V, Cramer = μηδὲ προσῆλθες (“you have not approached”); Cyril = μηδὲ προσέλθῃς (“do not approach”). Cyril’s gives a better sense and accords with Payne Smith’s translation from the Syriac. See Commentary. 10 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 11 Cramer = ἐντολῆι; O does not write out the end of the word; P, V = ἐντολῆς. 12 Cramer = αἰτήσασθαί τι (= Herm. Mand. 9.1); O, P, V omit τι. 13 P, V, Cramer = παρά; O = περί.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

123

Luke 11:4c). In other words, (this petition in the Lord’s prayer asks that we) not be abandoned to experience testing from temptations (πειρασμῶν) to pleasure, intentional and freely-chosen. But the great James, teaches that those fighting for the sake of truth should not shrink away from the kind of trials that are not freely-chosen, saying, “Consider it nothing but joy, my brothers, when you fall into various trials” (πειρασμοῖς) (Jas 1:2), that is, those (trials) that are not freely chosen and are outside of one’s free will and that are productive of pain. And they (both) explain (this point) clearly: there (in the Lord’s Prayer), the Lord by adding, “But deliver us from evil,” (Matt 6:13b) but here (in this passage in James), “knowing that [the] testing of your faith produces perseverance. But let perseverance have (its) full effect, so that you might be complete and whole, lacking in nothing” (Jas 1:3–4). So that you might be complete (τέλειοι) and whole, lacking in nothing. If, then Jas anyone among you lacks wisdom, let that person ask from God, who gives to all 1:4b–5 without hesitation and without reproaching, and it will be given to her. [Scholion 1.6 to Jas 1:4b–5] He tells us the cause of the “full effect”: this is the wisdom from above (cf. Jas 3:17); after being empowered through this, we will be fully able to do the good. Let her, however, ask in faith, not doubting at all. For the one who doubts is like Jas the rough water of a sea, wind-driven and blown around. That person should 1: 6–7 not expect that she will receive anything from the Lord. [Scholion 1.7 to Jas 1:6–7] from Cyril: The one who doubts is, as everyone would agree, arrogant. For if you have not believed that (God) fulfills your request, [you should not approach] (God) at all, so that you do not turn out to be an accuser of the one (God) who is able to do all things by unintentionally being double-minded. One should, therefore, avoid the shameful disease in this way. This person is double-minded, unstable in all of his ways. Let the humble Jas brother take pride in his high position. But (let) the rich one (take pride in) 1:8–11 his humble position, for like the wildflower he will pass away. For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass, and its flower falls away, and the beauty of its appearance is destroyed. In the same way the rich person will fade away in (his) activities. [Scholion 1.8 to Jas 1:8] From The Shepherd Commandment 9: Remove double-mindedness from yourself, and do not be double-minded at all in ask-

124

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

πῶς δύναμαι αἰτήσασθαι τι παρὰ]1 τοῦ κυρίου καὶ λαβεῖν, ἡμαρτηκὼς τοσαῦτα εἰς αὐτόν; Μὴ διαλογίζου ταῦτα, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας σου ἐπίστρεψον ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον, καὶ αἰτοῦ παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἀδιστάκτως, καὶ γνώσῃ τὴν πολυσπλαγχνίαν αὐτοῦ, ὅτι οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλείπῃ· ἀλλὰ τὸ αἴτημα τῆς ψυχῆς σου πληροφορήσει. Οὐκ ἔστι γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὡς οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ μνησικακοῦντες [ἀλλήλοις],2 ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς ἀμνησίκακός ἐστι καὶ σπλαγχνίζεται ἐπὶ τὴν ποίησιν αὐτοῦ. Jas 1:12 Μακάριος ἀνὴρ ὃς ὑπομένει πειρασμόν, ὅτι δόκιμος γενόμενος, λήψεται τὸν στέφανον

τῆς ζωῆς ὃν ἐπηγγείλατο ὁ κύριος3 τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. [Scholion 1.9 to Jas 1:12] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· Αὐτάρκως προτρεψάμενος ὑφίστασθαι τοὺς πειρασμοὺς μετὰ χαρᾶς ἵνα ἐγγένηται δόκιμον ἔργον καὶ ὑπομονὴ τελεία· τελειοῦται δὲ ταῦτα καθ’ ἑαυτά, καὶ μὴ δι’ [ἄλλου]4 πραττόμενα· δι’ ἑτέρας παραινέσεως πείθειν ἐπιχειρεῖ κατορθοῦν τὰ προκείμενα· δι’ ἐπαγγελίαν μακάριον εἶναι λέγων τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑπομένοντα. γενήσεται γὰρ [ὁ]5 οὕτως ἀθλητικῶς ἄγων τὸν ἀγῶνα δόκιμος ἀνὴρ διὰ πάντων γεγυμνασμένος· οὕτω δὲ ἀναφανέντι ἐκ τῶν σκυθρωπῶν δοθήσεται στέφανος ζωῆς εὐτρεπισθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀγαπῶσιν· οὕτως ὁ τῷ ὑπομένειν πειρασμόν, καταφρονῶν ἐπιπόνων καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ θανάτου, στέφανον τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς ἀπολήψεται.6 Ζητεῖς τίς, “Ἡ ὕλη οὗ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς στεφάνου7 ζωῆς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν;” Ἔστιν “ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτὸν,” ἃ, διὰ μέγεθος θειότητος, ὄψει καὶ ἀκοῇ οὐχ ὑπόκειται, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ [ψιλῇ νοήσει]8 ἀνθρώπου ἀναβέβηκεν. [Chapter 1a: κεφ. Α´ α´]9 Περὶ τῆς ἐν ἡμῖν πυρώσεως καὶ τῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς παθῶν, ὅτι οὐ παρὰ10 τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ αἴτιον· εἴ τι γὰρ ἀγαθὸν ἡμῖν παρ’ αὐτοῦ. Jas 1:13 Μηδεὶς πειραζόμενος λεγέτω ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ πειράζομαι· ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἀπείραστός ἐστι

κακῶν· πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα.11 [Scholion 1.10 to Jas 1:13] Ἁμαρτίαν.12 [Scholion 1.11 to Jas 1:13] [Ὠριγένους·]13 [Ὅτε]14 ὁ θεὸς πειράζων ἐπ’ ὠφελείᾳ πειράζει, οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ κακοποιῆσαι. Διὸ καὶ ἐλέχθη ὅτι “ὁ θεὸς ἀπείραστός ἐστι κακῶν,” 1 O, P, Herm. Mand. 9.1 = τοῦ θεοῦ λέγων ἐν σεαυτῷ ὅτι πῶς δύναμαι αἰτήσασθαι τι παρά; Cramer omits this phrase. 2 O, Cramer = άλλήλους; P, V = ἀλλήλοις. 3 O, P, Cramer = ὁ κύριος (= Byz); na28 omits ὁ κύριος. 4 O, Cramer = ἄλλο; P, V = ἄλλου. 5 P, V = ὁ; O, Cramer omit. 6 At this point, the ac adds a line that is reflected in Didymus’Enarratio: ἀνθ´ ἧς κατεφρόνησε προσκαίρον ζωῆς; O, P, V, Cramer omit. See Commentary. 7 O, V, Cramer = στεφάνου; P = στεφάνους. 8 O, Cramer = ἐπὶ ψιλὴν νόησιν; P, V = ἐπὶ ψιλῇ νοήσει. 9 O, P, V = ch. 2; Cramer: unnumbered title with asterisk. Euthalian apparatus (von Soden, Schriften, 457); Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (453b) = subheading to ch. 1. 10 P, Cramer, Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath., Euthalian apparatus = παρά; O, V = περί. 11 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 12 O, Cramer = ἁμαρτίαν; P, V omit this scholion; R = lacuna. 13 O, Cramer: unattributed; P, V = Ὠριγένους. 14 O, Cramer = Ὅτι; P, V = Ὅτε.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

125

ing [from God, saying to yourself, “How can I ask anything from] the Lord and receive (it), after having sinned so greatly against him?” Do not debate these things within yourself, but rather with your whole heart turn back to the Lord and ask from him without doubting, and you will learn about his great compassion, because he will surely not abandon you, but rather fulfill the request of your heart. For God is not like humans who hold grudges against one another, rather, he himself holds no grudges and shows compassion for his creation. Blessed is the one who perseveres through trials, because having been tested Jas 1:12 and found worthy, he will receive the crown of life that the Lord promised to those who love him. [Scholion 1.9 to Jas 1:12] from Chrysostom: Having exhorted (them) sufficiently to withstand trials with joy so that a tested and true result and a complete perseverance might come about—but these things are completed in themselves, and not accomplished through another thing—by another word of encouragement he tries to persuade (them) to complete successfully what lies before (them), saying that, because of (God’s) promise, the one persevering through trials is blessed. For in this way the one carrying on the struggle like an athlete will become a tried and true person, after having been trained by all (these trials). To the one who has emerged as such (a tried and true person) out of gloomy (trials) will be given the crown of life, prepared by God for those who love him. Thus the one who by persevering through trials (and) thinking lightly of suffering and even death itself, will earn the crown of eternal life. Do you ask, “What is the material from which God prepared the crown of life for those who love him?” It is “that which God prepared for those who love him” (1Cor 2:9d), that which, due to the greatness of the divine nature, is not subject to sight or hearing, nor has it arisen in a merely human intellect. [Chapter 1a] Concerning the fiery testing within us and the passions (that arise) from it: that (its) cause is not from God. For if (there is) anything good within us, (it is) from him (God). Let no one say, when he is tested, “I am tested by God.” For God cannot be tested Jas 1:13 by evil things and he himself tests no one. [Scholion 1.10 to Jas 1:13] Sin. [Scholion 1.11 to Jas 1:13] [from Origen] [When] God is testing, he tests for the benefit (of people), not to do (them) harm. Therefore it is also said, “God does not tempt (people to do) evil things,” (Jas 1:13a) [that is, he tests for this (rea-

126

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

[τουτέστι διὰ τοῦτο πειράζει, ἵνα τύχωσι τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ ἀπαλλαγῶσι κακῶν.]1 Καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα2—Ὁ οὖν φέρων τοὺς πειρασμοὺς γενναίως στεφανοῦται. Ἄλλο δέ ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοῦ διαβόλου· ἐκεῖνος γὰρ πειράζει ἵνα τοὺς πειθομένους αὐτῷ θανατώσῃ· καὶ ὁ μὲν ἀγνοῶν τὸ ἐσόμενον, ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἰδὼς μὲν τὸ ἐσόμενον, πλὴν διδοὺς τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ πράττειν ὃ θέλει διὰ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον. Jas 1:14 Ἕκαστος δὲ πειράζεται ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἐξελκόμενος καὶ δελεαζόμενος.3

[Scholion 1.12 to Jas 1:14] Εἰς βλαβήν· ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ γὰρ ἐπείρασε τὸν Ἀβραάμ.4 [Scholion 1.13 to Jas 1:14] Σευήρου.5 Τινὲς δὲ τὸ προκείμενον ῥητὸν [οὕτως]6 ἐπειράθησαν [ἐξηγήσασθαι],7 φήσαντες, αὐτὴν τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀνομιῶν μητέρα καλεῖν τὸν Δαυίδ. Ἥτις διὰ τῆς ἀτοπωτάτης ὀρέξεως οἱονεὶ [συλλαβοῦσα]8 καὶ κύουσα, τὴν πρᾶξιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀποτίκτει καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν ἁμαρτωλὸν [τὀν]9 ταύτην ἐνεργοῦντα καὶ πράττοντα, καὶ πέρας τῶν τοιούτων ὠδίνων ποιεῖται· τοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντος10 τὸν θάνατον. Οὕτως γὰρ ἐπιστέλλων Ἰάκωβος ἔφησεν, εἷς [τῶν σοφῶν Χριστοῦ μαθητῶν·]11 “Ἕκαστος δὲ πειράζεται ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἐξελκόμενος καὶ δελεαζόμενος· εἶτα ἡ ἐπιθυμία συλλαβοῦσα, τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν· ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία [ἀποτελεσθεῖσα]12 ἀποκύει θάνατον·” ὑπὸ ταύτης οὖν τῆς ἐπιθυμίας κεκισσῆσθαι καὶ συνειλῆφθαι καθὰ δὴ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν μητρὸς ἔφησεν ὁ Δαυίδ. Jas 1:15 Εἶτα ἡ ἐπιθυμία συλλαβοῦσα, τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν· ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖσα, ἀποκύει

θάνατον.13 [Scholion 1.14 to Jas 1:15] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· Ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῷ πράττειν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ὑπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς μεθύοντες, οὐχ οὕτως αἰσθανόμεθα. Ἐπειδὰν δὲ γένηται καὶ λάβῃ14 τέλος, τότε δὴ μάλιστα τῆς ἡδονῆς σβεσθείσης ἁπάσης, τὸ πικρὸν τῆς ἐννοίας ἐπεισέρχεται κέντρον, ἀπεναντίας ταῖς ὠδινούσαις γυναιξίν. Έπ’ ἐκείνων μὲν γάρ, πρὸ τοῦ τόκου, πολὺς ὁ πόνος καὶ ὠδίνες δριμεῖαι ἐπικόπτουσι ταῖς ἀλγηδόσιν αὐτάς· μετὰ δὲ τὸν τόκον ἄνεσις τῷ βρέφει τῆς ὀδύνης συνεξελθούσης. Ἐνταῦθα δὲ οὐχ οὕτως· ἀλλ’ ἕως μὲν ἂν ὠδίνωμεν καὶ συλλαμβάνωμεν τὰ διεφθαρμένα νοήματα, εὐφραινόμεθα καὶ χαίρομεν· ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἀποτέκωμεν τὸ πονηρὸν παιδίον, τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, τότε τὸ αἶσχος τοῦ τεχθέντος ἰδόντες, ὀδυνώμεθα· τότε διακοπτόμεθα τῶν ὠδινουσῶν γυναι1 O, P = τουτέστι … κακῶν; Cramer omits. 2 O = P marks Sch. 1.11 as a two-part comment, taking the phrase Καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα as introducing the second part. Each part ends with the :- symbol, although only one reference number (ζ´) is given for the whole scholion. 3 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 4 Scholion = O, Cramer; P, V omit scholion; R = lacuna. 5 O, Cramer = Σευήρου; P = Σευήρου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀντιοχείας; V = Σευήρου Ἀντιοχείας. 6 O, P, V = οὕτως; Cramer omits. 7 O, Cramer = ἐξηγεῖσθαι; P, V, Cat. Ps. = ἐξηγήσασθαι. 8 O, Cramer = συλλαμβάνουσα; P, V, Cat. Ps. = συλλαβοῦσα. 9 P, V, Cat. Ps. = τόν; O, Cramer omit τόν. 10 O, Cramer = ἁμαρτάνοντος; P, V = ἁμαρτῶντος. 11 O, Cramer = εἷς ὢν τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ σοφῶν μαθητῶν; P, V = εἷς τῶν σοφῶν Χριστοῦ μαθητῶν. 12 O, V = ἀποτελεσθεῖσα; Cramer = ἀποτελεῖσθα; P = ἐκτελεσθεῖσα. 13 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 14 O, Chrysostom, Cramer = λάβῃ; P, V = λάβοι.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

127

son): so that they obtain good things and are delivered from bad things.] And after a bit (the text continues), “The one who bears trials nobly is crowned” (cf. Jas 1:12). It is different in the case of the devil. For he tests so that he might put to death those persuaded by him. He (the devil) does not know what will be (the result of the trial), but God knows what will be, aside from granting to a person to do what he wishes for the sake of free will. Rather, each person is tested by his own desire, being dragged and lured (by it). Jas 1:14 [Scholion 1.12 to Jas 1:14] For harm. For he tested Abraham for the sake of good. [Scholion 1.13 to Jas 1:14] from Severus: Some have attempted to interpret the passage that we are considering [in this way]: saying that David calls desire itself the mother of lawless deeds. Desire, through improper longing, as if it had conceived and became pregnant, gives birth to the act of sin as well as to the sinner who activates and completes it (the sin) and also makes an end of such labor pains: the death of the one who sins. You see that James, one of the wise disciples of Christ, spoke in this way when writing his epistle, “Rather, each person is tempted by his own desire, being dragged and lured (by it). Then when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; sin, when it has completed its course, gives birth to death” (Jas 1:14–15). David said that it conceived and became pregnant, then, by this desire, just as if it were the mother of sinners. Then when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; sin, when it has completed Jas 1:15 its course, gives birth to death. [Scholion 1.14 to Jas 1:15] from Chrysostom: When we are committing sin, since we have been intoxicated by pleasure, we thus do not perceive (it, i.e., conscience). But when it has taken place and reached (its) conclusion, but especially at that time when every pleasure is quenched, the bitterness of (our) thoughts rushes in as a sting (of conscience), (in a way that is) contrary to women in the throes of labor pains. For in their case, before birth, great distress and piercing labor pangs afflict them with pain. Yet after the birth is relief, as the pain goes out together with the baby. But in this present case, it is not so. Rather, as long as we conceive and are in labor with corrupted thoughts, we are happy and rejoice. But when we give birth to the evil child, sin, having seen the ugliness of the one born, we are pained: we are then cut through with

128

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

κῶν χαλεπώτερον. Διὸ παρακαλῶ μὴ δέχεσθαι μὲν μάλιστα παρὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπιθυμίαν διεφθαρμένην· εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐδεξάμεθα, ἀποπνίγειν ἔνδον τὰ σπέρματα. Εἰ δὲ καὶ μέχρι τούτου ῥαθυμήσωμεν, ἐξελθοῦσαν εἰς ἔργον τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἀποκτεῖναι πάλιν δι’ ἐξομολογήσεως καὶ δακρύων, διὰ τοῦ κατηγορεῖν ἑαυτοῦ. Οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτως ὀλέθριον ἁμαρτίας ὡς κατηγορία καὶ κατάγνωσις. [Scholion 1.15 to Jas 1:15] Ἡσυχίου Πρεσβυτέρου· Ὠδῖνες θανάτου αἱ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐπιθυμίαι τυγχάνουσιν. Jas Μὴ πλανᾶσθε ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί· πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνω1:16–17b θέν ἐστι, καταβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων.1

[Scholion 1.16a to Jas 1:16–17] “Μὴ πλανᾶσθε” νομίζοντες παρὰ θεοῦ γίνεσθαι τοὺς πειρασμούς. [Scholion 1.16b to Jas 1:17] ἢ τὰς λογικὰς δυνάμεις φῶτα καλεῖ ἢ τοὺς πεφωτισμένους διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου. Jas Παρ’ ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα.2 1:17c [Scholion 1.17 to Jas 1:17c] Σευήρου·3 Λέγοντος γάρ ἐστιν ἀκούειν τοῦ θεοῦ· “Ἐγώ

εἰμι, ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ οὐκ [ἠλλοίωμαι]·”4 καὶ αὐτῷ μὲν πρόσεστι τὸ5 παγίως καὶ ἀναλλοιώτως κατ’ οὐσίαν ἔχειν· τοῖς δὲ κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πολιτευομένοις καὶ πρακτικῶς τὰς ἐντολὰς μετιοῦσιν ἐκ τῆς ἄνωθεν δωρεᾶς καὶ μετουσίας, τὸ ἀναλλοιώτως ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον ἐπιτηδεύμασι διακεῖσθαι προσγίνεται καὶ τὸ μὴ [συμμεταβάλλεσθαι]6 τοῖς καιροῖς. Διὸ καὶ Παῦλος παρῄνει τισὶ λέγων· “Μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοὸς ὑμῶν, εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τὶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον.” Jas Βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας.7 1:18a [Scholion 1.18 to Jas 1:18a] Ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ υἱοῦ κυρίως λέγεται ἡ γέννησις· ἐπὶ δὲ

τῶν κτισμάτων καταχρηστικῶς· ἐπ’ ἐκείνου μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας ἕνεκεν καὶ τῆς ὁμοουσιότητος· ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων τιμῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ υἱοθεσίας· “Βουληθεὶς γάρ,” φησίν, “ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας.” Μὴ τοίνυν ἡ ὁμωνυμία τὴν ὁμοτιμίαν ἐνταῦθα τικτέτω, μηδὲ τὰ καταχρηστικῶς εἰρημένα κυρίως λελέχθαι νομιζέσθω.

1 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 2 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 3 O, Cramer = Σευήρου; P = Σευήρου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀντιοχείας; V = Σευήρου Ἀντιοχείας. 4 Cramer = ἀλλοίωμαι; O, P = ἠλλοίωμαι. 5 Cramer (6, line 27) notes that he has corrected τῷ to τό; O, P, V = τῷ. 6 O, Cramer = συμβάλλεσθαι; P, V = συμμεταβάλλεσθαι. 7 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

129

greater pain than women in travail. Therefore I urge you not to let in corrupted desire, especially at the very beginning (of the temptation). If we have already allowed it in, (let us) choke the seeds within. Even if we have been negligent up to the point when sin has gone out into action, (let us) again kill (the sin) through confession and tears, through self-accusation. For nothing is deadlier to sin than accusation and rebuke. [Scholion 1.15 to Jas 1:15] from Hesychius the Presbyter: “The desires of sinful people turn out to be the birth-pangs of death.” Do not be led astray, my beloved brothers and sisters. Every good giving, every Jas 1:16–17b perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights. [Scholion 1.16a to Jas 1:16–17] “Do not be led astray” (refers to) those who think that trials are from God; [Scholion 1.16b to Jas 1:17] either the rational powers are called “lights” or those enlightened by the Holy Spirit. in whom there is no variation or shadow caused by change. Jas [Scholion 1.17 to Jas 1:17c] from Severus: One must listen to God saying, “I 1:17c am, I am and I have not changed.” It is truly characteristic (of God) to be firm and unchanging in (his) nature. For to those who live their lives on the basis of the gospel and actively follow the commandments through the gift from above (Jas 1:17) and communion (with God), an unchanging disposition in their daily activities is gained, along with (the power) to not change along with the times. Thus Paul was also urging certain people, saying, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2 nrsv). He chose to give birth to us by the word of truth. Jas [Scholion 1.18 to Jas 1:18a] The (word) “birth” (in this passage) is said in a 1:18a precise way when it is applied to the Son but when it is applied to created humanity it is said loosely. In the case of the Son, it is used (to describe) the truth and to (describe) consubstantiality. But in the case of these (created humanity) it is used to (describe) the privilege of adoption as sons. For, “he chose,” he says, “to give birth to us by the word of truth” (Jas 1:18). No, the sharing of the same name in this case should not be allowed to produce the sharing of the same honor, nor should anyone consider what is said loosely as if it were expressed with precision.

130

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

Jas Εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἀπαρχὴν τινὰ τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισμάτων.1 1:18b [Scholion 1.19 to Jas 1:18b] Ἀντὶ τοῦ πρώτους καὶ τιμιωτέρους. Κτίσματα δὲ τὴν

ὁρωμένην κτίσιν φησίν, ἧς τιμιώτερον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἔδειξεν. ὅπου γε καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις προσδοκᾷ τὴν ἡμετέραν [ἐλευθερίαν],2 ἵνα3 ἡμῖν συνελευθερωθῇ. [Scholion 1.20 to Jas 1:18] Τῷ τῆς ὁμολογίας, τῷ τῆς πίστεως. [Scholion 1.21 to Jas 1:18] Πρωτοτόκους ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. [Chapter 2] κεφ. Β´ ·4 Περὶ πραΰτητος καὶ ἁγνείας καὶ πράξεως ἀγαθῆς μεταδοτικῆς ἐπὶ μακαρισμῷ, καὶ περὶ ἐπιστήμης καὶ συμμετρίας λόγου Jas Ὥστε5 ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί, ἔστω πᾶς6 ἄνθρωπος ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς εἰς 1:19–21a τὸ λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν· ὀργὴ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ οὐ κατεργάζεται.

Διὸ ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περισσείαν κακίας. [Scholion 1.22 to Jas 1:19–21a] Τουτέστιν ἁμαρτίαν7 τὴν ῥυπαίνουσαν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὴν ὥσπερ περιττὴν οὖσαν ἐν ἡμῖν. [Οὐ γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν ἡμῶν]8 τὸ κακοὺς εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἔξωθεν προσγίνεται ἐξ ἀμελείας τὲ καὶ τῶν εἰς τοῦτο ἡμᾶς ἐρεθιζόντων δαιμόνων· τὸ ἐνδόσιμον ἡμῶν ἐκ τῆς ἀπροαιρέτου συγκαταβάσεως [ἔχοντα].9 Jas Ἐν πραΰτητι δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν.10 1:21b [Scholion 1.23 to Jas 1:19b] Ἕτοιμος εἰς τὸ μαθεῖν τὸ ἀγαθόν.

[Scholion 1.24 to Jas 1:21b] Ἀντὶ τοῦ τὸν ἀληθῆ, τὸν τῆς ὁμολογίας δηλονότι,11 τὸν ἀφθάρτους ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι παρασκευάζοντα. Ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἔκτισε τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπὶ ἀφθαρσίᾳ. Jas 1:22 Γίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ λόγου12 καὶ μὴ μόνον ἀκροαταί, παραλογιζόμενοι ἑαυτούς.

[Scholion 1.25 to Jas 1:22] Ἀντὶ τοῦ λογιζόμενοι καθ’ ἑαυτούς. [Scholion 1.26 to Jas 1:22] Καταφρονοῦντες τῆς ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίας. Jas 1:23a Ὅτι [εἴ τις]13 ἀκροατὴς λόγου ἐστὶ καὶ οὐ ποιητής.

[Scholion 1.27 to Jas 1:23a] [Εἴ τις],14 φησί, γένηται λόγου μόνον ἀκροατὴς καὶ μὴ [βεβαιώσῃ]15 τοῖς ἔργοις τὴν ἀκοήν, εὐθέως καὶ τὸν λόγον ἀπόλλυσι· διαχυθεὶς γὰρ οἴχεται. 1 O, P Cramer = na28 / Byz. 2 O, Cramer = σωτηρίαν; P, V, R = ἐλευθερίαν. 3 O, Cramer = ἵνα καί; P, V, R omit καί. 4 O, P, V= ch. 3; Cramer, Euthalian apparatus (von Soden, Schriften, 457), Ps.Oecumenius Comm. ep. cath. (453b) = ch. 2. R omits. 5 O, P, Cramer = ὥστε (= Byz); na28 = ἴστε. 6 na28 = δέ πᾶς; O, P, Cramer omit δέ (= Byz). 7 Cramer = τὴν ἁμαρτίαν; O, P omit τήν. 8 P, V, R, ac (Matthaei, 187) = οὐ γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν ἡμῶν; O, Cramer omit the phrase. 9 O, V, Cramer = ἔχον; P = ἔχοντα; R omits; ac (Matthaei, 187) = έχόντων. 10 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 11 P, V = δὲ δηλονότι; O, R, Cramer omit δέ. 12 O = λόγων; P, V, R, Cramer = λόγου (= na28 / Byz). 13 Cramer = εἴτις; na28 / Byz = εἴ τις. 14 Cramer = Εἴτις; Byz / na28 = Εἴ τις. 15 O, R, Cramer = βεβαιώσει; P, V = βεβαιώσῃ.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

131

so that we might be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures. Jas [Scholion 1.19 to Jas 1:18b] In other words, “the first and most honored.” 1:18b “Created things” means the visible creation, of which, he explained, the human is the most honored, since even creation itself awaits our [freedom], so that it might be set free along with us. [Scholion 1.20 to Jas 1:18] by (the word) of confession, by (the word) of faith [Scholion 1.21 to Jas 1:18] the first born in the heavens Chapter 2: Concerning gentleness and purity and good action that leads to blessing, and concerning understanding and moderation in speech Therefore, my beloved brothers and sisters, let every person be quick to hear, Jas slow to speak, (and) slow to anger. Clearly, the anger of a man does not produce 1:19–21a the righteousness of God. Therefore, after you have put away all filthiness and overflowing evil, [Scholion 1.22 to Jas 1:19–21a] that is, sin that defiles a person, since it is like something foreign in us. For being evil is [not in accordance with nature] but rather is added from outside (of us) by (our own) negligence and by the demons who entice us to this; they obtain our yielding (to these enticements) through (our) unconscious association (with them). With gentleness, be receptive of the implanted word that is able to save your Jas 1:21b souls. [Scholion 1.23 to Jas 1:19b] Prepared to learn the truth [Scholion 1.24 to Jas 1:21b] In other words, “the true (word),” that is to say, the (word) of confession (of faith), the one that prepares us to become imperishable. For in fact God created (us) from the beginning for immortality. “But be doers of the word and not only hearers, deceiving yourselves.” [Scholion 1.25 to Jas 1:22] In other words, “reasoning by themselves.” [Scholion 1.26 to Jas 1:22] scorning their own salvation.

Jas 1:22

For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, Jas [Scholion 1.27 to Jas 1:23a] If anyone, he says, should be a hearer of the word 1:23a only, and should not confirm hearing with deeds, he straightaway destroys the word: having melted away, it vanishes.

132

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

Jas Οὗτος ἔοικεν ἀνδρὶ κατανοοῦντι τὸ πρόσωπον1 τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ· 1:23b–25 κατενόησε γὰρ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπελήλυθε καὶ εὐθέως ἐπελάθετο ὁποῖος ἦν. Ὁ δὲ παρα-

κύψας εἰς νόμον τέλειον2 τὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας καὶ παραμείνας, οὗτος3 οὐκ ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς γενόμενος ἀλλὰ ποιητὴς ἔργου, οὗτος μακάριος ἐν τῇ ποιήσει ἔσται. [Scholion 1.28 to Jas 1:23b–25] Ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος τὸ σῶμα ὁρᾷ, οὕτω καὶ οὗτος διὰ τοῦ νόμου ὁποῖός τις γέγονε.4 Διὸ οὐδὲ “πρόσωπον” εἶπε μόνον, ἀλλὰ “πρόσωπον γενέσεως.” Μανθάνομεν γὰρ οἵους5 ἡμᾶς ἐποίησεν [ὁ πνευματικὸς νὀμος]6 ἀναγεννήσας διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας·7 εἶτα, μὴ ἐμμένοντες τῇ τοιαύτῃ θέᾳ διὰ τῶν πράξεων, καὶ τοῦ χαρίσματος [ἐπιλανθανόμεθα].8 ὁ γὰρ πράξεσιν ἑαυτὸν πονηραῖς ἐκδούς, οὐδὲ ὅτι εὐεργετεῖται παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ μνημονεύει. εἰ γὰρ ἐμνημόνευεν ὅτι ἄνωθεν ἐγεννήθη, καὶ ἐδικαιώθη, καὶ ἡγιάσθη, καὶ ἐν υἱοῖς κατελογίσθη θεοῦ, οὐκ ἂν ἔργοις ἑαυτὸν παρεδίδου τοῖς ἀθετοῦσι τὴν χάριν. [Scholion 1.29 to Jas 1:23b–25] Οὐ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι μακάριοι οἱ ἀκροαταί, ἀλλ’ οἱ συνάπτοντες τῇ ἀκροάσει τὴν πρᾶξιν. Ἐπεὶ καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς ἐγένοντο ἀκροαταί, ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ οὐ ποιηταί, οὐκέτι μακάριοι ἦσαν, ἀλλὰ παραδέδονται τῷ [ὀλοθρευόντι].9 [Scholion 1.30 to Jas 1:24b] Γνοὺς γὰρ ἑαυτὸν εἰκόνα θεοῦ ὄντα οὐ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν θεοῦ ἐπολιτεύσατο. Jas 1:26 [Εἴ τις]10 δοκεῖ θρησκὸς εἶναι ἐν ὑμῖν11 μὴ χαλιναγωγῶν γλῶσσαν [αὐτοῦ],12 ἀλλ’ ἀπα-

τῶν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, τούτου μάταιος ἡ θρησκεία. [Scholion 1.31a to Jas 1:26] “Εἴ τις δοκεῖ,” φησίν, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ ταῖς ἀληθείαις13 εἶναι· [εἰ]14 γὰρ ἂν πάντως οὐδὲ αὐτῷ τὴν γλῶσσαν ἀχαλίνωτον ἐξεπαίδευσεν· οὐδ’ ἂν αὐτοῦ διὰ κενοθρησκείας τὴν καρδίαν ἐχλεύαζε· [Sch. 1.31b] διό φησιν, “ὁ δοκῶν ἑστάναι,” καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Οὐ γὰρ δὴ τὸν ὄντως ἑστῶτα τὴν ἔμπτωσιν καθορᾶν ἐμαρτύρατο· οὗτος γὰρ κανὼν καὶ ὑπογραμμὸς θρησκείας ὀρθῆς. [Scholion 1.32 to Jas 1:26] Τῆς θρησκείας ἡμῶν εἶναι τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ.15 [Scholion 1.33 to Jas 1:26] Μὴ σπεύδων μαθεῖν ἀλλὰ διδάσκειν. [Scholion 1.34 to Jas 1:26] [ἡ πίστις]16 1 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz; P = πρώσωπον. 2 O omits ὁ δὲ παρακύψας εἰς νόμον τέλειον. 3 O, P, Cramer = οὗτος (= Byz); na28 omits οὗτος. 4 P inserts Sch. 1.26 (Καταφρονοῦντες τῆς ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίας) between the first and second sentences of Sch. 1.28. 5 O, V, R, Cramer = οἵους; P = οἵας. 6 O, Cramer = ὁ θέος; P, V, R = ὁ πνευματικὸς νὀμος. 7 Cramer = παλινγενεσίας; O, P = παλιγγενεσίας. 8 Cramer = λανθανόμεθα; O, P = ἐπιλανθανόμεθα. 9 O, Cramer = ὀλοθρευτῇ; P, V, R = ὀλοθρευόντι. 10 Cramer = Εἴτις; Byz / na28 = Εἴ τις. 11 O, P, Cramer = εἶναι ἐν ὑμῖν (= Byz); na28 omits ἐν ὑμῖν. 12 O, P = αὐτοῦ (= na28 / Byz); Cramer omits αὐτοῦ. 13 O, P, V, Cramer = οὐχὶ ταῖς ἀληθείαις; cf. ac (Matthaei, 188): οὐχὶ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ. 14 O, R, Cramer = ἧ; P (corrected ἧ; cf. Cramer, 583, n. to 9, 4); V = εἰ. 15 P adds πίστος ἢ ἑτερόδοξος; O, Cramer omit. V, R omit this scholion. 16 P = ἡ πίστις; O, V, R, Cramer omit this scholion.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

133

this person is like a man who observes his own face in a mirror: for he observes Jas himself and goes away and immediately forgets what he looked like. But the one 1:23b–25 who looks into the perfect law of freedom and remains (in it), having become not a hearer who forgets but a doer of deeds, this person will be blessed in his doing. [Scholion 1.28 to Jas 1:23b–25] Just as that person sees (his) body (in the mirror), so too this one, through the law, became a certain kind of person. Therefore, he does not merely say “face,” but rather the “face of birth.” For we learn that [the spiritual law] made us to be a certain kind of people by giving us a new birth through the washing of rebirth. And yet, if we do not remain in such a vision through actions, we do in fact forget the gift. For when a person gives himself up to evil actions, not even the beneficial things that he does are remembered by God. You see that if he had remembered that he was born from above, and justified, and sanctified, and counted among the children of God, he would not have given himself over to deeds that nullify the grace. [Scholion 1.29 to Jas 1:23b–25] You see that those who are hearers are not blessed, but rather those who unite action with hearing. Since indeed the Pharisees and the scribes were hearers, but since they were not doers, they were no longer blessed, but were rather handed over to the destroyer. [Scholion 1.30 to Jas 1:24b] For although he knew that he was the image of God, he did not live his life according to the likeness of God. If anyone among you thinks that she is religious, while not bridling her tongue, Jas 1:26 but rather deceiving her heart, the religion of this person is worthless. [Scholion 1.31a to Jas 1:26] “If anyone thinks” means, rather, not to be (religious) in reality: [if] one in fact did not discipline his unbridled tongue at all or by (his) empty religion was mocking his (own) heart. [Sch. 1.31b] Therefore he says, “If you think you are standing” (1Cor 10:12, nrsv) and what follows (after this passage). For he (Paul) was not testifying that the one who is truly standing sees (his) fall. For he (the one who is truly standing) is a standard and an example of correct religion. [Scholion 1.32 to Jas 1:26] To be of our religion in Christ [Scholion 1.33 to Jas 1:26] Not being eager to learn but to teach [Scholion 1.34 to Jas 1:26] [Faith]

134

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

Jas 1:27 Θρησκεία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος παρὰ θεῷ1 καὶ πατρὶ αὕτη ἐστίν· ἐπισκέπτεσθαι

ὀρφανοὺς καὶ χήρας ἐν τῇ θλίψει αὐτῶν, ἄσπιλον ἑαυτὸν τηρεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου. [Scholion 1.35 to Jas 1:27] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου·2 Τοῦτό ἐστιν ᾧ ἐξισοῦσθαι δυνάμεθα τῷ θεῷ· τὸ3 ἐλεεῖν καὶ οἰκτείρειν. Ὅταν οὖν τοῦτο μὴ ἔχωμεν, τοῦ παντὸς ἀπεστερήμεθα. Οὐκ εἶπεν, “Ἐὰν νηστεύσητε ὅμοιοι ἐστὲ τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν·” οὐδὲν γὰρ τούτων [περὶ]4 θεόν, οὐδὲ ἐργάζεταί τι τούτων ὁ θεός. Ἀλλὰ τί; “Γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν5 ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς·” τοῦτο θεοῦ ἔργον. Ἐὰν οὖν τοῦτο μὴ ἔχῃς, τί ἔχεις; “Ἔλεον θέλω,” φησί, “καὶ οὐ θυσίαν.” [Chapter 3] κεφ. Γ´·6 Περὶ τῆς πρὸς ἕκαστον ἀγάπης ἀπροσωπολήπτου κατὰ νόμον Jas 2:1 Ἀδελφοί μου, μὴ ἐν προσωποληψίαις ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χρι-

στοῦ τῆς δόξης.7 [Scholion 2.1 to Jas 2:1] Τοῦ αὐτοῦ· “Τινὸς ἕνεκεν σὺ μέγα φρονεῖς;” φησίν, “Ἤ διατί, πάλιν, ἕτερος ἑαυτὸν ἐξευτελίζει; Οὐχὶ σῶμα ἐσμὲν ἅπαντες ἓν, καὶ μεγάλοι καὶ μικροί; Ὅταν οὖν, κατὰ τὸ κεφάλαιον, ἓν ὦμεν καὶ ἀλλήλων μέλη, τί τῇ [ἀπονοίᾳ σχίζεις]8 σαυτόν; Τί αἰσχύνῃ τὸν ἀδελφόν; Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐκεῖνός σου μέλος, οὕτω κἀκείνου σύ. Καὶ πολλὴ κατὰ τοῦτο ἡ ὁμοτιμία.” Jas Ἐὰν γὰρ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν9 ὑμῶν ἀνὴρ χρυσοδακτύλιος ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ, 2:2–4 εἰσέλθῃ δὲ καὶ πτωχὸς ἐν ῥυπαρᾷ ἐσθῆτι, καὶ ἐπιβλέψητε10 ἐπὶ τὸν φοροῦντα τὴν

ἐσθῆτα τὴν λαμπρὰν καὶ εἴπητε αὐτῷ,11 “Σὺ κάθου ὧδε καλῶς,” καὶ τῷ πτωχῷ εἴπητε, “Σὺ στῆθι ἐκεῖ” ἢ “Κάθου ὧδε12 ὑπὸ τὸ ὑποπόδιόν μου,” [καί]13 οὐ διεκρίθητε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐγένεσθε κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν; [Scholion 2.2 to Jas 2:2–4] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου·14 “Τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες·” παρεγένετο ὁ πένης, γενοῦ κατ’ [ἐκεῖνον]15 τῷ φρονήματι· μὴ μείζονα καταβάλῃς ὄγκον διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον· οὐκ ἔστι πένης καὶ πλούσιος ἐν Χριστῷ. Μὴ τοίνυν [ἐπαισχύνθῃς]16 διὰ τὴν ἔξωθεν περιβολήν, ἀλλὰ ἀπόδεξαι διὰ τὴν ἔνδον πίστιν.

1 na28 = τῷ θεῷ; O, P, Cramer omit τῷ (= Byz). 2 O, V, R, Cramer = τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου; P = τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου. 3 O, Cramer = τῷ; P, Chrysostom = τό; V, R = τοῦ. 4 Cramer = παρὰ θεόν; O, P, Chrysostom = περὶ θεόν. 5 O, V, R, Cramer = ὑμῶν; P = ἡμῶν. 6 O, P, V = ch. 4; Cramer, Euthalian apparatus (von Soden, Schriften, 457), Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (453b) = ch. 3. R omits. 7 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 8 Cramer = ἀπονοίᾳ αὐχίζεις; Ο (vid.), P, V, Chrysostom = ἀπονοίᾳ σχίζεις. Cramer’s note (9, note h) indicates that Codex O reads ἀπονοιαυχίζεις. 9 O, P, Cramer = τὴν συναγωγήν (= Byz); na28 omits τήν. 10 O, P, Cramer = καὶ ἐπιβλέψητε (= Byz); na28 = ἐπιβλέψητε δέ. 11 O, P, Cramer = αὐτῷ (= Byz); na28 omits αὐτῷ. 12 O, P, Cramer = στῆθι ἐκεῖ, ἢ κάθου ὧδε (= Byz); na28 = στῆθι ἢ κάθου ἐκεῖ. 13 P, V, R, na28 / Byz = καί; O, Cramer omit καί. 14 O, Cramer: τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου; P = τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου 15 Cramer = αὐτόν; O, P = ἐκεῖνον. 16 Cramer = ἐπαισχύνῃς; P, V, R, Chrysostom = ἐπαισχύνθῃς. O does not write out the ending.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

135

Religion pure and undefiled before God and Father is this: to look after orphans Jas 1:27 and widows in their affliction (and) to keep oneself unstained from the world. [Scholion 1.35 to Jas 1:27] from Chrysostom: This is the thing by which we can be compared with God: being merciful and having compassion. When we do not have this, we have been robbed of everything. He did not say, “If you fast, you are like your Father.” For none of these things [apply to] God, nor are any of them his actions. But what (then)? “Be compassionate as your Father who is in the heavens (is compassionate)” (cf. Luke 6:36; Matt 6:9): this is the work of God. If, then, you do not have this, what do you have? “I desire mercy,” he said, “and not sacrifice” (Hos 6:6; Matt 9:13). Chapter 3: Concerning impartial love for each person according to the Law My brothers and sisters, do not show partiality as you hold to the faith of our Jas 2:1 Lord of glory, Jesus Christ. [Scholion 2.1 to Jas 2:1] from the same (author): He is saying, “Why do you regard yourself so highly? Or again, why does another put himself down? Are we not all one body, both the great and the small? When, then, we are, in sum total, one, and parts of one another, why do you, in (your) [madness, separate] yourself? Why do you dishonor your brother? For just as he is a part of you, so too are you of him. Based on this, the honor (of all) is completely equal.” For if a man wearing gold rings and dressed in fine clothes enters your assem- Jas bly, and a poor man, dressed in filthy clothing, also enters, and you pay special 2:2–4 attention to the one wearing fine clothing, and say to him, “Sit here in a place of honor,” and to the poor man, “Stand over there” or “Sit here by my footstool,” have you not [in fact] made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with corrupt reasoning? [Scholion 2.2 to Jas 2:2–4] from Chrysostom: “Have the same regard for one another” (Rom 12:16). (When) a poor person arrives, adjust your mind-set to [that person]; do not give greater regard (to people) because of (their) wealth: there is no poor person or rich person in Christ. Do not, therefore, [be embarrassed] because of (his) outer clothing, but rather welcome (him) becausee of (his) inner faith.

136

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

Jas Ἀκούσατε ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί· οὐχ ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πτωχοὺς τοῦ κοσμοῦ1 2:5–6a πλουσίους ἐν πίστει καὶ κληρονόμους τῆς βασιλείας ἧς ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν

αὐτόν; Ὑμεῖς δὲ ἠτιμάσατε τὸν πτωχόν. [Scholion 2.3 to Jas 2:5–6] Τοῦ αὐτοῦ·2 Ἡμεῖς δέ, ὡς τὰ μέγιστα ἠδικημένοι, οὕτω τοὺς προσαιτοῦντας ὑβρίζομεν, ἀποστρεφόμεθα. Οὐ [δίδως],3 τι καὶ λυπεῖς; “Νουθετεῖτε,” εἶπεν ὁ Παῦλος, “ὡς ἀδελφούς, οὐχ ὑβρίζετε ὡς ἐχθρούς.” Ὁ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ νουθετῶν οὐ δημοσίᾳ τοῦτο ποιεῖ, οὐκ ἐκπομπεύει τὴν ὕβριν, ἀλλ’ ἰδίᾳ καὶ μετὰ πολλῆς [τῆς]4 προσοχῆς, καὶ ἀλγῶν καὶ δακνόμενος, δακρύων καὶ ὀδυρόμενος. Ἀπὸ ἀδελφικῆς τοινῦν παρέχομεν τῆς διανοίας, ἀπὸ ἀδελφικῆς νουθετοῦμεν τῆς προαιρέσεως, μὴ ὡς ἀλγοῦντες ἐπὶ τῷ5 διδόναι, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἀλγοῦντες ἐπὶ τὸ ἐκεῖνον παραβαίνειν τὴν ἐντολὴν ἐπὶ τὸ κέρδος. Εἰ γὰρ μετὰ τὸ δοῦναι ὑβρίζεις, λυμαίνῃ τῇ τῆς δόσεως ἡδονῇ. Ὅταν δὲ μήτε δῷς καὶ ὑβρίσῃς, πόσον οὐκ εἰργάσω κακὸν τὸν ἄθλιον ἐκεῖνον καὶ ταλαίπωρον; Προσῆλθεν ὡς [ἐλεηθησόμενος]6 παρὰ σοῦ· λαβὼν δὲ καιρίαν τὴν πληγὴν ἀπῆλθε καὶ μᾶλλον ἐδάκρυσεν. Ὅταν γὰρ ἀναγκάζηται διὰ τὴν ἔνδειαν προσαιτεῖν, διὰ δὲ τὸ προσαιτεῖν ὑβρίζεται, ὅρα πόση τῷ ὑβρίζοντι ἡ τιμωρία. “Παροξύνει7 τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτόν.” [Εἴπε]8 γάρ μοι αὐτὸς αὐτὸν ἀφῆκε πένεσθαι διά σε, ἵνα σὺ ἔχῃς θεραπεύειν [σαυτόν],9 καὶ σὺ τὸν διὰ σὲ πενόμενον ὑβρίζεις, πόσης ἀγνωμοσύνης ταῦτα, πόσης ἀχαριστίας τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον; Jas Οὐχ οἱ πλούσιοι καταδυναστεύουσιν ὑμῶν, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἕλκουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς κριτήρια; Οὐκ 2:6b–7 αὐτοὶ βλασφημοῦσι τὸ καλὸν ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς;10

[Scholion 2.4 to Jas 2:6–7] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου·11 Φέρετε γενναίως τὰς πλεονεξίας· ἑαυτοὺς ἀναίρουσιν ἐκεῖνοι, οὐχ ὑμᾶς. Ὑμᾶς μὲν ἀποστεροῦσι χρημάτων· ἑαυτοὺς δὲ γυμνοῦσι τῆς εὐνοίας τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τῆς βοηθείας. Ὁ δὲ ἐκείνης [γυμνωθείς],12 κἂν ἅπαντα περιβάληται τῆς οἰκουμένης τὸν πλοῦτον, πάντων ἐστὶ πενέστερος. [Scholion 2.5 to Jas 2:6–7] 13 Τοῦτο μὲν οἱ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἄρχοντες ἐκ τῶν καρποφοριῶν πλουτοῦντες· τοῦτο δὲ καὶ14 οἱ τὰ Ῥωμαίων διοικοῦντες πράγματα εἰδωλολατροῦντες τότε.

1 O, P, Cramer = τοῦ κόσμου (= Byz); na28 = τῷ κόσμῳ. 2 O, V, Cramer = Τοῦ αὐτοῦ; P = τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ῥητοῦ προκειμένου ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοὶ μὴ ἐκκακήσητε τὸ καλὸν ποιοῦντες; R = unattributed. 3 Cramer = δίδους; O, P, V, R, Chrysostom = δίδως. 4 O, P = τῆς; Cramer omits τῆς. 5 V, R, Chrysostom, Cramer = ἐπὶ τῷ; O, P = ἐπὶ τό. 6 Cramer = ἐλεησόμενος; O, P, V, R, Chrysostom = ἐλεηθησόμενος. 7 O, V, R, Cramer = παροξύνει; P = παρωξύνει. 8 Cramer = εἴπερ; P, V, R, Chrysostom = εἴπε. 9 O, Cramer = αὐτόν; P, V, R, Chrysostom = σαυτόν. 10 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 11 O, Cramer, R = Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου; P, V = Τοῦ αὐτοῦ. 12 O, Cramer = στερηθείς; P, V, R, Chrysostom = γυμνωθείς. 13 O, Cramer = Ἀπολιναρίου; P, V, R = unattributed. 14 O, Cramer = καί; P, R omit καί. V omits this scholion.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

137

Listen, my beloved brothers. Has not God chosen the poor of the world to be Jas rich in faith and inheritors of the kingdom which he promised to those who 2:5–6a love him? But you have dishonored the poor person. [Scholion 2.3 to Jas 2:5–6] from the same (author): But we, as if we had been treated with the greatest injustice, thus insult those who beg from us; we turn away. After not [giving] (to him), why do you offend (him)? “Warn (them),” says Paul, “as brothers, do not insult them as enemies” (2 Thess 3:15 [adapted]). The one warning his brother does not do this publicly: not openly displaying the offense, but privately and with great [care], while grieving, being distressed, weeping (and) lamenting (over the brother’s offense). Out of a brotherly intention, then, we provide; out of a brotherly purpose we warn: not as ones who are grieved because of (their) giving, but as those are grieved because that person broke the commandment for (their own) gain. For if, after giving, you insult (the one who received the gift), you spoil the pleasure of the giving. When you do not give, yet still insult, how much evil have you not inflicted on that wretched and pitiable person? He came to [receive compassion] from you; he left after having received a mortal blow and wept all the more. For when he is forced by need to beg, but is insulted because of his begging, consider how great the punishment (will be) for the one who insults (him). “He angers the one who made him.” (Prov 14:31). For [tell] me: he allowed him to be poor for your sake, so that you are able to take care of [yourself], and you insult the one who is poor for your sake, how unfair is this? How ungrateful is this behavior? Are not the rich oppressing you, and are not they themselves dragging you Jas off into court? Is it not they who blaspheme the honorable name which was 2:6b–7 invoked over you? [Scholion 2.4 to Jas 2:6–7] from Chrysostom: Put up with their greedy actions nobly. They are destroying themselves, not you. They rob you of (your) wealth; they strip themselves of God’s good favor and help. The one who is [stripped] of that, even if he is clothed with all the riches of the world, is the poorest of all. [Scholion 2.5 to Jas 2:6–7] This (i.e., “the rich oppressing you” refers to) the leaders of the Jews who became rich through the offerings and also to the administrators of the affairs of the Romans, who were worshippers of idols at that time.

138

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

Jas Εἰ μέντοι νόμον τελεῖτε βασιλικὸν κατὰ τὴν γραφήν· “Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς 2:8–9 ἑαυτόν,”1 καλῶς ποιεῖτε·2 εἰ δὲ προσωποληπτεῖτε, ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε, ἐλεγχόμενοι

ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου ὡς παραβάται. [Scholion 2.6 to Jas 2:8–9] [Ἀπολιναρίου·]3 Ὥσπερ σὺ βούλει χρῆσθαι τὸν πλησίον δικαίως καὶ φιλανθρώπως, οὕτως καὶ αὐτὸς πρᾶττε πρὸς τὸν ὁμογενῆ σου4 καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ὄντα θεοῦ. Φυσικὸς ὁ λογισμός, εἰς ὃν καὶ πάντα ὁ σώτηρ ἀνεκεφαλαιώσατο, λέγων· “Ὡς θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε [αὐτοῖς]·5 οὕτως6 γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται.” Jas 2:10 Ὅστις γὰρ ὅλον τὸν νόμον τηρήσει, πταίσει7 δὲ ἐν ἑνὶ, γέγονε πάντων ἔνοχος.

[Scholion 2.7 to James 2:10] [Τὸ]8 μὴ τελείαν ἔχειν ἀγάπην· τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ κεφάλαιον τῶν καλῶν. Εἰ δὲ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἀπορεῖ, περιττὸν ἅπαν τὸ λοιπὸν σῶμα. Ὅτι [δὲ]9 περὶ τούτου λέγει, δῆλον ἐκ τῆς προειργασμένης κατασκευῆς· πᾶσα γὰρ αὐτῷ ἡ κατασκευὴ περὶ τελείας ἀγάπης ἦν. Τὸ δὲ “Οὐ μοιχεύσεις, ἀλλὰ φονεύσεις,” ὑποδείγματος χάριν κεῖται, ὥστε μὴ χωλεύειν κατὰ τὸ λοιπὸν τὴν τελειότητα. Jas 2:11 Ὁ γὰρ εἰπών· “Μὴ μοιχεύσῃς,” εἶπε καί· “Μὴ φονεύσῃς.”10 Εἰ δὲ οὐ μοιχεύεις, φονεύεις

δέ, γέγονας παραβάτης νόμου. [Scholion 2.8a to James 2:11] Εἰ καὶ μὴ πάνυ ἁρμοδίως κεῖται ἡ προκειμένη παραγραφή, ἀλλ’ οὖν διὰ τὸ αὐτῆς ὠφέλιμον ἀναγκαῖον ᾠήθην ταύτην ἐνθεῖναι.11 Ὁ κύριος γὰρ ἡμῶν καὶ θεὸς Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς τὰ προκείμενα ῥητὰ ὑπὸ Μωϋσέως εἰρημένα εἰς τελειότητα φέρων, φησίν· “Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρήθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις· ‘Οὐ φονεύσεις· ὃς δ’ ἂν φονεύσῃ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει.’ Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ εἰκῇ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει. Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρήθη· ‘Οὐ μοιχεύσεις.’ Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἐμβλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ.” [Scholion 2.8b to James 2:11] Ταῦτα ἑρμηνεύων Σευῆρος ὁ Ἀντιοχείας ἐπίσκοπος ἐν τῷ μϚʹ λόγῳ οὕτω φησίν· “Τῆς γὰρ διὰ Μωσέως γραφείσης νομοθεσίας· ‘Οὐ φονεύσεις’ λεγούσης, Χριστὸς ὁ τοῦ νόμου νοῦς καὶ τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ πνεύματος χορηγός, τὸ ‘Οὐκ ὀργισθήσῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου εἰκῆ’ διετάξατο ταύτῃ μᾶλλον πληρῶν τοῦ νόμου τὸ βούλημα· Τὴν γὰρ ὀργὴν [έξ ἧς]12 ὁ φόνος φύεται προανελών, καὶ τὸ ἐκείνῳ σπουδαζόμενον ἔπραξε. Καὶ περιττὸν τὸ ‘Οὐ φονεύσεις’ ἀπέδειξεν, ἀμαυρώσας αὐτὸ διὰ τῆς μείζονος ἐπιτάσεως· σχολῇ γὰρ ἂν ἔλθοι πρὸς 1 O, P, Cramer = ἑαυτόν; na28 / Byz = σεαυτόν. 2 A marginal note in P marks the scriptural quotation as from Leviticus and Deuteronomy. 3 P, V, R = Ἀπολιναρίου; O, Cramer = unattributed. 4 O, V, Cramer = σου; P, R = σοι. 5 O, Cramer = αὐτούς; P, V, R = αὐτοῖς (= Matt 7:12). 6 O, V, Cramer = οὕτως; P = οὕτoς (= Matt 7:12). 7 O, P, Cramer = τηρήσει, πταίσει (= Byz); na28 = τηρήσῃ, πταίσῃ. 8 O, V, R, Cramer = τῷ; P = τό; ac supports P; see Commentary. 9 Cramer = ὅτι; O, P = ὅτι δέ. 10 O, P, Cramer = μοιχεύσῃς … φονεύσῃς (= na28); Byz = μοιχεύσεις … φονεύσεις. 11 P, V, R, Cramer = ἐνθεῖναι; O = εῖναι; ac (Matthaei, 188–189; ga 621 fol. 59r) witness this sentence as the ending of Sch. 2.7. 12 Cramer = ἑξῆς.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

139

If you actually fulfill the royal law according to the scriptural standard, “Love Jas your neighbor as yourself,” (Lev 19:18) you are acting worthily. But if you show 2:8–9 partiality, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors. [Scholion 2.6 to Jas 2:8–9] [from Apollinarius]: Just as you wish (your) neighbor to act justly and humanely, so too behave towards your fellow human, since she too is from the same God. (This is) a principle of nature, into which the Savior summarized all (the commandments), saying, “As you would wish people to do to you, so too do [to them]. For thus is the law and the prophets” (Matt 7:12). “For whoever will keep the whole law, yet stumble in one [point], has become Jas 2:10 guilty of all of it.” [Scholion 2.7 to Jas 2:10] [To] (stumble in one point is) not to have perfect love; this is indeed the head of all the good (commandments). If one is confused about the head, how much more (will he be confused about) the whole rest of the body? It is clear from the previously worked out argument [that] he (James) refers to this. For the whole argument about perfect love was for it (to show that love is the head of the commandments). The passage “you do not commit adultery, but you do kill” is given as an example, so that perfection is not impaired by the standard of the rest (of the commandments). For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not kill.” If you do not Jas 2:11 commit adultery, yet do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law. [Scholion 2.8a to Jas 2:11] Even if the current passage is not completely fitting (in this context), still, on account of its usefulness, I considered it necessary to insert this (passage). For our Lord and God Jesus the Christ, bringing the current passages, spoken by Moses, to perfection, says, “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder. Whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother without cause will be liable to judgment (Matt 5:21–5:22b). You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt 5:27–28). [Scholion 2.8b to Jas 2:11] Severus, the bishop of Antioch, commenting on these things in the 46th Homily, says, “Christ, the meaning of the law and the provider of the Spirit in it, concerning the legislation written by Moses which states, ‘Do not murder,’ commanded, ‘do not be angry with your brother without cause,’ by this (commandment) fulfilling to a far greater degree the intention of the law. For he, having first nullified the anger [from which] murder grows, accomplishes in fact the thing that was so eagerly desired by it (the law). He has shown (the commandment) ‘Do not kill,’ to be unnecessary, after having dimmed it by a greater force. For the one who does not even

140

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

φόνον, ὁ μηδὲ ὀργισθῆναι συγχωρηθείς. Οὕτω καὶ τὸ πρὸς ἐπιθυμίαν ἀκόλαστον ἄγον1 βλέμμα καταδικάσας, τὸ2 ‘Οὐ μοιχεύσεις’ καὶ πεπλήρωκε καὶ ἠφάνισε. Πνευματικὸν γὰρ ὄντα τὸν νόμον ὁ κύριος πεπλήρωκε μὲν καινότητι πνεύματος· λέλυκε δὲ τῇ τοῦ γράμματος παλαιότητι· τὸ δὲ ‘παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον, ἐγγὺς ὑπάρχειν ἀφανισμοῦ’ καὶ Παύλῳ καὶ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ δοκεῖ. Καλῶς δὲ καὶ σφόδρα εἶπε· ‘ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ γεγενῆσθαι,’ καὶ οὐ ‘τελείως ἠφανίσθαι·’ τῷ3 γὰρ πληροῦσθαι τὸν νοῦν, δοκεῖ μὲν εἶναι νόμος· ἠφανίσθαι δὲ τῷ4 περιττὴν φανῆναι ἢ δειχθῆναι τὴν τοῦ γράμματος ἐντολήν. Καθάπερ ἄν τις καὶ τὸν ἐκ σκιαγραφίας ἐπὶ σανίδος ἐνσημανθέντα κύκλον ἠφανίσθαι εἴποι, διὰ τῆς τῶν χρωμάτων ἐπιβολῆς· ἠφάνισται μὲν γὰρ τῷ μὴ διὰ τοῦ προτέρου σκιώδους σχήματος δείκνυσθαι· μένει δὲ ὅμως τῷ λαμπροτέρῳ5 διὰ τῆς ἐπικαλυψάσης εὐχροίας ἐκφαίνεσθαι.” Jas 2:12 Οὕτως λαλεῖτε καὶ οὕτως6 ποιεῖτε ὡς διὰ νόμου ἐλευθερίας μέλλοντες κρίνεσθαι.

[Scholion 2.9 to Jas 2:12] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· Βελτίον γὰρ τοῖς ῥήμασιν ὑμᾶς φοβῆσαι, ἵνα μὴ τοῖς πράγμασιν ἀλγήσητε. Jas Ἡ γὰρ κρίσις ἀνέλεος τῷ μὴ ποιήσαντι ἔλεος·7 2:13a [Scholion 2.10 to Jas 2:13] Ἔστι μὲν περὶ κρίσεως ὀρθῆς ἡ παραίνεσις· “Νόμον δὲ

ἐλευθερίας” λέγει τὸν νόμον τῆς δικαιοσύνης τὸν οὕτω κρίνοντα ὡς εὑρίσκει. Τοῦτο δέ φησιν ἐπειδὴ τινες ἁμαρτάνουσι τῇ φιλανθρωπίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀποχρώμενοι καὶ λέγοντες ὅτι “Φιλάνθρωπος ὢν συγχωρεῖ.” Διὸ καὶ ἐπιφέρει· “ἀνέλεος ἡ κρίσις τῷ μὴ ποιήσαντι ἔλεος.”8 Jas Κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεον9 κρίσεως. 2:13b [Scholion 2.11 to Jas 2:13] Ἡσυχίου· Ὥσπερ [γὰρ]10 τὸ ἔλαιον ἐξολισθαίνειν11 τοὺς

ἀθλητὰς τὰς χεῖρας τῶν ἀντιδίκων ποιεῖ, οὕτως ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη τοὺς ταύτην ἀσκουμένους ἐκκλίνειν καὶ ἀποφεύγειν παρασκευάζει τοὺς δαίμονας. [Scholion 2.12 to Jas 2:13] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· Ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη τέχνη τις ἀρίστη ἐστὶ καὶ προστάτις τῶν ἐργαζομένων αὐτήν. Φίλη γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστι, καὶ ἀεὶ πλησίον ἕστηκεν αὐτοῦ, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἂν βούληται εὐκόλως αἰτοῦσα χάριν, μόνον ἂν μὴ ἀδικῆται παρ’ ἡμῶν· ἀδικεῖται δέ, ὅταν ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς [αὐτήν]12 ἐργαζώμεθα. Ὡς ἐὰν ᾖ καθαρά, πολλὴν τοῖς ἀναπέμπουσιν αὐτὴν δίδωσι τὴν παρρησίαν. Καὶ ὑπὲρ προσκεκρουκότων δεῖται, τοσαύτη αὐτῆς ἡ ἰσχύς, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡμαρτηκότων.13 Αὕτη διαρρήγνυσι τὰ 1 O, R, Cramer = ἄγον; P, V = ἄγων. 2 O, V, R, Cramer = τό; P = τῷ 3 O, R, Cramer = τῷ; P, V = τό. 4 O, R, Cramer = τῷ; P, V = τό. 5 O, Cramer = τῷ λαμπροτέρῳ; P, V = τὸ λαμπρότερον. R omits the last sentence of the scholion (μένει … ἐκφαίνεσθαι). 6 O, P, Cramer = οὕτως (= na28); Byz = οὕτω. 7 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 8 V, Cramer = ἔλεος; P, R = ἔλεον. 9 O, P, Cramer = ἔλεον (= Byz); na28 = ἔλεος. 10 P, R = Ὥσπερ γάρ; O, Cramer omits γάρ; V omits this scholion. 11 O, R, Cramer = ἐξολισθαίνειν; P = ἐξολισθάνειν. 12 O, Cramer = αὐτῶν; P, V, R Chrysostom = αὐτήν. 13 O, V, R, Cramer= ἡμαρτηκότων; P = ἡμαρτικότων.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

141

leave room for anger, can hardly come close to murder. So too, by condemning lustful gazing, he indeed fulfilled (the commandment), ‘Do not commit adultery’ and made it fade away. For the Lord has fulfilled the law insofar as it is spiritual by the newness of the Spirit; he annulled it by the obsolescence of the letter. Both Paul and the truth consider that, ‘What has become obsolete and is growing old is close to fading away’ (Heb 8:13). He said very well, ‘it has come close to fading away’ and not ‘it has faded away completely.’ For insofar as (its) meaning is fulfilled it seems to be a law; but insofar as the commandment of the letter appears or is shown to be unnecessary, (it seems) to have faded away. Just as one might say that a circle impressed on an artist’s panel from a sketch fades away during the application of the colors, for it has indeed faded away in that it is not discernable in (its) former dark outline. Yet nevertheless, it remains by shining out with greater brightness through the beautiful colors that cover (it).” Speak in such a way, and act in such a way, as people who are about to be judged Jas 2:12 by the law of freedom. [Scholion 2.9 to Jas 2:12] from Chrysostom: For it is better to frighten you with words, so that you do not suffer from the realities. For judgment is merciless to the one who has not shown mercy. Jas [Scholion 2.10 to Jas 2:13] The exhortation is about correct judgment: “law of 2:13a freedom” means the law of righteousness that judges (things) just as it finds (them). He says this because some people are sinning by abusing God’s love for humans and saying, “Since he loves humans, he forgives (us).” Therefore he adds, “Judgment is merciless to the one who does not show mercy.” mercy triumphs over judgment. Jas [Scholion 2.11 to Jas 2:13] from Hesychius: [For] just as olive oil makes the 2:13b athletes slip away from the hands of (their) opponents, so too charitable giving prepares those who practice it to avoid and to escape from demons. [Scholion 2.12 to Jas 2:13] from Chrysostom: Charitable giving is a kind of noble art, and a patron of those who practice it. For she is a friend of God, and stands always near him, readily asking for favor for whomever she wishes— if only she is not wronged by us. She is wronged when we practice [it] (the charitable giving) with (profits gained by) robbery. So if she is pure, she gives great confidence to those who offer her up. She pleads even for those who have offended (others), her power is so great, and for those who have sinned. She

142

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

δεσμά, λύει τὸ σκότος, σβέννυσι τὸ πῦρ, θανατοῖ τὸν σκώληκα, ἀπελαύνει τὸν τῶν ὀδόντων βρυγμόν. Ταύτῃ μετὰ πολλῆς ἀδείας ἀνοίγονται τῶν οὐρανῶν αἱ πύλαι—Καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα—Βασίλισσα1 γὰρ ὄντως ἐστὶν [ὁμοίους]2 ἀνθρώπους ποιοῦσα θεῷ· “Ἔσεσθε γάρ,” φησίν, “οἰκτίρμονες, ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.” Ὑπόπτερός ἐστι καὶ κούφη, πτέρυγας ἔχουσα χρυσᾶς· πτῆσιν ἔχουσα πάνυ τέρπουσαν τοὺς ἀγγέλους· ἐκεῖ [φησι·]3 “πτέρυγες περιστερᾶς περιηργυρωμέναι, καὶ [τὰ] μετάφρενα4 αὐτῆς ἐν χλωρότητι χρυσίου.” Καθάπερ περιστερά τις5 χρυσῆ καὶ ζῶσα πέτεται, ὄμμα προσηνὲς ἔχουσα ὀφθαλμὸν ἥμερον· οὐδὲν [τοῦ]6 ὀφθαλμοῦ ἐκείνου βέλτιον. Καλός ἐστιν ὁ ταώς, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἐκείνην κολοιός· οὕτως ἡ ὄρνις αὕτη καλή τις ἐστὶ καὶ θαυμαστή. Ἄνω διὰ παντὸς ὁρᾷ· πολλὴ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ δόξῃ περιστοιχίζεται. Παρθένος ἐστί, πτέρυγας ἔχουσα χρυσᾶς, περιεσταλμένη, λευκὸν ἔχουσα πρόσωπον, ἥμερον. Ὑπόπτερός ἐστι καὶ κούφη, παρὰ τὸν θρόνον ἑστῶσα τὸν βασιλικόν. Ὅταν κρινώμεθα,7 ἄφνω ἐφίσταται καὶ φαίνεται, καὶ ἐξαιρεῖται τῆς κολάσεως ἡμᾶς, ταῖς αὐτῆς πτέρυξι περιβάλλουσα. Ταύτην θέλει ὁ θεὸς ἢ θυσίας. [Chapter 4] κεφ. Δ´ ·8 Ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἔργων, καὶ οὐκ ἐκ θατέρου ἰδικῶς, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἅμα9 δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος Jas Τί τὸ ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί μου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν, ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ; Μὴ δύναται ἡ 2:14–16 πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; Ἐὰν10 ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ γυμνοὶ ὑπάρχωσι, καὶ λειπόμενοι ὦσι

τῆς ἐφημέρου τροφῆς, εἴπῃ δέ τις αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὑμῶν,11 “Ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνῃ, θερμαίνεσθε καὶ χορτάζεσθε,” μὴ δῶτε12 δὲ αὐτοῖς τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ σώματος, τί τὸ ὄφελος; [Scholion 2.13 to Jas 2:14–26] Ὃ δὲ λέγει τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν· Ἐὰν μὴ ἔργῳ δείξῃ τις ὅτι πιστεύει τῷ θεῷ, περιττὴ καὶ ἡ προσηγορία· οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἁπλῶς λέγων εἶναι τοῦ κυρίου, οὗτός ἐστι πιστός, ἀλλ’ ὁ οὕτως ἀγαπῶν τὸν κύριον, ὡς διὰ τὴν εἰς αὐτὸν πίστιν καὶ θανάτου κατατολμᾶν. Καὶ ὅτι οὗτος τῶν προκειμένων ὁ σκοπός, τὰ ὑποδείγματα δηλοῦσιν· Ἀβραὰμ γάρ, φησίν, ἔργῳ ἔδειξεν ὅτι ἐπίστευσε, τῷ θεῷ ἀνενεγκὼν εἰς ὁλοκάρπωσιν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Ῥαὰβ πιστεύσασα, κατεφρόνησε θανάτου. Ταῦτα δὲ λέγει, βεβαιῶν τοὺς πιστοὺς καὶ διδάσκων ἀληθῶς εἶναι πιστοὺς· καὶ μὴ ῥήματι13 μόνον καὶ γλώττῃ τὸν κύριον ἀγαπᾷν, ἀλλ’ ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. Διὸ καὶ πλείοσιν ὑποδείγμασι κέχρηται εἰς τοῦτο συντείνουσι· τῷ τε τῆς ἐλεημοσύνης καὶ τῷ τοῦ 1 O, V, R, Cramer = Βασίλισσα; P = Βασίλεισσα. 2 O, Cramer = ὁμοίως; P, V, R, Chrysostom = ὁμοίους. 3 P, V, R, Chrysostom = ἐκεῖ φησι; O, Cramer omit φησί. 4 P, R, Chrysostom, Ps 67:14 lxx = τά μετάφρενα; O, V, Cramer omit τά. 5 O, V, R, Chrysostom, Cramer = τις; P omits τις. 6 O, P, Chrysostom = τοῦ; Cramer omits τοῦ. 7 O, V, R, Chrysostom, Cramer = κρινώμεθα. P = κρινόμεθα. 8 P = ch. 5; Cramer, Euthalian apparatus (von Soden, Schriften, 457), Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (453b) = ch. 4; O, V, omit this title. 9 P, Euthalian apparatus, Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath., Cramer = καὶ οὐκ ἐκ θατέρου ἰδικῶς, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἅμα. R omits this phrase. 10 Byz = εάν δέ; O, P, Cramer omit δέ (= na28). 11 O, V, R, Cramer = ὑμῶν (= na28 / Byz); P = ἡμῶν. 12 O, R, Cramer = δῶτε (= na28 / Byz); P, V = δότω. 13 O, V, R, Cramer = ῥήματι; P = ῥήμασι.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

143

breaks apart chains, disperses the darkness, quenches the fire, kills the worm, drives away the grinding of teeth. By her, with all fear gone, the gates of heaven are opened.—And after a bit (the text continues)—She indeed is truly a queen, making humans [like] God: “Be merciful,” it says, “as your Father who is in the heavens” (cf. Luke 6:36). She is swift and nimble, with golden wings; her flight greatly delights the angels: there [(Scripture) says] “the wings of a dove covered with silver, and its back with golden greenness” (Ps 67:14). Just as some dove, golden and living, she flies, with a gentle look, a kind eye. Nothing is better than that eye! The peacock is beautiful, but compared to the dove, it’s a jackdaw: this bird is simply something beautiful and remarkable. She is constantly looking up; she is fully clothed with the glory of God. She is a virgin, with golden wings, dressed up, with a bright, kind face. She is swift and nimble, standing beside the royal throne. When we are judged, she suddenly stands near and shows herself, and rescues us from punishment, covering us with her wings. God desires to have her more than sacrifice. Chapter 4: That a person is justified not from faith alone, but also from actions; and not from each one individually, but from both together. What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims that he has faith, Jas but does not have actions? Can (such) faith save him? If a brother or sister is 2:14–16 poorly dressed and is in need of food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace. Keep warm and be well fed,” yet you do not give them what is needed for their bodies, what good is it? [Scholion 2.13 to Jas 2:14–26] What he (James) means is as follows: Unless a person demonstrates that he believes in God by (his) actions, the name (of “faith”) is indeed superfluous. For it is not the person who merely says that he is the Lord’s who is a believer, but he who so loves the Lord that he would boldly face even death because of his faith in him. And that this is the aim of the passages we are considering, the examples make clear. For Abraham, he says, demonstrated by (his) action that he believed, by offering his son to God as a whole burnt-offering. In the same way also Rahab, because she was believing, treated death with contempt. He says these things, strengthening believers, and teaching them to truly be believers: to love the Lord not in word and speech only, but in action and in truth (cf. 1John 3:18). For this reason he also used further examples that drive towards this (point): both the (example) concerning

144

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

σώματος· ἀπάγων δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ τοῦ πολλοῦ τύφου τοῦ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι καὶ δεῖξαι βουλόμενος ὅτι ἔργῳ μὴ βεβαιοῦντες τὴν πίστιν, μάτην ὀνόματι [μόνῳ]1 κομπάζουσι. Τὸ τῶν δαιμονίων ὑπόδειγμα τίθησι, λέγων μὴ πλέον ἔχειν αὐτοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων οὕτως διακειμένους· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι ἐπίστευσαν ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξουσίαν εἶχεν αὐτῶν. Ὅρα δὲ καὶ δι’ ἑτέρου πνευματικὴν σύνεσιν· οὐ γὰρ εἶπε· “Τί τὸ ὄφελος, ἐὰν πίστιν τις ἔχῃ;” ἀλλὰ “Τί τὸ ὄφελος, ἐὰν λέγῃ τις πίστιν ἔχειν;” ὡσεὶ σαφέστερον ἔλεγε· “Δεῖξόν μοι τὸ πρᾶγμα, ἀφ’ οὗ σοι τὴν προσηγορίαν ταύτην λογίσομαι.” Ἐὰν λέγῃς μὲν ἔχειν, μὴ ὀρθῶς δὲ τὸ τὴν προσηγορίαν ποιοῦν, οὐδὲ τοῦ ὀνόματός σοι μεταδώσω τῆς πίστεως. Κατὰ ποίου γάρ σοι2 πράγματος ἡ προσηγορία τίθεται; Ὥστε ἐὰν μὴ τὰ ἔργα παρῇ, οὐδὲ προσηγορία χώραν ἕξει ποτέ. Jas [Οὕτως]3 καὶ ἡ πίστις, ἐὰν μὴ ἔχῃ ἔργα,4 νεκρά ἐστι καθ’ ἑαυτήν. Ἀλλ’ ἐρεῖ τις· 2:17–19 “Σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις, [κἀγὼ]5 ἔργα ἔχω.” Δεῖξόν μοι τὴν πίστιν σου ἐκ τῶν ἔργων σου·6

[κἀγὼ]7 δείξω σοι8 ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου τὴν πίστιν μου.9 Σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι ὁ θεὸς εἷς ἐστι,10 καλῶς ποιεῖς· καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσι, καὶ φρίσσουσι. [Scholion 2.14 to Jas 2:17–19] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· Κἂν γὰρ εἰς τὸν πατέρα καὶ εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ὀρθῶς τις πιστεύῃ, καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, βιὸν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ ὀρθόν, οὐδὲν αὐτῷ κέρδος τῆς πίστεως εἰς σωτηρίαν. Οὐκοῦν [καὶ]11 ὅταν [λέγῃ]·12 “Καὶ αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή, ἵνα γινώσκωσί σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν,” μὴ νομίσωμεν ἡμῖν ἀρκεῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν τὸ λεγόμενον· δεῖ γὰρ ἡμᾶς καὶ βίου καὶ πολιτείας καθαρωτάτης.13 [Scholion 2.15 to Jas 2:17–19] Τοῦ αὐτοῦ· Μέγα μὲν πίστις καὶ σωτήριον, καὶ ταύτης ἄνευ, οὐκ ἔνι σωθῆναί ποτε. Ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀρκεῖ καθ’ ἑαυτὴν τοῦτο ἐργάσασθαι· ἀλλὰ δεῖ καὶ πολιτείας ὀρθῆς. Ὥστε διὰ τοῦτο καὶ Παῦλος τοῖς ἤδη τῶν μυστηρίων καταξιωθεῖσι παραινεῖ, λέγων· “Σπουδάσωμεν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς [ἐκείνην τὴν κατάπαυσιν]·”14 “Σπουδάσωμέν,” φησίν, ὡς οὐκ ἀρκούσης τῆς πίστεως, ἀλλ’ ὀφείλοντος [προστεθῆναι]15 καὶ τοῦ βίου, καὶ πολλὴν τὴν σπουδὴν γίνεσθαι· δεῖ γὰρ ὄντως καὶ πολλῆς σπουδῆς ὥστε εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. Εἰ γὰρ γῆς οὐ κατηξιώθησαν οἱ τοσαῦτα ταλαιπωρηθέντες ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, καὶ γῆς τυχεῖν οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν, ἐπεὶ ἐγόγγυσαν, καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐπόρνευσαν· πῶς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἡμεῖς [καταξιωθησόμεθα],16 ἀδιαφόρως ζῶντες καὶ ῥαθύμως; Δεῖ τοίνυν ἡμῖν πολλῆς σπουδῆς.

1 O, Cramer = μόνον; P, V, R = μόνῳ. 2 O, V, Cramer = σοι; P, R = σου. 3 Cramer = Οὕτω; O, P = Οὕτως (= na28 / Byz). 4 O, P, Cramer = ἔχῃ ἔργα (= na28); Byz = ἔργα ἔχῃ. 5 O, P = κἀγώ; Cramer = κᾀγω. 6 O, P, Cramer = ἐκ τῶν ἔργων σου (= Byz); na28 = χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων. 7 O, P = κἀγώ; Cramer = κᾀγω. 8 O, P, Cramer = κἀγὼ δείξω σοι (= Byz); na28 = κἀγώ σοι δείξω. 9 O, P, Cramer = μου (= Byz); na28 omits μου. 10 O, P, Cramer = ὁ θεὸς εἷς ἐστίν (= Byz); na28 = εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός. 11 O, P = καί; Cramer omits καί. 12 Cramer = λέγη. 13 P, V, R, Cramer = καθαρωτάτης; O = καθαρωτάτις. 14 O, Cramer = τὴν κατάπαυσιν ἐκείνην; P, V, R, Chrysostom, Heb 4:11 = ἐκείνην τὴν κατάπαυσιν. 15 O, Cramer = προτεθῆναι; P, V, R, Chrysostom= προστεθῆναι. 16 Cramer = καταξιωσηθόμεθα; O, P = καταξιωθησόμεθα.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

145

charitable giving and the (example) concerning the body. (In so doing), he is both leading them away from great delusion regarding the name and wishing to demonstrate that if they have not confirmed (their) faith by action, they make empty boasts about a [mere] name. He sets out the example of the demons, (cf. Jas 2:19) saying that when they are in such a state, they are not far from the demons. For even they (the demons) believed that he was the Son of God, and that he was the holy one of God, and that he had authority over them. You see that spiritual knowledge (comes) even from another (source, i.e., other than the good). For he did not say, “What good is it if someone has faith?” (Jas 2:14) but rather, “What good is it if someone says that he has faith?” Just as he said more clearly, “Show me the deed, from which I will determine this name for you (cf. Jas 2:18). If you say that you have (faith), yet do not truly have that which produces the name, I will definitely not concede the name of faith to you. In reference to which deed is the name placed on you? Therefore, unless the actions are present, the name will never have a proper place.” So also faith, if it does not have actions, is dead in itself. But someone may say, Jas “You have faith, and I have actions.” Show me your faith by your actions, and I 2:17–19 will show you my faith by my actions. You believe that God is one; you do well! Yet even the demons believe—and tremble in fear. [Scholion 2.14 to Jas 2:17–19] from Chrysostom: Now even if somebody believes rightly in the Father and the Son, as well as in the Holy Spirit, yet does not have a right life, this faith gives him no advantage in attaining salvation. So then [too] when it says, “This indeed is eternal life, so that they might know you, the only true God” (John 17:3), let us not think that what is said (in this quotation) is sufficient for us (to attain) salvation: we need both a way of earning a living and a way of living in community that are most pure. [Scholion 2.15 to Jas 2:17–19] from the same (author): Great and salvific is faith, and without it, it is impossible to ever be saved. But it is not sufficient in itself to accomplish this: rather, a right way of living is also necessary. Therefore because of this Paul also encourages those who are already considered worthy of the mysteries, saying, “Let us make every effort to enter that rest” (Heb 4:11). “Let us make every effort,” he says, since faith is not sufficient, but rather (the good conduct of one’s) life ought to be added, and effort should be great. You see that great effort is indeed truly needed in order to enter into heaven. For if the ones who were suffering so greatly in the desert were not found worthy of the (promised) land, and were not able to reach the land, since they grumbled, and since they worshipped other gods, how will we be found worthy of heaven, we who are living indifferently and carelessly? Therefore we need great effort.

146

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

[Scholion 2.16 to Jas 2:17–19] Καὶ πάλιν· “Πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν.” Εἰκότως· ὥσπερ γὰρ σῶμα καλὸν καὶ εὐανθές, ὅταν ἰσχὺν μὴ ἔχῃ, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἐζωγραφημένοις ᾖ προσεοικός,1 οὕτω πίστις ὀρθὴ χωρὶς ἔργων. [Scholion 2.17 to Jas 2:17–19] Περὶ τῆς μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα πίστεώς φησιν· ὅτι νεκρὰ καθέστηκεν ἐάν τις αὐτὴν ἄπρακτον ἔχῃ, καὶ μὴ βεβαιοῖ ταύτην τοῖς τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἐπιτηδεύμασιν· ἀρραβὼν γὰρ ἀγαθῆς2 πολιτείας ὑπάρχει τὸ βάπτισμα. Καὶ γὰρ ὁ κύριος οὕτω πρὸς τύπον ἡμέτερον βαπτισθεὶς ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου, καὶ ἁγιάσας τὰ ὕδατα, καὶ ἀρχὴν δοὺς τῷ ἡμετέρῳ βαπτίσματι. Πρὸς τὸ ὄρος ἄνεισι, καὶ τῆς πρὸς τὸν διάβολον πάλης ἀνέχεται, καὶ πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ προκαταλύει τὴν δύναμιν. Ἡμῖν πρόγραμμα καὶ χαρακτῆρα [διὰ]3 τοῦ τύπου διδούς, εἰς τὸ γινώσκειν ὡς μετὰ τὸ θεῖον λουτρὸν ἔργων δεῖ καὶ ἀγῶνες ἡμᾶς ἀναμένουσιν. Ὃυς χρὴ νομίμως διελθεῖν πρὸς τὸν ἀντίπαλον διὰ τῆς τῶν ἀρετῶν ἐπιδείξεως. Jas Θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων νεκρά4 ἐστι; Ἀβραὰμ 2:20–21 ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη ἀνενέγκας Ἰσαὰκ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσια-

στήριον; [Scholion 2.18 to Jas 2:20–21] Ἀντιθήσει τις ἴσως καὶ ἐρεῖ· “Καὶ μὴν καὶ ὁ Παῦλος τὸν Ἀβραὰμ εἰς τύπον ἔλαβε τοῦ δικαιοῦσθαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων διὰ τῆς πίστεως· καὶ Ἰάκωβος δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν Ἀβραὰμ εἰς εἰκόνα παρέλαβε τοῦ δικαιοῦσθαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνης ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἔργων βεβαιούντων τὴν πίστιν. Πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἐναντία ταῦτα; Καὶ πῶς ὁ αὐτὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ τῆς ἀπράκτου καὶ τῆς μετὰ τῶν ἔργων πίστεως ἐστὶν εἰκών;” Ἀλλ’ ἕτοιμον ἐκ τῶν θείων γραφῶν τὴν λύσιν ἐπαγαγεῖν· ὁ γὰρ εἷς Ἀβραὰμ, τοῖς χρόνοις διαστελλόμενος, ἑκατέρας πίστεως ἐστὶν εἰκών· καὶ τῆς πρὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, τῆς μὴ ἐπιζητούσης ἔργα, μόνον δὲ τὴν ὁμολογίαν καὶ τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς σωτηρίας, ᾧ δικαιούμεθα πιστεύοντες εἰς Χριστόν, καὶ τῆς μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα, τῆς συνεζευγμένης τοῖς ἔργοις. Οὕτως οὐκ ἐναντίον φαίνεται τὸ ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ λαλῆσαν πνεῦμα περί τε τῆς πρὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος [καὶ τῆς μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα]5 πίστεως· τῆς μὲν δι’ ὁμολογίας ψιλῆς καὶ ἀπράκτου, δικαιούσης τὸν προσερχόμενον, ἱκανὸν ἔχοντα σωτηρίας ἐφόδιον τὸ θεῖον λουτρόν, εἴγε παραχρῆμα μετασταίη τοῦ βίου· τῆς δέ, τὸν ἤδη βεβαπτισμένον, ἀπαιτούσης καὶ ἀγαθῶν ἔργων ἐπίδειξιν καὶ πρὸς ἕτερον μέτρον ἀναγούσης αὐτόν. Διὸ καὶ ἁρμοδίως ἄγαν ὁ Ἰάκωβος ἔφη περὶ αὐτῆς· “καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων ἡ πίστις ἐτελειώθη.” Καὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ Παῦλος συνᾴ-

1 O, V, R, Cramer = προσεοικός; P = προσεοικώς. 2 O, R, Cramer = ἀγαθῆς; P = ἀληθῶς. 3 O, P, R = διὰ; Cramer omits διά. V omits scholion. 4 O, P, Cramer = νεκρά (= Byz); na28 = ἀργή. 5 P, V, R = καὶ τῆς μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα; O, Cramer omit.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

147

[Scholion 2.16 to Jas 2:17–19] And again: “Faith apart from actions is dead.” This is only reasonable, for just as a beautiful and blooming body, when it does not have strength, is only like things that are painted, so is right faith apart from actions. [Scholion 2.17 to Jas 2:17–19] He speaks about the faith after baptism: It has become dead, if a person holds it without actions, and does not strengthen it with habits of righteousness. For baptism is the down payment on a morally good way of living. Indeed, the Lord was thus baptized by John as an example for us: both making the waters holy and providing a source for our baptism. He goes up the mountain, and endures the contest against the devil, and gives a preview of how he will destroy all his (the devil’s) power. He gives us an announcement and an illustration [through] the example, so that we know that after the divine washing (baptism) actions are needed and struggles await us. It is necessary that (we) go through (these struggles) against the Opponent, following (God’s) law, through the display of (our) virtues. Do you want to learn, you empty-headed person, how faith apart from actions Jas is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by actions when he offered Isaac 2:20–21 his son on the altar? [Scholion 2.18 to Jas 2:20–21] Perhaps someone will object and will say, “In fact, even Paul took Abraham as an example of a person justified apart from actions through faith. Yet James took the same Abraham as a model of a person justified not from faith alone but also from actions confirming faith. How then are these things not contradictory? And how is the same Abraham both a model of faith without actions and faith with actions?” Yet bringing forth the solution from the sacred scriptures is readily at hand. For the one Abraham, differentiated in time, is a model of each faith, both of – the (faith) before baptism: the faith that does not require actions, but only the salvific profession and verbal expression, through which we are justified by believing in Christ – and of the faith after baptism, the (faith) that is closely united with actions. Thus it is obvious that the one and the same Spirit is not contradictory in speaking in the apostles about faith before baptism [and after baptism]: the faith (before baptism, expressed) through mere profession and without actions, justifies the one approaching (to be baptized), since the divine washing has sufficient resources for salvation, even if a person should pass from life right away (after being baptized). But the (faith), in regard to the one already baptized, does indeed require proof of good actions and brings the person up to another standard. Therefore, James indeed spoke very appropriately about it (faith after baptism), “and by actions faith was completed” (Jas 2:22). In fact

148

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

δει, λέγων αὐτῷ ἑτέρωθι, διδάσκων τὴν μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα πίστιν, τὴν διὰ τῶν ἔργων τελείωσιν ἀπαιτεῖν· λέγει γὰρ· “Οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία, ἀλλὰ πίστις δι’ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη.” Ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη πολλῆς φιλοσοφίας δεῖται εἰς τὸ πληρωθῆναι. [Scholion 2.19 to Jas 2:20–21] Κυρίλλου ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Ῥωμαίους Ἐπιστολῆς·1 Ἐπειδὴ ὁ μακάριος Ἰάκωβος τὸν Ἀβραὰμ λέγει ἐξ ἔργων [δεδικαιῶσθαι]2 ἀνενέγκοντα Ἰσαὰκ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον· ὁ δὲ Παῦλος λέγει αὐτὸν ἐκ πίστεως δεδικαιῶσθαι, οὕτω τὴν δοκοῦσαν ἐναντιότητα νοητέον· ὅτι πρὸ μὲν τοῦ ἔχειν τὸν Ἰσαὰκ ἐπίστευσεν, καὶ μισθὸν πίστεως ἔλαβε τὸν Ἰσαάκ. Ὅμως καὶ ὅτε ἀνήνεγκε τὸν Ἰσαὰκ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, οὐ μόνον τὸ ἔργον ἐποίει ὃ προσετάγη, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς πίστεως οὐκ ἀπέστη, ὅτι ἐν Ἰσαὰκ3 μέλλει τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ πολυπληθεῖν ὡς τὰ ἄστρα, λογισάμενος ὅτι καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγεῖραι δυνατὸς ὁ θεός. Ὅμως ὁ Παῦλος μαρτύρα τῶν ἰδίων λόγων καὶ συλλήπτορα ποιεῖται τὸν μακάριον Δαυίδ, ἄνδρα διαβόητον ἐν εὐσεβείᾳ. Καὶ σοφῶς διασκευάζει ὡς ἐν πνεύματι [λαλῶν]4 τὴν διὰ πίστεως ἄφεσιν, καὶ διαγγέλλει πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις· ᾔδει γὰρ ἐν Χριστῷ παρεσομένην κατὰ καιρούς. Jas 2:22 Βλέπεις ὅτι ἡ πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων ἡ πίστις ἐτελει-

ώθη.5 [Scholion 2.20 to Jas 2:22] Κυρίλλου·6 Προσεκόμιζε τὸ λογικὸν ἱερεῖον, καὶ τοῖς τῆς φύσεως [νόμοις]7 ἐρρῶσθαι φράσας, καὶ τῆς ἀπαραιτήτου φιλοστοργίας πατήσας τὸ κέντρον, καὶ τῶν ἐπιγείων οὐδὲν [τῇ] εἰς θεὸν ἀντιπαρεξάγων [ἀγάπῃ].8 Jas Καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα· “Ἐπίστευσε δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη 2:23–24 αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην,” καὶ φίλος τοῦ9 θεοῦ ἐκλήθη. Ὁρᾶτε10 ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται

ἄνθρωπος, καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον·11 [Scholion 2.21 to Jas 2:23–24] Κυρίλλου· Γέρας οὖν ἔχει τὴν [δικαίωσιν]12 ὁ πίστει τιμῶν τὸν τῶν ὅλων θεὸν καὶ δεσπότην. Jas 2:25 Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Ῥαὰβ ἡ πόρνη οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη ὑποδεξαμένη τοὺς ἀγγέλους

καὶ ἑτέρᾳ ὁδῷ ἐκβαλοῦσα;13 [Scholion 2.22 to Jas 2:25] Σευηριανοῦ Ἐπισκόπου Γαβάλων· Ἄκουε τῆς γραφῆς μαρτυρούσης αὐτῇ τὰ κατορθώματα· ἦν ἐν [πορνείῳ],14 μαργαρίτης ἐν βορβόρῳ

1 O, P, R, Cramer = Κυρίλλου ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Ῥωμαίους Ἐπιστολῆς (P = τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου). 2 O, P = δεδικαιῶσθαι; Cramer = δικαιῶσθαι. 3 Cramer = τῷ Ἰσαὰκ; O, P, omit τῷ. 4 O, P = πνεύματι λαλῶν. Cramer omits λαλῶν. 5 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 6 O, V, R, Cramer = Κυρίλλου; P = τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Αλεξάνδρειας. 7 O, P = νόμοις. Cramer = νόμους. 8 O, Cramer = τῆς … ἀγάπης; P, V, R = τῇ … ἀγάπην; Cyril = τῇ … ἀγάπῃ. 9 O, P, Cramer = τοῦ; na28 / Byz omit τοῦ. 10 Byz = Ὁρᾶτε τοίνυν; O, P, Cramer omit τοίνυν (= na28). 11 O’s ending of μόνον is unclear. 12 O, R, Cramer, Cyril = δικαιοσύνην; P, V = δικαίωσιν. 13 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 14 O, P, Severian = πορνείῳ; Cramer = πορνείᾳ.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

149

even Paul agrees, speaking to him in another (passage), when teaching about the faith after baptism, the faith that requires completion by actions. For he says, “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love” (Gal 5:6 nrsv). Yet love requires much discipline in order to be fulfilled. [Scholion 2.19 to Jas 2:20–21] from Cyril from the Letter to the Romans: When the blessed James says that Abraham had been justified by works as he was offering Isaac his son on the altar, but Paul says that he had been justified by faith, one must understand the apparent contradiction in the following way. Before having Isaac he (Abraham) believed (God’s promises), and he received Isaac as a reward for (his) faith. Yet even when he offered up Isaac on the altar, not only was he doing the action that was commanded, but also he did not give up (his) faith, because through Isaac his descendants were about to be multiplied like the stars (cf. Gen 15:5; 17:19), “he considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead” (Heb 11:19 nrsv). Still, Paul makes the blessed David, a man well-known for his piety, a witness to his (Paul’s) own words and a helper. He (David) deals wisely, when [speaking] in the Spirit, with (the topic of) forgiveness through faith, and he proclaims (this) to all people. For he knew, in Christ, that it would be ready at the right time. You see that faith was working together with his actions, and by actions faith Jas 2:22 was completed. [Scholion 2.20 to Jas 2:22] from Cyril: He was offering a spiritual sacrifice, since he bid farewell to the laws of nature, and trampled upon the sting of a tender affection that he could not avoid feeling, comparing nothing of earthly things with the love for God. And the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was Jas credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “friend of God.” You see 2:23–24 that a person is justified by actions, and not by faith alone. [Scholion 2.21 to Jas 2:23–24] from Cyril: The one honoring the God and ruler of all by (his) faith has a reward: justification. In a similar way also Rahab the prostitute was justified by actions when she Jas 2:25 welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another way. [Scholion 2.22 to Jas 2:25] from Severian, Bishop of Gabala: Listen to the scripture giving witness to her virtues. She was in a [brothel], a pearl splattered

150

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

πεφυρμένος, χρυσός ἐν πηλῷ διερριμμένος, ἄνθος εὐσεβείας [ἀκάνθαις]1 κεχωσμένον, εὐσεβὴς ψυχὴ ἐν ἀσεβείας χώρῳ κατακέκλειστο. [Scholion 2.23 to Jas 2:25] κατασκόπους.2 Jas 2:26 Ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς τοῦ3 πνεύματος νεκρόν ἐστιν, οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις χωρὶς

τῶν4 ἔργων νεκρά ἐστι. [Scholion 2.24 to Jas 2:26] Τὴν ψυχὴν λέγει. Jas 3:1 Μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί μου, εἰδότες ὅτι μεῖζον κρίμα ληψόμεθα.5

[Scholion 3.1a on Jas 3:1] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· Ἐπειδὴ τὸ διδάσκειν ἄνευ τοῦ ποιεῖν οὐ μόνον κέρδος οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ζημίαν πολλὴν καὶ κατάκρισιν φέρει τῷ μετὰ τοσαύτης ἀπροσεξίας διοικοῦντι τὸν βίον τὸν ἑαυτοῦ, [Scholion 3.1b on Jas 3:1] τὴν φιλονεικίαν τῶν μὴ βουλομένων ἐργάζεσθαι ἐκκόπτων, τὸ διδάσκειν ἀπεῖπε τοῖς ἄνευ ἔργου διδάσκουσι, κρίμα μέγα ἐπιτιθείς. Ὁ γὰρ τὰ μὴ ὄντα [διδάσκων ὡς ὄντα]6 κατάκριτος, ὥσπερ καὶ τέλειος, ὁ μὴ πταίων ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας, καὶ δυνατὸς καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα χαλιναγωγῆσαι. Εἰ γὰρ ταῦτα διδάσκει, καὶ τὴν πίστιν [ταῦτην]7 ὁρίζεται λόγων ὀρθῶν μετὰ ἔργων λαμπρῶν συμφώνων τῇ πίστει· δηλονότι ὅλον ἑαυτοῦ χαλιναγωγεῖ τὸ σῶμα, μηδεμίαν φιλίαν πρὸς τὸν κόσμον ἔχειν αὐτὸ ἐῶν. Jas Πολλὰ γὰρ πταίομεν ἅπαντες.8 3:2a [Scholion 3.2 on Jas 3:2] Σευήρου·[Ἀντιοχείας]9 Εἰ γὰρ “πολλὰ πταίομεν ἅπαντες,”

ὥς που τις ἔφη τῶν Χριστοῦ μαθητῶν, δεῖ τὰς ἀντιρρόπους πράξεις ἀγαθὰς ἐπιτηδεύειν ἡμᾶς δυναμένας ἐξιλεοῦσαι τὸν πάντων κριτὴν καὶ θεόν· ἐν οἷς, ἀσθενήσαντες ὡς ἄνθρωποι τοῖς πάθεσιν ὑπεκλίθημεν, καὶ μὴ ἀπογνῶναι τῆς ἡμετέρας σωτηρίας. [Chapter 5] κεφ. Ε´·10 Ὅτι ἡ προπετὴς καὶ ἄτακτος γλῶττα θανατοῖ τὸν κεκτημένον·11 ἧς κρατεῖν ἀνάγκη εἰς εὐφημίαν καὶ δόξαν θεοῦ Jas [Εἴ τις]12 ἐν λόγῳ οὐ πταίει, οὗτος τέλειος ἀνήρ, δυνατὸς χαλιναγωγῆσαι καὶ ὅλον τὸ 3:2bc σῶμα. 1 O, P = ἀκάνθαις; Cramer = ἀκάνθοις. 2 Cramer = “Τοὺς ἀγγέλους,” κατασκόπους; O, P = κατασκόπους. See Commentary. 3 O, P, Cramer = τοῦ; na28 / Byz omit τοῦ. 4 O, P, Cramer = τῶν (= Byz); na28 omits τῶν. 5 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 6 P, V, and ac (e.g., Matthaei, 190) = ὄντα διδάσκων ὡς ὄντα; O, Cramer omit διδάσκων ὡς ὄντα; R = ὁ γὰρ τὰ μὴ προσόντα αὐτῷ διδάσκων, ὡς προσόντα. 7 O, P, V = ταῦτην; Cramer omits ταῦτην. 8 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 9 O, Cramer = Σευήρου; P, V = Σευήρου Ἀντιοχείας; R = Σευήρου Ἀντιοχείας ἐπιστολῆς. 10 P = ch. 6; Cramer, Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (453c), Euthalian apparatus (von Soden, Schriften, 457) = ch. 5; O, V, R omit this title. 11 P = θάνατον κεκτημένη; Cramer, Ps.-Oecumenius, von Soden = θανατοῖ τὸν κεκτημένον. 12 Cramer = Εἴτις; Byz / na28 = Εἴ τις.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

151

with mud, gold thrown down in the mire, a flower of piety covered over with [thorns], a pious soul locked up in a place of impiety. [Scholion 2.23 to Jas 2:25]: the spies. “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so too faith without actions is Jas 2:26 dead.” [Scholion 2.24 to Jas 2:26] It means the soul. Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, since you Jas 3:1 know that we will receive a stricter judgment. [Scholion 3.1a on Jas 3:1] from Chrysostom: Because teaching without doing not only gives no benefit, but as a matter of fact brings much harm and condemnation to the one who manages his own life with such carelessness, [Scholion 3.1b on Jas 3:1] cutting off the contentiousness of those who do not wish to do (this), he rejected those who were teaching without (good) actions, imposing a great punishment on them. The one [teaching] what is not (true) [as if it were (true)] is condemned, just as the one who does not stumble in the actions and words (required) by (his) teaching, is perfect and is able to bridle (his) whole entire body (Jas 3:2). For if he teaches these things, he clarifies [this] faith with right words together with magnificent actions that harmonize with faith, he clearly is bridling his own body, allowing it to have no love for the world. “For we all stumble in many ways.” Jas [Scholion 3.2 on Jas 3:2] from Severus [of Antioch]: For even if “we all stum- 3:2a ble in many ways,” as one of Christ’s disciples says somewhere, it is necessary that we devote ourselves to good deeds that balance out (sins), deeds that are able to propitiate the judge and God of all. Through which (deeds), although we are weak to the extent that we are people who have surrendered to (our) passions, we still do not despair of our salvation. Chapter 5: That the reckless and undisciplined tongue puts (its) owner to death; it is necessary to master it for the praise and glory of God. If a person does not stumble in (his) speaking, he is a perfect man, able to bridle Jas 3:2bc his whole entire body.

152

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

[Scholion 3.3a to Jas 3:2b] Κυρίλλου· Βεβηκότος γὰρ νοῦ καὶ φρενὸς τῆς τελειοτάτης ἀπόδειξις ἐναργὴς τὸ μηδὲν ἐξίτηλον ἐπὶ γλώσσης ἔχειν, ἤγουν ἀθυροστομεῖν ἀνέχεσθαί ποτε· ἡγεῖσθαι δὲ μᾶλλον τοῦ παντὸς ἄξιον λόγον· εὐηγορεῖν1 εἰδέναι καὶ λαλεῖν τὰ παντὸς ἐπαίνου μεστά. Χρῆμα δὴ οὖν πρεπωδέστατον ὅτι μάλιστά γε ἐν τοῖς εὐζωεῖν ᾑρημένοις τὸ λαλεῖν σοφίαν. Ἀπόβλητον γὰρ ἁγίοις τὸ μωρολογεῖν, καὶ ἀσύνηθες [κομιδῇ]2 τὸ κεχρῆσθαί τισιν ἢ εὐτραπελίαις, ἤγουν αἰσχρορημοσύναις, [ἅ]3 οὐκ ἀνῆκον, καθά φησιν ὁ πάνσοφος Παῦλος· Φίλον δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ διὰ σπουδῆς γεγόνασι τούτου εὐηγορεῖν. Διαμέμνηται γὰρ κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς τῆς ἁγίας λεγούσης γραφῆς· “Ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ἐν χάριτι ἅλατι ἠρτυμένος, ἵνα δῷ χάριν τοῖς ἀκούουσι.”—Καὶ πάλιν—[Scholion 3.3b] Ἀποδέχεται μὲν ἡ θεόπνευστος γραφὴ τὸ ἐπιεικὲς εἰς λόγους· καταψέγει δὲ [καὶ]4 μάλα εἰκότως τῆς γλώσσης τὸ ἀκρατές. Ἔφη μὲν γὰρ· “[Εἴ τις]5 ἐν λόγῳ οὐ πταίει, οὗτος τέλειος ἀνήρ, δυνατὸς χαλιναγωγῆσαι καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα.” Ψάλλει δέ που καὶ Δαυίδ· “Θοῦ, κύριε, φυλακὴν τῷ στόματί μου, καὶ θύραν περιοχῆς περὶ τὰ χείλη μου.”—Καὶ πάλιν—[Scholion 3.3c] “[Εἶπα·]6 ‘Φυλάξω τὰς ὁδούς μου τοῦ μὴ ἁμαρτάνειν με ἐν γλώσσῃ μου·’” ἀρίστη γὰρ φυλακὴ τὸ ἄπταιστον ἔχειν τὴν γλῶσσαν. Jas [Εἰ δὲ]7 τῶν ἵππων τοὺς χαλινοὺς εἰς τὰ στόματα βάλλομεν πρὸς8 τὸ πείθεσθαι αὐτοὺς 3:3–4 ἡμῖν, καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα [αὐτῶν μετάγομεν].9 Ἰδοὺ καὶ τὰ πλοῖα τηλικαῦτα ὄντα, καὶ

ὑπὸ ἀνέμων σκληρῶν10 ἐλαυνόμενα, μετάγεται ὑπὸ ἐλαχίστου πηδαλίου, ὅπου ἂν ὁρμὴ τοῦ εὐθύνοντος βούληται.11 [Scholion 3.4 to Jas 3:3–4] Ἔτι καὶ ταῦτα περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν ὡς ἔτυχε τὴν γλῶσσαν κινεῖν. Λέγει, οὖν, ὅτι εἰ χαλινῷ θράσος ἵππου ἀνακόπτομεν, καὶ πηδαλίῳ μικρῷ ὁρμὴν πλοίου μεταφέρομεν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὴν γλῶτταν εἰς τὸ εὖ ἔχον τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ μετάγειν ὀφείλομεν. Τὸ γὰρ “οὕτω καὶ ἡ γλῶττα” τοῦτο σημαίνει· ὅτι οὕτως ὀφείλει καὶ ἡ γλῶττα μετάγεσθαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον· ἀλλ’ οὐ τοῦτο ποιεῖν ὃ ποιεῖ, μικρά τις οὖσα, μεγαλαυχεῖ. Διὸ καὶ μεγάλην ἡμῖν [ἀνακινεῖ]12 πυράν, τὴν ἀδικίαν κοσμοῦσα διὰ τοῦ συνηγορεῖν αὐτῇ, “καὶ ὅλον ἡμῶν σπιλοῦσα τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ἀνάπτουσα ἡμῖν τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γεέννης·” τουτέστι καὶ ἐκκαίουσα καὶ κατατρέχειν ἡμῶν ποιοῦσα τὸ πῦρ. Ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτή, φησί, φλογίζεται ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης. Πῶς γὰρ οὐ φλογίζεται, δεσμουμένων τῶν ἀσεβῶν χεῖρας καὶ πόδας καὶ βαλλομένων εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον τὸ ἡτοιμασμένον τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ; Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ Ψαλμῳδὸς ἐβόα· “Θοῦ, κύριε, φυλα-

1 O, V, R, Cramer = εὐηγορεῖν; P = εὐηγορεῖ. 2 Cramer = κομιδῆ. 3 O, Cramer = αἵ; P, V, R = ἅ. 4 P = καὶ μέγαλα; O, V, R = καὶ μάλα; Cramer omits καί. 5 Cramer = Εἴτις; Byz / na28 = Εἴ τις. 6 lxx Ps 38:2, O, P, V, R = Εἶπα; Cramer = Εἶτα. 7 O, P = Εἰ δέ (= na28); Byz = Ἴδε; Cramer = Ἰδού. 8 O, P, Cramer = πρός (= Byz); na28 = εἰς. 9 O, Cramer = μετάγομεν αὐτῶν; P, V, R (= na28 / Byz) = αὐτῶν μετάγομεν. 10 O, P, Cramer = ἀνέμων σκληρῶν (= na28); Byz = σκληρῶν ἀνέμων. 11 O, P, Cramer = ὅπου ἂν (= Byz; na28 omits ἂν). 12 O, P, V, Cramer = ἀνακαινιεῖ; R = ἀνακινεῖ (“stirs up”) makes the best sense in context. Cf. also the variant readings in Matthai’s scholia (191, note 80).

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

153

[Scholion 3.3a to Jas 3:2b] from Cyril: For clear proof of the mind and heart having come to perfection is to have no empty boasting in matters of the tongue, that is to say, not ever to tolerate idle chatter, but to think above all of worthy speech: to know how to speak well of others and to speak words full of every praise. To speak wisdom is a thing most fitting, especially among those who have chosen to live well. Foolish talking is to be rejected by the saints, and the use of any kind of vulgar jokes, in other words, obscene language, (should be) completely unknown. These things are not appropriate, just as the all-wise Paul says. To speak well of others is pleasant for them (the saints), and they eagerly concern themselves with it. He fittingly has mentioned the holy scripture that says, “Let your speech be gracious, seasoned with salt (Col 4:6 nrsv) so that you might give grace to those who are listening” (Eph 4:29). And again, [Scholion 3.3b] God-breathed Scripture commends gentleness in the use of words; the lack of control over the tongue is very rightly reprimanded. For he says, “If a person does not stumble in (his) speaking, he is a perfect man, able to bridle his whole entire body” (Jas 3:2). David also sings somewhere in the Psalms, “Set a guard over my mouth, O Lord, and a door of constraint about my lips” (Ps 140:3 lxx, nets). And again, [Scholion 3.3c] “[I said], ‘I will guard my ways, that I may not sin with my tongue’” (Ps 38:2 lxx, nets). For it is a good precaution to keep the tongue from stumbling. [If] we put bits into horses’ mouths to make them obey us, we direct their whole Jas bodies. Consider ships as well: although they are so big and are driven by fierce 3:3–4 winds, they are directed by a very small rudder wherever the inclination of the pilot wishes. [Scholion 3.4 to Jas 3:3–4] These things (passages in James) also are still concerned with how one should not move the tongue in just any random way. He says, then, that if we restrain the spirited strength of a horse with a bridle, and with a small rudder we adjust the onward rushing of a ship, how much more ought we to direct the tongue, by right reason, to holding fast to the good. For, “so too the tongue” (Jas 3:5) means this: that the tongue also ought to be directed in this way to right reason. But (the tongue should not be directed) to do what it does when, although it is something small, it boasts. For this reason it will also [stir up] a great fire in us, dressing up unrighteous behavior through pleading its case, and “staining our whole body and setting on fire our course to Gehenna” (Jas 3:6), in other words, both by kindling and making the fire overrun us. But (the tongue) itself, he says, is also set on fire by Gehenna. How is it not set on fire, when the ungodly, bound hand and foot, are cast into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels? For this reason the Psalmist was also crying out, “Set a guard over my mouth, O Lord” (Ps 140:3, nets), lest he

154

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

κὴν τῷ στόματί μου·” ἵνα μὴ πάθῃ ὅπερ ἡ γλῶττα τοῦ πλουσίου φλεγομένη οὐδεμιᾶς ἔτυχε παραμυθίας. Jas Οὕτω1 καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα μικρὸν μέλος ἐστὶ καὶ μεγαλαυχεῖ·2 Ἰδοὺ ὀλίγον3 πῦρ ἡλίκην 3:5–6a ὕλην ἀνάπτει· καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ, ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας.

[Scholion 3.5 to Jas 3:5] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· Οὐκοῦν πλέον τῆς [κόρης φύλασσε τὴν γλώσσην].4 Ἵππός ἐστι βασιλικὸς ἡ γλῶσσα. Ἄν μὲν οὖν ἐπιθῇς αὐτῇ χαλινὸν καὶ διδάξῃς βαδίζειν εὔρυθμα, ἐπαναπαύεται αὐτῇ καὶ ἐπικαθιεῖται ὁ βασιλεύς· ἂν δὲ ἀχαλίνωτον ἀφῇς φέρεσθαι καὶ σκιρτᾶν, τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῶν δαιμόνων ὄχημα γίνεται. [Scholion 3.6 to Jas 3:5] Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σιράχ· Πολλοὶ ἔπεσον ἐν στόματι μαχαίρας, καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ πεπτωκότες διὰ γλώσσης. Μακάριος ὁ σκεπασθεὶς ἀπ’ αὐτῆς, ὃς οὐ διῆλθεν ἐν τῷ θυμῷ αὐτῆς, [ὃς οὐχ εἵλκυσε τὸν ζυγὸν αὐτῆς]5 καὶ τοῖς δεσμοῖς αὐτῆς οὐκ ἐδέθη· ὁ γὰρ ζυγὸς αὐτῆς, ζυγὸς σιδηροῦς, καὶ οἱ δεσμοὶ αὐτῆς, δεσμοὶ χαλκοῖ.—καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Jas Οὕτως6 ἡ γλῶσσα καθίσταται ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ἡμῶν, ἡ σπιλοῦσα ὅλον τὸ σῶμα, καὶ 3:6b–d φλογίζουσα τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως, καὶ φλογιζομένη ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης.

[Scholion 3.7 to Jas 3:6] Τουτέστι τὸν τροχὸν τῆς ζωῆς ἡμῶν· οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὅτι “ὁ τροχὸς σπιλοῖ τὴν γλῶσσαν,” ἀλλ’ “ἡ γλῶσσα τὸν τροχὸν·” τὸν τροχοειδῆ δηλονότι χρόνον· τὴν γὰρ προαίρεσιν αἰτιᾶται, καὶ τὴν προπέτειαν ἀναστέλλει. Ὑφ’ ἧς ὁ βίος ἡμῶν ἐκτραχύνεται καὶ μυρίαις ἀνωμαλίαις ὑποπίπτει. Διὸ καὶ ἐπήγαγε· “καὶ φλογιζομένη ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης·” οὐκ ἂν τοῦτο προσθεῖσα, εἴγε ἄκουσα ἡ γλῶσσα ἐκινεῖτο. Ὅτι δὲ τροχὸν τὸν χρόνον ἐκάλεσε διὰ τὸ τροχοειδὲς καὶ κυκλικὸν σχῆμα—εἰς ἑαυτὸν γὰρ [ἀνελίττεται]7—ἐγγυᾶται ὁ μελῳδός, στέφανον αὐτὸν καλέσας, καὶ εἰπὼν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν· “Εὐλόγησον τὸν στέφανον τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ τῆς χρηστότητός σου·” κἀνταῦθα γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ κυκλικοῦ σχήματος στέφανος εἰκότως ὁ χρόνος ὠνόμασται. [Scholion 3.8 to Jas 3:6] Διττήν μοι δοκεῖ, τὴν μὲν πιθανεστέραν, τὴν δὲ δεινοτέραν καὶ πικροτέραν, ἑρμηνείαν ἔχειν τὸ παρά σου ζητηθέν· “Ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ, ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας.” Μάλιστα μὲν ἐπειδὴ εὔστροφος οὖσα καὶ ῥᾴστη, εὐχερῶς πολλὰ δρᾷ, λαλοῦσα κακά· καὶ γὰρ καὶ κατηγορεῖ, καὶ ἐπιορκεῖ, καὶ ψεύδεται, καὶ ψευδομαρτυρεῖ, καὶ πολλοὺς ἀδίκως εἰς πῦρ βάλλει, καὶ εἰς ξίφος καὶ εἰς πέλαγος ὠθεῖ. Κόσμον δὲ οἶδε καλεῖν ἡ γραφὴ τὸ πλῆθος· “Ὁ κόσμος γάρ,” φησί, “αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω,” τουτέστι τὸ πλῆθος.8 Ἡ γλῶσσα οὖν, φησί, πῦρ ἐστι, πλῆθος ἀδίκως κατακαίουσα, ἢ 1 O, P, Cramer = Οὕτω; na28 / Byz = Οὕτως. 2 O, P, Cramer = μεγαλαυχεῖ (= Byz); na28 = μεγάλα αὐχεῖ. 3 O, P, Cramer = ὀλίγον (= Byz); na28 = ἡλίκον. 4 O, Cramer = τῆς γλώσσης φύλαττε τὴν κόρην; P, V, R = τῆς κόρης φύλασσε τὴν γλώσσην. 5 P, R read ὃς οὐχ εἵλκυσε τὸν ζυγὸν αὐτῆς here, a phrase from Sir 28:19; O, Cramer omit. 6 O, P, Cramer = οὕτως (= Byz); na28 omits οὕτως. 7 O, P = ἀνελίττεται; Cramer = ἑλίττεται. 8 O, R, Cramer = ὁ κόσμος γάρ … τὸ πλῆθος; P omits the phrase; V lacks the entire scholion.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

155

should suffer that which the burning tongue of the rich man (suffered) when it found no relief. So too the tongue is also a small part of the body, yet it boasts of great accom- Jas plishments. See how such a small fire ignites such a large forest! And the tongue 3:5–6a is a fire; a world of unrighteousness. [Scholion 3.5 to Jas 3:5] from Chrysostom: By all means, [guard (your) tongue more than the apple of your eye]. The tongue is a royal mare. When, then, you place a bridle on her and teach her to walk at a steady pace, the king sits comfortably upon her. But if you allow her to roam around without a bridle and to frisk about, she becomes the mount of the devil and of demons. [Scholion 3.6 to Jas 3:5] from Jesus son of Sirach: Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, yet not as many as those who have fallen by means of the tongue. Blessed is the one protected from it, the one who has not experienced its anger, [the one who has not dragged along its yoke] and has not been bound with its chains. For its yoke is a yoke of iron, and its chains are chains of bronze—and what follows (in the quoted passage). “Thus the tongue establishes itself among our bodily parts, staining the whole Jas 3:6b–d body, and setting on fire the course of life, and is set on fire by Gehenna.” [Scholion 3.7 to Jas 3:6] In other words, the course (“wheel”) of our life. Now it did not say, “the wheel stains the tongue,” but rather “the tongue (stains) the wheel,” i.e., the circular course of time. For it (scripture) assigns responsibility for choices freely made, and it restrains rash judgments. Our life is made difficult by it (the tongue) and falls into much discord. For this reason it goes on to say, “and is set on fire by Gehenna” (Jas 3:6). It would not have added this if the tongue had really been moved against its will. That it (scripture) calls time a “wheel” due to (its) circular and cyclical form—for it [rolls into itself again]— the Singer affirms by calling it a crown, and saying to God, “Bless the crown of the year from your generosity” (Ps 64:12 lxx). You see that here (in this passage) time is appropriately named “a crown” from (its) cyclical form. [Scholion 3.8 to Jas 3:6] It seems to me that the passage about which you inquired, “The tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteouness” (Jas 3:6) has a double meaning: the one more plausible, the other more subtle and precise. Especially since it is flexible and light, it (the tongue) does much in an unscrupulous way, by speaking evil things. For it accuses (others), it swears falsely, it lies, it gives false testimony, and throws many people unjustly into the fire; it pushes (people) to death by the sword or into the sea. On the other hand, Scripture sometimes calls a multitude “a world.” “For the world,” it says, “did not know him” (John 1:10), that is to say, a multitude. The tongue, then, it says, is a fire:

156

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

πλήθους1 πυρὸς ἀδίκου δοχεῖον. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ πολλοὶ τῇ κακίᾳ συμπράττοντες, καὶ τὴν ἀδικίαν σεμνύνοντες, δεινότατοι ὄντες ῥητορεύειν ἐπὶ πράξεσι πονηραῖς καὶ παρανόμοις, λόγων εὐπρέπειαν ἐχόντων οὐκ [ἀποροῦντες]2 λανθάνουσι καθ’ ἑαυτῶν τὴν ψῆφον τιθέμενοι, καὶ δεῖγμα τῆς ἑαυτῶν προαιρέσεως τῆς ἐπὶ τὰ φαῦλα ῥεπούσης, διὰ τῶν λόγων τούτων ἐκφέρουσιν. Ἴσως στηλιτεύων αὐτοὺς τοῦτο ἔφη· “Ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ, ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας,” ὡσανεὶ ἔλεγεν· “Ὁ τῆς εὐγλωττίας πυρσός, ὅταν τοὺς μεγάλα πταίοντας [κοσμῇ],3 ἐγκαλλώπισμα δοκεῖ τῆς ἀδικίας.” Χρὴ τοιγαροῦν τῇ δεινότητι κεχρῆσθαι, οὐ πρὸς τὸ τὴν ἀδικίαν κοσμεῖν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ τὴν ἀρετὴν σεμνύειν, τὴν καὶ χωρὶς λόγων ὑπέρλαμπρον. [Scholion 3.9 to Jas 3:6] Τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου·4 Εἰ ἀγαπᾷς τὴν ζωήν, ποίησον τὴν ἐντολὴν τῆς ζωῆς· “Ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν με,” φησί, “τὰς ἐντολάς μου τηρήσει.” Πρώτη δὲ ἐντολὴ [τὸ] “παῦσον5 τὴν γλῶσσαν σου ἀπὸ κακοῦ, καὶ χείλη σου τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον.” Σχεδὸν γὰρ προχειροτάτη καὶ πολύτροπος ἡ ἁμαρτία ἡ διὰ γλώσσης ἐστιν· ἐνεργουμένη ἐν ὀργαῖς, ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις, ἐν ὑποκρίσεσιν, ἐν [ἀδικαίαις],6 ἐν ἀπάταις. Καὶ τί δεῖ παντὶ τῷ λόγῳ ἐπεξιέναι τῶν διὰ γλώττης ἁμαρτανομένων; ἐξ αὐτῆς γὰρ αἰσχρολογίαι, εὐτραπελίαι, μωρολογίαι, τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα καταλαλίαι, λόγος ἀργός, ἐπιορκίαι, ψευδομαρτυρίαι, ταῦτα πάντα τὰ κακὰ καὶ ἔτι πλείω τούτων, τῆς γλώσσης ἐστι δημιουργήματα. Ἐπεὶ οὖν “ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ, παῦσον τὴν γλῶσσαν σου ἀπὸ κακοῦ, καὶ χείλη σου [τοῦ] μὴ λαλῆσαι7 δόλον·” ἀντὶ τοῦ· ὅλον τὸ ὄργανον8 τὸ πρὸς τὴν διακονίαν τοῦ λόγου σοι δεδομένον, σχολάζειν ἀπὸ τῆς πονηρᾶς ἐργασίας ποίησον. Jas 3:7 Πᾶσα γὰρ φύσις θηρίων τε καὶ πετεινῶν, ἑρπετῶν τε καὶ ἐναλίων, δαμάζεται καὶ δεδά-

μασται τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ.9 [Scholion 3.10 to Jas 3:7] Ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς γλώσσης καταδρομή· μεταφέρει10 δὲ τὸν λόγον πρὸς ἄλλο, δεικνὺς αὐτῆς τὸ κακόν. Λέγει οὖν ὡς ἄτοπον, πάντων μὲν ἡμᾶς κρατεῖν χερσαίων τε καὶ ἀερίων καὶ ἐναλίων, τῆς δὲ οἰκείας γλώττης μὴ κρατεῖν. Jas 3:8 Τὴν δὲ γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς [δύναται δαμάσαι ἀνθρώπων]·11 ἀκατάσχετον12 κακόν, μεστὴ

ἰοῦ θανατηφόρου.

1 O, R, Cramer = πλήθους; P, ac, Isidore = πλῆθος. 2 O, P, Cramer = ἀποπυροῦντες; R, Isidore = ἀποροῦντες. 3 O, Cramer = κοσμεῖ; P, R, Isidore = κοσμῇ. 4 O, V, Cramer = Τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου; P, R = Τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου ἐκ τοῦ ῥητοῦ παῦσον τὴν γλῶσσαν [P = γλῶσαν] σου ἀπὸ κακοῦ (“from the passage, ‘stop your tongue from evil’”) (= Ps 33:14 lxx). The longer lemma is also read in Armenian CatJas (Renoux, 56, 112–113). 5 O, P, V, R = τό παῦσον; Cramer omits τό. 6 O, Cramer = δίκαις; P, V, R = ἀδικαίαις. 7 O, P = τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι; Cramer omits τοῦ. 8 O, R, Basil, Cramer = τό ὄργανον; P, V omit τό. 9 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 10 O, V, R, Cramer = μεταφέρει; P = μεταφέρε. 11 O, P = δύναται δαμάσαι ἀνθρώπων; Cramer = δύναται ἀνθρώπων δαμάσαι (= Byz); na28 = δαμάσαι δύναται ἀνθρώπων. 12 O, P, Cramer = ἀκατάσχετον (= Byz); na28 = ἀκατάστατον.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

157

(either a fire) unjustly consuming a multitude, or a container of a great amount of unjust fire. When many people are cooperating with evil, and honoring injustice, greatly skilled in giving orations about (their) wicked and unlawful deeds, not [at a loss] for fine-sounding words, they are unaware that they judge themselves, and they bring out, through their words, a proof of how (their) character gravitates towards low, vulgar things. Perhaps in order to denounce them, it said this, “The tongue is a fire, an adornment of unrighteousness,” as if it was saying, “The fire of a smooth tongue, when it adorns those who sin greatly, seems (to be) a decoration for injustice.” It is therefore necessary to use skill, not to dress up injustice, but rather to honor virtue, which shines with the greatest brightness even without words. [Scholion 3.9 to Jas 3:6] from saint Basil, If you love life, do the commandment of life, “‘For the one who loves me,’ he says, ‘will keep my commandments’” (cf. John 14:15). The first commandment is, “Stop your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit” (Ps 33:14 lxx). Indeed, the sin that (is committed) through the tongue is very near to hand and varied: it is worked out in times of anger, in passionate desires, in false pretenses, in [acts of injustice], in acts of deceit. Yet why is it necessary to go through in detail every example of the sinful things committed by means of the tongue? You see that from it come obscene language, vulgar jokes, foolish talk, speaking badly of one another in ways that are not appropriate, idle talk, false swearing, false testimonies, all these evil things and still more are products of the tongue. Since, therefore, “by your words you will be justified (Matt 12:37), stop your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit” (Ps 33:14 lxx). In other words: seeing that the whole organ (the tongue) was given to you for the service of the word, make (yourself) free from the evil work (of the tongue). For every kind of beasts and of birds, of reptiles and of sea creatures, are being Jas 3:7 tamed and have been tamed by humankind. [Scholion 3.10 to Jas 3:7] (This is) an attack on the tongue. It transfers the word (tongue) into another sense, after having demonstrated its evil. It means that it is strange that we control all land animals, and creatures of the air, and creatures of the sea, but do not control our own tongue. But the tongue no human being can tame; it is an uncontrollable evil, full of Jas 3:8 deadly poison.

158

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

[Scholion 3.11 to Jas 3:8] “Τὴν δὲ γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς δύναται ἀνθρώπων δαμάσαι·” οὐ γὰρ ὡς ἀποφαινόμενος μὴ δυνατὸν εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐρωτῶν ὁ Χριστοῦ μαθητὴς ἔφησε τοῦτο· ὥστε ὡς δυνατὸν ἀναγνωστέον, καὶ μὴ ὡς ἀδύνατον νοητέον. Καί μοι μικρὸν ἄνωθεν τῶν γεγραμμένων λαβόμενος, γνῶθι σαφῶς τὸ λεγόμενον· [πᾶσα γάρ φύσις]1—καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Πῶς οὖν, τούτων πάντων δαμαζομένων, ἀδάμαστος ἡ γλῶσσα; “Πᾶσα φύσις” εἶπε· τὸ δὲ “πᾶσα” καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς γλώττης ἐστὶ περιληπτικόν. Εἰ δὲ ἀνοίκεια2 τῆς ἑαυτοῦ φύσεως ὁ ἄνθρωπος δαμάζει θηρία, πόσῳ μᾶλλον τὸ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ φύσεως μέλος εὐχερῶς [δαμάσειε]3 τὴν γλῶσσαν; Ἀλλ’ ὡς τῶν πρὸ τούτου καὶ μετὰ [τοῡτο]4 γεγραμμένων ἀκούσωμεν· “τὴν γλῶσσαν,” φησίν, “οὐδεὶς [δύναται δαμάσαι ἀνθρώπων]”5—καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Εἶτα ἐμφαῖνον ὡς ῥάδιον εἴη πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν τῆς φωνῆς ἄξαι τὸ πλῆκτρον, ἐπάγει λέγων· “Οὐ χρή, ἀδελφοί, ταῦτα οὕτως γίνεσθαι.”6 Τί λέγεις; Τί παραινεῖς τὰ ἀδύνατα; εἰ γὰρ οὐδεὶς δύναται δαμάσαι, διατί μὴ δεῖν ταῦτα γενέσθαι; ἀνέφικτα γάρ τις προσταχθείς, ἀπειθήσας ἀναίτιος. Ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ φησι “δύναται,” τούτου χάριν εἶπον· “Οὐ χρὴ ταῦτα οὕτως γενέσθαι.” Εἰ γὰρ ἀνίκητον γλῶσσα, πῶς ὑπὸ Παύλου νενίκηται; Πῶς τὰ βλάσφημα χείλη γέγονε θεολογικά; Πῶς ἣν ἠκόνησε κατὰ Χριστοῦ λοιδορίαις, ταύτην ἐπλήρωσεταῖς ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ [ῥητορείαις];7 [Scholion 3.12 to Jas 3:8] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· Μάχαιρά ἐστιν ἡ γλῶσσα ἠκονημένη. Ἀλλὰ μὴ ἑτέροις ἐπάγωμεν τραύματα, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἡμετέρας σηπεδόνας ἀποτέμωμεν. [Scholion 3.13 to Jas 3:8] Ἡσυχίου· Καθάπερ γὰρ ἡ ῥομφαία ἑτοιμοτέρα πρὸς τομὴν ἂν ἀκονηθῇ, καὶ ὀξυτέρα πρὸς ἀναίρεσιν γίνεται, οὕτως ἡ γλῶσσα δυσχερὴς καὶ καθ’ ἑαυτὴν εἰς τὸ ἠρεμεῖν τυγχάνουσα καὶ δυσκάθεκτος· τότε χαλεπωτέρα γίνεται, ὅταν παρὰ τῶν πονηρῶν, συκοφαντεῖν καὶ λοιδορεῖν καὶ διαβάλλειν ἐθίζηται. Jas Ἐν αὐτῇ εὐλογοῦμεν τὸν θεὸν8 καὶ πατέρα, καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ καταρώμεθα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους 3:9–10a τοὺς καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν θεοῦ γεγονότας· ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ στόματος ἐξέρχεται εὐλογία καὶ

κατάρα. [Scholion 3.14 to Jas 3:9–10] [Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου·]9 Πόρρω ταῦτα τῶν Χριστοῦ μαθητῶν τῶν ἐπιεικῶν καὶ προσηνῶν. Τοῦ στόματος τοῦ καταξιουμένου τοιαύτης μυσταγωγίας μηδὲν πικρὸν ἐκβαλλέτω, μηδὲν ἀηδὲς ἡ τῷ θείῳ προσομιλοῦσα στόματι10 γλῶσσα. Καθαρὰν αὐτὴν φυλάττωμεν. Μὴ ἀρὰς δι’ αὐτῆς προσφέρωμεν. Εἰ

1 O, Cramer = “πᾶσα γάρ,” φησί; P, V, R = πᾶσα γάρ φύσις. 2 O = ἀνοίκια; P, V, Cramer = ἀνοίκεια (see Cramer, 22, note k). 3 O, Cramer = δαμάσαιεν; P = δαμάσει; V, R = δαμάσειε. 4 O, Cramer = τούτων; P, V, R = τοῡτο. 5 O, V, Cramer = δύναται ἀνθρώπων δαμάσαι; P, R = δύναται δαμάσαι ἀνθρώπων. 6 O, V, R, Cramer = ἀδελφοί; P = ἀδελφε. 7 O, Cramer = ῥητορίαις; P, V, R = ῥητορείαις (P = ῥητορείαις ἐστιν). 8 O, P, Cramer = τὸν θεὸν (= Byz); na28 = τὸν κύριον. 9 O, V, Cramer = unattributed; P, R = τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου. 10 Chrysostom = τῷ θείῳ σώματι. This may be the original reading; see Commentary.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

159

[Scholion 3.11 to Jas 3:8] “But the tongue no human being can tame”: not as if it (Scripture) is declaring (as a factual statement) that it is not possible, but rather it said this as if the disciple of Christ (James) was asking a question. Therefore, it should be read as “possible,” and not understood as “impossible.” Now if I consider (the passage that is) a little above the things written (here), notice clearly what is said, “For every [nature]” (Jas 3:7)—and what follows (in the text). How then, seeing that all these things have been tamed, is the tongue untamable? It said, “every nature,” and “every” includes the tongue itself. If a human tames beasts that are foreign to her own nature, how much more easily would she tame part of her own nature: the tongue? But as we (listened) to the passages before this, let us also listen to the passages written after [this]. “The tongue,” he says, “no human is able to tame” (Jas 3:8) and the following. Then, indicating that it would seem to be easy for a plectrum to resonate a sound, he adds, “These things ought not to be so, my brothers” (Jas 3:10). What are you saying? Why do you encourage things that are impossible? For if no one is able to tame (the tongue), why ought these things not to be? You see that when someone is commanded (to do) unattainable things, when he disobeys he is blameless. But since it means, “it is possible,” for this reason they were saying, “these things ought not to be so” (Jas 3:10). Now if the tongue is unconquerable, how was it conquered by Paul? How did the blasphemous lips become lips that speak about God? How did the tongue which he sharpened against Christ with abusive words become this (same) tongue that he filled with [eloquent speeches] for the sake of Christ? [Scholion 3.12 to Jas 3:8] from Chrysostom: The tongue is a sharpened knife. But let us not inflict wounds on others, rather let us cut away our own diseased flesh. [Scholion 3.13 to Jas 3:8] from Hesychius: For just as the sword is more prepared for cutting when it is sharpened, and has become very sharp for killing, so too (is) the tongue, when it finds it difficult to keep itself quiet and is out of control. It becomes even more harmful, when, under the influence of evil ones, it becomes accustomed to practicing extortion, to using abusive language, and to accusing others of wrongdoing. With it we bless God and Father, and with it we curse humans made in the Jas 3:9–10a likeness of God; out of the same mouth come forth blessing and cursing. [Scholion 3.14 to Jas 3:9–10 [ from Chrysostom]: These (words) should be far from the disciples of Christ, who (should be) considerate of others and kind. From the mouth considered worthy of so great a mystery let nothing bitter drop out; the tongue conversing with the divine mouth (should speak) nothing offensive. Let us keep it pure. By means of the tongue, let us not offer up curses.

160

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

γὰρ λοίδοροι οὐ κληρονομήσουσι βασιλείαν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον οἱ κατευχόμενοι. Ἀνάγκη γὰρ [καὶ]1 ὑβρίζειν τὸν εὐχόμενον· ὕβρις δὲ καὶ εὐχὴ ἀλλήλων ἀπεσχοίνισται· ἀρὰ καὶ εὐχὴ πολὺ τὸ μέσον ἔχει· κατηγορία καὶ εὐχὴ πολὺ τὸ μέσον ἔχουσι.2 Προσέρχῃ τὸν θεὸν ἵλεων ποιῆσαι, καὶ ἑτέροις κατεύχῃ; “Ἐὰν μὴ ἀφῇς, οὐκ [ἀφεθήσεταί]3 σοι.” Jas Οὐ χρή, ἀδελφοί μου, ταῦτα οὕτως γίνεσθαι. Μήτι ἡ πηγὴ ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς ὀπῆς βρύει 3:10b–12 τὸ [γλυκὺ καὶ πικρόν];4 Μὴ δύναται, ἀδελφοί μου, συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι, ἢ ἄμπελος

σύκα; Οὕτως οὐδεμία πηγὴ ἁλυκὸν καὶ γλυκὺ5 ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ. [Scholion 3.15 to Jas 3:13] Φίλαρχοι ὄντες καὶ τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ κόσμου αὐχοῦντες, καὶ κατ’ ἔριν καὶ ζῆλον τῶν ὀρθῶν διδασκάλων ἐκήρυττον· ὀχλαγωγοῦντες ἁπλῶς, καὶ φθόνον πρὸς τούτους ἔχοντες, καὶ παραμίγνυντες τοῖς θείοις ἀνθρώπινα ἵνα, τῇ καινότητι τῶν λεγομένων, ἐπισπῶνται τοὺς ἀκούοντας· ὅθεν καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐξῆλθον. Ταύτας οὖν τὰς διδασκαλίας ἀπαγορεύει· ἅτε καὶ ἐκ σοφίας οὐ θείας ἀλλὰ δαιμονιώδους γινομένας. Ταῦτα δὲ εἶπε, προσεπαινέσας [τὸν ἀγαθὸν διδάσκαλον, ἐκ πρᾳότητος λέγων αὐτοῦ τὴν σοφίαν] καὶ ἔργων χρηστῶν.6 [Chapter 5a: κεφ. Ε´α´·]:7 Περὶ ἀναστροφῆς ἀγαθῆς καὶ ἀμάχου πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐκ φιλοδοξίας [τῆς]8 ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ ἀνθρωπίνῃ Jas Σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων ἐν ὑμῖν9 δειξάτω, ἐκ τῆς καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς, τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ 3:13–16 ἐν πρᾳΰτητι σοφίας. Εἰ δὲ ζῆλον πικρὸν ἔχετε καὶ ἐριθείαν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν, μὴ

κατακαυχᾶσθε καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας. Οὐκ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ σοφία ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη, ἀλλ’ ἐπίγειος, ψυχικὴ, δαιμονιώδης· ὅπου γὰρ ζῆλος καὶ ἐριθεία, ἐκεῖ ἀκαταστασία καὶ πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγμα. [Scholion 3.16 to Jas 3:16] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· [Ἐκκαθαίρωμεν]10 τὸν ῥύπον ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς ὤτων· καθάπερ γὰρ ῥύπος καὶ πηλὸς τὰ ὦτα τῆς σαρκός, οὕτω καὶ τὰ βιωτικὰ διηγήματα καὶ παχέα, καὶ τὰ περὶ τόκων καὶ δανεισμάτων, ῥύπου παντὸς χαλεπώτερον ἐμφράττει τῆς διανοίας τὴν ἀκοήν· μᾶλλον δὲ οὐκ ἐμφράττει μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκάθαρτον ποιεῖ.

1 O, P, V, R = καί. Cramer omits καί. 2 O, P, Cramer = ἔχει; P, V, R = ἔχουσι. 3 O, P, V, R = ἀφεθήσεταί; Cramer = ἀφηθήσεταί. 4 O, Cramer = τὸ πικρὸν καὶ γλυκύ; R = τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ πικρόν (= na28 / Byz); P, V = τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ πικρόν. 5 O, P, Cramer = Οὕτως οὐδεμία πηγὴ ἁλυκὸν (O = ἁλiκόν) καὶ γλυκύ (= Byz); na28 = οὔτε ἁλυκὸν γλυκύ. 6 O, Cramer = τὸ ἀγαθὸν διδάσκον … λόγων (O = το ψ ἀγαθόν); P, V, R, ac (Matthaei, 192) = τὸν ἀγαθὸν διδάσκαλον … λέγων. 7 O, P = ch. 7; Cramer = unnumbered title with asterisk; Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (453c), Euthalian apparatus (von Soden, Schriften, 457) = subtitle of ch. 5; R = marginal gloss to Jas 3:17: περὶ ἀγαθῆς ἀναστροφῆς καὶ ἀμάχου καὶ σοφίας ἀνθρωπίνης; V omits. 8 O, P = τῆς; Cramer omits τῆς. 9 na28 / Byz = Τίς σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων ἐν ὑμῖν; O, P, Cramer omit Τίς and punctuate the phrase as part of the larger imperative, not as a question. 10 O, Cramer = Ἐκκαθαίρομεν; P, Chrysostom = ἐκκαθάρωμεν; V, R = ἐκκαθαίρωμεν.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

161

For if those who speak abusively will not inherit the kingdom (cf. 1 Cor 6:10), how much more is this the case for those who pray that bad things will happen to others. [Indeed] the one who prays (in such a way) by necessity does harm; yet doing harm and prayer have nothing to do with one another. A curse and a prayer are very different. An accusation and a prayer [are] very different. Do you draw near to God to seek his favor, and pray that bad things happen to others? “If you do not forgive, neither will it be [forgiven] to you” (cf. Matt 6:15). These things ought not to be so, my brothers and sisters. Does a spring, from Jas the same opening, pour forth [fresh and brackish] (water)? Can a fig tree, my 3:10b–12 brothers and sisters, produce olives, or a grapevine figs? Similarly, no spring produces salty and fresh water. [Scholion 3.15 to Jas 3:13] They were preaching, although they were desiring positions of power and boasting with the wisdom of the world, due both to rivalry with, and jealousy of, the orthodox teachers. They were merely trying to win favor with the crowds, being both envious of these (teachers), and mixing in human (doctrines) with the divine ones, so that, by the novelty of what they said, they might pull in those who were listening. From this (activity), of course, factions came forth. He (James) rejects, then, these teachings, insofar as they derive not from divine wisdom but from demonic (wisdom). He said these things, in addition praising [the good teacher], [speaking about] his wisdom rooted in gentleness and of (his) good actions. [Chapter 5a:] Concerning good and uncontentious conduct towards one another, instead of a love for fame based in human wisdom Let the one who is wise and understanding among you show, by her good con- Jas duct, that her actions are done with the gentleness of wisdom. Yet if you have 3:13–16 bitter jealousy and rivalry in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This is not the wisdom coming down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For wherever there is jealousy and rivalry, there is instability and every low-minded practice. [Scholion 3.16 to Jas 3:16] from Chrysostom: [Let us clean out] the dirt from the ears of the soul. For just as dirt and mud (block up) the ears of the flesh, so too daily news of this world and business concerning interest and loans block up, in a worse way than any dirt, the hearing of the mind. They do not just block it up, but they also make it unclean.

162

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

[Chapter 5b: κεφ. Ε´β´· Περὶ θείας σοφίας]1 Jas Ἡ δὲ ἄνωθεν σοφία πρῶτον μὲν ἁγνή ἐστιν, ἔπειτα εἰρηνική, ἐπιεικής, εὐπειθής, μεστὴ 3:17–18 ἐλέους καὶ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν, ἀδιάκριτος, καὶ ἀνυπόκριτος.2 Καρπὸς δὲ τῆς3 δικαιοσύ-

νης ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην. [Sch. 3.17 to Jas 3:17] Μὴ διακρίνουσα παρατηρήσεις βρωμάτων καὶ διαφόρων [βαπτισμῶν].4 Ἀκριβῶς δὲ περὶ τούτων ἐν [τῇ Κολοσσαέων]5 διαλέγεται ὁ Παῦλος. [Chapter 5c κεφ. Ε´γ´]·6 Ὅτι ἐκ ῥαθυμίας καὶ φιληδονίας ἔρις καὶ ἀκαταστασία καὶ ἡ πρὸς θεὸν ἐχθρὰ γίνεται Jas Πόθεν πόλεμοι, καὶ πόθεν7 μάχαι ἐν ὑμῖν; Οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν τῶν στρα4:1–2 τευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν; Ἐπιθυμεῖτε καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε· φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε καὶ

οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν· μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε, καὶ8 οὐκ ἔχετε διὰ9 τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς. [Scholion 4.1 to Jas 4:1–2] Δείκνυσιν [ὡς κᾄν ὑποπλάττωνται]10 λόγον διδασκαλικόν, ὅλοι σαρκικοί εἰσι, καὶ τὰ χαλεπώτατα πράττουσι. Τοῦτο καὶ ὁ Παῦλος ὠνείδιζεν· “Ὅπου γὰρ ἐν ὑμῖν,” λέγων, “ζῆλος καὶ ἔρις, οὐχὶ σαρκικοί ἐστε;” [Scholion 4.2 to Jas 4:1–2] Διονυσίου·[Ἀλεξανδρείας]11 Ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀγρὸν ἀρκοῦντα κεκτημένος, ἐπειδὴ μείζονα θεωρεῖ τὸν τοῦ γείτονος, αὐξῆσαι τὸν ἑαυτοῦ φιλονεικεῖ, ὡσαύτως καὶ ποιῆσαι τὸν οἶκον ὑψηλότερον. Jas Αἰτεῖτε, καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετε, διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε.12 4:3a [Scholion 4.3 to Jas 4:3] [Σευήρου αρχιἐπισκόπος Ἀντιοχείας·]13 Τοιοῦτος ἦν ὁ

Φαρισαῖος, ὁ14 ἐν τῷ κατὰ Λουκᾶν Εὐαγγελίῳ κατηγορούμενος, ὃς ἑστὼς ἐν μέσῳ τῷ ἱερῷ μεγαλοφώνως ᾔτει τὲ καὶ προσηύχετο. Καὶ ὡς ἄξιος ὢν ᾔτει τυχεῖν, καὶ τὰς οἰκείας πράξεις ἀπηριθμεῖτο, καὶ ἔλεγε· “Νηστεύω δὶς τοῦ σαββάτου, ἀποδεκατῶ πάντα ὅσα κτῶμαι.” Προσεφιλοτιμεῖτο δὲ βοῶν· “Καὶ τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἅρπαξ [καὶ]15 ἄδικος, ἢ μοιχός, ἢ πλεονεξίᾳ κρατούμενος.” Καὶ ὅσῳ πολλὰ κατέλεγε, τοσούτῳ πλέον ἀπε1 P, R = marginal gloss to Jas 3:17; O, V, Cramer omit; Euthalian apparatus (von Soden, Schriften, 458), Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (453c) = subtitle to ch. 5. 2 O, P, Cramer = καὶ ἀνυπόκριτος (= Byz); na28 omits καί. 3 O, P, Cramer = τῆς (= Byz); na28 omits τῆς. 4 O, P, V = βαπτισμῶν; Cramer = βαπτισμάτων. 5 O = τῇ πρὸς Κολοσσαέων; Cramer = τῇ πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς (see 24 n. m); P, V, R = τῇ Κολοσσαέων (V, R = Κολοσαέων). 6 O, P = ch. 8; Cramer = ch. 6; V, R omit this heading. Euthalian apparatus (von Soden, Schriften, 458), Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (453c) = subheading to ch. 5. 7 O, P, Cramer = πόθεν (= na28); Byz omits πόθεν. 8 O, P, Cramer = καί; na28 / Byz omit καί. 9 Cramer = δὲ διά; O, P omit δέ (= na28 / Byz). 10 O, Cramer = οὐκ ἂν ὑποπλάττοντα; P, R = ὡς κᾄν ὑποπλάττωνται (V = ὑπὸ εἶναι ὑμᾶς [vid.] πλάττονται). 11 O, Cramer = Διονυσίου; P, R = Διονυσίου Ἀλεξανδρείας. 12 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 13 O, Cramer: unattributed; P = Σευήρου αρχιἐπισκόπος Ἀντιοχείας; V = Σευήρου αρχιἐπισκόπος Ἀντιοχείας; R = Σευήρου. 14 O, Cramer = ὁ καί; P, V, R omit καί. 15 O, Cramer = ἢ; P, V, R = καὶ.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

163

[Chapter 5b: Concerning divine wisdom] But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceful, considerate of oth- Jas ers, willing to listen, full of mercy and good fruits, non-judgmental, and without 3:17–18 hypocrisy. For the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. [Sch. 3.17 to Jas 3:17] Not making judgments about observances concerning foods and about different (types of) purifications. Paul discussed these things accurately in (the letter) of the Colossians. [Chapter 5c]: That from lust and love of pleasure arise rivalry and instability and enmity towards God What is the source of the fights and quarrels among you? Is it not the desires for Jas pleasure that are battling within the members of your body? You desire and do 4:1–2 not have, (so) you kill and are jealous and are unable to obtain, (so) you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask. [Scholion 4.1 to Jas 4:1–2] He (James) shows that, [even if they are laying claim] to the teaching office, they are completely at a fleshly level, and are doing the cruelest things. Paul also rebuked this, saying, “For as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh?” (1 Cor 3:3 nrsv). [Scholion 4.2 to Jas 4:1–2] from Dionysius of Alexandria: For the one who owns a field sufficient (for his needs), when he sees the larger (field) of his neighbor, has a contentious desire to increase his own, just as (he desires) to make (his own) house more impressive. You ask, but do not receive, because you ask wrongly. Jas [Scholion 4.3 to Jas 4:3] [from Severus, archbishop of Antioch] Such a one 4:3a is the Pharisee, the one criticized in the Gospel according to Luke, who was standing in the midst of the Temple, both asking and praying in a loud voice. Thinking that he was worthy, he was asking to receive, and was counting up his own deeds, saying, “I fast twice a week; I tithe everything I possess.” He was continuing to seek honor for himself, calling out, “I am not grasping [and] unjust, nor adulterous, nor controlled by greed.” Yet as much as he was recounting

164

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

βύει τὴν θείαν ἀκοήν· καὶ ὁ τῶν ῥημάτων ὄγκος κενὸς περὶ τὰ χείλη κατέρρει, καὶ εἰς ἀφρὸν διελύετο, καθάπερ παφλάζοντα κύματα. [Scholion 4.4a to Jas 4:3] Ἀληθοῦς οὔσης τῆς τοῦ σωτῆρος θέσεως τῆς λεγούσης· “Αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν,” ἣν καὶ πιστοῦται διὰ τοῦ φάναι· “Πᾶς ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει,” ζητήσειεν ἄν τις πῶς τινες εὐχόμενοι οὐκ ἀκούονται. Πρὸς ὃ λεκτέον· “Ὁ ὁδῷ τῇ ἀκολούθῳ ἐπὶ τὸ αἰτεῖν ἐρχόμενος, οὐδὲν παραλείψας τῶν συντελούντων πρὸς τὸ τυχεῖν τῶν σπουδαζομένων, πάντως λήψεται ὃ παρεκάλεσε δοθῆναι αὐτῷ.” Εἰ δέ τις, ἔξω χωρήσας τοῦ σκόπου τῆς παραδοθείσης [αἰτήσεως],1 δόξει αἰτεῖν, οὐκ αἰτῶν ὃν δεῖ τρόπον, οὐδὲ ὅλως αἰτεῖ· διὸ μὴ λαμβάνοντος αὐτοῦ, οὐ ψευδοποιεῖται τὸ “Πᾶς ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει.” Καὶ γὰρ διδασκάλου λέγοντος· “Πᾶς ὁ προσιῶν μοι μαθημάτων ἕνεκα ἕξει αὐτῶν ἐπιστήμην,”2 τῷ προσιέναι τῷ διδασκάλῳ γραμματικῶς ἐκλαμβάνομεν·3 τουτέστι μετὰ τοῦ συντόνως προσέχειν τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου, μετὰ τοῦ ἀσκεῖν καὶ μελετᾷν αὐτά. [Τῷ δὲ μὴ οὕτω προσιόντι λεκτέον·]4 “Οὐ προσῆλθες αὐτῷ ὡς προετρέψω.” Φανερώτερον ποιῶν ὁ γράφων τὴν ἐπιστολήν. [Scholion 4.4b to Jas 4:3] Τινὲς δοκοῦντες αἰτεῖν οὐ λαμβάνουσιν. Τοὺς ἀντιρρήτους καὶ κακῶς αἰτουμένους ἡδονῶν ματαίων ἕνεκα [παρείληφεν].5 Ἀλλ’ ἐρεῖ τις· “Καὶ μὴν ὑπὲρ γνώσεως θείας καὶ ἀναλήψεως ἀρετῶν αἰτούμενοί τινες οὐ λαμβάνουσι.” Λεκτέον δὲ καὶ αὐτοῖς ὅτι [οὐ]6 καθ’ αὐτὰ τὰ ἀγαθὰ λαβεῖν ἠξίωσαν, ἀλλ’ ἕνεκα τοῦ ἐπαινεῖσθαι δι’ αὐτά·7 ἔστι δὲ φιληδόνων καὶ τὸ χαίρειν ἐπαίνοις. Ὅθεν καὶ τούτοις οὐ δίδοται· ἐπεὶ εἰς ἡδονὰς καταδαπανῆσαι θέλουσι τὰ περὶ ὧν ἀξιοῦσιν. Jas Ἵνα ἐν ταῖς ἡδοναῖς ὑμῶν δαπανήσητε μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλίδες.8 Οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ φιλία 4:3b–4 τοῦ κόσμου ἐχθρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστίν; Ὅς ἂν οὖν βουληθῇ φίλος εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου, ἐχθρὸς

τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσταται.9 [Scholion 4.5 to Jas 4:4] Κοσμὸν ἐνταῦθα λέγει πᾶσαν τὴν ὑλικὴν ζωήν, τὴν μητέρα τῆς φθορᾶς· ἧς ὁ μετασχεῖν ἐθέλων ἐχθρὸς γίνεται τοῦ θεοῦ. [Scholion 4.6 to Jas 4:4] Ὠριγένους·10 Ἐπεὶ ἡ κακία προξενεῖ τὴν πρὸς τὸν κόσμον φιλίαν, ἀρετὴ δὲ τὴν πρὸς τὸν θεόν,11 ἀρετῇ καὶ κακίᾳ οὐ δύναται συνυπάρχειν.

1 P, R = παραδοθείσης αἰτήσεως; O, Cramer omits αἰτήσεως. 2 Cramer = τήν ἐπιστήμην; O, P omit τήν. 3 O = ἐκλαμβανόμενον. P, R, Cramer = ἐκλαμβάνομεν. V omits this scholion. 4 O, P, R, Cramer = ὁ δὲ μὴ οὕτω(ς), λεκτέον αὐτῷ; Origen = τῷ δὲ μὴ οὕτω προσιόντι λεκτέον (303). See Commentary. 5 O, Cramer = προείληφεν; P, V, R = παρείληφεν. 6 P, V, R = ὅτι οὐ; O, Cramer omit οὐ; cf. Cramer, 26 note k. 7 O, V, R, Cramer = δι’ αὐτά; P, V omit. 8 O, P, Cramer = Μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλίδες (= Byz); na28 = μοιχαλίδες. 9 O = ὃς ἂν βουληθῇ; P, Cramer = ὃς ἂν οὖν βουληθῇ (= Byz); na28 = ὃς ἐὰν οὖν βουληθῇ. 10 P = ἄλλος Ὠριγένους (“another [scholion] from Origen”). 11 O, R, Cramer = τόν θεόν; P is unclear.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

165

(these things), so much the more was he obstructing the divine hearing. So the empty weight of the words was flowing down around (his) lips, and it was dissolving into the foam of the sea, just as (the foam of) surging waves. [Scholion 4.4a to Jas 4:3] Although the proclamation of the Savior which says, “Ask and it will be given to you” (Matt 7:7 / Luke 11:9) is true—the proclamation is in fact confirmed due to him (Jesus) saying, “Everyone asking receives” (Matt 7:8 / Luke 11:10)—one might wonder how it is that some people who pray are not heard. To this it must be said, “The one coming to ask in the appropriate way, having neglected nothing of the things that enable him to receive that for which he strives: this one will receive in full that which he implored to be given to him.” Yet if a person, after having gone beyond the intention of [the prayer] that has been handed down, seems to be asking while not asking in the way that he should, he is not really asking at all. Therefore, when he does not receive, the (saying) “Everyone who asks receives,” is not shown to be false. For truly, when a teacher says, “Everyone coming to me because of (my) teachings will attain knowledge of them,” we understand “coming to the teacher” as a scholar would, that is, (coming) with intense attention to the lessons given by the teacher, with dedication to and careful practice of the teachings. [To] the one who does not [come] in this way, it must be said, “You did not come to him as you were exhorted (to come).” The one writing the epistle makes (this point) quite clearly. [Scholion 4.4b to Jas 4:3] Some who appear to ask do not receive. He (James) had addressed those who present contrary arguments and who ask wrongly for the sake of empty pleasures. But someone will say, “Some do not receive even when they are asking for the sake of divine knowledge and the attainment of virtues.” One must also say to them that they asked to receive based [not] on the good things themselves, but rather for the sake of being praised because of them. It is characteristic of lovers of pleasures to rejoice in praises (from others). For this reason it is not given to them: since they wish to squander the things for which they ask on the things that give them pleasure. in order to squander (what you asked for) on the things that give you pleasure, Jas αdulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is 4:3b–4 enmity with God? Whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. [Scholion 4.5 to Jas 4:4] “World” here means all material life, the mother of corruption. The one wishing to be a part of her becomes an enemy of God. [Scholion 4.6 to Jas 4:4] from Origen: Since evil brings about friendship with the world and virtue brings about (friendship) with God, it is not possible for virtue and evil to co-exist.

166

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

[Scholion 4.7a to Jas 4:4] [Παροιμιῶν]1 Ὁ διὰ τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν φιλῶν τὸν κόσμον, ἐχθρὸς ἀποδείκνυται τοῦ θεοῦ. Ὡσαύτως καὶ ὁ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν φιλίαν δι’ εὐσεβείας βεβαιῶν, εὐθέως ἐχθρὸς εὑρίσκεται τοῦ κόσμου. Ὅθεν ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν ὥσπερ δουλεύειν θεῷ καὶ μαμωνᾷ, οὕτω φιλιάζειν θεῷ καὶ κόσμῳ. Ἀμέλει γοῦν ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος φίλους θεοῦ τοὺς πειθομένους αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι, μάχαιραν καὶ διαμερισμὸν ἔβαλεν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς· ὁ γὰρ λόγος τῆς διδασκαλίας αὐτοῦ διαιρεῖ καὶ μερίζει τῶν γηϊνῶν καὶ ὑλικῶν· διὰ τούτου παρασκευάζων ἔχθραν ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἕνωσιν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ πρὸς αὐτὸν φιλία. Διὸ καὶ εἰρήνην δίδωσιν, οὐ καθὼς ὁ κόσμος ὀρέγει· ἐκεῖνος γὰρ δι’ ἧς δίδωσιν εἰρήνης πρὸς τὰ ὑλικὰ ἐμπαθεῖς ποιεῖ. Ὁ δὲ κύριος, εἰρήνην παρέχων, φίλους θεοῦ παρασκευάζει. Κόσμον οὖν ἐν τούτοις ἀκούειν δεῖ· τὴν πρὸς τὰ τῇδε [προσπάθειαν].2 [Scholion 4.7b] Εἰ μὲν γὰρ [διάφορόν]3 ἐστι τὸ θλίβεσθαι, πίπτον4 εἰς δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους, οὐκ ἂν φανείη εὔλογος ἡ καύχησις; [Scholion 4.8a] Εἰ καὶ μὴ πάνυ ἁρμοδία πρὸς τὸ ῥητὸν ἡ χρῆσις, ἀλλ’ οὖν ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην ταύτην ἐνθεῖναι, διὰ τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἐπωφελὲς καὶ ζητούμενόν· φησί γὰρ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς5 ἐν εὐαγγελίοις· “Εἰ ἡ χείρ σου ἢ ὁ πούς σου σκανδαλίζει σε, ἔκκοψον αὐτὰ καὶ βάλε ἀπό σου· καλὸν γάρ σοι ἐστὶν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ζωὴν χωλὸν καὶ κυλλὸν6 ἢ δύο πόδας ἔχοντα καὶ δύο χεῖρας βληθῆναι εἰς τὸ πῦρ. Καί εἰ ὁ δεξίος σου ὀφθαλμὸς σκανδαλίζει σε”—καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Περὶ τούτων ὁ Χρυσόστομός φησι· [Scholion 4.8b] “Οὐ περὶ μελῶν [ταῦτα] λέγων7— ἄπαγε—ἀλλὰ περὶ φίλων, περὶ προσηκόντων, οὓς ἐν τάξει μελῶν ἔχομεν ἀναγκαίων· Τοῦτο καὶ ἀνωτέρω εἴρηκε, καὶ νῦν λέγει· οὐδὲν γὰρ βλαβερὸν ὡς συνουσία πονηρά· ὅσα [γάρ]8 ἀνάγκη μὴ δύναται, φιλία πολλάκις δύναται, καὶ εἰς βλάβην καὶ εἰς ὠφελείαν. Διὸ μετὰ πολλῆς σφοδρότητος τοὺς βλάπτοντας ἡμᾶς ἐκκόπτειν κελεύει.” [Scholion 4.9 to Jas 4:4] Ἄξιον ζητῆσαι πῶς οὐκ ἀδιάφοροί εἰσιν αἱ θλίψεις ἐφ’ αἷς φησι καυχᾶσθαι ὁ ἀπόστολος. Καὶ αὐτόθεν μὲν οὖν πρὸ τοῦ ἡμᾶς περιεργάζεσθαι τὰ περὶ θλίψεως, ἐμφαίνεται ὅτι σπουδαῖόν ἐστιν ἡ θλίψις, ὑπομονήν, μίαν τῶν ἀρετῶν, κατεργαζομένη· τὸ γὰρ κατεργαζόμενον ἀρετὴν οὔτε φαῦλον οὔτε μέσον εἶναι δύναται. Μήτηρ οὖν τῆς ἀρετῆς τῆς ὑπομονῆς ἐστιν ἡ θλίψις. Ὡς καὶ ὑπομονὴ παρὰ

1 Cramer = παροιμιαι; O = Παροιμ, (μ superscripted as an abbreviation); P, V, R = Παροιμιῶν. 2 O, Cramer = συμπάθειαν; P, V, R = προσπάθειαν. 3 O, P, V = ἀδιάφορόν; R = διάφορόν. Although ἀδιάφορόν is better attested, διάφορόν makes the best sense in context. 4 O, Cramer = πίπτον; P, V, R = πίπτων. 5 P = ὁ Χριστός; O, R, Cramer omit ὁ. 6 P, R, Cramer = κυλλόν; O = κυλόν. 7 O, P = μελῶν ταῦτα; Cramer omits ταῦτα. 8 O, P = γάρ; Cramer omits γάρ.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

167

[Scholion 4.7a to Jas 4:4] from Proverbs: The one who loves the world by sinning is shown to be an enemy of God. In the same way also, the one who confirms (her) friendship for God through (her) devotion to God is immediately seen to be an enemy of the world. For this reason it is just as impossible to serve both God and worldly possessions, (cf. Matt 6:24 / Luke 16:13) as it is to love God and the world. There is no doubt that when the Lord was coming to make those who follow him friends of God, he threw down a sword of division upon the earth (cf. Luke 12:49–53 / Matt 10:34–36). Indeed, the word of his teaching divides and separates from the earthly and the material, by this means equipping (believers) to have enmity with the world and unity, i.e., friendship, with God. Thus he indeed gives peace not as the world strives (for peace) (cf. John 14:27), for the world gives a “peace” through which it makes them impassioned for material things. But the Lord, by providing peace, equips them to be friends of God. One should, then, understand “the world” with (the help of) these (comments) as the attraction to (material) things in this way. [Scholion 4.7b] If suffering distress is indeed [something valuable], although it falls on the just and the unjust (cf. Matt 5:45), would boasting (about suffering distress) not appear to be reasonable? [Scholion 4.8a] Even though the (Scripture) passage is not entirely fitting with the text (of the scholion), yet I considered it necessary to insert it for the sake of something helpful and required by the interpretation. For our Lord Jesus Christ said in the Gospels, “If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut them off and throw them away from you. For it better for you to enter into life disabled and crippled than with two feet and two hands to be thrown into the fire. And if your right eye causes you to sin”—and what follows (Matt 18:8– 9a). Concerning these things Chrysostom says, [Scholion 4.8b] “He is not saying [these things] about members of the body—far from it—but about friends, about relatives, whom we regard as having the status of essential members. He spoke about this both in the earlier (passage) and now, for nothing is (more) harmful than evil company. [For] that which force cannot do, friendship often does, both for harm and for benefit. Therefore with great zeal he commands us to cut off the harmful ones.” [Scholion 4.9 to Jas 4:4] It is worthwhile to inquire into (the question of) how tribulations are not undifferentiated (neither good nor bad)—those tribulations about which the apostle asserts that he boasts (cf. Rom 5:3; 2 Cor 11:16– 12:10). Yet obviously, (even) before we investigate the topics concerning tribulation, it is clear that tribulation is a good, since it produces perseverance, one of the virtues: clearly, that which produces a virtue cannot be either bad or intermediate (between good and bad). Tribulation, then, is the mother of the virtue of perseverance (cf. Rom 5:3). Just as perseverance, when a proven char-

168

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

τῷ Παύλῳ ὀνομαζομένης δοκιμῆς1—πολλοὺς τῶν ἀλλοτρίων τῆς πίστεως, ὅταν ἐν περιστάσεσι γένωνται, τὴν στενὴν καὶ τεθλιμμενὴν ὁδὸν ὁδεύειν καὶ ἀπάγουσαν εἰς τὴν ζωήν, οὐκ ὀλίγους2 δὲ τῶν μακαρίως βιούντων καὶ κατὰ τὸν βίον εὐτυχέστερον ἐχόντων ὁδεύειν διὰ τῆς πλατείας πύλης ἐπὶ τὴν εὐρύχωρον καὶ ἀπάγουσαν εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν. Μήποτε οὖν ἐκλεκτέον3 τῇ διαθέσει καὶ οὐχὶ τοῖς περιεστηκόσι κρίνεσθαι τὴν στενὴν καὶ τεθλιμμένην ἀπάγουσαν εἰς τὴν ζωὴν ἢ τὴν εὐρύχωρον ἀπάγουσαν εἰς [τὴν] ἀπώλειαν.4 Ὁ μὲν γὰρ τῆς πίστεως ἀλλότριος, κἂν τὰ περιεστηκότα αὐτὸν ᾖ ἐπίπονα, οἷον πενία καὶ νόσος ἤ τι τῶν παραπλησίων, ὃ βούλεται πράττων καὶ λέγων, καὶ μὴ ἀναστέλλων τὰς ὁρμάς, μηδὲ ἐπέχων τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγῳ· καὶ τότε τὴν εὐρύχωρον ὁδεύειν καὶ ἀπάγουσαν εἰς ἀπώλειαν. Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος οὐχ ἧττον ἐν τοῖς νομιζομένοις ἀγαθοῖς ἑαυτὸν συνέχει καὶ [θλίβει·]5 μήποτε φαγὼν καὶ ἐμπλησθεὶς ἐπιλαθόμενος κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ τῆς παρ’ αὐτῷ ἐν τοῖς μὴ βλεπομένοις ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ ποῦ καταμείνῃ ὑπὸ τῶν τοὺς πολλοὺς καθελκόντων ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρετῆς κατασπώμενος. Ὅτι δὲ τοῦτο οὕτως ἔχει, δηλοῖ καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐν τῷ λέγειν· “Ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενοι, ἀλλ’ οὐ στενοχωρούμενοι,” καὶ πάλιν· “Οἶδα καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι καὶ περισσεύειν”— καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· διὰ γὰρ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν ῥητῶν τὰ δόξαντα ἂν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἐναντία εἶναι μανθάνομεν. Εἰ γὰρ ἀληθὲς τὸ “ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενοι,” πῶς [ἀληθὲς]6 οὐ μόνον τὸ “οἶδα ταπεινοῦσθαι,” ἀλλὰ καὶ, “περισσεύειν.” [Καὶ πάλιν· Πῶς ἀληθὲς οὐ μόνον τὸ πεινῆν αὐτὸν ἀλλὰ καὶ χορτάζεσθαι;]7 Καὶ πάλιν· Πῶς “ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενοι” ἀληθές; Ἀλλὰ καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἐν παντὶ τῷ [δὲ] ἔξωθεν8 συμβαίνοντι θλιβόμενος ὁ Παῦλος ἦν, τοῦ λόγου αὐτὸν θλίβοντος, ἵνα μὴ οὖν ἀνεθῇ τῷ περισσεύειν,9 μηδὲ βλαβῇ ἐκ τοῦ χορτάζεσθαι· Διὸ καὶ ἐκαυχᾶτο ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν ἔργον αὐτοῦ τυγχανούσαις. Αὕτη δὲ ἡ ἀπὸ λόγου θλίψις ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται, ἧς πλουτοῦντες. Πολλῶν ἐνδιδόντων πρὸς τὸν πλοῦτον καὶ οὐχ ὑπομενόντων αὐτόν, ἀλλ’ ἐξισταμένων αὐτῶν. Καὶ ὑγιαίνοντες, χαλεποῦ [ὄντως]10 ἀναμαρτήτως ὑγείαν φέρειν. Διόπερ ὁ πυκτεύων, ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων, [ὑποπιάζει]11 ἑαυτοῦ τὸ σῶμα καὶ δουλαγωγεῖ. Οὐδὲν δὲ ἧττον καὶ δοξαζόμενοι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, εἰ καὶ μὴ καθ’ ἡμετέραν πραγματείαν τοιοῦτόν τι ἡμῖν συμβαίνοι, δεόμεθα

1 The text appears to be corrupt here. R fol. 10v marks the end of the scholion after ὀνομαζομένης δοκιμῆς. Both Cramer and Kalogeras insert an em-dash after ὀνομαζομένης δοκιμῆς to signal a break in the logical flow of the text. 2 O, V, R, Cramer = ὀλίγους. P = ὀλίγως. 3 O, Cramer = ἐκλεκτέον. P, V, R = λεκτέον. I retain O’s reading as making better sense. 4 O, P = τὴν ἀπώλειαν; Cramer omits τήν. 5 O, Cramer = θλίψει; P, V, R = θλίβει. 6 O, P = ἀληθές; Cramer = ἀθηθές. 7 O, P = καὶ πάλιν πῶς ἀληθὲς οὐ μόνον τὸ πεινῆν αὐτὸν ἀλλὰ καὶ χορτάζεσθαι. Cramer omits, although he prints the passage (585, note to 28, 9) as a variant reading in P. 8 P, V, R = δὲ ἔξωθεν; O, Cramer omit δέ. 9 O, R, Cramer = τῷ περισσεύειν; P= τὸ περισεύειν; V = τὸ περισσεύειν. 10 O, P, V = ὄντως; R, Cramer = ὄντος. The syntax of χαλεποῦ [ὄντως] is unclear to me. 11 O, Cramer = ὑπωπιάζει; P, V, R = ὑποπιάζει.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

169

acter was mentioned in Paul (cf. Rom 5:4)—many of those who are strangers to the faith, whenever they are in a difficult circumstance, are traveling the narrow and constricted way that in fact leads to life, but not a few of those living happily and having the greatest success in life are traveling through the wide gate on the broad (road) that in fact leads to destruction (cf. Matt 7:13–14). One should never choose for the sake of one’s condition (in life), nor judge by one’s circumstances (between) the narrow and constricted (road) that leads to life or the wide (road) that leads to destruction. For when the one who is a stranger to the faith, even if the circumstances around him are difficult—such as poverty and sickness or anything of a similar kind—is doing and saying whatever he wishes while not restraining (his) impulses and not being mindful of the word of God, then he in fact is traveling the wide (road) that also leads to destruction. But the righteous person restrains and [afflicts] herself no less while she is in circumstances that are considered good. At no time while eating her fill does this person forget the Lord God; although she is weighted down by things that drag down many away from virtue, she remains steadfast somehow, with her hope within her in the things that are not seen. That this is so, the Apostle also makes clear in saying, “We are afflicted in every circumstance, but not crushed” (2Cor 4:8) and again, “I know how to live humbly and how to live with more than enough” (Phil 4:12)—and the following (verses). For through both of these passages we learn about the circumstances that appear to the majority of people to be opposites. For if it is true that “we are afflicted in every circumstance,” how is it [true] that not only “I know how to live humbly,” but also “to live with more than enough”? [And again, how is it true that not only is he hungry, but also that he is completely filled up?] And again, how is (the statement), “we are afflicted in every circumstance” true? But in our view, Paul was being afflicted in every outer circumstance, since (his own) rational choice was afflicting him so neither would he indulge himself when he had more than enough, nor would he be harmed from being completely filled up. Therefore he was indeed boasting in tribulations that turn out to be his own doing. This, the tribulation that comes from rational choice, produces perseverance (Rom 5:3), from which we become rich. Yet many people have surrendered themselves to wealth, and have not resisted it, but rather lose their senses. They are indeed healthy, yet it is difficult to be healthy without sin. Therefore, the one boxing, not as though he were beating the air (cf. 1 Cor 9:26), [severely disciplines] his own body and makes it serve him. Even if such a thing should happen to us against our interests, we are not at all less honored by people, when we need a reasonable chastisement that

170

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

τῆς ἀπὸ λόγου ἐπιστροφῆς καθαιρούσης τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ κωλυούσης τὸ ἄλογον ἐπὶ τῇ δόξῃ ἔπαρμα· ἢ λεγέτω ἡμῖν ὁ μὴ βουλόμενος ταῦτα παραδέξασθαι· εἰ μὴ δοκιμώτατός ἐστιν, οὐκ ἔλαττον τοῦ πενίαν γενναίως ὑπομένοντος,1 ὁ τὸν πλοῦτον οἰκονομῶν κατὰ τὸν λόγον. Καὶ οὐχ ἧττον τοῦ ἐγκαρτεροῦντος πόνοις τοῖς ἐν νόσοις ὁ διὰ τὴν ὑγείαν τῆς ψυχῆς μηδὲν παραδεχόμενος πάθος, κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ ὑγιαίνειν τὸ σῶμα, ὅτε φιλεῖ ἐπιτίθεσθαι εὐεκτοῦν τοῦ ἐπιθυμεῖν κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος. Εἰ δὲ ἡ ὑπομονὴ2 δοκιμὴν κατεργάζεται, δόκιμος δὲ καὶ ὁ ἐν τοῖς νομιζομένοις εἶναι κρείττοσι διαφυλάττων ἑαυτὸν ἀβλαβῆ, δηλονότι δόκιμος ἂν γένοιτο τῆς καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ὑπομονῆς, τὴν δοκιμὴν κατεργαζόμενος· ἥντινα ὑπομονὴν ἀποδιδομένη θλίψις κατειργάσατο. Καὶ ὁ θεός γε βοηθὸς ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσι ταῖς εὑρούσαις τοὺς δικαίους σφόδρα· Καὶ ἕκαστος δὲ ἀναλεξάμενος τὸ ὄνομα τῆς θλίψεως καὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ3 ταύτῃ ἐλέγξει παρασχηματισμούς, ἐκ πολλῆς παρατηρήσεως, ἀποφανεῖ πότερόν ποτε ἀεὶ θλίψις δικαίοις μόνοις γίνεται ἢ, ὡς ὁμώνυμος ἡ λέξις φθάνει, ποτὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐναντίους. Πλὴν συνάγεται ἐκ τούτων ὅτι εἴ τις μὴ καταισχυνθήσεται τῷ τὴν ἐλπίδα ἀνειληφέναι ἀψευδῶς, τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς λεγομένης δοκιμῆς, ταύτην αὐτῷ περιπεποιηκυίας ἐλπίζει. Καὶ [εἴ τις]4 ἐστὶ δόκιμος, τῷ ἀνειληφέναι ἀρετὴν τὴν καλουμένην ὑπομονὴν τοιοῦτός ἐστι. Καὶ οὐκ ἄλλως δὲ [ἐγγίνεταί]5 τινι ἡ ὑπομονὴ ἤ6 ἐκ τοῦ τὴν θλίψιν κατεργάζεσθαι αὐτήν. Ἥτις θλίψις καὶ καύχησίς ἐστι τῶν ἁγίων. Jas 4:5 Ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει· “Πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκησεν7

ἐν ἡμῖν;” [Scholion 4.10 to Jas 4:5–6] “Ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει” καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ὑπερηφανίας πάθος τὸ περιφρονεῖν τῶν ἐντολῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ προσκεῖσθαι ταῖς ἡδοναῖς τοῦ βίου τούτου. Ὅθεν πρὸς ταῖς ἰδίαις παραινέσεσι καὶ παλαιῶν λογίων ἐπιμνησθεὶς ὁ ἀπόστολός φησιν · “Ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει πρὸς φθόνον,” ἀντὶ τοῦ· “Ἢ νομίζετε ὅτι ματαίως ἡ γραφή, φθονοῦσα ὑμῖν, λέγει ἃ μέλλει λέγειν;” Εἶτα, μεταξυλογίᾳ8 χρησάμενός, φησίν· “Ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν, μείζονα δὲ δίδωσι χάριν·” “Οὐ βασκαίνει,” φησὶν [ἡμῖν],9 “ἡ γραφή·” τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα τὸ λαλῆσαν

1 O, V, R, Cramer = ὑπομένοντος; P = ὑπομενόντως. 2 O, V, R, Cramer = ἡ ὑπομονή; P omits ἡ. 3 O, Cramer = ἐπί; P, V, R = ἀπό. 4 Cramer = εἴτις; Byz / na28 = εἴ τις. 5 O, P = ἐγγίνεταί; Cramer = ἐγένετο. 6 O, Cramer = ἤ; P, V, R omit ἤ. 7 O, P = κατῴκησεν (= Byz); na28 = κατῴκισεν. 8 O, Cramer = μεταξυλογίᾳ; P, V = μεταξυλογίαν; R = μεταξυλλογιε. 9 O, P = ἡμῖν; Cramer omits ἡμῖν.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

171

purifies (our) desire for pleasure and prevents irrational pride about (our) reputation. Or let the one who does not wish to accept these things say to us: unless he is most tested and trustworthy, the person who is managing wealth in a prudent way is no less (honored) than the one who is enduring poverty in a noble way. And the one who, due to the health of his soul, allows in no passionate desire during the time when (his) body is healthy, is no less (honored) than the one who remains firm under the pains of illnesses, when he in the habit of applying the good condition (of the body) to (fight against) the lustful desires against the spirit. If perseverance produces a proven character, the one who preserves himself unharmed in the circumstances that are considered to be better, is indeed tested and true, that it is to say, he has become tested and true from the perseverance that is in him, after having produced a proven character. Tribulation that was put to use produced every kind of perseverance. Truly the Lord is a helper during tribulations that powerfully reveal the righteous. Now each one who read through the name “tribulation” and (its) different forms in his investigation, will conclude, based on close observation, whether tribulation, from the beginning of time occurs to the righteous alone, or whether, through an equivocal sense, the word sometimes is extended to those who are the opposite (the unrighteous). But it is concluded from these (points) that if someone will not be ashamed to take up (the virtue of) hope without deceit, he hopes with the hope of a proven character, mentioned earlier, that produced that hope in him (cf. Rom 5:3–4). In fact, if someone is tested and true, he is such a person by having taken up the virtue called “perseverance.” And in no other way does perseverance [come to be] in someone other than by tribulation producing it. Any tribulation is surely a cause for boasting for the saints. Or do you think that Scripture speaks in a pointless way when it says, “The spirit Jas 4:5 that came to live in us yearns enviously”? [Scholion 4.10 to Jas 4:5–6] “Or do you think that the Scripture speaks in a pointless way” and the following (passages) (refers to) the passion of arrogance that disregards the commandments of God and devotes itself to the pleasures of this life. Therefore the apostle, recalling his own exhortations and (those) of the ancient oracles, says, “Or do you think that Scripture speaks in a pointless way, enviously,” in other words, “Or do you consider that Scripture, being envious of you, says in a meaningless way that which it is about to say?” Then, making a digression, he says, “The spirit that came to live in you yearns, it gives a greater grace.” (Jas 4:5b–6a): “Scripture,” he says [to us], “is not jealous.” For the

172

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

αὐτήν, ὃ καὶ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν, ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατήρ, ἐπιποθεῖ τὴν σωτηρίαν τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν, καὶ μείζονα τῶν κατὰ θεὸν ἡμῶν πραγμάτων δίδωσι τὰ χαρίσματα. Διὸ, βουλόμενος ἡμᾶς τῆς τοῦ κόσμου φιλίας συστεῖλαι, φησίν· “Ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσι χάριν.” [Scholion 4.11 to Jas 4:5] Ἀντὶ τοῦ· “Ἐπιθυμητικῶς μὲν ἔχει ἡ ἐν ἡμῖν ψυχὴ τῆς πρὸς [τὸν] θεὸν1 οἰκειότητος τὴν τοῦ κόσμου φιλίαν ἀποστρεφομένη.” Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς μείζονα τῆς ἐπιθυμίας δίδωσι χάριν. [Scholion 4.12 to Jas 4:5] Σευηριανοῦ· Ὃ δὲ λέγει τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν· ἐπιποθεῖ μὲν καὶ ἐφίεται τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν τῆς πρὸς θεὸν οἰκειότητος τὴν τοῦ κόσμου φιλίαν ἀποστρεφόμενον. Αὐτὸς δὲ μείζονα δίδωσι χάριν. Jas Μείζονα δὲ δίδωσι χάριν. Διὸ λέγει· “Ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς 4:6–7 δὲ δίδωσι χάριν.” “Ὑποτάγητε οὖν τῷ θεῷ. Ἀντίστητε τῷ διαβόλῳ, καὶ φεύξεται ἀφ’

ὑμῶν.2 [Scholion 4.13 to Jas 4:5] Εἰ φθόνῳ διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, καὶ κατῴκησεν εἰς τὸν ἔσω [ἡμῶν]3 ἄνθρωπον ὁ Χριστὸς κατὰ τὰς γραφάς· διὰ τούτο4 κατῴκησεν· ἵνα τὸν ἐκ τοῦ φθόνου προσγενόμενον θάνατον καταργήσῃ· καὶ οὐ μόνον τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ καὶ μείζονα ἡμῖν δώσῃ5 χάριν. “Ἐγὼ,” γάρ, “ἦλθον,” φησίν, “ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχωσι, καὶ περισσὸν ἔχωσιν·” Ὅτι δὲ ἐπιπόθησας ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν, Ἠσαΐας ἐδήλωσεν, εἰπών· “Οὐ πρέσβυς,6 οὐκ ἄγγελος, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ τὸ ἀγαπᾷν ἡμᾶς καὶ κήδεσθαι ἡμῶν.” Πῶς δὲ καὶ σώσας μείζονα δέδωκε χάριν ἢ καθελὼν τὸν ἐπιβουλεύσαντα Σατανᾶν; Διὰ τοῦτο ἐπήγαγεν· “Ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται·” Πῶς γὰρ οὐχ ὑπερήφανος ὁ βοῶν· “Τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην καταλήψομαι τῇ χειρὶ ὡς νοσίαν;” [Scholion 4.14 to Jas 4:5] Τῷ γὰρ διαβόλῳ πολεμεῖν ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. [Scholion 4.15 to Jas 4:6] Τῷ ξένῳ γεγονότι τῆς κοσμικῆς ζωῆς. [Scholion 4.16 to Jas 4:6] Διδύμου· Ὑπερηφανία ἡ εἰς τέλος ἐπηρμένη κακία· κατὰ διάμετρον δὲ ἀντικειμένη τῇ ὑπερηφανίᾳ ἡ ἀτυφία, μέγα ἀγαθόν ἐστι· καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἀμφότερα προαιρετικῶς καὶ ἑκουσίως, τὸ ἀγαθὸν φημι καὶ κακόν, ἐνεργεῖται, πᾶς ὁ κατὰ ἀλαζονείαν ὑψῶν ἑαυτὸν πρὸς τοῦ ἀντιταττομένου τοῖς ὑπερηφάνοις θεοῦ ταπεινοῦται ἐν καιρῷ, ὑψουμένου ἐπαινετῶς τοῦ ταπεινώσαντος ἑαυτὸν κατὰ ἀτυφίαν, τῶν ἐπ’ αὐτῇ ἄθλων ξεναγωγούντων εἰς ὕψος.

1 P, R = τὸν θέον; O, Cramer omit τόν. 2 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 3 O, P, V, R = ἡμῶν, Cramer = ἡμῖν. 4 O = τούτῳ; P, V, R, Cramer = τούτο. 5 O, V, Cramer = δώσῃ; P = δώσει; R = δίδωσι. 6 O = πρέσβις. P, V, R, Cramer = πρέσβυς.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

173

Spirit speaking the passage, the Spirit that also came to live in you—God and Father—yearns for the salvation of our souls, and gives greater spiritual gifts than the deeds we, in line with God’s will, have accomplished. Therefore, wishing that we restrain (our) love for the world, he says, “God opposes the arrogant, but gives grace to the humble” (Jas 4:6). [Scholion 4.11 to Jas 4:5] In other words, “The soul within us desires a relationship with God when it turns away from the love of the world.” Yet God himself gives a grace greater than desire. [Scholion 4.12 to Jas 4:5] from Severian: What it means is something like this: “The spirit that is in us yearns and longs for a relationship with God when it turns away from friendship with the world. Yet he gives a greater grace.” “But he gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, ‘God opposes the arrogant, but Jas gives grace to the humble.’ Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, 4:6–7 and he will flee from you.” [Scholion 4.13 to Jas 4:5–7] If by the envy of the devil death entered into the world (Wis 2:24), and Christ came to live in [our] inner person according to the scriptures (cf. Eph 3:16–17), he lives (in us) for this reason: so that he might abolish the death (cf. 2Tim 1:10) that came into being through envy. Yet not only this, but also so that he might give a greater grace (Jas 4:6a). For “I came,” he says, “that they might have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10, nrsv). That God, yearning over us, came to live in us, Isaiah made clear, saying, “neither an elder, nor an angel, but the Lord himself saved us through loving us and caring for us” (Isa 63:9 lxx). How, then, when saving (us) or overpowering the scheming Satan, did he give a greater grace? He brought it about through this: “God opposes the arrogant” (Jas 4:6). For how is the one calling out, “With my hand, I will seize the whole inhabited world like a nest” (Isa 10:14) not arrogant? [Scholion 4.14 to Jas 4:5] For the Holy Spirit yearns to fight against the devil. [Scholion 4.15 to Jas 4:6] To the one who has become a stranger to the worldly life. [Scholion 4.16 to Jas 4:6] from Didymus: Arrogance is evil swelled completely. But modesty, diametrically opposed to arrogance, is a great good. And since both, I mean (both) good and evil, are active through deliberate choice and free will, every person who, due to her arrogance, exalts herself before the God who opposes the arrogant, is humbled at the right time. At the same time, she who has humbled herself due to her modesty is raised up in a praiseworthy way, (her) struggles to attain it (modesty) having guided her into the heights.

174

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

[Chapter 5d κεφ. Ε´δ´·1] Περὶ μετανοίας πρὸς2 σωτηρίαν, καὶ περὶ τοῦ μὴ κρίνειν τὸν πλησίον3 Jas Ἐγγίσατε τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐγγιεῖ ὑμῖν. Καθαρίσατε χεῖρας, ἁμαρτωλοί, καὶ ἁγνίσατε καρ4:8–9 δίας, δίψυχοι. Ταλαιπωρήσατε καὶ πενθήσατε·4 ὁ γέλως ὑμῶν εἰς πένθος μεταστρα-

φήτω,5 καὶ ἡ χαρὰ εἰς κατήφειαν. [Scholion 4.17 to Jas 4:8–9] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· Ὁ γὰρ μετὰ τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν μετανοίᾳ [κεχρημένος]6 οὐ πένθους ἀλλὰ μακαρισμῶν ἐστὶν ἄξιος, ἐπὶ τὸν τῶν δικαίων χορὸν7 [μεταστάς]·8 Λέγε γὰρ σὺ τὰς [ἀνομίας]9 σου πρῶτος, ἵνα δικαιωθῇς. Εἰ δὲ μετὰ τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν ἀναισχυντεῖ, οὐχ οὕτως ἐπὶ τῷ πεσεῖν10 ἐστιν ἐλεεινός, ὡς ἐπὶ τῷ κεῖσθαι11 πεσών. Εἰ δὲ τὸ μὴ μετανοεῖν ἐφ’ ἁμαρτήμασι χαλεπόν, τὸ καὶ πεφυσῆσθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς ἁμαρτήμασι ποίας κολάσεώς ἐστιν ἄξιον; Εἰ γὰρ ὁ ἐπὶ τοῖς κατορθώμασιν ἐπαιρόμενος ἀκάθαρτός ἐστιν, ὁ ἐπὶ ἁμαρτήμασι τοῦτο πάσχων ποίας τεύξεται συγγνώμης; Jas 4:10 Ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον κυρίου,12 καὶ ὑψώσει ὑμᾶς.

[Scholion 4.18 to Jas 4:10] Ἡσυχίου· Μακάριον ἐνώπιον θεοῦ ταπεινοῦσθαι· φησὶ γὰρ Ἰάκωβος· “Ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον κυρίου, καὶ ὑψώσει ὑμᾶς.” Ὅταν τοίνυν οὕτω ταπεινωθῶμεν, κἂν ὑπὸ δαιμόνων ἐπιβουλευθῶμεν, κἂν ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων μισούντων τὰς ἀρετὰς πολεμηθῶμεν, ἔχομεν τὸν θεὸν ἐξαιρούμενον· μόνον ἵνα τοῦ νόμου αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπιλαθώμεθα, μηδὲ [ἀποκάμωμεν]13 ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσι. Φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Δαυίδ· “Ιδὲ τὴν ταπείνωσίν μου καὶ ἐξελοῦ με,14 ὅτι τοῦ νόμου σου15 οὐκ ἐπελαθόμην.” Jas Μὴ [καταλαλῆτε]16 ἀλλήλων, ἀδελφοί· ὁ καταλαλῶν ἀδελφοῦ, καὶ κρίνων17 τὸν ἀδελ4:11–12 φὸν αὐτοῦ, καταλαλεῖ νόμου, καὶ κρίνει νόμον·18 εἰ δὲ νόμον κρίνεις, οὐκ εἶ ποιητὴς

1 O, P = chap. 9; Cramer = ch. 7; Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (453c), Euthalian apparatus (von Soden, Schriften, 458) = subheading to ch. 5; V, R omits heading. 2 O, P, Euthalian apparatus = πρός; Ps.-Oecumenius = εἰς. 3 O, Euthalian apparatus, Ps-Oecumenius = πλησίον; P = πλεισίον. 4 na28 / Byz = καὶ πενθήσατε καὶ κλαύσατε; O, P, Cramer omit καὶ κλαύσατε. 5 O, P, Cramer = μεταστραφήτω (= Byz); na28 = μετατραπήτω. 6 O, Cramer = χρώμενος; P, V, R, Chrysostom = κεχρημένος. 7 O, V, Cramer = χορόν; P, R = χωρόν. 8 O, P, Chrysostom = μεταστάς; Cramer omits μεταστάς. 9 O, R, Cramer = ἁμαρτίας; P, V, Isa 43:26, Chrysostom = ἀνομίας. 10 O, R, Cramer = τῷ πεσεῖν; P, V= τὸ πεσεῖν. 11 O, R, Cramer = τῷ κεῖσθαι; P, V= τὸ κεῖσθαι. 12 na28 / Byz, Cramer = τοῦ κυρίου; O, P, V omit τοῦ. 13 O, Cramer = ἀποκάκωμεν; P, V, R = ἀποκάμωμεν. 14 O, V, Ps 118:153 lxx, Cramer = ἐξελοῦ με; P = ἐξελοῦμαι. 15 O, V, R, Ps 118:153 lxx, Cramer = νόμου σου; P omits σου. 16 O, Cramer = καταλαλεῖτε (= na28 / Byz); P, V, R = καταλαλῆτε. 17 O, P, Cramer = καί κρίνων (= Byz); na28 = ἢ κρίνων. 18 O, R, Cramer = νόμον (= na28 / Byz); P, V = νόμου.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

175

[Chapter 5d]: Concerning conversion leading to salvation, and concerning not judging (one’s) neighbor Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse (your) hands, you sin- Jas ners, and purify (your) hearts, you double-minded. Be sorrowful and weep. Let 4:8–9 your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy into grief. [Scholion 4.17 to Jas 4:8–9] from Chrysostom: [For the one who has experienced] a conversion after sinning deserves not mourning but blessings, [since he has passed over] to the choir of the righteous. By all means, “tell your [sins] first, so that you might be justified” (Isa 43:26). But if after sinning a person is not ashamed, he deserves pity not so much for falling (into sin), as for lying still after falling. If not repenting of (one’s) sins is bad, what kind of punishment does actually being proud of (one’s) sins deserve? If the one who is puffed up over (his) good deeds is unclean, what kind of forgiveness will the one feeling this (pride) in regard to (his) sins obtain? “Humble yourselves before the Lord and he will raise you up.” Jas 4:10 [Scholion 4.18 to Jas 4:10] from Hesychius: To be humbled before the Lord is blessed. For James says, “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will raise you up” (Jas 4:10). Indeed, when we humble ourselves in this way, even when demons plot against us, even when we are attacked by people who hate the virtues, we have God rescuing (us), provided only that we do not forget his law, or [become worn out] in (our) tribulations. For you see that David says, “See my humility and rescue me, because I have not forgotten your law” (Ps 118:153 lxx). Do not speak badly of one another, my brothers and sisters. The one speaking Jas badly of a brother or sister or judging his brother or sister speaks badly of the 4:11–12 law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law

176

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

νόμου,1 ἀλλὰ κριτής. Εἷς ἐστιν ὁ νομοθέτης καὶ κριτής,2 ὁ δυνάμενος σῶσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι. Σὺ δὲ τίς εἶ, ὃς κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον;3 [Scholion 4.19 to Jas 4:11–12] [τοῦ ἁγίου] Κυρίλλου·4 Πᾶν χαλεπὸν ἀποκείρει πάθος τῶν ἡμετέρων διανοιῶν· ὑπεροψίας ἀρχὴν καὶ γέννησιν. Καίτοι γὰρ δέον τινὰς ἑαυτοὺς κατασκέπτεσθαι, καὶ κατὰ θεὸν πολιτεύεσθαι, τοῦτο μὲν οὐ δρῶσι, πολυπραγμονοῦσι δὲ τὰ ἑτέρων. Κἂν ἀσθενοῦντας ἴδωσι τινας, ὥσπερ εἰς λήθην ἐρχόμενοι τῶν ἰδίων ἀρρωστημάτων, [φιλοψογίας]5 ὑπόθεσιν ποιοῦνται τὸ χρῆμα καὶ καταλαλιᾶς ὑπόθεσιν. Καταψηφίζονται γὰρ αὐτῶν, οὐκ εἰδότες ὅτι τὰ ἶσα νοσοῦντες τοῖς παρ’ αὐτῶν διαβεβλημένοις, [ἑαυτούς]6 κατακρίνουσιν. Οὕτω που καὶ ὁ σοφώτατος γράφει Παῦλος· “Ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον, σεαυτὸν κατακρίνεις· τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις ὁ κρίνων.” [Chapter 6: κεφ. ς´·]7 Ὅτι οὐκ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ ἀλλ’ ἐν θεῷ τὰ διαβήματα ἀνδρὸς κατευθύνεται Jas 4:13 Ἄγε νῦν οἱ λέγοντες, “Σήμερον καὶ8 αὔριον πορευσώμεθα εἰς τήνδε τὴν πόλιν, καὶ ποι-

ήσωμεν ἐκεῖ ἐνιαυτόν,9 καὶ ἐμπορευσώμεθα, καὶ κερδήσωμεν.”10 [Scholion 4.20 to Jas 4:13] Περὶ φρονήματος μετεώρου τὸ λεγόμενον, οὗ τὸ τέλος ἀφανισμός. [Scholion 4.21 to Jas 4:13] Κυρίλλου·11 Οἱ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς ἐμπορίας καὶ τὰς ἐντεῦθεν φιλοκερδείας ἀκορέστως κεχηνότες, ὁδοιποριῶν ἀνέχονται μακρῶν, ναυτιλίας καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ κυμάτων· οἱ δὲ τὴν πεπορισμένην αὐτοῖς δυναστείαν ὅπλον ποιοῦνται τῆς καθ’ ἑτέρων πλεονεξίας· ἕτεροι δὲ αὐτὰ ἐκ μοχθηρῶν εὑρημάτων παχύνουσι βαλάντια, καὶ τόκοις ἐπὶ τόκους12 ἀνοσίως συλλέγοντες, πῦρ καὶ κόλασιν ταῖς ἑαυτῶν καταχέουσι κεφαλαῖς.

1 O, Cramer = τοῦ νόμου; P, V, R omit τοῦ (= na28 / Byz). 2 O, P, Cramer = καὶ κριτής (= na28); Byz omits καὶ κριτής. 3 O, P, Cramer = ὃς κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον (= Byz); na28 = ὁ κρίνων τὸν πλησίον. O and P insert the Euthalian chapter title Ὅτι οὐκ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ ἀλλ’ ἐν θεῷ τὰ διαβήματα ἀνθρώπου κατευθύνεται between Jas 4:12 and 13 as part of the biblical text (reading διαβήματα ἀνθρώπου for διαβήματα ἀνδρός). For this reading in other scriptural texts, see Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior iv. 1/1 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997), 76. 4 O, Cramer = Κυρίλλου; P = τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου· ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγελίου; V = τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου; R = τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγελίου. 5 O, Cramer = φιλοψοφίας; P, V, R and Cyril = φιλοψογίας. 6 P, V, R = ἑαυτούς; O, Cramer = ἑαυτῶν. 7 O, P = ch. 10; Cramer = ch. 8; Euthalian apparatus (von Soden, Schriften, 458), Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (453c), = ch. 6; R = comment before Jas 4:13; V omits title. 8 O, P, Cramer = καί (= Byz); na28 = ἢ. 9 O, P, Cramer = ἐνιαυτόν (= na28); Byz = ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα. 10 O, P, Cramer = πορευσώμεθα … ποιήσωμεν … ἐμπορευσώμεθα … κερδήσωμεν· (= Byz); na28 = πορευσόμεθα … ποιήσομεν … ἐμπορευσόμεθα … κερδήσομεν. 11 O, P = Κυρίλλου; P = Τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου; V = Του αὐτοῦ (scil.: Κυρίλλου); R = unattributed. 12 O, V, Cramer = τόκοις ἐπὶ τόκους; P = τόκοι ἐπὶ τόκους; R = τόκους ἐπὶ τόκοις.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

177

but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. Who then are you to judge (your) neighbor? [Scholion 4.19 to Jas 4:11–12] from saint Cyril: He cuts off the entire troublesome passion from our thoughts: the source and parent of having contempt for others. For although people should examine themselves, and lead their lives by God’s standards, this they do not do; rather they busy themselves with the business of others. And if they see people who are (morally) sick, just as they forget their own (moral) illnesses, they make these things a pretext for [being overly critical] and a pretext for speaking badly (about them). For they find them guilty, not realizing that, since they are equally as sick as those who are accused by them, they are condemning themselves. In the same way, somewhere the most-wise Paul writes, “for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things” (Rom 2:1, nrsv). [Chapter 6]: That the steps of a person are directed not by a human, but by God Come now, you who say, “Today and tomorrow let us travel to a certain city, and Jas 4:13 spend a year there, and buy and sell and make a profit.” [Scholion 4.20 to Jas 4:13] What is said (is) about inflated pride, the end of which is destruction. [Scholion 4.21 to Jas 4:13] from Cyril: Now some people, gaping insatiably after buying and selling and the love of profit that arises from it, endure long journeys, and a voyage with its waves. Some make the power they have obtained for themselves into an instrument of oppression against others. Others fatten their bags from the ill-gotten profits, and, collecting [compound interest] in an unholy way, they pour down fire and punishment upon their own heads.

178

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

Jas Οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τὸ τῆς αὔριον· ποία γὰρ1 ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν; ἀτμὶς γὰρ ἔσται2 ἡ πρὸς 4:14–17 ὀλίγον φαινομένη [ἔπειτα3 καὶ ἀφανιζομένη]. Ἀντὶ τοῦ λέγειν ὑμᾶς, “Ἐὰν ὁ κύριος

θελήσῃ, καὶ ζήσωμεν, καὶ ποιήσωμεν4 τοῦτο ἢ ἐκεῖνο·” νῦν δὲ καυχᾶσθε ἐν ταῖς ἀλαζονείαις5 ὑμῶν· πᾶσα καύχησις τοιαύτη πονηρά ἐστιν. Εἰδότι οὖν καλὸν ποιεῖν, καὶ μὴ ποιοῦντι, ἁμαρτία αὐτῷ ἐστιν. [Scholion 4.22a to Jas 4:14–17] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος· Οὐ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἀναιρεῖ, ἀλλὰ δείκνυσιν ὅτι οὐ τὸ πᾶν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ δεῖται τῆς ἄνωθεν χάριτος. Δεῖ μὲν καὶ θέλειν καὶ τρέχειν, θαρρεῖν δὲ μὴ τοῖς οἰκείοις πόνοις, ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίᾳ· [Scholion 4.22b] φησὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς Παροιμίαις· “Μὴ καυχῶ τὰ εἰς αὔριον, οὐ γὰρ γινώσκεις τί τέξεται ἡ ἐπιοῦσα·” [Scholion 4.22c] [οὐδὲ]6 γὰρ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν ἐστι τὸ ἐλθεῖν εἰς τὴν αὔριον, καθάπερ οὐδὲ τῷ [μισθίω, τῷ]7 πρὸς ἡμέραν μισθωθέντι μίαν, ἐξουσία τίς ἐστι ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῇ ἑξῆς ἐργάσασθαι, πλὴν εἰ μὴ ὁ μισθωσάμενος ἐπιτρέψειεν. [Chapter 6a κεφ. ς´α´·]8 Περὶ πλεονεξίας πλουσίων καὶ τῆς ἐν κόσμῳ τρυφῆς αὐτῶν, καὶ περὶ δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ9 Jas Ἄγε νῦν οἱ πλούσιοι, κλαύσατε ὀλολύζοντες ἐπὶ ταῖς ταλαιπωρίαις ὑμῶν ταῖς ἐπερχο5:1–3a μέναις.10 Ὁ πλοῦτος ὑμῶν σέσηπε, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν σητόβρωτα γέγονεν· ὁ χρυσὸς

ὑμῶν καὶ ὁ ἄργυρος κατίωται.11 [Scholion 5.1 to Jas 5:1–3] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· Ἁψώμεθα τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς στενῆς· Μέχρι πότε τρυφή; μέχρι πότε ἄνεσις; οὐκ ἐνεπλήσθημεν ῥαθυμοῦντες; γελῶντες; ἀναβαλλόμενοι; Οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ πάλιν ἔσται τράπεζα καὶ κόρος καὶ πολυτέλεια καὶ χρήματα καὶ κτῆσις12 καὶ οἰκοδομαί; Καὶ τί τὸ κέρδος; θάνατος· Καὶ τί τὸ τέλος; τέφρα καὶ κόνις· σοροὶ13 καὶ σκώληκες. [Scholion 5.2 on Jas 5:1–3] Ἡσυχίου· Προλέγει τὴν τιμωρίαν διὰ φιλανθρωπίαν, ἵνα, μετανοήσαντες, ἔξω γένοιντο τῶν ἀπειλουμένων. [Scholion 5.3 on Jas 5:1–5] Κυρίλλου· Τουτέστιν ἡ ὀργὴ μονονουχὶ κατασφάξασα, καὶ οἷόν τινας κριοὺς καὶ ταύρους ἁδρούς τε καὶ πίονας καταστρώσασα· οἷς ἂν εἰκότως λέγοιτο πρὸς ἡμῶν· “Ἄγε νῦν οἱ πλούσιοι, κλαύσατε ὀλολύζοντες ἐπὶ ταῖς ταλαιπω1 O, P, Cramer = Ποία γάρ (= Byz); na28 omits γάρ. 2 O, P, Cramer = ἔσται (= Byz); na28 = ἐστε. 3 Byz = ἔπειτα δέ; O, P omit δέ (= na28); Cramer omits ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ ἀφανιζομένη. 4 O, P, Cramer = καὶ ζήσωμεν, καὶ ποιήσωμεν (= Byz); na28 = ζήσομεν καὶ ποιήσομεν. 5 O, V, R, Cramer = ἀλαζονείαις (= na28/ Byz); P = ἀλαζονίαις. 6 O, Cramer = οὐ; P, V, R = οὐδέ. 7 Cramer (32, note r) notes that he has corrected O’s μισθίω τῷ to μισθωτῷ. P, V, R however, also read μισθίω τῷ. 8 O, P = ch. 11; Cramer = unnumbered title with asterisk; Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (453d), Euthalian apparatus (von Soden, Schriften, 458) = subheading to chap. 6. V, R omit title. 9 P, Euthalian apparatus, Ps.-Oecumentius = θεοῦ; O = θεοῦ αὐτῶν. 10 P, V witness a scholion to Jas 5:1: ἔλεχος ἀδικῶν καὶ μετάνοια. See Commentary on the Chapter 6a title. 11 Jas 5:1–3a: O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 12 O, R, Cramer = κτήσις; P, V = κτίσις. 13 O, V, R, Cramer = σοροί; P = σωροί.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

179

You do not know what will happen tomorrow. What, then, is your life? It will, in Jas fact, be a mist that appears for a short time, [then likewise disappears]. Instead 4:14–17 you (should) say, “If the Lord wills, we might live and we might do this or that.” But now you are boasting in your pretentiousness. All such boasting is evil. For the one, then, who knows what is good to do, yet does not do it, for her it is a sin. [Scholion 4.22a to Jas 4:14–17] from Chrysostom from (the Gospel) according to Luke (on the passage) “it depends neither on the one willing nor on the one striving” (Rom 9:16): He does not take away the power of free will but shows that not everything is in his (the one willing and striving) control, but that he has need of grace from above. While one should indeed will and strive, one should also have confidence, not in one’s own efforts, but rather in God’s love for humans. [Scholion 4.22b] For it says in Proverbs, “Do not boast about what will happen tomorrow, for you do not know what the next day will bring about” (Prov 27:1). [Scholion 4.22c] For in fact, it is not in your power to come to tomorrow, just as the hired worker who is hired for one day does not have any power on his own to work again on the following day, unless the one who hired him should allow it. [Chapter 6a] Concerning the greed of the rich and their self-indulgence in the world, and concerning the just judgment of God Come now you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries. Your wealth Jas has rotted, and your clothing has become moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have 5:1–3 rusted. [Scholion 5.1 to Jas 5:1–3] from Chrysostom: Let us embrace the narrow path (cf. Matt 7:14). How long will (our) self-indulgence go on? How long (our) rest and relaxation? Have we not been filled up with idle living? With laughing? With striking up music? Will it not be the same again: feasting and eating one’s fill and extravagance and wealth and property and buildings? And what is gained? Death. And what is the end result? Ashes and dust. Tombs and worms. [Scholion 5.2 on Jas 5:1–3] from Hesychius: He (James) foretells punishment (of the rich) out of love for humanity, so that, after having repented, they might escape the threatened (punishments). [Scholion 5.3 on Jas 5:1–5] from Cyril: That is to say, anger that was, so to speak, slaughtering, killing them just like some rams and bulls, both strong and fat. To them it would be said fittingly by us, “Come now, you rich, weep and

180

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

ρίαις ὑμῶν ταῖς ἐπερχομέναις.” Προσεποίσομεν δὲ τούτοις τὸ “Ἐτρυφήσατε, ἐσπαταλήσατε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν ὡς ἐν1 ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς.” Τοιοῦτοι γὰρ γεγόνασιν οἱ τῶν Ἰουδαίων καθηγηταί· καταβοσκόμενοι μὲν τρόπον τινὰ τόπον πίονα καὶ εὐρύχωρον, τὰς ἐκ τῶν λαῶν δωροφορίας· καταπιανθέντες δὲ ὥσπερ ταῖς παρὰ πάντων τιμαῖς. Ὡς κριοὶ καὶ ταῦροι πεπτώκασι τῇ τοῦ κυρίου μαχαίρᾳ περιπεσόντες οἱ δείλαιοι. Jas καὶ ὁ ἰὸς αὐτῶν εἰς μαρτύριον ὑμῖν ἔσται, καὶ φάγεται τὰς σάρκας ὑμῶν ὡς πῦρ· ἐθη5:3b–4 σαυρίσατε ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις. Ἰδοὺ ὁ μισθὸς τῶν ἐργατῶν τῶν ἀμησάντων τὰς χώρας

ὑμῶν, ὁ ἀπεστερημένος ἀφ’ ὑμῶν, κράζει· καὶ αἱ βοαὶ τῶν θερισάντων εἰς τὰ ὦτα κυρίου σαβαὼθ εἰσεληλύθασιν.2 [Scholion 5.4 to Jas 5:3] Ἀντὶ τοῦ, καταμαρτυρήσει ὑμῶν. Διὰ τοῦ ἰοῦ ἐλέγχων τὸ ἀμετάδοτον, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια διὰ τῆς σήψεως. Jas Ἐτρυφήσατε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐσπαταλήσατε· ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν ὡς3 ἐν 5:5–6 ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς. Κατεδικάσατε, ἐφονεύσατε τὸν δίκαιον, καὶ4 οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται ὑμῖν.

[Scholion 5.5 to Jas 5:5–6] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· Τί οὖν; Κεκώλυται ἡ τρυφή; καὶ σφόδρα. Διατί οὖν εἰς μετάληψιν ἔκτισται; ὅτι καὶ ἄρτον ἔκτισε, καὶ κεκώλυται ἡ ἀμετρία· ὅτι καὶ οἶνον ἔκτισε, καὶ κεκώλυται ἡ ἀμετρία· Οὐχ ὡς ἀκάθαρτον τοίνυν τὴν [τρυφὴν]5 παραιτεῖσθαι κελεύει, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐκλύουσαν6 διὰ τῆς ἀμετρίας τὴν ψυχήν· “Πᾶν γὰρ κτίσμα θεοῦ καλόν,” φησί, “καὶ οὐδὲν ἀποβλητὸν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας λαμβανόμενον.” [Chapter 6b] κεφ. ς´β´·7 Περὶ μακροθυμίας καὶ ὑπομονῆς παθημάτων, καὶ περὶ ἀληθείας Jas 5:7 Μακροθυμήσατε οὖν ἀδελφοί, ἕως τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου. Ἰδοὺ ὁ γεωργὸς8 ἐκδέ-

χεται τὸν τίμιον καρπὸν τῆς γῆς, μακροθυμῶν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ,9 ἕως λάβῃ ὑετὸν10 πρώϊμον καὶ ὄψιμον. [Scholion 5.6 to Jas 5:7] Κυρίλλου·11 Εἰ γὰρ καὶ ὑπερτίθεται, φησίν, ὁ θεὸς τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων τὴν τιμωρίαν, περιμένων αὐτῶν τὴν μετάνοιαν, οὐχ ὡς μεταβεβλη-

1 P = ὡς ἐν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ. 2 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 3 O, P, Cramer = ὡς (= Byz); na28 omits ὡς. 4 O, P, Cramer = καί; na28 / Byz omit καί. 5 O, Cramer = τροφήν; P, V, R, Chrysostom = τρυφήν. 6 O, V, R, Cramer = ἐκλύουσαν; P = ἐκκλουσαν. 7 O = ch. 12; P = ch. 19 (ιθ´; out of sequence with previous title numbering); V, R omit the title. Cramer = ch. 9; Euthalian apparatus (most mss) = subheading to ch. 6 (von Soden, Schriften, 458); Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (453d) = ch. 7. 8 P, V, R, Cramer = ὁ γεωργός (= na28 / Byz); O omits ὁ γεωργός. 9 O, P, Cramer = ἐπ’ αὐτῷ (= na28); Byz = ἐπ’ αὐτόν. 10 O, P, Cramer = ὑετὸν πρώϊμον καὶ ὄψιμον (= Byz); na28 omits ὑετόν. 11 O, V, Cramer = Κυρίλλου; P, R = τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

181

wail over your impending miseries” (Jas 5:1). We will add further to these things, “You have lived a life of self-indulgence and luxury on earth; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter” (Jas 5:5). The teachers of the Jews were in such a condition: they were grazing, so to speak, on a rich and spacious field: the offerings of the people; they were being fattened as if by the payments of all (the people). As the rams and bulls have fallen, the wretched ones were falling by the sword of the Lord. and their rust will be a testimony against you, and it will eat your flesh like Jas fire: you stored up treasure for the last days. Look! The wages of the work- 5:3b–4 ers who harvested your fields, which you held back from them by fraud, cry out. And the cries of the harvesters have come into the ears of the Lord of Hosts. [Scholion 5.4 to Jas 5:3] That is, it will testify against you. (Your) selfish refusal to share (your wealth) is proven through the rust, just as (your) clothing (proves the same) through (its) moth-eaten condition. You have lived a life of self-indulgence and luxury on earth; you have fattened Jas your hearts as in a day of slaughter. You condemned, you murdered the just one, 5:5–6 and he does not resist you. [Scholion 5.5 to Jas 5:5–6] from Chrysostom: What then? Has self-indulgence been forbidden? Very much so. Why then was it (food) created to be received (cf. 1Tim 4:3)? Because he indeed created food, yet intemperance has been forbidden. Because he indeed created wine, yet intemperance is forbidden. He commands, therefore, that [self-indulgence] be rejected not because it is unclean but because the soul becomes weak through intemperance. For he says that “everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving” (1Tim 4:4 nrsv). Chapter 6b: Concerning patience and perseverance in afflictions, and concerning truth Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the coming of the Lord. Look! The Jas 5:7 farmer awaits the precious crop of the land, patiently waiting for it, until it receives the early and late rain. [Scholion 5.6 to Jas 5:7] from Cyril: For if God indeed puts off, he says, the punishment of those who sin, while he waits for their repentance, he does these

182

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

μένος ταῦτα ποιεῖ ἢ καὶ φιλῶν τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας, ἀλλὰ καιρὸν αὐτοῖς ἐπιστροφῆς παρέχων. [Scholion 5.7 to Jas 5:7–20] Εἰπὼν τῶν ἀδίκων τὴν τιμωρίαν, τοῖς ἀδικηθεῖσιν εἰκότως μακροθυμεῖν παραινεῖ τὴν παρουσίαν ἐκδεχομένοις τοῦ κυρίου. Ἅμα δὲ καὶ ὅρκων ἀπαγορεύει ἅπτεσθαι, καὶ προσευχῇ καὶ ψαλμῳδίᾳ σχολάζειν, καὶ πίστιν ἔχειν περὶ τοὺς ἱερεῖς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀγαπήν, ὡς καὶ δέεσθαι ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων· καὶ ἡ ἀπόδειξις τῆς ἰσχύος τῆς προσευχῆς ὁ Ἠλίας εἰς μέσον φέρεται· καὶ τελευταῖον, ὅσος ὁ τῶν ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἐπιστρεφόντων ὁ μισθός. Jas 5:8 Μακροθυμήσατε καὶ ὑμεῖς. Στηρίξατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν ὅτι ἡ παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου

ἤγγικε.1 [Scholion 5.8 to Jas 5:8] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· Μακροθυμίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ὑπομονὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω· μακροθυμεῖ γάρ τις πρὸς ἐκείνους οὓς δυνατὸν καὶ ἀμύνασθαι· ὑπομένει δὲ οὓς οὐ δύναται ἀμύνασθαι. Διὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ μὲν θεοῦ οὐδέποτε ὑπομονὴ λέγεται, μακροθυμία δὲ πολλαχοῦ. [Scholion 5.9 to Jas 5:8] Τοῦ αὐτοῦ· Εἰ οὖν καὶ ἐνταῦθα δοκοῦσιν ἐγκαταλελεῖφθαι, ἀλλ’ ὅμως ἐκεῖ πολλῆς ἀπολαύσουσι τῆς δόξης· ὅταν δὲ ἴδωσιν οἱ μεγάλα φυσῶντες τοὺς μαστιζομένους ὑπ’ αὐτῶν, τοὺς καταφρονουμένους, τοὺς καταγελωμένους, τούτους ἐγγὺς ὄντας θεοῦ, τότε θρηνήσουσι καὶ ὀλολύξουσιν, ὅταν τοὺς οἰκτροὺς καὶ ταλαιπώρους καὶ μυρία παθόντας δεινά, καὶ πιστεύσαντας, εἰς τοσαύτην ἄγῃ2 λαμπρότητα. Jas Μὴ στενάζετε3 κατ’ ἀλλήλων, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε· ἰδοὺ ὁ κριτὴς πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν ἕστηκεν. 5:9–11b Ὑπόδειγμα λάβετε, ἀδελφοί μου,4 τῆς κακοπαθείας καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας τοὺς προ-

φήτας, οἳ ἐλάλησαν ἐν5 τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου. Ἰδοὺ μακαρίζομεν τοὺς ὑπομένοντας·6 τὴν ὑπομονὴν Ἰὼβ ἠκούσατε. [Scholion 5.10a to Jas 5:9–11] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου [ῥητοῦ προκειμένου]7 “εὐχαριστοῦντες ἐν [τῷ θεῷ]·”8 Εἰ γὰρ εὐχαριστοῦμεν μετὰ χαρᾶς πολλῆς, μεγάλα τὰ γινόμενα· ἔστι γὰρ εὐχαριστεῖν διὰ φόβον μόνον· ἔστιν εὐχαριστεῖν καὶ ἐν λύπῃ ὄντα· Οἵον ὁ Ἰὼβ ηὐχαρίστησεν, ὀδυνώμενος [δὲ]9 καὶ ἔλεγεν· “Ὁ κύριος ἔδωκεν, [καὶ]10 ὁ κύριος ἀφείλατο.” Μὴ γάρ τις λεγέτω ὅτι οὐκ ἐλύπει αὐτὸν τὰ γινόμενα, οὐδὲ [ἀθυμίᾳ]11 περιέβαλε· μὴ δὲ τὸ μέγα ἐγκώμιον ἀφαιρείσθω12 τοῦ δικαίου. Ὅταν δὲ τοιαῦτα ᾖ, 1 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 2 O, Cramer, Chrysostom = ἄγῃ; P, V = ἄγει; R = ἅγαν. 3 na28 = μὴ στενάζετε, ἀδελφοί; Byz = μὴ στενάζετε κατ’ ἀλλήλων, ἀδελφοί; O, P, Cramer omit ἀδελφοί. 4 O, P, Cramer = ἀδελφοί μου (= Byz); na28 omits μου. 5 O, P, Cramer = ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου (= na28); Byz omits ἐν. 6 O, P, Cramer = ὑπομένοντας (= Byz); na28 = ὑπομείναντας. 7 O, Cramer = ῥητὰ προκείμενα; P, R = ῥητοῦ προκειμένου. 8 Cramer = τῶι Θεῶι. 9 P, V = ηὐχαρίστησεν, ὀδυνώμενος δέ; O, Cramer omit δέ. R, Chrysostom = ηὐχαρίστει μέν, ὀδυνώμενος δέ. 10 P, R = ἔδωκεν καί; V = ὁ κύριος ἔδωκεν, ὁ κύριος καὶ ἀφείλετο. O, Cramer omit καί. 11 Cramer = ἀθυμία; Chrysostom = ἀθυμίᾳ. 12 O, Cramer = ἀφαιρείσθω; P, R= ἀφαιρείσθαι; V = ἀφαιρείσθε.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

183

things not because he changes his mind, or even because he loves those who sin, but rather because he is offering them a chance to turn themselves around. [Scholion 5.7 to Jas 5:7–20] Having spoken of the punishment of the unjust, he fittingly encourages those who have been treated unjustly to be patient while awaiting the coming of the Lord. Yet at the same time, he also forbids them to have anything to do with swearing oaths, and to devote themselves to prayer and the singing of psalms and to have faith in regard to the priests of God, and love towards one another, as well as to offer prayers on behalf of one another. And as a proof of the power of prayer, Elijah is brought forward. And finally, (he speaks about) how great the reward for the ones who turn back sinners (will be). You also be patient. Strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord has Jas 5:8 come near. [Scholion 5.8 to Jas 5:8] from Chrysostom: Patience (is) for one another; perseverance (is) for those outside. For one is patient with those whom one is also able to pay back; one perseveres with those whom one is unable to pay back. For this reason, (the word) “perseverance” is never attributed to God, but (the word) “patience” (is attributed to God) frequently. [Scholion 5.9 to Jas 5:8] from the same author: They seem, then, to have been abandoned here (on earth), but there (heaven), however, they will experience great glory. But when the ones who are greatly swollen up (with pride) see the ones whom they themselves flogged—the ones who were despised, the ones who were ridiculed—close to God, then they will lament and cry out in pain, (at that very time) when he (God) leads the pitiable and wretched and those suffering countless terrible things and (yet still) believe into such splendor. Do not grumble against one another, so that you are not judged. Look! The Jas Judge is standing before the door. Take as an example, brothers and sisters, of 5:9–11b patience in enduring hardships, the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Look! We call blessed those who persevere. You have heard of the perseverance of Job. [Scholion 5.10a to Jas 5:9–11] from Chrysostom (on the passage) “giving thanks to God” (Col 1:12): For if we give thanks with much joy, great things are happening. It is, after all, possible to give thanks due to fear only. It is possible also to give thanks even though one is in sorrow. Job, for example, gave thanks even though he was suffering, and said, “The Lord gave, [and] the Lord has taken away” (Job 1:21). Now do not let anyone say that the things that were happening to him were not causing him sorrow, nor surrounding him with despair. Let not a great encomium be taken away from (this) righteous person! When

184

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

οὐ διὰ τὸν φόβον οὐδὲ διὰ δεσποτείαν μόνον, ἀλλὰ [καὶ]1 δι’ αὐτὴν τῶν πραγμάτων τὴν φύσιν.2 Πόσος ὁ ἔπαινος; [Scholion 5.10b] Εἰπέ μοι γάρ, πότε μακαρίζεις τὸν Ἰώβ; ὅτε εἶχε τὰς τοσαύτας καμήλους, καὶ τὰ ποίμνια, καὶ τὰ βουκόλια; ἢ ὅτε ἐκείνην τὴν φωνὴν ἀφῆκεν, “Ὁ κύριος ἔδωκεν, ὁ κύριος ἀφείλατο”; καὶ γὰρ3 ὁ διάβολος διὰ τοῦτο ἡμᾶς ζημιοῖ· οὐχ ἵνα τὰ χρήματα ἡμῶν ἀφέληται— οἶδε γὰρ ὅτι οὐδέν ἐστιν—ἀλλ’ ἵνα διὰ τούτων ἀναγκάσῃ εἰπεῖν τι βλάσφημον. Jas Καὶ τὸ τέλος κυρίου εἴδετε,4 ὅτι πολύσπλαγχνός ἐστι5 καὶ οἰκτίρμων. 5:11bc [Scholion 5.11 to Jas 5:11] Ἐκ γὰρ τῆς ἐκβάσεως τῶν πραγμάτων ἐδείχθη καὶ ἡ τοῦ

διαβόλου συκοφαντία καὶ ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀψευδὴς μαρτυρία. Jas 5:12 Πρὸ πάντων δέ, ἀδελφοί μου, μὴ ὀμνύετε· μήτε τὸν οὐρανόν, μήτε τὴν γῆν, μήτε ἄλλον

τινὰ ὅρκον· ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναί, ναί, καὶ τὸ οὔ, οὔ, ἵνα μὴ εἰς ὑπόκρισιν πέσητε.6 [Scholion 5.12a to Jas 5:12] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· Τί οὖν ἐὰν ἀπαιτῇ τις ὅρκον καὶ ἀνάγκην ἐπάγῃ; Ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ φόβος τῆς ἀνάγκης ἔστω δυνατώτερος· ἐπεὶ εἰ [μέλλεις]7 τοιαύτας8 προβάλλεσθαι προφάσεις9 οὐδὲν φυλάξεις τῶν ἐπιταχθέντων. Καίτοιγε ἐπὶ τῶν νόμων τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων οὐδαμοῦ τοῦτο τολμᾷς προβαλέσθαι οὐδὲ εἰπεῖν, ἀλλ’ ἑκὼν καὶ ἄκων καταδέχῃ τὰ γεγραμμένα. Ἄλλως δὲ οὐδὲ ἀνάγκην ὑποστήσῃ ποτέ· ὁ γὰρ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν μακαρισμῶν ἀκούσας, καὶ τοιοῦτον ἑαυτὸν παρασκευάσας, οἷον ἐπέταξεν ὁ Χριστός, οὐδεμίαν παρ’ οὐδενὸς ὑποστήσεται τοιαύτην ἀνάγκην· αἰδέσιμος ὢν παρὰ πᾶσι καὶ σεμνός. Τί [δέ]10 ἐστι τὸ περιττὸν τοῦ ναὶ, καὶ τοῦ οὔ; ὁ ὅρκος [οὐ]11 τὸ ἐπιορκεῖν· ἐκεῖνο γὰρ οὐδεὶς δεῖται μαθεῖν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστι καὶ [οὐ]12 περιττόν, ἀλλ’ ἐναντίον. Τὸ δὲ περιττὸν καὶ τὸ πλέον ὁ ὅρκος ἐστίν. [Scholion 5.12b] [τοῦ αὐτοῦ·]13Διὰ τοῦτο δὲ τὸ παλαιὸν ὁ ὅρκος νενομοθέτηται· ἵνα μὴ κατ’ εἰδώλων ὀμνύωσιν· “Ὀμεῖσθε γάρ,” φησί, “τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἀληθινόν.” [Scholion 5.13 to Jas 5:12] [τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου Αλεξάνδρειας]·14 Ἔστω ἡ τοῦ βίου ἡμῶν μαρτυρία βεβαιοτέρα ὅρκου. Εἰ δέ τις ἀναιδής, μὴ δυσωπούμενος ὑμῶν τῷ βίῳ, τολμᾷ ὑμῖν ἐπαγαγεῖν ὅρκον· ἔστω ὑμῖν τὸ ναί, ναί, καὶ τὸ οὒ, οὒ, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὅρκου.

1 P, V, R, Chrysostom = καί. O, Cramer omit καί. 2 Chrysostom’s original text supplies εὐχαριστοῦμεν after τὴν φύσιν, which yields a clearer sense, “When such things occur, we give thanks due not to fear nor due to (God’s) sovereign power alone, but [also] due to the very nature of the things themselves.” 3 O, Cramer = καὶ ὁ διάβολος; P, V, R, Chrysostom omit καί. 4 O, P, Cramer = εἴδετε (= na28); Byz = ἴδετε. 5 na28 = ὁ κύριος καὶ οἰκτίρμων; O, P, Cramer omit ὁ κύριος (= Byz). 6 O, P, Cramer = εἰς ὑπόκρισιν πέσητε (= Byz); na28 = ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε. 7 O, P = μέλλεις; Cramer = μέλλει. 8 Cramer = τὰς τοιαύτας; O, P omit τάς. 9 O, V, R, Cramer = προφάσεις; P = προφάσῃς. 10 O, R = τί δέ; Cramer omits δέ; P = τί δαί, V = τὸ δαί. 11 O, P, Chrysostom = ὁ ὅρκος οὐ τὸ ἐπιορκεῖν; Cramer = ὁ ὅρκος οὐκ ἐπὶ τὸ ἐπιορκεῖν. 12 Chrysostom = οὐ περιττόν; O, P, V, R, Cramer omit οὐ, but it is required by the sense of the passage. 13 O, Cramer = unattributed; P, V, R = τοῦ αὐτοῦ. 14 O, Cramer = Κυρίλλου; P, V = τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου Αλεξάνδρειας; R = τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

185

such things occur, (it is) not due to fear nor to (God’s) sovereign power alone, but [also] due to the very nature of the things themselves. How great is the praise? [Scholion 5.10b] Now tell me, When do you call Job blessed? When he had so many camels, and flocks of sheep, and herds of cattle? Or when he expressed that saying, “The Lord gave; the Lord has taken away”? For in fact the devil might harm us through this (wealth). Not so that he might take away our property— for he knows that it is nothing—but that through these things he might force (us) to say something blasphemous. and see the final result brought about by the Lord, because he is very compas- Jas 5:11bc sionate and merciful. [Scholion 5.11 to Jas 5:11] For from the outcome of events both the misrepresentations of the devil and the truthful testimony of God is demonstrated. But above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear, neither by heaven, nor by Jas 5:12 earth, nor by any other oath. But let your “yes” be yes, and your “no” be no, so that you do not fall into hypocrisy. [Scholion 5.12a to Jas 5:12] from Chrysostom: What, then, if someone demands an oath and applies compulsion? Let the fear of God be stronger than compulsion, since, if [you should] bring forward such excuses, you will keep none of what is commanded. Surely, in matters of human laws, you would never dare to propose nor to express this (such excuses), but rather willingly or unwillingly you accept what has been written. Besides, you will never undergo compulsion at all, for the one who has listened to the earlier beatitudes, and who has prepared himself to be such a person as Christ commanded (him to be), will undergo no such compulsion from anyone, since he is respected and honored among all. [What] is the “anything more” beyond a “yes” and a “no”? The oath, [not the] false swearing. For no one needs to learn that the latter (false swearing) is from the evil one, and that it is [not] “anything more,” (than a simple “yes” or “no”) but rather the opposite. The “anything more” and the “what is added on” is the oath (itself). [Scholion 5.12b] [from the same (author)]: The oath was given as a law in ancient times for this (reason): so that they would not swear oaths by (the power of) idols. “For you will swear,” it says, “by the true God” (cf. Isa 65:16). [Scholion 5.13 to Jas 5:12] from [saint Cyril of Alexandria]: Let the testimony of our life be more reliable than an oath. If a shameless person, not restrained by (the testimony) of your life, dares to propose that you swear an oath, let your “yes” be yes, and your “no” be no, instead of (swearing) an oath.

186

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

[Scholion 5.14 to Jas 5:12] Διὰ τοῦτο κωλύει ἡμᾶς ὀμνύναι κατὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ἵνα μὴ δῶμεν τῇ κτίσει τὸ ὑπὲρ κτίσιν ἀξίωμα, θεοποιοῦντες αὐτά· “Οἱ γὰρ ὀμνύντες,” φησί, “κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσιν,” ὡς ὁ ἀπόστολός φησι. [Chapter 6c κεφ. ς´ γ´]·1 Παραινέσεις ἰδικαὶ ἑκάστῳ προσήκουσαι μετὰ πίστεως Jas Κακοπαθεῖ τις ἐν ὑμῖν; προσευχέσθω.2 5:13a [Scholion 5.15 to Jas 5:13] Ἐν θλίψει [διάγει τις; παρακαλείτω] τὸν θεόν.3 Jas Εὐθυμεῖ τις; ψαλλέτω.4 5:13b [Scholion 5.16 to Jas 5:13] Ἐν χαρᾷ διάγει τις; ἀνυμνείτω αὐτόν. Jas Ἀσθενεῖ τις ἐν ὑμῖν; προσκαλεσάσθω τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας, καὶ προσευ5:14–16 ξάσθωσαν ἐπ’ αὐτόν, ἀλείψαντες αὐτὸν ἐλαίῳ5 ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου. Καὶ ἡ εὐχὴ

τῆς πίστεως σώσει6 τὸν κάμνοντα, καὶ ἐγερεῖ αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος· κἂν ἁμαρτίας ᾖ πεποιηκώς, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ. Ἐξομολογεῖσθε οὖν7 ἀλλήλοις τὰ παραπτώματα,8 καὶ εὔχεσθε ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων, ὅπως ἰαθῆτε· πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη. [Scholion 5.17 to Jas 5:16] [Ὅτ’ ἄν ὁ προσευχόμενος καὶ ὑπὲρ οὗ προσεύχεται9 σύμψυχοι ὦσι περὶ10 τοῦ ζητουμένου.]11 [Scholion 5.18 to Jas 5:16] Ἐρώτησις Μαξίμου· “Πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη.” Τί12 ἐστιν [τὸ] ἐνεργουμένη;13 Κατὰ δύο τρόπους ἐνεργουμένην οἶδα τοῦ δικαίου τὴν δέησιν· καθ’ ἕνα μὲν· ὁπόταν μετὰ τῶν [κατ’]14 ἐντολὴν ἔργων τῷ θεῷ τὴν ταύτης [ποιῆται]15 προσαγωγὴν τῆς δεήσεως ὁ εὐχόμενος. Καὶ μὴ μόνον ἐν ψιλῷ λόγῳ [καὶ]16 διακένῳ φωνῆς ἤχῳ τῆς γλώττης ἐκπίπτουσαν, ἀργὴν κεῖσθαι τὴν δέησιν καὶ ἀνυπόστατον, ἀλλ’ ἔνεργον καὶ ζῶσαν τοῖς τρόποις τῶν ἐντολῶν ψυχουμένην· εὐχῆς γὰρ καὶ δεήσεως ὑπόστασις ἡ διὰ τῶν ἀρετῶν ὑπάρχει προδήλως ἐκπλήρωσις, καθ’ ἣν ἰσχυρὰν καὶ πάντα δυναμένην ὁ δίκαιος ἔχει τὴν δέησιν ἐνεργουμένην ταῖς ἐντολαῖς. Καθ’ ἕτερον δὲ τρόπον, ὁπόταν ὁ τῆς εὐχῆς τοῦ δικαίου δεόμενος, τὰ ἔργα τῆς εὐχῆς

1 P = marginal note opposite Jas 5:8; R = Παραινέσεις ἰδικαί as marginal note to Jas 5:12; O, V omit title; Cramer = ch. 10; Euthalian apparatus (von Soden, Schriften, 458) = subheading to ch. 6; Ps.Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (453d) = subheading to ch. 7. 2 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 3 O, Cramer = τὶς διάγει; παρακαλεῖτο; P, R = διάγει τίς; παρακαλείτω. 4 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 5 O = ἀλείψαντες αὐτῷ ἐλαίον; V = ἀλείψαντες ἐλαίῳ; P, R, Cramer = ἀλείψαντες αὐτὸν ἐλαίῳ (= na28 / Byz). 6 O = σώσῃ; P, V, R, Cramer = σώσει (= na28 / Byz). 7 O, P, Cramer = οὖν (= na28); Byz omits οὖν. 8 O, P, Cramer = τὰ παραπτώματα (= Byz); na28 = τὰς ἁμαρτίας. 9 P, Cramer = προσεύχεις; ga 1845 98r = προσεύχεται. 10 P = περί; Cramer (586, note to 38, verse 5:16) = ἐπί. 11 This scholion witnessed only in P; Cramer prints only as a variant (586, note to 38, verse 5:16). 12 O, R, Cramer = Τί; P = Ἐρώτησις τί. V omits this opening question. 13 P, R, Maximus = τὸ ἐνεργουμένη; O, Cramer omit τό. V omits this opening question. 14 O, P = κατ’ ἐντολήν; Cramer = καθ’ ἐντολήν. 15 O, Cramer = ποιῆσαι; P, V, R = ποιῆται. 16 P, V, R Maximus = καί; O, Cramer omit καί.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

187

[Scholion 5.14 to Jas 5:12] This is why he forbids us from swearing by heaven and by earth, lest we give to a created thing the honor that goes beyond created things, making these things gods. The ones who swear, he says, swear by the greater, as the apostle says (cf. Heb 6:16). [Chapter 6c]: Specific exhortations, (given) with faith, appropriate to each person “Is anyone among you suffering? He should pray.” Jas [Scholion 5.15 to Jas 5:13] Is anyone living life in tribulation? [He should call 5:13a upon] God. “Is anyone cheerful? He should sing a song of praise.” Jas [Scholion 5.16 to Jas 5:13] Is anyone living life joyfully? He should praise him 5:13b (God) in song. Is anyone among you sick? The person should call for the elders of the church, Jas and they should pray over the person, anointing her with oil in the name of the 5:14–16 Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise her up. And if the person has committed any sins, it will be forgiven to that person. Confess (your) sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The petition of a righteous person accomplishes much when it is made effective. [Scholion 5.17 to Jas 5:16] [Whenever the one praying and the one for whom he prays are of one mind concerning what is sought.] [Scholion 5.18 to Jas 5:16] Question for Maximus. “The petition of a righteous person accomplishes much when it is made effective” (Jas 5:16c). What does “made effective” mean? I know two ways by which the petition of a righteous person is made effective. In one (way): whenever the one praying makes the offering of this prayer to God together with works done [according to] God’s command. The petition is not merely falling from the tongue through bare speech, an empty sound of voice, to remain unproductive and without substantive existence, but rather as active and living, given life through the ways of the commandments. For the substantive existence of prayer and petition is clearly (their) fulfillment through the virtues, based on which the righteous person possesses a strong and fully capable petition, made effective through (following) the commandments. In the other way: Whenever the one who has need of the prayer of a righteous person accomplishes the actions of the prayer by setting right (his) for-

188

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

[διαπράττεται]1 τόν τε πρότερον διορθούμενος βίον, καὶ τὴν δέησιν ἰσχυρὰν ποιούμενος τοῦ δικαίου διὰ2 τῆς οἰκείας καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς δυναμουμένην· οὐ γὰρ ὄφελος τῆς τοῦ δικαίου δεήσεως τοῦ ταύτης χρήζοντος πλέον τῶν ἀρετῶν ἡδομένου τοῖς πλημμελήμασιν. Ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ μέγας ποτὲ Σαμουὴλ ἐπένθει πλημμελοῦντα τὸν Σαούλ, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἴσχυσε τὸν θεὸν ἱλεώσασθαι, μὴ λαβὼν συλλήπτορα, τοῦ πένθους τὴν καθήκουσαν, τοῦ [πλημμελοῦοντος]3 διόρθωσιν. Διὸ τοῦ ἀνονήτου4 πένθους ὁ θεὸς καταπαύων τὸ ἑαυτοῦ θεράποντά, φησὶ πρὸς αὐτόν· “Ἕως πότε σὺ πενθεῖς ἐπὶ Σαοὺλ; καὶ ἐγὼ ἐξουδένωκα αὐτὸν τοῦ μὴ βασιλεύειν ἐπὶ Ἰσραήλ.” Καὶ πάλιν Ἱερεμίας, ὁ συμπαθέστατος, ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, περὶ τὴν πλάνην μανέντος τῶν δαιμονίων, οὐκ εἰσακούεται προσευχόμενος· οὐκ ἔχων εἰς προσευχῆς δύναμιν τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς πλάνης τῶν ἀθέων Ἰουδαίων ἐπιστροφήν. Ὅθεν, τοῦ διακενῆς προσεύχεσθαι καὶ τοῦτον ἀπάγων ὁ θεός, φησί· “Καὶ σὺ μὴ προσεύχου περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, καὶ μὴ ἀξίου ἐλεηθῆναι αὐτούς· καὶ μὴ εὔχου, καὶ μὴ προσέλθῃς περὶ αὐτῶν· ὅτι οὐκ εἰσακούσομαί σου.” Πολλῆς γὰρ ὄντως ἐστὶν [ἀβελτηρίας],5 ἵνα μὴ λέγω παραφροσύνης, δι’ εὐχῆς δικαίων ἐπιζητεῖν σωτηρίαν τὸν κατὰ διάθεσιν τοῖς ὀλεθρίοις ἡδυνόμενον, κἀκείνων αἰτεῖσθαι συγχώρησιν οἷς ἐγκαυχᾶται, κατ’ ἐνεργείαν προθέσει6 σπιλούμενος. Δέον, μὴ ἀργὴν ἐᾶν γίνεσθαι καὶ ἀκίνητον τοῦ δικαίου τὴν δέησιν, τὸν ταύτης δεόμενον, εἴπερ ἀληθῶς τοῖς πονηροῖς ἀπεχθάνεται, ἀλλ’ ἐνεργὸν ποιεῖν καὶ ἰσχυράν,7 ταῖς οἰκειαῖς ἀρεταῖς πτερουμένην, καὶ φθάνουσαν τὸν συγχώρησιν διδόναι τῶν πλημμεληθέντων δυνάμενον. Εἴτε οὖν ἐκ τοῦ ποιουμένου τὴν δέησιν δικαίου, εἴτε ἐκ τοῦ γίνεσθαι ταύτην αἰτουμένου τὸν δίκαιον ἐνεργουμένη, πολὺ ἰσχύει τοῦ δικαίου ἡ δέησις· ὑπὸ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη, δίδωσιν αὐτῷ παρρησίαν πρὸς τὸν δοῦναι δυνάμενον τὰ τῶν δικαίων αἰτήματα· ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ ταύτης αἰτουμένου τὸν δίκαιον, τῆς προτέρας αὐτὸν μοχθηρίας ἀφίστησι, μεταβάλλουσα πρὸς ἀρετὴν αὐτῷ τὴν διάθεσιν. Jas Ἠλίας ἄνθρωπος ἦν ὁμοιοπαθὴς ἡμῖν, καὶ προσευχῇ προσηύξατο τοῦ μὴ βρέξαι, καὶ 5:17–18 οὐκ ἔβρεξεν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐνιαυτοὺς τρεῖς καὶ μῆνας ἕξ. Καὶ πάλιν προσηύξατο, καὶ ὁ

οὐρανὸς ὑετὸν ἔδωκε, καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐβλάστησε τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς.8 [Scholion 5.19 to Jas 5:17–18] 9 [Ἐν τῇ τρίτῇ τῶν βασιλειῶν φησι· “Καὶ εἶπεν Ἡλίου ὁ προφήτης ἐκ [Θεσβῶν]10 τῆς11 Γαλαὰδ πρὸς Ἀχααάβ· Ζῇ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν δυνά-

1 O, Cramer = διαπράττηται. P, V, R Maximus= διαπράττεται. 2 O, V, R, Cramer = δία. P omits δία. 3 O, Cramer = πλημμελήματος; P, V, R, Maximus = πλημμελοῦοντος. 4 O, V, R, Cramer, Maximus = ἀνονήτου. P = ἀνοήτου. 5 O = ἀβελτηρίας. Cramer (38, note t) corrected to ἀβελτερίας (= Maximus); P, V, R = ἀβελτηρίας. 6 O, V, R, Cramer, Maximus= ἐνεργείαν προθέσει; P = ἐρνεργείαν προσθέσει. 7 O, V, R, Cramer, Maximus = ἰσχυράν; P = εἰσχυράν. 8 O, P, Cramer = na28 / Byz. 9 Cramer mistakenly omits this scholion; it is read in O fol. 193v and P fol. 206r. Cramer notes it as a variant reading in P (586, note to 38, on 5:18). P has a marginal note (βασιλειω) attributing this quotation to the lxx book of Kingdoms. 10 Cramer (586, note to 38, on 5:18) = Θεσβ, but O, P, V, and R = Θεσβῶν. 11 P, V, R, Cramer, 3Kgdms 17:1 lxx = τῆς; Ο = τοῦ.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

189

mer life, and by making the petition of the righteous person strong, empowered through his own good conduct. For there is no benefit from the petition of the righteous person if the one who needs this (petition) is taking pleasure in (his) sins more than in (his) virtues. Even when the great Samuel, at that time, was grieving that Saul was sinning, yet he was not able to propitiate God effectively since he did not receive as a help the correction, corresponding to (his) sorrow, [of the one sinning]. Therefore God, making his own servant desist from the useless sorrow, said to him, “How long will you grieve over Saul? I have indeed nullified his authority to rule over Israel” (1 Kgdms 16:1 lxx). And again, the most compassionate Jeremiah, when he was praying for the people of the Jews, concerning the deception of a people driven mad by demons, was not heard, since he did not have the conversion of the godless Jews from (their) deception to give power to (his) prayer. For this reason, God, directing him also away from praying in vain, says, “Do not pray for this people, and do not ask that they receive mercy; yes, do not pray and do not approach (me) concerning them, because I will not listen to you” (Jer 7:16). For it is truly a very foolish thing, not to say insanity, for the one whose state of mind is to delight in destructive things to seek salvation through the prayer of the righteous, and to ask forgiveness for the very things of which he boasts, after being defiled (by them) through the power of his own free choice. It is necessary, lest the petition of the righteous one become useless and inert, that the one needing this (the petition)—if indeed wicked things are truly hateful to him—make it active and capable, equipped with wings through his own virtues, capable of reaching the one (God) who is able to grant forgiveness of the sins which he has committed. Whether it is made effective, then, by the righteous one making the petition, or by the one asking the righteous one (to make) this (petition), the petition of the righteous person accomplishes much. For when it is made effective by the righteous person, it gives him confidence towards the one who is able to grant the requests of the righteous. (When it is made effective) through the one asking the righteous one for this (petition), it removes the former wickedness from the person, turning his state of mind towards virtue. Elijah was a human, a mortal person like us, and he prayed fervently that it Jas would not rain, and it did not rain upon the earth for three years and six 5:17–18 months. And he prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth produced its fruit. [Scholion 5.19 to Jas 5:17–18] [In the third (book) of Kingdoms, it says, “And Elijah the prophet from Tishbe of Gilead, said to Ahab, ‘As the Lord God of hosts

190

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

μεων, ὁ θεὸς [Ισραηλ],1 ᾧ παρέστην ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, εἰ ἔσται τὰ ἔτη ταῦτα δρόσος καὶ ὑετὸς ὅτι εἰ μὴ διὰ στόματος λόγου μου.”] [Scholion 5.20 to Jas 5:17] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου·2 Ἵνα κἂν οὕτω τῷ λιμῷ τηκόμενοι3 ἐπὶ τὸν δημιουργὸν φθάσωσιν, ἵνα ὁ λιμὸς ὑπόθεσις αὐτοῖς σωτηρίας γένηται. Οὐδὲν γάρ, φθσί, δύναται παιδεῦσαι, εἰ μὴ λιμός, ἵνα [κἂν],4 οὕτω παιδευόμενοι, ἐπὶ τὸν πάντων κτίστην χωρήσωσι. Καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα—Ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ προφήτου, καὶ εὐθὺς ὁ ἀὴρ μετεβλήθη, ὁ οὐρανὸς χαλκοῦς ἐγένετο, οὐ τὴν φύσιν μεταβαλών, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν χαλινώσας· εὐθὺς τὰ στοιχεῖα μετεσχηματίζετο. Ἐνέπεσεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ προφήτου καθάπερ πυρετὸς λάβρος εἰς τὰς λαγόνας τῆς γῆς, καὶ πάντα εὐθὺς ἐξηραίνετο, καὶ πάντα ἠρημοῦτο, καὶ ἠφανίζετο. [Scholion 5.21 to Jas 5:17] Θεοδωρήτου· Τολμηρόν ἐστι τὸ κατὰ τῶν πνευματικῶν ἀνδρῶν λογίζεσθαί τι τὸ παράπαν μὴ καλῶς εἰρημένον. Οὐκ ἀπονοίας τοίνυν οὐδὲ ἐπιδείξεως τὸ εἰρημένον· προφήτης γὰρ ἦν, καὶ προφητῶν ὁ κορυφαῖος, καὶ τῷ θείῳ πυρπολούμενος ζήλῳ. Ταῦτα τοῦ θείου πνεύματος ἐνεργοῦντος εἴρηκεν ὁ προφήτης· ὅθεν καὶ τὸ πέρας εἴληφεν. [Chapter 6d κεφ. ς´ δ´·]5 Ὅτι διακονητέον τῇ τοῦ πλησίον σωτηρίᾳ Jas Ἀδελφοί μου,6 ἐάν τις ἐν ὑμῖν πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ7 τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ [ἐπιστρέ5:19–20 ψει]8 τις αὐτόν, γινωσκέτω ὅτι ὁ ἐπιστρέψας ἁμαρτωλὸν ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ, σώσει

ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκ θανάτου, καὶ καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν. [Scholion 5.22 to Jas 5:19–20] Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· Καὶ πῶς χρὴ ἐπιστρέφειν; Καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν γεωργῶν τὰ σπέρματα, καταβάλλεται μὲν ἅπαξ, οὐ μένει δὲ διαπαντὸς ἀλλὰ πολλῆς δεῖται τῆς κατασκευῆς. Κἂν μὴ τὴν γῆν ἀναμοχλεύσαντες περιστείλωσι τὰ καταβαλλόμενα, τοῖς ὄρνισιν ἔσπειραν καὶ τοῖς σπερμολόγοις ὀρνέοις πᾶσιν. Οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἂν μὴ τῇ συνεχεῖ [μνήμῃ],9 τὰ καταβληθέντα περιστείλωμεν [εἰς τὸν ἀέρα πάντα ἐῤῥίψαμεν]·10 καὶ γὰρ ὁ διάβολος ἐξαρπάζει, καὶ ἡ ἡμετέρα ῥαθυμία ἀπόλλυσι· καὶ ὁ ἥλιος ξηραίνει, καὶ ὑετὸς ἐπικλύζει, καὶ ἄκανθαι πνίγουσι. Ὥστε οὐκ ἀρκεῖ, μόνον ἅπαξ καταβάλλοντα, ἀπηλλάχθαι· ἀλλὰ πολλῆς δεῖται [τῆς]11 προσε1 Cramer (586, note to 38, on verse 5:18) incorrectly reads the abbreviation for Ἰσραήλ (ιη̅λ) in the mss as Ἱηρουσαλήμ. 2 P = Πρὸς ταῦτα οὖν ὁ ἁγίος Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος ἐξηγούμενός φησιν; V = Πρὸς ταῦτα οὖν ὁ ἁγίος Ἰωάννης ὁ τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπος ἐξηγούμενός φησιν; R = τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου. 3 O = τικόμενοι; P, V, R, Cramer, Chrysostom = τηκόμενοι. 4 Cramer misprints κ’ ἂν for κἂν. 5 O, P = scholion with non-numerical symbol (P written in margin) to Jas 5:20; V omits title; R = marginal note to Jas 5:19–20; Cramer = ch. 11; Euthalian apparatus = subheading to ch. 6 (von Soden, Schriften, 458); Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. (453d) = subheading to ch. 7. Cramer (39, line 10; 40, line 7) prints this chapter heading twice. 6 O, P, Cramer = Ἀδελφοί μου (= na28); Byz omits μου. 7 O, P, Cramer = τῆς ὁδοῦ (= ‫ א‬and other witnesses); na28 / Byz omit τῆς ὁδοῦ. 8 O, P, V = ἐπιστρέψει; R, Cramer = ἐπιστρέψῃ (= na28 / Byz). 9 O, P = μνήμῃ; Cramer = μηνήμῃ. 10 P, V, R, Chrysostom = εἰς τὸν ἀέρα πάντα ἐῤῥίψαμεν (V omits τόν); O, Cramer omit εἰς τὸν ἀέρα πάντα ἐῤῥίψαμεν. 11 O, P = τῆς; Cramer omits τῆς.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

191

lives, the God of [Israel], before whom I stand, there will be no dew and rain for these three years, except through the word of my mouth’” (3 Kgdms 17:1 lxx).] [Scholion 5.20 to Jas 5:17] from Chrysostom: So that, when they were wasting away with hunger, they might reach the Creator, so that hunger might be occasion of salvation for them. For nothing, it says, is able to teach (them), except hunger, so that when, after having been disciplined in this way, they might progress towards the creator of all. And after a bit (the text continues)— The word of the prophet came forth, and suddenly the air was changed, the sky became bronze, not by changing its nature, but rather by reining in its active power. Suddenly the elements were transformed. The word of the prophet fell like a fierce, burning fever into the bowels of the earth, and immediately everything began drying up, and everything started to become a desert, and becoming unrecognizable. [Scholion 5.21 to Jas 5:17] from Theodoret: It is overly bold to believe that which (is spoken) by spiritual men is something not completely well said. Now what is said (by the prophet Elijah) is not said out of arrogance nor out of (the desire) to show off. For he was a prophet, in fact the leader of the prophets, and inflamed with divine zeal. The prophet said these things by the working of the divine Spirit: for this reason they also received fulfillment. Chapter 6d: That one must assist with the salvation of (one’s) neighbor My brothers and sisters, if any one among you strays away from the way of the Jas truth, and someone turns this person back, one should know that the person 5:19–20 who turns back a sinner from straying away from his path will save the person’s soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. [Scholion 5.22 to Jas 5:19–20] from Chrysostom: And how should one turn back? Just as in the case of farmers, the seeds are indeed sown once, yet do not remain forever, but require much work. If they do not, after plowing up the soil, cover up the seeds that were sown, they have sown for the hens and for all the scavenging birds. The same applies to us, if we do not, by continuous [reminders], cover up what has been sown, [we have thrown everything into the air]. For indeed the devil snatches away, and our laziness ruins, and the sun dries up, and rain washes away, and thorns choke (the seeds). (cf. Matt 13:1–9 par.) Therefore it is not enough, after having sown seed one time only, to go away. Rather, it requires great diligence: scaring off the birds of the sky, cutting

192

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

δρείας· ἀποσοβοῦν τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τὰς ἀκάνθας ἐκκόπτοντα, τὰ πετρώδη1 γῆς πληροῦντα πολλῆς, πᾶσαν λύμην κωλύοντα καὶ ἀποτειχίζοντα2 καὶ ἀναιροῦντα. Ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς γῆς, τὸ πᾶν τοῦ γεωργοῦ γίνεται· ἄψυχος γὰρ ἐκείνη ὑπόκειται, πρὸς τὸ παθεῖν ἕτοιμος οὖσα μόνον· ἐπὶ δὲ ταύτης τῆς γῆς τῆς πνευματικῆς οὐδαμῶς· οὐ τῶν διδασκάλων ἐστὶ τὸ πᾶν, ἀλλ’ εἰ μὴ τὸ πλέον, τὸ γοῦν ἥμισυ τῶν μαθητῶν. Ἡμῶν μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ [καταβάλειν]3 τὸν σπόρον, ὑμῶν δὲ ποιεῖν τὰ λεγόμενα. [Scholion 5.23 to Jas 5:19–20] Τοιοῦτον τὸ4 ἐν τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ εἰρημένον, φησί, “Καὶ ἐὰν ἐξαγάγῃς τίμιον ἀπὸ ἀναξίου, ὡς στόμα μου [ἔσῃ]·”5 ἐάν, φησί, εἷς τῶν ἀπολλυμένων διὰ τὴν κακίαν εὐτελῶν σωθῇ διὰ τῶν σῶν λόγων, ἔντιμος ἔσῃ διὰ τοῦτο παρ’ ἐμοί. Στόμα [δέ]6 γίνεται θεοῦ πᾶς ὁ τοὺς αὐτοῦ λόγους ἀπαγγέλλων· “Οὐ γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἔστε,” φησί, “οἱ λαλοῦντες, ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ λαλοῦν ἐν ὑμῖν.”7

1 P, V, R, Cramer = πετρώδη; O = πτερώδη. 2 O, V, R, Cramer, Chrysostom = ἀποτειχίζοντα; P = ἀποσχίζοντα. 3 O, Cramer = καταβάλλειν; P, V, R, Chrysostom = καταβάλειν. 4 O, R, Cramer = Τοιοῦτον τό; P, V = Τοιοῦτο τῷ. 5 O, Cramer = ἔσται; P, V, R = ἔσῃ. 6 P, V, R = δέ; O, Cramer omit δέ. 7 Cramer’s text prints Ὅτι διακονητέον τῇ τοῦ πλησίον σωτηρίᾳ here, but this is simply Cramer’s repetition of chapter heading 6d.

ερμηνεια των καθολικων επιστολων ιακωβου επιστολη

193

down thorns, filling up the rocky areas with much soil; preventing, walling off, and removing everything harmful. As far as the soil is concerned, everything depends on the farmer. For that (soil) lies inanimate; it is only ready to be acted upon. But in the case of this spiritual soil, it is not at all the same. Everything does not depend on the teachers, but rather at least half, if not more, depends on the students. It depends on us [to sow] the seed; it depends on you to do what is said. [Scholion 5.23 to Jas 5:19–20] Such (a statement) is said in Jeremiah. It says, “and if you bring out what is precious from what is unworthy, [you will be] as my mouth” (Jer 15:19). It means: if one of those who is lost due to the evil of the worthless is saved through your words, you will be highly honored for this before me. Everyone who is proclaiming his words will become [the mouth] of God. “For it will not be you who are speaking, but rather the spirit of God speaking in you” (Matt 10:20).

Commentary Interpretation: The Greek is ἑρμενεία. See Introduction sect. 2.4. Hypothesis: The hypothesis (ὑπόθεσις), along with the chapter divisions and titles, are elements of the “Euthalian apparatus” attached to CatJas (see Introduction sect. 7). The Greek word ὑπὀθεσις (Latin: argumentum) has a wide range of meanings. In rhetorical, philosophical, or historical works, it refers to the topic or theme under consideration.1 As a more technical literary term, it refers to a summary of a work’s contents or to a scholarly introduction to a work.2 In a Christian context, the Antiochene scriptural commentaries of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia featured hypotheses of scriptural books. Each individual Psalm, for example, is given a hypothesis that focuses especially in setting that Psalm in its historical context.3 In CatCE, each individual book has a hypothesis. Vemund Blomqvist reports that, in the Euthalian materials, the ὑπόθεις of the Catholic letters are structured as follows:4 1. An introductory notice, including information on the letter’s author and its recipients 2. The occasion (Greek: πρόφασις) that led to the writing of the letter. This element is in fact missing for all of the Catholic letters except for 2 John and Jude. 3. A summary of the letter’s contents. This is the main part of the hypothesis. In the case of James, there is a significant overlap between the chapter titles and this section. 4. A notice on the letter’s ending, usually in the form “and thus ends the letter.”

1 Thus Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.27.1 refers to the works “of Candidus On the Hexaemeron and those of Apion on the same subject” (εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν ὑπόθεσιν) (Bardy ed.; Schott, trans., 269). 2 Aristophones of Byzantium, for example, wrote scholarly introductions to the Athenian playwrights; see Markus Dubischar, “Typology of Philological Writings,” in Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, ed. F. Montanari, S. Matthaios, and A. Rengakos, 2 vols., Brill’s Companions in Classical Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 1:573–581. 3 See Christoph Schäublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der Antiochenischen Exegese, Theophaneia 23 (Cologne: Peter Hansein, 1974), 84–94. 4 Blomqvist, Euthalian Traditions: Text, Translation and Commentary, tu 170 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 177. For a critical text of the hypothesis of Euthalian apparatus in James mss, see Hermann von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte. Volume i/1, 2 ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 334.

© Martin C. Albl, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004693098_005

commentary

195

The “introductory notice” to the ὑπόθεσις of James reads, “Because James himself writes this (letter) to those from the twelve tribes who were scattered and who were believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.”5 The introduction to the Euthalian ὑπόθεσις of 1Peter is similar, “Peter himself writes this didactic letter to those Jews in the diaspora who become Christians. For since they, coming from the Jewish people, believed (in Christ), he strengthens them.”6 The ὑπόθεσις to 2 John specifies the occasion (πρόφασις) for the letter: John writes to oppose those who were denying that Jesus had come in the flesh (cf. 2 John 1:7).7 Because James himself: Ernst von Dobschütz has shown that the earliest form of the introduction to the Euthalian ὑπόθεσεις is recorded in the Ps.Athanasian work Synopsis Sacrae Scripturae.8 The text begins, “They (the letters) are named after the writers themselves. For James himself writes this …” (Ἀπ’ αὐτῶν τῶν γραψάντων καὶ αὗται προσαγορεύονται. Αὐτὸς γὰρ [the word ἐπειδή is also used] Ἰάκωβος ταύτην γράφει …).9 At a later stage in the manuscript tradition, the first part of the introduction dropped out, and the text begins abruptly, as in Ps.-Andrew, with ἐπειδή αὐτὸς Ἰάκωβος ταύτην γράφει (“because James himself writes”). According to von Dobschütz, this form is witnessed in the majority of the Euthalian manuscripts. At a third stage, the anomalous ἐπειδή is omitted, and one finds the form as witnessed in the beginning of the ὑπόθεσις to 1 Peter: ταύτην ὁ Πέτρος αὐτός … γράφει.10 Here the author of the hypothesis reflects on why the Catholic Epistles are entitled with the names of their authors (e.g., The Letter of James), likely in an implicit contrast with the Pauline Letters, which are named for their recipients (e.g., the Letter to the Romans). CatJas, with the consensus of the early Christian tradition, identifies James, the author of the Epistle, with James, brother of the Lord, who later became head of the Jerusalem church (cf. Acts 15:13–29; Gal 1:19; 2:9).11 to those from the twelve tribes: Here the hypothesis alludes to Jas 1:1, which describes James as writing “to the twelve tribes in the dispersion” (“diaspora”) (ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ). On the identification of the twelve tribes as Jewish Christians, see the comments on Scholion 1.1. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Cramer, 1, lines 1–3; cf. Blomqvist, Euthalian Traditions, 90. CGPNT 8.41, lines 1–3; cf. Blomqvist, Euthalian Traditions, 91. Cramer, 146, lines 3–7; see Blomqvist, Euthalian Traditions, 94–95. pg 28:283–438. The hypothesis of James: cols. 405–408. See also the text of von Soden (Schriften, 334). pg 28:405d. See von Dobschütz, “Ein Beitrag zur Euthaliusfrage,” Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 10 (1893), 70. See the summary in Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions, 177–178. See, e.g., Origen Comm. Rom. 4.8 (2); Eusebius Hist. eccl. 2.23.25; Jerome Vir. ill. 2; Bede Ep. Cath. pref.

196

commentary

didactic letter: See Introduction sect. 12.1.1. After identifying James as a didactic epistle, the hypothesis lists the major theological teachings of James. The first three listed are: – the distinction between trials – [that it is necessary] to demonstrate faith not by speech alone, but also by action. – not the hearers of the Law, but the rather the doers are justified the distinction between trials (διαφορᾶς πειρασμῶν): Here the hypothesis alludes to the distinction made in James between trials from God (e.g., in Jas 1:2– 4, 12) and trials that arise in people’s own hearts (e.g., Jas 1:13–14). James uses the noun “trials” (πειρασμοί) twice (1:2; 1:12), and the cognate verb (πειράζω) four times (Jas 1:13–14). In 1:2–4 and 1:12, “trials” are understood as a positive “testing” of faith that produces perseverance and, if a person continues to persevere, to ultimate salvation. In contrast, the verb πειράζω in Jas 1:13–14 refers to a negative temptation to sin that James attributes to a person’s own desire. Although James himself does not differentiate explicitly between the πειρασμοί in 1:2–4, 12 and his use of the cognate verb in Jas 1:13–14, the early Christian exegetical tradition on James often did. Thus Bede (Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:13) distinguishes between “temptations which we bear outwardly with the Lord’s assent for the sake of being tested” (permittente domino exterius probandi gratia perpetimur) and “those which we sustain inwardly at the devil’s instigation or even at the persuasive frailty of our nature” (interius instigante diabolo vel etiam naturae nostrae fragilitate suadente toleramus).12 Other early Christian exegetes made similar distinctions (see comments under Schol. 1.11 below). CatJas itself elaborates on this distinction in Sch. 1.5 and Schol. 1.11. And [that it is necessary] to demonstrate faith not by speech alone, but also by action: The hypothesis alludes to the discussion in Jas 2:14–26, esp. 2:18. And not the hearers of the Law, but rather the doers are justified: The CatJas hypothesis rewrites Jas 1:22: Γίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ λόγου καὶ μὴ μόνον ἀκροαταὶ (“Be doers of the word and not hearers only”) to καὶ οὐχ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ τοῦ νόμου, ἀλλ’ οἱ ποιηταὶ δικαιοῦνται· (“and not hearers of the Law, but rather the doers are justified”), substituting νόμος for λόγος and bringing in the concept of justification from Jas 2:21–25.13 Here CatJas notes the close connection between νόμος and λόγος in James, especially as demonstrated in Jas 1:18–25.14 12 13 14

Hurst, ed., 187; Hurst, trans., 13. The textual tradition of Jas 1:22 had already substituted νόμος for λόγος (C2 and some minuscules). On this connection, see esp. Matt A. Jackson-McCabe, Logos and Law in the Letter of James: The Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, and the Law of Freedom, NovTSup 100 (Leiden: Brill, 2001).

commentary

197

He also hands down instructions: The verb παραγγέλλω has the sense of making “an announcement about something that must be done, give orders, command, instruct, direct.”15 It is unclear whether the hypothesis understands the following topics as continuing to fall under the rubric of a “didactic letter,” or whether it considers James to be switching to a more exhortative style. Ps.Libanius Char. ep. 4, for example, lists παραγγελματική as a separate epistolary style.16 should not be treated preferentially over the poor in the churches: In this summary of Jas 2:1–13, Blomqvist notes that the Euthalian tradition avoids James’ use of the Semiticisms προσωπολημψία and προσωπολημπτέω (“favoritism”; “showing favoritism”), instead using the more standard Greek term προκρίνω. The hypothesis also changes James’ συναγωγή (“synagogue” in Jas 2:2) to ἐκκλησία (“church”).17 With such changes, the originally Jewish-Christian milieu of the Epistle of James is transformed to a more contemporary, Hellenistic Christian one. And finally: The hypothesis alludes to the final section of the Letter, corresponding to James 5 in modern editions. The summary alludes to specific pericopae in this chapter: – having comforted those who have been wronged: The hypothesis apparently takes the eschatological condemnation of “the rich” who have unjustly withheld the wages of the agricultural workers (Jas 5:1–6) as a consolation to the community (cf. Jas 2:6). – having exhorted them to be patient until the coming of the Judge (cf. Jas 5:7– 9) – [and having taught (them) about perseverance, and having taught (them) with (the example of) Job the value of perseverance] (cf. Jas 5:11) – he directs (them) to summon the elders to those who are sick (cf. Jas 5:14) – and to be eager to turn back to the truth those who have wandered away, for the reward for this from the Lord is forgiveness of sins. (cf. Jas 5:19–20). having comforted … having exhorted: Using the verb παραμυθέω (“to comfort”), the hypothesis again evokes an epistolary style listed by Ps.-Libanius Char. ep. 4: παραμυθητική.18 “Having exhorted” translates προτρεψάμενος; on the use of the verb προτρέπω in CatJas, see Introduction sect. 12.1.2. Chapter 1: Concerning perseverance, and unwavering faith, and concerning humility, in reference to (the) rich. This chapter title, taken from the 15 16 17 18

bdag, s.v. Foerster, ed., 28; Malherbe, trans., 67. Blomqvist, Euthalian Traditions, 179. Foerster, ed., 28, Malherbe, trans., 67.

198

commentary

Euthalian materials, covers the pericope Jas 1:1–12. “Perseverance” (ὑπομονή) refers especially to James’ discussion in 1:2–4, 12, which teaches that the testing of one’s faith by trials produces perseverance, and that a fully developed perseverance is characteristic of the “perfect” person. “Unwavering faith” signals the admonitions in Jas 1:5–8 to exercise whole-hearted faith, avoiding “doublemindedness.” The last topic refers to the contrast in Jas 1:9–11 between the humble (ὁ ταπεινός) and the rich person (ὁ πλούσιος). After this chapter title, codex V adds ἐκ τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ ἐκ τοῦ περὶ ἐκδόσεως τῆς παλαιᾶς καὶ καινῆς διαθήκης. (“from the Damascene from (his) ‘Concerning the Interpretation of the Old and New Testament’ ”). This is an apparent reference to John Damascene. The reference to a specific work is unclear. Unwavering faith. The adjective ἀδιάκριτος can mean “unwavering, certain in mind,” as is likely the case here. The same adjective is used by James at 3:17 as a descriptor of the “wisdom from above,” where it likely has the alternative sense of “impartial, non-judgmental.” Scholion 1.1a to Jas 1:1 from an unnamed author: The catenist specifies that his first scholion is from an unattributed source: Ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφου. This lemma may signal that the catenist drew this scholion from a prior collection of unattributed scholia, see Introduction sect. 10.4.1. preface: The term προοίμιον refers to the preface of a speech, literary work (including literary letters, such as Seneca’s Moral Epistles), or scientific or historical treatises.19 Προοίμιον can also be equivalent to the Latin exordium (Quintilian Inst. 4.1.1). Cicero (De inv. 20) defines the exordium as “a passage which brings the mind of the auditor into a proper condition to receive the rest of the speech. This will be accomplished if he becomes well-disposed, attentive, and receptive” (benivolum, attentum, docilem).20 One method speakers may employ to secure an auditor’s good will is to “refer to our own acts and services without arrogance” (De inv. 22).21 This relates to Aristotle’s point that the “orator persuades by character (ἦθος) when his speech is delivered in such a manner as to render him worthy of trust” (Rhet. 1.2.4 [1356a]).22 This scholion thus interprets James by drawing on the rhetorical tradition of an author establishing his cred-

19 20 21 22

“Preface” in David E. Aune, The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 367–372. Hubbel, trans., 40–41. Hubbel, trans., 44–45. Freese, Striker, trans., 16–17.

commentary

199

ibility in his preface, albeit in an ironical way by identifying himself as a slave of Jesus Christ.23 being considered worthy of being called a slave of Christ: This passage is similar to Sch. 1.2. Parallels may also be noted in Ps.-Andrew of Crete Laud. 4. Writing at the beginning of the seventh century, Ps.-Andrew explains that instead of identifying himself as an apostle, bishop, or brother of the Lord, James, out of humility, refers to himself simply as a slave of God and Christ.24 Chrysostom (Hom. Eph. 8 to Eph 4:1) makes a similar point concerning Paul’s use of the designation “prisoner of the Lord” in Eph 1:1 (cf. Phlm 9): Paul considered this designation to have far greater dignity than the dignity of consulships, royal power, or any other earthly ruling power.25 apostle of the circumcision: The scholion refers to Gal 2:9, where Paul distinguishes between his apostolate to the Gentiles (εἰς τὰ ἔθνη) and the apostolate of James, Kephas (Peter), and John (the “pillars” of the Jerusalem church) to the Jews (εἰς τὴν περιτομήν: lit.: “to the circumcision”). Bede (Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:1), also referencing Gal 2:9, echoes this comment, “Therefore, because he had been ordained an apostle for the circumcised, he took care both to teach those present from among the circumcised by speaking to them and to encourage, instruct, and rebuke and correct the absent by letter.”26 Bede goes on to identify the “twelve tribes” with Jews living in the diaspora, including those who had been scattered by the persecution following Stephen’s martyrdom (quoting Acts 8:1). In his commentary on James (a source used by CatJas), Didymus of Alexandria (Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:1), remarks, “Rightfully, James, an apostle of the circumcision, writes to those who are from the circumcision, just as Peter, when he was approved as the apostle of the same, writes to Jews established in the dispersion.”27 The hypothesis to 1Peter in CatCE (1 Peter [1:1] is also addressed to 23

24

25

26 27

In identifying the exordium as Jas 1:1, CatJas is at odds with modern rhetorical analyses of James: Wilhelm Wuellner (“Der Jakobusbrief im Licht der Rhetorik und Textpragmatik,” Linguistica Biblica: Interdiziplinäre Zeitschrift für Theologie und Linguistik 43 [1978], 37) identifies 1:2–4 as the exordium; Hubert Frankemölle (“Das sementische Netz des Jakobusbriefes: Zur Einheit eines umstrittenen Brief,” bz 34 [1990], 175) finds it in 1:2–18. Jacques Noret, ed., Ps.-Andrew of Crete. Laudatio Jacobi fratris domini. Un Éloge de Jacques, le frère du Seigneur, Studies and Texts 44 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1978), 44. On the possible identification of Ps.-Andrew with the compiler of CatJas, see Introduction sect. 11.2. Field, Paulinarum, 4:194; npnf1 13:84; cf. Margaret M. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 84–85 n. 115. Hurst, ed., 183; Hurst, trans., 7. Zoepfl, ed., 1.

200

commentary

communities in the dispersion [diaspora]), specifies that Peter writes “to those Jews in the diaspora who became Christians.”28 This widespread early Christian interpretation of James as addressed specifically to Jewish Christians contrasts to a marked trend in recent scholarship to identify James’ audience as consisting of both Jewish and Gentile Christians.29 Scholion 1.1b to Jas 1:1 Armenian CatJas includes Sch. 1.1b as part of the hypothesis.30 The gs witnesses it as a variant reading to Jas 1:1.31 A discussion on the genuineness (γνήσιον) of a writing was a standard element in the grammatical evaluation of any text and was regularly included in the prologues of Greco-Roman commentaries.32 as Eusebius says in the Ecclesiastical History. The reference is to Hist. eccl. 2.23.24–25: “The first of what are called the General (Catholic) Letters is said to be his (οὗ ἡ πρώτη τῶν ὀνομαζομένων καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν εἶναι λέγεται). But it must be noted that its authenticity is doubted, and that not many of the ancients mention it (ἰστέον δὲ ὡς νοθεύεται μέν, οὐ πολλοὶ γοῦν τῶν παλαιῶν αὐτῆς ἐμνημόνευσαν), as is also the case with the letter called ‘of Jude,’ which is also one of the seven letters called General. Nevertheless, we know that these two, along with the rest, are used publicly in most churches” (ὅμως δ’ ἴσμεν καὶ ταύτας μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐν πλείσταις δεδημοσιευμένας ἐκκλησίαις).33 are accepted: The scholion uses the same verb (νοθεύω: “consider inauthentic”) as Eusebius, but then uses another verb (ἐμφερομένας: literally “in circulation”) to describe the current status of the Catholic Epistles in the churches.34 Eusebius uses the verb δεδημοσιευμένας (“used publicly”).35

28 29

30 31 32 33 34 35

Cramer, cgpnt 8:41. Dale C. Allison ( James: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James, icc [London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013], 116) writes, “Perhaps the most prevalent reading today … gives ‘the twelve tribes in the diaspora’ figurative sense and identifies those tribes with Christians, Jew and Gentile, abroad in the world; that is, the church universal is here the new Israel.” Allison himself, however, thinks that the epistle is addressed to a Jewish audience (ibid., 48). Renoux, 70–71. Matthaei, 8–9. Schäublin, Antiochenischen Exegese, 68. Bardy ed.; Schott, trans., 113. pgl, s.v. refers to this passage in Eusebius for the definition, “be accepted as canonical.” See also Eusebius’ further discussion of the canonicity of the Catholic Epistles in Hist. Eccl. 3.25.3. Eusebius himself, despite this qualifying note, cites James as scripture, e.g., quoting Jas 5:13 and attributing it to the “holy apostle” (Comm. Ps. to Ps 56 [pg 23:505]). Cf. also Jerome’s view on the authenticity and canonicity of James (Vir. ill. 2).

commentary

201

It is noteworthy that Ps.-Andrew, compiling CatJas in the early eighth century, incorporates Eusebius’ reference to doubts on the authorship and canonical status of James. Since the time of Eusebius, several authors had in fact continued to remark on the disputed status of the Catholic Epistles: e.g., Amphilocius of Iconium Seleuc. 310–315 (late fourth century), Cosmas Indicopleustes Top. 7.68 (mid-sixth century); their canonical status was especially disputed in the Syrian churches.36 Scholion 1.2 to Jas 1:1 The scholion is apparently taken from Didymus of Alexandria’s Enarratio on the Canonical Epistles on Jas 1:1 (fully extant only in its Latin translation). Although the scholion does not correlate precisely with the Latin translation of Didymus’ Enarratio, it follows the translation’s main outlines. The thought is also closely related to Sch. 1.1a.

CatJas to Jas 1:1 (Cramer, 2, lines 8–12)

Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:1 (Zoepfl, 1)

Ὡς γὰρ οἱ τοῦ κόσμου ἄνθρωποι, ἐν ταῖς συγγραφαῖς τῶν βιωτικῶν συναλλαγμάτων, ἐκ τῶν περὶ αὐτοὺς ἀξιωμάτων χρηματίζειν θέλουσιν, οὕτω καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς τῶν συγγραμμάτων αὐτῶν, δοῦλοι θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ χρηματίζειν ἀξιοῦσιν.

Sicut mortalem gloriam homines appetentes in suis conscriptionibus dignitates, quas putantur habere, praeponunt, ita sancti viri in epistolis, quas scribunt ad ecclesias, principaliter proferunt servos se esse domini Jesu Christi aestimantes hanc appellationem supra regna totius mundi consistere.37

Scholion 1.3 to Jas 1:2 The passage is excerpted from Chrysostom Hom. Phil. 16 (15).5. In the original context of the homily, Chrysostom comments on how affliction binds together all the Christian faithful, whether rich or poor. As often in CatJas, the catenist has chosen a scholion that compares the Christian life with that of an athlete.

36 37

See Jeffrey S. Siker, “The Canonical Status of the Catholic Epistles in the Syriac New Testament,” jts n.s. 38 /2 (1987), 311–340. et = “Just as people, striving after human honor in their writings, emphasize the honors which they are considered to have, so also the holy men, in the epistles which they write

202

commentary

Ps.-Andrew edits Chrysostom’s text to make it more concise, chiefly by omitting several of Chrysostom’s scriptural quotations, as shown in the following comparison. Otherwise he reproduces the quotation accurately.

CatJas to Jas 1:2 (Cramer, 2, lines 15–25)

Chrysostom Hom. Phil. 16 (15).5 to Phil 4:22–23 (Field, Paulinarum, 5:167b–168d)

Δεσμὸς γάρ τις ἐστὶν ἡ θλίψιs ἀρραγής, ἀγαπῆς αὔξησις, κατανύξεως καὶ εὐλαβείας ὑπόθεσις. Ἄκουε γὰρ τοῦ λέγοντος·

Δεσμὸς γάρ τίς ἐστιν ἡ θλῖψις ἀρραγής, ἀγάπης αὔξησις, κατανύξεως καὶ εὐλαβείας ὑπόθεσις. Ἄκουε γὰρ τοῦ Δαυῒδ λέγοντος· [quotations of Ps 118:71; Lam 3:27; Ps 93:12a; Prov 3:11a] “Εἰ προσέρχῃ δουλεύειν κυρίῳ, ἑτοίμασον τὴν ψυχήν σου εἰς πειρασμόν.” Καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς δὲ πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς ἔλεγεν, “Ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ θλῖψιν ἕξετε, ἀλλὰ θαρσεῖτε·” καὶ πάλιν, [quotation of John 16:20ab], καὶ πάλιν, “Στενὴ καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδός.” Ὁρᾷς πανταχοῦ τὴν θλῖψιν ἐπαινουμένην; πανταχοῦ παραλαμβανομένην, ὡς ἀναγκαίαν οὖσαν ἡμῖν; Εἰ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἔξωθεν ἀγῶσιν οὐδεὶς ἂν ταύτης χωρὶς στέφανον λάβοι, εἰ μὴ καὶ πόνοις καὶ σιτίων παραιτήσει καὶ νόμῳ διαίτης καὶ ἀγρυπνίαις καὶ μυρίοις ἑτέροις ἑαυτὸν ὀχυρώσειε, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐνταῦθα.

“Εἰ προσέρχῃ δουλεύειν τῷ κυρίῳ, ἑτοίμασον τὴν ψυχήν σου εἰς πειρασμόν.” Καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς δὲ πάλιν ἔλεγεν· “Ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ θλίψιν ἔχετε· ἀλλὰ θαρσεῖτε” Καὶ πάλιν· “Στενὴ καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδός.” Ὁρᾶς πανταχοῦ τὴν θλίψιν ἐπαινουμένην, πανταχοῦ παραλαμβανομένην ὡς ἀναγκαίαν οὖσαν ἡμῖν. Εἰ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἔξωθεν ἀγῶσιν οὐδεὶς ἂν ταύτης χωρὶς στέφανον λάβοι, εἰ μὴ καὶ πόνοις καὶ σιτίων παρατηρήσει καὶ νόμου διαίτῃ καὶ ἀγρυπνίαις καὶ μυρίοις ἑτέροις ἑαυτὸν ὀχυρώσῃ, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐνταῦθα;

Scholion 1.4 to Jas 1:2–4 The scholion is unattributed in CatJas. The first part of this scholion depends on Didymus’Enarratio on the Catholic Epistles on Jas 1:1, as shown in a comparison with the Latin translation.

to the churches, present themselves above all as servants of the Lord Jesus Christ, judging that this title stands above the kingdoms of the whole world.”

203

commentary

CatJas to Jas 1:1 (Cramer, 2, lines 28–34 to 3, lines 1–2)

Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:2–4 (Zoepfl, 2)

Εἰς τελειότητα οὖν, τὴν κατ’ ἀνδρείαν καὶ καρτερίαν προτρέπων, ἀκολούθως ἀδελφοὺς ὀνομάζει, ἀλλ’ οὐ τέκνα οὐδὲ υἱούς.

Ad perfectionem virilem at patientiam simul invitans consequenter fratres suos appellat et non filios, quibus scribit.38

The CatJas scholion then deviates from Didymus’ Enarratio: CatJas focuses on how trials should be accepted with joy; the Enarratio explains how trials lead to the development of perfect patience and a possession of all virtues. The end of the scholion, however, connects again with the Enarratio with an implicit reference to Rom 5:3b–5a—a text quoted by the Enarratio. The entire scholion, however, is closely paralleled in the ac (Matthai, 183, to Jas 1:2; ga 621 fol. 58r; ga 1842 fol. 76r).

CatJas to Jas 1:2–4 (Cramer, 2, lines 28–3, ac (Matthaei, 183, to Jas 1:2) line 2) Εἰς τελειότητα οὖν τὴν κατ’ ἀνδρείαν καὶ καρτερίαν προτρέπων, ἀκολούθως ἀδελφοὺς ὀνομάζει, ἀλλ’ οὐ τέκνα οὐδὲ υἱούς. Τοσοῦτον δὲ ἀπέχει τὸ συμβουλεύειν αὐτοῖς λυπεῖσθαι διὰ τοὺς πειρασμούς, ὡς καὶ πᾶσαν χαρὰν αὐτοὺς ἡγεῖσθαι πείθειν· ἵνα τὸ ἐναντίον αὐτοὺς λυπῇ τὸ μὴ πειράζεσθαι. Εἰ γὰρ οἱ πειρασμοὶ χαρὰ αὐτοῖς, καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς χαρά, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσα, δηλονότι τὸ μὴ πειράζεσθαι λύπην προσάγει. Καὶ [διατί;] Δοκιμήν, φησίν, ἐργάζεται. Τί δὲἡ δοκιμὴ τοῖς ἔχουσι ποιεῖ; Δηλονότι εἰς ἔργον τέλειον ἄγει.

38

Εἰς τελειοτατην ἀνδρείαν καὶ καρτερίαν προτρέπων, ἀκολούθως ἀδελφοὺς ὀνομάζει, ἀλλ’ οὐ τέκνα οὔτε υἱούς. τοσοῦτον δὲ ἀπέχει τοῦ συμβουλεύειν αὐτοῖς διὰ τοὺς πειρασμούς, ὡς καὶ πᾶσαν χαρὰν αὐτοὺς ἡγεῖσθαι πείθειν, ἵνα τὸ ἐναντίον αὐτοὺς λυπῇ, τὸ μὴ πειράζεσθαι. εἰ γὰρ οἱ πειρασμοὶ χαρὰ αὐτοῖς, καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς χαρὰ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσαν, δηλονότι τὸ μὴ πειράζεσθαι λύπην προσάγει. διατί; ὅτι δοκιμήν φησιν, ἐργάζεται· τί δὲ ἡ δοκιμὴ τοῖς ἔχουσι ποιεῖ; δῆλον, εἰς ἔργον τέλειον ἄγει.

et = “Urging (them) at the same time to both a courageous perfection (maturity) and patience, he appropriately calls those to whom he writes his brothers and not (his) sons.”

204

commentary

Clearly, Sch. 1.4 is not drawing directly on the Enarratio, but rather on a text witnessed in the ac. Exhorting: For the rhetorical use of προτρέπω in CatJas, see Introduction sect. 12.1.2. perfection: The Didymus scholion uses the word τελειότης, drawing on the Greek sense of perfection as fully grown or mature. Didymus thus links James’ reference to the “perfect” or full result (ἔργον τέλειον in Jas 1:4) with James’ greeting (Jas 1:1) that addresses the community as “brothers and sisters,” not children or sons. advising: The Greek term is συμβουλεύω, a term common in deliberative (συμβουλευτικός) rhetoric—one of the three main types of rhetoric identified by Aristotle (Rhet. 1.3.3 [1358b]). Aristotle identifies protreptic (exhortative) speech as a mode of deliberative rhetoric; the scholion uses both verbs. And why [?] He says that it produces a proven character: The Letter of James does not in fact speak of a proven character (δοκιμή) being produced, but rather that testing (δοκίμιον) produces perseverance, and that a mature perseverance forms an aspect of the complete (“perfect” = τέλειος) person. James does express a version of this thought in 1:12, where the one who has persevered through testing is called δόκιμος. The scholion’s vocabulary is likely influenced by the related passage in Rom 5:3b–4, “tribulation produces perseverance (ἡ θλῖψις ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται), and perseverance produces character (δοκιμήν), and character produces hope.” The influence of the Romans passage is strengthened by a comparison with Didymus’ Enarratio on Jas 1:3–4. After the opening passage quoted in CatJas, the Enarratio goes on to define the “perfect work” (Jas 1:3) with perfect patience, and “perfect” or complete persons (τέλειοι, cf. Jas 1:4) with those who possess all virtues. The Enarratio then quotes Rom 5:3– 5, concluding that both James and Paul are making the same point: “It is proven that, in these words of the apostles, there is a difference in words, not in the sense (Verborum enim differentia, non sensum).”39 Bede (Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:3) parallels this interpretation, “What Paul says (quoting Rom 5:3–4), ought not to be considered contradictory to this passage but rather in agreement.”40 Scholion 1.5 to Jas 1:2–4 This lengthy, unattributed scholion is drawn from Maximus the Confessor’s Responses to Thalassios, written between the late 620s and 635. This work uses the literary form of “Questions and Responses” (ἐρωταποκρίσεις) to respond to

39 40

Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:2–4 (Zoepfl, ed., 2). Hurst, ed., 184; Hurst, trans., 9.

commentary

205

questions on difficult passages in Scripture (see Introduction sect. 4.3.1).41 This scholion is taken from Maximus’ response to a question on 1 Pet 1:6 (“In this you rejoice, even if now for a little while you have had to suffer various trials” [ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς]): “How can someone who is grieved by trials be able to rejoice in what grieves him?”42 In his response, Maximus distinguishes between two types of grief (λύπη) which correspond with two types of trial (πειρασμός). This scholion participates in a broad exegetical tradition that distinguished between πειρασμοί that are tο be welcomed as helpful for developing virtues (cf. Jas 1:2–4) and πειρασμοί that are to be avoided as destructive temptations to evil. The Euthalian hypothesis notes that this distinction between trials (διαφορᾶς πειρασμῶν) is a major teaching of James (cf. further comments on Sch. 1.11 below). The catenist lightly edits Maximus’ response for conciseness, but otherwise reproduces it faithfully.

CatJas to Jas 1:3–4 (Cramer, 3, lines 3–16) Maximus the Confessor, Qu. Thal. 58.4 (Laga and Steel, eds., 2:29)

Ὁ κύριος καὶ θεὸς ἡμῶν, πῶς δεῖ προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς οἰκείους διδάσκων μαθητάς, καὶ τὸ κατὰ γνωμὴν εἶδος τῶν πειρασμῶν ἀπέχεσθαι, φάσκειν ἐκέλευε· “Καὶ μὴ [εἰσενέγκῃς] ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν·” τῶν ἡδωνικῶν δηλονότι καὶ γνωμικῶν καὶ ἑκουσίων πειρασμῶν μὴ ἐγκαταλειφθῆναι πεῖραν λαβεῖν·

τὸν δὲ μέγαν Ἰάκωβον, πρὸς τὸ τῶν ἀκουσίων πειρασμῶν εἶδος διδάσκοντα μὴ συστέλλεσθαι τοὺς ὑπὲρ

41

42

Ὅθεν οἶμαι τὸν μὲν κύριον καὶ θεόν, πῶς δεῖ προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς οἰκείους διδάσκοντα μαθητάς, τὸ κατὰ γνώμην εἶδος τῶν πειρασμῶν ἀπεύχεσθαι φάσκειν· καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, τῶν ἡδονικῶν δηλονότι καὶ γνωμικῶν καὶ ἑκουσίων πειρασμῶν μὴ ἐγκαταλειφθῆναι πεῖραν λαβεῖν εὔχεσθαι τοὺς οἰκείους διδάσκοντα μαθητάς, τὸν δὲ μέγαν Ἰάκωβον, τὸν τοῦ κυρίου λεγόμενον ἀδελφόν, πρὸς τὸ τῶν ἀκουσίων πειρασμῶν εἶδος διδάσκοντα μὴ συστέλλεσθαι τοὺς ὑπὲρ

See Maximos Constas, “Introduction,” to St. Maximos the Confessor. On Difficulties in Sacred Scripture: The Responses to Thalassios, trans. M. Constas, fc (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2018), 6. Maximus the Confessor Qu. Thal. 58.1 (Laga and Steel, eds., 2:27; Constans, trans., 402).

206

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 1:3–4 (Cramer, 3, lines 3–16) Maximus the Confessor, Qu. Thal. 58.4 (Laga and Steel, eds., 2:29) ἀληθείας ἀγωνιζομένους, φᾶναι· [quotation of Jas 1:2] δηλονότι τοῖς ἀκουσίοις καὶ παρὰ γνώμην καὶ πόνων ποιητικοῖς πειρασμοῖς. Καὶ δηλοῦσι σαφῶς, ἐκεῖ μὲν ἐπάγων ὁ κύριος· “Ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ,” ἐνταῦθα δὲ, [quotation of Jas 1:3–4]

ἀληθείας ἀγωνιζομένους φάναι· [quotation of Jas 1:2] δηλονότι τοῖς ἀκουσίοις καὶ παρὰ γνώμην καὶ πόνων ποιητικοῖς πειρασμοῖς. Καὶ δηλοῦσι σαφῶς, ἐκεῖ μὲν ἐπάγων ὁ κύριος· ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, ἐνταῦθα δὲ ὁ μέγας Ἰάκωβος· [quotation of Jas 1:3–4]

Scholion 1.6 to Jas 1:4b–5 In 1:4, James explains that the “full effect” (ἔργον τέλειον; lit.: “perfect work”) of perseverance leads to the development of “perfect” and complete (τέλειοι) persons. In the Stoic view, perhaps shared by James, the “perfect” person is one who lacks none of the virtues.43 The scholion then comments that the cause (αἰτίον) of this perfection is the divine wisdom mentioned in 1:6 (cf. Jas 3:7). The scholion uses the adjective “whole” (ὁλόκληρος) from Jas 1:4 in an adverbial sense: “fully able to do the good.” A version of this scholion is witnessed in the ac (Mattaei, 183, to Jas 1:5; ga 621 fol. 58r); it is also witnessed in gs. The reading in CatJas is closer to that of the gs in this instance.

CatJas to Jas 1:4–5 (Cramer, 3, lines 21–23)

Τὸ αἰτίον ἡμῖν λέγει τοῦ τελείου ἔργου·

43

ac (Mattaei, 183, to Jas 1:5)

εἰπων, εἰ δέ τις ὑμῶν λείπεται σοφίας, τὸ ἔργον ἡμῖν τοῦ τελείου εἰσάγει.

gs (Matthaei, 10, to Jas 1:5 = Cod. F [ga 462])

Τὸ αἰτίον ἡμῖν λέγει τοῦ τελείου ἔργου·

E.g., Stobaeus Anth. 2.11g, “every honorable and good man is complete (perfect = τελείος) because he lacks none of the virtues” (Wachsmuth and Hense, eds., 2:98; Inwood and Gerson, trans., 142).

207

commentary (cont.)

CatJas to Jas 1:4–5 (Cramer, 3, lines 21–23)

ac (Mattaei, 183, to Jas 1:5)

gs (Matthaei, 10, to Jas 1:5 = Cod. F [ga 462])

τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν ἡ σοφία ἡ ἄνωθεν, δι’ ἧς ἐνδυναμούμενοι, ὁλόκληρον δυνησόμεθα πρᾶξαι τὸ ἀγαθόν.

τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν ἡ σοφία, ἡ ἄνωθεν, δι’ ἧς ἐνδυναμούμενοι, ὁλόκληρον δυνησόμεθα πρᾶξαι τὸ ἀγαθόν.

τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν ἡ σοφία ἡ ἄνωθεν, δι’ ἧς ἐνδυναμούμενοι, ὁλόκληρον δυνησόμεθα πρᾶξαι τὸ ἀγαθόν.

Scholion 1.7 to Jas 1:6–7 The ac witnesses a version of this scholion, lacking the last line.44

CatJas to Jas 1:6–7 (Cramer, 3, lines 28–32)

Cyril of Alexandria Comm. Luc. to Luke 18:1 (Reuss, ed., LukasKommentare, 183).

Ὑβριστὴς γὰρ ὁμολογουμένως ὁ διακρινόμενος. Εἰ γὰρ μὴ πεπίστευκας ὅτι τὴν σὴν αἴτησιν ἀποπεραίνει, μηδὲ [προσέλθῃς] ὅλως, ἵνα μὴ κατήγορος εὑρεθῇς τοῦ πάντα ἰσχύοντος διψυχήσας ἀβουλήτως. Χρὴ τοιγαροῦν τὴν οὕτως αἰσχρὰν παραιτεῖσθαι νόσον.

ὑβριστὴς γὰρ ὁμολογουμένως ὁ διακρινόμενος· εἰ γὰρ μὴ πεπίστευκας ὅτι τὴν σὴν αἴτησιν ἀποπεραίνει, μηδὲ προσέλθῃς ὅλως, ἵνα μὴ κατήγορος εὑρεθῇς τοῦ πάντα ἰσχύοντος διψυχήσας ἀβούλως. χρὴ τοιγαροῦν τὴν οὕτως αἰσχρὰν παραιτεῖσθαι νόσον.

ac (Matthaei, 183–184, to Jas 1:6)

ὁ διακρινόμενός, φησίν, ὑβριστὴς ὁμολογουμένως ἔστιν. εἰ γὰρ μὴ πεπίστευκας, ὅτι τὴν σὴν αἴτησιν ἀποπεραίνει, μηδὲ προσῆλθες ὅλως, ἵνα μὴ κατήγορος εὑρεθεὶς τοῦ πάντα ἰσχύοντος, διψυχήσας ἀβουλήτως.

The scholion is taken from Cyril’s Commentary on Luke; the original Greek is extant only in catenae. Cyril’s “commentary” is in fact composed of a series of 44

Matthaei, 183–184, to Jas 1:6; ga 621 fol. 58r. Matthaei’s Cod. F [ga 462] does witness this last line.

208

commentary

homilies on Luke, largely preserved in Syriac.45 The specific context is Cyril’s Homily 119 on Luke 18:1–8, Jesus’ parable of the persistent widow and the judge. The quoted passage follows Cyril’s direct quotation of Jas 1:6–7, which Cyril uses to show that prayer must be accompanied with a belief that God is able to accomplish all things. Scholion 1.8 to Jas 1:8 This is the only scholion taken from The Shepherd of Hermas in CatCE.46 Scholars often note the close literary relationship between the Letter of James and certain passages of the Shepherd.47 Especially striking is the use of the terms διψυχία (used in Jas 1:8 and 4:8) and διψυχέω in the Shepherd.48 The scholion is drawn from an extensive discussion of διψυχία in Herm. Mand. 9. The scholion, likely dating to the final redaction of CatJas by Ps.-Andrew, follows its source closely.

CatJas to Jas 4b–5 (Cramer, 4, lines 7–15) Herm. Mand. 9.1–3 (Ehrman, ed., 2:274) Ἆρον σεαυτοῦ τὴν διψυχίαν καὶ μηδὲν ὅλως διψυχήσῃς αἰτήσασθαι [τι] παρὰ [τοῦ θεοῦ λέγων ἐν σεαυτῷ ὅτι πῶς δύναμαι αἰτήσασθαί τι παρὰ] τοῦ κυρίου καὶ λαβεῖν, ἡμαρτηκὼς τοσαῦτα εἰς αὐτόν; Μὴ διαλογίζου ταῦτα, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας σου ἐπίστρεψον ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον, καὶ αἰτοῦ παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἀδιστάκτως, καὶ γνώσῃ τὴνπολυσπλαγχνίαν αὐτοῦ, ὅτι οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλείπῃ· ἀλλὰ τὸ αἴτημα τῆς ψυχῆς σου πληροφορήσει. Οὐκ ἔστι γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὡς οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ μνησικακοῦντες [ἀλληλοις], ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς ἀμνησίκακός ἐστι καὶ σπλαγχνίζεται ἐπὶ τὴν ποίησιν αὐτοῦ.

45 46 47

48

Ἆρον ἀπὸ σεαυτοῦ τὴν διψυχίαν καὶ μηδὲν ὅλως διψυχήσῃς αἰτήσασθαί τι παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, λέγων ἐν σεαυτῷ ὅτι πῶς δύναμαι αἰτήσασθαι παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ λαβεῖν, ἡμαρτηκὼς τοσαῦτα εἰς αὐτόν; μὴ διαλογίζου ταῦτα, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου ἐπίστρεψον ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον, καὶ αἰτοῦ παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἀδιστάκτως, καὶ γνώσῃ τὴν πολυσπλαγχνίαν αὐτοῦ, ὅτι οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπῃ, ἀλλὰ τὸ αἴτημα τῆς ψυχῆς σου πληροφορήσει. οὐκ ἔστι γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὡς οἱ ἄνθρωποι μνησικακοῦντες, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς ἀμνησίκακός ἐστιν καὶ σπλαγχνίζεται ἐπὶ τὴν ποίησιν αὐτοῦ.

See Reuss, Lukas-Kommentare, xxv; Syriac. See Staab, 307. E.g., Luke Timothy Johnson finds it “virtually certain” that the Shepherd depends literarily on James (The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ab 37A, [New York: Doubleday, 1995], 79); Allison ( James, 20–23) finds the evidence inconclusive. The terms are used extensively throughout all three major sections of the Shepherd: See

commentary

209

The Shepherd’s interpretation of διψθχέω has a close parallel in Bede’s (Ep. Cath.) commentary on Jas 1:6, “Anyone who hesitates (haesitat) about attaining heavenly rewards because his consciousness of sin pricks him (mordente se conscientia peccati) easily loses his faith when attacked by temptations.”49 Other early Christians (e.g., John Cassian Inst. 7.15.2, Athanasius Decr. 2.4), however, understand James to refer to a lack of commitment, See also the use of διψυχέω in other Apostolic Fathers: 1Clem. 19.2; 23.2; 2 Clem. 11.5; Did. 4.4; Barn. 19.5. Scholion 1.9 to Jas 1:12 The scholion is partially witnessed in the ac, beginning with μακάριον εἶναι λέγων until the end of the scholion.50 from Chrysostom: Codices O, P, and V falsely attribute the scholion to Chrysostom. This may be due to a scribal habit noted by catena scholar Hans Lietzmann: when an author lemma was lost, copyists of Gospel catenae would at times guess that the missing author was Chrysostom, since Chrysostom was by far the most popular source for scholia.51 The text of this scholion is in fact drawn from a version of Didymus of Alexandria Enarratio on the Catholic Epistles, as shown by a comparison with the Latin translation of the Enarratio.

CatJas to Jas 1:12 (Cramer, 4, lines 19–32)

Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:12 (Zoepfl, 2–4)

Αὐτάρκως προτρεψάμενος ὑφίστασθαι τοὺς πειρασμοὺς μετὰ χαρᾶς ἵνα ἐγγένηται δόκιμον ἔργον καὶ ὑπομονὴ τελεία· τελειοῦται δὲ ταῦτα καθ’ ἑαυτά, καὶ μὴ δι’[ἄλλου] πραττόμενα·

Dum sufficienter invitasset cum gaudio sustinendas esse temptationes, ut opus probabile et perfecta patientia teneatur —quae perficiuntur propter se, non propter quidquam aliud—,

δι’ ἑτέρας παραινέσεως πείθειν ἐπιχειρεῖ κατορθοῦν τὰ προκείμενα· δι’ ἐπαγγελίαν μακάριον εἶναι λέγων τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑπομένοντα.

per alteram monitionem suadere contendit promissionibus, ut praesentia corrigantur, beatum esse dicens, qui temptationem suffert.

49 50 51

Herm. Vis. 2.2.4–7; 3.2.2.; 3.3.4; 3.7.1; 3.10.9; 3.11.2; 4.1.; 4.2.4; 6.1.2; Herm. Mand. 9; 10.1–2; 10.2.2–4; Herm. Sim. 6.1.2; 8.8.3–5; 8.9.4; 8.10.2; 8.11.3; 9.18.3. Hurst, ed., 185; Hurst, trans., 10. Matthaei, 184, to Jas 1:12; ga 621 fol. 58r. Lietzmann, Catenen: Teilungen über ihre Geschichte und Handschriftlich Überlieferung (Freiburg: Mohr-Siebeck, 1897), 13–14. Lietzmann’s comment applies especially to the Constantinopolitan era of catena production.

210

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 1:12 (Cramer, 4, lines 19–32)

Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:12 (Zoepfl, 2–4)

γενήσεται γὰρ [ὁ] οὕτως ἀθλητικῶς ἄγων τὸν ἀγῶνα δόκιμος ἀνὴρ διὰ πάντων γεγυμνασμένος·

Fiet, inquit, quisquis fortiter certamen exceperit, vir perfectus et in cunctis exercitatus:

οὕτω δὲ ἀναφανέντι ἐκ τῶν σκυθρωπῶν δοθήσεται στέφανος ζωῆς εὐτρεπισθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀγαπῶσιν·

qui vero talis apparuerit post tristitiam, merebitur ad praemium vitae coronam a deo eum diligentibus praeparatum.52 [The Enarratio continues with a teaching that those who possess different virtues will be rewarded with different types of crowns, citing examples from Scripture; e.g., “a crown of righteousness”: 2Tim 4:8; “the crown of glory that never fades away”: 1 Pet 5:4.]

οὕτως ὁ τῷ ὑπομένειν πειρασμόν, καταφρονῶν ἐπιπόνων καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ θανάτου, στέφανον τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς ἀπολήψεται.

ita et qui sustinere temptationem non despicit insistens etiam ipsi morti, coronam aeternae vitae percipiet,

[ἀνθ´ ἧς κατεφρόνησε προσκαίρον ζωῆς·]53

pro qua temporalia bona contempsit.

Ζητεῖς τίς· “Ἡ ὕλη οὗ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς στεφάνου ζωῆς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν;” Ἔστιν “ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτὸν,”

Quaerendum est, si materia coronae vitae, quam praeparavit deus diligentibus se, ea sunt,

52

53

ετ = “Now, having sufficiently urged (his readers) that trials should be endured with joy, so that an acceptable work and perfect perseverance may result—they are perfected through themselves, not through any other thing—he (James) strives, through another admonition, through the promises, to persuade (them), so that the present (trials) will be compensated, saying that the one who endures trials is blessed. Whoever, he says, will keep up the contest bravely, will be a perfect man, trained by all (these trials). The one who truly will have shown himself to be such a person after (experiencing) sadness, will be worthy of a prize: the crown of life prepared by God for those who love him.” This text is lacking in O, P, V and Cramer, but is found in the ac (Matthaei, 184 and ga 1842 [fol. 76v]).

211

commentary (cont.)

CatJas to Jas 1:12 (Cramer, 4, lines 19–32)

Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:12 (Zoepfl, 2–4)

ἃ διὰ μέγεθος θειότητος, ὄψει καὶ ἀκοῇ οὐχ ὑπόκειται, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ [ψιλῇ νοήσει] ἀνθρώπου ἀναβέβηκεν.

quae scilicet propter magnitudinem majestatis aspectui et auditui nequeunt subdi nec ad purum intellectum hominis cuiuslibet admitti.54

Having exhorted: The scholion links James’ exhortation in 1:2–4 with his exhortation in 1:12, a link often made by modern scholars.55 On the use of the verb προτρέπω here, see Introduction sect. 12.1.2. these things are completed in themselves: This is a brief philosophical aside, perhaps alluding to the Aristotelian teaching on the ways in which a thing or action is “perfect” in itself (cf. Metaph. 1021b: τὰ μὲν οὖν καθ’ αὑτὰ λεγόμενα τέλεια).56 word of encouragement: This translates the Greek παραίνεσις; see Introduction sect. 12.1.3. “that which God prepared for those who love him”: The scholion rewrites and rearranges the passage in 1Cor 2:9 in a more philosophical mode.

CatJas to Jas 1:12 (Cramer, 4, lines 30–32)

1Cor 2:9 (na28)

“ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν,” ἃ, διὰ μέγεθος θειότητος,

9d: ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν

ὄψει καὶ ἀκοῇ οὐχ ὑπόκειται,

9b: ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν

οὐδὲ ἐπὶ [ψιλῇ νοήσει] ἀνθρώπου ἀναβέβηκεν

9c: καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτὸν

54

55 56

et = “thus also the one who does not turn away from enduring trials, persisting, even (in the face of) death itself, receives the crown of eternal life, for the sake of which he has despised temporal goods. One should inquire whether the material of the crown of life, which God prepared for those who love him, is that which God prepared for those who love him, that is to say, that which, due to the greatness of (his) majesty, is unable to be subjected to sight or hearing, nor can enter into the natural understanding of any human.” E.g., Allison, James, 225. Tredennick, trans., 266.

212

commentary

This response is in keeping with the nature of the rhetorical question, itself a philosophical one, “What is the material (ἡ ὕλη) from which God prepared the crown of life?” The scholion answers by first directly quoting Paul (1 Cor 2:9d), but then transforming Paul’s, “what eye has not seen, nor ear heard,” into a more philosophical statement about the inscrutability of the divine nature. In addition, the scholion’s rendering is more Greek: Scholars have analyzed Paul’s “nor the human heart conceived” (lit.: “not arisen in a human’s heart”) as a Semiticism (rendering ‫;)עלה על לב‬57 the scholion “Hellenizes” the Semitism, replacing Paul’s καρδίαν with νόησιν. Chapter 1a: Concerning the fiery testing: The first part of the Euthalian title refers to Jas 1:13–15, where James insists that the source of tests and temptations is each person’s own desire (ἐπιθυμία), not God. For if (there is) anything good: This second part of the title, insisting that all good things are from God, summarizes Jas 1:17 and perhaps suggests that the “word of truth” in 1:18 is one of the good gifts of God. fiery testing: The chapter title uses not James’ usual word for “trial” or “testing” (πειρασμός), but rather πύρωσις, a word connected with trials in 1 Pet 4:12: “the fiery ordeal that is taking place among you to test you” (τῇ ἐν ὑμῖν πυρώσει πρὸς πειρασμόν). Scholion 1.10 to Jas 1:13 In O (fol. 179v) the word ἁμαρτίαν is linked with a non-numerical symbol to the phrase “let no one who is being tested (tempted)” (see Introduction sect. 2.3.3). The word is a fragment of an original gloss witnessed in the gs to Jas 1:13 (ga 1845 fol. 94v): εἰς ἁμαρτίαν (“to sin”), i.e., “let no one who is being tempted to sin say ….”58 The gloss thus distinguishes this sinful πειράζω from the πειρασμοί that are to be welcomed with joy (Jas 1:2–4). Cramer’s note on this gloss indicates that he was unable to make sense of the reading; he remarks that there is no indication of a lacuna in the manuscripts: nullo lacunae indicio.59 Scholion 1.11 to Jas 1:1360 A version of this scholion is witnessed in the ac.61 The text is unattributed in O (f. 179v) but attributed in P (f. 192v) and V (f. 231v) to Origen (lacuna in R). As

57 58 59 60 61

See bdag, s.v. ἀναβαίνω. See also the gloss printed in Matthaei, 12: εἰς ἁμαρτίαν δηλονότι. See also Staab, 343. Cramer, 5, note f. See also the discussion of this text in the Introduction sect. 9.5.2.4. Matthaei, 184; ga 621 fols. 58r–58v.

commentary

213

evident from the discussion below, the scholion likely does derive ultimately from Origen. God does not tempt (people to do) evil things: Most modern exegetes take the phrase ὁ θεὸς ἀπείραστός ἐστι κακῶν (Jas 1:13b) in a passive sense: God cannot be tested or tempted by evil. The scholion takes ἀπείραστός in an active sense: God does not tempt people to do evil. This exegetical decision is followed in the Latin tradition; cf. the Vulgate’s Deus enim intemptator malorum est and Bede Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:13.62 Earlier scholarship attributed the scholion to Dionysius of Alexandria; Charles Feltoe printed Cramer’s text in his edition of Dionysius’ works, suggesting that the passage may have been taken from Dionysius’ work on temptations (Περὶ πειρασμῶν) mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 7.26.2).63 Feltoe also notes a scholion to Luke 22:46, attributed to Dionysius in catena traditions, that is quite similar to Sch. 1.11. This scholion attributed to Dionysius also quotes Jas 1:13 in contrasting temptations that come from God with temptations that come from the devil. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ πονηρὸς πειράζων εἰς τοὺς πειρασμοὺς καθέλκει, οἷα πειραστὴς κακῶν, ὁ δὲ θεὸς πειράζων τοὺς πειρασμοὺς παραφέρει ὡς ἀπείραστος κακῶν· ὁ γὰρ θεός, φησίν, ἀπείραστος κακῶν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ διαβόλος έπ’ ὄλεθρον ἕλκων βιάζεται, ὁ δὲ θεὸς έπὶ σωτηρίαν γυμνάζων χειραγωτεῖ.64 Feltoe, however, cautions that the attribution of this passage (along with the other exegetical comments on Luke 22 collected with it) to Dionysius remains “very doubtful.”65 Other evidence points to Origen as the ultimate source of this scholion. The Armenian translation attributes the text to him,66 as does a version found in the Palestinian catena traditions to the Octateuch. 62 63

64

65 66

Hurst, ed., 187; Hurst, trans., 14. Feltoe, ed., The Letters and Other Remains of Dionysius of Alexandria, Cambridge Patristic Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904), 252. On the earlier attribution of the scholion to Dionysius by Harnack and others, see Marcel Richard, “Un scolie d’Origène indûment attribuée à Denys d’Alexandrie,” rhr 33 (1937): 44–46. Richard shows that Feltoe’s assumption that Cramer attributed it to Dionysius is likely due to a printer’s error. Feltoe, Dionysius of Alexandria, 247–248. et = “When the evil one tests, he drags (people) down into temptations: in other words, he is a tempter towards evil things. When God tests, he takes away temptations [cf. the use of the same verb παραφέρω in Luke 22:42], as one who is not a tempter towards evil things. For God, he (James) says, it not a tempter towards evil things. The devil uses force, dragging (people) to destruction, but God guides us by training us for salvation.” Feltoe took this text from a collection of catena fragments attributed to Dionysius printed in pg 10:1596a. Feltoe, Dionysius of Alexandria, 229–231, quotation from 230. Renoux, 45, 80–81.

214

commentary

CatJas to Jas 1:13 (Cramer, 5, lines 7–13)

Cat. Exod. to Exod 15:25 (Petit, Chaîne sur l’Exode, Edition intégrale 4:7)

[Ὅτε] ὁ θεὸς πειράζων ἐπ’ ὠφελείᾳ πειράζει, οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ κακοποιῆσαι. Διὸ καὶ ἐλέχθη ὅτι “ὁ θεὸς ἀπείραστός ἐστι κακῶν,”

Ὅτε ὁ θεὸς πειράζει, ἐπ’ ὠφελείᾳ πειράζει, οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ κακοποιῆσαι. Διὸ καὶ ἐλέχθη ὅτι Ὁ θεὸς ἀπείραστός ἐστι κακῶν,

[τουτέστι διὰ τοῦτο πειράζει, ἵνα τύχωσι τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ ἀπαλλαγῶσι κακῶν.] Καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα·

ὡς καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα ἐπάγει ὁ λόγος λέγων· Ἐὰν ἀκοῇ ἀκούσῃς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου, πᾶσαν νόσον ἣν ἐπήγαγον τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις οὐκ ἐπάξω ἐπὶ σέ (edited version of Exod 15:26)

Ὁ οὖν φέρων τοὺς πειρασμοὺς γενναίως στεφανοῦται. Ἄλλο δέ ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοῦ διαβόλυ· ἐκεῖνος γὰρ πειράζει, ἵνα τοὺς πειθομένους αὐτῷ θανατώσῃ·

Ὁ οὖν φέρων τοὺς πειρασμοὺς γενναίως, στεφανοῦται. Ἄλλο δέ ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοῦ διαβόλου· ἐκεῖνος πειράζει ἵνα τοὺς πειθομένους αὐτῷ θανατώσῃ.

καὶ ὁ μὲν ἀγνοῶν τὸ ἐσόμενον, ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἰδὼς μὲν τὸ ἐσόμενον, πλὴν διδοὺς τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ πράττειν ὃ θέλει διὰ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον.

Καὶ ὁ μὲν ἀγνοῶν τὸ ἐσόμενον, ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἰδὼς μὲν τὸ ἐσόμενον, πλὴν διδοὺς τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ πράττειν ὃ θέλει διὰ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον.

In addition to this external evidence, Staab finds the thought of the scholion itself similar to Origen’s reflection in Princ. 3.2, noting that τὸ αὐτεξούσιον is a favorite word of Origen for expressing human free will.67 The evidence suggests strongly, then, that Sch. 1.11 was originally drawn from the exegetical work of Origen.68 67 68

Staab, 312. Staab further notes that Cod. Patmos 263 fol. 11 attributes the scholion to Origen; see Staab, 342 for text. Cf. also the scholion in Matthaei, 12, to Jas 1:13. In addition to Rufinus’ Latin translation of Origen’s homilies on Exodus and the exegetical work collected in the Philocalia, it is reported that Origen wrote scholia on Exodus. See Rowan Williams, “Origenes / Origenismus,” tre 25 (1995), 404; see also cpg-1413. See also versions of this scholion in other catena traditions: Origen Selecta in Exodum on Exod 15:25 (pg 12: 288d–289a) and a shorter version in pg 17:16. See also Robert Devreesse, Les anciens

commentary

215

As noted, the distinction between two types of trial is a central concern in CatJas.69 This same distinction occurs often in early Christian interpretation of James. Thus Bede Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:13 comments, “ ‘for he himself tempts no one,’ with that temptation, namely, which deceives the unfortunate into sinning. For there is a twofold kind of temptation, one which deceives, the other which tests (Duplex enim genus temptationis, unum quod decepit, aliud quod probat). According to that which deceives, God tempts no one; according to that which tests, God tempted Abraham (Gen 22:1); about that too, the prophet begs, ‘Test me, Lord, and tempt me’” (Ps 25:2 Vg.).70 Augustine (Serm. 57.9) similarly refers to Jas 1:13–15 in distinguishing between a bad temptation (tentatio mala) and a temptation that is a test (probatio).71 Augustine applies this distinction to the interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer, “lead us not into temptation” (Matt 6:13; Luke 11:4;): in this petition, the Lord refers to the bad temptations identified in Jas 1:13–15.72 And after a bit: Καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα. The catenist signals that he is skipping over some material in the quotation of his source. Scholion 1.12 to Jas 1:14 For harm. For he tested Abraham: O (fol. 179v) links this scholion to Jas 1:14 with a non-numerical symbol (see Introduction 2.3.3). It thus contrasts the harmful testing (temptation: πειρασμός) by one’s own desire with the beneficial testing with which God tested Abraham. The gloss is witnessed in the gs (ga 1845 fol. 94v).73 Scholion 1.13 to Jas 1:14 A version of this scholion is witnessed in the ac,74 where it is combined with a version of the following scholion in CatJas (Sch. 1.14 from Chrysostom).

69 70 71

72

73 74

commentateurs grecs de l’Octateuque et des Rois (Fragments tires des chaînes), StT 201 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1959), 43. The authenticity of the scholion is also supported by Richard (“Scolie d’Origène”) and Wolfgang A. Bienert (Dionysius von Alexandrien. Zur Frage des Origenismus im dritten Jahrhundert, pts 21 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978], 60–61). See comments on the CatJas Hypothesis (“distinction between trials”) and Sch. 1.5. Hurst, ed., 187; Hurst, trans., 14. P.-P. Verbraken, ed., ccsl 41Aa, 185–187; Hill, trans., wsa 3/3, 113–114. Augustine makes this distinction often: Serm. 71.15; Tract. Ev. Jo. 43:5–6; Ep. 162.7; Persev. 12; Cons. 2.30.71. See also Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:2 (cols. 456–457). See also reference to Jas 1 in the exegetical comments of John Cassian (Coll. 9.23.1–2; Petschenig, ed., 217–272) and Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem (Myst. 5.17; Piédagnel, ed., 164–166; McCauley and Stephenson, trans., 201–202) on the interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer. See also Staab, 343. Matthaei, 184–185, to Jas 1:14; ga 621 fol. 58v.

216

commentary

from Severus: The Armenian translation provides a fuller author lemma, “From Severus, archbishop of Antioch, on Psalm 50 [:7], ‘She conceived me in iniquity and in sin.’”75 This scholion is drawn from Severus’ polemic, Against the Additions of Julian, a work preserved completely only in Syriac.76 In the original context, Severus is citing several scripture passages that refer to human sinfulness from birth. The original Greek of this scholion has also been preserved in a Palestinian catena to the Psalms.77 The two versions differ only slightly from one another.

CatJas to Jas 1:14 (Cramer, 5, lines 17–28) Palestinian Cat. Pss to Ps 50:7 (Dorival, “Nouveaux fragments,” 109) Τινὲς δὲ τὸ προκείμενον ῥητὸν [οὕτως] ἐπειράθησαν [ἐξηγήσασθαι], φήσαντες, αὐτὴν τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀνομιῶν μητέρα καλεῖν τὸν Δαυίδ. Ἥτις διὰ τῆς ἀτοπωτάτης ὀρέξεως οἱονεὶ [συλλαβοῦσα] καὶ κύουσα, τὴν πρᾶξιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀποτίκτει καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν ἁμαρτωλὸν [τὸν] ταύτην ἐνεργοῦντα καὶ πράττοντα, καὶ πέρας τῶν τοιούτων ὠδίνων ποιεῖται· τοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντος τὸν θάνατον. Οὕτως γὰρ ἐπιστέλλων Ἰάκωβος ἔφησεν, εἷς [τῶν Χριστοῦ σοφῶν μαθητῶν·] “Ἕκαστος δὲ πειράζεται ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἐξελκόμενος καὶ δελεαζόμενος· εἶτα ἡ ἐπιθυμία συλλαβοῦσα, τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν· ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία [ἀποτελεσθεῖσα] ἀποκύει θάνατον·” ὑπὸ ταύτης οὖν τῆς ἐπιθυμίας κεκισσῆσθαι καὶ συνειλῆφθαι καθὰ δὴ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν μητρὸς ἔφησεν ὁ Δαυίδ.

75 76 77

Τινὲς δὲ καὶ ἑτέρως τὸ προκείμενον ῥητὸν ἐπειράθησαν ἐξηγήσασθαι, φήσαντες, αὐτὴν τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀνομιῶν μητέρα καλεῖν τὸν Δαυίδ, ἥτις διὰ τῆς ἀτοπωτάτης ὀρέξεως οἱονεὶ συλλαβοῦσα καὶ κύουσα τὴν πρᾶξιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀποτίκτει, καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν ἁμαρτωλὸν τὸν ταύτην ἐνεργοῦντα καὶ πράττοντα καὶ πέρας τῶν τοιούτων ὠδίνων ποιεῖται τοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντος τὸν θάνατον· οὕτω γὰρ ἐπιστέλλων Ἰάκωβος ἔφησεν, “ἕκαστος δὲ πειράζεται, ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἐξελκόμενος καὶ δελεαζόμενος, εἶτα ἡ ἐπιθυμία συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν, ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖσα ἀποκύει θάνατον·” ὑπὸ ταύτης οὖν τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ κεκισσῆσθαι καὶ συνειλῆφθαι καθὰ δὴ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν μητρὸς ἔφησεν ὁ Δαυίδ.

Renoux, 46, 82–83. Robert Hespel, ed. and trans., Contra additiones Iuliani, csco, 295–296; Scriptores Syrii 124–125 (Leuven: Secrétariat du CorpuSSCO, 1968), 45/38. See Gilles Dorival, “Nouveaux fragments grecs de Sévère d’Antioche,” in αντιδωρον Hulde aan Dr. Maurits Geerard bij de voltooiing van de Clavis Patrum Graecorum Vol. i, ed. J. Noret (Wetteren, Belgium: Cultura, 1984), 103–104. Dorival’s text is based on codex Oxon. Baroccianus gr. 235, fols. 468v–469. Marcel Richard regarded this a later addition to the catena (“Premières chaînes,” 88); Dorival considers it original.

217

commentary

Ps 50:7 lxx reads, ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἐν ἀνομίαις συνελήμφθην, καὶ ἐν ἁμαρτίαις ἐκίσσησέν με ἡ μήτηρ μου. (“For see, I was conceived in lawlessness, my mother became pregnant through sins”). Severus, through the use of Jas 1:13–15, interprets the mother as desire (ἐπιθυμία). Some have attempted to interpret. Severus has in mind here interpretations such as the one attributed to Hesychius of Jerusalem in his commentary on Ps 50:7 lxx, μητέρα τῆς ἁμαρτίας τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἡ Γραφὴ καλεῖν ἡ θεόπνευστος εἴωθεν (“the divinely inspired Scripture has the habit of calling desire the mother of sin”).78 Cf. Sch. 1.15, attributed to Hesychius. Scholion 1.14 to Jas 1:15 The ac79 witnesses a version of this scholion (but only as far as the words γυναικῶν χαλεπώτερον) that is combined with a version of Scholion 1.13. It is possible that Ps.-Andrew, after finding the partial scholion in the earlier form of CatJas, expanded the scholion by going back to Chrysostom’s original. The scholion is drawn from Chrysostom’s series of sermons on the parable of the rich man and Lazurus (Luke 16:19–31). In the original context, Chrysostom makes no reference to James; the catenist was drawn to the passage due to the similarity of Jas 1:13–15 and Chrysostom’s rhetorical comparison of conscience and sin with the process of conception and birth.

CatJas to Jas 1:15 (Cramer, 5 line 31–6, line 16)

Chrysostom Laz. 4.4 (pg 48:1012)

Ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῷ πράττειν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ὑπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς μεθύοντες, οὐχ οὕτως αἰσθανόμεθα. Ἐπειδὰν δὲ γένηται καὶ λάβῃ τέλος, τότε δὴ μάλιστα τῆς ἡδονῆς σβεσθείσης ἁπάσης, τὸ πικρὸν τῆς ἐννοίας ἐπεισέρχεται κέντρον, ἀπεναντίας ταῖς ὠδινούσαις γυναιξίν. Έπ’ ἐκείνων μὲν γὰρ, πρὸ τοῦ τόκου, πολὺς ὁ πόνος καὶ ὠδίνες δριμεῖαι ἐπικόπτουσι ταῖς ἀλγηδόσιν αὐτάς· μετὰ δὲ τὸν τόκον ἄνεσις

Ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῷ πράττειν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς μεθύοντες οὐχ οὕτως αἰσθανόμεθα·ἐπειδὰν δὲ γένηται καὶ λάβῃ τέλος, τότε δὴ μάλιστα, τῆς ἡδονῆς σβεσθείσης ἁπάσης, τὸ πικρὸν τῆς μετανοίας ἐπεισέρχεται κέντρον ἀπεναντίας ταῖς ὠδινούσαις γυναιξίν. Ἐπ’ ἐκείνων μὲν γὰρ πρὸ τοῦ τόκου πολὺς καὶ ἀφόρητος ὁ πόνος καὶ ὠδῖνες δριμεῖαι διακόπτουσαι ταῖς ἀλγηδόσιν αὐτάς· μετὰ δὲ τὸν τόκον

78 79

Hesychius Comm. magn. Ps. to Ps 50:7 (pg 93:1201). Matthaei, 185; ga 621 fol. 58v.

218

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 1:15 (Cramer, 5 line 31–6, line 16)

Chrysostom Laz. 4.4 (pg 48:1012)

τῷ βρέφει τῆς ὀδύνης συνεξελθούσης. Ένταῦθα δὲ οὐχ οὕτως· ἀλλ’ ἕως μὲν ἂν ὠδίνωμεν καὶ συλλαμβάνωμεν τὰ διεφθαρμένα νοήματα, εὐφραινόμεθα καὶ χαίρομεν· ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἀποτέκωμεν τὸ πονηρὸν παιδίον, τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, τότε τὸ αἶσχος τοῦ τεχθέντος ἰδόντες, ὀδυνώμεθα· τότε διακοπτόμεθα τῶν ὠδινουσῶν γυναικῶν χαλεπώτερον. Διὸ παρακαλῶ μὴ δέχεσθαι μὲν μάλιστα παρὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπιθυμίαν διεφθαρμένην· εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐδεξάμεθα, ἀποπνίγειν ἔνδον τὰ σπέρματα. Εἰ δὲ καὶ μέχρι τούτου ῥαθυμήσωμεν, ἐξελθοῦσαν εἰς ἔργον τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἀποκτεῖναι πάλιν δι’ ἐξομολογήσεως καὶ δακρύων, διὰ τοῦ κατηγορεῖν ἑαυτοῦ. Οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτως ὀλέθριον ἁμαρτίας ὡς κατηγορία καὶ κατάγνωσις.

ἄνεσις, τῷ βρέφει τῆς ὀδύνης συνεξελθούσης· ἐνταῦθα δὲ οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλ’ ἕως μὲν ἂν ὠδίνωμεν καὶ συλλαμβάνωμεν τὰ διεφθαρμένα βουλεύματα, εὐφραινόμεθα καὶ χαίρομεν· ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἀποτέκωμεν τὸ πονηρὸν παιδίον τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, τότε τὸ αἶσχος τοῦ τεχθέντος ἰδόντες ὀδυνώμεθα, τότε διακοπτόμεθα τῶν ὠδινουσῶν γυναικῶν χαλεπώτερον. Διὸ παρακαλῶ μὴ δέχεσθαι μὲν μάλιστα παρὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπιθυμίαν διεφθαρμένην· εἰ δὲ καὶ δεξόμεθα, ἀποπνίγειν ἔνδον τὰ σπέρματα. Εἰ δὲ καὶ μέχρι τούτου ῥᾳθυμήσαιμεν, ἐξελθοῦσαν εἰς ἔργον τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἀποκτείνειν πάλιν δι’ ἐξομολογήσεως καὶ δακρύων, διὰ τοῦ κατηγορεῖν ἑαυτῶν. Οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτως ὀλέθριοντῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ὡς κατηγορία καὶ κατάγνωσις σὺν μετανοιᾷ καὶ δάκρυσι.

Scholion 1.15 to Jas 1:15 from Hesychius the Presbyter: Staab suggests that this scholion is taken from a Psalms commentary of Hesychius; J.C. Wolf holds that it was perhaps taken from a comment on Ps 17:5.80 While not witnessing this text, a scholion on Ps 50:7 lxx attributed to Hesychius does quote Jas 1:15, “the divinely inspired Scripture has the habit of calling desire the mother of sin” (μητέρα τῆς ἁμαρτίας τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἡ γραφὴ καλεῖν ἡ θεόπνευστος εἴωθεν).81 Cf. Sch. 1.13.

80 81

Staab, 308–309; Wolf, Anecdota Graeca Sacra et Profana, 4 vols. (Hamburg: Felginer, 1722– 1724), 4:58 note k. Hesychius Comm. magn. Ps. to Ps 50:7 (pg 93:1201).

219

commentary

The scholion is lacking in V (lacuna in R) and in all manuscripts of the Armenian translation.82 Scholion 1.16a to Jas 1:16–17 The ac83 witnesses this text. Read as a single scholion in O, P, and V, the ac demonstrates that these codices combine two originally separate scholia. The first scholion (1.16a) comments that James’ assertion that every good gift is from God refutes those who think that God can send harmful trials / temptations. CatJas witnesses an abbreviated version of the fuller expression in the ac.

CatJas to Jas 1:17 (Cramer, 6, lines 22–24)

ac (Matthaei, 185–186, to Jas 1:17)

“Μὴ πλανᾶσθε” νομίζοντες παρὰ θεοῦ γίνεσθαι τοὺς πειρασμούς.

Πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ (Jas 1:17) καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, ἀναιρεῖ τοὺς νομίζοντας παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ γίνεσθαι πάντα πειρασμόν (“every good giving” and the following [text] refutes those who think that every trial is from God).

Bede (Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:15–16) shares the same interpretation, commenting that “do not be led astray” refers to the mistaken belief “that the temptations to vices take their origin from God (temptamenta vitiorum a Deo sumant originem).”84 Scholion 1.16b to Jas 1:17 This scholion is a gloss on φῶτα (“lights”) in Jas 1:17b (“the Father of lights”). Versions are attested in ac and gs.

CatJas to Jas 1:17 (Cramer, ac (Matthaei, 186, to 6, lines 23–25) Jas 1:17) Φῶτα δέ, ἢ τὰς λογικὰς δυνάμεις φῶτα ἢ τὰς λογικὰς δυνάμεις καλεῖ καλεῖ,

82 83 84

Renoux, 46 n. 25. Matthaei, 185–186, to Jas 1:17; ga 621 fol. 58v. Hurst, ed., 189; Hurst, trans., 16.

gs (Matthaei, 12, to Jas 1:17)

ἤτοι τῶν ἀγγελικῶν δυνάμενων,

220

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 1:17 (Cramer, ac (Matthaei, 186, to 6, lines 23–25) Jas 1:17)

gs (Matthaei, 12, to Jas 1:17)

ἢ τοὺς πεφωτισμένους διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου

ἢ τῶν πεφωτισμένων ἀνθρώπων (either of angelic powers or of enlightened people)

ἢ τοὺς πεφωτισμένους διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου

A variation of Sch. 1.16ab is attributed to Severus in the Armenian translation.85 The scholion offers two interpretations of “lights” in Jas 1:17: they refer either to “rational powers” (i.e., angels) or to those who are enlightened by the Holy Spirit. rational powers: The phrase in this context refers to angelic powers, as is shown by gs in the table above.86 An anonymous Irish commentary on James, dated to the late seventh century, glosses “lights” with three interpretive options: id est astrum. Aliter. Id est, patriarchae et omnes sancti (quoting Phil 2:15). Aliter. Propter septem dona Spiritus sancti (“i.e., stars. Differently [interpreted]: the patriarchs and all the saints. Differently [interpreted] because of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.”)87 These three options reflect the two basic options in CatJas: “stars” alludes to the widespread ancient belief that heavenly bodies such as stars are closely identified with heavenly spiritual powers; CatJas’ “those enlightened by the Holy Spirit” refers to the righteous patriarchs of old and contemporary Christians who each receive the various spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit. Bede’s (Ep. Cath. ad loc.) comment on the passage also refers to spiritual gifts: “He also calls him ‘Father of lights’ because he knows he is the author of spiritual charisms” (auctorem novit spiritalium carismatum).88 Scholion 1.17 to Jas 1:17c from Severus: O (fol. 180r) marks this as a scholion on Jas 1:17c, “in whom there is no variation or shadow caused by change.” Codices O, P, and V (R = lacuna) attribute the scholion to Severus, but to my knowledge it has not been identi-

85 86 87 88

Renoux, 46, 82–83. On the understanding of angels as rational powers, see Cyril of Alexandria Exp. Ps. to 8:6 (pg 69:760b); Procopius of Gaza Cat. Isa. to 49:1–13 (pg 87/2:2476a). Scottus Anon., Comm. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:17 (McNally, ed., 9). Hurst, ed., 189; Hurst, trans., 16. Cf. also the connection of Jas 1:17 with spiritual enlightenment in Ps.-Dionysius Coel. hier. 1.1.

221

commentary

fied in Severus’ extant writings. The ac witnesses a version of this scholion.89 The order of the major elements differs and CatJas has added a quotation from Paul.

CatJas to Jas 1:17c (Cramer, 6, line 26–7, line 2)

ac (Matthaei, 186, to Jas 1:17c)

[quotation of Jas 1:17c] φησιν ἀντὶ τοῦ A. Λέγοντος γάρ ἐστιν ἀκούειν τοῦ θεοῦ· “Ἐγώ εἰμι, ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ οὐκ [ἠλλοίωμαι] ·” B. καὶ αὐτῷ μὲν πρόσεστι τὸ παγίως καὶ ἀναλλοιώτως κατ’ οὐσίαν ἔχειν·

B. ἀραρώτως αὐτῷ πρόσεστι τὸ παγίως καὶ ἀναλλοιώτως κατ’ οὐσίαν εἴναι. A. ἔφη γὰρ που αὐτὸς ὁ θεός, ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἠλλοίωμαι.

C. τοῖς δὲ κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πολιτευομένοις, καὶ πρακτικῶς τὰς ἐντολὰς μετιοῦσιν ἐκ τῆς ἄνωθεν δωρεᾶς καὶ μετουσίας, τὸ ἀναλλοιώτως ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον ἐπιτηδεύμασι διακεῖσθαι προσγίνεται καὶ τὸ μὴ [συμμεταβάλλεσθαι] τοῖς καιροῖς.

C. [τοῖς δὲ κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πολιτευομένοις καὶ πρακτικῶς τὰς ἐντολὰς μετουσιοῦσιν, ἐκ τῆς ἄνωθεν δωρεᾶς καὶ μετουσίας τὸ ἀναλλοιώτως ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὸν βίον ἐπιτηδεύμασι διακεῖσθαι προσγίνεται καὶ τὸ μὴ συμμεταβάλλεσθαι τοῖς καιροῖς.]90

D. διὸ καὶ Παῦλος παρῄνει τισὶ λέγων· [quotation of Rom 12:2]

“I am, I am and I do not change”: The text is not a direct biblical quotation, but perhaps alludes to a combination of such texts as Exod 3:14, Second Isaiah’s monotheistic assertions (e.g., Isa 43:10, 13, and 25), and the assertion of the Lord’s immutable nature in Mal 3:6: “I am the Lord your God, and I have not changed” (ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἠλλοίωμαι).

89 90

Matthaei, 186, to Jas 1:17; ga 621 fol. 58v. The bracketed material is omitted in Cod. D (ga 103).

222

commentary

It is truly characteristic (of God): The unchangeable nature of God is a common theme in the Christian apologists (e.g., Theophilus of Antioch Autol. 1.4). Scholion 1.18 to Jas 1:18a The ac91 witnesses a version of this scholion which includes an introductory phrase and omits the internal quotation of Jas 1:18a. Otherwise, both CatJas and the ac reproduce Isidore’s interpretation virtually verbatim.

Isidorus of Pelusium Ep. 3.31 (pg 78:753)

Ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ υἱοῦ κυρίως λέγεταιἡ γέννησις· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν κτισμάτων καταχρηστικῶς. Ἐπ’ἐκείνου τῆς ἀληθείας ἕνεκεν καὶ τῆς ὁμοουσιότητος· ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων τιμῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ υἱοθεσίας. Βουληθεὶς γὰρ ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας. Μὴ τοίνυν ἡ ὁμωνυμία τὴν ὁμοτιμίαν ἐνταῦθα τικτέτω, μηδὲ τὰ καταχρηστικῶς εἰρημένα κυρίως λελέχθαι νομιζέσθω.

CatJas to Jas 1:18 (Cramer, 7, ac (Matthaei, 186, to line 4–9). Jas 1:18)

Ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ υἱοῦ κυρίως λέγεται ἡ γέννησις· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν κτισμάτων καταχρηστικῶς· ἐπ’ ἐκείνου μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας ἕνεκεν καὶ τῆς ὁμοουσιότητος· ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων, τιμῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ υἱοθεσίας· “Βουληθεὶς γάρ,” φησίν, “ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας.” Μὴ τοίνυν ἡ ὁμωνυμία τὴν ὁμοτιμίαν ἐνταῦθα τικτέτω, μηδὲ τὰ καταχρηστικῶς εἰρημένα κυρίως λελέχθαι νομιζέσθω.

Τοῦτο καταχρηστικῶς εἴρηται. ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ υἱοῦ κυρίως λέγεται ἡ γέννησις, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν κτισμάτων καταχρηστικῶς· ἐπ’ ἐκείνου μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας ἕνεκεν καὶ τῆς ὁμοουσιότης· ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων, τιμῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ υἱοθεσίας·

μὴ τοίνυν ἡ ὁμωνυμία, τὴν ὁμωνυμίαν ἐνταῦθα τικτέτω, μηδὲ τὰ καταχρηστικῶς εἰρημένα, κυρίως λελέχθαι νομιζέσθω.

gs adapts Isidore’s basic point on James’ use of language; ἀπεκύησε δέ, οὐκ ἐκ πάθους, άλλὰ βουλήσει, ἐξ ἀγάπης. καταχρηστικῶς, εἰς γένεσιν παρήγαγεν (“He gives birth, not from passion, but rather by (his) will, from love. [Scripture speaks] loosely, introducing [the image of] ‘birth’ ”).92

91 92

Matthaei, 186, to Jas 1:18; ga 621 fol. 58v. Matthai, 13.

commentary

223

The identical passage, drawn directly from the broader context of Isidore’s letter, is incorporated anonymously into anti-Arian passages in the later works of Byzantine historians: George Hamartolos (“George the Sinner” or “George the Monk”) Chronicon (ninth-century)93 and George Cedrenus Compendia historiarum (eleventh-century).94 The (word) “birth”: This scholion is taken from one of the letters of Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. 3.31). In this letter, Isidore explains how the language about “birth” in the Christological phrase in Col 1:15, “the first-born of all creation” (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως) should be understood. The catenist chose it because Isidore contrasts the precise manner of speaking about birth from God in Col 1:15 with the looser way of speaking of God giving birth to humans in Jas 1:18. in a precise way: Other ancient commentators on Jas 1:18 also take care to avoid misunderstanding the phrase “[God] chose to give birth to us.” Bede (Ep. Cath. ad loc.) comments, “Lest from his saying, he begot, we should think that we become what he himself is (hoc nos fieri putaremus quod ipse est), he then compares humans with the rest of creation.”95 The need to distinguish the meaning of the “sonship” of the Son and the “sonship” of created humans was a central question in the Arian controversy.96 said in a precise way … it is said loosely: The distinction between using a word precisely or properly (κυρίως) and loosely or improperly (καταχρηστικῶς) is a common one for Hellenistic grammarians. The grammarian Dionysius Thrax (Ars gram. 7), for example, writes, “The term ‘syllable’ (συλλαβή), properly speaking (κυρίως) signifies a combination of consonants with one or more vowels … It is also, less properly (καταχρηστικῶς), used of vowels on their own.”97 Philo (Leg. 2.10) uses the terms in his interpretation of Gen 2:18: “I will make him a helper as his partner.” Allegorizing “helpers” as the passions, Philo comments, “These are not properly (κυρίως) called our helpers, but by a straining of language (καταχρηστικῶς).”98 The Antiochene exegete

93 94 95 96

97

98

C. de Boor, ed., Georgii Monachi Chronicon, 2 vols., (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904), 2:531. I. Bekker, ed., Georgius Cedrenus Ioannis Scylitzae Opera, 2 vols. (Bonn: Weber, 1838), 1:512. Hurst, ed., 190; Hurst, trans., 17. Cf. Augustine Cons. 2.3.6. On Athanasius’ treatment of this question, see Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002; orig. pub. Cambridge University Press, 1997), 31–34. G. Uhlig, ed., Grammatici Graeci Vol. 1.1: Dionysii Thracis Ars Grammatica (Leipzig: Teubner, 1883), 16–17, et: Alan Kemp, “The Tekhnē Grammatikē of Dionysius Thrax,” in The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period, ed. Daniel J. Taylor (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1987), 175. Colson and Whitaker, trans., 230–231.

224

commentary

Theodore of Mopsuestia often discusses using words properly (κυρίως) in his exegetical remarks.99 Created humanity: The word κτίσμα can designate anything created by God (cf. 1Tim 4:4), but κτίσμα and the closely related κτίσις can also be restricted, as in the current passage, to humans (cf. Mark 16:15; Col 1:23). consubstantiality: The Greek is ὁμοουσιότης; a noun form of the famous Nicene adjective ὁμοούσιος. The relevant phrase of the creed adopted at the Council of Niceaea reads, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί (“begotten [lit.: born] not made, consubstantial with the Father”) (DzH 125). The noun is of course later found in Christological discussions: e.g., Cyril of Alexandria Comm. Jo. 1.4 on John 1:2 (Pusey, ed., 1:54). The use of the term reflects Isidore’s (and the catenist’s) support of the Alexandrian position in the Christological controversies of his day. adoption as sons: The term υἱοθεσία is applied by Paul to followers of Christ (Gal 4:5; Rom 8:15) who are adopted into a special relationship with God as his children. The word is used only in the Pauline epistles in the nt. Scholion 1.19 to Jas 1:18 The ac witnesses this scholion.100 Its beginning is also witnessed in gs (Matthaei, 13). It is unlikely that the ac is the direct source for CatJas here, given the different ordering of the comments. The gs version demonstrates the adaptability of the scholion tradition.

CatJas to Jas 1:18 (Cramer, 7, lines 12–16)

ac (Matthaei, 186 on Jas 1:18)

gs (Matthaei, 13, to Jas 1:18)

B. τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας, τῷ τῆς ὁμολογίας τῆς πίστεως φησιν. [cf. Sch.1.20] εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἀπαρχὴν τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισμάτων, A. Ἀντὶ τοῦ πρώτους καὶ τιμιωτέρους. Κτίσματα δὲ τὴν

99 100

A. τουτέστι πρώτους καὶ τιμιωτέρους. κτίσματα δὲ, τὴν

A. Ἀντὶ τοῦ πρώτους καὶ τιμιωτέρους, τὴς ὁρωμένης κτίσεως.

See e.g., Schäublin, Antiochenischen Exegese, 97, 109. Matthaei, 186 on 1:18; ga 621 fols. 58v–59r. See also Staab, 335.

225

commentary (cont.)

CatJas to Jas 1:18 (Cramer, 7, lines 12–16)

ac (Matthaei, 186 on Jas 1:18)

ὁρωμένην κτίσιν φησίν, ἧς τιμιώτερον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἔδειξεν, ὅπου γε καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις προσδοκᾷ τὴν ἡμετέραν [ἐλευθερίαν], ἵνα [καὶ] ἡμῖν συνελευθερωθῇ.

ὁρωμένην κτίσιν φησίν, ἧς τιμιώτερον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἔδειξεν. ὅπουγε καὶ αὐτὴ κτίσις προσδοκᾷ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἐλευθερίαν, ἵνα ἡμῖν συνελευθερωθῇ.

gs (Matthaei, 13, to Jas 1:18)

B. [Sch. 1.20] τῷ τῆς ὁμολογίας, τῷ τῆς πίστεως.

In other words, “the first and most honored”: The phrase “first and most honored” is a gloss on ἀπαρχήν (“first-fruits”) in Jas 1:18, i.e., “first-fruits” means that humans are the first and most honored of created things. the human is the most honored: Traditional Christian exegesis of Jas 1:18 offers two basic interpretations of “first-fruits,” taken in conjunction with the interpretation of the “word of truth” in that same verse: (1) Reference to the “new birth” of Christians: the “word of truth” is the gospel message, and thus Christians are the “first-fruits” who are reborn through Christ (see Augustine Ep. 140.62 [csel 44: 208]; Bede Ep. Cath. ad loc. [Hurst, ed., 189–190]; Scottus Anon. Comm. Ep. Cath. ad loc. [McNally, 9]). (2) Reference to all humanity at creation. Ps.-Hilary of Arles (Exp. vii Ep. to Jas 1:18) glosses the “word of truth” with “image [of God]” (id ad imaginem [Dei]) (McNally, ed., 60); Athanasius (C. Ar. 3.61.3) takes “the word of truth” as a reference to the Son’s activity both in the original creation and in the new creation of Christians.101 Given the eclectic nature of the catena genre, it is not surprising to find both interpretations in CatJas scholia on 1:18: scholia 1.18 and 1.20 presuppose the Christian re-birth interpretation, whereas Sch 1.19 and 1.21 understand James

101

Metzler and Savvidis, eds. tlg; npnf2 4:427. See also Allison, James, 255–256.

226

commentary

to be referring to the original creation. A parallel set of alternative interpretations is applied to the phrase τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον in Jas 1:21 (see comments on Sch. 1.24 and 1:28). since even creation itself awaits: This is a paraphrase of Paul’s teaching on creation in Rom 8:19–23. Scholion 1.20 to Jas 1:18 by (the word) of confession, by (the word) of faith: Codex O (fol. 180v) links this gloss to ἀπαρχήν (“first-fruits”) with a non-numerical symbol; P (fol. 193v) links it with “the word of truth” in Jas 1:18a, using a marginal, non-numerical reference symbol (see Introduction sect. 2.3.3). The ac witnesses the fullest form of the scholion: “‘by the word of truth’ means ‘by the word of the confession of faith’” (τῷ λόγῳ ἀληθείας, τῷ τῆς ὁμολογίας τῆς πίστεώς φησι).102 In other words, God “gives birth” to Christians when they confess their faith. Another witness to the ac, Patmos 263, glosses “by the word of truth” with “he means ‘through the confession of faith he will make us his own sons’ ” (διὰ τῆς ὁμογλογίας φησὶ τῆς πίστεως υἱοὺς ἑαυτοῦ ποιήσει ἡμᾶς.)103 Scholion 1.21 to Jas 1:18 the first-born in the heavens: O (fol. 180v) and P (fol. 193v) mark this as a gloss on “first-fruits” (Jas 1:18b), using a non-numerical reference symbol (see Introduction sect. 2.3.3). The scholion is also witnessed in the gs (ga 1845 fol. 94v).104 The original context of the gloss may be reflected in Ps.-Hilary of Arles’ (Exp. vii Ep.) gloss on this passage,”105 “for God gave two beginnings (Duo enim initia dedit) to his creatures: to angels and to humans. For just as the heavenly powers (virtutes caelestes) hold the preeminent place over all heavenly creatures (principatum obtinent caelestium creaturarum), so too we are preeminent over earthly creatures.”106 Alternatively, this may be an allusion to Heb 12:23, “to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (ἐκκλησίᾳ πρωτοτόκων ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς).

102 103 104 105 106

Matthaei, 186, to Jas 1:18; ga 621 fol. 58v–59r; cf. Sch. 1.19. See also the version in R (fol. 1r): Λόγῳ δὲ τῷ τῆς ὁμολογίας τῆς πίστεως. So Staab, 341. See also Staab, 343. Ps.-Hilary’s Vulgate texts reads, “ut simus initium aliquot creaturae eius” (“that we may be a kind of beginning of his creation”). McNally, ed., 60.

227

commentary

Chapter 2: Concerning gentleness …: The Euthalian chapter division (1:19– 27) recognizes, with most exegetes, ancient and modern, that verse 19 begins a new topic in James’ discourse.107 Instead of regarding 1:19–27 as unit, however, many interpreters break the pericope down into smaller topical units.108 The chapter title singles out the virtue of πραΰτης (“gentleness” v. 21); and alludes to James’ use of cultic purity language in 1:26–27 with the descriptor ἁγνείος. The title also identifies good works (cf. 1:21–25, 27) and proper speech (cf. 1:19–20, 26) as central topics. Scholion 1.22 to Jas 1:19–21a The ac witnesses a version of this scholion.109

CatJas to Jas 1:19–21 (Cramer, 7, lines 26–30)

ac (Matthaei, 187, to Jas 1:21)

Τουτέστιν [τὴν] ἁμαρτίαν τὴν ῥυπαίνουσαν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὴν ὥσπερ περιττὴν οὖσαν ἐν ἡμῖν. [Οὐ γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν ἡμῶν] τὸ κακοὺς εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ἔξωθεν προσγίνεται ἐξ ἀμελείας τὲ καὶ τῶν εἰς τοῦτο ἡμᾶς ἐρεθιζόντων δαιμόνων· τὸ ἐνδόσιμον ἡμῶν ἐκ τῆς ἀπροαιρέτου συγκαταβάσεως [ἔχοντα].

ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περίσσειαν κακίας τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τὴν ῥυπαίνουσαν τὸν ἄνθρωπόν φησι, τὴν ὥς περιττὴν οὖσαν ἐν ἡμῖν. οὐ γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν τὸ κακοὺς εἶναι· ἀλλ’ ἔξωθεν προσγίνεται, ἐξ ἀμελείας δὲ καὶ τῶν εἰς τοῦτο ἡμῶν ἐρεθιζόντων δαιμόνων, τὸ ἐνδόσιμον ἡμῶν ἐκ τῆς ἀπροαιρέτου συγκαταβάσεως εχόντων.

that is, sin that defiles: O (fol. 180v) and P (fol. 193v) mark this as a scholion to Jas 1:19–21a. The ac, however, makes it clear that this is a scholion specifically to Jas 1:21a, focusing on an exegesis of the phrase περισσείαν κακίας (“overflowing evil”). The scholion takes περισσείαν in the sense of something outside or foreign (περιττός; see pgl, s.v.). not in accordance with nature: The idea that the good life is lived according to nature (κατὰ φύσιν) is especially associated with the Stoic philosophy (e.g. Seneca Ep. 5.4: secundum naturam vivere [Gummere, ed., 1:22]).

107 108 109

See, e.g., Allison, James, 293. See Allison, James, 293–294. Matthaei, 187, to Jas 1:21; ga 621 fol. 59r (up until the words ἔξωθεν προσγίνεται) and ga 1842 fol. 77v. See also Staab, 335–336.

228

commentary

Scholion 1.23 to Jas 1:19b Prepared to learn the truth: This scholion, appearing only in O, glosses the phrase “swift to hear” in Jas 1:19 with a non-numerical reference symbol (see Introduction sect. 2.3.3).110 It is also witnessed in the gs (ga 1845 fol. 94v). Scholion 1.24 to Jas 1:21b This scholion is witnessed in the ac.111

CatJas to Jas 1:21 (Cramer, 8, lines 1–3)

(Matthaei, 187, to Jas 1:21)

Ἀντὶ τοῦ τὸν ἀληθῆ, τὸν τῆς ὁμολογίας δηλονότι, τὸν ἀφθάρτους ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι παρασκευάζοντα. Ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἔκτισε τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπὶ ἀφθαρσίᾳ.

τὸν ἀληθῆ φησί, τὸν τῆς ὁμολογίας δηλονότι, τὸν ἀφθάρτους ἡμᾶς παρασκευάζοντα. καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐπὶ ἀφθαρσίᾳ ἔκτισε τὸν ἄνθρωπον.

in other words, “the true (word).” This scholion glosses the phrase “the implanted word” (τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον). The adjective “true” connects this verse with Jas 1:18: “He chose to give birth to us by the word of truth.” Parallel to the exegesis of the “word of truth” and “first-fruits” in Jas 1:18 (cf. comments on Sch. 1.19), the exegetical tradition offers two basic interpretive options: (1) the word connected specifically with the Christian proclamation of salvation through Christ and (2) the word as something given to all humans (e.g., the “image of God,” an eternal soul, one’s conscience as a natural law) by God at creation.112 For option 1: see Bede Ep. Cath. ep. ad loc. (Hurst, ed., 191; Hurst, trans., 19): “the word we place in your hearts through preaching (vestris cordibus praedicando imponimus)”; Option 2 is evident in the Peshitta’s version of Jas 1:21: “the implanted word in our nature” (爯‫ )ܒܥܝܢ‬and is developed later by Ps.-Oecumenius (Comm. lc ad loc. [pg 119:468]): “He calls the ‘implanted word’ the discernment between the better and the worse (τὸν διακριτικὸν τοῦ βελτίονος καὶ τοῦ χείρονος),” that is, the innate conscience in every human. The interpretation of CatJas draws on both traditions: the word is identified with the confession of Christian faith, but it also connects this word with God’s intention at creation. 110 111 112

See also Staab, 343. Matthaei, 187, to Jas 1:21; ga 621 fol. 59r and ga 1842 fol. 77v. See also Staab, 336. See also Allison, James, 311–312.

commentary

229

Scholion 1.25 to Jas 1:22 The scholion is witnessed in the ac.113 In other words, “reasoning by themselves”. O (fol. 180v) reads this as a gloss on παραλογιζόμενοι ἑαυτούς (“deceiving yourselves”). The sense seems to be that one deceives oneself when one trusts in one’s own reasoning ability (καθ’ ἑαυτούς) instead of reasoning within the context of faith in God. Scholion 1.26 to Jas 1:22 scorning their own salvation. O reads this as a gloss on παραλογιζόμενοι ἑαυτούς (“deceiving yourselves”), using a non-numerical reference symbol (see Introduction sect. 2.3.3). It is witnessed in the gs114 and in ga 463 fol. 34r, one of the ac manuscripts. The sense is that those who are hearers of the word only and not doers are thinking lightly of their own salvation. Codex P combines it with Sch. 1.28. Scholion 1.27 to Jas 1:23a The ac witnesses this as a gloss to Jas 1:22 where it is combined with Sch. 1.25.115 Scholion 1.28 to Jas 1:23b–25 For a comparison of this scholion with the ac version, see Introduction, sect. 9.5.1. The scholion interprets James’ comparison between a person looking into a mirror and forgetting, and a person who “looks into” the law but does not act. through the law: The scholion teaches that the Christian rebirth in baptism (see further comments below), is accomplished through the law, referring to Jas 1:25a, “the perfect law of freedom.” The ac’s version of this scholion clarifies the connections, “thus too, the one who has been perfected through the law by action (ὁ διὰ νόμου τῇ πραξει τελειωθείς), and has united action with hearing, thus also sees, through the law, what kind of person he has become … for we learn, that the law of the Father made us to be a certain kind of people by giving us a new birth through the washing of rebirth” (οἵους ἡμᾶς ἐποίησεν ὁ πατρικὸς νόμος ἀναγεννήσας διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας).116

113 114 115 116

Matthaei, 187, to Jas 1:22; ga 621 fol. 59r. See also Staab, 336. Matthaei, 16, to Jas 1:22; ga 1845 fol. 94v. See also Staab, 343. Matthaei, 187; ga 621 fol. 59r. See also Staab, 336, 341–342. Matthaei, 187, to Jas 1:23. See also Staab, 336–337.

230

commentary

The scholion’s precise understanding of the “perfect law of freedom” (Jas 1:25) is not spelled out. Yet clearly this law is associated both with commandments that are to be fulfilled in actions (“perfected by the law through actions”) and with the divine power of (re)creation. Bede (Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:25) also connects this law with rebirth as a Christian: “He calls the grace of the Gospel the perfect law of liberty.”117 Ps.-Hilary of Arles (Exp. vii Ep. to Jas 1:23) identifies the mirror of Jas 1:23 with two laws: the Old Testament law, and the “the new law of the gospel” (lex nova Evangelii).118 “face of birth”: Jas 1:23b uses the phrase πρόσωπον γενέσεως, literally translated as “the face of birth” or “the face of the beginning.” Interpreters have suggested that it is simply another way of saying “his own face” (i.e., the face a person was born with), or that it alludes to the beginning of creation.119 As the subsequent sentence clarifies, the scholion takes it as the “face of (re)birth”: a reference to the nature of a person when she is reborn at baptism. giving us a new birth through the washing of rebirth: The verb αναγεννάω is used in the nt only in 1Peter 1:3, “By his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (nrsv; cf. 1Pet 1:23). The phrase “washing of rebirth” occurs at Titus 3:5: “he saved us … through the water of rebirth (διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας) and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” where it likely refers to the new life given in Christian baptism.120 we do not remain in such a vision: Alluding to Jas 1:25a, “the one who remains (παραμείνας) [in it],” the scholion uses the related verb ἐμμένοντες. “Remaining in the vision” means recalling the new kind of person one has become through the rebirth of baptism; “vision” picks up on analogy to seeing one’s face in a mirror (1:23). if he had remembered that he was born from above: Alluding to John 3:3–8, the scholion specifies the results of the Christian’s new birth. Scholion 1.29 to Jas 1:23b–25 One brief phrase: συνάπτοντες τῇ ἀκροάσει τὴν πράξιν is also witnessed in the text of the ac (Matthaei, 187, to Jas 1:23; see Sch. 1.28 above). the destroyer: Paul uses the term ὀλοθρευτής (“the destroyer”) in 1 Cor 10:10 when referencing some of the Israelites of the wilderness generation who were

117 118 119 120

Legem perfectam libertatis gratiam dicit euangelii (Hurst, ed., 192; Hurst, trans., 20). McNally, ed., 62. For exegetical options, see Allison, James, 328–329. See, e.g., M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 148.

231

commentary

“destroyed by the destroyer.” The term refers to the destroying angel in lxx Exod 12:23 (cf. Wis 18:25), but here likely refers to Satan, cf. Acts Phil. 130. The phrasing also closely parallels 1Cor 5:5: “you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ σατανᾷ εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός). Scholion 1.30 to Jas 1:24b Codices O and P use a non-numerical symbol reference symbol to link this scholion to the scriptural text; P writes it outside the normal frame catena margins (see Introduction sect. 2.3.3). It is also witnessed in the gs (ga 1845 fol. 94v). This is a gloss on the phrase ὁποῖος ἦν, literally, “what kind (of person) he was.” The sense is that a person should realize that human nature is created in God’s image, and so a person’s behavior should reflect that image and likeness. Whereas Sch. 1.28 understood Jas 1:23–25 to refer to a Christian’s rebirth in baptism, this scholion apparently takes it to refer to the created nature of all humans (cf. the related discussion in the commentary on Sch. 1.19). image of God … likeness of God: An early Christian tradition distinguished between the words used to describe God’s creation of humans in Gen 1:26 lxx: “in our image, according to our likeness” (κατ’ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν). Origen, for example, believes that humans were created in God’s image (εἰκών), but could only attain to the likeness (ὁμοίωσις) by striving for a greater perfection (Princ. 3.6.1; cf. Comm. Rom. 4.5.11; Cels. 4.30; Clement of Alexandria Strom. 2.22.131.6). Clement identifies Christ with the likeness, and the rest of humanity with the image (Paed. 1.12.98.2–3). See also Irenaeus Haer. 5.6.1, 5.16.1–2. Due to the brevity of the scholion, it is unclear whether it distinguishes between the two words. Scholion 1.31a to Jas 1:26 The first part of this scholion (until “mocking his [own] heart”) is witnessed in the ac.121

CatJas to Jas 1:26 (Cramer, 9, lines 4–6)

ac (Matthaei, 188, to Jas 1:26)

“Εἴ τις δοκεῖ,” φησίν, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ ταῖς ἀληθείαις εἶναι· [εἴ] γὰρ ἂν πάντως οὐδὲ

“Εἴ τις δοκεῖ,” φησιν, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ εἶναι· ἧ γὰρ ἂν πάντως οὐδὲ

121

Matthaei, 188, to Jas 1:26; ga 621 fol. 59r and ga 1842 fol. 78r.

232

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 1:26 (Cramer, 9, lines 4–6)

ac (Matthaei, 188, to Jas 1:26)

αὐτῷ τὴν γλῶσσαν ἀχαλίνωτον ἐξεπαίδευσεν· οὐδ’ ἂν αὐτοῦ διὰ κενοθρησκείας τὴν καρδίαν ἐχλεύαζε·

αὐτῷ τὴν γλῶσσαν ἀχαλίνωτον ἐξεπαίδευσεν· οὐδ’ ἂν αὐτοῦ διὰ κενοθρησκίας τὴν καρδίαν ἐχλεύαζε·

The ac then witnesses a gloss on θρησκεία: “Religion, when it is truly (religion) and does not simply have the appearance of religion, is this: to be merciful and to have compassion, for ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ he says” (Hos 6:6; cf. Matt 9:13). empty religion: Κενοθρησκείας seems to be the scholion’s neologism122 to rewrite James’ phrase “religion (of this person) is empty” (μάταιος ἡ θρησκεία). Scholion 1.31b to Jas 1:26 Therefore he says, “If you think you are standing”: This quotation of 1 Cor 10:12 and following comment are not found in the textual witnesses to the ac, and are perhaps the addition of the catenist himself. The Pauline passage, “So if you think (ὁ δοκῶν) you are standing, watch out (βλεπέτω) that you do not fall,” is brought in to contrast an apparent religion with a true religion; the ac quotes Hos 6:6 to achieve this same purpose. By inserting the Pauline quotation without any indication of its provenance from Paul, the catenist implicitly merges the voices of James and Paul into one (see Introduction sect. 15). Armenian CatJas also witnesses a version of this scholion.123 Scholion 1.32 to Jas 1:26 Codices O and P use a non-numerical symbol reference symbol to link this scholion to the scriptural text; P writes it outside the normal frame catena margins (see Introduction sect. 2.3.3). This scholion glosses the word θρησκός (“religious”) in Jas 1:26, clarifying that “religious” means “to belong to our religion in Christ.” After “in Christ,” P adds the further comment, “faithful or heterodox” (πίστος ἢ ἑτερόδοξος), indicating its view that of those claiming to be “in Christ,” some are faithful (i.e., orthodox) and some are heterodox. 122 123

The CatJas passage is the only reference in pgl (s.v.) and the only result of a tlg search of the word. Renoux, 91.

commentary

233

A gloss in the gs (Matthaei, 17) offers two exegetical options that mirror Sch. 1.32 and 1.33: μέτοχος τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ θρησκείας. Ἄλλως· Μὴ σπεύδων μαθεῖν, ἀλλὰ διδάσκειν (“‘a partaker in the religion in Christ.’ Differently [interpreted], ‘not being eager to learn but to teach’”). Scholion 1.33 to Jas 1:26 This scholion is witnessed in O, P and the gs (ga 1845 fol. 95r). In ga 463, the scholion appears as a gloss to Jas 2:1–13.124 Both O and P use a non-numerical reference symbol; P writes it outside the normal catena commentary margins (see Introduction sect. 2.3.3). In O, the scholion clearly glosses the phrase “deceiving his heart” and thus connects one’s inability to control (“bridle”) one’s tongue with an overzealousness to teach. This connection reprises a recurring theme in CatJas: criticism of false teachers in James’ community (see commentary on Sch. 3.1ab, 3.15, 4.1). Scholion 1.34 to Jas 1:26 P (fol. 194r) glosses the word “religion” with “faith” (ἡ πίστις), using a nonnumerical symbol and writing outside the normal margin. The scholion is lacking in O, V, and R. Scholion 1.35 to Jas 1:27 This scholion is extracted from Chrysostom’s homily on 2 Timothy, taken from a section where Chrysostom reflects on the necessity of giving charity to those in need (ἐλεημοσύνη). CatJas follows Chrysostom’s text closely, making it more concise by omitting two brief examples of actions that God does not perform.

CatJas to Jas 1:27 (Cramer, 9, lines 15–21)

Chrysostom Hom. 2 Tim. 6 to 2 Tim 2:26 (Field, Paulinarum, 6:217)

Τοῦτό ἐστιν, ᾧ ἐξισοῦσθαι δυνάμεθα τῷ θεῷ· [τὸ] ἐλεεῖν καὶ οἰκτείρειν. Ὅταν οὖν τοῦτο μὴ ἔχωμεν, τοῦ παντὸς ἀπεστερήμεθα. Οὐκ εἶπεν· “Ἐὰν νηστεύσητε ὅμοιοι ἐστὲ τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν·”

Τοῦτό ἐστιν, ᾧ ἐξισοῦσθαι δυνάμεθα τῷ θεῷ, τὸ ἐλεεῖν καὶ οἰκτείρειν· ὅταν οὖν τοῦτο μὴ ἔχωμεν, τοῦ παντὸς ἀπεστερήμεθα. Οὐκ εἶπεν, Ἐὰν νηστεύητε, ὅμοιοί ἐστε τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν·

124

See Matthaei, 17 and 188 note 55.

234

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 1:27 (Cramer, 9, lines 15–21)

Chrysostom Hom. 2 Tim. 6 to 2 Tim 2:26 (Field, Paulinarum, 6:217) οὐκ εἶπεν, ὲὰν παρθενεύητε, οὐδὲ εἶπεν, ἐὰν εὔχησθε, ὅμοιοί ἐστε τῷ πατρὶ ὑμῶν·

οὐδὲν γὰρ τούτων [περὶ] θεόν, οὐδὲ ἐργάζετaί τι τούτων ὁ θεός. Ἀλλὰ τί; “Γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς·” τοῦτο θεοῦ ἔργον. Ἐὰν οὖν τοῦτο μὴ ἔχῃς, τί ἔχεις; “Ἔλεον θέλω,” φησί, “καὶ οὐ θυσίαν.”

οὐδὲν γὰρ τούτων περὶ θεόν, οὐδὲ ἐργάζεταί τι τούτων ὁ θεός· ἀλλὰ τί; Γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες, ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Τοῦτο θεοῦ ἔργον. έὰν οὖν τοῦτο μὴ ἔχῃς, τί ἔχεις; “Ἔλεον θέλω, φησὶ, καὶ οὐ θυσίαν.”

What drew the catenist’s attention to this particular text in Chrysostom, which makes no reference to James, is not immediately clear. Perhaps the catenist saw in James’ reference to the care of widows and orphans the paradigmatic example of ἐλεημοσύνη. Significant, too, may have been Chrysostom’s quotation of Hos 6:6 (cited in Matt 9:13), “I desire mercy and not sacrifice”: a paradigmatic text for defining “religion” in ethical, rather than in cultic, terms (cf. commentary on Sch. 1.31b). none of these things [apply to] God: In the context of Chrysostom’s homily, “these things” refers to practices of fasting, remaining celibate, and prayer. (The catenist awkwardly retains the plural “these things,” even though had edited out the last two practices.) God does not perform these activities, but he does perform merciful and compassionate actions. Chapter 3: Concerning impartial love for each person according to (the) Law This Euthalian chapter title covers the pericope Jas 2:1–13. “Impartial love” (ἀγάπη ἀπροσωπόληπτος) summarizes James’ exhortation to impartiality in the community (Jas 2:1–7); “according to the Law” (κατὰ νόμον) summarizes James’ connection of impartiality with following the “royal law” (Jas 2:8–13). The phrase “impartial love” neatly connects impartiality with James’ quotation of the “royal law”: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Modern commentators concur with CatJas in understanding this section as a coherent unit. Scholion 2.1 to Jas 2:1 The scholion is drawn from Chrysostom’s homily on Rom 12:4–5; the catenist applies Chrysostom’s exhortation to impartiality in the one Body of Christ to

commentary

235

James’ exhortation to impartiality in the community. Unsurprisingly, this passage is also found in the Catena to the Epistle to the Romans.125 Modern exegetes debate on the precise setting that James has in mind when he describes the interactions in the συναγωγή (Jas 2:2); in particular whether he refers to a worship assembly or some kind of court proceeding.126 In applying the Chrysostom scholion, the catenist clearly thinks the passage refers to a church community assembled for worship. The catenist thus skillfully brings Chrysostom and Paul’s exhortation for equality and unity in the Body of Christ into connection with James’ condemnation of partiality towards the rich in the Christian community. The catenist reproduces his source precisely.

CatJas to Jas 2:1 (Cramer, 9, lines 26–31)

Chrysostom Hom. Rom. 21 (22) to Rom 12:4–5 (Field, Paulinarum, 1:359)

Τινὸς ἕνεκεν σὺ μέγα φρονεῖς, φησίν; Ἤ διατί, πάλιν, ἕτερος ἑαυτὸν ἐξευτελίζει; Οὐχὶ σῶμα ἐσμὲν ἅπαντες ἓν, καὶ μεγάλοι καὶ μικροί; Ὅταν οὖν, κατὰ τὸ κεφάλαιον, ἓν ὦμεν καὶ ἀλλήλων μέλη, τί τῇ [ἀπονοίᾳ σχίζεις] σαυτόν; Τί αἰσχύνῃ τὸν ἀδελφόν; Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐκεῖνός σου μέλος, οὕτω κἀκείνου σύ. Καὶ πολλὴ κατὰ τοῦτο ἡ ὁμοτιμία.

Τίνος γὰρ ἕνεκεν σὺ μεγά φρονεῖς, φησίν; ἢ διὰ τί πάλιν ἕτερος ἑαυτὸν ἐξευτελίζει; οὐχὶ σῶμά ἐσμεν ἅπαντες ἓν, καὶ μεγάλοι καὶ μικροί; Ὅταν οὖν κατὰ τὸ κεφάλαιον ἓν ὦμεν καὶ ἀλλήλων μέλη, τί τῇ ἀπονοίᾳ σχίζεις σαυτόν; τί ἐπαισχύνῃ τὸν ἀδελφόν; Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐκεῖνός σου μέλος, οὕτω κἀκείνου σύ· καὶ πολλὴ καὶ κατὰτοῦτο ἡ ὁμοτιμία.

He is saying. In Chrysostom’s original homily, “he” refers to Paul. In the context of CatJas, however, the referent is to the apostle James—another instance of CatJas’ tendency to merge the personae of the two apostles into one (Introduction sect. 15). Scholion 2.2 to Jas 2:2–4 The scholion is drawn from Chrysostom’s homily on Rom 12:16, “Live in harmony with one another (τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες; more literally: ‘Have

125 126

Cramer, cgpnt, 4:439. See Allison, James, 385–388 for options. Interpreters of course also debate to what extent James’ use of συναγωγή implies that James’ community still identified themselves as Jews.

236

commentary

the same regard for one another’); do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are” (nrsv). The catenist had just quoted from Chrysostom’s homily on Rom 12:4–5 in the previous scholion (2.1). He thus continues his application of Paul’s exhortations to unity to the Roman community to the tensions between the rich and the poor evident in James’ community. Although the catenist quotes only the first part of Rom 12:16, he no doubt was attracted by the following lines, “do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly.” To illustrate Paul’s exhortation, “Have the same regard for another,” Chrysostom envisions the visit of a poor man to the home of a fellow church member. The scholion adjusts Chrysostom’s scenario to fit the context of James in which a poor person visits the church assembly. He thus correlates Paul’s teaching that the community should have the same regard for one another with James’ exhortation that no favoritism should be shown in the community.

CatJas to Jas 2:2–4 (Cramer, 10, lines 8–12)

Chrysostom Hom. Rom. 23 (22) to Rom 12:16 (Field, Paulinarum, 1:373–374)

“Τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες·” παρεγένετο ὁ πένης, γενοῦ κατ’ [εκεῖνον] τῷ φρονήματι· μὴ μείζονα καταβάλῃς ὄγκον διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον· οὐκ ἔστι πένης καὶ πλούσιος ἐν Χριστῷ. Μὴ τοίνυν [ἐπαισχύνθῃς] διὰ τὴν ἔξωθεν περιβολήν, ἀλλὰ ἀπόδεξαι διὰ τὴν ἔνδον πίστιν.

“τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες;” παρεγένετό σοι πένης εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν; γενοῦ κατ’ εκεῖνοντῷ φρονήματι· μὴ μείζονα λαβῃς127 ὄγκον διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον. Οὐκ ἔστι πλούσιος καὶ πένης ἐν Χριστῷ. μὴ τοίνυν ἐπαισχύνθῃς διὰ τὴν ἔξωθεν περιβολήν, ἀλλὰ ἀπόδεξαι διὰ τὴν ἔνδον πίστιν·

Scholion 2.3 to Jas 2:5–6 The catenist chooses this scholion from Chrysostom’s homily on 2 Thessalonians to comment on Jas 2:6a: “But you have dishonored the poor person.” In the context of the homily, Chrysostom comments on 2 Thess 3:15, “Do not regard them as enemies, but warn them as believers.”128 The reference is to community members who do not obey what Paul says in this letter (2 Thess 3:14);

127 128

One Chrysostom manuscript reads (with CatJas) καταβάλῃς. P (fol. 195r) reads, τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ῥητοῦ προκειμένου ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοὶ μὴ ἐκκακήσητε τὸ καλὸν ποιοῦντες (“from saint John Chrysostom concerning the passage,

commentary

237

in the immediate context, this applies to members who are “living in idleness,” “mere busybodies, not doing any work” (3:6, 11–12, nrsv). Chrysostom’s comments apparently assume that these community members are poor and are begging for assistance from other church members. Again the catenist applies Chrysostom’s comments on the tensions between rich and poor in a Pauline community to the scenario in James.

CatJas to Jas 2:2–4 (Cramer, 10, line 17–11, Chrysostom Hom. 2 Thess. 5 to 2 Thess line 2) 3:15 (Field, 5:489) Ἡμεῖς δὲ, ὡς τὰ μέγιστα ἠδικημένοι, οὕτω τοὺς προσαιτοῦντας ὑβρίζομεν, ἀποστρεφόμεθα. Οὐ [δίδως], τι καὶ λυπεῖς; “Νουθετεῖτε,” εἶπεν ὁ Παῦλος, “ὡς ἀδελφούς, οὐχ ὑβρίζετε ὡς ἐχθρούς.” Ὁ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ νουθετῶν οὐ δημοσίᾳ τοῦτο ποιεῖ, οὐκ ἐκπομπεύει τὴν ὕβριν, ἀλλ’ ἰδίᾳ καὶ μετὰ πολλῆς [τῆς] προσοχῆς, καὶ ἀλγῶν καὶ δακνόμενος δακρύων καὶ ὀδυρόμενος. Ἀπὸ ἀδελφικῆς τοινῦν παρέχομεν τῆς διανοίας, ἀπὸ ἀδελφικῆς νουθετοῦμεν τῆς προαιρέσεως, μὴ ὡς ἀλγοῦντες ἐπὶ τῷ διδόναι, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἀλγοῦντες ἐπὶ τὸ ἐκεῖνον παραβαίνειν τὴν ἐντολὴν ἐπὶ τὸ κέρδος. Εἰ γὰρ μετὰ τὸ δοῦναι ὑβρίζεις, λυμαίνῃ τῇ τῆς δόσεως ἡδονῇ. Ὅταν δὲ μήτε δῷς καὶ ὑβρίσῃς, πόσον οὐκ εἰργάσω κακὸν τὸν ἄθλιον ἐκεῖνον καὶ ταλαίπωρον; Προσῆλθεν ὡς [ἐλεηθησόμενος] παρὰ σοῦ· λαβὼν δὲ καιρίαν τὴν πληγὴν ἀπῆλθε καὶ μᾶλλον ἐδάκρυσεν. Ὄταν γὰρ ἀναγκάζηται διὰ τὴν ἔνδειαν προσαιτεῖν, διὰ δὲ τὸ

Οὐχ ἡμεῖς οὕτως, ἀλλ´ ὡς τὰ μέγιστα ἠδικημένοι, οὕτω τοὺς προσαιτοῦντας ὑβρίζομεν, ἀποστρεφόμεθα. Οὐ δίδως· τι καὶ λυπεῖς; “Νουθετεῖτε, εἶπεν, ὡς ἀδελφούς,” οὐχ ὑβρίζετε ὡς ἐχθρούς· ὁ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ νουθετῶν, οὐ δημοσίᾳ τοῦτο ποιεῖ· οὐκ ἐκπομπεύει τὴν ὕβριν, ἀλλ’ ἰδίᾳ καὶ μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς προσοχῆς, καὶ ἀλγῶν καὶ δακνόμενος, δακρύων καὶ ὀδυρόμενος. Ἀπὸ ἀδελφικῆς τοινῦν παρέχωμεν τῆς διανοίας, ἀπὸ ἀδελφικῆς νουθετῶμεν τῆς προαιρέσεως· μὴ ὡς ἀλγοῦντες ἐπὶ τῷ διδόναι, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἀλγοῦντες ἐπὶ τῷ ἐκεῖνον παραβαίνειν τὴν ἐντολὴν. Ἐπεὶ τί τὸ κέρδος; Εἰ γὰρ καὶ μετὰ τὸ δοῦναι ὑβρίζεις, λυμαίνῃ τῇ τῆς δόσεως ἡδονῇ. ὅταν δὲ μήτε δῷς καὶ ὑβρίσῃς, πόσον οὐκ εἰργάσω κακὸν τὸν ἄθλιον ἐκεῖνον καὶ ταλαίπωρον; Προσῆλθεν ὡς ἐλεηθησόμενος παρὰ σοῦ· λαβὼν δὲ καιρίαν τὴν πληγὴν ἀπῆλθε, καὶ μᾶλλον ἐδάκρυσεν. ὅταν γὰρ ἀναγκάζηται διὰ τὴν ἔνδειαν προσαιτεῖν, διὰ δὲ τὸ

‘Brothers and sisters, do not be weary in doing what is right,’”) (2 Thess 3:13), thus taking Chrysostom’s comment to apply to the previous verses as well. This lemma is also read in Armenian CatJas (Renoux, 50, 92–93).

238

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 2:2–4 (Cramer, 10, line 17–11, Chrysostom Hom. 2 Thess. 5 to 2 Thess line 2) 3:15 (Field, 5:489) προσαιτεῖν ὑβρίζεται, ὅρα πόση τῷ ὑβρίζοντι ἡ τιμωρία. “Παροξύνει τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτόν·” [Εἴπε] γάρ μοι αὐτὸς αὐτὸν ἀφῆκε πένεσθαι διά σε, ἵνα σὺ ἔχῃς θεραπεύειν [σαυτόν], καὶ σὺ τὸν διὰ σὲ πενόμενον ὑβρίζεις, πόσης ἀγνωμοσύνης ταῦτα, πόσης ἀχαριστίας τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον;

προσαιτεῖν ὑβρίζηται, ὅρα πόση τῶν ὑβριζόντων ἡ τιμωρία. “Ὁ ἀτιμάζων πένητα, φησὶ, παροξύνει τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτόν.” Είπὲ γάρ μοι· αὐτὸς αὐτὸν ἀφῆκε πένεσθαι διά σε, ἵνα σὺ ἔχῃς θεραπεύειν σαυτὸν, καὶ σὺ τὸν διὰ σὲ πενόμενον ὑβρίζεις; πόσης ἀγνωμοσύνης ταῦτα; πόσης ἀχαριστίας τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον;

“He angers the one who made him”: The original of Chrysostom’s homily provides the context: “‘The one who dishonors the poor person,’ it says, ‘angers the one who made him’” (Prov 14:31).129 if he allowed him to be poor for your sake, so that you are able to take care of yourself: The assumption behind Chrysostom’s statement seems tο be that wealth and other goods are limited; thus the loss of wealth for one person implies a gain for another.130 Scholion 2.4 to Jas 2:6–7 The context from which this scholion is drawn is Chrysostom’s comments on Heb 10:30–31, “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay’ … It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” In light of God’s judgment, Chrysostom exhorts his hearers to avoid becoming attached to possessions and wealth, as these things easily become idols. If they treat wealth lightly, then they will realize that when they are cheated of their wealth, the ones oppressing them are harmed, not they themselves. The catenist applies these comments to James’s reference to oppression by the rich (2:6).

129 130

lxx Prov 14:31 reads ὁ συκοφαντῶν πένητα (“the one who slanders a poor person”) instead of Chrysostom’s ὁ ἀτιμάζων πένητα (“the one who dishonors a poor person”). For this concept of limited economic good in the ancient Mediterranean world, see Jerome Neyrey, “Limited Good,” in John J. Pilch and Bruce J. Malina, eds., updated ed., Handbook of Biblical Social Values (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 122–124.

239

commentary

CatJas to Jas 2:5–6 (Cramer, 11, lines 6–10)

Chrysostom Hom. Heb. 20.7 to Heb 10:30–31 (Field, 7:235).

Φέρετε γενναίως τὰς πλεονεξίας· ἑαυτοὺς ἀναίρουσιν ἐκεῖνοι, οὐχ ὑμᾶς. Ὑμᾶς μὲν ἀποστεροῦσι χρημάτων· ἑαυτοὺς δὲ γυμνοῦσι τῆς εὐνοίας τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τῆς βοηθείας. Ὁ δὲ ἐκείνης [γυμνωθείς], κἂν ἅπαντα περιβάληται τῆς οἰκουμένης τὸν πλοῦτον, πάντων ἐστὶ πενέστερος.

φέρετε γενναίως τὰς πλεονεξίας· ἑαυτοὺς ἀναίρουσιν ἐκεῖνοι, οὐχ ὑμᾶς. Ὑμᾶς μὲν ἀποστεροῦσι χρημάτων, ἑαυτοὺς δὲ γυμνοῦσι τῆς εὐνοίας τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τῆς βοηθείας· ὁ δὲ ἐκείνης γυμνωθείς, κἂν ἅπαντα περιβάληται τῆς οἰκουμένης τὸν πλοῦτον, πάντων ἐστὶ πενέστερος·

Scholion 2.5 to Jas 2:6–7 This scholion is attributed to Apollinarius in O (fol. 182r), unattributed in P (fol. 195r), is omitted in V; R (fol. 2v) combines it with the previous Sch. 2.4. It is also witnessed in the ac (ga 631 fol. 59r; ga 1842 fol. 78r); both manuscripts add to this scholion a further short scholion that O places at Jas 1:22 (Sch.1.26). Matthaei (188, following ga 103 fol. 79r), prints this as a scholion to Jas 2:9 and notes that Cod. H (ga 463) gives it as a scholion to Jas 1. Bede (Ep. Cath. to Jas 2:7) echoes the interpretation of this scholion, “That quite a few of the leading men (primores) both of the gentiles and particularly of the Jews did this (i.e., oppressed the believers in Christ) in the apostles’ time is sufficiently clearly shown both in the Acts of the same apostles and in the Letters of the apostle Paul.”131 Scholion 2.6 to Jas 2:8–9 from Apollinarius: The scholion is unattributed in O fol. 182r, but P (f. 195v), V (f. 234v), R (fol. 2v) and the Armenian translation attribute it to Apollinarius.132 To my knowledge, its source remains unidentified in Apollinarius’ extant fragments. principle of nature: This translates the Greek φυσικὸς ὁ λογισμός. The concept is similar to the term ὁ φυσικὸς νόμος and related terminology that several ancient Jewish and Christian writers used to refer to an innate law (often contrasted with written law) that allows each person to distinguish between good and bad.133 131 132 133

Hurst, ed., 194; Hurst, trans., 23–24. Renoux, 50. See a review in Jackson-McCabe, Logos and Law, 87–133. Jackson-McCabe notes the close

240

commentary

A teaching of Maximus Confessor closely parallels this scholion. The natural law (φυσικὸς νόμος) “convinces all human beings to embrace that which is of a shared nature and kinship (ἀσπάζεσθαι πάντας πείθει τὸ συγγενὲς καὶ ὁμόφυλον) … and to encourage everyone to seek for others what each one considers desirable to be done to him by them.” Maximus then quotes Jesus’ teaching in Matt 7:12 / Luke 6:31 in support of this natural law.134 Hesychius (Comm. magn. Ps. to Ps 104:19) also closely connects this natural law or principle and the rational nature of humans: Καὶ μὴν οὔπω νόμος δοθεὶς ὑπῆρχεν ἔγγραφος, ἀλλ’ ἑκάστῳ λογικῷ λόγιον παρὰ θεοῦ ὁ φυσικὸς νόμος, δι’ ὃν καὶ λογικοὶ γινόμεθα (“Indeed the written law was not yet given, but to each rational creature the natural law [is given] by God as an oracle, through which we indeed become rational”).135 Scholion 2.7 to Jas 2:10 The ac witnesses a version of this text;136 another version is witnessed as a scholion to Jas 2:21 (Matthaei, 189; ga 621 fol. 59v). The ac version clarifies the original grammar of the scholion: ἐν ἑνὶ πταίσειν ἐστὶ τὸ μὴ τελείαν ἔχειν ἀγάπην. The gs witnesses the first part of the scholion.

CatJas to Jas 2:10 (Cramer, 11, lines 26–31)

[Τὸ] μὴ τελείαν ἔχειν ἀγάπην· τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ κεφάλαιον τῶν καλῶν. Εἰ δὲ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἀπορεῖ, περιττὸν ἅπαν τὸ λοιπὸν σῶμα· ὅτι [δὲ] περὶ τούτου λέγει, δῆλον ἐκ τῆς προειργασμένης κατασκευῆς· πᾶσα γὰρ αὐτῷ

134 135 136

ac (Matthaei, 188–189, to Jas 2:10)

gs (Matthaei, 21, to Jas 2:10)

ἐν ἑνί πταίσειν ἐστί, τὸ μὴ τελείαν ἔχειν ἀγάπην. τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ κεφάλαιον τῶν καλῶν·

οἵον τὸ μὴ τελείαν ἔχειν ἀγάπην; αὕτη γὰρ τὸ τῶν καλῶν κεφάλαιον·

ὅτι δὲ περὶ τούτου λέγει, δῆλον ἐκ τῆς προειργασμένης κατασκευῆς. πᾶσα γὰρ αὐτῷ

connection between νόμος and λόγος in this literature and shows how it was applied to early Christian interpretation of Jas 1:21. Qu. Thal. 64.31 (Laga and Steel, eds., 233; Constas, trans., 511). pg 93:1296a. Matthaei, 188–189, to Jas 2:10 (omitting εἰ δὲ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἀπορεῖ, περιττὸν ἅπαν τὸ λοιπὸν σῶμα); ga 621 fol. 59r.

241

commentary (cont.)

CatJas to Jas 2:10 (Cramer, 11, lines 26–31)

ac (Matthaei, 188–189, to Jas 2:10)

ἡ κατασκευὴ περὶ τελείας ἀγάπης ἦν· τὸ δὲ “Οὐ μοιχεύσεις, ἀλλὰ φονεύσεις,” ὑποδείγματος χάριν κεῖται, ὥστε μὴ χωλεύειν κατὰ τὸ λοιπὸν τὴν τελειότητα.

ἡ κατασκευὴ περὶ τελείας ἀγάπης ἦν· τὸ δὲ οὐ μοιχεύσεις, ἀλλὰ φονεύσεις, ὑποδείγματος χάριν κεῖται, ὥστε μὴ χωλεύειν κατὰ τὸ λοιπὸν τὴν τελειότητα.

gs (Matthaei, 21, to Jas 2:10)

not to have perfect love: The scholion follows an interpretation of Jas 2:10 that is witnessed in Augustine’s lengthy letter to Jerome (Ep. 167) as well in one of his sermons (179A). Augustine wonders whether James truly believes that if a person breaks one commandment, he is guilty of breaking all commandments, thus implying that all commandments are equal. Augustine rejects these conclusions, and instead recalls Jesus’ teaching that the central commandments of the Law involve loving God and one’s neighbor (Matt 22:40). Since love is the heart of the Law, “a person who has observed the whole law becomes guilty of all the commandments if he offends on one of them, because he acts against the love on which the whole law depends” (quia contra caritatem facit, unde tota lex pendet);137 cf. also Bede Ep. Cath. to Jas 2:10–12. Ps.-Hilary of Arles Exp. vii Ep. to Jas 2:10 glosses “yet stumbles in one [point]” with, “that is, in the one commandment of love in which all commandments consist, as Paul says, ‘For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment’ ” (Gal 5:14).138 previously worked out argument: The scholion apparently refers to the argument in Jas 2:8–9: one does well if one fulfills the royal law that is guided by the standard, “Love your neighbor as yourself”; showing favoritism is inconsistent with this standard. given as an example: The scholion refers to Jas 2:11; likely making a distinction between the imperfect law of prohibitions (“do not kill” etc.) and the perfect law of positive exhortation to love. One sees a similarity to Maximus the Confessor’s distinction between the natural law, the scriptural law (which

137 138

Goldbacher, ed., 604; Teske, trans., wsa 2/3: 102. McNally, ed., 64.

242

commentary

“customarily uses the fear of punishment to constrain the disordered impulses of those lacking in prudence”), and the law of grace.139 Scholion 2.8a to Jas 2:11 Even if the current passage: Here the catenist apparently speaks in his own voice, commenting that he finds it necessary to quote Jesus’ interpretation from the Sermon on the Mount as an introduction to Sch. 2.8 from Severus. This sentence is also read in the ac,140 where it concludes Sch. 2.7. Its presence in the ac shows that the catenist’s comment is not that of the final compiler of CatCE, but of the compiler of the earlier collection that serves as the foundation of CatCE. The catenist also introduces Sch. 4.8 with this same basic phrase. our Lord and God Jesus: With its unnuanced, direct identification of the human Jesus and God, the catenist’s comment may suggest that he shares Severus’ characteristic miaphysite Christology that emphasized the one “nature” of Christ. without cause: In quoting Matt 5:22, the scholion reads εἰκῆ (“without cause”; = Byz) after “if you are angry.” This phrase is usually understood as a scribal interpretive addition to the original text of Matthew. Scholion 2.8b to James 2:11 Severus, the bishop of Antioch. The catenist draws his quotation from Severus’ homily on the feast of Mid-Pentecost, preserved fully only in Syriac translation.141 For the importance of Severus, and of the detailed author lemmata of Severus in the catena traditions, see Introduction sect. 10.4.12. meaning of the law. The phrase is νόμου νοῦς (lit.: “the mind of the law”); cf. Justin Dial. 29.2, where Justin claims that the Jews read the scriptures, but do not understand the meaning or spirit in them (οὐ νοεῖτε τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς νοῦν).142 provider of the Spirit: the Greek phrase πνεύματος χορηγός is found in Cyril of Alexandria, e.g., Thes. 20143 and Comm. Joh. to John 1:32–33.144 Severus’ thought and theological vocabulary are strongly influenced by Cyril. What has become obsolete: The quotation of Heb 8:13 reads ὑπάρχειν (“to be”) after “near” ἐγγύς; a reading not attested in na28 or Byz. 139 140 141 142 143 144

Maximus Qu. Thal. 64.31–33 (Laga and Steel eds., 2:233–237; Constas trans., 511–512). Matthaei, 188–189; ga 1842 fol. 78v. Severus Hom. Cath. 46. M. Brière and F. Graffin, ed. and trans., Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche. Homélies xlvi à li, po 35/3 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1969), 290–293. Marcovich, ed., 116. Closely related are discussions on the “mind” (διάνοια) of Scripture, see Young, Biblical Exegesis, 35–45. pg 75:333. Pusey, ed., 1:184.

commentary

243

circle impressed on an artist’s panel: A similar image is used by John Chrysostom, commenting on Heb 10:1, “The law has only a shadow of the good things to come” (nrsv): “For as in painting, so long as one [only] draws the outlines (περιάγῃ τις τὰ χαράγματα), it is a sort of ‘shadow,’ but when one has added the bright paints and laid in the colors (τὸ ἄνθος ἐπαλείψῃ τις, καὶ ἐπιχρίσῃ τὰ χρώματα), it becomes “an image.” Something of this kind also was the Law.”145 Severus may well have borrowed the metaphor from Chrysostom.146 Yet nevertheless, it remains: Severus presents a sophisticated portrayal of the relationship between the Old Testament law and covenant and the New Testament covenant. He teaches that the literal ot commandments have been abrogated for followers of Christ, but the deeper meaning of the Law continues to exist insofar as Christ fulfilled that Law through his giving of the new law (i.e., the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount). Scholion 2.9 to Jas 2:12 Codices P, V, and R all reverse O’s order of these next two scholia: reading 2.10 and then 2.9. They thus connect this scholion with Jas 2:13; while O connects it with 2:12. The context of this scholion is Chrysostom’s comment on Heb 6:8, a passage concerning the eschatological condemnation of believers who have fallen again into sin. Chrysostom teaches that Paul is not condemning his readers, but rather warning them about the imminent possibility of a final condemnation.147 The catenist applies the brief passage to James’ teaching on final judgment; perhaps drawn to the passage by the fact that both Chrysostom and James speak of word and actions in the context of judgment.

CatJas to Jas 2:12 (Cramer, 13, lines 1–2)

Chrysostom Hom. Heb. 10.4 to Heb 6:8 (Field, Paulinarum, 7:129)

Βελτίον γὰρ τοῖς ῥήμασιν ὑμᾶς φοβῆσαι, ἵνα μὴ τοῖς πράγμασιν ἀλγήσητε

βελτίον γὰρ ὑμᾶς τοῖς ῥήμασιν φοβῆσαι, ἵνα μὴ τοῖς πράγμασιν ἀλγήσητε

145

146

147

Hom. Heb. 17 to Heb 10:1 (Field, ed., Paulinarum, 7:206; npnf1 14:448). Margaret Mitchell (Heavenly Trumpet, 56) notes that Chrysostom accurately describes contemporary painting techniques in his frequent use of painting metaphors. On Chrysostom’s influence on Severus’ writing, see Pauline Allen, “Severus of Antioch: Heir of Saint John Chrysostom?” in Severus of Antioch: His Life and Times, ed. John Dalton and Youhann Nessim Youssef, Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 7 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 1–13. Like many ancient exegetes, Chrysostom assumes that Paul is the author of Hebrews.

244

commentary

Scholion 2.10 to Jas 2:13 The ac148 witnesses a version of this text as a gloss on “law of freedom” (Jas 2:12). The ac lacks the opening Ἔστι μὲν περὶ κρίσεως ὀρθῆς ἡ παραίνεσις—perhaps an addition by the catenist.

CatJas to Jas 2:13 (Cramer, 13, 4–9)

ac (Matthaei, 188–189, to Jas 2:12)

Ἔστι μὲν περὶ κρίσεως ὀρθῆς ἡ παραίνεσις, “Νόμον δὲ ἐλευθερίας” λέγει τὸν νόμον τῆς δικαιοσύνης τὸν οὕτω κρίνοντα ὡς εὑρίσκει. Τοῦτο δέ φησιν ἐπειδὴ τινὲς ἁμαρτάνουσι τῇ φιλανθρωπίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀποχρώμενοι καὶ λέγοντες ὅτι “Φιλάνθρωπος ὢν συγχωρεῖ.” Διὸ καὶ ἐπιφέρει· “Ἀνέλεος ἡ κρίσις τῷ μὴ ποιήσαντι ἔλεος.”

“νόμον ἐλευθερίας” λέγει, τὸν νόμον τῆς δικαιοσύνης, τὸν οὕτω κρίνονται ὡς εὑρίσκει. τοῦτο δέ φησιν, ἐπειδὴ τινὲς ἁμαρτάνοντες, τῇ φιλανθρωπίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀποχρώμενοι, καὶ λέγοντες, ὅτι φιλάνθρωπος ὢν συγχωρεῖ· διὸ καὶ ἐπιφέρει, “ἀνέλεος ἡ κρίσις τῷ μὴ ποιήσαντι ἔλεος.”

The exhortation: The scholion identifies Jas 2:12–13 as a παραίνεσις (“exhortation”). See Introduction sect. 12.1.3. law of righteousness that judges (things) just as it finds (them): The sense is that the law of freedom and righteousness judges people and their actions accurately and objectively (in contrast to the skewed judgments, based on preferential treatment, censured in Jas 2:4). Compare the version of this scholion in ga 621 60r, “‘law of freedom’ means the law of righteousness, which judges things just as it finds them” (τὸν οὕτω κρίνον τὰ ὡς εὑρίσκει). Scholion 2.11 to Jas 2:13 from Hesychius: Although O, P, and R (omitted in V) attribute the scholion to Hesychius, it has, to my knowledge, not been identified in any extant source; see Introduction sect. 10.4.8. Charitable giving: In its biblical usage, the Greek term ἐλεημοσύνη is traditionally rendered as “almsgiving.” The scholion plays on the similar sounding words ἔλαιον (“olive oil”), and ἔλαιος (“mercy”), ἐλεήμων (“merciful”), and ἐλεημοσύνη. Ἐλεημοσύνη can have the wider sense of “sympathy,” but in the nt is narrowed to the sense of supporting the poor and needy.149

148 149

Matthaei, 188–189, to Jas 2:12; ga 621 fol. 59v. See tdnt s.v., 2:485–486.

commentary

245

Scholion 2.12 to Jas 2:13 The context of this scholion is the end of Chrysostom’s homily on Heb 12:25–29, where he gives a kind of encomium, praising the value of charitable giving. The catenist reproduces Chrysostom’s text closely, editing out one of Chrysostom’s similes to make it more concise.

CatJas to Jas 2:13 (Cramer, 13, line 15–14, line 5)

Chrysostom Hom. Heb. 32.7 to Heb 12:25–29 (Field 7: 361–362)

Ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη τέχνη τις ἀρίστη ἐστὶ καὶ προστάτις τῶν ἐργαζομένων αὐτήν. Φίλη γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστι, καὶ ἀεὶ πλησίον ἕστηκεν αὐτοῦ, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἂν βούληται εὐκόλως αἰτοῦσα χάριν, μόνον ἂν μὴ ἀδικῆται παρ’ ἡμῶν· ἀδικεῖται δέ, ὅταν ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς [αὐτὴν] ἐργαζώμεθα. Ὡς ἐὰν ᾖ καθαρά, πολλὴν τοῖς ἀναπέμπουσιν αὐτὴν δίδωσι τὴν παρρησίαν. Καὶ ὑπὲρ προσκεκρουκότων δεῖται, τοσαύτη αὐτῆς ἡ ἰσχύς, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡμαρτηκότων. Αὕτη διαρρήγνυσι τὰ δεσμά, λύει τὸ σκότος, σβέννυσι τὸ πῦρ, θανατοῖ τὸν σκώληκα, ἀπελαύνει τὸν τῶν ὀδόντων βρυγμόν. Ταύτῃ μετὰ πολλῆς ἀδείας ἀνοίγονται τῶν οὐρανῶν αἱ πύλαι—Καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα—

Ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη τέχνη τίς ἐστιν ἀρίστη, καὶ προστάτις τῶν ἐργαζομένων αὐτήν· Φίλη γὰρ τῷ θεῷ ἐστι, καὶ ἀεὶ πλησίον ἕστηκεν αὐτοῦ, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἂν βούληται, εὐκόλως αἰτοῦσα χάριν, μόνον ἂν μὴ ἀδικῆται παρ’ ἡμῶν· ἀδικεῖται δὲ, ὅταν ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς αὐτὴν ἐργαζώμεθα· ὡς ἐὰν ᾖ καθαρὰ, πολλὴν τοῖς ἀναπέμπουσιν αὐτὴν δίδωσι τὴν παρρησίαν· καὶ ὑπὲρ προσκεκρουκότων δεῖται, τοσαύτη αὐτῆς ἡ ἰσχύς, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡμαρτηκότων· Αὕτη διαρρήγνυσι τὰ δεσμά, λύει τὸ σκότος, σβέννυσι τὸ πῦρ, θανατοῖ τὸν σκώληκα, ἀπελαύνει τὸν τῶν ὀδόντων βρυγμόν· ταύτῃ μετὰ πολλῆς ἀδείας ἀνοίγονται τῶν οὐρανῶν αἱ πύλαι. [Chrysostom compares charitable giving with a queen who is received without question by her guards upon her entrance.]

Βασίλισσα γὰρ ὄντως ἐστὶν [ὁμοίους] ἀνθρώπους ποιοῦσα θεῷ· “Ἔσεσθε γάρ,” φησίν, “οἰκτίρμονες, ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.”

Βασιλὶς γὰρ ἐστὶν ὄντως, ὁμοίους ἀνθρώπους ποιοῦσα θεῷ· “Ἔσεσθε γὰρ,” φησὶν, “οἰκτίρμονες, ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐρανίος.”

Ὑπόπτερός ἐστι καὶ κούφη, πτέρυγας ἔχουσα χρυσᾶς· πτῆσιν ἔχουσα πάνυ τέρπουσαν τοὺς ἀγγέλους· ἐκεῖ [φησι·] “πτέρυγες περιστερᾶς περιηργυρωμέναι, καὶ [τὰ] μετάφρενα αὐτῆς ἐν χλωρότητι χρυσίου.” Καθάπερ περιστερά

Ὑπόπτερός ἐστι καὶ κούφη, πτέρυγας ἔχουσα χρυσᾶς, πτῆσιν ἔχουσα πάνυ τέρπουσαν τοὺς ἀγγέλους· ἐκεῖ, φησὶ, “Πτέρυγες περιστερᾶς πεσιηργυρωμέναι, καὶ τὰ μετάφρενα αὐτῆς ἐν χλωρότητι χρυσίου·” Καθάπερ περιστερά τις

246

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 2:13 (Cramer, 13, line 15–14, line 5)

Chrysostom Hom. Heb. 32.7 to Heb 12:25–29 (Field 7: 361–362)

τις χρυσῆ καὶ ζῶσα πέτεται, ὄμμα προσηνὲς ἔχουσα, ὀφθαλμὸν ἥμερον· οὐδὲν [τοῦ] ὀφθαλμοῦ ἐκείνου βέλτιον. Καλός ἐστιν ὁ ταώς, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἐκείνην κολοιός· oὕτως ἡ ὄρνις αὕτη καλή τις ἐστὶ καὶ θαυμαστή. Ἄνω διὰ παντὸς ὁρᾷ· πολλὴ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ δόξῃ περιστοιχίζεται. Παρθένος ἐστί, πτέρυγας ἔχουσα χρυσᾶς, περιεσταλμένη, λευκὸν ἔχουσα πρόσωπον, ἥμερον· Ὑπόπτερός ἐστι καὶ κούφη, παρὰ τὸν θρόνον ἑστῶσα τὸν βασιλικόν· Ὅταν κρινώμεθα, ἄφνω ἐφίσταται καὶ φαίνεται, καὶ ἐξαιρεῖται τῆς κολάσεως ἡμᾶς, ταῖς αὐτῆς πτέρυξι περιβάλλουσα. Ταύτην θέλει ὁ θεὸς ἢ θυσίας.

χρυσῆ καὶ ζῶσα, πέτεται, ὄμμα προσηνὲς ἔχουσα, ὀφθαλμὸν ἥμερον· Οὐδὲν τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ ἐκείνου βέλτιον. Καλός ἐστιν ὁ ταώς, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἐκείνην κολοιός· οὕτως ἡ ὄρνις αὕτη καλή τις ἐστὶ καὶ θαυμαστή· Ἄνω διὰ παντὸς ὁρᾷ, πολλῇ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ δόξῃ περιστοιχίζεται· Παρθένος ἐστὶ πτέρυγας ἔχουσα χρυσᾶς, περιεσταλμένη, λευκὸν πρόσωπον ἔχουσα, καὶ ἥμερον· ὑπόπτερός ἐστι καὶ κούφη, παρὰ τὸν θρόνον ἑστῶσα τὸν βασιλικόν· Ὅταν κρινώμεθα, ἄφνω ἐφίσταται καὶ φαίνεται, καὶ ἐξαιρεῖται τῆς κολάσεως ἡμᾶς, ταῖς αὐτῆς πτέρυξι περιβάλλουσα. Ταύτην θέλει ὁ θεὸς, ἢ θυσίας.

quenches the fire, kills the worm, drives away the grinding of teeth.: Chrysostom alludes to images that are associated with eschatological punishment in ancient Jewish and Christian sources (cf. Isa 66:24; Jdt 16:17; Sir 7:17; Mark 9:43– 48). His assumption is that charitable giving helps to save one from eternal damnation on the Day of Judgment. Here Chrysostom is doubtless influenced by Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:31–46), which makes a person’s reaction to the poor and needy (in whom Christ is present) the criterion for salvation.150 And after a bit: Καὶ μετ’ὀλίγα. Catenists regularly use this phrase to indicate that they have edited out a section of the quoted text. making humans [like] God: This scholion echoes Chrysostom’s teaching that the catenist employed in Sch. 1.35 on Jas 1:27: practicing charitable giving is the one activity that makes humans closest to God.

150

On the importance of the Matthean parable for Chrysostom’s thinking on charitable giving and salvation, see J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom: Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995), 98.

247

commentary

“Be merciful”: Chrysostom’s quotation of Luke 6:36 is apparently influenced by the similar passage in Matt 5:48; the influence is even more explicit in Ps.Andrew’s version.

Luke 6:36 (Byz)

Matt 5:48 (Byz)

Chrysostom Hom. Heb. to Heb 12:25–29 (Field, Paulinarum, 7: 362)

CatJas to Jas 2:13 (Cramer, 13, lines 26–27)

Γίνεσθε οὖν οἰκτίρμονες, καθὼς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων ἐστίν

Ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι, ὥσπερ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς τέλειός ἐστιν

Ἔσεσθε γὰρ οἰκτίρμονες, ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐρανίος.151

ἔσεσθε γάρ, οἰκτίρμονες, ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Compare also the form used in the Chrysostom quotation in Scholion 1.35: γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. God desires to have her more than sacrifice: Chrysostom alludes to Hos 6:6, quoted also in Jesus’ teaching in Matt 9:13: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν). This quotation also ends the related Scholion 1.35 on charitable giving. Chapter 4: That a person is justified: This Euthalian chapter title covers the section Jas 2:14–26, agreeing with modern scholars in identifying this section as a coherent unit. The title neatly summarizes the pericope’s description of the intrinsic relationship between faith and action. Codex R (4r) witnesses a shortened version of this title. Scholion 2.13 to Jas 2:14–26 This is a lengthy, unattributed scholion on James’ argument in 2:14–26. It thus differs essentially from most of the other unattributed CatJas scholia, which tend to be brief glosses on individual words or phrases. The scholion’s overview of James’ argument in this section demonstrates some rhetorical sophistication. It identifies the aim (ὁ σκόπος) of the passages: “Unless a person demonstrates that he believes in God by (his) actions, the name (of “believer”) is indeed superfluous.”152 It discusses several of the exam151 152

Some manuscripts of Chrysostom’s homily read ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς as in the Catena. Identifying the σκόπος of the whole of Scripture is an important exegetical principle for Origen and Athanasius (see Young, Biblical Exegesis, 21–27; 35–45). Theodore of Mopsues-

248

commentary

ples (τὰ ὑποδείγματα) used by James to achieve his rhetorical purpose. It clarifies that James did not make a merely indicative statement in 2:14 (“if someone has faith”), but rather presents it as an unsubstantiated claim (“if someone says that he has faith”). The central point of the scholion is a linguistic and philosophical one: to be applied properly, a name should not be merely a verbal label, but it must correspond with the underlying reality. What he (James) means is as follows: The introductory phrase, Ὃ δὲ λέγει τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν is common in the philosophical and biblical commentary genre (e.g., Philo Leg. 1.22;153 Alexander of Aphrodisias In Metaph. to 992a19154). the name (of “faith”) is indeed superfluous: While the scholion focuses on the appellation “faith,” it may also hint at the application of the name “Christian” (one who holds the faith). Justin (1 Apol. 4.3) discusses the close connection between the name of “Christian” and action: “For neither commendation nor punishment could reasonably be based on a name unless actions can show something to be virtuous or wicked” (ἐξ ὀνόματος μὲν γὰρ ἢ ἔπαινος ἢ κόλασις οὐκ ἂν εὐλόγως γένοιτο, ἢν μή τι ἐνάρετον ἢ φαῦλον δι’ ἔργων ἀποδείκνυσθαι δύνηται).155 both the (example) concerning charitable giving and the (example) concerning the body: The exact references here are unclear. The charitable giving example may refer to the example of the person in need of daily food and shelter (Jas 2:15–16); the example of the body may refer to James’ simile that faith without actions is like a body without the spirit (Jas 2:26). Scholion 2.14 to Jas 2:17–19 from Chrysostom: The context of the scholion is Chrysostom’s homily on John 3:35–36, including the statement, “the one who believes in the Son has eternal life.” Chrysostom argues that belief is not enough, as Jesus himself taught in Matt 7:21, “Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” rightly: Chrysostom’s ὀρθῶς means believing “rightly” in the sense of accepting the orthodox Christian beliefs as expressed, for example, in the NicenoConstantinopolitan Creed. The First Council of Constantinople, held in 381 when John was preaching at Antioch, ratified this Creed. This indeed is eternal life: The quotation of John 17:3 differs only slightly from na28 / Byz; reading καὶ αὕτη γάρ for αὕτη δέ at the beginning of the quotation.

153 154 155

tia refers to the σκόπος of a Psalm (Schäublin, Antiochenischen Exegese, 94). Determining the sense (διάνοια) of a passage is a closely related concept (see ibid, 142–143). Colson and Whitaker, trans., 160. Hayduck, ed., 119. Minns and Parvis, eds., 86–87.

commentary

249

a way of earning a living and a way of living in community: καὶ βίου καὶ πολιτείας καθαρωτάτης. Chrysostom refers to two aspects of practical life: the word βίος (lit.: “life”), can have the sense of how one earns the means of sustaining life; πολιτεία connotes a way of living together with others in a community setting. The catenist follows Chrysostom’s text closely.

CatJas to Jas 2:17–19 (Cramer, 17, lines 16–22)

Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 31 to John 3:35–36 (pg 59:176)

Κἂν γὰρ εἰς τὸν πατέρα καὶ εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ὀρθῶς τις πιστεύῃ, καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, βιὸν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ ὀρθόν, οὐδὲν αὐτῷ κέρδος τῆς πίστεως εἰς σωτηρίαν. Οὐκοῦν [καὶ] ὅταν [λέγῃ]· “Καὶ αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή, ἵνα γινώσκωσί σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν,” μὴ νομίσωμεν ἡμῖν ἀρκεῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν τὸ λεγόμενον· δεῖ γὰρ ἡμᾶς καὶ βίου καὶ πολιτείας καθαρωτάτης.

Κἂν γὰρ εἰς τὸν πατέρα τις καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ὀρθῶς πιστεύσῃ, καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, βίον δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ ὀρθὸν, οὐδὲν αὐτῷ κέρδος τῆς πίστεως εἰς σωτηρίαν. Οὐκοῦν καὶ ὅταν λέγῃ, Αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή, ἵνα γινσκωσί σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν, μὴ νομίσωμεν ἀρκεῖν ἡμῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν τὸ λεγόμενον. Δεῖ γὰρ ἡμῖν καὶ βίου καὶ πολιτείας ἀκριβεστάτης·

Scholion 2.15 to Jas 2:17–19 The scholion is taken from Chrysostom’s homily on Hebrews 4:11–13. Here Chrysostom builds on the correlation in Hebrews between the Israelites’ time of testing in the desert as they journeyed towards the promised land and the trials of Christians as they journey towards heaven (“the rest”). Chrysostom argues that to attain salvation one must combine one’s faith with an effort to live rightly. In applying Chrysostom’s point to James, the catenist sees this effort as one of the “works” necessary for a living faith that leads to salvation. The catenist follows Chrysostom’s text closely.

CatJas to Jas 2:17–19 (Cramer, 15, lines 23–34)

Chrysostom Hom. Heb. 7 to Heb 4:11–13 (Field, 7:87–88)

Μέγα μὲν πίστις καὶ σωτήριον, καὶ ταύτης ἄνευ, οὐκ ἔνι σωθῆναί ποτε. Ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀρκεῖ καθ’ ἑαυτὴν τοῦτο ἐργάσασθαι· ἀλλὰ δεῖ καὶ

Μέγα μὲν ἡ πίστις καὶ σωτήριον, καὶ ταύτης ἄνευ οὐκ ἔνι σωθῆναί ποτε. Ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀρκεῖ καθ’ ἑαυτὴν τοῦτο ἐργάσασθαι, ἀλλὰ δεῖ καὶ

250

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 2:17–19 (Cramer, 15, lines 23–34)

Chrysostom Hom. Heb. 7 to Heb 4:11–13 (Field, 7:87–88)

πολιτείας ὀρθῆς· Ὥστε διὰ τοῦτο καὶ Παῦλος τοῖς ἤδη τῶν μυστηρίων καταξιωθεῖσι παραινεῖ, λέγων· “Σπουδάσωμεν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς [ἐκείνην τὴν κατάπαυσιν]·” “Σπουδάσωμέν,” φησίν, ὡς οὐκ ἀρκούσης τῆς πίστεως, ἀλλ’ ὀφείλοντος [προστεθῆναι] καὶ τοῦ βίου, καὶ πολλὴν τὴν σπουδὴν γίνεσθαι· δεῖ γὰρ ὄντως καὶ πολλῆς σπουδῆς ὥστε εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. Εἰ γὰρ γῆς οὐ κατηξιώθησαν οἱ τοσαῦτα ταλαιπωρηθέντες ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, καὶ γῆς τυχεῖν οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν, ἐπεὶ ἐγόγγυσαν, καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐπόρνευσαν· πῶς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἡμεῖς [καταξιωθησόμεθα], ἀδιαφόρως ζῶντες καὶ ῥαθύμως; Δεῖ τοίνυν ἡμῖν πολλῆς σπουδῆς.

πολιτείας ὀρθῆς. Ὥστε διὰ τοῦτο καὶ Παῦλος τοῖς ἤδη τῶν μυστηρίων καταξιωθεῖσι παραινεῖ, λέγων· “Σπουδάσωμεν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν κατάπαυσιν.” “Σπουδάσωμεν,” φησὶν, ὡς οὐκ ἀρκούσης τῆς πίστεως, ἀλλ’ ὀφείλοντος προστεθῆναι καὶ τοῦ βίου, καὶ πολλὴν τὴν σπουδὴν γενέσθαι. Δεῖ γὰρ ὄντως καὶ πολλῆς σπουδῆς, ὥστε ἀνελθεῖν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. Εἰ γὰρ γῆς οὐκ ἠξιώθησαν οἱ τοσαῦτα ταλαιπωρηθέντες ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, καὶ γῆς τυχεῖν οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν, ἐπειδὴ ἐγόγγυσαν καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐπόρνευσαν· πῶς τῶν οὐρανῶν ἡμεῖς καταξιωθησόμεθα, ἀδιαφόρως ζῶντες καὶ ῥᾳθύμως; Δεῖ τοίνυν ἡμῖν πολλῆς σπουδῆς.

considered worthy of the mysteries: A phrase used often by Chrysostom to refer to Christians (e.g., Hom. Jo. 25.3 to John 3:5; Hom. Jo. 26.1 to John 3:6). the ones who were suffering so greatly in the desert: Chrysostom alludes to the ot narratives of Israel’s testing in the wilderness after Moses led them out of Egypt. The verb γογγύζω (“grumbling”) is often used in the Greek Bible to refer to the Israelites’ complaints against God and Moses about the wilderness hardships (e.g., Exod 17:3; Num 14:27). worshipped other gods: ἐπόρνευσαν means literally “to engage in sexual immorality” (bdag, s.v.). The Greek Bible uses it often as a metaphor for the unfaithfulness of God’s people in worshipping other gods (e.g., Hos 9:1; Jer 3:6). Scholion 2.16 to Jas 2:17 This scholion is drawn from one of Chrysostom’s homilies on 2 Timothy; the CatJas manuscripts closely associate it with the previous scholion, one of Chrysostom’s homilies on Hebrews. And again: This scholion is tied to the previous one (2.15): in O (fol. 184r) the two scholia are separated with a dicolon (:); P (fol. 197r) separates with the :- symbol. Codex V (236r) shows no separation

commentary

251

between the scholia (other than the phrase καὶ πάλιν [“and again”]); Codex R (5v) marks it as a separate scholion but does not indicate an author. All four manuscripts introduce Sch. 2.16 with καὶ πάλιν (“and again”). In his homily, Chrysostom comments on the Pauline description of those who hold “to the outward form of godliness” (μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας) but deny its power (δύναμις) (2Tim 3:5 nrsv), referring to false teachers who will arise in the “last days” (3:1). Chrysostom equates the Pauline phrase with the Jamesian phrase “faith without actions,” though without citing James explicitly: “Thus a form without power is a faith without actions.” Picking up on Chrysostom’s allusion to James, the catenist applies Chrysostom’s following comparison to Jas 2:26 (= Jas 2:20 Byz).

CatJas to Jas 2:17–19 (Cramer, 16, lines 1–3)

Chrysostom Hom. 2 Tim. 8. to 2 Tim 3:5 (Field 6:233)

“Πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν.”

Ἄρα σχῆμά ἐστι μόνον χωρὶς δυνάμεως πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων· εἰκότως. Ὥσπερ γὰρ σῶμα καλὸν καὶ εὐανθές, ὅταν ἰσχὺν μὴ ἔχῃ, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἐζωγραφημένοις ᾖ προσεοικός, οὕτω πίστις ὀρθὴ χωρὶς ἔργων.

εἰκότως· ὥσπερ γὰρ σῶμα καλὸν καὶ εὐανθές, ὅταν ἰσχὺν μὴ ἔχῃ, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἐζωγραφημένοις ᾖ προσεοικός, οὕτω πίστις ὀρθὴ χωρὶς ἔργων.

Scholion 2.17 to Jas 2:17–19 This and the following scholion (2.18) are drawn from Severus of Antioch’s second letter to Julian of Halicarnassus. Julian shared Severus’ basic miaphysite anti-Chalcedonian Christology but drew some radical conclusions about the incorruptible nature of Jesus’ earthly body that Severus rejected.156 The increasingly polemical correspondence between the two has been preserved in Syriac translation. The inclusion of scholia from this inter-miaphysite debate, in which Severus takes a moderate position over against Julian’s more radical interpretation, supports the hypothesis that many catenae traditions were produced to reconcile Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches (see sect. 10.4.12.3). 156

On the dispute between Severus and Julian, see Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition 2/2 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 79–111; Yonatan Moss, Incorruptible Bodies: Christology, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity, Christianity in Late Antiquity (Oakland: University of California Press, 2016).

252

commentary

The catenist on James is drawn to a section of the correspondence that focuses on theological method rather than Christological content. In his second letter to Severus, Julian assures Severus that he wishes his own teaching to be in harmony with the Fathers, including Athanasius and Cyril.157 These Fathers, Julian asserts, were always in harmony with one another, just as Paul, when he teaches that salvation is not through actions but rather through faith, does not contradict James, who states that faith without actions is dead. In his reply, Severus picks up on Julian’s example, and provides explanations of how Paul and James are indeed in harmony.158 The Syriac translation corresponds closely with the Greek of the catena. He speaks about the faith after baptism: The interpretation that Jas 2:14– 26 speaks of faith after baptism is common in early Christian exegesis, often paired with the understanding that Paul’s letters refer to initial faith before or immediately after baptism. For examples, see Commentary to Sch. 2.18. as an example for us: both making the waters holy: The teaching that Christ’s baptism is an example for Christians, and that his baptism makes the waters holy for the baptism of Christians is widespread in early Christianity.159 He goes up the mountain and endures the contest against the devil: Severus alludes to the Synoptic Gospel narratives in which Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness immediately follows his baptism. The reference to the “mountain” is perhaps an allusion to Matt 4:8. Scholion 2.18 to Jas 2:20–21 A portion of this scholion is witnessed in the ac, covering the text from “For the one Abraham, differentiated in time” to the quotation of Jas 2:22 (Matthaei, 189–190, to Jas 2:21; ga 621 fol. 59v). Cf. also the related glosses in the gs (Matthaei, 22–25). This scholion is from a passage in Severus’ second letter to Julian that follows immediately the passage quoted as Schol. 2.17.160 Comparison with the Syriac 157

158

159 160

See Robert Hespel, ed. and trans., La polémique antijulianiste i, csco 244–245; Scriptores Syri 104–105 (Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus sco, 1964), 13–14 / 10. Another version of Julian’s letter is found in G. Greatrex, R. Phenix, and C. Horn, The Chronicle of PseudoZachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity, Translated Texts for Historians 55 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011), 337. Hespel, ed. and trans., Polémique antijulianiste i, 13–14 / 10; Greatrex, Phenix, and Horn, Pseudo-Zachariah, 338–339. For the overall context of this debate between Severus and Julian on the use of the Fathers, see Moss, Incorruptible Bodies, 106–139, esp. 108. See, e.g., references in Manlio Simonetti, ed., Matthew 1–13, accs nt Ia (Downer’s Grove: Intervarsity, 2001), 50–51. Hespel, ed. and trans., Polémique antijulianiste, 14–17 / 10–13; G. Greatrex, R. Phenix, and C. Horn, Pseudo-Zachariah, 339–341.

commentary

253

translation shows that catenist has edited out a substantial amount of material from Severus’ original letter, including: 1. Quotations of Gal 3:9 and Rom 4:5 to illustrate Paul’s position on faith 2. A lengthy discussion on circumcision as a foreshadowing of baptism; Abraham’s pre-circumcision faith is a model of pre-baptismal faith, and his post-circumcision faith (including his obedience in offering Isaac as a sacrifice) is a model of post-baptismal faith (Severus quotes Jas 2:20–23 in this section). 3. A comment before the Gal 5:6 quotation locating it in the controversy over the necessity of circumcision in the Galatian church 4. A quotation of 1Cor 13:4–8 as an illustration of some of the acts that love requires in to vivify faith The editing seems to be in the form of simply deleting passages deemed as nonessential, and little, if any, paraphrasing or rewriting. Geoffrey Greatrex had identified this passage as a fragment from Severus in a 2011 article.161 profession: The word ὁμολογία here refers to the profession of faith given immediately before baptism (pgl, s.v.). closely united: The verb συζεύγνυμι literally means “yoked together,” and is used in the Gospel traditions in Jesus’ teachings on marriage and divorce: “Therefore what God has joined together (συνέζευξεν), let no one separate” (Mark 10:9; Matt 19:6). faith before baptism [and after baptism]. The scholion’s method of reconciling James and Paul on the relationship between faith, actions, and salvation by positing that Paul refers to faith before or immediately after baptism, and that James refers to a post-baptismal faith had already been established firmly in the tradition. – Origen (Comm. Rom. 2.12.4) assumes that James refers to a post-baptismal scenario: “if anyone in the Church who is circumcised by means of the grace of baptism should afterwards become a transgressor of Christ’s law (legis Christi), his baptismal circumcision shall be reckoned to him as the uncircumcision of unbelief. For it says, ‘Faith without works is dead.’ ”162 – Bede (Ep. Cath. to Jas 2:22–23) comments that if a person is recently baptized and goes home “intending with his whole heart to observe God’s command-

161

162

Greatrex, “A Rediscovered Greek Fragment of Severus of Antioch,” Parekbolai: An Electronic Journal for Byzantine Literature (2011) 1–6. Retrieved from https://ejournals.lib.auth​ .gr/parekbolai. Hammond Bammel, ed., 1:149–150; Scheck, trans., 1:143.

254

commentary

ments,” he is already “made righteous by faith without works” since he has not had time to test his faith. But those who have already been baptized and do not display good works should by warned by James’ conclusion, “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (Jas 2:24).163 – See also Augustine Div. quaest lxxxiii 76.1–2 (Ramsey, trans., 140–142); Augustine Serm. 2.9 (Lambot, ed., 15–16; Hill, trans., 3.1:16–17); Pelagius Exp. xiii Ep. Pauli to Rom 3:28 (Souter, ed., 23; de Bruyn, trans., 83); Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. cath. ep. to Jas 2:20–26 (pg 119:480d–481c). one approaching: τὸν προσερχόμενον. Cyril of Jerusalem Procatech. 2 (Reischl and Rupp, eds., 1:2) applies this term to one approaching baptism. It is also used more generally of those converting to the Christian faith, e.g., Origen Cels. 1.46; 3.9. another standard: i.e., after baptism, one is held to the higher standard of demonstrating one’s faith through good actions. discipline:. The Greek word is Φιλοσοφία (“philosophy”). In addition to its association with schools of thought, early Christians applied the term to disciplined ways of life, especially the discipline of living a virtuous life (pgl, s.v.) Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 51.3, for example, exhorts his hearers to avoid seeking vengeance when they are wronged, but rather respond with meekness and gentleness; such a “philosophy” is found even among the pagans, and Christians should be ashamed to be found to be less virtuous than they in this area.164 Scholion 2.19 to Jas 2:20–21 A version of this scholion, reflecting the text only as far as the Heb 11:19 quotation, appears in the ac.165

CatJas to Jas 2:20–21 (Cramer, 17, lines 10–23)

ac (Matthaei, to Jas 2:21; Cod. D = ga 123)

Κυρίλλου ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Ῥωμαίους Ἐπιστολῆς· Ἐπειδὴ ὁ μακάριος Ἰάκωβος

οὐκ ἐναντία Φησὶν Ἰάκωβος τῷ ἀποστολῲ Παυλῳ

163 164 165

Hurst, ed., 200; Hurst, trans., 33. pg 52:286. Matthaei, 189, to Jas 2:21; ga 621 fol. 59v.

commentary

255

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 2:20–21 (Cramer, 17, lines 10–23)

ac (Matthaei, to Jas 2:21; Cod. D = ga 123)

τὸν Ἀβραὰμ λέγει ἐξ ἔργων [δεδικαιῶσθαι] ἀνενέγκοντα Ἰσαὰκ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον· ὁ δὲ Παῦλος λέγει αὐτὸν ἐκ πίστεως δεδικαιῶσθαι, οὕτω τὴν δοκοῦσαν ἐναντιότητα νοητέον· ὅτι πρὸ μὲν τοῦ ἔχειν τὸν Ἰσαὰκ ἐπίστευσεν, καὶ μισθὸν πίστεως ἔλαβε τὸν Ἰσαάκ. Ὅμως καὶ ὅτε ἀνήνεγκε τὸν Ἰσαὰκ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, οὐ μόνον τὸ ἔργον ἐποίει ὃ προσετάγη, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς πίστεως οὐκ ἀπέστη, ὅτι ἐν [τῷ] Ἰσαὰκ μέλλει τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ πολυπληθεῖν ὡς τὰ ἄστρα, λογισάμενος ὅτι καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγεῖραι δυνατὸς ὁ θεός. Ὅμως ὁ Παῦλος μαρτύρα τῶν ἰδίων λόγων καὶ συλλήπτορα ποιεῖται τὸν μακάριον Δαυίδ, ἄνδρα διαβόητον ἐν εὐσεβείᾳ. Καὶ σοφῶς διασκευάζει ὡς ἐν πνεύματι [λαλῶν] τὴν διὰ πίστεως ἄφεσιν, καὶ διαγγέλλει πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις· ᾔδει γὰρ ἐν Χριστῷ παρεσομένην κατὰ καιρούς.

τὸν αὐτὸν Ἀβραὰμ λέγει ἐξ ἔργων δεδικαιῶσθαι, ἀνενέγκοντα Ἰσαὰκ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον· ὁ δὲ Παῦλος, ἐκ πίστεως λέγων αὐτὸν δεδικαιῶσθαι. πρὸ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ ἔχειν τὸν Ἰσαὰκ, ἐπίστευσεν, καὶ μισθὸν τῆς πίστεως ἔλαβε τὸν Ἰσαάκ. Ὅμως δὲ καὶ ὅτε ἀνήνεγκε τὸν Ἰσαὰκ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, οὐ μόνον τὸ ἔργον ἐποίει, ὃ προσετάγη, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς πίστεως ὡς οὐκ ἀπέστη, ὅτι ἐν Ἰσαὰκ μέλλει τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ πολυπληθεῖν, ὡς τὰ ἄστρα.

A similar text comparing James and Paul’s interpretation of Abraham’s offering of Isaac is found in a fragment of Cyril of Alexandria’s lost Commentary on the Letter to the Romans on Rom 4:2.166 from Cyril from the Letter to the Romans: The specific citation of a source is unusual in CatJas and is perhaps an indication that the catenist is drawing from a previous catena as a source.

166

Pusey, ed., s.p.n. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis evangelium Volume 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1872), 3:180 n. 3. Pusey calls the CatJas version an epitome of the Romans scholion, but I find that the two texts are more distantly related. For other versions of Pusey’s text, see pg 74:781 and Cramer, cgpnt, 4:27–28.

256

commentary

Paul makes the blessed David … a witness: Cyril refers to Paul’s discussion in Rom 4:6–8, where Paul quotes lxx Ps 31:1–2. This shows that the CatJas scholion here continues quoting from Cyril’s lost commentary on Romans, whereas the ac version includes only the relevant comparison between Paul and James on the question of justification, faith, actions, and Abraham’s example. Scholion 2.20 to Jas 2:22 The catenist draws from Cyril of Alexandria’s Glaphyra to Genesis, part of Cyril’s commentary on the Pentateuch.167 The scholion is taken from a section where Cyril’s reflects on the conflict between Abraham’s natural affection for his son and his desire to obey God’s commandment to offer Isaac as a sacrifice.

CatJas to Jas 2:22 (Cramer, 17, lines 26–29)

Cyril of Alexandria Glaph. Gen. 3 “Concerning Abraham and Isaac” 3 (pg 69:148a)

Προσεκόμιζε τὸ λογικὸν ἱερεῖον, καὶ τοῖς τῆς φύσεως [νόμοις] ἐρρῶσθαι φράσας, καὶ τῆς ἀπαραιτήτου φιλοστοργίας πατήσας τὸ κέντρον, καὶ τῶν ἐπιγείων οὐδὲν [τῇ] εἰς θεὸν ἀντιπαρεξάγων [ἀγάπῃ].

Προσεκόμιζε γὰρ τὸ λογικὸν ἱερεῖον, καὶ τοῖς τῆς φύσεως νόμοις ἐῤῥῶσθαι φράσας, καὶ τῆς ἀπαραιτήτου φιλοστοργίας πατήσας τὸ κέντρον, καὶ τῶν ἐπιγείων οὐδὲν τῇ εἰς Θεὸν ἀντιπαρεξάγων ἀγάπῃ.

spiritual: The adjective λογικός means rational or endowed with reason, but also has the sense of “spiritual” in contrast the world of the senses (cf. Rom 12:1 nrsv: “spiritual worship” and 1Pet 2:2 nrsv: “spiritual milk”). Scholion 2.21 to Jas 2:23–24 This brief scholion is drawn from Cyril’s commentary on Gen 15:1–6, the pericope recording God’s promise of a son to Abraham and culminating in the verse, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” It is notable that Cyril introduces his treatment of this passage with an extensive discussion of Paul’s interpretation of this passage in Romans 4. Cyril makes no mention of James’ reading of this Genesis text (Jas 2:23–24). 167

pg 69:148a; et = Nicholas P. Lunn, trans., St. Cyril of Alexandria. Glaphyra on the Pentateuch, 2 vols. fc 137–138 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 2018–2019), 1:159–160. On Cyril’s exegetical method in this work, see Gregory K. Hillis, “Introduction,” to N.P. Lunn, Glaphyra, 1:10–14.

257

commentary

The catenist’s version differs slightly from the Migne text of Cyril.

CatJas to Jas 2:23–24 (Cramer, 18, lines 1–2)

Cyril of Alexandria Glaph. Gen. 3 “Concerning Abraham, the Promise to Isaac …” 3 (pg 69:117b)

Γέρας οὖν ἔχει τὴν [δικαίωσιν] ὁ πίστει τιμῶν τὸν τῶν ὅλων θεὸν καὶ δεσπότην.

Γέρας οὖν ἔχει τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ὁ πίστει τιμῶν τὸν τῶν ὅλων Δεσπότην.

Scholion 2.22 to Jas 2:25 from Severian, Bishop of Gabala: Codices O and P attribute this scholion to Severian of Gabala.168 It is drawn from Severian’s homily De paenitentia et compunction (“On repentance and contrition”).169 This homily was incorrectly attributed to Chrysostom as Homily 7 of his series of homilies on repentance.170 In the homily, Rahab is understood as an image (εἰκών) of the Church and a model of faith (reference to Heb 11:31); the James passage is not referenced. The catenist follows his source closely.

CatJas to Jas 2:25 (Cramer, 18, 6–10)

Severian Poen. 7.5 (16): (pg 49:330 lines 14–18)

Ἄκουε τῆς γραφῆς μαρτυρούσης αὐτῇ τὰ κατορθώματα· ἦν ἐν [πορνείῳ], μαργαρίτης ἐν βορβόρῳ πεφυρμένος, χρυσὸς ἐν πηλῷ διερριμμένος, ἄνθος εὐσεβείας [ἀκάνθaις] κεχωσμένον, εὐσεβὴς ψυχὴ ἐν ἀσεβείας χώρῳ κατακέκλειστο.

ἄκουε αὐτῆς τῆς Γραφῆς διηγουμένης τὰ μεμαρτυρημένα αὐτῇ κατορθώματα. Ἦν ἐν πορνείῳ, ὥσπερ μαργαρίτης ἐν βορβόρῳ συμπεφυρμένος, χρυσὸς ἐν πηλῷ διεῤῥιμμένος, ἄνθος εὐσεβείας ἀκάνθαις κεχωσμένον, εὐσεβὴς ψυχὴ ἐν ἀσεβείας χώρῳ κατεκέκλειστο.

168 169 170

In codex V (fol. 237r) the author’s lemma reads “the same [author],” presumably referring back to the last-named author, Cyril (fol. 236v on Sch. 2.20). pg 49:323–336. et: Gus G. Christo, St. John Chrysostom: On repentance and almsgiving, fc 96 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1998), 86–110. cpg-4333. See Chris L. de Wet, “Rahab the harlot in Severian of Gabala’s De paenitentia et compunction (de Rahab historia): Paradox, anti-Judaism and the early Christian invention of the penitent prostitute,” hts Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 76 (3) (2020) https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i3.6309. On the attribution to Severian, see Ch. Martin, “Une homélie De Poenitenicia de Sévèrien de Gabala,” rhe 26 (1930), 331–343.

258

commentary

Scholion 2.23 to Jas 2:25 The spies. Codices O and P use a non-numerical symbol (P writes in the margin) to connect this scholion with “the messengers” (τοὺς ἀγγέλους) (see Introduction sect. 2.3.3), clarifying that “the messengers” are Israelite spies to whom Rahab showed hospitality (Josh 2). Cramer (18, line 11) prints τοὺς ἀγγέλους as a lemma to the gloss, but the manuscripts do not write out the lemma separately from the biblical text. Scholion 2.24 to Jas 2:26 It means the soul. Codices O and P use a non-numerical symbol (P writes in the margin) to gloss the word “spirit,” clarifying that “spirit” refers here to the human soul (ψυχή), and not to the Holy Spirit, even though both O, P, and R write out “spirit” with the regular manuscript abbreviation as a nomen sacrum (πν̅σ). Scholion 3.1a to Jas 3:1 The catenist draws the first sentence of this scholion from the conclusion of Chrysostom’s treatise To Demetrius, On Contrition 1.10.171 Here Chrysostom asks for prayers that he may not only teach about contrition, but demonstrate contrition in his own life, applying his treatise’s emphasis on the integrity of teachers to himself. The catenist merges this sentence with an anonymous scholion that directly comments on Jas 3:1–2.

CatJas to Jas 3:1 (Cramer, 18, lines 17–19)

John Chrysostom Compunct. Dem. 10 (pg 47:410)

Ἐπειδὴ τὸ διδάσκειν ἄνευ τοῦ ποιεῖν οὐ μόνον κέρδος οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ζημίαν πολλὴν καὶ κατάκρισιν φέρει τῷ μετὰ τοσαύτης ἀπροσεξίας διοικοῦντι τὸν βίον τὸν ἑαυτοῦ,

ἐπειδὴ τὸ διδάσκειν ἄνευ τοῦ ποιεῖν, οὐ μόνον κέρδος οὐδὲν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ζημίαν πολλὴν καὶ κατάκρισιν φέρει τῷ μετὰ τοσαύτης ἀπροσεξίας διοικοῦντι τὸν βίον τὸν ἑαυτοῦ.

Scholion 3.1ab thus closely ties James’ warning to teachers in 3:1 with the exhortations on bridling the tongue beginning in 3:2.172 171 172

pg 47:410. et: A Companion to the Sincere Penitent, J. Veneer, trans. (London: T. Worrall, 1728), 1–54. See Allison, James, 519, for discussion on how the warning to teachers in 3:1 relates to the general teaching on controlling the tongue in 3:2–12.

259

commentary

Scholion 3.1b on Jas 3:1 This scholion is partially witnessed in the ac.173 Some readings differ, however, and ac inserts Sch. 3.3 here.

CatJas to Jas 3:1 (Cramer, 18, lines 19–27)

ac (Matthaei, 190, to Jas 3:1)

τὴν φιλονεικίαν τῶν μὴ βουλομένων ἐργάζεσθαι ἐκκόπτων, τὸ διδάσκειν ἀπεῖπε τοῖς ἄνευ ἔργου διδάσκουσι, κρίμα μέγα ἐπιτιθείς. Ὁ γὰρ τὰ μὴ ὄντα [διδάσκων ὡς ὄντα] κατάκριτος, ὥσπερ καὶ τέλειος, ὁ μὴ πταίων ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας,

τὴν φιλονεικίαν τῶν μὴ βουλομένων ἐργάζεσθαι ἐκκόπτων, τὸ διδάσκειν ἀπεῖπε, τοῖς ἄνευ ἔργου διδάσκουσι κρίμα μέγα ἐπιτιθείς. ὁ γὰρ τὰ μὴ ὄντα διδάσκων, ὡς ὄντα, κατάκριτος, ὥσπερ καὶ τέλειος, ὁ μὴ πταίων ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας, [Sch. 3.3]

καὶ δυνατὸς καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα χαλιναγωγῆσαι. Εἰ γὰρ ταῦτα διδάσκει, καὶ τὴν πίστιν [ταῦτην] ὁρίζεται λόγων ὀρθῶν μετὰ ἔργων λαμπρῶν συμφώνων τῇ πίστει· δηλονότι ὅλον ἑαυτοῦ χαλιναγωγεῖ τὸ σῶμα, μηδεμίαν φιλίαν πρὸς τὸν κόσμον ἔχειν αὐτὸ ἐῶν.

οὕτως καὶ δυνατὸς καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα χαλιναγωγῆσαι. εἰ γὰρ ταῦτα διδάσκει συμφώνων τῷ λόγῳ, ὅλον ἑαυτοῦ χαλιναγωγεῖ τὸ σῶμα, μηδεμίαν φιλίαν πρὸς τὸν κόσμον ἔχειν ἐῶν αὐτό.

he rejected those who were teaching without (good) actions: This passage may allude to the same interpretation of 3:1 found in Bede’s commentary. With his understanding that James, brother of Jesus, is the author of the epistle, Bede links this passage to the narrative of Acts 15. Acts reports that “some” had gone down from Judea and were teaching (ἐδίδασκον) the Christian community in Antioch that they could not be saved without circumcision (Acts 15:1). “Blessed James, therefore, removed them and teachers of their kind from the responsibility of [preaching] the word (ab officio verbi removet) lest they be an obstacle to those able to carry it out properly.” James recognized that these teachers were “less perfect in both knowledge and action” (et scientia et operatione minus per-

173

Matthaei, 190, to Jas 3:1; ga 1842 fol. 79v. See also Staab, 318.

260

commentary

fectos) and thus removed them from the “chair of authoritative teaching” (a cathedra magisterii deponeret).174 if he teaches these things … together with magnificent actions: The scholion applies the teaching on the integrity of faith and action from Jas 2:14–26 to the conduct of the teacher. Scholion 3.2 on Jas 3:2 from Severus of Antioch: R (fol. 6v) names the source of the scholion as “from a letter of Severus of Antioch” (Σευήρου Ἀντιοχείας ἐπιστολῆς). Renoux notes that Severus quotes Jas 3:2 in his third letter to Julian, calling James a disciple of our Lord, but this scholion itself does not appear there.175 Chapter 5: This Euthalian chapter heading covers the pericope Jas 3:1–12, agreeing with modern commentators in treating this section as a coherent unit.176 The title emphasizes the human capability and duty to control one’s speech. Scholion 3.3a on Jas 3:2 The ac witnesses a version of the first part of this scholion.177

CatJas to Jas 3:2 (Cramer, 19, lines 6–13)

ac (Matthaei, 190–191, to Jas 3:1)

A. Βεβηκότος γὰρ νοῦ καὶ φρενὸς τῆς τελειοτάτης ἀπόδειξις ἐναργὴς τὸ μηδὲν ἐξίτηλον ἐπὶ γλώσσης ἔχειν, ἤγουν ἀθυροστομεῖν ἀνέχεσθαί ποτε·

A. Βεβηκότος γὰρ νοῦ καρπὸς καὶ φρενὸς τῆς τελειωτάτης ἀπόδειξις ἐναργὴς, τὸ μηδὲν αἰσχρὸν ἐπὶ γλώσσης ἔχειν, ἤγουν ἀθυροστομεῖν ἀνέχεσθαί ποτε·

B. ἡγεῖσθαι δὲ μᾶλλον τοῦ παντὸς ἄξιον λόγον· εὐηγορεῖν εἰδέναι καὶ λαλεῖν τὰ παντὸς ἐπαίνου μεστά. Χρῆμα δὴ οὖν πρεπωδέστατον ὅτι μάλιστά γε ἐν τοῖς εὐζωεῖν ᾑρημένοις τὸ λαλεῖν σοφίαν·

174 175 176 177

Ep. cath. to Jas 3:1 (Hurst, ed., 202; Hurst, trans., 35). Renoux, 54, n. 54. The reference is to Hespel, Polémique antijulianiste i, 216 / 168. See Allison, James, 515–516. Matthai, 190, to Jas 3:1; ga 1842 fol. 79v. For further versions in catenae, see Pusey, ed., Cyrilli archiepiscopi, 3:445.

261

commentary (cont.)

CatJas to Jas 3:2 (Cramer, 19, lines 6–13)

ac (Matthaei, 190–191, to Jas 3:1)

C. Ἀπόβλητον γὰρ ἁγίοις τὸ μωρολογεῖν, καὶ ἀσύνηθες [κομιδῇ] τὸ κεχρῆσθαί τισιν ἢ εὐτραπελίαις, ἤγουν αἰσχρορημοσύναις, [ἅ] οὐκ ἀνῆκον,

C. ἢ κεχρῆσθαί τισιν ἢ εὐτραπελίαις,

Β. ἡγεῖσθαι δὲ μᾶλλον τοῦ παντὸς ἄξιον λόγου, εὐηγορεῖν εἰδέναι καὶ λαλεῖν τὰ παντὸς ἐπαίνου ἄξια

The scholion remains (to my knowledge) unidentified in Cyril’s work, or elsewhere; the conflated quotation of Col 4:6 and Eph 4:29, however, is witnessed in other works of Cyril (see below). Foolish talking … not appropriate. The scholion rewrites Eph 5:4, which warns against “obscene, silly, and vulgar talk” (αἰσχρότης καὶ μωρολογία ἢ εὐτραπελία). “Let your speech: The quotation is a conflation of Col 4:6 and Eph 4:29: two Pauline admonitions on proper speech. We find this same conflation, also attributed to the “all wise Paul,” (ὁ πάνσοφος Παῦλος) in two other works of Cyril: Hom. Pasch. 22.4 (pg 77:872d); Exp. Ps. to Ps 48:2 (pg 69:1068d–1069a). Scholion 3.3b on Jas 3:2 And again: O and P mark this as the beginning of a new scholion. It is unclear whether the catenist is continuing his quotation of his Cyril source, or if he is drawing from a scriptural collection on controlling the tongue. The same transition, καὶ πάλιν, is used in the transition from Sch. 2.15 to 2.16 (two Chrysostom scholia from separate homilies). The transition can also be used to introduce separate quotations in a string of biblical quotations (Sch. 1.3, 4.9, 5.18). Scholion 3.3c on Jas 3:2 And again. Only O (fol. 185v) marks this as the beginning of a new scholion. The Psalms quotations are lacking in Armenian CatJas.178

178

Renoux, 106–107.

262

commentary

Scholion 3:4 to Jas 3:3–6 The ac witnesses part of this unattributed scholion.179

CatJas to Jas 3:3–6 (Cramer, 19, line 31– 20, line 7) Ἔτι καὶ ταῦτα περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν ὡς ἔτυχε τὴν γλῶσσαν κινεῖν. λέγει οὖν ὅτι εἰ χαλινῷ θράσος ἵππου ἀνακόπτομεν, καὶ πηδαλίῳ μικρῷ ὁρμὴν πλοίου μεταφέρομεν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὴν γλῶτταν εἰς τὸ εὖ ἔχον τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ μετάγειν ὀφείλομεν. τὸ γὰρ “οὕτω καὶ ἡ γλῶττα” τοῦτο σημαίνει, ὅτι οὕτως ὀφείλει καὶ ἡ γλῶττα μετάγεσθαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον· ἀλλ’ οὐ τοῦτο ποιεῖν ὃ ποιεῖ, μικρά τις οὖσα, μεγαλαυχεῖ· διὸ καὶ μεγάλην ἡμῖν [ἀνακινιεῖ] πυράν, τὴν ἀδικίαν κοσμοῦσα διὰ τοῦ συνηγορεῖν αὐτῇ, “καὶ ὅλον ἡμῶν σπιλοῦσα τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ἀνάπτουσα ἡμῖν τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γεέννης·”

ac (Matthaei, 191, to Jas 3:5)

τὸ, οὕτω καὶ ἡ γλῶττα τοῦτο σημαίνει, ὅτι οὕτως ὀφείλει καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα μετάγεσθαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον, ἀλλ’ οὐ τοῦτο ποιεῖν, ὃ ποιεῖ, μικρά τις οὖσα μεγαλαυχεῖ· διὸ καὶ μεγάλην ἡμῖν ἀνακαινιεῖ πυράν, τὴν ἀδικίαν κοσμοῦσα διὰ τὸ συνηγορεῖν αὐτῇ καὶ ὅλον ἡμῶν σπιλοῦσα τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ἀνάπτουσα ἡμῖν τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γεέννης·

by right reason: ὀρθῷ λόγῳ. The principle that a person should be guided by “right reason” (ὀρθός λόγος), in his actions is witnessed often in classical and Hellenistic philosophy (e.g., Aristotle Eth. Nic. 1147b l. 3 [Rackham, trans., 392– 393]; Marcus Aurelius Med. 3.12. [Haines, ed., 60–61]). Philo (Leg. 3.81 [Colson and Whitaker, trans., 354–355]) links right reason with the good pilot (κυβερνήτης) (cf. Jas 3:4) who leads a person successfully through life. dressing up unrighteous behavior by pleading its case: Here the scholion interprets James’ phrase “the world of unrighteousness” (ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας) (Jas 3:6). The word κόσμος in James refers primarily to the “world” (the nondivine realm and its values), but the scholiast uses the cognate verb κοσμέω to bring out the alternative sense of κόσμος as a decoration or adornment. Using συνηγορέω, a word often found in legal contexts (cf. Plato Leg. 937a [Bury, trans., 466–467]), the scholion evokes a scene of the tongue rationalizing unjust behavior in a legalistic way, attempting to “adorn” its inherent ugliness.

179

Matthaei, 191, to Jas 3:5; ga 1842 fol. 79v.

263

commentary

setting on fire our course to Gehenna: Jas 3:6 speaks of the tongue setting on fire the course of life (τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως) and being itself set on fire by Gehenna. The scholion combines the two phrases to create an image of the unrestrained tongue leading a person on a path to eternal punishment. bound … his angels? The scholion combines two images of eternal punishment from Jesus’ Matthean parables: the man who was not dressed properly for the wedding feast is bound hand and foot and thrown into the outer darkness (Matt 22:13), and those who ignored those in need are cast into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt 25:41). The scholion thus interprets James’ description of the tongue “set on fire by Gehenna” as an image of eternal punishment, an interpretation found in the later Syriac tradition.180 Bede (Ep. Cath. ad loc.) takes it as a reference to the current temptations to evil by the devil and his angels, who always burn with hellish fire even as they tempt people in the world.181 burning tongue of the rich man: The scholion alludes to Jesus’ parable of the rich man who asked for water to cool his tongue as he suffered in the flames of Hades (Luke 16:24) Scholion 3.5 to Jas 3:5 from Chrysostom: The catenist draws a text from Chrysostom’s sermon on Matt 15:1–20: Jesus’ criticism of the scribes and Pharisees for focusing on external traditions and neglecting the inner life. The catenist was likely drawn to the text due to Chrysostom’s rhetorical pairing of controlling the tongue with controlling a horse (cf. Jas 3:3). The catenist follows Chrysostom’s text closely.

CatJas to Jas 3:5–6 (Cramer, 20, lines 17–21)

Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 51.5 on Matt 15:1–20 (Field, Matthaeum, 2:77)

Οὐκοῦν πλέον τῆς [κόρης φύλασσε τὴν γλώσσην]. Ἵππος ἐστι βασιλικὸς ἡ γλῶσσα. Ἄν μὲν οὖν ἐπιθῇς αὐτῇ χαλινὸν καὶ διδάξῃς βαδίζειν εὔρυθμα, ἐπαναπαύεται αὐτῇ καὶ

Μᾶλλον τοίνυν τῆς κόρης φύλαττε τὴν γλῶτταν. Ἵππος ἐστὶ βασιλικὸς ἡ γλῶσσα. Ἂν μὲν οὖν ἐπιθῇς αὐτῇ χαλινὸν, καὶ διδάξῃς βαδίζειν εὔρυθμα, ἐπαναπαύσεται αὐτῇ καὶ

180 181

See Isho’dad of Merv Comm. Cath. Ep. ad loc. (Gibson, 50 / 37). Hurst, ed., 205; Hurst, trans., 39–40.

264

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 3:5–6 (Cramer, 20, lines 17–21)

Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 51.5 on Matt 15:1–20 (Field, Matthaeum, 2:77)

ἐπικαθιεῖται ὁ βασιλεύς· ἂν δὲ ἀχαλίνωτον ἀφῇς φέρεσθαι καὶ σκιρτᾶν, τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῶν δαιμόνων ὄχημα γίνεται.

ἐπικαθιεῖται ὁ βασιλεύς· ἂν δὲ ἀχαλίνωτον ἀφῇς φέρεσθαι καὶ σκιρτᾷν, τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῶν δαιμόνων ὄχημα γίνεται.

Scholion 3.6 to Jas 3:5 from Jesus son of Sirach: This is one of only two scholia drawn directly from scriptural sources (cf. also Sch. 5.18 to Jas 5:17–18).

CatJas to Jas 3:5–6 (Cramer, 20, lines 22–26)

Sir 28:18–20 (Göttingen)

Πολλοὶ ἔπεσον ἐν στόματι μαχαίρας, καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ πεπτωκότες διὰ γλώσσης. Μακάριος ὁ σκεπασθεὶς ἀπ’ αὐτῆς, ὃς οὐ διῆλθεν ἐν τῷ θυμῷ αὐτῆς, [ὃς οὐχ εἵλκυσεν τὸν ζυγὸν αὐτῆς] καὶ τοῖς δεσμοῖς αὐτῆς οὐκ ἐδέθη· ὁ γὰρ ζυγὸς αὐτῆς, ζυγὸς σιδηροῦς, καὶ οἱ δεσμοὶ αὐτῆς, δεσμοὶ χαλκοῖ.— καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς,

πολλοὶ ἔπεσαν ἐν στόματι μαχαίρας, καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ πεπτωκότες διὰ γλῶσσαν. μακάριος ὁ σκεπασθεὶς ἀπ’ αὐτῆς, ὃς οὐ διῆλθεν ἐν τῷ θυμῷ αὐτῆς, ὃς οὐχ εἵλκυσεν τὸν ζυγὸν αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς αὐτῆς οὐκ ἐδέθη· ὁ γὰρ ζυγὸς αὐτῆς ζυγὸς σιδηροῦς, καὶ οἱ δεσμοὶ αὐτῆς δεσμοὶ χάλκειοι·

edge of the sword: The Greek word for “edge” here is στόμα, the common word for “mouth,” thus providing an apt word-play in describing the deadly power of the tongue. and what follows: The catenist signals that he is cutting short his quotation from a larger context that has further relevant material. This larger context may be to the source text of Sirach 28, or it may refer to a collection of sayings that cover the destructive potential of human speech (cf. Sch. 3.3). We see an example of just such a collection in John Damascene Parall. Γ 14 (pg 95:1345, line 4) under title 15, “Concerning those who do not watch (their) tongue.” The collection follows the quotation of Sir 28:18 with a long quotation

commentary

265

of Jas 3:2b–11. John Damascene (c. 660–c, 750) is a rough contemporary to the final compilation of CatJas.182 Scholion 3.7 to Jas 3:6–7 The scholion is drawn from the letters of Isidore of Pelusium in which he regularly replies to the exegetical questions of his correspondents. In other words, the course (“wheel”) of our life: The catenist adds a brief gloss on the phrase “course (wheel) of life” in Jas 3:6 to clarify that James refers to the course of human life, and thus set the stage for Isidore’s scholion. assigns responsibility for choices freely made: In the original context, Isidore writes to his correspondents, the priests Martinus, Zosimus, Maronius, and the deacon Eustathius, who claim that the tongue is moved and disturbed by fate (εἱμαρμένη) and not by human free will. All four were notorious for their greed and generally immoral behavior; Isidore often chastises them in his correspondence.183 Isidore quotes Jas 3:6c to refute the belief that human speech is controlled by fate; rather it is an active power in its own right, albeit one that is influenced by the power of the devil (quoting Jas 3:6d). course of our life: The Greek is τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως. With the accent on the last syllable, τροχός, the usual translation is “wheel”; with the accent on the first syllable, τρόχος, the usual meaning is a circular race or the race-course itself (lsj, s.v.). Isidore’s commentary alludes to both senses. it rolls into itself: Isidore alludes to the cyclical nature of the seasons, that “roll” through a year and then begin again. Isidore writes elsewhere (Ep. 1566), “Since the form of time is circular—a day circling around again seven times into a week, then the week into a month, then the months into a year—and is restored again to the same point, for this reason Scripture sometimes calls it ‘the crown of the year]’ (Ps 64:12 lxx), at other times, ‘the wheel of birth’ ” (Jas 3:6).184 “Bless the crown of the year”: Ps 64:12 lxx renders the mt’s (Ps 65:12) “you crown the year” (‫ )עטרת שנה‬with “you will bless the crown of the year” (εὐλογήσεις τὸν στέφανον τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ) The ac also witnesses a version of this scholion: phrases are ordered differently, and several lines are omitted.185 As shown in the following synopsis, CatJas clearly draws from Isidore’s letter, and not from the ac materials for this scholion. 182 183 184 185

Cf. Allison, James, 515. See Pierre Évieux, Isidore de Péluse, ThH 99 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1995), 212–220. Pierre Évieux, ed. and trans., Lettres. 3 vols. sc 422, 454, 586 (Paris: Cerf, 1997–2017), 2:260. Cf. the gloss to Jas 3:6 (Matthaei, 27). Matthaei, 191, to Jas 3:5; ga 1842 fol. 79v–80r; ga 621 fol. 60r.

266

Isidore of Pelusium Ep. 2.158 (pg 78:613)

A. Οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν, ὅτι Ὁ τροχὸς σπιλοῖ τὴν γλῶτταν, ἀλλ’ Ἡ γλῶττα τὸν τροχόν, τὸν τροχοειδῆ δηλονότι χρόνον. B. Τὴν γὰρ προαίρεσιν αἰτιᾶται, καὶ τὴν προπέτειαν ἀναστέλλει. Ὑφ’ οἷς ὁ βίος ἡμῶν ἐκτραχύνεται, καὶ μυρίαις ἀνωμαλίαις ὑποπίπτει. Διὸ καὶ ἐπήγαγε, “Καὶ φλογιζομένη ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης.” Οὐκ ἂν τοῦτο προσθεῖσα, εἴγε ἄκουσα ἡ γλῶττα ἐκινεῖτο. C. Ὅτι δὲ τροχὸν τὸν χρόνον ἐκάλεσε, διὰ τὸ τροχοειδὲς καὶ κυκλικὸν σχῆμα· εἰς ἑαυτὸνγὰρ ἀνελίττεται· ἐγγυᾶται ὁ Μελῳδός, στέφανον αὐτὸν καλέσας, καὶ εἰπὼν πρὸς τὸν θεόν· “Εὐλογήσεις τὸν στέφανον τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ τῆς χρηστότητός σου.” Κἀνταῦθα

commentary

CatJas to Jas 3:6–7 (Cramer, 20, lines 30–21, line 6)

A. Τουτέστι τὸν τροχὸν τῆς ζωῆς ἡμῶν· οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὅτι “Ὁ τροχὸς σπιλοῖ τὴν γλῶσσαν,” ἀλλ’ “ἡ γλῶσσα τὸν τροχόν·” τὸν τροχοειδῆ δηλονότι χρόνον· B. τὴν γὰρ προαίρεσιν αἰτιᾶται, καὶ τὴν προπέτειαν ἀναστέλλει. Ὑφ’ ἧς ὁ βίος ἡμῶν ἐκτραχύνεται καὶ μυρίαις ἀνωμαλίαις ὑποπίπτει. Διὸ καὶ ἐπήγαγε· “Καὶ φλογιζομένη ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης·” οὐκ ἂν τοῦτο προσθεῖσα, εἴγε ἄκουσα ἡ γλῶσσα ἐκινεῖτο. C. Ὅτι δὲ τροχὸν τὸν χρόνον ἐκάλεσε διὰ τὸ τροχοειδὲς καὶ κυκλικὸν σχῆμα— εἰς ἑαυτὸν γὰρ [ἀνελίττεται] —ἐγγυᾶται ὁ μελῳδός, στέφανον αὐτὸν καλέσας, καὶ εἰπὼν πρὸς τὸν θεόν· “Εὐλόγησον τὸν στέφανον τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ τῆς χρηστότητός σου·” κἀνταῦθα

ac (Matthaei, 191, to Jas 3:5) B. τὴν γὰρ προαίρεσιν αἰτιᾶται καὶ τὴν προπέτειαν ἀναστέλλει. ἐκ ἄν γὰρ τοῦτο ἐπήγαγε, εἴγε ἄκουσα ἡ γλῶσσα ἐκινεῖτο. A. ἢ τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως, τὸν τροχὸν τῆς ζωῆς ἡμῶν λέγει. οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὅτι ὁ τροχὸς σπηλοῖ τὴν γλῶτταν, ἀλλ’ ἡ γλῶττα τὸν τροχὸν, τὸν τροχοειδῆ δηλονότι χρόνον.

C. ὅτι δὲ τροχὸν τὸν χρόνον ἐκάλεσε, διὰ τὸ τροχοειδὲς καὶ κυκλικὸν σχῆμα· εἰς ἑαυτὸν γὰρ ἀνελήττεται· ἐγγυᾶται ὁ μελῳδὸς, στέφανον αὐτὸν καλέσας καὶ εἰπὼν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, “εὐλόγησον τὸν στέφανον τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ τῆς χρηστότητός σου.” κἀνταῦθα

267

commentary (cont.)

Isidore of Pelusium Ep. 2.158 (pg 78:613)

CatJas to Jas 3:6–7 (Cramer, 20, lines 30–21, line 6)

ac (Matthaei, 191, to Jas 3:5)

γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ κυκλικοῦ σχήματος, στέφανος εἰκότως ὁ χρόνος ὠνόμασται

γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ κυκλικοῦ σχήματος στέφανος εἰκότως ὁ χρόνος ὠνόμασται.

γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ κυκλικοῦ σχήματος στέφανος εἰκότως ὁ χρόνος ὠνόμασται.

Scholion 3.8 to Jas 3:6 The ac186 witnesses this scholion but edits Isidore’s text (cutting out material; rearranging phrases) to focus on the direct exegesis of James’ text. The scholion is lacking in V. The CatJas scholion follows Isidore’s original closely.

CatJas to Jas 3:6–7 (Cramer, 21, lines 7–26)

Isidore of Pelusia Ep. 1298 (4.10) (Évieux, ed., 1: 322)

Διττήν μοι δοκεῖ, τὴν μὲν πιθανεστέραν, τὴν δὲ δεινοτέραν καὶ πικροτέραν, ἑρμηνείαν ἔχειν τὸ παρά σου ζητηθέν· “Ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ, ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας.” Μάλιστα μὲν ἐπειδὴ εὔστροφος οὖσα καὶ ῥᾴστη, εὐχερῶς πολλὰ δρᾷ, λαλοῦσα κακά· καὶ γὰρ καὶ κατηγορεῖ, καὶ ἐπιορκεῖ, καὶ ψεύδεται, καὶ ψευδομαρτυρεῖ, καὶ πολλοὺς ἀδίκως εἰς πῦρ βάλλει, καὶ εἰς ξίφος καὶ εἰς πέλαγος ὠθεῖ. Κόσμον δὲ οἶδε καλεῖν ἡ γραφὴ τὸ πλῆθος· “Ὁ κόσμος γάρ,”φησί, “αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω,” τουτέστι τὸ πλῆθος. Ἡ γλῶσσα οὖν, φησί, πῦρ ἐστι, πλῆθος ἀδίκως κατακαίουσα, ἢ πλήθους πυρὸς ἀδίκου δοχεῖον. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ πολλοὶ τῇ κακίᾳ συμπράττοντες, καὶ τὴν ἀδικίαν σεμνύνοντες, δεινότατοι ὄντες ῥητορεύειν ἐπὶ πράξεσι πονηραῖς καὶ παρανόμοις, λόγων

Διττήν μοι δοκεῖ, τὴν μὲν πιθανωτέραν, τὴν δὲ δεινοτέραν καὶ πικροτέραν ἑρμηνείαν ἔχειν τὸ παρὰ σοῦ ζητηθέν· “Ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ, ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας.” Μάλιστα μὲν ἐπειδὴ εὔστροφος οὖσα καὶ ῥᾴστη εὐχερῶς πολλὰ λαλοῦσα κακά. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ κατηγορεῖ, καὶ κακηγορεῖ, καὶ ἐπιορκεῖ, καὶ ψεύδεται, καὶ ψευδομαρτυρεῖ, καὶ πολλοὺς ἀδίκως εἰς πῦρ ἐμβάλλει, καὶ εἰς ξίφος, καὶ εἰς πέλαγος ὠθεῖ. Κόσμον δὲ οἶδε καλεῖν ἡ Γραφὴ τὸ πλῆθος. «Ὁ κόσμος γάρ, φησίν, αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω», τοῦτ’ ἔστι, τὸ πλῆθος. Ἡ γλῶσσα οὖν, φησίν, ἢ πῦρ ἐστι, πλῆθος ἀδίκως κατακαίουσα, ἢ πλῆθος πυρὸς ἀδίκου δοχεῖον. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ πολλοὶ τῇ κακίᾳ συμπράττοντες, καὶ τὴν ἀδικίαν σεμνύνοντες, δεινότατοι ὄντες ῥητορεύειν ἐπὶ πράξεσι πονηραῖς καὶ παρανόμοις, λόγων

186

Matthaei, 191–192, to Jas; ga 1842 fol. 79v–80r.

268

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 3:6–7 (Cramer, 21, lines 7–26)

Isidore of Pelusia Ep. 1298 (4.10) (Évieux, ed., 1: 322)

εὐπρέπειαν ἐχόντων οὐκ [ἀποροῦντες] λανθάνουσι καθ’ ἑαυτῶν τὴν ψῆφον τιθέμενοι, καὶ δεῖγμα τῆς ἑαυτῶν προαιρέσεως τῆς ἐπὶ τὰ φαῦλα ῥεπούσης, διὰ τῶν λόγων τούτων ἐκφέρουσιν. Ἴσως στηλιτεύων αὐτοὺς τοῦτο ἔφη· “Ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ, ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας,” ὡσανεὶ ἔλεγεν· “Ὁ τῆς εὐγλωττίας πυρσός, ὅταν τοὺς μεγάλα πταίοντας [κοσμῇ], ἐγκαλλώπισμα δοκεῖ τῆς ἀδικίας.” Χρὴ τοιγαροῦν τῇ δεινότητι κεχρῆσθαι, οὐ πρὸς τὸ τὴν ἀδικίαν κοσμεῖν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ τὴν ἀρετὴν σεμνύνειν, τὴν καὶ χωρὶς λόγων ὑπέρλαμπρον.

εὐπρέπειαν ἐχόντων οὐκ ἀποροῦντες, λανθάνουσι καθ’ ἑαυτῶν τὴν ψῆφον τιθέμενοι, καὶ δεῖγμα τῆς ἑαυτῶν προαιρέσεως τῆς ἐπὶ τὰ φαῦλα ῥεπούσης διὰ τῶν λόγων τούτων ἐκφέρουσιν, ἴσως στηλιτεύων αὐτοὺς τοῦτ’ ἔφη· «Ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ, ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας», ὡς ἂν εἰ ἔλεγεν ὅτι ὁ τῆς εὐγλωττίας πυρσός, ὅταν τοὺς μεγάλα πταίοντας κοσμῇ, ἐγκαλλώπισμα εἶναι δοκεῖ τῆς ἀδικίας. Χρὴ τοιγαροῦν τῇ δεινότητι κεχρῆσθαι οὐ πρὸς τὸ τὴν κακίαν κοσμεῖν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ τὴν ἀρετὴν σεμνύνειν τὴν καὶ χωρὶς λόγων ὑπέρλαμπρον.

It seems to me: The original context of this scholion is Isidore’s exegetical letter to his namesake Bishop Isidore on the interpretation of Jas 3:6a. Scripture sometimes calls a multitude: Here Isidore seeks to establish the precise meaning of a word by studying its use within its larger literary context; in this case, the larger context of Scripture. This is a standard method of interpreting texts, both in ancient Hellenistic and ancient Jewish literary traditions.187 Scripture is read as a whole, and one passage can illuminate the meaning of other passages (see Introduction sect. 14). Scholion 3.9 to Jas 3:6 Basil, John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria are the only three authors designated with the epithet “saint” (ἁγίος) in CatJas; curiously, however, CatJas uses only a single scholion from Basil (see sect. 10.4.3 for further discussion), while ten are drawn from Cyril and thirty from Chrysostom.

187

Cf. Young (Biblical Exegesis, 32), who refers to “the long-established principle of interpreting Homer by Homer, or Bible by Bible.”

commentary

269

If you love life: Basil alludes to John 14:15, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (Εὰν ἀγαπᾶτέ με, τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμὰς τηρήσετε). The catenist adapts this scholion from a passage from Basil’s homily on Ps 33:14, “Stop your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit.” In the context of the homily, Basil preaches on the goal of reaching the “good days,” that is, eternal life.

CatJas to Jas 3:6 (Cramer, 21, line 27–22, line 6)

Basil of Caesarea Hom. Ps. to Ps 33:14 (pg 29:373b–d)

Εἰ ἀγαπᾷς τὴν ζωήν, ποίησον τὴν ἐντολὴν τῆς ζωῆς· “Ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν με,” φησί, “τὰς ἐντολάς μου τηρήσει.” Πρώτη δὲ ἐντολὴ [τὸ] “παῦσον τὴν γλῶσσαν σου ἀπὸ κακοῦ, καὶ χείλη σου τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον.” Σχεδὸν γὰρ προχειροτάτη καὶ πολύτροπος ἡ ἁμαρτία ἡ διὰ γλώσσης ἐστιν· ἐνεργουμένη

Εἰ βούλει ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις γενέσθαι ταῖς ἀγαθαῖς, εἰ ἀγαπᾷς τὴν ζωήν, ποίησον τὴν ἐντολὴν τῆς ζωῆς. Ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν με, φησὶ, τὰς ἐντολάς μου τηρήσει. Πρώτη δὲ ἐντολὴ τὸ, παῦσαι τὴν γλῶσσαν ἀπὸ κακοῦ, καὶ χείλη τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον. Σχεδὸν γὰρ ἡ προχειροτάτη καὶ πολύτροπος ἁμαρτία ἡ διὰ γλώσσης ἐστὶν ἐνεργουμένη.

ἐν ὀργαῖς, ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις, ἐν ὑποκρίσεσιν, ἐν [ἀδικαίαις], ἐν ἀπάταις·

[Basil rhetorically elaborates the sins of the tongue; the sins are briefly listed by CatJas]

Καὶ τί δεῖ παντὶ τῷ λόγῳ ἐπεξιέναι τῶν διὰ γλώττης ἁμαρτανομένων;

Καὶ τί δεῖ πάντα τῷ λόγῳ ἐπεξιέναι τῶν διὰ γλώσσης ἁμαρτανομένων;

ἐξ αὐτῆς γὰρ

Πεπλήρωται ἡμῶν ὁ βίος τῶν ἀπὸ γλώσσης πταισμάτων. αἰσχρολογίαι, εὐτραπελίαι, μωρολογίαι, τὰ Αἰσχρολογία, εὐτραπελία, μωρολογία, τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα καταλαλίαι, λόγος ἀργός, οὐκ ἀνήκοντα, καταλαλιαὶ, λόγος ἀργὸς, ἐπιορκίαι, ψευδομαρτυρίαι, ταῦτα πάντα τὰ ἐπιορκίαι, ψευδομαρτυρίαι, πάντα ταῦτα τὰ κακὰ καὶ ἔτι πλείω τούτων, τῆς γλώσσης ἐστι κακὰ, καὶ ἔτι πλείω τούτων, τῆς γλώσσης δημιουργήματα. ἐστὶ δημιουργήματα. Ἐπεὶ οὖν “ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ,

[After further elaboration, Basil quotes Matt 12:37 and links it with Ps 33:14.]

270

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 3:6 (Cramer, 21, line 27–22, line 6)

Basil of Caesarea Hom. Ps. to Ps 33:14 (pg 29:373b–d)

παῦσον τὴν γλῶσσαν σου ἀπὸ κακοῦ, καὶ χείλη σου [τοῦ] μὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον·” ἀντὶ τοῦ· ὅλον τὸ ὄργανον τὸ πρὸς τὴν διακονίαν τοῦ λόγου σοι δεδομένον, σχολάζειν ἀπὸ τῆς πονηρᾶς ἐργασίας ποίησον.

Παῦσον δὲ καὶ τὰ χείλη σου τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον· ἀντὶ τοῦ, Ὅλον τὸ ὄργανον τὸ πρὸς τὴν διακονίαν τοῦ λόγου σοι δεδομένον σχολάζειν ἀπὸ τῆς πονηρᾶς ἐνεργείας ποίησον.

Scholion 3.10 to Jas 3:7 This scholia is a direct comment on the text of James (as opposed to scholia adapted from other commentaries and sources to fit James’ context), but is more extensive than the other direct comments on James, which tend to be brief glosses. The source is unidentified. transfers the word: The catenist uses the verb μεταφέρω, indicating that James is leaving behind the metaphor of the tongue as a fire (Jas 3:5–6), and now compares the tongue with wild animals that can be tamed. Scholion 3.11 to Jas 3:8 The ac witnesses a much-abbreviated version of this CatJas scholion; the gs witnesses the basic point only.

CatJas to Jas 3:8 (Cramer, 22, lines 16–29)

“Τὴν δὲ γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς δύναται ἀνθρώπων δαμάσαι·” οὐ γὰρ ὡς ἀποφαινόμενος μὴ δυνατὸν εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐρωτῶν ὁ Χριστοῦ μαθητὴς ἔφησε τοῦτο· ὥστε ὡς δυνατὸν ἀναγνωστέον, καί μὴ ὡς ἀδύνατον νοητέον.

ac (Matthaei, 192, to Jas 3:8)

ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν, Τὴν γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς δύναται ἀνθρώπων δαμάσαι οὐχ ὡς ἀποφαινόμενος, μὴ δυνατὸν εἶναι, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐρωτῶν τοῦτό φησιν. ὥστε ὡς δυνατὸν ἀναγνωστέον, καὶ μὴ ὡς ἀδύνατον νοητέον.

gs to Jas 3:8 (Matthaei, 28)

Τινὲς δὲ καὶ κατ´ ἐρωτησιν αὐτὸ ἀναγινώσκουσιν, ὡς μὴ ἀδύνατον τοῦτο φαίνεσθαι.

271

commentary (cont.)

CatJas to Jas 3:8 (Cramer, 22, lines 16–29)

ac (Matthaei, 192, to Jas 3:8)

gs to Jas 3:8 (Matthaei, 28)

[specific exegetical arguments that James assumes that the tongue can be tamed.] εἶτα ἐμφαῖνον ὡς ῥάδιον εἴη πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν τῆς φωνῆς ἄξαι τὸ πλῆκτρον, ἐπάγει λέγων· “Οὐ χρὴ, ἀδελφοὶ, ταῦτα οὕτως γίνεσθαι.”

ὅτι δἐ ῥάδιον εἴη πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν τῆς φωνῆς ἄξαι τὸ πλῆκτρον ἐπάγει λέγει οὐ χρὴ, ἀδελφοὶ μου, ταῦτα οὕτω γίνεσθαι.

[further exegetical argument that James assumes the tongue can be tamed and a general example from Paul] (Cramer, 22, lines 29–23, line 3)

Analyzing James’ rhetoric in this passage, the scholion concludes that James’ assertion, “But no human being can tame the tongue” is not to be taken literally. The scholion analyzes the context of the assertion: James has just stated that every species has been tamed (Jas 3:7)—this must include the tongue. James later admonishes, “These things ought not to be so” (Jas 3:10b: referring to cursing others with the same tongue that blesses God). If James admonishes the reader to avoid cursing, he could not have intended that the phrase “no human being can tame the tongue” should be taken literally. In contrast to CatJas, the Latin tradition did take the phrase literally. For Bede (Ep. Cath. ad loc.), it meant that even the best person occasionally slips up in his speech.188 For Augustine (Nat. Grat. 15 [16]), James’ point is that no human can in fact control his tongue: knowing this fact should encourage a person to rely on God’s grace for help in controlling one’s tongue.189

188 189

Hurst, ed., 206; Hurst, trans., 41. Urba and Zycha, eds., 242–243; Teske, trans., 232.

272

commentary

Scholion 3.12 to Jas 3:8 from Chrysostom: The passage is drawn from a Chrysostom homily on interpreting the Old Testament. Here Chrysostom is commenting on Prov 18:17, “The righteous person accuses himself.”

CatJas to Jas 3:8 (Cramer, 23, line 4–6)

Chrysostom Proph. Obscurit. 2.8 (Zincone, 156)

Μάχαιρά ἐστιν ἡ γλῶσσα ἠκονημένη. Ἀλλὰ μὴ ἑτέροις ἐπάγωμεν τραύματα, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἡμετέρας σηπεδόνας ἀποτέμωμεν.

Μάχαιρά ἐστιν ἡ γλῶσσα ἠκονημένη· ἀλλὰ μὴ ἑτέροις ἐπάγωμεν τραύματα, ἀλλὰ τὰς ἡμετέρας σηπεδόνας ἀποτέμνωμεν.

diseased flesh: Chrysostom uses the word σηπεδών (decay, discharge from a wound) as a metaphor for sin; cf. Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 73.3. Chrysostom goes on to give examples from the apostle Paul’s life on the need to examine one’s own sins before criticizing others. Scholion 3.13 to Jas 3:8 This scholion, attributed to Hesychius, has not, to my knowledge, been identified; see Introduction sect. 10.4.8. Scholion 3.14 to Jas 3:9–10 from Chrysostom: This scholion is unattributed in O and V, but correctly attributed to Chrysostom in P and R. The scholion follows its source closely:

CatJas to Jas 3:9–10 (Cramer, 23, lines 16–25)

Chrysostom Hom. 1 Tim. 6 to 1 Tim 2:1–4 (Field, Paulinarum, 6:49)

Πόρρω ταῦτα τῶν Χριστοῦ μαθητῶν τῶν ἐπιεικῶν καὶ προσηνῶν. Τοῦ στόματος τοῦ καταξιουμένου τοιαύτης μυσταγωγίας μηδὲν πικρὸν ἐκβαλλέτω, μηδὲν ἀηδὲς ἡ τῷ θείῳ προσομιλοῦσα στόματι γλῶσσα. Καθαρὰν αὐτὴν φυλάττωμεν. Μὴ ἀρὰς δι’ αὐτῆς προσφέρωμεν. Εἰ γὰρ λοίδοροι οὐ κληρονομήσουσι βασιλείαν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον οἱ κατευχόμενοι. Ἀνάγκη γὰρ [καὶ] ὑβρίζειν

Πόῤῥω ταῦτα τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ μαθητῶν, τῶνἐπιεικῶν καὶ προσηνῶν, τοῦ στόματος τοῦ ἠξιωμένου τοιαύτης μυσταγωγίας. Μηδὲν πικρὸν ἐκβαλλέτω, μηδὲν ἀηδὲς, ἡ τῷ θείῳ σώματι προσομιλοῦσα γλῶσσα· καθαρὰν αὐτὴν φυλάττωμεν, μὴ ἀρὰς προσφέρωμεν δι’ αὐτῆς. Εἰ γὰρ λοίδοροι οὐ κληρονομήσουσι βασιλείαν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον οἱ κατευχόμενοι· ἀνάγκη γὰρ καὶ ὑβρίζειν

commentary

273

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 3:9–10 (Cramer, 23, lines 16–25)

Chrysostom Hom. 1 Tim. 6 to 1 Tim 2:1–4 (Field, Paulinarum, 6:49)

τὸν εὐχόμενον· ὕβρις δὲ καὶ εὐχὴ ἀλλήλων ἀπεσχοίνισται· ἀρὰ καὶ εὐχὴ πολὺ τὸ μέσον ἔχει· κατηγορία καὶ εὐχὴ πολὺ τὸ μέσον [ἔχουσι]. Προσέρχῃ τὸν θεὸν ἵλεων ποιῆσαι, καὶ ἑτέροις κατεύχῃ; “Ἐὰν μὴ ἀφῇς, οὐκ [ἀφεθήσεταί] σοι.”

τὸν κατευχόμενον· ὕβρις δὲ καὶ εὐχὴ ἀλλήλων ἀπεσχοίνισται· ἀρὰ καὶ εὐχὴ πολὺ τὸ μέσονἔχει·κατηγορία καὶ εὐχὴ πολὺ τὸ μέσον ἔχουσι. Προσεύχῃ τὸν Θεὸν ἵλεων ποιῆσαι, καὶ ἑτέρου κατεύχῃ; Ἐὰν μὴ ἀφῇς, οὐκ ἀφεθήσεταί σοι·

considerate of others: ἐπιεικής. This virtue is listed in Jas 3:17 as one of the characteristics of the “wisdom from above.” These (words): In the context of his homily on 1 Tim 2:1–4, Chrysostom explains that if Christians are commanded to pray for those in governing authority, even if they are persecutors of Christians, how much more ought they avoid asking God to harm fellow Christians. He lists some examples of the words in such prayers, “Show him the same! Pay him back!” considered worthy of so great a mystery: τοῦ καταξιουμένου τοιαύτης μυσταγωγίας. The phrase is similar to that used in another Chrysostom scholion (Sch. 2.15): Παῦλος τοῖς ἤδη τῶν μυστηρίων καταξιωθεῖσι, παραινεῖ (“Paul encourages those who are already considered worthy of the mysteries”). Both phrases can refer to Christians in general; the current phrase is often specifically associated with Christian worship, especially baptism and the Eucharist. The connection with the mouth may allude to the confession of faith made at baptism. Gregory Nazianzus Or. 40.11, for example, refers to the tongue pronouncing “the words of mystery” (τὰ τῆς μυσταγωγίας ῥήματα) at baptism. (pg 36:372c). The original wording of Chrysostom’s homily, however, suggests a eucharistic reference. Field’s text reads, μηδὲν ἀηδὲς ἡ τῷ θείῳ σώματι προσομιλοῦσα γλῶσσα (6:49), rendered as “Let not the tongue that has touched the Lord’s Body (lit.: divine body) utter anything offensive.”190 Scholion 3.15 to Jas 3:13 This scholion offers an overview of James 3. From the warning about teachers in 3:1, the scholion concludes that heretical teachers are present in James’s com-

190

Field, ed., Paulinarum, 6:49; npnf1 13:427.

274

commentary

munity. Due to a spirit of rivalry with, and jealousy of the “orthodox” teachers (Jas 3:14, 16; cf. 4:1–2), factions have developed in the community. The teachings of the heretical teachers are based on a “wisdom of the world” (σοφία τοῦ κόσμου) that James characterizes as “earthly, unspiritual, demonic” (3:15). In contrast, the teachings of an orthodox teacher are given with gentleness, and are associated with good actions (3:13, 17–18); the scholion implies that this teacher is animated by the “wisdom from above” (3:17). Bede (Ep. Cath. to Jas 3:13) also assumes that the whole of James 3 refers to the teachers that James had removed from office (see comments on Sch. 3.1a). “Because he had imposed silence on wicked teachers (improbis doctoribus) and had forbidden to hold the rank of teacher (magisterii gradum tenere vetuerat) those whom he beheld having neither perfection of life nor restraint of tongue, subsequently he advises that if anyone among them may be, or may appear to himself to be, wise or learned (sapiens et disciplinatus), let him show his learning more by living wisely and according to learning than by teaching others.”191 The ac192 witnesses a form of this scholion that is quite close to that of CatJas.

CatJas to Jas 3:13 (Cramer, 23, lines 31–24, Matthaei, 192 to Jas 3:13 line 4) Φίλαρχοι ὄντες καὶ τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ κόσμου αὐχοῦντες, καὶ κατ’ ἔριν καὶ ζῆλον τῶν ὀρθῶν διδασκάλων ἐκήρυττον· ὀχλαγωγοῦντες ἁπλῶς, καὶ φθόνον πρὸς τούτους ἔχοντες, καὶ παραμίγνυντες τοῖς θείοις ἀνθρώπινα ἵνα, τῇ καινότητι τῶν λεγομένων, ἐπισπῶνται τοὺς ἀκούοντας· ὅθεν καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐξῆλθον. Ταύτας οὖν τὰς διδασκαλίας ἀπαγορεύει· ἅτε καὶ ἐκ σοφίας οὐ θείας ἀλλὰ δαιμονιώδους γινομένας. Ταῦτα δὲ εἶπε, προσεπαινέσας

191 192 193

Φίλαρχοι ὄντες, καὶ τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ κόσμου αὐχοῦντες καὶ κατ’ ἔριν καὶ ζῆλον τῶν ὀρθῶν διδασκάλων ἐκήρυττον ὀχλαγωγοῦντες ἁπλῶς, καὶ φθόνον πρὸς τούτους ἔχοντες, καὶ παραμίγνυντες τοῖς θείοις ἀνθρώπινα, ἵνα τῇ καινότητι τῶν λεγομένων ἐπισπῶνται τοὺς ἀκούοντας. ὅθεν καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐξῆλθον. Ταύτας οὖν τὰς διδασκαλίας ἀπαγορεύει·193 ἀλλὰ δαιμονιώδους γινομένας. οὕτω δὲ εἰπὼν, προσεπαινεῖ

Hurst, ed., 208; Hurst, trans., 43. Matthaei, 192 to Jas 3:13; ga 1842 fol. 80v. ms D (ga 103) adds ἅτε καὶ ἐκ σοφίας οὐ θείας, ἄλλὰ ἐκ δαιμονιώους.

275

commentary (cont.)

CatJas to Jas 3:13 (Cramer, 23, lines 31–24, Matthaei, 192 to Jas 3:13 line 4) [τὸν ἀγαθὸν διδάσκαλον, ἐκ πρᾳότητος τὸν ἀγαθὸν διδάσκαλον, ἐκ πρᾳότητος λέγων αὐτοῦ τὴν σοφίαν] καὶ ἔργων χρηστῶν λέγων αὐτοῦ τὴν σοφίαν καὶ ἔργων χρηστῶν.

Chapter 5a … Human wisdom. This Euthalian chapter title covers the pericope Jas 3:13–16. It links the envy and selfish ambition (ζῆλος καὶ ἐριθεία) (3:14, 16) castigated by James with the vice of φιλοδοξία (“love for fame”). The title summarizes James’ description of “earthly, unspiritual, demonic” (ἐπίγειος, ψυχική, δαιμονιώδης) wisdom (3:15) as “human (in contrast to divine) wisdom” (σοφία ἀνθρωπίνη). Scholion 3.16 to Jas 3:16 from Chrysostom: In the context of his homily on Matt 11:20–24 (Jesus’ pronouncements of woe on Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum for their failure to repent) Chrysostom exhorts his hearers to open their ears and hearts to the gospel message and those who proclaim it. The catenist presumably applies Chrysostom’s passage here as an exhortation to be open to listening to and acting on the “wisdom from above.” He reproduces his source accurately, editing out one phrase.

CatJas to Jas 3:13–16 (Cramer, 24, lines 14–19) [Ἐκκαθαίρωμεν] τὸν ῥύπον ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς ὤτων· καθάπερ γὰρ ῥύπος καὶ πηλὸς τὰ ὦτα τῆς σαρκός,

Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 37.7 to Matt 11:7–9 (Field, Matthaeum, 1:521)

ἐκκαθάρωμεν τὸν ῥύπον ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς ὤτων. Καθάπερ γὰρ ῥύπος καὶ πηλὸς τὰ ὦτα τῆς σαρκός, οὕτω τὰ πορνικὰ ᾄσματα, οὕτω καὶ τὰ βιωτικὰ διηγήματα καὶ παχέα, καὶ τὰ βιωτικὰ διηγήματα, καὶ τὰ χρέα, καὶ τὰ περὶ τόκων καὶ δανεισμάτων, ῥύπου καὶ τὰ περὶ τόκων καὶ δανεισμάτων, ῥύπου παντὸς χαλεπώτερον ἐμφράττει τῆς διανοίας παντὸς χαλεπώτερον ἐμφράττει τῆς διανοίας τὴν ἀκοήν· μᾶλλον δὲ οὐκ ἐμφράττει μόνον, τὴν ἀκοήν· μᾶλλον δὲ οὐκ ἐμφράττει μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκάθαρτον ποιεῖ. ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκάθαρτον ποιεῖ.

276

commentary

Chapter 5b: Concerning divine wisdom: This brief Euthalian title, labeling James’ description of the “wisdom from above” as “divine wisdom,” is witnessed as a marginal gloss in P and in R. The Euthalian tradition characterizes it as a subtitle to chapter 5. Scholion 3.17 to Jas 3:17 This scholion is unattributed in O, P, and R; V (fol. 239v) attributes it, no doubt falsely, to Chrysostom. In O and P, this scholion glosses the word ἀδιάκριτος (“non-judgmental”): one of the characteristics of “the wisdom from above” (Jas 3:17). The ac194 and gs (Matthaei, 30–31) witness a similar gloss.

CatJas to Jas 3:17 (Cramer, ac (Matthaei, 192, to lines 24–25) Jas 3:13) ἀδιάκριτον δὲ ταύτην φησί, τουτέστι Μὴ διακρίνουσα μὴ διακρίνουσαν παρατηρήσεις βρωμάτων καὶ παρατηρήσεις βρωμάτων καὶ διαφόρων βαπτισμάτων. διαφόρων βαπτισμῶν, καὶ ἑτέρων ἀνθρωπίνων παρατηρήσεων195

gs (Matthaei, 30–31, to Jas 3:17)

Διακρίσεις καὶ παρατηρήσεις βρωμάτων καὶ διαφόρων βαπτισμῶν μὴ ποιουμένη

Not making judgments: The gloss interprets ἀδιάκριτος (“non-judgmental”) in Jas 3:17 as refraining from debates about some practices that it considers to be at the human rather than at the divinely ordained level (cf. the Euthalian chapter titles 5a and 5b that contrast human and divine wisdom): observances concerning foods and different (types of) washings. This presumably refers to intra-Christian debates on the extent to which churches were required to follow laws of the Torah or related Jewish traditions and halakic practices (cf. Acts 15; Gal 2). The tolerant attitude towards differences in these matters reflects Paul’s teaching in Rom 14. different (types of) purifications: διαφόρων βαπτισμῶν. The word βαπτισμός may refer to general cleansing rites for purification (cf. Mark 7:4) or specifically 194 195

Matthaei, 192, to Jas 3:13; ga 1842 fol. 80v. et: “non-judgmental” means this: not making judgments about observances concerning food and different (types of) washings, and other human practices.

commentary

277

to Christian baptism (cf. Col 2:12). The scholion may make a specific allusion to Heb 9:10 (cf. Heb 6:2), which references regulations about “food and drink and various baptisms” (nrsv; βρώμασιν καὶ πόμασιν καὶ διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς). Βάπτισμα, rather than βαπτισμός, is the usual nt word for Christian baptism. This usage, together with its pairing with food observances, suggests a reference to purification rituals rather than Christian baptism. Paul discussed these things: The evidence of ac and ga shows that the original scholion ended with διαφόρων βαπτισμάτων. The addition of the reference to Paul’s epistle is likely the work of the catenist. He presumably is referencing passages such as Col 2:16 (nrsv), “Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink (Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει) or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths.” Chapter 5c: This Euthalian chapter title covers the pericope Jas 4:1–7, focusing on James’ analysis of the internal causes of dissension and strife within the community (esp. 4:1–2), and the theme of enmity towards God (4:4). Scholion 4.1 to Jas 4:1–2 Feltoe prints Sch. 4.1 and Sch. 4.2 together as a single scholion attributed to Dionysius.196 Codices O, P, R and Cramer’s edition all clearly attribute only 4.2 to Dionysius, however, and thus it is highly doubtful that 4.1 should be attributed to Dionysius.197 Its true source remains, to my knowledge, unknown. laying claim to the teaching office: Again the scholion assumes that the divisions in James’ community are due to certain heretical teachers who seek a teaching office out of a spirit of rivalry and jealousy (see comments to Sch. 3.1a and Sch. 3.15). fleshly level … flesh: Both the scholion and the 1 Cor 3:3 quotation use the term σαρκικοί to refer to a behavior and mind-set that focuses on worldly concerns and is thus opposed to spiritual realities (cf. 1 Cor 2:12, and James’ contrast between the “earthly” wisdom and the “wisdom from above” in Jas 3:13–18). Scholion 4.2 to Jas 4:1–2 This scholion is also found in the Catena Hauniensis on Ecclesiastes, a source that often uses scholia drawn from Dionysius of Alexandria, who wrote a no-

196

197

Feltoe, Dionysius of Alexandria, 252–253. Feltoe cites Simone de Magistris’s collection of Dionysius’s fragments, (S. Dionysii Alexandrini Episcopi. Rome, 1796), as his source, noting that Simone’s extract is taken from the sixteenth-century Cod. Vallicellian F.9 fol. 26 (= ga 2978). Bienert (Dionysius, 61) shares this doubt.

278

commentary

longer extant commentary on Ecclesiastes.198 In the Catena Hauniensis, the scholion continues on to quote Jas 4:1 with the introduction, ὥς φησιν Ἰάκωβος.

CatJas to Jas 4:1–2 (Cramer, 25, lines 8–10)

Cat. Hav. Eccl. 4.69–72 to Eccl 4:4 (Labate, 64)

Ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀγρὸν ἀρκοῦντα κεκτημένος, ἐπειδὴ μείζονα θεωρεῖ τὸν τοῦ γείτονος, αὐξῆσαι τὸν ἑαυτοῦ φιλονεικεῖ, ὡσαύτως καὶ ποιῆσαι τὸν οἶκον ὑψηλότερον.

Ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀγρὸν ἀρκοῦντα κεκτημένος, ἐπειδὴ μείζονα θεωρεῖ τὸν τοῦ γείτονος, αὐξῆσαι τὸν ἑαυτοῦ φιλονεικεῖ, ὡσαύτως ποιῆσαι τὸν οἶκον ὑψηλότερον.

Armenian CatJas also attributes the scholion to Dionysius.199 Antonio Labate, editor of the Catena Hauniensis, considers the scholion to be authentic.200 Scholion 4.3 to Jas 4:3 This scholion is also witnessed in catenae to Luke 18:9–14 published by Angelo Mai201 and Cramer.202 Cramer’s main manuscript is Coislin 23, where the lemma reads, “from Severus’s letter to Magna” (Σευήρου ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Μάγναν ἐπιστολής).203 The CatJas catenist provides an introductory sentence. In contrast to the abbreviated versions extant in other catenae, CatJas witnesses a fuller original text of Severus.

CatJas to Jas 4:3 (Cramer, 25, lines, 12–20)

Cat. Luke to Luke 18:9– 14 (Cramer, cgpnt, 2:133, line 26–32)

Cat. Luke to Luke 18:9–14 (Mai, Classicorum, 436)

Σευήρου ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Μάγναν Τοιοῦτος ἦν ὁ Φαρισαῖος, ὁ [καὶ] ἐν τῷ κατὰ Λουκᾶν 198 199 200 201 202 203

Ὁ μὲν Φαρισαῖος,

See Antonio Labate, ed., Catena Havniensis in Ecclesiasten, ccsg 24 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1992), xix n. 40, xxx–xxxii. cpg-C105. Renoux, 58, 114–115. Labate, Catena Hauniensis, xxxi–xxxii. See also Bienert, Dionysius, 61. Mai, ed., Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum. Tomus x (Rome: Collegium Urbanum, 1838), 436. Cramer, cgpnt, 2:133. Coislin 23 fol. 193r. See cpg 7071.36.

279

commentary (cont.)

CatJas to Jas 4:3 (Cramer, 25, lines, 12–20)

Εὐαγγελίῳ κατηγορούμενος, ὃς ἑστὼς ἐν μέσῳ τῷ ἱερῷ μεγαλοφώνως ᾔτει τὲ καὶ προσηύχετο. Καὶ ὡς ἄξιος ὢν ᾔτει τυχεῖν, καὶ τὰς οἰκείας πράξεις ἀπηριθμεῖτο, καὶ ἔλεγε· “Νηστεύω δὶς τοῦ σαββάτου, ἀποδεκατῶ πάντα ὅσα κτῶμαι.” Προσεφιλοτιμεῖτο δὲ βοῶν· “Καὶ τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἅρπαξ, [καὶ] ἄδικος, ἢ μοιχός, ἢ πλεονεξίᾳ κρατούμενος.” Καὶ ὅσῳ πολλὰ κατέλεγε, τοσούτῳ πλέον ἀπεβύει τὴν θείαν ἀκοήν· καὶ ὁ τῶν ῥημάτων ὄγκος κενὸς περὶ τὰ χείλη κατέρρει, καὶ εἰς ἀφρὸν διελύετο, καθάπερ παφλάζοντα κύματα.

Cat. Luke to Luke 18:9– 14 (Cramer, cgpnt, 2:133, line 26–32)

Cat. Luke to Luke 18:9–14 (Mai, Classicorum, 436)

Ἑστὼς ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ἱεροῦ μεγαλοφώνως ᾔτει τε καὶ προσηύχετο, καὶ ὡς ἄξιος ὢν ὧν ᾔτει τυχεῖν, τὰς οἰκείας πράξεις ἀπηριθμεῖτο καὶ ἔλεγε, “νηστεύω δὶς τοῦ σαββάτου”

ἑστὼς ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, μεγαλοφώνως ᾐτεῖτο καὶ προσηύχετο, καὶ ὡς ἄξιος ὧν ᾔτει τυχεῖν, τὰς οἰκείας πράξεις ἀπηριθμεῖτο·

καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς,

καὶ ὅσῳ πολλὰ κατέλεγε, τοσοῦτον πλέον τὴν θείαν ἀπέβυεν ἀκοὴν, καὶ ὁ τῶν ῥημάτων ὄγκος κενὸς περὶ τὰ χείλη κατέρρει, καὶ εἰς ἀφρὸν διελύετο, καθάπερ παφλάζοντα κύματα.

καὶ ὅσῳ πολλὰ κατέλεγε, τοσούτῳ πλέον τὴν θείαν ἀπέβυεν ἀκοὴν· καὶ ὁ τῶν ῥημάτων ὄγκος, κενὸς περὶ τὰ χείλη κατέῤῥει, καὶ εἰς ἀφρὸν διελύετο·

surging waves: This is perhaps an allusion to Iliad 13:798: κύματα παφλάζοντα πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης.204 Scholia 4.4ab to Jas 4:3 Codices O and P mark Sch. 4.4a and Sch. 4.4b as two separate scholia (V lacks Sch 4.4a), but a comparison with the original source—a scholion attributed to Origen on Luke 11:9—shows that originally it was a single comment.205 This

204 205

Murray, Wyatt, trans., 2:60. See Max Rauer, ed., Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus und die

280

commentary

scholion appears also in Didymus’ Enarratio on the Catholic Epistles, as shown in the table below—Didymus may have taken it over from Origen.206 CatJas follows the Origen fragment closely; the Enarratio expands Origen slightly. It is not clear whether CatJas drew directly on Origen, or whether it draws on the original Greek of Didymus. In O and P, the scholia are unattributed; in R, the lemma reads ἄλλος (another [author]), a reading followed in Armenian CatJas.207

CatJas to Jas 4:3 (Cramer, 25 line 21–26, line 9)

Origen Comm. Luc. to Luke 11:9 (Rauer, ed., Lukas-Kommentars, 303 [frag. 183])

Sch. 4.4a Ἀληθοῦς οὔσης τῆς τοῦ σωτῆρος θέσεως τῆς λεγούσης· “Αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν,” ἣν καὶ πιστοῦται διὰ τοῦ φάναι· “Πᾶς ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει,” ζητήσειεν ἄν τις πῶς τινες εὐχόμενοι οὐκ ἀκούονται. Πρὸς ὃ λεκτέον· “Ὁ ὁδῷ τῇ ἀκολούθῳ ἐπὶ τὸ αἰτεῖν ἐρχόμενος, οὐδὲν παραλείψας τῶν συντελούντων πρὸς τὸ τυχεῖν τῶν σπουδαζομένων, πάντως λήψεται ὃ παρεκάλεσε δοθῆναι αὐτῷ.” Εἰ δέ τις, ἔξω χωρήσας τοῦ σκόπου τῆς παραδοθείσης [αἰτήσεως], δόξει αἰτεῖν, οὐκ αἰτῶν ὃν δεῖ τρόπον, οὐδὲ ὅλως αἰτεῖ· διὸ μὴ λαμβάνοντος αὐτοῦ, οὐ ψευδοποιεῖται τὸ “Πᾶς ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει.”

Πλὴν ἀληθοῦς οὔσης τῆς τοῦ σωτῆρος θέσεως λεγούσης· “αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν”, ἣν καὶ πιστοῦται διὰ τοῦ φάναι· “πᾶς ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει”, ζητήσαι ἄν τις, πῶς τινες εὐχόμενοι οὐκ ἀκούονται. πρὸς ὃ λεκτέον, ὅτι ὁ ὁδῷ τῇ ἀκολούθῳ ἐπὶ τὸ αἰτεῖν ἐρχόμενος, οὐδὲν παραλείψας τῶν συντελούντων πρὸς τὸ τυχεῖν τῶν σπουδαζομένων, πάντως λήψεται, ὃ παρεκάλεσε δοθῆναι αὐτῷ· εἰ δέ τις ἔξω χωρήσας τοῦ σκοποῦ τῆς παραδοθείσης αἰτήσεως δόξει αἰτεῖν, οὐκ αἰτῶν ὃν δεῖ τρόπον, οὐδ’ ὅλως αἰτεῖ· διὸ μὴ λαμβάνοντος αὐτοῦ οὐ ψευδοποιεῖται τό· “πᾶς ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει”.

206

207

griechischen Reste der Homilien und des Lukas-Kommentars, gcs, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Akadamie, 1959), 303 (frag. 183). et: Lienhard, trans., Homilies on Luke, 197–198. Recent studies show that Rauer’s work on the fragments attributed to Origen must be used with caution. See cpg-1452 and the studies of Gianmario Cattaneo cited there. In light of the parallel with Didymus, discussed below, however, this particular scholion is likely authentic. Scholars have shown that Didymus’ commentary on Genesis draws extensively on Origen’s exegetical work on that book; see Robert C. Hill, trans., Didymus the Blind: Commentary on Genesis, fc 132 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2016), 5, 10; Pierre Nautin, ed., Didyme l’Aveugle Sur la Genèse: Text inédit d’aprés un papyrus de Toura, 2 vols., sc 233, 244, (Paris: Cerf, 2008), 1:22–24. Renoux, 58, 117.

commentary

281

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 4:3 (Cramer, 25 line 21–26, line 9)

Origen Comm. Luc. to Luke 11:9 (Rauer, ed., Lukas-Kommentars, 303 [frag. 183])

Καὶ γὰρ διδασκάλου λέγοντος· “Πᾶς ὁ προσιῶν μοι μαθημάτων ἕνεκα ἕξει αὐτῶν [τὴν] ἐπιστήμην,” “τῷ προσιέναι τῷ διδασκάλῳ γραμματικῶς ἐκλαμβάνομεν· τουτέστι μετὰ τοῦ συντόνως προσέχειν τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου, μετὰ τοῦ ἀσκεῖν καὶ μελετᾷν αὐτά. [Τῷδὲ μὴ οὕτω προσιόντι λεκτέον·] “Οὐ προσῆλθες αὐτῷ ὡς προετρέψω.” Φανερώτερον ποιῶν ὁ γράφων τὴν ἐπιστολήν. Schol. 4.4b Τινὲς δοκοῦντες αἰτεῖν οὐ λαμβάνουσιν. τοὺς [ἀντιρρόπους] καὶ κακῶς αἰτουμένους ἡδονῶν ματαίων ἕνεκα [παρείληφεν]. Ἀλλ’ ἐρεῖ τις· “Καὶ μὴν ὑπὲρ γνώσεως θείας καὶ ἀναλήψεως ἀρετῶν αἰτούμενοί τινες οὐ λαμβάνουσι·” Λεκτέον δὲ καὶ αὐτοῖς ὅτι [οὐ] καθ’ αὐτὰ τὰ ἀγαθὰ λαβεῖν ἠξίωσαν, ἀλλ’ ἕνεκα τοῦ ἐπαινεῖσθαι δι’ αὐτά· ἔστι δὲ φιληδόνων καὶ τὸ χαίρειν ἐπαίνοις. Ὅθεν καὶ τούτοις οὐ δίδοται· ἐπεὶ εἰς ἡδονὰς καταδαπανῆσαι θέλουσι τὰ περὶ ὧν ἀξιοῦσιν.

καὶ γὰρ διδασκάλου λέγοντος· “πᾶς ὁ προσιών μοι μαθημάτων ἕνεκα ἕξει αὐτῶν” ἐπιστήμην, τὸ προσιέναι τῷ διδασκάλῳ πραγματικῶς ἐκλαμβάνομεν, τοῦτ’ ἔστι μετὰ τοῦ συντόνως προσέχειν τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου, μετὰ τοῦ ἀσκεῖν καὶ μελετᾶν αὐτά. τῷ δὲ μὴ οὕτω προσιόντι λεκτέον· οὐ προσῆλθες αὐτῷ ὡς προετρέψατο, φανερώτερον ποιῶν Ἰάκωβος γράφων τὴν ἐπιστολήν φησιν· “τινὲς δοκοῦντες αἰτεῖν οὐ λαμβάνουσι, κακῶς αἰτούμενοι ἡδονῶν ματαίων ἕνεκα”. ἀλλ’ ἐρεῖ τις· καὶ μὴν ὑπὲρ γνώσεως θείας καὶ ἀναλήψεως ἀρετῶν αἰτούμενοί τινες οὐ λαμβάνουσιν. πρὸς ὃν λεκτέον, ὅτι οὐ καθ’ αὑτὰ τὰ ἀγαθὰ λαβεῖν ἠξίωσαν, ἀλλ’ ἕνεκα τοῦ ἐπαινεῖσθαι δι’ αὐτά· ἔστι δὲ φιληδόνων, καὶ τὸ χαίρειν ἐπαίνοις· ὅθεν καὶ τούτοις οὐ δίδοται, ἐπεὶ εἰς ἡδονὰς καταδαπανῆσαι θέλουσι τὰ περὶ ὧν ἀξιοῦσιν.

CatJas to Jas 4:3 (Cramer, 25, line 21– 26, line 9)

Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 4:2–3 (Zoepfl, 6–7)

Sch. 4.4a Ἀληθοῦς οὔσης τῆς τοῦ σωτῆρος θέσεως τῆς λεγούσης· “Αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν,” ἣν καὶ πιστοῦται διὰ τοῦ φάναι· “Πᾶς ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει,” ζητήσειεν ἄν τις πῶς τινες εὐχόμενοι οὐκ ἀκούονται.

Cum vera sit expositio salvatoris dicentis: “petite et dabitur vobis”, quam etiam facit esse credibilem, cum dicit: “omnis, qui petit, accipit”, quaerere quilibet potest, quomodo aliqui orantes non audiantur,

282

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 4:3 (Cramer, 25, line 21– 26, line 9)

Πρὸς ὃ λεκτέον· “Ὅ ὁδῷ τῇ ἀκολούθῳ ἐπὶ τὸ αἰτεῖν ἐρχόμενος, οὐδὲν παραλείψας τῶν συντελούντων πρὸς τὸ τυχεῖν τῶν σπουδαζομένων, πάντως λήψεται ὃ παρεκάλεσε δοθῆναι αὐτῷ.” Εἰ δέ τις, ἔξω χωρήσας τοῦ σκόπου τῆς παραδοθείσης [αἰτήσεως], δόξει αἰτεῖν, οὐκ αἰτῶν ὃν δεῖ τρόπον, οὐδὲ ὅλως αἰτεῖ· διὸ μὴ λαμβάνοντος αὐτοῦ, οὐ ψευδοποιεῖται τὸ “Πᾶς ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει.” Καὶ γὰρ διδασκάλου λέγοντος· “Πᾶς ὁ προσιῶν μοι μαθημάτων ἕνεκα ἕξει αὐτῶν [τὴν] ἐπιστήμην,” τῷ προσιέναι τῷ διδασκάλῳ γραμματικῶς ἐκλαμβάνομεν· τουτέστι μετὰ τοῦ συντόνως προσέχειν τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου, μετὰ τοῦ ἀσκεῖν καὶ μελετᾷν αὐτά.

[Τῷ δὲ μὴ οὕτω προσιόντι

λεκτέον·] “Οὐ προσῆλθες αὐτῷ ὡς προετρέψω.”

Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 4:2–3 (Zoepfl, 6–7) ut accipiant, quae habere postulaverunt per suam petitionem. Ad haec dicendum est, quoniam, qui via congrua ad postulandum venit nihil relinquens eorum, quae pertinent ad inpetranda, quae cupit, omnino percipiet, quod sibi dari rogavit. Si quis autem extra intentionem traditae petitionis poscere videatur, iste neque petere modo debito creditur et ideo eo non percipiente, quod petit, non est falsum, quod dictum est: “omnis, qui petit, accipit”. Nam cum doctor dicat: omnis, qui accedit ad me causa doctrinarum, habebit disciplinas earum, “accedere ad doctorem” rebus ipsis accipiendum est, hoc est, ut etiam desiderium habeat doctinarum et exerceat et meditetur eas et summa intentione respiciat ea, quae a magistro dicuntur, et naturam habeat bonam. Indubitanter enim huiusmodi homo percipiet disciplinam, quam magister dare promisit. Si quis alius accesserit ad doctorem non faciens, quae praedicta sunt, sed tantummodo ut videatur ab eo et videat eum, volens falsam facere promissionem doctoris, dicendum est ei: non accessisti ad eum sicut invitavit, sed aliter et tantummodo ad videndum eum.

commentary

283

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 4:3 (Cramer, 25, line 21– 26, line 9)

Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 4:2–3 (Zoepfl, 6–7)

Φανερώτερον ποιῶν ὁ γράφων τὴν ἐπιστολήν.

Apertiorem enim faciens scriptor epistolam et

Sch. 4.4b Τινὲς δοκοῦντες αἰτεῖν οὐ λαμβάνουσιν. Τοὺς [ἀντιρρόπους] καὶ κακῶς αἰτουμένους ἡδονῶν ματαίων ἕνεκα [παρείληφεν]. Ἀλλ’ ἐρεῖ τις· “Καὶ μὴν ὑπὲρ γνώσεως θείας καὶ ἀναλήψεως ἀρετῶν αἰτούμενοί τινες οὐ λαμβάνουσι.” Λεκτέον δὲ καὶ αὐτοῖς ὅτι [οὐ] καθ’ αὐτὰ τὰ ἀγαθὰ λαβεῖν ἠξίωσαν, ἀλλ’ ἕνεκα τοῦ ἐπαινεῖσθαι δι’ αὐτά· ἔστι δὲ φιληδόνων καὶ τὸ χαίρειν ἐπαίνοις.

Ὅθεν καὶ τούτοις οὐ δίδοται· ἐπεὶ εἰς ἡδονὰς καταδαπανῆσαι θέλουσι τὰ περὶ ὧν ἀξιοῦσιν.

qui petere videantur nec accipiant, indubitanter male petentes illos dicit, qui vanis cupiditatibus inhaerescunt. Quia vero instant aliqui dicentes, quare illi, qui pro scientia et perceptione virtutis petunt, non accipiunt, dicendum est eis, quoniam et ipsi non propter ipsa bona percipienda petunt, sed ut per ea laudentur. Est enim amor concupiscentiae velle laudes adquirere; unde etiam his non datur, quoniam ad concupiscentias insumentibus volunt possidere, quae poscunt.

[the prayer] that has been handed down: In its original context in Origen’s commentary on Luke 11:9, this is likely a reference to the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:1–4). In other words, one should not ask for things in prayer beyond the guidelines provided in the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer. as you were exhorted: ὡς προετρέψω. On the use of the verb προτρέπω here, see Introduction 12.1.2. Some who appear to ask … empty pleasures: The scholion brings in Jas 4:3 to support its argument that Jesus’ teaching, “Ask and it will be given to you” is true. Having made the point that to ask for something in the wrong way is equivalent to not asking at all, it applies James’ teaching, “You ask, but do not receive, because you ask wrongly.” When a person asks wrongly, the person is not truly asking, and so it is no surprise that the person does not receive.

284

commentary

Scholion 4.5 to Jas 4:4 The ac208 witnesses a version of this scholion, which it combines with material found in Sch. 4.7.

CatJas to Jas 4:4 (Cramer, 26, lines 14–15)

ac (Matthaei, 193, to Jas 4:4)

Κοσμὸν ἐνταῦθα λέγει πᾶσαν τὴν ὑλικὴν ζωήν, τὴν μητέρα τῆς φθορᾶς· ἧς ὁ μετασχεῖν ἐθέλων ἐχθρὸς γίνεται τοῦ θεοῦ.

Κοσμὸν ἐνταῦθα λέγει καὶ φιλίας κόσμου τὴν ὑλικὴν ζωήν, τὴν μητέρα τῆς φθορᾶς, ἤτοι τὴν πρὸς τὴν ὑλικὴν ζωὴν προσπάθειαν.

material … mother of corruption: τὴν ὑλικὴν ζωήν, τὴν μητέρα τῆς φθορᾶς. Ὑλικός refers to the material or matter out of which something is made. In Aristotelean philosophy, for example, substance is composed of matter and form (e.g., Metaph. 1035a: οὐσία ἥ τε ὕλη καὶ τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὸ ἐκ τούτων).209 Aristotle (Gen. corr. 320a) can also define matter as “the substratum which admits of comingto-be and passing-away” (τὸ ὑποκείμενον γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς).210 The scholion emphasizes the fact that the material world has the property of being liable to “passing away” or corruption (φθορά). In this sense, it is opposite to the divine, which cannot pass away. An attachment to the material world, then, involves turning away from the divine. Cf. Ignatius of Antioch’s (Rom. 6.2) contrast between God and the dangers of the world (κόσμος) and material reality (ὕλη).211 Scholion 4.6 to Jas 4:4 This scholion is also found in Didymus Enarratio’s commentary on the same verse.

208 209 210 211

Matthaei, 193, to Jas 4:4; ga 1842 fol. 80v. Tredennick, trans., 1:354. Forster and Furley, trans., 202. Ehrman., ed. and trans., 1:276–279.

commentary

285

CatJas to Jas 4:4 (Cramer, 26, lines 16– Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 4:4 18) (Zoepfl, 8) Ἐπεὶ ἡ κακία προξενεῖ τὴν πρὸς τὸν Quoniam nequitia providet amicitias mundi, κόσμον φιλίαν, ἀρετὴ δὲ τὴν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, virtus autem adquirit caritatem dei, ἀρετῇ καὶ κακίᾳ οὐ δύναται συνυπάρχειν. cum virtus et nequitia non possint una subsistere.

O (fol. 188v) and P (fol. 202r) attribute the scholion to Origen. P reads ἄλλος Ὠριγένους (another [scholion] from Origen). R (fol. 10r) reads simply ἄλλος (“another”). Armenian CatJas witnesses the reading of P.212 It is certainly possible that the scholion is originally drawn from Origen, but then was incorporated into Didymus’ Enarratio, as may be the case for Sch. 4.4. A comment from Origen’s commentary on John (Comm. Jo. 19.20 [139]) is in fact similar, “For it is impossible for love for the world to coexist with love for God” (ἀμήχανον γὰρ συνυπάρχειν τὴν πρὸς τὸν κόσμον ἀγάπην τῇ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἀγάπῃ).213 brings about προξενεῖ. This is the verbal form of πρόξενος, a patron. Scholion 4.7a to Jas 4:4 All four manuscripts attribute this scholion to “Proverbs.” Cramer (598) suggests that this odd reference to Proverbs may originally have referenced a commentary of Origen’s on Proverbs. Staab rejects this suggestion, correctly noting that the manuscripts clearly mark this scholion as separate from the preceding scholion, attributed by O and P to Origen, and their lemmata fail to mention Origen. Staab further notes that a version of the scholion is witnessed in Didymus’ Enarratio.214 The ac215 witnesses the first lines of this scholion (until φιλιάζειν θεῷ καὶ κόσμῳ). In the ac, these lines follow directly on a version of Sch. 4.5.

212 213 214 215

Renoux, 59 n. 9, 121. Blanc, trans., tlg; Heine, ed., 199. Staab, 313–314. Matthaei, 193, to Jas 4:4; ga 1842 fol. 80v.

286

commentary

CatJas to Jas 4:4 (Cramer, 26, 19–32)

Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 4:4 (Zoepfl, 8)

Ὁ διὰ τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν φιλῶν τὸν κόσμον, ἐχθρὸς ἀποδείκνυται τοῦ θεοῦ. Ὡσαύτως καὶ ὁ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν φιλίαν δι’ εὐσεβείας βεβαιῶν, εὐθέως ἐχθρὸς εὑρίσκεται τοῦ κόσμου. Ὅθεν ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν ὥσπερ δουλεύειν θεῷ καὶ μαμωνᾷ, οὕτω φιλιάζειν θεῷ καὶ κόσμῳ.

Qui peccando amat mundum, inimicus dei esse monstratur, sicut e diverso, qui non peccando amicitias apud deum pietate confirmat, continuo mundi adversarius invenitur. Unde inpossibile est sicut servire deo et mammonae, ita amicum dei esse simul et mundi.

Ἀμέλει γοῦν ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος φίλους θεοῦ τοὺς πειθομένους αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι, μάχαιραν καὶ διαμερισμὸν ἔβαλεν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς· ὁ γὰρ λόγος τῆς διδασκαλίας αὐτοῦ διαιρεῖ καὶ μερίζει τῶν γηϊνῶν καὶ ὑλικῶν· διὰ τούτου παρασκευάζων ἔχθραν ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἕνωσιν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ πρὸς αὐτὸν φιλία. Διὸ καὶ εἰρήνην δίδωσιν, οὐ καθὼς ὁ κόσμος ὀρέγει· ἐκεῖνος γὰρ δι’ ἧς δίδωσιν εἰρήνης πρὸς τὰ ὑλικὰ ἐμπαθεῖς ποιεῖ·

Denique veniens Jesus, ut dei amicos faceret oboedientes sibi, gladium et divisionem misit in terra. Sermo namque doctrinae illius dividit et abjungit a terrenis atque materialibus rebus per haec praeparans, ut inimicitiae sint apud mundum et unitas apud deum; haec sunt amicitiae apud illum. Quapropter et pacem dat, non sicut mundus amat; ille namque per pacem, quam dat, ad corporeas causas invitat amatores concupiscentiae et passibiles eos facit. Jesus autem pacem praebens amicos dei constituit ex toto corde eum diligentes. Mundum vero intelligere debemus desideria corporalis rei et conversationes huiusmodi.

Ὁ δὲ κύριος εἰρήνην παρέχων, φίλους θεοῦ παρασκευάζει. Κόσμον οὖν ἐν τούτοις ἀκούειν δεῖ· τὴν πρὸς τὰ τῇδε [προσπάθειαν].

Armenian CatJas, however, omits the reference to Proverbs, reading instead, “another” (Armenian: ayl, doubtless a translation of an original Greek ἄλλος).216 Renoux suggests that “another” refers to another scholion drawn from the same

216

Renoux, 59, n. 10, 120–121.

commentary

287

source as the previous scholion (i.e., Sch. 4.6: Didymus’ Ennaratio).217 This is unlikely: the first part of the scholion is certainly a version of the commentary on Jas 4:4 in the Ennaratio, but the second part is different, and in any case Armenian CatJas in fact refers the previous scholion to Origen, not Didymus. worldly possessions: The Greek is μαμωνᾷ (“mammon”), a transliteration of the Aramaic word recorded in Jesus’ teaching (cf. Matt 6:24 and Luke 16:13). Sch. 4.7b: If suffering distress: All four of the main codices of CatJas take this sentence as the ending of Sch. 4.7, but the parallel scholion in Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 4:4 omits it. Its content clearly belongs with Scholion 4.9; it became displaced at some point in the manuscript tradition. Scholion 4.8a to Jas 4:4 The catenist presumably introduces Chrysostom’s warning against friendship with immoral people as a specific illustration of James’ censure of friendship with “the world.” Even though the (Scripture) passage: The catenist explains why he is quoting Matt 18:8–9a: it is the lemma for Chrysostom’s following comment. Compare the catenist’s very similar justification for inserting a Scripture passage in Scholion 2.8a. our Lord Jesus Christ said in the Gospels: The quotation of Matt 18:9a adds the adjective δεξίος to εἰ ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου σκανδαλίζει, no doubt under the influence of Matt 5:30. Scholion 4.8b to Jas 4:4: The scholion directly quotes from Chrysostom’s initial comments on Matt 18:8.

CatJas to Jas 4:4 (Cramer, 27, lines 9–14)

John Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 59.4 to Matt 18:8 (Field, Matthaeum, 2:184).

“Οὐ περὶ μελῶν [ταῦτα] λέγων—ἄπαγε— ἀλλὰ περὶ φίλων, περὶ προσηκόντων, οὓς ἐν τάξει μελῶν ἔχομεν ἀναγκαίων· Τοῦτο καὶ ἀνωτέρω εἴρηκε, καὶ νῦν λέγει· οὐδὲν γὰρ βλαβερὸν ὡς συνουσία πονηρά· ὅσα [γὰρ] ἀνάγκη μὴ δύναται, φιλία πολλάκις δύναται, καὶ εἰς βλάβην καὶ εἰς ὠφελείαν. Διὸ μετὰ πολλῆς σφοδρότητος τοὺς βλάπτοντας ἡμᾶς ἐκκόπτειν κελεύει.”

οὐ περὶ μελῶν ταῦτα λέγων·ἄπαγε· ἀλλὰ περὶ φίλων, περὶ τῶν προσηκόντων, οὓς ἐν τάξει μελῶν ἔχομεν ἀναγκαίων. Τοῦτο καὶ ἀνωτέρω εἴρηκε, καὶ νῦν λέγει. Οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτω βλαβερὸν, ὡς συνουσία πονηρά. Ὅσα γὰρ ἀνάγκη μὴ δύναται, δύναται φιλία πολλάκις καὶ εἰς βλάβην καὶ εἰς ὠφέλειαν. Διὸ μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς σφοδρότητος τοὺς βλάπτοντας ἡμᾶς ἐκκόπτειν κελεύει,

217

Renoux, 59, n. 10.

288

commentary

Scholion 4.8b is also quoted in a Catena to Matthew to Matt 18:8–9218 and a Catena to Mark to Mark 9:43.219 A close parallel is found in a scholion from Origen’s Commentary to Matthew.220 Scholion 4.9 to Jas 4:4 This scholion appears to be misplaced—it clearly is more appropriate as a comment on how trials lead to developing the virtue of perseverance in Jas 1:2–4. All four manuscripts used in this contribution, however, place it as a scholion to Jas 4:4. The scholion develops, with the aid of Paul’s letters and Jesus’ teaching in Matt 7:13–14, the thesis that tribulation (θλίψις) should be understood not as morally indifferent, but as a true good, since it helps one to develop the virtue of perseverance. undifferentiated: In Stoic terminology, ἀδιάφορος refers to things that are neither good nor bad in themselves, but are ethically indifferent (e.g., Diogenes Laertius, 7:101–103).221 We are afflicted in every circumstance: While modern translations (e.g., nrsv) commonly translate ἐν παντί as “in every way,” it is clear from the scholiast’s exegesis that he takes it as “in every circumstance.” For if it is true … more than enough: The scholion sees a contradiction between Paul’s assertion that “we are afflicted in every circumstance” and his statement that he at times lives “with more than enough.” The scholion’s solution is that Paul is in a real sense always afflicted, since even when his outer circumstances are favorable, he submits himself to a voluntary self-discipline and self-denial that amounts to a type of affliction. (his own) rational choice was afflicting him: This phrase translates τοῦ λόγου αὐτὸν θλίβοντος. I take λόγος to refer to an intentional, reasonable choice to discipline oneself in order to avoid the harmful effects of self-indulgence. The phrase presupposes the widespread Greco-Roman moral and philosophical tradition that held that the rational mind must restrain and guide the passions.

218 219 220

221

cgpnt, 1:144, line 35–145, line 7. cgpnt, 1:367, line 30–368, line 3. Panayiotes Tzamalikos, ed., Origen: New Fragments from the Commentary on Matthew: Codices Sabaiticus 232 and Holy Cross 104 Jerusalem. (Paderborn: Brill / Ferdinand Schöningh, 2020), 72. Tzamaliko has shown that Chrysostom’s homilies on Matthew often quote passages from Origen’s Commentary, without attribution, together with his own exegetical comments (see comments on Sch. 5.12b). Hicks, trans., 2:206–209.

289

commentary

through an equivocal sense: ὡς ὁμώνυμος. The scholion asks a linguistic question: if tribulation is a true good that develops the virtue of perseverance, is it correct to use this word to label the misfortunes of people who lack virtue, or is this a misuse of the word? Scholion 4.10 to Jas 4:5–6 The ac222 witnesses a version of this scholion, with phrases given in a different order. The scholion also shows affinity with a scholion in gs (Matthaei, 32).

CatJas to Jas 4:5 (Cramer, 29, lines 12–25)

ac (Matthaei, 193, to Jas 4:5)

gs (Matthaei, 32, to Jas 4:5)

(A) “Ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει” καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς

(A) Τὸ ἤ δοκεῖτε ὅτι καινὸς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει πρὸς φθόνον.

(D) Οὔ πρὸς φθόνον ἡ γραφὴ λέγει τό, ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται.

οἱ μὲν ἔνταυθα στιξαντες, τὸ λοιπόν, ὡς άπ´ ἄλλης άρχῆς ἔφασαν εἰρῆσθαι, ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα, ὃ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν. μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν,

(B) ὑπερηφανίας πάθος τὸ περιφρονεῖν τῶν ἐντολῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ προσκεῖσθαι ταῖς ἡδοναῖς τοῦ βίου τούτου. (C) Ὅθεν πρὸς ταῖς ἰδίαις παραινέσεσι καὶ παλαιῶν λογίων ἐπιμνησθεὶς ὁ ἀπόστολός φησιν· “Ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει πρὸς φθόνον,”

222

(D) τουτέστι ἤ νομίζεται, ὅτι ματαίως ἡ γραφὴ φθονοῦσα ὑμῖν λέγει, ἃ μέλλει λέγειν. εἶτα, μεταξυλογίᾳ χρησάμενός φησιν, ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα, ὃ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν· μείζονα δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν. οὐ βασκαίνει, φησίν, ἡμῖν ἡ γραφή. τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα, τὸ λαλῆσαν αὐτὴν, ὃ καὶ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ, ἐπιποθεῖ

Matthaei, 193, to Jas 4:5; ga 1842; fols. 80v–81r.

Τὸ γὰρ ἐν ἡμῖν θεῖον πνεῦμα ἐπιποθεῖ τὴν προκοπὴν ἡμῶν καὶ πρὸς θεὸν οἰκείωσιν (cf. Sch. 4.11). ὥστε καὶ μείζονα τῆς προαιρέσεως δίδωσι τῆν χάριν.

290

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 4:5 (Cramer, 29, lines 12–25)

ac (Matthaei, 193, to Jas 4:5)

gs (Matthaei, 32, to Jas 4:5)

(D) ἀντὶ τοῦ· “Ἢ νομίζετε ὅτι ματαίως ἡ γραφή, φθονοῦσα ὑμῖν, λέγει ἃ μέλλει λέγειν;” Εἶτα μεταξυλογίᾳ χρησάμενός, φησίν· “Ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν, μείζονα δὲ δίδωσι χάριν·” “οὐ βασκαίνει,” φησὶν [ἡμῖν], “ἡ γραφή·” τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα τὸ λαλῆσαν αὐτὴν· “ὃ καὶ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν”—ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ— ἐπιποθεῖ τὴν σωτηρίαν τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν, καὶ μείζονατῶν κατὰ θεὸν ἡμῶν πραγμάτων δίδωσι τὰ χαρίσματα. Διὸ, βουλόμενος ἡμᾶς τῆς τοῦ κόσμου φιλίας συστεῖλαι, φησίν· “Ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσι χάριν.”

τὴν σωτηρίαν τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν, καὶ μείζονα τῶν κατὰ θεὸν ἡμῶν πραξέων δίδωσι τὰ χαρίσματα. διὸ βουλόμενος ἡμᾶς τῆς τοῦ κόσμου φιλίας συστεῖλαι, φησίν, “ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσι χάριν.” (B) ὑπερηφανίας γὰρ πάθος, τὸ περιφρονεῖν τῶν ἐντολῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ προσκεῖσθαι ταῖς ἡδοναῖς τοῦ βίου·

(B) Εἴδος έστι καὶ τοῦτο ὑπερηφανίας, τὰς θείας ἐντολὰς περιφρονεῖν καὶ ταῖς ὑλικαῖς προσκεῖσθαι ἡδοναῖς.

the apostle, recalling his own exhortations and the ancient oracles: The simple title “the apostle,” refers here to James; elsewhere in CatJas it references Paul. The reference to the “ancient oracles,” is likely a reference to the Old Testament (cf. the use of λόγια in 1 Clem. 53.1). There is no modern scholarly consensus on the exact referent of James’ reference to a saying of scripture.223 P (fol. 202r [2]) glosses Jas 4:6 with Παροιμιῶν (“from Proverbs”), presumably indicating that James’ quotation is drawn from Prov 3:34 lxx.

223

For the exegetical options, see Allison, James, 615–617.

291

commentary

Or do you think that Scripture speaks in a pointless way, enviously: The catenist construes the adjectival phrase πρὸς φθόνον in Jas 4:5 with the previous clause, taking Scripture as the subject, thus yielding the translation, “Scripture speaks enviously.” Most modern translations (e.g., nrsv) construe πρὸς φθόνον with the following clause, with the spirit or God as the subject, thus “God yearns jealously.” The catenist further understands the content of Scripture’s speech as the quotation of Prov 3:34 lxx in Jas 4:6, thus identifying Jas 4:5b–4:6a as a digression (μεταξυλογία). As the catenist understands it, then, James asks his readers rhetorically, “Do you think Scripture speaks enviously?” James then clarifies that the answer is “No”: far from envying the possessions of others, the Spirit of God speaking in Scriptures is a lavish giver of gifts. Scholia 4.11 and 4.12 to Jas 4:5 The wording of 4.11 and 4.12 is quite close; they are certainly two versions of a single original scholion.

Sch. 4.11 CatJas to Jas 4:5 (Cramer, 29, lines 26–28)

Sch. 4.12 CatJas to Jas 4:5 (Cramer, 29, lines 29–31)

Ἀντὶ τοῦ· “Ἐπιθυμητικῶς μὲν ἔχει ἡ ἐν ἡμῖν ψυχὴ τῆς πρὸς [τὸν] θεὸν οἰκειότητος τὴν τοῦ κόσμου φιλίαν ἀποστρεφομένη.” Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς μείζονα τῆς ἐπιθυμίας δίδωσι χάριν.

Ὃ δὲ λέγει τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν· ἐπιποθεῖ μὲν καὶ ἐφίεται τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν τῆς πρὸς θεὸν οἰκειότητος τὴν τοῦ κόσμου φιλίαν ἀποστρεφόμενον. Αὐτὸς δὲ μείζονα δίδωσι χάριν.

Both versions understand the spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα) as the human soul (ἡ ψυχή) that desires a relationship with God when it turns away from the worldly attractions; in contrast, Sch. 4.10 understands τὸ πνεῦμα as the Holy Spirit that comes to live in a Christian, presumably at baptism. These two scholia are missing in V; R reads them in the following sequence: 4:13, 4:14, 4:11, 4:12, and 4:15; they are separated only by periods and not a colon (as is typical for R). 4:11 is attributed to Severian. The ac224 witnesses Sch. 4.11;

224

Matthaei, 194, to Jas 4:5; ga 1842 fol. 81r.

292

commentary

both CatJas and ac show a close affinity with a gs scholion (Matthaei, 32). Armenian CatJas also witnesses a version attributed to Severian.225

CatJas to Jas 4:5 (Cramer, 29, lines 26–28)

ac to Jas 4:5 (Matthaei, 194, to Jas 4:5).

Ἀντὶ τοῦ· “Ἐπιθυμητικῶς μὲν ἔχει ἡ ἐν ἡμῖν ψυχὴ τῆς πρὸς [τὸν] θεὸν οἰκειότητος τὴν τοῦ κόσμου φιλίαν ἀποστρεφομένη.” Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς μείζονα τῆς ἐπιθυμίας δίδωσι χάριν.

ὅτι ἐπιθυμητικῶς μὲν ἔχει ἡ ἐν ἡμῖν ψυχὴ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν οἰκειότητος, τὴν τοῦ κόσμου φιλίαν ἀποστρεφομένη· Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς μείζονα τῆς ἐπιθυμίας δίδωσι χάριν.

gs to Jas 4:5 (Matthaei, 32, to Jas 4:5)

Τὸ γὰρ ἐν ἡμῖν θεῖον πνεῦμα ἐπιποθεῖ τὴν προκοπὴν ἡμῶν καὶ πρὸς θεὸν οἰκείωσιν.

Scholion 4.13 to Jas 4:5 The ac226 witnesses a version of this scholion. Matthaei’s version lacks the two quotations of Isaiah and their respective exegeses. It is unclear which text is the more original: a catenist may well have enriched the scholion with the Isaiah references if the ac version is older; conversely, a catenist may well have edited out the quotations to make the scholion more compact.

Sch. 4.13: CatJas to Jas 4:5 (Cramer, 30, lines 1–13)

Εἰ φθόνῳ διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, καὶ κατῴκησεν εἰς τὸν ἔσω [ἡμῶν] ἄνθρωπον ὁ Χριστὸς κατὰ τὰς γραφάς· διὰ τούτο κατῴκησεν· ἵνα τὸν ἐκ τοῦ φθόνου προσγενόμενον θάνατον καταργήσῃ· καὶ οὐ

225 226

ac (Matthaei, 193–194, to Jas 4:5)

τουτέστιν εἰ φθόνῳ διαβόλου θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, καὶ κατῴκησεν εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπον ὁ Χριστὸς κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, καὶ οὐ κενῶς ταῦτά φησιν ἡ γραφὴ, διὰ τούτο κατῴκησεν, ἵνα τὸν ἐκ τοῦ φθόνου προσγενόμενον θάνατον καταργήσει· καὶ οὐ

Renoux, 60, 130–131. Matthaei, 193–194, to Jas 4:5: ga 1842 fol. 81r.

293

commentary (cont.)

Sch. 4.13: CatJas to Jas 4:5 (Cramer, 30, lines 1–13)

ac (Matthaei, 193–194, to Jas 4:5)

μόνον τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ καὶ μείζονα ἡμῖν δώσῃ χάριν. “Ἐγὼ,” γὰρ, “ἦλθον,” φησίν, “ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχωσι, καὶ περισσὸν ἔχωσιν·” Ὄτι δὲ ἐπιπόθησας ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν, Ἡσαΐας ἐδήλωσεν, εἰπών· “Οὐ πρέσβυς, οὐκ ἄγγελος, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ τὸ ἀγαπᾷν ἡμᾶς καὶ κήδεσθαι ἡμῶν .”

μόνον τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ καὶ μείζονα δίδωσι χάριν. ἐγὼ γὰρ ἦλθον φησὶν ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχωσι καὶ περισσὸν ἔχωσι.

Πῶς δὲ καὶ σώσας μείζονα δέδωκε χάριν ἢ καθελὼν τὸν ἐπιβουλεύσαντα Σατανᾶν; Διὰ τοῦτο ἐπήγαγεν· “Ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται·”

πῶς δὲ καὶ σώσας μείζονα δέδωκε χάριν; ἢ καθελὼν τὸν ἐπιβουλεύσαντα σαταν, διὰ τοῦτο ἐπήγαγεν. “ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται·”

Πῶς γὰρ οὐχ ὑπερήφανος ὁ βοῶν· “Τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην καταλήψομαι τῇ χειρὶ ὡς νοσίαν;”

envy of the devil: This reference from Wis 2:24 to the devil’s envy may allude to traditions of Satan’s jealousy of Adam (cf. lae 12–15). Christ also came to live within [our] inner person, according to the scriptures. The scholion’s phrase “according to the scriptures” alludes to Eph 3:16–17, which it uses to interpret Jas 4:5b (Byz): Πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν. It uses the Eph 3:16 reference to God’s Spirit working in the “inner person” (εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον) to identify James’ reference τὸ πνεῦμα as God’s Spirit, and then uses Eph 3:17 to identify Christ with God’s Spirit.

CatJas to Jas 4:5–7 (Cramer, 30, lines 2–3)

Jas 4:5 (Byz)

Eph 3:16–17 (Byz)

κατῴκησεν εἰς τὸν ἔσω [ἡμῶν] ἄνθρωπον ὁ Χριστὸς κατὰ τὰς γραφάς·

Πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν;

ἵνα δῴη ὑμῖν … δυνάμει κραταιωθῆναι διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν ἔσω

294

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 4:5–7 (Cramer, 30, lines 2–3)

Jas 4:5 (Byz)

Eph 3:16–17 (Byz)

ἄνθρωπον, κατοικῆσαι τὸν Χριστὸν διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν·

the death that came into being through envy: The scholion develops James’ reference to envy (4:5a: πρὸς φθόνον) through a dense web of intertextual connections. By the envy of the devil death entered the world (Wis 2:24); Christ came to live in the inner person (Eph 3:16–17) so that he might abolish death (2Tim 1:10: καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν θάνατον) and give believers the greater grace (Jas 4:6a) of abundant life (John 10:10). That God, yearning over us: ὅτι δὲ ἐπιπόθησας ἡμᾶς ὁ θεός. The scholion alludes to Jas 4:5b ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα, and thus completes a remarkable Trinitarian exegesis in which the Spirit, Christ, and God are all closely identified as the subject referent in this phrase. Like Sch. 4:10, then, this scholion takes God as the spirit yearning within us, in contrast to Sch. 4.11–12, which understand the spirit as the human soul yearning towards God. overpowering the scheming Satan: Here the scholion identifies Jas 4:6c’s reference to “the arrogant” as a specific reference to devil. The scholion thus neatly ties together Jas 4:5 with 4:6 by connecting the devil’s envy (4:5) with the devil’s arrogance, and perhaps also looks forward to Jas 4:7, which refers to resisting the devil. With my hand, I will seize: The description of the Assyrian king and his arrogance in Isaiah 10 was commonly taken as a type of the devil in early Christian exegesis (e.g., Eusebius Dem. ev. 4.9).227 CatJas and the ac thus share three scholia on Jas 4:5–7: Sch. 4.10, 4.11, and 4.13. CatJas gives them in this order, while the ac witnesses order them 4.10, 4.13, and 4.11. Scholion 4.14 to Jas 4:5 O and P witness this gloss to Jas 4:5b; is also witnessed in gs (ga 1845 fol. 97r). The scholion is linked to the biblical text with a non-numerical symbol; P writes

227

Heikel, ed., 162; Ferrar, trans., 178.

commentary

295

it in the margin (see Introduction sect. 2.3.3). The comment serves to identify the reference to “the spirit” in Jas 4:5b with the Holy Spirit, and to link this verse with the reference in Jas 4:7 to resisting the devil (cf. comments on Sch. 4.13). Scholion 4.15 to Jas 4:6 In P (fol. 202v [2]) and O (fol. 190r), this is a gloss to Jas 4:6a, clarifying to whom the “greater gift” is given: “(He gives a greater gift) to the one who has become a stranger to the worldly life.” The scholion is linked to the biblical text with a non-numerical symbol; P writes it in the margin (see Introduction sect. 2.3.3). Scholion 4.16 to Jas 4:6 from Didymus: This scholion, attributed to Didymus by all four major CatJas manuscripts, is not witnessed in Didymus Enarratio on the Catholic Epistles. Staab conjectures that it is drawn from a commentary of Didymus on Proverbs, but to my knowledge is not attested in the extant fragments of Didymus’s commentary on that book.228 modesty: The scholion uses the word ἀτυφία. James uses the adjective ταπεινός in 4:6 (cf. Jas 1:9–11) and cognates to refer to humility. Didymus (Comm. Job to Job 12:4) applies this word to Job.229 The Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus (Alc. 312) attributes this virtue to Socrates.230 Chapter 5d: In this Euthalian chapter title, the phrase “Concerning conversion leading to salvation” seems to summarize James’ series of harsh imperatives in Jas 4:8–10. The title, “concerning not judging one’s neighbor,” concisely summarizes the content of Jas 4:11–12. Scholion 4.17 to Jas 4:8–9 from Chrysostom: In the context of his homily on 1 Cor 4:3–5, Chrysostom, in this extract, briefly alludes to the case of a man in the Corinthian community who remains unrepentant about his sexually immoral behavior (1 Cor 5:1–2). The catenist thus connects Jas 4:9’s exhortation that the community members should humble themselves and mourn (πενθέω) over their sins with Paul’s (and Chrysostom’s) insistence that the community should have mourned over this man’s sins.

228 229 230

Staab, 316. For Didymus’ fragments on Proverbs, see cpg-2552. D. Hagedorn, U. Hagedorn, and Koenen, eds., fol. 310 lines 28–29. tlg. Westerink, ed., tlg.

296

commentary

The catenist closely reproduces his source.

CatJas to Jas 4:8–9 (Cramer, 30, lines 29– Chrysostom, Hom. 1 Cor. 11.4 to 1 Cor 4:3– 31, line 6) 5 (Field, Paulinarum, 2:123–124) Ὁ γὰρ μετὰ τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν μετανοίᾳ [κεχρωμένος], οὐ πένθους ἀλλὰ μακαρισμῶν ἐστὶν ἄξιος, ἐπὶ τὸν τῶν δικαίων χορὸν [μεταστάς]. Λέγε γὰρ σὺ τὰς [ἀνομίας] σου πρῶτος, ἵνα δικαιωθῇς. Εἰ δὲ μετὰ τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν ἀναισχυντεῖ, οὐχ οὕτως ἐπὶ τῷ πεσεῖν ἐστιν ἐλεεινός, ὡς ἐπὶ τῷ κεῖσθαι πεσών. Εἰ δὲ τὸ μὴ μετανοεῖν ἐφ’ ἁμαρτήμασι χαλεπόν, τὸ καὶ πεφυσῆσθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς ἁμαρτήμασι ποίας κολάσεώς ἐστιν ἄξιον; Εἰ γὰρ ὁ ἐπὶ τοῖς κατορθώμασιν ἐπαιρόμενος ἀκάθαρτός ἐστιν, ὁ ἐπὶ ἁμαρτήμασι τοῦτο πάσχων ποίας τεύξεται συγγνώμης;

Ὁ γὰρ μετὰ τὸ ἁμαρτεῖν μετανοίᾳ κεχρημένος, οὐ πένθους, ἀλλὰ μακαρισμῶν ἐστὶν ἄξιος, ἐπὶ τὸν τῶν δικαίων χορὸν μεταστάς· “Λέγε γὰρ σὺ τὰς ἀνομίας σου πρῶτος, ἵνα δικαιωθῇς.” Εἰ δὲ μετὰ τὸ ἁμαρτεῖν ἀναισχυντεῖ, οὐχ οὕτως ἐπὶ τῷ πεσεῖν ἐστὶν ἐλεεινὸς, ὡς ἐπὶ τῷ κεῖσθαι πεσών. εἰ δὲ τὸ μὴ μετανοεῖν ἐπὶ ἁμαρτήμασι, χαλεπόν, τὸ καὶ πεφυσιῶσθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς ἁμαρτήμασι, ποίας κολάσεώς ἐστιν ἄξιον. Εἰ γὰρ ὁ ἐπὶ τοῖς κατορθώμασιν ἐπαιρόμενος ἀκάθαρτός ἐστιν, ὁ ἐπὶ ἁμαρτήμασι τοῦτο πάσχων, ποίας τεύξεται συγγνώμης;

choir of the righteous: Other early Christians use the metaphor: Ignatius of Antioch (Rom. 2.2) calls the Roman church a “choir in love” (ἐν ἀγάπῃ χορός);231 Clement of Alexandria (Str. 7.14.3) speaks of “the Church of the Lord, the spiritual and holy choir” (ἡ ἐκκλησία κυρίου, ὁ πνευματικὸς καὶ ἅγιος χορός).232 Scholion 4.18 to Jas 4:10 from Hesychius: All four main codices attribute the scholion to Hesychius, but it does not appear, to my knowledge, in extant material attributed to Hesychius (see Introduction sect. 10.4.8). It is found as a scholion attributed to Origen in Psalms catenae, as shown in the following comparison. The comment is on Ps 118:153, a passage that CatJas quotes at the end of the scholion.

231 232

Ehrman ed. and trans., 272. Früchtel ed., tlg; anf 2:549.

commentary

CatJas to Jas 4:10 (Cramer, 31, lines 11–15)

Μακάριον ἐνώπιον θεοῦ ταπεινοῦσθαι· φησὶ γὰρ Ἰάκωβος· “Ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον κυρίου, καὶ ὑψώσει ὑμᾶς.” Ὅταν τοίνυν οὕτω ταπεινωθῶμεν· κἂν ὑπὸ δαιμόνων ἐπιβουλευθῶμεν, κἂν ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων μισούντων τὰς ἀρετὰς πολεμηθῶμεν, ἔχομεν τὸν θεὸν ἐξαιρούμενον· μόνον ἵνα τοῦ νόμου αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπιλαθώμεθα, μηδὲ [ἀποκάμωμεν] ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσι. Φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Δαυίδ· “Ἰδὲ τὴν ταπείνωσίν μου, καὶ ἐξελοῦ με, ὅτι τοῦ νόμου σου οὐκ ἐπελαθόμην.”

297

Origen Sel. Ps. to Ps 118:153 (pg 12:1621b)

“ἰδὲ τὴν ταπείνωσίν μου καὶ ἐξελοῦ με, ὅτι τοῦ νόμου σου οὐκ ἐπελαθόμην, κ. τ. ἑ.” Μακάριον ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ταπεινοῦσθαι· φησὶ γὰρ Ἰάκωβος· “Ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον κυρίου, καὶ ὑψώσει ὑμᾶς.” Ὅταν τοίνυν οὕτως ταπεινωθῶμεν, κἂν ὑπὸ δαιμόνων ἐπιβουλευθῶμεν, κἂν ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων μισούντων τὰς ἀρετὰς πολεμηθῶμεν, ἔχομεν τὸν θεὸν ἐξαιρούμενον, μόνον ἵνα τοῦ νόμου αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπιλαθώμεθα, μηδὲ ἀποκάμωμεν ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσι.

Scholion 4.19 to Jas 4:11–12 from saint Cyril: The lemma to this scholion read in P and R is τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου· ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγελίου (“from saint Cyril, from the [commentary on] the Gospel according to Luke”). The citation of a specific literary source is unusual in CatJas, suggesting that the scholion may have been copied from a previous catena. The scholion in fact is witnessed in catenae to Luke.233

CatJas to Jas 4:11–12 (Cramer, 31, lines 22–31)

Cat. Lc. to Luke 6:37 (Reuss, Lukas-Kommentare, 262).

Πᾶν χαλεπὸν ἀποκείρει πάθος τῶν ἡμετέρων διανοιῶν· ὑπεροψίας ἀρχὴν καὶ γέννησιν. Καίτοι γὰρ δέον τινὰς ἑαυτοὺς κατασκέπτεσθαι,

Παγχάλεπον ἀποκείρει πάθος τῶν ἡμετέρων διανοιῶν, ὑπεροψίας ἀρχὴν καὶ γένεσιν· καίτοι γὰρ δέον τινὰς ἑαυτοὺς κατασκέπτεσθαι

233

See also this scholion (attributed to “saint Cyril”) in Codex Zacynthius fol. xxxixr on Luke 6:36–38 (Houghton, Manafis, and Myshrall, Codex Zacynthius); cf. also the version in Cramer’s edition of the Lukan catenae (cgpnt, 2:53). See also the Syriac translation of Cyril’s Sermon 29 (Payne Smith, Gospel according to S. Luke, 1:113–114).

298

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 4:11–12 (Cramer, 31, lines 22–31)

Cat. Lc. to Luke 6:37 (Reuss, Lukas-Kommentare, 262).

καὶ κατὰ θεὸν πολιτεύεσθαι, τοῦτο μὲν οὐ δρῶσι, πολυπραγμονοῦσι δὲ τὰ ἑτέρων. Κἂν ἀσθενοῦντας ἴδωσι τινας, ὥσπερ εἰς λήθην ἐρχόμενοι τῶν ἰδίων ἀρρωστημάτων, [φιλοψογιας] ὑπόθεσιν ποιοῦνται τὸ χρῆμα καὶ καταλαλιᾶς ὑπόθεσιν. Καταψηφίζονται γὰρ αὐτῶν, οὐκ εἰδότες, ὅτι τὰ ἶσα νοσοῦντες τοῖς παρ’ αὐτῶν διαβεβλημένοις, [ἑαυτοὺς] κατακρίνουσιν. Οὕτω που καὶ ὁ σοφώτατος γράφει Παῦλος· “Ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον, σεαυτὸν κατακρίνεις· τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις ὁκρίνων.”

καὶ κατὰ θεὸν πολιτεύεσθαι. τοῦτο μὲν οὐ δρῶσιν, πολυπραγμονοῦσι δὲ τὰ ἑτέρων, κἂν ἀσθενοῦντας ἴδωσι τινας. ὥσπερ εἰς λήθην ἐρχόμενοι τῶν ἰδίων ἀρρωστημάτων, φιλοψογίας ὑπόθεσιν ποιοῦνται τὸ χρῆμα καὶκαταλαλιᾶς ἀφορμήν·καταψηφίζονται γὰρ αὐτῶν οὐκ εἰδότες, ὅτι τὰ ἶσα νοσοῦντες τοῖς παρ’ αὐτῶν διαβεβλημένοις, ἑαυτοὺς κατακρίνουσιν. οὕτω που καὶ ὁ σοφώτατος γράφει Παῦλος “ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον, σεαυτὸν κατακρίνεις. τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις ὁκρίνων.”

In its original context (Cyril of Alexandria’s no longer extant Greek exegetical homilies on Luke), the scholion comments on Luke 6:37, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned” (nrsv). The longer fragments in the Luke catenae and in the Syriac translation shows that Cyril’s commentary went on to quote Jas 4:11–12. Chapter 6: The Euthalian title is modeled on phrases from Psalms: Ps 36:23: παρὰ κυρίου τὰ διαβήματα ἀνθρώπου κατευθύνεται (“the steps of a person are directed by the Lord”); Ps 39:3: καὶ κατηύθυνεν τὰ διαβήματά μου (“he [the Lord] directed my steps”); Ps 118:133: τὰ διαβήματά μου κατεύθυνον (“direct my steps”). The title summarizes the content of Jas 4:13–17, James’ teaching on the frailty of human plans in the light of God’s providence. Modern commentators also recognize the coherence of Jas 4:13–17 as a literary unit, closely connected with Jas 5:1–6.234 Scholion 4.20 to Jas 4:13 Only Codex V provides an author attribution to this brief scholion (to Chrysostom); the attribution is not trustworthy. In R (fol. 13r) it is written as a marginal note.

234

See, e.g., Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James, nigtc (Grand Rapids, MI, 1982), 171–174.

commentary

299

Scholion 4.21 to Jas 4:13 from Cyril: The scholion is attributed to Cyril by O, P, and V, but remains, to my knowledge, unidentified in Cyril’s extant works. collecting compound interest in an unholy way: The scholion alludes to the common condemnation (e.g., Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom) of charging interest to a fellow Christian as a violation of an Old Testament commandment (e.g., Lev 25:35–36, Deut 23:19–20) that was still considered to be binding and as an oppression of the poor.235 Scholion 4.22a to Jas 4:14–17 Only the first part of this scholion is found in Chrysostom’s extant writings, up to the phrase, “God’s love for humans” (τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίᾳ). This extract, however, derives not from Chrysostom’s Commentary on Luke, as asserted in the lemma, but from Chrysostom’s homily on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. In the context of the homily, Chrysostom comments on Rom 9:22–24, part of a section in Romans that can be understood as a denial of the reality of true human free will over against God’s inscrutable providential design. Here Chrysostom insists on the reality of free will, but at the same time insists that a Christian cannot rely on his own efforts alone but must rely on God’s grace.

CatJas to Jas 4:14–17 (Cramer, 32, lines 23–31)

Chrysostom Hom. Rom. 16 to Rom 9:22– 24 (Field, Paulinorum, 1:289)

Οὐ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἀναιρεῖ, ἀλλὰ δείκνυσιν ὅτι οὐ τὸ πᾶν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ δεῖται τῆς ἄνωθεν χάριτος. Δεῖ μὲν καὶ θέλειν καὶ τρέχειν, θαρρεῖν δὲ μὴ τοῖς οἰκείοις πόνοις, ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίᾳ·

οὐ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἀναιρεῖ, ἀλλὰ δείκνυσιν, ὅτι οὐ τὸ πᾶν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ δεῖται τῆς ἄνωθεν χάριτος. Ἔδεῖ μὲν γὰρ καὶ θέλειν καὶ τρέχειν· θαρρεῖν δὲ μὴ τοῖς οἰκείοις πόνοις, ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίᾳ·

This passage also appears in a Catena on the Letter to the Romans in the context of a much larger extract taken from Chrysostom’s homily on Rom 9:22–24.236 The first sentence of the Chrysostom passage is witnessed in the ac:237 Οὐ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἀναιρεῖ, ἀλλὰ δείκνυσιν, ὅτι οὐ τὸ πᾶν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ δεῖται καὶ τῆς ἄνωθεν χάριτος. In the ac, however, the scholion is attached to Jas 4:5. 235 236 237

For details, see Robert P. Maloney, “The Teaching of the Fathers on Usury: An Historical Study on the Development of Christian Thinking,” vc 27 (1973): 241–265. Cramer, cgpnt, 4:352 (= Cod. Monac. gr. 412 = ga 1909). Matthaei, 194, to Jas 4:5; ga 1842 fol. 82r.

300

commentary

from Chrysostom from … Luke (on the passage) “it depends … The reference in the author lemma to a specific verse suggests that the scholion was drawn from a previous catena; as noted above, it appears also in a Catena on Romans. The false attribution to a commentary on the Gospel of Luke suggests that the CatJas catenist took it from a Catena on Luke. The scholion’s general comment on the topic of free will makes it adaptable to many different contexts. The Armenian translator, however, changed the lemma to read, “From the holy John Chrysostom, on (the words) of the Gospel of Luke where he speaks of a delegation to ask for terms of peace” (cf. Luke 14:31–32). It may be that the translator, not finding the Romans passage in the Gospel of Luke, chose another passage in Luke that he deemed relevant to the current topic.238 Scholion 4.22bc to Jas 4:14–17 In O (191r) and V (242v), Sch. 4.22abc is read as one continuous scholion. In P (fol. 203v), however, 4:22ab is clearly marked as a separate scholion; 4:22c starts a new scholion, beginning with a larger letter that extends out further into the left margin (ekthesis). R (fol. 13v) also marks (with a dicolon) the end of 4.22ab. The Proverbs quotation, however, does not appear in Chrysostom’s homily. The evidence suggests, then, that the relatively short Sch. 4.22 is composed of three originally separate components: (1) a scholion taken from Chrysostom (4.22a), (2) a quotation of Prov 27:1 (4.22b), and (3) the analogy of the hired worker (4.22c) taken from an unidentified source. At some point, perhaps in the final redaction of CatJas, all three elements were combined. [Chapter 6a] Concerning the greed of the rich … concerning just judgment: The two titles cover the content of Jas 5:1–6. “Concerning the greed of the rich and their self-indulgence in the world” is a straightforward summary of James’ condemnation of the oppressive rich; the “just judgment of God” apparently understands the pericope as an announcement of God’s condemnation of the rich on the Day of Judgment. No clear comment is made on Jas 5:6, which was given a Christological interpretation by many early Christian exegetes.239 P (fol. 203v) witnesses a further scholion to Jas 5:1, marked with a nonnumerical symbol and written in the inner margin (see Introduction sect. 2.3.3): ἔλεγχος ἀδικῶν καὶ μετάνοια (“rebuke of the unrighteous and repentance”). It is likely meant to serve as a heading for the pericope Jas 5:1–3, understanding

238 239

Cf. Renoux, 62. See, e.g., Allison, James, 685.

301

commentary

the condemnation of the oppressive rich as a rebuke that is designed to lead them to repentance (see comments on Sch. 5.2). Codex R (fol. 13v) also reads this scholion as a marginal gloss on Jas 5:3b–4. Scholion 5.1 on Jas 5:1–3 from Chrysostom: In the original context of the homily, Chrysostom comments on Matt 12:38–39. Alluding to the eschatological condemnation mentioned in Matt 12:41–42, Chrysostom describes in some detail the horror of eternal suffering in hell. He acknowledges that his description is painful to his listeners, but he gives it to motivate them (and, he adds, himself) to a repentance that would allow them both to avoid this eternal suffering and to live a better life now. The scholion follows its source closely.

CatJas to Jas 5:1–2 (Cramer, 33, lines 7– 12)

Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 43.7 to Matt 12:38–39 (Field, Matthaeum, 1:585)

Ἁψώμεθα τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς στενῆς· Μέχρι πότε τρυφή; μέχρι πότε ἄνεσις; οὐκ ἐνεπλήσθημεν ῥαθυμοῦντες; γελῶντες; ἀναβαλλόμενοι; Οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ πάλιν ἔσται τράπεζα καὶ κόρος καὶ πολυτέλεια καὶ χρήματα καὶ κτῆσις καὶ οἰκοδομαί; Καὶ τί τὸ κέρδος; θάνατος· Καὶ τί τὸ τέλος; τέφρα καὶ κόνις· σοροὶ καὶ σκώληκες.

Ἁψώμεθα τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς στενῆς. Μέχρι πότε τρυφή; μέχρι πότε ἄνεσις; Οὐκ ἐνεπλήσθημεν ῥᾳθυμοῦντες, γελῶντες, ἀναβαλλόμενοι; Οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ πάλιν ἔσται, τράπεζα, καὶ κόρος, καὶ πολυτέλεια, καὶ χρήματα, καὶ κτήσεις, καὶ οἰκοδομαί; Καὶ τί τὸ τέλος; Θάνατος. Τί τὸ τέλος; Τέφρα καὶ κόνις καὶ σοροὶ καὶ σκώληκες.

Scholion 5.2 on Jas 5:1–3 from Hesychius: Codices O, P, and V attribute this unidentified scholion to Hesychius (see Introduction sect. 10.4.8); R attributes it to Didymus. The catenist uses this scholion, together with Sch. 5.1, to interpret Jas 5:1–3 not as an inescapable pronouncement of eschatological doom, but rather as a threat of eternal punishment that is designed to motivate its hearers to repent. Scholion 5.3 on Jas 5:1–5 The scholion is taken from Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on Isaiah. That is to say, anger that was, so to speak, slaughtering. Here Cyril applies the oracle of the Lord’s judgment against Edom (lxx = Idumea) in Isa 34 to Jewish leaders. The “anger that was, so to speak, slaughtering” is Cyril’s gloss for the sword of the Lord filled with blood that will bring about the punishment of Edom / Judea (Isa 34:6).

302

commentary

The scholion follows its source closely.

CatJas to Jas 5:1–5 (Cramer, 33, 15–25)

Cyril of Alexandria Comm. Isa. to Isa 34:5–6 (pg 70:744ab)

Τουτέστιν ἡ ὀργὴ μονονουχὶ κατασφάξασα, καὶ οἷόν τινας κριοὺς καὶ ταύρους ἁδρούς τε καὶ πίονας καταστρώσασα· οἷς ἂν εἰκότως λέγοιτο πρὸς ἡμῶν· “Ἄγε νῦν οἱ πλούσιοι, κλαύσατε ὀλολύζοντες ἐπὶ ταῖς ταλαιπωρίαις ὑμῶν ταῖς ἐπερχομέναις.” Προσεποίσομεν δὲ τούτοις τὸ “Ἐτρυφήσατε, ἐσπαταλήσατε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς.” Τοιοῦτοι γὰρ γεγόνασιν οἱ τῶν Ἰουδαίων καθηγηταὶ· καταβοσκόμενοι μὲν τρόπον τινὰ τόπον πίονα καὶ εὐρύχωρον, τὰς ἐκ τῶν λαῶν δωροφορίας· καταπιανθέντες δὲ ὥσπερ ταῖς παρὰ πάντων τιμαῖς. Ὡς κριοὶ καὶ ταῦροι πεπτώκασι τῇ τοῦ κυρίου μαχαίρᾳ περιπεσόντες οἱ δείλαιοι.

τοῦτ’ ἔστιν, ἡ ὀργὴ μονονουχὶ κατασφάξασα, καὶ οἷόν τινας κριοὺς, καὶ ταύρους ἁδροὺς καὶ πίονας καταστρώσασα, οἷς ἂν εἰκότως λέγοιτο πρὸς ἡμῶν· “Ἄγε νῦν, οἱ πλούσιοι, κλαύσατε, ὀλολύξαντεςἐπὶ ταῖς ταλαιπωρίαις ὑμῶν ταῖς ἐπερχομέναις.” Προσεποίσομεν δὲ τούτοις τὸ, Ἐτρυφήσατε, ἐνσπαταλήσατε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφαγῆς. Τοιοῦτοι γὰρ γεγόνασιν οἱ τῶν Ἰουδαίων καθηγηταὶ, καταβοσκόμενοι μὲν τρόπον τινὰ τόπον πίονα καὶ εὐρύχωρον τὰς ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καρποφορίας· καταπιανθέντες δὲ ὥσπερ ταῖς παρὰ πάντων τιμαῖς. Ἀλλ’ ὡς κριοὶ καὶ ταῦροι πεπτώκασι, τῇ τοῦ κυρίου μαχαίρᾳ περιπεσόντες οἱ δείλαοι.

Here Cyril follows a common patristic belief that Jerusalem and its environs were destroyed by Roman armies at the end of the Jewish War in 70ce as a punishment of the Jewish leaders who had plotted to kill Jesus. Thus Bede writes in his commentary on Jas 5:5–6, “From that place where he says, ‘Come now, you rich, weep, wailing’ (Jas 5:1), it is clear therefore that blessed James is addressing those rich men who had conspired to kill the Lord (illos diuites alloquitur … qui in necem domini coniurauerant) …. What he says about avarice eating up their flesh like fire and how they have stored up wrath for themselves at the last days (Jas 5:3) is especially fitting for them. For it becomes evident that this was fulfilled in their case after the slaying of James himself, when the city of Jerusalem and likewise the whole province of Judea was taken and destroyed by the Romans in punishment, manifestly, for the blood of the Lord and for other heinous crimes that they had committed (in ultionem uidelicit dominici sanguinis et ceterorum quae patrarant scelerum).”240 240

Hurst, ed., 218–219; Hurst, trans., 57–58. For the same interpretation of Jerusalem’s destruc-

303

commentary

As often in the ac materials of CatJas, this scholion interprets the Epistle of James in its historical context, identifying the “rich” in Jas 5:1–9 with Jewish leaders at the time of Jesus and his brother James. Specifically, it shows an affinity with Sch. 2.5 on Jas 2:6–7, which identifies the oppressive rich with firstcentury Jewish and Roman rulers. Bede (Ep. Cath. to Jas 5:5–6) also draws an explicit connection between the rich of Jas 5:1–6 and the oppressive rich mentioned in Jas 2:6–7.241 Scholion 5.4 on Jas 5:3 In codices O (fol. 191v) and P (fol. 204r), this scholion specifically glosses the word ἰός (rust) in Jas 5:3b The scholion is also witnessed in the ac,242 with a slightly fuller reading; gs (Matthaei, 36, to Jas 5:3) witnesses an abbreviated version.

CatJas to Jas 5:3 (Cramer, 33, lines 32–33)

ac (Matthaei, 194, to Jas 5:3)

gs (Matthaei, 36, to Jas 5:3)

Ἀντὶ τοῦ, καταμαρτυρήσει ὑμῶν. Διὰ τοῦ ἰοῦ ἐλέγχων τὸ ἀμετάδοτον, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια διὰ τῆς σήψεως.

ἀντὶ τοῦ, καταμαρτυρήσει ἐλέγχων τὸ ἀμετάδοτον ὑμῶν ἡμῶν, διὰ τοῦ ἰοῦ ὁ χρυσὸς καὶ ὁ ἄργυρος, ἐλέγχων τὸ ἀμετάδοτον. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια, διὰ τῆς σήψεως.

The scholion focuses closely on clarifying James’ vocabulary and metaphors. Scholion 5.5 to Jas 5:5–6 from Chrysostom: Focusing on James’ use of the verb τρυφάω (“to live in selfindulgence”), the catenist selects a passage from Chrysostom’s homily on 1 Tim 4:1–5 that clarifies that although all food is acceptable for eating, one must avoid self-indulgence in eating. In the homily, Chrysostom applies 1 Timothy’s warnings against false teachers “who forbid marriage and demand abstinence from

241 242

tion in Justin, Origen, Hippolytus, Eusebius and others, see Martin C. Albl, “Ancient Christian Writers on Jews and Judaism” in The ‘New Testament’ as a Polemical Tool: Studies in Ancient Christian Anti-Jewish Rhetoric and Beliefs, ed. H. Amirav and R. Roukema, ntoa / sunt 118 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2018), 45–46. Hurst, ed., 218; Hurst, trans., 57. Matthaei, 194, to Jas 5:3; ga 1842 fol. 82r.

304

commentary

foods” (1Tim 4:3 nrsv) to Christian sects such as Manicheans, Encratites, and Marcionites. Here the catenist, in harmony with scholia 5.1 and 5.2, continues to interpret James’ condemnation of the wealthy (Jas 5:1–6) as an occasion for moral exhortation to contemporary readers. The scholion follows its source closely.

CatJas to Jas 5:5–6 (Cramer, 34, lines 5–11)

Chrysostom Hom. 1 Tim. 12 to 1 Tim 4:1–5 (Field, Paulinarum, 6:93)

Τί οὖν; Κεκώλυται ἡ τρυφή; καὶ σφόδρα. Διατί οὖν εἰς μετάληψιν ἔκτισται; ὅτι καὶ ἄρτον ἔκτισε, καὶ κεκώλυται ἡ ἀμετρία· ὅτι καὶ οἶνον ἔκτισε, καὶ κεκώλυται ἡ ἀμετρία· Οὐχ ὡς ἀκάθαρτον τοίνυν τὴν [τρυφὴν] παραιτεῖσθαι κελεύει, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐκλύουσαν διὰ τῆς ἀμετρίας τὴν ψυχήν· “Πᾶν γὰρ κτίσμα θεοῦ καλόν,” φησί, “καὶ οὐδὲν ἀποβλητὸν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας λαμβανόμενον.”

Τί οὖν; οὐ κεκώλυται ἡ τρυφή; Καὶ σφόδρα. Διὰ τί, εἰ εἰς μετάληψιν ἔκτισται; Ὅτι καὶ ἄρτον ἔκτισε, καὶ κεκώλυται ἡ ἀμετρία· ὅτι καὶ οἶνον ἔκτισε, καὶ κεκώλυται ἡ ἀμετρία· Οὐχ ὡς ἀκάθαρτον νῦν τὴν τρυφὴν παραιτεῖσθαι κελεύει, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐκλύουσαν διὰ τῆς ἀμετρίας τὴν ψυχήν. Ὅτι πᾶν κτίσμα θεοῦ καλὸν, φησὶ, καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπόβλητον μετὰ εὐχαριστίας λαμβανόμενον.

Chapter 6b: Concerning patience and perseverance in afflictions, and concerning truth The first phrase of this Euthalian chapter heading covers Jas 5:7–11; the second phrase, “concerning truth” (περὶ ἀληθείας), perhaps references the prohibition on swearing oaths in 5:12, although P connects it with Jas 5:3–4. Scholion 5.6 to Jas 5:7 from Cyril: All four major manuscripts attribute the text to Cyril, but, to my knowledge, it remains unidentified. In the Armenian translation, it is attached to Jas 5:4–6.243 The ac244 and gs (Matthaei, 38, to Jas 5:7) witness a shortened version of this scholion, clarifying that it glosses James’ phrase, “(the farmer) awaits the precious fruit.”

243 244

Renoux, 64. Matthaei, 194; ga 1842 fol. 82r.

305

commentary

CatJas to Jas 5:7 (Cramer, 34, lines 18–21)

ac (Matthaei, 194, to Jas 5:7)

Εἰ γὰρ καὶ ὑπερτίθεταί, φησίν, ὁ θεὸς τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων τὴν τιμωρίαν, περιμένων αὐτῶν τὴν μετάνοιαν, οὐχ ὡς μεταβεβλημένος ταῦτα ποιεῖ ἢ καὶ φιλῶν τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας, ἀλλὰ καιρὸν αὐτοῖς ἐπιστροφῆς παρέχων.

διὰ τοῦτό, φησιν, ὁ θεὸς ὑπερτίθεταί τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων τὴν τιμωρίαν,

gs (Matthaei, 38, to Jas 5:7)

τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων τὴν τιμωρίαν,

οὐχ ὡς μεταβαλλομένος,

οὐχ ὡς μεταβαλλομένος,

ἀλλὰ καιρὸν αὐτοῖς ἐπιστροφῆς παρέχων.

ἀλλὰ καιρὸν αὐτοῖς ἐπιστροφῆς παρέχων.

In the context of Jas 5:7–11, the exhortation focuses on the patience and endurance of the community until the coming of the Lord on the Day of Judgment. Modern scholars often understand this as an exhortation to remain strong and faithful during a time of suffering or even oppression before the Lord comes to restore justice,245 and this in fact is the interpretation of the following Sch. 5.7. This scholion, however, picking up the emphasis in this section of CatJas on repentance (cf. Sch. 5.1 and 5.2), takes the occasion to give a brief lesson on how God delays judgment to give sinners a chance to repent (cf. 2 Pet 3:9). Scholion 5.7 to Jas 5:7 The scholion is quite similar to the form and content of the Euthalian hypothesis and chapter titles. Euthalian chapter title 6c (located just before Jas 5:13 in codices O and P) reads, “specific exhortations, (given) with faith, appropriate to each person” (παραινέσεις ἰδικαὶ ἑκάστῳ προσήκουσαι μετὰ πίστεως);246 Sch. 5.7 summarizes several of these specific exhortations.

245 246

See, e.g., Scot McKnight, Letter of James, nicnt (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 432. Cramer, 36, line 31.

306

commentary

Schol. 5.7 (Cramer, 34, lines 22–29)

Reference in Jas 5

Εἰπὼν τῶν ἀδίκων τὴν τιμωρίαν (“having spoken of the punishment of the unjust”) τοῖς ἀδικηθεῖσιν εἰκότως μακροθυμεῖν παραινεῖ τὴν παρουσίαν ἐκδεχομένοις τοῦ κυρίου (“he fittingly encourages those who have been treated unjustly to be patient while awaiting the coming of the Lord”) Ἅμα δὲ καὶ ὅρκων ἀπαγορεύει ἅπτεσθαι (“yet at the same time, he also forbids them to have anything to do with swearing oaths”) καὶ προσευχῇ καὶ ψαλμῳδίᾳ σχολάζειν (“and to devote themselves to prayer and the singing of psalms”) καὶ πίστιν ἔχειν περὶ τοὺς ἱερεῖς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀγαπήν (“and to have faith, in regard to the priests of God, and love towards one another”) ὡς καὶ δέεσθαι ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων (“as well as to offer prayers on behalf of one another”) καὶ ἡ ἀπόδειξις τῆς ἰσχύος τῆς προσευχῆς ὁ Ἠλίας εἰς μέσον φέρεται (“and as a proof of the power of prayer, Elijah is brought forward”) καὶ τελευταῖον, ὅσος ὁ τῶν ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἐπιστρεφόντων ὁ μισθός (“and finally, [he speaks about] how great the reward for the ones who turn back sinners [will be]”).

Jas 5:1–5 Jas 5:7–11

Jas 5:12 Jas 5:13 Jas 5:14–15

Jas 5:16 Jas 5:17–18 Jas 5:19–20

to have faith, in regard to the priests of God: This is likely a reference to Jas 5:14–15, “Is anyone among you sick? The person should call for the elders of the church (τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας) and they should pray over the person, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. And if the person has committed any sins, it will be forgiven to that person.” The scholion here uses ἱερεῖς (priests) instead of James’ “elders” (πρεσβυτέρους). The scholion does not specify in what way a person is to have faith in the priests, but it likely refers to faith in their authority to heal and / or to forgive sins. Passages from Origen (albeit in Rufinus’ fourth-century Latin translation) and Chrysostom quote Jas 5:14 to support a priest’s authority to forgive sins. – Origen Hom. Lev. 2.4.5: “And there is still a seventh remission of sins through penance (per poenitentiam remissio peccatorum) ….when the sinner washes ‘his couch in tears’ (cf. Ps 6:7) … when he is not ashamed to make known his

commentary

307

sin to the priest of the Lord (sacerdoti Domini indicare peccatum) and to seek a cure (et quaerere medicinam) …. What the Apostle James said is fulfilled in this: (quotation of Jas 5:14–15).”247 – John Chrysostom Sac. 3.6: “They (scil.: priests [οἱ ἱερεῖς]) have authority to remit sins (συγχωρεῖν ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν ἁμαρτήματα), not only when they make us regenerate (οὐ γὰρ ὅταν ἡμᾶς ἀναγεννῶσι μόνον), but afterwards too.”248 The quotation of Jas 5:14–15 follows. The scholion may also refer to faith in the authority of priests to provide healing through the anointing of oil, as suggested by Bede’s (Ep. Cath. to Jas 5:14) commentary. – “now the custom (consuetudo) of the Church holds that those who are sick be anointed with consecrated oil by the presbyters (oleo consecrato ungantur a presbiteris), with the prayer that goes with this, that they may be cured (sanentur). Not only the presbyters, but as Pope Innocent writes, even for all Christians it is lawful (licit) to use the same oil (eodem oleo) for anointing at their own necessity or that of their [relatives] (suam aut suorum necissitatem), but the oil may be consecrated only by bishops (non nisi ab episcopis icet confici). For what he [i.e., James] says, “with oil in the name of the Lord,” means with oil consecrated (consecrato) in the name of the Lord or at least that when they anoint the sick person they ought also to invoke (invocare) the name of the Lord over him at the same time.”249 There is evidence of a controversy in early Christianity, arising in part from the interpretation of Jas 5:14, as to whether a priest or a layperson had the authority to anoint the sick with the consecrated oil.250 The scholion may allude to the belief that only the authority of the priests should be trusted. Scholion 5.8 to Jas 5:8 from Chrysostom: In the context of his homily on Colossians, Chrysostom comments on the author’s prayer that the Colossians be strengthened so that they have complete perseverance and patience (Col 1:11b: εἰς πᾶσαν ὑπομονὴν καὶ μακροθυμίαν) with joy. In his exegesis, Chrysostom distinguishes between perseverance (ὑπομονή) and patience (μακροθυμία). The catenist then applies Chrysostom’s distinction to the interpretation of the Jas 5:7–11 passage that focuses on patience, but also closely ties this virtue with perseverance in Jas 5:11.

247 248 249 250

Borret, ed., 110; Barkley, trans., 47–48. Malingrey, ed. and trans., 154; Neville, trans., 74. Hurst, ed., 221; Hurst, trans., 61–62. See Paul Meyendorff, The Anointing of the Sick, The Orthodox Liturgy Series 1 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 2009), 38.

308

commentary

The catenist takes over his source verbatim.

CatJas to Jas 5:8 (Cramer, 34, line 32– 35, line 3)

Chrysostom Hom. Col. 2 to Col 1:9–10 (Field, Paulinarum, 5:188)

Μακροθυμίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ὑπομονὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω· μακροθυμεῖ γάρ τις πρὸς ἐκείνους, οὓς δυνατὸν καὶ ἀμύνασθαι· ὑπομένει δὲ οὓς οὐ δύναται ἀμύνασθαι· Διὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ μὲν θεοῦ οὐδέποτε ὑπομονὴ λέγεται, μακροθυμία δὲ πολλαχοῦ.

μακροθυμίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ὑπομονὴν πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω. Μακροθυμεῖ γάρ τις πρὸς ἐκείνους, οὓς δυνατὸν καὶ ἀμύνασθαι, ὑπομένει δὲ οὓς οὐ δύναται ἀμύνασθαι. Διὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ μὲν Θεοῦ οὐδέποτε ὑπομονὴ λέγεται, μακροθυμία δὲ πολλαχοῦ·

Scholion 5.9 to Jas 5:8 A different version of this scholion appears in the catenae tradition to 2 Thessalonians (to 2Thess 1:10).251 The usual method of the CatJas catenist is to quote his sources virtually verbatim while excising any material deemed irrelevant (see Introduction sect. 13). This scholion, in contrast, reworks its Vorlage extensively: not only omitting certain phrases, but also rearranging a clause, and adding a sentence describing the lamentations of the oppressors on Judgment Day. Guided by the assumption that the pericope in Jas 5:7–11 admonishes those suffering oppression at the hands of the rich (cf. Jas 5:1–6) to persevere until the Day of Judgment, the catenist is drawn to Chrysostom’s treatment of a similar passage in 2Thessalonians. In that passage, Paul speaks of the coming Day of Judgment when the oppressors of the Thessalonian church and those not believing in God will receive their just punishment, while the faithful share the Lord’s glory.

CatJas to Jas 5:8 (Cramer, 35, lines 4–10) Chrysostom Hom. 2 Thess. 3 on 2Thessalonians to 1:10 (Field, Paulinarum, 5:462–463) Εἰ οὖν καὶ ἐνταῦθα δοκοῦσιν ἐγκαταλελεῖφθαι, ἀλλ’ ὅμως ἐκεῖ πολλῆς ἀπολαύσουσι τῆς δόξης· 251

Cramer, cgpnt, 6:383–384.

[See the final sentence of this comparison below.]

309

commentary (cont.)

CatJas to Jas 5:8 (Cramer, 35, lines 4–10) Chrysostom Hom. 2 Thess. 3 on 2Thessalonians to 1:10 (Field, Paulinarum, 5:462–463) ὅταν δὲ ἴδωσιν οἱ μεγάλα φυσῶντες τοὺς μαστιζομένους ὑπ’ αὐτῶν, τοὺς καταφρονουμένους, τοὺς καταγελωμένους, τούτους ἐγγὺς ὄντας θεοῦ,

Ὅταν γὰρ ἴδωσιν οἱ μέγα φυσῶντες τοὺς μαστιζομένους ὑπ’ αὐτῶν, τοὺς καταφρονουμένους, τοὺς καταγελωμένους, τούτους ἐγγὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ ….

τότε θρηνήσουσι καὶ ὀλολύξουσιν, ὅταν τοὺς οἰκτροὺς καὶ ταλαιπώρους ὅταν τοὺς οἰκτροὺς καὶ ταλαιπώρους καὶ μυρία παθόντας δεινά, καὶ πιστεύσαντας, καὶ μυρία παθόντας δεινά, καὶ πιστεύσαντας, εἰς τοσαύτην ἄγῃ λαμπρότητα εἰς τοσαύτην ἄγῃ λαμπρότητα … ὅτι εἰ καὶ ἐνταῦθα δοκοῦσιν ἐγκαταλελεῖφθαι, ἀλλ’ ὅμως ἐκεῖ πολλῆς ἀπολαύουσι τῆς δόξης·

Scholion 5.10a to Jas 5:9–11 James uses Job as an example of perseverance (5:11); the catenist is thus drawn to Chrysostom’s similar use of Job in his homilies. In Sch. 5.10ab, two passages on Job from separate sermons are combined. The first comes from a homily on Colossians.

CatJas to Jas 5: 9–11 (Cramer, 35, lines 18– Chrysostom Hom. Col. 2 to 1:12 (Field, 25) Paulinorum, 5:190) Εἰ γὰρ εὐχαριστοῦμεν μετὰ χαρᾶς πολλῆς, μεγάλα τὰ γινόμενα· ἔστι γὰρ εὐχαριστεῖν διὰ φόβον μόνον· ἔστιν εὐχαριστεῖν καὶ ἐν λύπῃ ὄντα. Οἵον ὁ Ἰὼβ ηὐχαρίστησεν, ὀδυνώμενος [δὲ] καὶ ἔλεγεν· “Ὁ κύριος ἔδωκεν, [καὶ] ὁ κύριος ἀφείλατο.” Μὴ γάρ τις λεγέτω ὅτι οὐκ ἐλύπει αὐτὸν τὰ

Εἰ γὰρ εὐχαριστοῦμεν μετὰ χαρᾶς πολλῆς, μεγάλα τὰ λεγόμενα. Ἔστι γὰρ εὐχαριστεῖν διὰ φόβον μόνον, ἔστιν εὐχαριστεῖν καὶ ἐν λύπῃ ὄντα, οἷον ὁ Ἰὼβ ηὐχαρίστει μὲν, ὀδυνώμενος δέ· καὶ ἔλεγεν, Ὁ κύριος ἔδωκεν, ὁ κύριος ἀφείλετο. Μὴ γάρ τις λεγέτω, ὅτι οὐκ ἐλύπει αὐτὸν τὰ

310

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 5: 9–11 (Cramer, 35, lines 18– Chrysostom Hom. Col. 2 to 1:12 (Field, 25) Paulinorum, 5:190) γινόμενα, οὐδὲ [ἀθυμίᾳ] περιέβαλε· μὴ δὲ τὸ μέγα ἐγκώμιον ἀφαιρείσθω τοῦ δικαίου. Ὅταν δὲ τοιαῦτα ᾖ, οὐ διὰ τὸν φόβον οὐδὲ διὰ δεσποτείαν μόνον, ἀλλὰ [καὶ] δι’ αὐτὴν τῶν πραγμάτων τὴν φύσιν. πόσος ὁ ἔπαινος;

γενόμενα, οὐδὲ ἀθυμίᾳ περιέβαλλε. Μηδὲ τὸ μέγα ἐγκώμιον ἀφαιρείσθω τοῦ δικαίου.Ὅταν δὲ τοιαῦτα ᾖ, οὐ διὰ τὸν φόβον, οὐδὲ διὰ δεσποτείαν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ δι’ αὐτὴν τὴν τῶν πραγμάτων φύσιν εὐχαριστοῦμεν.

from Chrysostom (on the passage) “giving thanks to God” (Col 1:12): This first part of the scholion has an unusually specific lemma identifying the passage on which Chrysostom’s homily comments; Ps.-Andrew likely drew it from a previous catena collection. Encomium: The encomium (ἐγκώμιον), a speech of praise, is a major form of epideictic rhetoric. Chrysostom composed encomia on biblical figures and saints (e.g., the Maccabean martyrs, Job, and Ignatius of Antioch), often delivering them in homilies on the holy days that commemorated them.252 Most notably, Chrysostom composed no less than seven encomia on the apostle Paul.253 Scholion 5.10b to Jas 5:9–11 O (fol. 192r–192v) treats this passage as continuous with the previous scholion (5.10a). V (fol. 243v) does not mark a new scholion but does leave a significant space between 5.10a and 5.10b. R (fol. 14r) writes them as one scholion but introduces 5.10b with καὶ πάλιν (“and again”). P (fol. 204v) treats them as two separate scholia, but with no author lemma for the second one. Scholion 5.10b is taken from Chrysostom’s homilies on Hebrews, as shown below.

252 253

See Mitchell, Heavenly Trumpet, 96. Auguste Piédagnel, ed. and trans., Panégyriques de Saint Paul, sc 300 (Paris: Cerf, 1982); et = Mitchell, Heavenly Trumpet, 442–487; see also Margaret M. Mitchell, John Chrysostom on Paul: Praises and Problem Passages, wgrw 48 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2022), 698–816.

commentary

311

CatJas to Jas 5: 9–11 (Cramer, 35, lines 25–31)

Chrysostom Hom. Heb. 20.8 to Heb 10:30–31 (Field, Paulinarum, 7: 236).

Εἰπέ μοι γάρ, πότε μακαρίζεις τὸν Ἰώβ; ὅτε εἶχε τὰς τοσαύτας καμήλους, καὶ τὰ ποίμνια, καὶ τὰ βουκόλια; ἢ ὅτε ἐκείνην τὴν φωνὴν ἀφῆκεν, “Ὁ κύριος ἔδωκεν, ὁ κύριος ἀφείλατο;” καὶ γὰρ [καὶ] ὁ διάβολος διὰ τοῦτο ἡμᾶς ζημιοῖ· οὐχ ἵνα τὰ χρήματα ἡμῶν ἀφέληται, οἶδε γὰρ ὅτι οὐδέν ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ ἵνα διὰ τούτων ἀναγκάσῃ εἰπεῖν τι βλάσφημον.

Εἰπὲ γάρ μοι, πότε μακαρίζεις τὸν Ἰώβ; ὅτε εἶχε τὰς τοσαύτας καμήλους καὶ τὰ ποίμνια καὶ τὰ βουκόλια, ἢ ὅτε ἐκείνην τὴν φωνὴν ἀφῆκεν, “Ὁ κύριος ἔδωκεν, ὁ κύριος ἀφείλετο;” Καὶ γὰρ ὁ διάβολος διὰ τοῦτο ἡμᾶς ζημιοῖ, οὐχ ἵνα τὰ χρήματα μόνον ἀφέληται· οἶδε γὰρ ὅτι οὐδέν ἐστιν· ἀλλ’ἵνα διὰ τούτων ἀναγκάσῃ εἰπεῖν τι βλάσφημον.

Common to both passages combined by the catenist is the quotation of Job 1:21: “the Lord has given, the Lord has taken away.” Both for Chrysostom and the catenist, Job is a role model to be imitated: as Job did, one should thank God even when she is suffering (5.10a); like Job, one should be careful to avoid blaspheming God when the devil puts her faith to the test (5:10b). Scholion 5.11 to Jas 5:11 The scholion is unattributed in O (fol. 192v) and P (fol. 204v); V (fol. 243v) attributes it to Theodoret, and R (fol. 14v) to “Theodore, a Monk” (Θεοδώρου μοναχοῦ). P (fol. 204v) numbers this scholion but writes it as a marginal gloss. For discussion on the identity of “Theodore the Monk,” see Introduction sect. 10.4.15. The scholion’s source is unidentified. The brief scholion focuses on the word τέλος (end, goal, final result), using the related word ἔκβασις. Just as James insists that verbal expression of faith must be demonstrated through action (Jas 2:14–26), so too the veracity of the words of both God and the devil are demonstrated through actions. Scholion 5.12ab to Jas 5:12 Scholion 5.12a is the first of four scholia on Jas 5:12: James’ teaching forbidding swearing oaths, itself a version of Jesus’ teaching on oaths recorded in Matt 5:34–37.254 Ultimately, all four scholia draw on Origen’s lost Commen-

254

See, e.g., Allison, James, 728–729.

312

commentary

tary on Matthew. All four are exhortations to a literal interpretation of Jesus’ teaching, understanding it to forbid Christians from swearing oaths of any kind. These first two scholia are taken directly from one of Chrysostom’s homilies on the Sermon on the Mount.

CatJas to Jas 5:12 (Cramer, 36, lines 7–21)

Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 17 to Matt 5:33– 34 (Field, Matthaeum, 1:248–250)

Sch. 5.12a Τί οὖν ἐὰν ἀπαιτῇ τις ὅρκον καὶ ἀνάγκην ἐπάγῃ; Ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ φόβος τῆς ἀνάγκης ἔστω δυνατώτερος· ἐπεὶ εἰ [μέλλεις] [τὰς] τοιαύτας προβάλλεσθαι προφάσεις οὐδὲν φυλάξεις τῶν ἐπιταχθέντων.

Τί οὖν, ἂν ἀπαιτῇ τις ὅρκον, φησὶ, καὶ ἀνάγκην ἐπάγῃ; Ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ φόβος τῆς ἀνάγκης ἔστω δυνατώτερος. Ἐπεὶ εἰ μέλλοις τοιαύτας προβάλλεσθαι προφάσεις, οὐδὲν φυλάξεις τῶν ἐπιταχθέντων. [Here Chrysostom gives examples of various excuses for not following Jesus’ commandments in Matthew 5.]

Καίτοιγε ἐπὶ τῶν νόμων τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων οὐδαμοῦ τοῦτο τολμᾷς προβαλέσθαι οὐδὲ εἰπεῖν, ἀλλ’ ἑκὼν καὶ ἄκων καταδέχῃ τὰ γεγραμμένα. Ἄλλως δὲ οὐδὲ ἀνάγκην ὑποστήσῃ ποτέ· ὁ γὰρ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν μακαρισμῶν ἀκούσας, καὶ τοιοῦτον ἑαυτὸν παρασκευάσας, οἷον ἐπέταξεν ὁ Χριστός, οὐδεμίαν παρ’ οὐδενὸς ὑποστήσεται τοιαύτην ἀνάγκην· αἰδέσιμος ὢν παρὰ πᾶσι καὶ σεμνός.

Καίτοιγε ἐπὶ τῶν νόμων τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων οὐδαμοῦ τοῦτο τολμᾷς προβαλέσθαι, οὐδὲ εἰπεῖν· Τί οὖν, ἐὰν τὸ καὶ τό; ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑκὼν καὶ ἄκων καταδέχῃ τὰ γεγραμμένα. Ἄλλως δὲ, οὐδὲ ἀνάγκην ὑποστήσῃ ποτέ. Ὁ γὰρ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν μακαρισμῶν ἀκούσας, καὶ τοιοῦτον ἑαυτὸν παρασκευάσας, οἶον ἐπέταξεν ὁ Χριστὸς, οὐδεμίαν παρ’ οὐδενὸς ὑποστήσεται τοιαύτην ἀνάγκην, αἰδέσιμος ὢν παρὰ πᾶσι καὶ σεμνός. [Quotation of Matt 5:37, with similarities to the version in Jas 5:12.]

Τί [δέ] ἐστι τὸ περιττὸν τοῦ ναὶ, καὶ τοῦ οὔ; ὁ ὅρκος [οὐ] τὸ ἐπιορκεῖν· ἐκεῖνο γὰρ

Τί οὖν ἐστι τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ ναὶ καὶ τοῦ οὔ; Ὁ ὅρκος, οὐ τὸ ἐπιορκεῖν. Ἐκεῖνο γὰρ καὶ ὡμολογημένον ἐστὶ, καὶ

313

commentary (cont.)

CatJas to Jas 5:12 (Cramer, 36, lines 7–21)

Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 17 to Matt 5:33– 34 (Field, Matthaeum, 1:248–250)

οὐδεὶς δεῖται μαθεῖν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστι καὶ [οὐ] περιττόν, ἀλλ’ ἐναντίον. Τὸ δὲ περιττὸν καὶ τὸ πλέον ὁ ὅρκος ἐστίν.

οὐδεὶς δεῖται μαθεῖν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστι, καὶ οὐ περιττὸν, ἀλλ’ ἐναντίον· τὸ δὲ περιττὸν, τὸ πλέον καὶ ἐκ περιουσίας προσκείμενον, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὁ ὅρκος. [Chrysostom argues that the laws allowing divorce and allowing oaths to God were given by God as a concession to the weakness of the people, but no longer apply after the law of Christ came.]

Sch. 5.12b Διὰ τοῦτο δὲ τὸ παλαιὸν ὁ ὅρκος νενομοθέτηται· ἵνα μὴ κατ’ εἰδώλων ὀμνύωσιν· “Ὀμεῖσθε γάρ,” φησι, “τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἀληθινόν.”

Καὶ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο, ὁ ὅρκος, τὸ παλαιὸν διὰ τοῦτο ενομοθετήθη, ἵνα μὴ κατὰ τῶν εἰδώλων ὀμνύωσιν· “Ὀμεῖσθε γάρ, φησί, τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἀληθινόν.”

The last paragraph of Sch. 5.12a is witnessed in the ac.255 The gist of the scholion’s point is preserved in gs.

CatJas to Jas 5:12 (Cramer, 36, 16–19)

ac to Jas 5:12 (Matthaei, 195, to Jas 5:12)

gs to Jas 5:12 (Matthaei, 41, to Jas 5:12)

τί [δέ] ἐστι τὸ περιττὸν τοῦ ναί, καὶ τοῦ οὔ; ὁ ὅρκος [οὐ] τὸ ἐπιορκεῖν· ἐκεῖνο γὰρ οὐδεὶς δεῖται μαθεῖν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστι καὶ [οὺ] περιττόν, ἀλλ’ ἐναντίον. Τὸ

Τί δέ ἐστι τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ ναὶ καὶ τοῦ οὔ; ὁ ὅρκος, οὐ τὸ ἐπιορκεῖν· ἐκεῖνο γὰρ οὐδεὶς δεῖται μαθεῖν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστι καὶ περιττὸν. ἀλλ’ ἐναντίον. τὸ

Τὸ γὰρ περισσὸν, φησι, τοῦ ναὶ καὶ τοῦ οὔ,

255

Matthaei, 195, to Jas 5:12; ga 1842 fol. 82r.

ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστὶν,

314

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 5:12 (Cramer, 36, 16–19)

ac to Jas 5:12 (Matthaei, 195, to Jas 5:12)

gs to Jas 5:12 (Matthaei, 41, to Jas 5:12)

δὲ περιττὸν καὶ τὸ πλέον ὁ ὅρκος ἐστίν.

δὲ περιττὸν καὶ τὸ πλέον ὁ ὅρκος ἐστίν.

ὅπερ ἐστιν ὁ ὅρκος.

Ironically, the focus of this section is on an exegetical issue that arises only in the Matthean version in Matt 5:37: “Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more (τὸ περιττόν) than this comes from the evil one” (nrsv)—the version witnessed in James lacks the reference to the “anything more.” applies compulsion: ἀνάγκην ἐπάγῃ. Ἀνάγκη refers in general to necessity, and by extension, force or compulsion. It can refer specifically to the use of torture to obtain information in legal proceedings, a practice often inflicted on slaves in ancient times.256 Here Chrysostom may refer to the threat of torture if a Christian refuses to swear an oath in a legal context. earlier beatitudes: This refers to the Beatitudes in Matt 5:3–12. Christ commanded (him to be) … honored among all: Chrysostom refers to the previous teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:21–32: do not be angry and insult others, do not look at others with lust, do not divorce). Chrysostom’s point seems to be that the truthful character of a person who follows Christ’s laws will be recognized and honored by all, and thus this person will not be required to take an oath. What is the “anything more”: Chrysostom refers to Matt 5:37, “Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more (τὸ περιττὸν) than this comes from the evil one” (nrsv). Chrysostom clarifies his exegetical conclusion: The phrase “anything more” beyond a simple “yes” or “no” refers not to swearing a false oath (this would be the opposite of an honest yes or no), but rather it refers simply to the practice of swearing an oath itself. Since swearing an oath goes beyond a simple “yes” or “no,” it is absolutely prohibited by Jesus’ teaching. Scholion 5.12b to Jas 5:12 All four main CatJas codices mark this as a separate scholion, although the text is excerpted from the same homily of Chrysostom on Matthew from which

256

See “Torture,” ocd, 1489–1490; lsj, s.v. ἀνάγκη 3b.

315

commentary

Sch. 5.12a is drawn, just a few lines further down in the text. The author lemma for P (fol. 205r), V (fol. 244r) and R (fol. 15r) is τοῦ αὐτοῦ (“from the same [author]”); in O (192v) the scholion is unattributed, but a significant space is left between scholia 5.12a and 5.12b. The ac257 also witnesses a version of this scholion.

CatJas to Jas 5:12 (Cramer, 36, lines 20–21)

ac (Matthaei, 195, to Jas 5:12)

Διὰ τοῦτο δὲ τὸ παλαιὸν ὁ ὅρκος νενομοθέτηται· ἵνα μὴ κατ’εἰδώλων ὀμνύωσιν· “Ὀμεῖσθε γάρ,” φησί, “τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἀληθινόν.”

διὰ τοῦτο δὲ ὁ ὅρκος τὸ παλαιὸν νενομοθέτηται, ἵνα μὴ κατὰ τῶν εἰδώλων ὀμνύουσιν, ὀμεῖσθε γάρ, φησι, τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἀληθινόν.

given as a law in ancient times for this (reason): A common early Christian teaching was that the Mosaic law was given to the Jewish people as an accommodation to the vices that they had learned in Egypt. For example, according to the Ps.-Clementine Recognitions (1.36), Moses, knowing that the people had become accustomed to sacrificing to idols in Egypt, allowed them to sacrifice, but only to God, in order to “cut off one half of the deeply ingrained evil” (ut mediam quodammodo partem vitii altius inoliti resecaret)258 (cf. Justin Dial. 19.6; Tertullian Marc. 2.18). Chrysostom follows in this tradition, arguing that the Mosaic laws were good and served specific purposes in their time, but now that Christ has come, these Old Testament laws have been transcended. As the following comparison makes clear, Chrysostom’s exegetical argument at the end of Sch. 5.12a and in Sch. 5.12b is drawn from Origen’s Commentary on Matthew. This comparison confirms Panayiotis Tzamalikos’ conclusion that Chrysostom’s homilies on Matthew often quote passages of Origen’s Commentary, without attribution, together with Chrysostom’s own exegetical comments.259

257 258 259

Matthaei, 195, to Jas 5:12, ga 1842 fol. 82r. Rehm and Strecker ed., 29; anf 8:87. Tzamalikos, New Fragments, xxiii; xlvii.

316

commentary

CatJas to Jas 5:12 (Cramer, 36, 16–21)

Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 17 (Field, Matthaeum, 1:248– 250)

to Matt 5:33–34 Origen Comm. Matt. (Cod. Sabaiticus 232) (Tzamalikos, New Fragments, 75)

τί [δέ] ἐστι τὸ περιττὸν τοῦ ναὶ, καὶ τοῦ οὔ; ὁ ὅρκος [οὐ] τὸ ἐπιορκεῖν· ἐκεῖνο γὰρ

Τί οὖν ἐστι τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ ναὶ καὶ τοῦ οὔ; Ὁ ὅρκος, οὐ τὸ ἐπιορκεῖν. Ἐκεῖνο γὰρ καὶ ὡμολογημένον ἐστὶ, καὶ οὐδεὶς δεῖται μαθεῖν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστι, καὶ οὐ περιττὸν, ἀλλ’ ἐναντίον· τὸ δὲ περιττὸν, τὸ πλέον καὶ ἐκ περιουσίας προσκείμενον, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὁ ὅρκος.

τὸ δέ ἐστι περισσὸν τοῦ ναὶ καὶ τοῦ οὔ, ὁ ὅρκος ἔστιν, οὐ τὸ ἐπιορκεῖν. ἐκεῖνο γὰρ

οὐδεὶς δεῖται μαθεῖν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστι καὶ [οὐ] περιττόν, ἀλλ’ ἐναντίον· τὸ δὲ περιττὸν καὶ τὸ πλέον ὁ ὅρκος ἐστίν.

οὐδεὶς δεῖται μαθεῖν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστι.

[Chrysostom explains how God gave the ot laws as a concession to the people’s weakness.] Sch. 5.12b Διὰ τοῦτο δὲ τὸ παλαιὸν ὁ ὅρκος νενομοθέτηται· ἵνα μὴ κατ’ εἰδώλων ὀμνύωσιν·

Καὶ αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο, ὁ ὅρκος, τὸ παλαιὸν διὰ τοῦτο ενομοθετήθη, ἵνα μὴ κατὰ τῶν εἰδώλων ὀμνύωσιν·

“Ὀμεῖσθε γάρ,” φησί, “τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἀληθινόν.”

“Ὀμεῖσθε γάρ, φησι, τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἀληθινόν.”

Διὰ τοῦτο δὲ τὸ παλαιὸν ὁ ὅρκος νενομοθέτητο, ἵνα μὴ κατὰ τῶν εἰδώλων ὀμνύωσι.

317

commentary

Scholion 5.13 to Jas 5:12 All four of the major CatJas manuscripts attribute this scholion to Cyril of Alexandria. One of Cyril’s fragments on Matthew do in fact witness the scholion partially.260 The full scholion, however, is found elsewhere in the catena tradition, attributed to Origen and to Theodore of Heraclea. Panagiotes Tzamalikos has shown that many catenae fragments attributed to Theodore of Heraclea are in fact copies of Origen fragments.261 This same scholar makes the case that Cyril often quoted (without attribution) from Origen’s Commentary on Matthew.262 It is likely, then, that the scholion is originally from Origen’s lost Commentary.

Cat Jas to Jas 5:12 (Cramer, 36, lines 22–25)

Theodore of Heraclea frag. 36 to Matt 5:37 (Reuss, MatthäusKommentare, 66)

Origen Comm. Matt. frag. 106 to Matt 5:33– 37 (Benz and Klostermann, 59)263

Origen, Comm. Matt. (Cod. Sabaiticus 232) (Tzamalikos, New Fragments, 75)

Ἔστω ἡ τοῦ βίου ἡμῶν μαρτυρία βεβαιοτέρα ὅρκου. Εἰ δέ τις ἀναιδής, μὴ δυσωπούμενος ὑμῶν τῷ βίῳ, τολμᾷ ὑμῖν ἐπαγαγεῖν ὅρκον· ἔστω ὑμῖν τὸ ναί, ναί, καὶ τὸ οὔ, οὔ, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὅρκου.

Ἔστω ἡ τοῦ βίου ἡμῶν μαρτυρία ὅρκου βεβαιοτέρα. εἰ δέ τις ἀναιδὴς μὴ δυσωπούμενος ὑμῶν τῷ βίῳ τολμᾷ ὑμῖν ἐπαγαγεῖν ὅρκον, ἔστω ὑμῖν τὸ ναὶ ναί, καὶ τὸ οὒ, οὒ, ἀντὶ παντὸς ὅρκου.

Ἔστω δέ ἡ τοῦ βίου ἡμῶν μαρτυρία βεβαιοτέρα ὅρκου. εἰ δέ τις ἀναιδὴς μὴ δυσωπούμενος ὑμῶν τῷ βίῳ τολμᾷ ὑμῖν ἐπαγαγεῖν ὅρκον, ἔστω ὑμῖν τὸ ναί, ναί, καὶ τὸ οὔ, οὔ, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὅρκου.

Ἔστω ἡ τοῦ βίου ὑμῶν μαρτυρία βεβαιοτέρα ὅρκου. Εἰ δέ τις ἀναιδὴς μὴ δυσωπούμενος ὑμῶν τῷ βίῳ τολμᾷ ὑμῖν ἐπαγαγεῖν ὅρκον, ἔστω ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναί, καὶ τὸ οὒ οὒ, ἀντὶ ὅρκου.

260

261 262 263

See Cyril of Alexandria frag. 62 to Matt 5:33–37 (Reuss, Matthäus-Kommentare, 172), which reads ἐάν τις ἀναιδὴς ἐπάγῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις ὅρκον, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὅρκου ἔσται αὐτοῖς τὸ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὒ. This reading also appears in a Catena to Matthew, where it is attributed to both Origen and Cyril (cgpnt, 1:39–40). See further, Tzamalikos, New Fragments 430, n. cccxci. Tzamalikos, New Fragments, lxxv–lxxviii. Tzamalikos, New Fragments, xlv–xlvii. This version of the scholion is found in catenae attributed to Peter of Laodicea; Benz and Klostermann also print two other versions. For an et of this scholion, see Ronald E. Heine, The Commentary of Origen on the Gospel of St. Matthew, oect (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 1:335.

318

commentary

The ac264 also witnesses a version of this scholion.

CatJas to Jas 5:12 (Cramer, 36, lines 22–25) ac to Jas 5:12 (Matthaei, 195, to Jas 5:12) Ἔστω ἡ τοῦ βίου ἡμῶν μαρτυρία βεβαιοτέρα ὅρκου. Εἰ δέ τις ἀναιδής, μὴ δυσωπούμενος ὑμῶν τῷ βίῳ, τολμᾷ ὑμῖν ἐπαγαγεῖν ὅρκον· ἔστω ὑμῖν τὸ ναί, ναί, καὶ τὸ οὒ, οὒ, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὅρκου

ἔστω οὖνἡ τοῦ βίου ὑμῶν μαρτυρία βεβαιοτέρα ὅρκου· εἰ δέ τις ἀναιδὴς, μὴ δυσωπούμενος ὑμῶν τῷ βίῳ, τολμᾷ ὑμῖν ἐπαγαγεῖν ὅρκον, ἔστω ὑμῶν τὸ ναί, ναί, καὶ τὸ οὒ, οὒ, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὅρκου.

Scholion 5.14 to Jas 5:12 This scholion is unattributed in O and P and omitted in V; R combines it with the previous scholion (5.13). Elsewhere in the catena tradition it is attributed to Cyril of Alexandria, but doubtless has its original home in Origen’s Commentary on Matthew (see comments on Sch. 5.13).

CatJas to 5:12 (Cramer, 36, Cyril of Alexandria Origen Comm. Matt. (Cod. lines 22–25) Comm. Matt. to Matt Sabaiticus 232) (Tzama5:33–35 (Reuss, Matthäus- likos, New Fragments, 75) Kommentare, 172, frag. 63) Διὰ τοῦτο κωλύει ἡμᾶς ὀμνύναι κατὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ἵνα μὴ δῶμεν τῇ κτίσει τὸ ὑπὲρ κτίσιν ἀξίωμα, θεοποιοῦντες αὐτά· “οἱ γὰρ ὀμνύντες, φησί, κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσιν,” ὡς ὁ ἀπόστολός φησι.

264

Διὰ τοῦτο κωλύει ἡμᾶς ὀμνύναι κατὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ἵνα μὴ δῶμεν τῇ κτίσει τὸ ὑπὲρ τὴν κτίσιν ἀξίωμα θεοποιοῦντες αὐτήν· οἱ γὰρ ὀμνύντες, φησίν, “κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσιν” ὡς ὁ ἀπόστολος ἔφη.

Matthaei, 195, to Jas 5:12, ga 1842 fol. 82r.

διὰ τοῦτο κωλύει κατὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς ὀμνύειν, ἵνα μὴ δῶμεν τῇ κτίσει τὸ ὑπὲρ τὴν κτίσιν ἀξίωμα θεοποιοῦντες αὐτήν· οἱ γὰρ ὀμνύοντες, φησὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος, κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσιν

319

commentary

The same scholion is also witnessed in the ac.265 The content of the scholion is attested in gs (Matthaei, 40, to Jas 5:12), although in different wording.

CatJas to Jas 5:12 (Cramer, ac to Jas 5:12 (Matthaei, 36, lines 26–29) 195, to Jas 5:12)

gs (Matthaei, 40, to Jas 5:12)

Διὰ τοῦτο κωλύει ἡμᾶς ὀμνύναι κατὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ἵνα μὴ δῶμεν τῇ κτίσει τὸ ὑπὲρ κτίσιν ἀξίωμα, θεοποιοῦντες αὐτά· “Οἱ γὰρ ὀμνύντες,” φησί, “κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσιν,” ὡς ὁ ἀπόστολός φησι.

ἵνα μὴ ἐντεῦθεν τῇ κτίσει τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτὴν περιάπτηται άξίωμα. εἰ γὰρ ὁ ὀμνύων κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύειν ὀφείλει, δόξει τίς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γὴν ὀμνύων, θεοποιεῖν αὐτά.

διὰ τοῦτο κωλύει ἡμᾶς ὀμνύναι κατὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ἵνα μὴ δῶμεν τῇ κτίσει τὸ ὑπὲρ κτίσιν ἀξίωμα, θεοποιοῦντες αὐτά. οἱ γὰρ ὀμνύοντες, κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύειν ὀφείλουσιν.

The ones who swear, he says, swear by the greater, as the apostle says. This is an apparent reference to Heb 6:16 nrsv: “Human beings, of course, swear by someone greater than themselves” (Ἄνθρωποι μὲν γὰρ κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσιν). In sum, CatJas presents four scholia on Jas 5:12: Sch. 5.12a, 5.12b, 5.13, and 5.14. The ac witnesses the same four scholia, but attests 5.12a only partially, and presents them in a different order: 5.14, 5.13, 5.12a, and 5.12b. Chapter 6c: Specific exhortations … appropriate to each person: This Euthalian chapter subtitle is lacking in O and V. Codex P (fol. 204v) reads the full title as a marginal note opposite Jas 5:8, while R (fol. 14v), reading simply παραινέσεις ἰδικαί (“specific exhortations”), places it next to Jas 5:12. The title covers the content in Jas 5:12–17. The “exhortations” may refer to any exhortation in this section, or perhaps more specifically to exhortations in 5:12–14 that refer to people in certain conditions: e.g., “Is anyone among you suffering? He should pray. Is anyone cheerful? He should sing a song of praise.” (Jas 5:13– 14a). Scholia 5.15 and 5.16 on Jas 5:13 Both scholia are unnumbered glosses in O (fol. 193v) and P (fol. 205r); P writes in the inner margin. Codex V omits both; R reads only Sch. 5.15. Both scholia are

265

Matthaei, 195, to Jas 5:12, ga 1842 fol. 82r.

320

commentary

paraphrases of their respective scriptural passages. gs (ga 1845 fol. 98r) also witnesses these scholia, reading to 5:13a: ἐν θλίψει διάγει παρακαλεῖτω τὸν θεόν and to 5:13b: ἐν χαρᾷ διάγει ἀνυμνῃτω αὐτόν. praise him (God) in song: The verb ἀνυμνέω can refer to praise in general, or specifically to praise in song, especially songs celebrating weddings (e.g., Ps.Dionysius of Halicarnassus Rhet. 2.1).266 Scholion 5.17 to Jas 5:16 This scholion is read only in P, where it is added as a marginal note with a non-numerical symbol (see Introduction sect. 2.3.3). The gs (ga 1845 98r) also witnesses this scholion; its reading ὑπὲρ οὗ προσεύχεται is clearly preferable to P and Cramer. The theology of intercessory prayer in the scholion has similarities with the theology of the following quotation from Maximus: both scholia insist that both the intercessor and the one for whom he prays play key roles in the efficacy of the prayer. Scholion 5.18 to Jas 5:16 The scholion is drawn from Maximus the Confessor’s work, Responses to Thalassios on Various Difficulties in Sacred Scripture.267 The work is composed in the literary genre ἐρωταποκρίσεις (“Questions and Responses”) which was commonly used in early Christianity (cf. Introduction 4.3.1). In this scholion, the question is a straightforward exegetical inquiry concerning Jas 5:14, “(In the passage) ‘The petition of a righteous person accomplishes much when it is made effective’ (Jas 5:16b) what is the meaning of ‘made effective’ (ἐνεργουμένη)?” The catenist chooses to record Maximus’ rather lengthy reply in full.

CatJas to Jas 5:16 (Cramer, 37, line 11–38, line 19)

Maximus the Confessor Qu. Thal. 57 (Steel and Laga, eds., 2.23–25)

Ἐρώτησις Μαξίμου· “Πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη.” Τί ἐστιν [τὸ] ἐνεργουμένη; Κατὰ δύο τρόπους ἐνεργουμένην οἶδα τοῦ δικαίου τὴν δέησιν· καθ’ ἕνα μὲν·

Ἐρώτησις νζʹ Πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη. Τί ἐστι τὸ ἐνεργουμένη; Ἀπόκρισις. Κατὰ δύο τρόπους ἐνεργουμένην οἶδα τοῦ δικαίου τὴν δέησιν· καθ’ ἕνα μέν,

266 267

Race, ed., 380. The traditional title, Quaestiones ad Thalassium (“Questions to Thalassius”) is misleading since the work involves the responses of Maximus to questions of Thalassius regarding

commentary

321

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 5:16 (Cramer, 37, line 11–38, line 19)

Maximus the Confessor Qu. Thal. 57 (Steel and Laga, eds., 2.23–25)

ὁπόταν μετὰ τῶν [κατ’] ἐντολὴν ἔργων τῷ θεῷ τὴν ταύτης [ποιηται] προσαγωγὴν τῆς δεήσεως ὁ εὐχόμενος. Καὶ μὴ μόνον ἐν ψιλῷ λόγῳ [καὶ] διακένῳ φωνῆς ἤχῳ τῆς γλώττης ἐκπίπτουσαν, ἀργὴν κεῖσθαι τὴν δέησιν καὶ ἀνυπόστατον, ἀλλ’ ἔνεργον καὶ ζῶσαν τοῖς τρόποις τῶν ἐντολῶν ψυχουμένην· εὐχῆς γὰρ καὶ δεήσεως ὑπόστασις ἡ διὰ τῶν ἀρετῶν ὑπάρχει προδήλως ἐκπλήρωσις, καθ’ ἣν ἰσχυρὰν καὶ πάντα δυναμένην ὁ δίκαιος ἔχει τὴν δέησιν ἐνεργουμένην ταῖς ἐντολαῖς. Καθ’ ἕτερον δὲ τρόπον, ὁπόταν ὁ τῆς εὐχῆς τοῦ δικαίου δεόμενος, τὰ ἔργα τῆς εὐχῆς [διαπράττεται] τόν τε πρότερον διορθούμενος βίον, καὶ τὴν δέησιν ἰσχυρὰν ποιούμενος τοῦ δικαίου διὰ τῆς οἰκείας καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς δυναμουμένην· οὐ γὰρ ὄφελος τῆς τοῦ δικαίου δεήσεως τοῦ ταύτης χρήζοντος πλέον τῶν ἀρετῶν ἡδομένου τοῖς πλημμελήμασιν. Ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ μέγας ποτὲ Σαμουὴλ ἐπένθει πλημμελοῦντα τὸν Σαούλ, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἴσχυσε τὸν θεὸν ἱλεώσασθαι, μὴ λαβὼν συλλήπτορα, τοῦ πένθους τὴν καθήκουσαν, τοῦ [πλημμελοῦντος] διόρθωσιν. Διὸ τοῦ ἀνονήτου πένθους ὁ θεὸς καταπαύων τὸν ἑαυτοῦ θεράποντα, φησὶ πρὸς αὐτόν· “Ἕως πότε σὺ πενθεῖς ἐπὶ Σαοὺλ; καὶ ἐγὼ ἐξουδένωκα αὐτὸν τοῦ μὴ βασιλεύειν ἐπὶ Ἰσραήλ.” Καὶ πάλιν Ἱερεμίας, ὁ

ὁπόταν μετὰ τῶν κατ’ ἐντολὴν ἔργων τῷ θεῷ τὴν ταύτης ποιεῖται προσαγωγὴν τῆς δεήσεως ὁ εὐχόμενος καὶ μή, μόνον ἐν ψιλῷ λόγῳ καὶ διακένῳ φωνῆς ἤχῳ τῆς γλώττης ἐκπίπτουσαν, ἀργὴν κεῖσθαι τὴν δέησιν καὶ ἀνυπόστατον, ἀλλ’ ἐνεργὸν καὶ ζῶσαν, τοῖς τρόποις τῶν ἐντολῶν ψυχουμένην—εὐχῆς γὰρ καὶ δεήσεως ὑπόστασις ἡ διὰ τῶν ἀρετῶν ὑπάρχει προδήλως ἐκπλήρωσις, καθ’ ἣν ἰσχυρὰν καὶ πάντα δυναμένην ὁ δίκαιος ἔχει τὴν δέησιν, ἐνεργουμένην ταῖς ἐντολαῖς· καθ’ ἕτερον δὲ τρόπον, ὁπόταν ὁ τῆς εὐχῆς τοῦ δικαίου δεόμενος τὰ ἔργα τῆς εὐχῆς διαπράττεται, τόν τε πρότερον διορθούμενος βίον καὶ τὴν δέησιν ἰσχυρὰν τοῦ δικαίου ποιούμενος, διὰ τῆς οἰκείας καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς δυναμουμένην. Οὐ γὰρ ὄφελος τῆς τοῦ δικαίου δεήσεως, τοῦ ταύτης χρῄζοντος πλέον τῶν ἀρετῶν ἡδομένου τοῖς πλημμελήμασιν, ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ μέγας ποτὲ Σαμουὴλ ἐπένθει πλημμελοῦντα τὸν Σαούλ, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἴσχυσε τὸν θεὸν ἱλεώσασθαι, μὴ λαβὼν συλλήπτορα τοῦ πένθους τὴν καθήκουσαν τοῦ πλημμελοῦντος διόρθωσιν. Διὸ τοῦ ἀνονήτου πένθους ὁ θεὸς καταπαύων τὸν ἑαυτοῦ θεράποντά φησι πρὸς αὐτόν· ἕως πότε σὺ πενθεῖς ἐπὶ Σαούλ, καὶ ἐγὼ ἐξουδένωκα αὐτὸν τοῦ μὴ βασιλεύειν ἐπὶ Ἰσραήλ; Καὶ πάλιν Ἱερεμίας ὁ

Scripture. The title found in the manuscripts is πρὸς Θαλάσσιον περὶ διαφόρων άπόρων τῆς ἁγίας Γραφῆς (“To Thalassius, regarding various difficulties in the Holy Scriptures”;) see Maximos Constas, “Introduction,” to On Difficulties in Sacred Scripture: The Responses to Thalassios, fc 136 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018), 4 n. 6.

322

commentary

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 5:16 (Cramer, 37, line 11–38, line 19)

Maximus the Confessor Qu. Thal. 57 (Steel and Laga, eds., 2.23–25)

συμπαθέστατος, ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, περὶ τὴν πλάνην μανέντος τῶν δαιμονίων, οὐκ εἰσακούεται προσευχόμενος· οὐκ ἔχων εἰς προσευχῆς δύναμιν τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς πλάνης τῶν ἀθέων Ἰουδαίων ἐπιστροφήν. Ὅθεν, τοῦ διακενῆς προσεύχεσθαι καὶ τοῦτον ἀπάγων ὁ θεὸς, φησί· “Καὶ σὺ μὴ προσεύχου περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, καὶ μὴ ἀξίου ἐλεηθῆναι αὐτούς· καὶ μὴ εὔχου, καὶ μὴ προσέλθῃς περὶ αὐτῶν· ὅτι οὐκ εἰσακούσομαί σου.” Πολλῆς γὰρ ὄντως ἐστὶν [ἀβελτηρίας], ἵνα μὴ λέγω παραφροσύνης, δι’ εὐχῆς δικαίων ἐπιζητεῖν σωτηρίαν τὸν κατὰ διάθεσιν τοῖς ὀλεθρίοις ἡδυνόμενον, κἀκείνων αἰτεῖσθαι συγχώρησιν οἷς ἐγκαυχᾶται, κατ’ ἐνεργείαν προθέσει σπιλούμενος. Δέον, μὴ ἀργὴν ἐᾶν γίνεσθαι καὶ ἀκίνητον τοῦ δικαίου τὴν δέησιν, τὸν ταύτης δεόμενον, εἴπερ ἀληθῶς τοῖς πονηροῖς ἀπεχθάνεται, ἀλλ’ ἐνεργὸν ποιεῖν καὶ ἰσχυράν, ταῖς οἰκειαῖς ἀρεταῖς πτερουμένην, καὶ φθάνουσαν τὸν συγχώρησιν διδόναι τῶν πλημμεληθέντων δυνάμενον. Εἴτε οὖν ἐκ τοῦ ποιουμένου τὴν δέησιν δικαίου, εἴτε ἐκ τοῦ γίνεσθαι ταύτην αἰτουμένου τὸν δίκαιον ἐνεργουμένη, πολὺ ἰσχύει τοῦ δικαίου ἡ δέησις· ὑπὸ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη, δίδωσιν αὐτῷ παρρησίαν πρὸς τὸν δοῦναι δυνάμενον τὰ τῶν δικαίων αἰτήματα· ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ ταύτης αἰτουμένου τὸν δίκαιον, τῆς προτέρας αὐτὸν μοχθηρίας ἀφίστησι, μεταβάλλουσα πρὸς ἀρετὴν αὐτῷ τὴν διάθεσιν.

συμπαθέστατος ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, περὶ τὴν πλάνην μανέντος τῶν δαιμονίων, οὐκ εἰσακούεται προσευχόμενος, οὐκ ἔχων εἰς προσευχῆς δύναμιν τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς πλάνης τῶν ἀθέων Ἰουδαίων ἐπιστροφήν. Ὅθεν τοῦ διακενῆς προσεύχεσθαι καὶ τοῦτον ἀπάγων ὁ θεός φησι· καὶ σύ, μὴ προσεύχου περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, καὶ μὴ ἀξίου τοῦ ἐλεηθῆναι αὐτούς, καὶ μὴ εὔχου καὶ μὴ προσέλθῃς μοι περὶ αὐτῶν ἔτι, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσακούσομαι. Πολλῆς γὰρ ὄντως ἐστὶν ἀβελτερίας, ἵνα μὴ λέγω παραφροσύνης, δι’ εὐχῆς δικαίων ἐπιζητεῖν σωτηρίαν τὸν κατὰ διάθεσιν τοῖς ὀλεθρίοις ἡδόμενον κἀκείνων αἰτεῖσθαι συγχώρησιν, οἷς ἐγκαυχᾶται κατ’ ἐνέργειαν προθέσει σπιλούμενος, δέον μὴ ἀργὴν ἐᾶν γίνεσθαι καὶ ἀκίνητον τοῦ δικαίου τὴν δέησιν τὸν ταύτης δεόμενον, εἴπερ ἀληθῶς τοῖς πονηροῖς ἀπεχθάνεται, ἀλλ’ ἐνεργὸν ποιεῖν καὶ ἰσχυράν, ταῖς οἰκείαις ἀρεταῖς πτερουμένην καὶ φθάνουσαν τὸν συγχώρησιν διδόναι τῶν πλημμεληθέντων δυνάμενον. Εἴτε οὖν ἐκ τοῦ ποιουμένου τὴν δέησιν δικαίου, εἴτε ἐκ τοῦ γίνεσθαι ταύτην αἰτουμένου τὸν δίκαιον ἐνεργουμένη, πολὺ ἰσχύει τοῦ δικαίου ἡ δέησις· ὑπὸ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη δίδωσιν αὐτῷ παρρησίαν πρὸς τὸν δοῦναι δυνάμενον τὰ τῶν δικαίων αἰτήματα, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ ταύτην αἰτουμένου τὸν δίκαιον τῆς προτέρας αὐτὸν μοχθηρίας ἀφίστησιν, μεταβάλλουσα πρὸς ἀρετὴν αὐτῷ τὴν διάθεσιν.

323

commentary

when it is made effective: Jas 5:16c reads Πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη. The nrsv translates, “The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective,” taking the present middle participle ἐνεργουμένη that modifies “prayer” in an active sense, i.e., “prayer that causes an effect” (cf. also rsv: “has great power in its effects”). The commentary in the scholion, however, shows that Maximus takes it in a passive sense: the prayer is made effective by something outside of the prayer itself. In the other way (Καθ’ ἕτερον δὲ τρόπον): P (fol. 205v) marks this as the beginning of a new, unnumbered scholion, by placing the initial K in an ekthesis position (projecting further out into the left margin and written larger) and marking the preceding comments with a sign for completion (:-). Do not pray: The quotation of Jer 7:16 in CatJas and Maximus (μὴ ἀξίου [τοῦ] ἐλεηθῆναι αὐτούς) differs slightly from the Göttingen lxx (μὴ ἀξίου τοῦ δεηθῆναι περὶ αὐτῶν). Scholion 5.19 to Jas 5:17–18 Cramer’s edition inadvertently omits this scholion although it is read in all four main manuscripts.

CatJas to Jas 5:17–18 (Cramer, 586, note to page 38, on Jas 5:18) Ἐν τῇ τρίτῇ τῶν βασιλειῶν φησι· “Καὶ εἶπεν Ἡλιου ὁ προφήτης ἐκ [Θεσβῶν] τῆς Γαλαὰδ πρὸς Ἀχαὰβ· Ζῇ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων, ὁ θεὸς [Ισραηλ], ᾧ παρέστην ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, εἰ ἔσται τὰ ἔτη ταῦτα δρόσος καὶ ὑετὸς ὅτι εἰ μὴ διὰ στόματος λόγου μου.

3Kgdms 17:1 lxx (Rahlfs)

Καὶ εἶπεν Ηλιου ὁ προφήτης ὁ Θεσβίτης ἐκ Θεσβων τῆς Γαλααδ πρὸς Αχααβ Ζῇ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ, ᾧ παρέστην ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, εἰ ἔσται τὰ ἔτη ταῦτα δρόσος καὶ ὑετὸς ὅτι εἰ μὴ διὰ στόματος λόγου μου.

The quotation is given to illustrate the efficacy of Elijah’s prayers; the topic treated in Jas 5:17–18. With Sch. 3.6 to Jas 3:5 (Sir 28:18–20), this is one of only two scholia in CatJas that are drawn directly from Scripture.”268 Scholion 5.20 to Jas 5:17 from Chrysostom: This scholion is drawn from a homily on Peter and Elijah attributed to Chrysostom. Bernard de Montfaucon, the homily’s editor, 268

See also Staab, 307.

324

commentary

judged it to be spurious, but notes that the Chrysostom scholars Henry Savile and Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont consider it genuine.269 P divides the scholion into two; O, V, and R read it as a single scholion but divide the parts with the phrase, Καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα. P and V witness unusually specific author lemmata, suggesting that CatJas draws them from a previous collection, and not directly from Ps.-Chrysostom’s work: – P: Πρὸς ταῦτα οὖν ὁ ἁγίος Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος ἐξηγούμενός φησιν (“when interpreting these things, saint John Chrysostom says”) – V: Πρὸς ταῦτα οὖν ὁ ἁγίος Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος ὁ τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπος ἐξηγούμενός φησιν (“when interpreting these things, saint John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, says”)

CatJas to Jas 5:16 (Cramer, 38, line 25–39, line 2)

Chrysostom Hom. Petr. et El. (pg 50:729)

Ἵνα κἂν οὕτω τῷ λιμῷ τηκόμενοι ἐπὶ τὸν δημιουργὸν φθάσωσιν, ἵνα ὁ λιμὸς ὑπόθεσις αὐτοῖς σωτηρίας γένηται. Οὐδὲν γάρ, φησί, δύναται παιδεῦσαι, εἰ μὴ λιμὸς, ἵνα [κἂν], οὕτω παιδευόμενοι, ἐπὶ τὸν πάντων κτίστην χωρήσωσι.

Ἐμαίνετο οὖν ὁ Ἠλίας, ἐπρίζετο, ὠδύρετο, ῥήματα ἐλάλει, οὐδεὶς ἤκουε· παρεκάλει, οὐδ εὶς ἠνέσχετο· λοιπὸν ἀπὸ ζήλου προσαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς θέλει καὶ παιδεῦσαι, ἵνα κἂν οὕτω τῷ λιμῷ τηκόμενοι ἐπὶ τὸν Δημιουργὸν τῇ εὐχῇ φθάσωσιν, ἵνα ὁ λιμὸς ὑπόθεσις αὐτοῖς γένηται εὐσεβείας. Ἀλλ’ οὐδὲν δύναται αὐτοὺς, φησί, παιδεῦσαι ὁ λιμός· οὕτω γὰρ πανταχόθεν στενούμενοι ἐπὶ τὸν πάντων κτίστην χωρήσουσι.

Καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα—

Τί οὖν Ἠλίας; Ζῇ, φησὶ, Κύριος, εἰ ἔσται ὑετὸς, εἰ μὴ διὰ στόματός μου.

Ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ προφήτου, καὶ εὐθὺς ὁ ἀὴρ μετεβλήθη, ὁ οὐρανὸς χαλκοῦς ἐγένετο, οὐ τὴν φύσιν μεταβαλών, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν χαλινώσας· εὐθὺς τὰ στοιχεῖα

Ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ προφήτου, καὶ εὐθέως ὁ ἀὴρ μετεβλήθη, ὁ οὐρανὸς χαλκὸς ἐγένετο, οὐ τὴν φύσιν μεταβαλὼν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν χαλινωθείς· εὐθὺς τὰ στοιχεῖα

269

pg 50:725–726. cpg 4513. See also J.A. de Aldama, ed., Repertorium Pseudochrysostomicum, Documents, Études et Répertoires 10 (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1965), 115.

commentary

325

(cont.)

CatJas to Jas 5:16 (Cramer, 38, line 25–39, line 2)

Chrysostom Hom. Petr. et El. (pg 50:729)

μετεσχηματίζετο. Ἐνέπεσεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ προφήτου καθάπερ πυρετὸς λάβρος εἰς τὰς λαγόνας τῆς γῆς, καὶ πάντα εὐθὺς ἐξηραίνετο, καὶ πάντα ἠρημοῦτο, καὶ ἠφανίζετο.

μετεσχηματίζετο. Ἐνέπεσεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ προφήτου, καθάπερ πυρετὸς, εἰς τὰς λαγόνας τῆς γῆς, καὶ πάντα εὐθὺς ἐξηραίνετο, πάντα ἐρημοῦτο, πάντα ἐξηφανίζετο·

In the context of the homily, the homilist reflects on Elijah’s purpose for announcing the prophetic word (3Kgdms 17:1 lxx = 1 Kngs 17:1) that would prevent rain from falling on the land for many years, and thus bring on hunger and starvation. He notes that Elijah had been attempting to persuade the people to turn away from their immoral behavior and idolatry, but they would not listen. The prophet realizes that only the bitter lessons of hunger will force them to repent and turn towards the Lord. The scholion reflects a consistent theme in CatJas: God’s punishment should be understood as a divine discipline designed to bring people to repentance (cf. Sch. 5.1–5.2). The catenist also chooses to include the imaginative and rhetorically powerful description of how the prophetic word immediately brings on drought conditions. Scholion 5.21 to Jas 5:17 The catenist draws on Theodoret’s Questions on Kingdoms and Chronicles.270 The question to Theodoret reads, “Doesn’t what is said by Elijah seem overly bold (Οὺ δοκεῖ τολμηρὸν εἶναι τὸ παρὰ τοῦ Ἠλιοῦ ῥηθέν): ‘there will be no dew and rain for these three years, except through the word of my mouth.’ ”271 The question is one presumably raised by a pious reader: “Doesn’t it seem arrogant for Elijah to declare that the rain will cease by the power of his own word, without mentioning the role of God?” Theodoret’s response is that the divine Spirit was in fact active in Elijah’s words, even if this is not made explicit in the text.

270 271

On the significance of the questions-and-answers approach in the catenae tradition, see Introduction sect. 4.3.1. Fernández Marcos and Busto Saiz, eds., 173.

326

commentary

The catenist slightly rephrases and expands Theodoret’s response.

CatJas to Jas 5:17–18 (Cramer, 39, lines 3–8)

Theodoret Qu. in Reg. et Par. 45 (Fernández Marcos and Busto Saiz, eds., 173)

Τολμηρόν ἐστι τὸ κατὰ τῶν πνευματικῶν ἀνδρῶν λογίζεσθαί τι τὸ παράπαν μὴ καλῶς εἰρημένον· Οὐκ ἀπονοίας τοίνυν οὐδὲ ἐπιδείξεως τὸ εἰρημένον· προφήτης γὰρ ἦν, καὶ προφητῶν ὁ κορυφαῖος, καὶ τῷ θείῳ πυρπολούμενος ζήλῳ. Ταῦτα τοῦ θείου πνεύματος ἐνεργοῦντος εἴρηκεν ὁ προφήτης· ὅθεν καὶ τὸ πέρας εἴληφεν.

Τολμηρόν ἐστι τὸ κατὰ τῶν πνευματικῶν ἀνδρῶν τοιούτους εἰσδέχεσθαι λογισμούς.

Προφήτης γὰρ ἦν καὶ προφητῶν κορυφαῖος, καὶ τῷ θείῳ πυρπολούμενος ζήλῳ. Καὶ ταῦτα τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος ἐνεργοῦντος εἴρηκεν. Ὅθεν καὶ τὸ πέρας εἴληφεν.

Chapter 6d: This Euthalian chapter heading summarizes the content of James’ final admonition in Jas 5:19–20. Codices O and P read it as scholion marked with a non-numeric symbol; P writes it in the margin. R (fol. 16v) also witnesses the scholion. Scholion 5.22 to Jas 5:19–20 The catenist picks up on the verb ἐπιστρέφω (“to turn back, to turn around”) from Jas 5:19–20, and introduces the scholion with his own rhetorical question, “And how should one turn back?” (Καὶ πῶς χρὴ ἐπιστρέφειν;). In James, the passage exhorts the believing community to “turn back” other community members who have strayed into error or sin. Rather curiously, the catenist chooses a passage from Chrysostom’s homily on 2 Thessalonians that does not directly deal with “turning back,” much less with turning back another community member. The theme of the scholion, rather, is the need to actively cultivate the word of God in one’s life—an activity that the catenist apparently takes to be essential for “turning back.” In the original context of the homily, Chrysostom discusses Paul’s reminder to the Thessalonians of his previous teaching, “Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you?” (2 Thess 2:5 nrsv). Chrysostom takes the occasion to teach his listeners that it requires great diligence and effort to ensure that the word of God, once heard, remains as an active presence in one’s life. Chrysostom rhetorically elaborates Jesus’ parable of the sower (Matt 13:1–9, 18–23 par.) to illustrate how one must protect and nourish the word of God in order for it to produce fruit.

327

commentary

The catenist follows his source closely.

CatJas to Jas 5:19–20 (Cramer, 39, line 16–40, line 7)

Chrysostom Hom. 2 Thess 3 to 2 Thess 2:5 (Field, Paulinarum, 5:466–467)

Καὶ πῶς χρὴ ἐπιστρέφειν; Καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν γεωργῶν τὰ σπέρματα, καταβάλλεται μὲν ἅπαξ, οὐ μένει δὲ διαπαντὸς ἀλλὰ πολλῆς δεῖται τῆς κατασκευῆς. Κἂν μὴ τὴν γῆν ἀναμοχλεύσαντες περιστείλωσι τὰ καταβαλλόμενα, τοῖς ὄρνισιν ἔσπειραν καὶ τοῖς σπερμολόγοις ὀρνέοις πᾶσιν. Οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἂν μὴ τῇ συνεχεῖ [μνήμῃ], τὰ καταβληθέντα περιστείλωμεν· [εἰς τὸν ἀέρα πάντα ἐῤῥίψαμεν]. καὶ γὰρ ὁ διάβολος ἐξαρπάζει, καὶ ἡ ἡμετέρα ῥαθυμία ἀπόλλυσι· καὶ ὁ ἥλιος ξηραίνει, καὶ ὑετὸς ἐπικλύζει, καὶ ἄκανθαι πνίγουσι. Ὥστε οὐκ ἀρκεῖ, μόνον ἅπαξ καταβάλλοντα ἀπηλλάχθαι· ἀλλὰ πολλῆς δεῖται [τῆς] προσεδρείας· ἀποσοβοῦν τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τὰς ἀκάνθας ἐκκόπτοντα, τὰ πετρώδη γῆς πληροῦντα πολλῆς, πᾶσαν λύμην κωλύοντα καὶ ἀποτειχίζοντα καὶ ἀναιροῦντα. Ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς γῆς τὸ πᾶν τοῦ γεωργοῦ γίνεται· ἄψυχος γὰρ ἐκείνη ὑπόκειται, πρὸς τὸ παθεῖν ἕτοιμος οὖσα μόνον· ἐπὶ δὲ ταύτης τῆς γῆς τῆς πνευματικῆς οὐδαμῶς· οὐ τῶν διδασκάλων ἔστι τὸ πᾶν, ἀλλ’ εἰ μὴ τὸ πλέον, τὸ γοῦν ἥμισυ τῶν μαθητῶν. Ἡμῶν μὲν οὖν ἔστι [καταβάλειν] τὸν σπόρον, ὑμῶν δὲ ποιεῖν τὰ λεγόμενα.

Καθάπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν γεωργῶν τὰ σπέρματα καταβάλλεται μὲν ἅπαξ, οὐ μένει δὲ διαπαντὸς, ἀλλὰ πολλῆς δεῖται τῆς κατασκευῆς, κἂν μὴ τὴν γῆν ἀναμοχλεύσαντες περιστείλωσι τὰ καταβαλλόμενα, τοῖς σπερμολόγοις ὀρνέοις ἔσπειραν· οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἂν μὴ τῇ συνεχεῖ μνήμῃ τὰ καταβληθέντα περιστείλωμεν, εἰς τὸν ἀέρα πάντα ἐῤῥίψαμεν. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ διάβολος ἐξαρπάζει, καὶ ἡ ἡμετέρα ῥᾳθυμία ἀπόλλυσι, καὶ ἥλιος ξηραίνει, καὶ ὑετὸς ἐπικλύζει, καὶ ἄκανθαι ἀποπνίγουσιν. Ὥστε οὐκ ἀρκεῖ μόνον ἅπαξ καταβαλόντα ἀπηλλάχθαι, ἀλλὰ πολλῆς δεῖ τῆς προσεδρείας, ἀποσοβοῦντα τὰ πετεινὰ, τὰς ἀκάνθας ἐκκόπτοντa, τὰ πετρώδη γῆς πληροῦντa πολλῆς, πᾶσαν λύμην κωλύοντα καὶ ἀποτειχίζοντα καὶ ἀναιροῦντα. Ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς γῆς τὸ πᾶν τοῦ γεωργοῦ γίνεται·ἄψυχος γὰρ ἐκείνη ὑπόκειται, πρὸς τὸ παθεῖν ἕτοιμος οὖσα μόνον· ἐπὶ δὲ ταύτης τῆς γῆς τῆς πνευματικῆς οὐδαμῶς· οὐ τῶν διδασκάλων ἐστὶ τὸ πᾶν, ἀλλ’, εἰ μὴ τὸ πλέον, τὸ γοῦν ἥμισυ καὶ τῶν μαθητῶν. Ἡμῶν μὲν οὖν καταβαλεῖν ἐστι τὸν σπόρον, ὑμῶν δὲ ποιεῖν τὰ λεγόμενα,

Scholion 5.23 to Jas 5:19–20 This is marked as a non-numerical scholion in O (fol. 194v) and P (fol. 206v; read within the usual margin for frame catena scholia). R (fol. 16v) reads it continuously with the previous scholion.

328

commentary

The ac272 witnesses a version of this scholion.

CatJas to Jas 5:19–20 (Cramer, 40, 1–6)

ac (Matthaei, 195, to Jas 5:20)

Τοιοῦτον τὸ ἐν τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ εἰρημένον, φησί, “Καὶ ἐὰν ἐξαγάγῃς τίμιον ἀπὸ ἀναξίου, ὡς στόμα μου [ἔσῃ]·” ἐάν, φησί, εἷς τῶν ἀπολλυμένων διὰ τὴν κακίαν εὐτελῶν σωθῇ διὰ τῶν σῶν λόγων, ἔντιμος ἔσῃ διὰ τοῦτο παρ’ ἐμοί· Στόμα [δὲ] γίνεται θεοῦ πᾶς ὁ τοὺς αὐτοῦ λόγους ἀπαγγέλλων· “Οὐ γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἐστε,” φησί, “οἱ λαλοῦντες, ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ λαλοῦν ἐν ὑμῖν.”

Τοιοῦτον ἐστι καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ ἱερεμίᾳ εἰρημένον “καὶ ἐὰν ἐξαγάγῃς τίμιον ἐξ ἀναξίου, ὡς στόμα μου ἔσῃ,” τουτεστιν, ἐάν εἷς τῶν ἀπολλυμένων, καὶ διὰ κακίαν εὐτελῶν σωθῇ διὰ τῶν σῶν λόγων, ἔντιμος ἔσῃ διὰ τοῦτο παρ’ ἐμοί. στόμα δὲ γίνεται θεοῦ πᾶς, ὁ τοὺς αὐτοῦ λόγους ἀπαγγέλλων. οὐ γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἐστέ, φησι, οἱ λαλοῦντες· ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ λαλοῦν ἐν ὑμῖν.

Such a statement is said in Jeremiah: “Such a statement” refers to the exhortation to turn back sinners in Jas 5:19–20. The scholion thus notes the similarity between the James passage and the Jer 15:19 passage and proceeds to interpret both in light of one another in a remarkable intertextual exegesis. In the context of the quotation from Jeremiah, the prophet laments that his people have rejected the Lord’s words and become Jeremiah’s enemies. The Lord responds to Jeremiah: “If you return (εὰν ἐπιστρέψῃς), I will also restore you, and you shall stand before me. And if you bring out what is precious from what is worthless, you shall be as my mouth” καὶ ἐὰν ἐξαγάγῃς τίμιον ἀπὸ ἀναξίου, ὡς στόμα μου ἔσῃ· (Jer 15:19 lxx, nets). The scholion then interprets the Jeremiah passage in light of the emphasis on “turning back” sinners in Jas 5:19–20, “If, it says, one of those who is lost (i.e., one of those who wandered from the truth in Jas 5:19) due to the evil of the worthless (people) (Jer 15:19) is saved through your words (Jas 5:20), you shall be highly honored (ἔντιμος, a play on the word τίμιος, “precious,” in Jer 15:19) for this before me.” The scholion concludes by noting the similarities between James’ call for community members to turn back sinners and Jeremiah’s call to be a prophet: both are acting as God’s mouthpiece: “Everyone who is announcing his words

272

Matthaei, 195, to Jas 5:20; ga 1842 fol. 82r.

commentary

329

will become the mouth of God.” He describes this role with a quotation from Matthew, “For it will not be you who are speaking, but rather the Spirit of God speaking in you” (Matt 10:20).273

273

Matt 10:20 (na28 / Byz) = τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν (“the spirit of your Father”).

appendix 1

Overview of Scholia in CatJas Manuscripts The following chart includes the reference numbers or symbols that link each scholion with its corresponding biblical reference text, together with each scholion’s cited author lemma. The frequent abbreviations for author’s names or specific sources are not reproduced. Key terms – “continuous” = a scholion continues the previous scholion without a break – gr = gloss reference, indicating that a scholion is referenced with a nonnumerical symbol – Incipit: the first words of each scholion – na = no author source attributed

Scholia

Cod. O Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. P Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. V Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. R Reference symbol and author lemma

1.1a to Jas 1:1 Incipit: Ἕκαστος τῶν ἄποστόλων 1.1b to Jas 1:1 Incipit: Ἰστέον μέντοι 1.2 to Jas 1:1 Incipit: Ὡς γὰρ οἱ 1.3 to Jas 1:2 Incipit: Δεσμὸς γάρ τις

α Ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφου

α Ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφου

Ἐξ ἀνεπιγράφου

lacuna

continuous

continuous

continuous

lacuna

α Διδύμου β Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Διδύμου

lacuna

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

lacuna

1.4 to Jas 1:2–4 Incipit: Εἰς τελειότητα 1.5 to Jas 1:2–4 Incipit: Ὁ κύριος καί 1.6 to Jas 1:4b–5 Incipit: Τὸ αἰτίον ἡμῖν 1.7 to Jas 1:6–7 Incipit: Ὑβριστὴς γάρ

β na β να γ να δ Κυρίλλου

α Διδύμου β Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου β na β να γ να δ Τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου Ἀλεξάνδρειας ε Ἐκ τοῦ Ποιμένος ἐντολῆς ἐνάτης

na

lacuna

να

lacuna

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου Κυρίλλου

lacuna

Ἐκ τοῦ Ποιμένος ἐντολῆς ἐνάτης

lacuna

1.8 to Jas 1:8 ε Incipit: Ἆρον σεαυτοῦ Ἐκ τοῦ Ποιμένος ἐντολῆι θ

© Martin C. Albl, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004693098_006

lacuna

332

appendix 1

(cont.) Scholia

Cod. O Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. P Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. V Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. R Reference symbol and author lemma

1.9 to Jas 1:12 Incipit: Αὐτάρκως προτρεψάμενος 1.10 to Jas 1:13 Incipit: Ἁμαρτίαν 1.11 to Jas 1:13] Incipit: Ὅτι ὁ θεός 1.12 to Jas 1:14 Incipit: Εἰς βλαβήν 1.13 to Jas 1:14 Incipit: Τινὲς δὲ τὸ προκείμενον 1.14 to Jas 1:15 Incipit: Ἐν μὲν γάρ

ς Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

ς Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

lacuna

gr na ζ na gr

omit

omit

lacuna

ζ Ὠριγένους omit

Ὠριγένους omit

lacuna

η Σευήρου

Σευήρου Ἀντιοχείας

lacuna

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

lacuna

1.15 to Jas 1:15 Incipit: Ὠδῖνες θανάτου 1.16a to Jas 1:16–17b Incipit: “Μὴ πλανᾶσθε” νομίζοντες 1.16b Incipit: ἢ τὰς λογικάς 1.17 to Jas 1:17c Incipit: Λέγοντος γάρ

θ Ἡσυχίου πρεσβυτέρου ι na

η Σευήρου ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Ἀντιοχείας θ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (symbol) θ Ἡσυχίου πρεσβυτέρου ι na

omit

lacuna

na

lacuna

continuous

continuous

continuous

lacuna

ια Σευήρου

Σευήρου Ἀντιοχείας

lacuna

1.18 to Jas 1:18 Incipit: Ἐπὶ μὲν γάρ 1.19 to Jas 1:18 Incipit: Ἀντὶ τοῦ πρώτους 1.20 to Jas 1:18 Incipit: Τῷ τῆς ὁμολογίας 1.21 to Jas 1:18 Incipit: Πρωτοτόκους ἐν 1.22 to Jas 1:19–21a Incipit: Τουτέστιν ἁμαρτίαν

ιβ na ιγ na

ια Σευήρου ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Ἀντιοχείας ιβ na ιγ na

na

Partially read

na

na

gr

gr

omit

na read after 1.18

gr

gr

omit

omit

ιδ na

ιδ na

na

na

θ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

lacuna

333

overview of scholia in catjas manuscripts (cont.) Scholia

Cod. O Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. P Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. V Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. R Reference symbol and author lemma

1.23 to Jas 1:19b Incipit: Ἕτοιμος εἰς 1.24 to Jas 1:21b Incipit: Ἀντὶ τοῦ τὸν ἀληθῆ 1.25 to Jas 1:22 Incipit: Ἀντὶ τοῦ λογιζόμενοι 1.26 to Jas 1:22 Incipit: Καταφρονοῦντες 1.27 to Jas 1:23a Incipit: [Εἴ τις], φησί, γένηται 1.28 to Jas 1:23b–25 Incipit: Ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος 1.29 to Jas 1:23b–25 Incipit: Οὐ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι μακάριοι 1.30 to 1:24b Incipit: Γνοὺς γὰρ ἑαυτόν 1.31a to 1:26 Incipit: Εἴ τις δοκεῖ 1.31b to 1:26 Incipit: διὸ φησιν, “ὁ δοκῶν” 1.32 to 1:26 Incipit: Τῆς θρησκείας 1.33 to Jas 1:26 Incipit: Μὴ σπεύδων 1.34 to Jas 1:26 Incipit: ἡ πίστις 1.35 to Jas 1.27 Incipit: Τοῦτό ἐστιν, ᾧ

gr

omit

omit

omit

ιε na

ιε na

na

na

ις na

ις na

na

na

gr

Combined with 1.28

omit

omit

ιζ na

ιζ na

na

na

ιη na

ιη na

na

na

ιη na

ιη na

na

na

gr

gr

omit

omit

ιθ na continuous

ιθ na continuous

na

na

continuous

continuous

gr

gr

omit

omit

gr

gr

omit

omit

omit

gr

omit

omit

κ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου κα Τοῦ αὐτοῦ

κ Τοῦ Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου Χρυσοστόμου κα na Τοῦ αὐτοῦ

2.1 to Jas 2:1 Incipit: Τινὸς ἕνεκεν σύ

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου Τοῦ αὐτοῦ

334

appendix 1

(cont.) Scholia

Cod. O Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. P Reference symbol and author lemma

2.2 to Jas 2:2–4 Incipit: Τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς

κβ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου κγ Τοῦ αὐτοῦ

Cod. V Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. R Reference symbol and author lemma

2.4 to Jas 2:6–7 Incipit: Φέρετε γενναίως 2.5 to Jas 2:6–7 Incipit: Τοῦτο μὲν οἱ τῶν Ἰουδαίων 2.6 to Jas 2:8–9 Incipit: Ὥσπερ σὺ βούλει 2.7 to James 2:10 Incipit: [Τὸ] μὴ τελείαν 2.8a to Jas 2:11 Incipit: Εἰ καὶ μὴ πάνυ 2.8b to Jas 2:11 Incipit: Τῆς γὰρ διὰ Μωσέως

κδ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

κβ να Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου κγ Τοῦ αὐτοῦ Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ῥητοῦ προκειμένου ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοὶ μὴ ἐκκακήσητε τὸ καλὸν ποιοῦντες κδ Τοῦ αὐτοῦ Τοῦ αὐτοῦ

κδ Ἀπολιναρίου

κδ na

omit

continuous

κε να

κε Ἀπολιναρίου

Ἀπολιναρίου

Ἀπολιναρίου

κς να

κς να

να

να

κζ na continuous Ταῦτα ἑρμηνεύων Σευῆρος ὁ Ἀντιοχείας ἐπίσκοπος, ἐν τῷ μϛʹ λόγῳ

κζ na continuous Ταῦτα ἑρμηνεύων Σευῆρος ὁ Ἀντιοχείας ἐπίσκοπος, ἐν τῷ μϛʹ λόγῳ

na

na

continuous Ταῦτα ἑρμηνεύων Σευῆρος ὁ Ἀντιοχείας ἐπίσκοπος, ἐν τῷ μϛʹ λόγῳ

2.9 to Jas 2:12 Incipit: Βελτίον γὰρ τοῖς

κη Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

κθ 2.9 read after 2.10 Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

2.9 read after 2.10 na

2.10 to Jas 2:13 Incipit: Ἔστι μὲν περὶ κρίσεως 2.11 to Jas 2:13 Incipit: Ὥσπερ [γὰρ] τὸ ἔλαιον

κθ na

κη 2.10 read before 2.9 na Λ Ἡσυχίου

2.10 read before 2.9 na

continuous Ταῦτα ἑρμηνεύων Σευῆρος ὁ Ἀντιοχείας ἐπίσκοπος, ἐν τῷ μϛʹ λόγῳ 2.9 read after 2.10 Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου 2.10 read before 2.9 na Ἡσυχίου 2.11 read after 2.12

2.3 to Jas 2:5–6. Incipit: Ἡμεῖς δὲ ὡς

λ Ἡσυχίου

omit

Τοῦ αὐτοῦ na

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

335

overview of scholia in catjas manuscripts (cont.) Scholia

Cod. O Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. P Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. V Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. R Reference symbol and author lemma

2.12 to Jas 2:13 Incipit: Ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη τέχνη 2.13 to Jas 2:14–16 Incipit: Ὃ δὲ λέγει τοιοῦτόν 2.14 to Jas 2:17–19 Incipit: Κἂν γὰρ εἰς τὸν πατέρα 2.15 to Jas 2:17–19 Incipit: Μέγα μὲν πίστις 2.16 to Jas 2:17–19 Incipit: Πίστις χωρίς 2.17 to Jas 2:17–19 Incipit: Περὶ τῆς μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα 2.18 to Jas 2:20–21 Incipit: Ἀντιθήσει τις ἴσως 2.19 to Jas 2:20–21 Incipit: Ἐπειδὴ ὁ μακάριος Ἰάκωβος

λ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

λ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Τοῦ αὐτοῦ

Τοῦ αὐτοῦ

Λα na

Λα na

na

na

λβ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

X Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

λβ Τοῦ αὐτοῦ

λβ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (symbol) λβ Τοῦ αὐτοῦ

Τοῦ αὐτοῦ

X Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου Τοῦ αὐτοῦ

Καὶ πάλιν

Καὶ πάλιν

Καὶ πάλιν

Καὶ πάλιν

λβ na

λβ na

omit

continuous

λγ να

λγ να

na

na

λγ Κυρίλλου ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Ῥωμαίους Ἐπιστολῆς

2.20 to Jas 2:22 Incipit: Προσεκόμιζε τὸ λογικόν 2.21 to Jas 2:23–24 Incipit: Γέρας οὖν ἔχει 2.22 to Jas 2:25 Incipit: Ἄκουε τῆς γραφῆς

λδ Κυρίλλου

λε Κυρίλλου

λγ omit τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Ῥωμαίους Ἐπιστολῆς λδ Κυρίλλου τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀλεξάνδρειας λε na Κυρίλλου

Λς Σευηριανοῦ Ἐπισκόπου Γαβάλων gr

Λς Σευηριανοῦ Ἐπισκόπου Γαβάλων gr

τοῦ αὐτοῦ

Σευηριανοῦ

omit

omit

gr

gr

omit

gr

2.23 to Jas 2:25 Incipit: κατασκόπους 2.24 to Jas 2:26 Incipit: Τὴν ψυχὴν λέγει

Κυρίλλου ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Ῥωμαίους Ἐπιστολῆς Κυρίλλου

Κυρίλλου

336

appendix 1

(cont.) Scholia

Cod. O Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. P Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. V Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. R Reference symbol and author lemma

3.1a on Jas 3:1 Incipit: Ἐπειδὴ τὸ διδάσκειν 3.1b on Jas 3:1 Incipit: τὴν φιλονεικίαν 3.2 on Jas 3:2 Incipit: Εἰ γὰρ “πολλὰ πταίομεν” 3.3a on Jas 3:2 Incipit: Βεβηκότος γὰρ νοῦ 3.3b on Jas 3:2 Incipit: Ἀποδέχεται μέν 3.3c on Jas 3:2 Incipit: [Εἶπα·] “Φυλάξω” 3:4 to Jas 3:3–6 Incipit: Ἔτι καὶ ταῦτα 3.5 to Jas 3:5 Incipit: Οὐκοῦν πλέον τῆς 3.6 to Jas 3:5 Incipit: Πολλοὶ ἔπεσον ἐν 3.7 to Jas 3:6 Incipit: Τουτέστι τὸν τροχόν 3.8 to Jas 3:6 Incipit: Διττήν μοι δοκεῖ 3.9 to Jas 3:6 Incipit: Εἰ ἀγαπᾷς τὴν ζωήν

λξ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

λξ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

continuous

continuous

continuous

continuous

λη Σευήρου

λη Σευήρου Ἀντιοχείας

Σευήρου Ἀντιοχείας

Σευήρου Ἀντιοχείας ἐπιστολῆς

λθ Κυρίλλου

λθ Κυρίλλου

τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου

Κυρίλλου

Καὶ πάλιν

Καὶ πάλιν

Καὶ πάλιν

Καὶ πάλιν

Καὶ πάλιν

Καὶ πάλιν

Καὶ πάλιν

Καὶ πάλιν

μ na μα τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

μ na μα τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

na

na

τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

μα Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σιράχ

μα Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σιράχ

omit

μβ na

μβ na

τοῦ αὐτοῦ (scil.: Chrysostom)

τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (read after 3.12) Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σιράχ (read after 3.8) na

μβ na

μβ na

omit

na

μβ na Τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου

Τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου

3.10 to Jas 3:7 Incipit: Ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς γλώσσης

μγ na

μβ Τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου ἐκ τοῦ ῥητοῦ παῦσον τὴν γλῶσαν [sic] σου ἀπὸ κακοῦ μγ na

Τοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου ἐκ τοῦ ῥητοῦ παῦσον τὴν γλῶσσαν σου ἀπὸ κακοῦ na

na

337

overview of scholia in catjas manuscripts (cont.) Scholia

Cod. O Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. P Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. V Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. R Reference symbol and author lemma

3.11 to Jas 3:8 Incipit: Τὴν δὲ γλῶσσαν οὐδείς 3.12 to Jas 3:8 Incipit: Μάχαιρά ἐστιν ἡ γλῶσσα 3.13 to Jas 3:8 Incipit: Καθάπερ γὰρ ἡ ῥομφαία 3.14 to Jas 3:9–10 Incipit: Πόρρω ταῦτα τῶν Χριστοῦ 3.15 to Jas 3:10b Incipit: Φίλαρχοι ὄντες 3.16 to Jas 3:16 Incipit: [Ἐκκαθαίρωμεν] τὸν ῥύπον 3.17 to Jas 3:17 Incipit.: Μὴ διακρίνουσα παρατηρήσεις 4.1 to Jas 4:1–2 Incipit: Δείκνυσιν οὐκ ἄν 4.2 to Jas 4:1–2 Incipit: Ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀγρόν 4.3 to Jas 4:3 Incipit: Τοιοῦτος ἦν ὁ Φαρισαῖος 4.4a to Jas 4:3 Incipit: Ἀληθοῦς οὔσης 4.4b to Jas 4:3 Incipit: Τινὲς δοκοῦντες 4.5 to Jas 4:4 Incipit: Κοσμὸν ἐνταῦθα 4.6 to Jas 4:4 Incipit: Ἐπεὶ ἡ κακία προξενεῖ

μγ na

μγ na

Read after 3.12

na

μδ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

μδ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

μδ Ἡσυχίου

μδ Ἡσυχίου

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (repeats Jas 3:8a lemma) omit

με na

με Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

na

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

μς na μζ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

μς na μζ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

na

na

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

μη na

μη na

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

na

μθ na

μθ na

na

na

μθ Διονυσίου

omit

Διονυσίου Ἀλεξανδρείας

Σευήρου ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Ἀντιοχείας

Σευήρου

ν na

μθ Διονυσίου Ἀλεξανδρείας ν Σευήρου ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Ἀντιοχείας ν na

omit

ἄλλος

ν na

ν na

na

να na

να na

na

continuous with previous scholia na

να Ὠριγένους

να ἄλλος Ὠριγένους

omit

ἄλλος

ν na

Ἡσυχίου

338

appendix 1

(cont.) Scholia

Cod. O Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. P Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. V Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. R Reference symbol and author lemma

4.7a to Jas 4:4 Incipit: Ὁ διὰ τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν 4.7b to Jas 4:4 Incipit: Εἰ μὲν γὰρ [διάφορόν] 4.8a to Jas 4:4 Incipit: Εἰ καὶ μὴ πάνυ 4.8b to Jas 4:4 Incipit: οὐ περὶ μελῶν λέγων 4.9 to Jas 4:4 Incipit: Ἄξιον ζητῆσαι πῶς 4.10 to Jas 4:5–6 Incipit: Ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς 4.11 to Jas 4:5 Incipit: Ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἐπιθυμητικῶς

να Παριομιῶν

να Παροιμιῶν

Παροιμιῶν

Παροιμιῶν

continuous

continuous

continuous

continuous

να na continuous

να na continuous

omit omit

Read after Sch. 4.9 continuous

να να

na

na

na

νβ na

νβ na

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

na

νβ na

νβ na

omit

4.12 to Jas 4:5 Incipit: Ὃ δὲ λέγει τοιοῦτόν 4.13 to Jas 4:5–7 Incipit: Εἰ φθόνῳ διαβόλου 4.14 to Jas 4:5 Incipit: Τῷ γὰρ διαβόλῳ πολεμεῖν 4.15 to Jas 4:6 Incipit: Τῷ ξένῳ γεγονότι 4.16 to Jas 4:6 Incipit: Ὑπερηφανία ἡ εἰς τέλος

νβ Σευηριανοῦ

νβ Σευηριανοῦ

omit

νβ na

νβ na

Σευηριανοῦ

gr

gr

omit

gr

gr

omit

νγ Διδύμου

νγ Διδύμου

Διδύμου

Σεβηριανοῦ Reads scholia in the following sequence: 4.13 4.14 4.11 4.12 4.15 na Cf. sequence in 4.11 note να Cf. sequence in 4.11 note na Cf. sequence in 4.11 note na Cf. sequence in 4.11 note Διδύμου

339

overview of scholia in catjas manuscripts (cont.) Scholia

Cod. O Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. P Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. V Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. R Reference symbol and author lemma

4.17 to Jas 4:8–9 Incipit: Ὁ γὰρ μετὰ τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν 4.18 to Jas 4:10 Incipit: Μακάριον ἐνώπιον θεοῦ 4.19 to Jas 4:11–12 Incipit: Πᾶν χαλεπὸν ἀποκείρει

νδ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

νδ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

νε Ἡσυχίου

νε Ἡσυχίου

Ἡσυχίου

Ἡσυχίου

νς Κυρίλλου

τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου

4.20 to Jas 4:13 Incipit: Περὶ φρονήματος μετεώρου 4.21 to Jas 4:13 Incipit: Οἱ μὲν γὰρ πρός 4.22a to Jas 4:14–17 Incipit: Οὐ τὴν ἐξουσίαν

νζ na

νς τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγελίου νζ na

νζ Κυρίλλου

νζ τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου

Του αὐτοῦ

τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγελίου Written as marginal note na na

νη Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶνοὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος continuous

νη Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶνοὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος continuous

Του αὐτοῦ

continuous

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶνοὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος continuous

continuous

na

continuous

na

νθ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

νθ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Του αὐτοῦ

νθ

νθ

Ἡσυχίου

Ἡσυχίου νθ Κυρίλλου

Ἡσυχίου νθ Κυρίλλου

omit

Διδύμου Read after Sch. 5.3 Κυρίλλου

ξ na

ξ na

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

na

ξα Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (symbol)

ξα Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

na

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

4:22b to Jas 4:14–17 Incipit: φησὶ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς Παροιμίαις 4.22c to Jas 4:14–17 Incipit: οὐ γὰρ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν 5.1 to Jas 5:1–6 Incipit: Ἁψώμεθα τῆς ὁδοῦ 5.2 on Jas 5:1–6 Incipit: Προλέγει τὴν τιμωρίαν 5.3 on Jas 5:1–6 Incipit: Τουτέστιν ἡ ὀργή 5.4 to Jas 5:3–4 Incipit: Ἀντὶ τοῦ καταμαρτυρήσει 5.5 to Jas 5:5–6. Incipit: Τί οὖν; κεκώλυται

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου Read after Sch. 4.21

340

appendix 1

(cont.) Scholia

Cod. O Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. P Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. V Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. R Reference symbol and author lemma

5.6 to Jas 5:7 Incipit: Εἰ γὰρ και ὑπερτίθεται 5.7 to Jas 5:7–20 Incipit: Εἰπὼν τῶν ἀδίκων 5.8 to Jas 5:8 Incipit: Μακροθυμίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους 5.9 to Jas 5:8 Incipit: Εἰ οὖν καὶ ἐνταῦθα 5.10a to Jas 5:9–11 Incipit: Εἰ γὰρ εὐχαριστοῦμεν

ξβ Κυρίλλου

ξβ τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου

Read after 5.7 Κυρίλλου

τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου

ξβ να

ξβ να

Τοῦ αὐτοῦ

continuous

ξγ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (symbol) ξγ Toῦ αὐτοῦ

ξγ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

ξγ Toῦ αὐτοῦ

na

Toῦ αὐτοῦ

ξδ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (symbol) ῥητὰ προκείμενα “εὐχαριστοῦντες ἐν τῷ θεῷ”

ξδ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ῥητοῦ προκειμένου “εὐχαριστοῦντες ἐν τῷ θεῷ”

Toῦ αὐτοῦ

5.10b to Jas 5:9–11 Incipit: πόσος ὁ ἔπαινος 5.11 to Jas 5:11 Incipit: Ἐκ γὰρ τῆς ἐκβάσεως 5.12a to Jas 5:12 Incipit: Τί οὖν ἐὰν ἀπαιτῇ 5.12b to Jas 5:12 Incipit: Διὰ τοῦτο δὲ τὸ Παλαιόν 5.13 to Jas 5:12 Incipit: Ἔστω ἡ τοῦ βίου 5.14 to Jas 5:12 Incipit: Διὰ τοῦτο κωλύει 5.15 to Jas 5:13 Incipit: Ἐν θλίψει τίς 5.16 to Jas 5:13 Incipit: Ἐν χαρᾷ διάγει

continuous

na

continuous, with space

ξε να

ξε να

Θεοδωρήτου

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ῥητοῦ προκειμένου “εὐχαριστοῦντες ἐν τῷ θεῷ” continuous begins καὶ πάλιν Θεοδώρου μοναχοῦ

ξς Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

ξς Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

ξς na

ξς Toῦ αὐτοῦ

Toῦ αὐτοῦ

Toῦ αὐτοῦ

ξς Κυρίλλου

Τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου Αλεξανδρειας

Τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου

ξς na

ξς Τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου Αλεξανδρειας ξς na

omit

continuous

gr

gr

omit

na

gr

gr

omit

omit

341

overview of scholia in catjas manuscripts (cont.) Scholia

Cod. O Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. P Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. V Reference symbol and author lemma

Cod. R Reference symbol and author lemma

5.17 to Jas 5:16 Incipit: ὅτ’ ἄν ὁ προσευχόμενος 5.18 to Jas 5:16 Incipit: Πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις 5.19 to Jas 5:17–18 Incipit: καὶ εἶπεν Ἡλιου 5.20 to Jas 5:17 Incipit: Ἵνα κἂν οὕτω τῷ λιμῷ

omit

gr

omit

omit

Ἐρώτησις Μαξίμου

Ἐρώτησις Μαξίμου

Μαξίμου

Ἐρώτησις Άπόκρισις

ξζ Ἐν τῇ τρίτῇ τῶν βασιλειῶν φησι ξζ Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (symbol)

Ἐν τῇ τρίτῇ τῶν βασιλειῶν φησι

Ἐν τῇ τρίτῇ τῶν βασιλειῶν φησι

ξζ Θεοδωρήτου ξη Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

Πρὸς ταῦτα οὖν ὁ ἁγίος Ἰωάννης ὁ τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπος έξηγούμενός φησιν omit

Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

5.21 to Jas 5:17 Incipit: Τολμηρόν ἐστι 5.22 to Jas 5:19–20 Incipit: Καὶ πῶς χρὴ ἐπιστρέφειν 5.23 to Jas 5:19–20 Incipit: Τοιοῦτον τὸ ἐν τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ

ξζ Ἐν τῇ τρίτῇ τῶν βασιλειῶν φησι ξζ Πρὸς ταῦτα οὖν ὁ ἁγίος Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος έξηγούμενός φησιν ξζ Θεοδωρήτου ξη Τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου

gr

gr

na

Θεοδωρήτου

Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ να Χρυσοστόμου continuous

appendix 2

Sources of the CatJas Scholia The following chart provides the original source or parallel for each scholion when this has been determined. See the Commentary for details.

Scholia

Source or Parallel

1.1a to Jas 1:1 1.1b to Jas 1:1 1.2 to Jas 1:1 1.3 to Jas 1:2 1.4 to Jas 1:2–4 1.5 to Jas 1:2–4 1.6 to Jas 1:4b–5 1.7 to Jas 1:6–7 1.8 to Jas 1:8 1.9 to Jas 1:12 1.10 to Jas 1:13 1.11 to Jas 1:13] 1.12 to Jas 1:14 1.13 to Jas 1:14 1.14 to Jas 1:15 1.15 to Jas 1:15 1.16a to Jas 1:16–17b 1.16b 1.17 to Jas 1:17c 1.18 to Jas 1:18 1.19 to Jas 1:18 1.20 to Jas 1:18 1.21 to Jas 1:18 1.22 to Jas 1:19–21a 1.23 to Jas 1:19b 1.24 to Jas 1:21b 1.25 to Jas 1:22 1.26 to Jas 1:22 1.27 to Jas 1:23a

Cf. Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:1 Cf. gs (Matthaei, 8) Cf. Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:1 Chrysostom Hom. Phil. 16 (15).5 το Phil 4:22–23 Cf. Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:2–4; cf. ac (Matthaei, 183) Maximus the Confessor Qu. Thal. 58.4 ac (Matthaei, 183); gs (Matthaei, 10) Cyril of Alexandria Comm. Luc. to Luke 18:1; ac (Matthaei, 183–184) Herm. Mand. 9.1–3 Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:12; partially read in ac (Matthaei, 184) gs (ga 1845 fol. 94v) Origen Sel. Exod. on Exod 15:25 lxx; cf. ac (Matthaei, 184) gs (ga 1845 94v) Cat. Pss to Ps 50:7; Severus Con. Add. Jul.; ac (Matthaei, 184–185) Chrysostom Laz. 4.4; partially read in ac (Matthaei, 185) Unidentified ac (Matthaei, 185–186) ac (Matthaei, 186); gs (Matthaei, 12) ac (Matthaei, 186) Isidore of Pelusium Ep. 3.31; ac (Matthaei, 186) ac (Matthaei, 186) ac (Matthaei, 186) gs (ga 1845f. 94v) Partially read in ac (Matthaei, 187) gs (ga 1845f. 94v) ac (Matthaei, 187) ac (Matthaei, 187) gs (ga 1845 94v) ac (Matthaei, 187)

© Martin C. Albl, 2024 | doi:10.1163/9789004693098_006

sources of the catjas scholia (cont.)

Scholia

Source or Parallel

1.28 to Jas 1:23b–25 1.29 to Jas 1:23b–25 1.30 to 1:24b 1.31a to 1:26 1.31b to 1:26 1.32 to 1:26 1.33 to Jas 1:26 1.34 to Jas 1:26 1.35 to Jas 1.27 2.1 to Jas 2:1 2.2 to Jas 2:2–4 2.3 to Jas 2:5–6 2.4 to Jas 2:6–7 2.5 to Jas 2:6–7 2.6 to Jas 2:8–9 2.7 to James 2:10 2.8a to Jas 2:11 2.8b to Jas 2:11 2.9 to Jas 2:12 2.10 to Jas 2:13 2.11 to Jas 2:13 2.12 to Jas 2:13 2.13 to Jas 2:14–16 2.14 to Jas 2:17–19 2.15 to Jas 2:17–19 2.16 to Jas 2:17–19 2.17 to Jas 2:17–19 2.18 to Jas 2:20–21 2.19 to Jas 2:20–21 2.20 to Jas 2:22 2.21 to Jas 2:23–24 2.22 to Jas 2:25 2.23 to Jas 2:25 2.24 to Jas 2:26 3.1a on Jas 3:1 3.1b on Jas 3:1

Partially read in ac (Matthaei, 187–188 to Jas 1:23) Minor overlap with ac (Matthaei, 187, to Jas 1:23) gs (ga 1845 94v) ac (Matthaei, 188, to 1:26) Unidentified gs (Matthaei, 17) gs (Matthaei, 17) Unidentified Chrysostom Hom. 2Tim. 6 to 2Tim 2:26 Chrysostom Hom. Rom. 22 (21) to Rom 12:4–5 Chrysostom Hom. Rom. 23 (22) to Rom 12:16 Chrysostom Hom. 2Thess. 5 to 2Thess 3:15 Chrysostom Hom. Heb. 20.7 to Heb 10:30–31 ac (Matthaei, 188) Unidentified ac (Matthaei, 188–189); partially witnessed in gs (Matthaei, 21) Catenist comment Severus Hom. cath. 46 on mid-Pentecost Chrysostom Hom. Heb. 10.4 to Heb 6:8 ac (Matthaei, 188–189) Unidentified Chrysostom Hom. Heb. 32.7 to Heb 12:25–29 Unidentified Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 31 to John 3:35–36 Chrysostom Hom. Heb. 7 to Heb 4:11–13 Chrysostom Hom. 2Tim. 8 to 2Tim 3:5 Severus Ep. Jul. 2 Severus Ep. Jul. 2; partially read in ac (Matthaei, 189–190) Partially read in ac (Matthaei, 189) Cyril of Alexndria Glaph. Gen. 3 Cyril of Alexandria Glaph. Gen. 3 Severian Poen. 7.5 (16) Unidentified Unidentified Chrysostom Compunct. Dem. 10 Partially read in the ac (Matthaei, 190)

343

344

appendix 2

(cont.)

Scholia

Source or Parallel

3.2 on Jas 3:2 3.3a on Jas 3:2 3.3b on Jas 3:2 3.3c on Jas 3:2 3:4 to Jas 3:3–6. 3.5 to Jas 3:5 3.6 to Jas 3:5 3.7 to Jas 3:6 3.8 to Jas 3:6 3.9 to Jas 3:6 3.10 to Jas 3:7 3.11 to Jas 3:8 3.12 to Jas 3:8 3.13 to Jas 3:8 3.14 to Jas 3:9–10 3.15 to Jas 3:10b 3.16 to Jas 3:16 3.17 to Jas 3:17 4.1 to Jas 4:1–2 4.2 to Jas 4:1–2 4.3 to Jas 4:3 4.4a to Jas 4:3 4.4b to Jas 4:3 Sch. 4.5 to Jas 4:4 4.6 to Jas 4:4 4.7a to Jas 4:4 4.7b to Jas 4:4 4.8a to Jas 4:4 4.8b to Jas 4:4 4.9 to Jas 4:4 4.10 to Jas 4:5–6 4.11 to Jas 4:5 4.12 to Jas 4:5 4.13 to Jas 4:5–7 4.14 to Jas 4:5 4.15 to Jas 4:6

Unidentified Partially read in ac (Matthaei, 190) Unidentified Unidentified Partially read in ac (Matthaei, 191) Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 51.5 on Matt 15:1–20 Sir 28:18–20 Isidore of Pelusium Ep. 2.158; ac (Matthaei, 191) Isidore of Pelusium Ep. 1298 (4.10); ac (Matthaei, 191–192) Basil of Caesaria Hom. Ps. to Ps 33:14 Unidentified Partially read in ac (Matthaei, 192) Chrysostom Proph. obscurit. 2.8 Unidentified Chrysostom Hom. 1Tim. 6 to 1Tim 2:1–4 ac (Matthaei, 192) Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 37.7 to Matt 11:7–9 Partially read in the ac (Matthaei, 192) Unidentified Cat. Hav. Eccl. 4.69–72 to Eccl 4:4 Cat. Luc. (Mai, Classicorum, 436; cgpnt, 2:133) Origen Comm. Luc. to Luke 11:9; Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 4:2–3 Origen Comm. Luc. to Luke 11:9; Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 4:2–3 ac (Matthaei, 193) Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 4:4 Didymus Ennarat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 4:4; ac (Matthaei, 193) Unidentified Catenist comment Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 59.4 to Matt 18:8 Unidentified ac (Matthaei, 193); cf. gs (Matthaei, 32) ac (Matthaei, 194); cf. gs (Matthaei, 32, to Jas 4:5) Cf. ac (Matthaei, 194), to Jas 4:5; cf. gs (Matthaei, 32) to Jas 4:5 ac (Matthaei, 193–194) to Jas 4:5 gs (ga 1845 94r) to Jas 4:5 Unidentified

sources of the catjas scholia

345

(cont.)

Scholia

Source or Parallel

4.16 to Jas 4:6 4.17 to Jas 4:8–9 4.18 to Jas 4:10 4.19 to Jas 4:11–12 4.20 to Jas 4:13 4.21 to Jas 4:13 4.22a to Jas 4:14–17

Unidentified Chrysostom, Hom. 1Cor. 11.4 to 1Cor 4:3–5 Origen Sel. Ps. to Ps 118:153 (pg 12:1621b) Cyril Comm. Luc. on Luke 6:37; Cat. Luc. Unidentified Unidentified Chrysostom Hom. Rom. 16 to Rom 9:22–24; Cat. Rom. to Rom 9:22–24; partially read in ac (Matthaei, 194, to Jas 4:5) Prov 27:1 lxx Unidentified Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 43.7 to Matt 12:38–39 Unidentified Cyril of Alexandria Comm. Isa. to Isa 34:5–6 ac (Matthaei, 194, to Jas 5:3) Chrysostom Hom. 1Tim. 12 to 1Tim 4:1–5 ac (Matthaei, 194); gs (Matthaei, 38) Unidentified; similar to Euthalian chapter headings Chrysostom Hom. Col. 2 to Col 1:9–10 Chrysostom Hom. 2Thess. 3 on 2Thessalonians to 1:10 Chrysostom Hom. Col. 2 to 1:12 Chrysostom Hom. Heb. 20.8 to Heb 10:30–31 Unidentified Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 17 to Matt 5:33–34; partially read in ac (Matthaei, 195) Chrysostom Hom. Matt. 17 to Matt 5:33–34; ac (Matthaei, 195, to Jas 5:12) Origen Comm. Matt. to Matt 5:33–37; ac (Matthaei, 195) Cyril of Alexandria Comm. Matt. to Matt 5:33–35; ac (Matthaei, 195) gs (ga 1845 fol. 98r) gs (ga 1845 fol. 98r) gs (ga 1845 98r) Maximus the Confessor Qu. Thal. 57 3Kgdms 17:1 lxx Chrysostom Hom. Petr. et El. Theodoret qu. 51 in 3 Reg. (pg 80:724) Chrysostom Hom. 2Thess 3 ad 2Thess 2:5 ac (Matthaei, 195)

4:22b to Jas 4:14–17 4.22c to Jas 4:14–17 5.1 to Jas 5:1–6 5.2 on Jas 5:1–6 5.3 on Jas 5:1–6 5.4 to Jas 5:3–4 5.5 to Jas 5:5–6 5.6 to Jas 5:7 5.7 to Jas 5:7–20 5.8 to Jas 5:8 5.9 to Jas 5:8 5.10a to Jas 5:9–11 5.10b to Jas 5:9–11 5.11 to Jas 5:11 5.12a to Jas 5:12 5.12b to Jas 5:12 5.13 to Jas 5:12 5.14 to Jas 5:12 5.15 to Jas 5:13 5.16 to Jas 5:13 5.17 to Jas 5:16 5.18 to Jas 5:16 5.19 to Jas 5:17–18 5.20 to Jas 5:17 5.21 to Jas 5:17 5.22 to Jas 5:19–20 5.23 to Jas 5:19–20

Bibliography Primary Sources: Biblical Texts lxx Editions Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Accessed through Accordance biblical studies software. Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta lxx interpretes. Edited by Alfred Rahlfs. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935, 1979. nets: A New English Translation of the Septuagint. International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Accessed at https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition.

Vulgate Robert Weber and Roger Gryson, ed. Biblia Sacra Vulgata. 5th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007.

New Testament Texts Byzantine text: Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpoint. The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform. Southborough, MA: Chilton, 2005. Accessed through Accordance biblical studies software. Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior iv. Catholic Letters 1/1. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997.

Editions of CatJas and CatCE Cramer, J.A., ed. cgpnt. Vol. 8: Catena in Epistolas Catholicas. Oxford: Clarendon, 1844. cpg-C176. CatCE: 1–170. CatJas: 1–40. Partial et in accs James. Kalogeras, Nikephoros, ed. Ευθυμίου του Ζιγαβηνού, Ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὰς ιδ´ ἐπιστολὰς τοῦ ἀποστόλου Παύλου και εἰς τὰς Ζ´ καθολικάς (Euthymius Zigabenus, Interpretations of the Fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul and of the Seven Catholic Epistles). 2 vols. Athens: Brothers Perrē, 1887. Accessed through tlg. cpg-C176. CatCE: 2:475–646. Partial et in accs. CatJas: 2: 475–518. Partial et in accs James. Renoux, Charles, ed. La chaîne arménienne sur les Ėpîtres Catholiques. 4 vols. po 43/1, 44/2, 46/1–2, 47/2. Turnhout: Brepols, 1985–1996. Vol. i. La chaîne sur l’Ėpître de Jacques. cpg-C180.

Ancient Sources 1Clem. = 1 Clement. Pages 34–151 in The Apostolic Fathers Volume i. Edited and translated by Bart D. Ehrman. lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. cpg-1001.

bibliography

347

2Clem. = 2 Clement. Pages 164–199 in The Apostolic Fathers Volume i. Edited and translated by Bart D. Ehrman. lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. cpg1003. accs = James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3John, Jude. Edited by Gerald Bray. accs New Testament Vol. 11. Downer’s Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Acts Phil. = Acts of Philip. Pages 1–90 in Acta apostolorum apocrypha, vol. 2.2. Edited by M. Bonnet. Leipzig: Mendelssohn, 1903. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1972. Alexander of Aphrodisias. In Metaph. = In Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria. Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 1. Edited by M. Hayduck. Berlin: Reimer, 1891. Amphilocius of Iconium Iambi ad Seleucum. Amphilochii Iconiensis iambi ad Seleucum. Edited by E. Oberg. pts 9. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969. cpg-3230. Ps.-Andrew of Crete. Laud. Jac. = Laudatio Jacobi fratris domini. Un Éloge de Jacques, le frère du Seigneur. Edited by Jacques Noret. Studies and Texts 44. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1978. cpg-8220. Apos. Con. = Apostolic Constitutions. Les constitutions apostoliques. Translated by B.M. Metzger. 3 vols. sc 320, 329, 336 (Paris: Cerf, 1985–1987). cpg-1730. et = anf 7:391–505 Aristotle Eth. nic. = Aristotle Ethica nichomachea (Nichomachean Ethics). Translated by H. Rackham. lcl 73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926. Aristotle Gen corr. = De generatione et corruptione (On Coming-to-be and Passing Away). On Sophistical Refutations. On Coming-to-be and Passing Away. On the Cosmos. Translated by E.S. Forster and D.J. Furely. lcl 400. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955. Aristotle Metaph. = Metaphisica (Metaphysics). Metaphysics Books 1–9. Translated by H. Tredennick. lcl 271. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933. Aristotle Rhet. = Rhetorica. Aristotle. Art of Rhetoric. Translated by J.H. Freese, G. Striker, rev. lcl 193. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2020. Athanasius Ep. Fest. 39 = Epistulae festales (Festal letters). Pages 71–76 in Fonti. Fasciolo ix. Discipline générale antique (iv–ix s.). Les canons des pères grecs, vol. ii. Edited by P.-P. Joannou. Rome: Tipographia Italo-Orientale “S. Nilo”, 1963. cpg-2102.2. Accessed through tlg. et: npnf2 4.551–552. Athanasius C. Ar. = Orationes contra Arianos (Orations against the Arians). Pages 305– 381 in Athanasius: Werke, Band i. Die dogmatischen Schriften, Erster Teil, 2–3 Lieferung. Edited by K. Metzler and K. Savvidis. 3rd ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998–2000. cpg-2093. et: npnf2 4:303–447. Athanasius Decr. = De decretis. (On Decrees [of Councils]). Pages 1–45 in Athanasius Werke 2/1. Edited by H.G. Opitz. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1940. Accessed through tlg. cpg2120. et: npnf2 4:150–172. Ps.-Athanasius Synops. = Synopsis Sacrae Scripturae. pg 28:283–438. cpg-2249. Augustine Cons. = De consensu evangelistarum (Agreement among the Evangelists). Edited by F. Weihrich. csel 43. Vienna: Tempsky. cpl-273. et: Pages 139–332 in

348

bibliography

New Testament i and ii. Edited by Boniface Ramsey, translated by Kim Paffenroth. wsa 1/15–16. New York: New City Press, 2014. Augustine Div. quaest. lxxxiii = De diversis quaestionibus lxxxiii. Pages 11–249 in Sancti Aurelii Augustini De diversis quaestionibus. Edited by Almut Mutzenbecher. ccsl 44A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1975. cpl-289. et: Pages 27–157 in Responses to Miscellaneous Questions. Translated by Boniface Ramsey. wsa 1/12. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2008. Augustine Ep. = Epistula (Letters). S. Augustini Epistulae. Edited by A Goldbacher. csel 34/1; 34/2; 44/3; 57. 1895–1911. cpl-262. et: Letters. Translated by Roland J. Teske. wsa 2/1–4. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2001–2005. Augustine Nat. Grat. = De Natura et Gratia (On Nature and Grace). Pages 233–299 in S. Aureli Augustini Opera. Edited by C.F. Urba and J. Zycha. csel 60. cpl-344. et: Pages 225–275 in Answer to the Pelagians i. Translated by Roland J. Teske. wsa 1/23. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1997. Augustine Persev. = De dono perseverantiae (The gift of perseverance). pl 45:933–1034. cpl-355. et: Four Anti-Pelagian Writings. Translated by J.A. Mourant. fc 86. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1992. Augustine Retract. = Augustine Retractiones (Revisions). Retractationum libri ii. Edited by Almut Mutzenbacher. ccsl 57. Turnhout: Brepols, 1984. cpl-250. et= Revisions. Translated by Boniface Ramsey. wsa 1/2. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2010. Augustine Serm. = Augustine Sermones. Serm. 1–50: C. Lambot, ed. ccsl 41; Serm. 51– 70A: P.-P. Verbraken, et al., eds. ccsl 41Aa; Serm. 151–156: G. Partoens, ed., ccsl 41Ba; Serm. 157–183. S. Boodts, ed.: ccsl 41Bb; 1–340: pl 38. cpl-284. et: Sermons. Translated by Edmund Hill. wsa 3/1–11. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 1990–1997. Augustine Tract. Ev. Jo. = In Evangelium Johannis tractatus. Sancti Aurelii Augustini in Ioannis Evengelium Tractatus cxxiv. Edited by D.R. Willems. ccsl 36. cpl-278. et: Homilies on the Gospel of John 1–40. Translated by Edmund Hill. wsa 3/12. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2009. Barn. = Epistle of Barnabas. Pages 12–83 in The Apostolic Fathers Volume ii. Edited and translated by Bart D. Ehrman. lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. cpg-1050. Basil Leg. Lib. Gent. = Ad adolescens de legendis libris gentilium (To Young Men on Reading Pagan Literature). Pages 378–435 in Basil. Letters Volume iv: Letters 249–368 on Greek Literature. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari. lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. cpg-2867. Bede Ep. Cath.= Bede the Venerable In Epistolas Septem Catholicas. Pages 181–224 in Bedae Venerabilis Opera Pars ii, 4: Opera Exegetica. Edited by David Hurst. ccsl 121. Turnhout: Brepols, 1983. cpl-1362. et: D. Hurst, trans., The Commentary of the Seven Catholic Epistles of Bede the Venerable. Cistercian Studies Series 82; Kalamazoo, MI.: Cistercian, 1985.

bibliography

349

Cassian, John Coll. = Collationes (Conlationes). Iohannis Cassiani Opera. Edited by Michael Petschenig. csel 13. Vienna, 1886. cpl-512. et: John Cassian: The Conferences. Translated by Boniface Ramsey. acw 57. New York: Paulist, 1997. Cassian, John Inst.= De institutis coenobiorum. Iohannis Cassiani Opera. Edited by Michael Petschenig. csel 17. 1. Vienna: Temsky, 1888. cpl-513. et: John Cassian: The Institutes. Translated by Boniface Ramsey. acw 58. New York: Paulist, 2000. Cassiodorus. Institutiones Divinarum et Saecularium Litterarum. Cassiodori Senatoris Institutiones (Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning). Edited by R.A.B. Mynors. Oxford: Clarendon, 1937. cpl-906. et: James W. Halporn, Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning and On the Soul. Translated Texts for Historians. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2004. Catena to Acts (Cat. Ac.) = cgpnt vol. 3. cpg-C150. Catena to 2Thessalonians (Cat. 2Thess.) = cgpnt 6:376–398. cpg-C162. Catena to Ecclesiastes (Cat. Eccl.). Catena Havniensis in Ecclesiasten. Edited by Antonio Labate. ccsg 24. Turnhout: Brepols, 1992. cpg-C105. Catena to Exodus (Cat. Exod.). La chaîne sur l’Exode: Édition intégrale. Edited by Françoise Petit. Traditio Exegetica Graeca 9–11. 4 vols. Leuven: Peeters, 1999–2001. cpgC2–3a. Catena to Galatians (Cat. Gal.). cgpnt 6:1–95. cpg-C162. Catena to Genesis (Cat. Gen.). La Chaîne sur la Genèse: Édition intégrale. Edited by Françoise Petit. Traditio Exegetica Graeca 1–4. 4 vols. Leuven: Peeters, 1991–1996. cpg-C1. Catena to Luke (Cat. Lc.). cgpnt 2:6–174. cpg-131. Catena to Mark (Cat. Marc.). cgpnt 1:259–447. et: The Catena in Marcum: A Byzantine Anthology of Early Commentary on Mark. Translated by William R.S. Lamb. tents 6. Leiden: Brill, 2012. cpg-C125. Catena to Matthew (Cat. Mt.). cpgnt 1:1–257. cpg-C110.4. Catena to Romans (Cat. Rom.). cgpnt vol. 4. cpg-160–161. cgpnt = Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum. Edited by J.A. Cramer. 8 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1844. Choricius Laud. Marc. = Laudatio Marciani (In Praise of Marcion). Pages 1–47 in Choricii Gazaei opera. Edited by R. Förster and E. Richtsteig. Leipzig: Teubner, 1929; repr. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1972. cpg-7518. Choricius Or. fun. Marc. = Oratio funebris in Mariam (Funeral Oration for Mary). Pages 41–55 in Coricio di Gaza: Due orazioni funebri. Edited by Claudia Greco. Hellenica 36. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2010. cpg-7518. Cicero De inv. = De inventione. Pages 1–345 in On Invention. The Best Kind of Orator. Topics. Translated by H.M. Hubbell. lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1949. Clement of Alexandria Paed. = Paedagogus. (The Instructor). Clément d’Alexandrie. Le pedagogue. Edited and translated by M. Harl, H.-I. Marrou, C. Matray, and C. Mondésert. 3 vols. sc 70, 108, 158. Paris: Cerf, 1960–1970. cpg-1376. et: anf 2:207–296.

350

bibliography

Clement of Alexandria Str. = Clement of Alexandria Stromateis. Stromata: Buch i–vi. Edited by L. Früchtel, O. Stählin, and U. Treu. 4th ed. gcs 52. Berlin: Akademie, 1985. Stromata: Buch vii–viii. Edited by L. Früchtel, O. Stählin, and U. Treu. gcs 17. Berlin: Akademie, 1970. cpg-1377. et = anf 2:299–567. Clement of Alexandria: Stromateis: Books One to Three. Translated by John Ferguson. fc 85. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1991. Ps.-Clem. Rec. = Ps.-Clementine Recognitions. Die Pseudoklementinen. Edited by B. Rehm and G. Strecker. gcs. 3rd ed. Berlin: Akademie, 1992. cpg-1015.5. et: anf 8:75–211. Cosmas Indicopleustes Top. = Topigraphica christiana. Cosmas Indicopleustés. Topographie chrétienne. Edited and translated by W. Wolska-Conus. 3 vols. sc. Paris: Cerf, 1968–1973. Accessed through tlg. cpg-7468. et: The Christian Topography of Cosmas, an Egyptian Monk. Translated by J.W. McCrindle. London: Hakluyt Society, 1897. Council of Laodocia Canons. Discipline Générale Antique Pontificia Commissione per la Redazione del Codice di Diritto Canonico Orientale Fonti 9. Edited by J.-J. Joannou. 2 vols. Rome: S. Nilo, 1962 Cyril of Alexandria Comm. Isa. pg 70:9–1449. cpg-5203. et: Commentary on Isaiah. Translated by Robert C. Hill. 3 vols. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2008. Cyril of Alexandria Comm. Jo. s.p.n. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis evangelium. Edited by Philip E. Pusey. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1872. cpg-5208. et: P.E. Pusey and T. Randell, trans., Commentary on the Gospel according to S. John. 2 vols. London: Walter Smith, 1885. Cyril of Alexandria Comm. Luc. (Commentary on Luke). Greek in catenae: Pages 54–297 in J. Reuss, ed., Lukas-Kommentare; pg 72:475–950; 77:1006–1016, 1039–1050. Pages 1–546 in Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum. Tomus x. Edited by Angelo Mai. Rome: Collegium Urbanum, 1838. Syriac: S. Cyrilli Alexandriae archiepiscopi commentarii in Lucae evangelium. Edited by Robert Payne Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1858. et of Syriac: Commentary upon the Gospel according to S. Luke by S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. Translated by Robert Payne Smith. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1859; repr. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. cpg5207. Cyril of Alexandria. Comm. Matt. (Commentary on Matthew). Pages 153–269 in J. Reuss, ed., Matthäus-Kommentare. pg 72:365–474. cpg-5206. Cyril of Alexandria. Comm. Rom. (Commentary on Romans). Pages 173–248 in s.p.n. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis evangelium Volume 3. Edited by P.E. Pusey. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1872. cpg-5209.1 Cyril of Alexandria Ep. 44 = Epistula (Letter) 44. aco 1.1.4.35–37. et: Pages 186–189 in St. Cyril of Alexandria Letters 1–50. Translated by John I. McEnerney. fc 76. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1987. cpg-5344.

bibliography

351

Cyril of Alexandria. Exp. Ps. = Expositio in Psalmos (Commentary on the Psalms). pg 69:717–1273. cpg-5202. Cyril of Alexandria Glaph. Gen. = Glaphyra in Genesim. pg 69:9–677 (on the Pentateuch). cpg-5201. et = St. Cyril of Alexandria. Glaphyra on the Pentateuch. Translated by Nicholas P. Lunn. 2 vols. fc. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 2018–2019. Cyril of Alexandria Hom. Pasch. = Epistulae (homiliae) paschales (Paschal Homilies). pg 77:401–498. cpg-5240. Cyril of Alexandria Thes. = Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali trinitate. (A Collection concerning the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity). pg 75:9–656. cpg-5215 Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. = Catecheses illuminandorum (Catechetical Lectures). Cyrilli Hierosolymarum archiepiscopi opera omnia 1848–1860. Edited by W.C. Reischl and J. Rupp. 2 vols. Munich, 1848–1860. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967. Accessed through tlg. cpg-3585. et: The Works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Translated by L.P. McCauley and A.A. Stephenson 2 vols. fc 61, 64. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1969–1970. Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem Myst. = Catéchèses mystagogiques. (Catechetical Lectures: PostBaptism). Edited by Auguste Piédagnel, translated by Pierre Paris, sc 126. Paris: Cerf, 1966. cpg-3586. et: Pages 2:153–203 in The Works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Translated by L.P. McCauley and A.A. Stephenson 2 vols. fc 61, 64. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1969–1970. Cyril of Jerusalem. Procatech = Procatechesis (Introductory Lecture). Pages 1:2–27 in Cyrilli Hierosolymarum archiepiscopi opera omnia 1848–1860. Edited by W.C. Reischl and J. Rupp. 2 vols. Munich, 1848–1860. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967. cpg-3585. et: Pages 1:69–85 in The Works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Translated by L.P. McCauley and A.A. Stephenson 2 vols. fc 61, 64. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1969–1970. Decr. Gel. = Decretum Gelasianum (Gelasian Decree). Das Decretum Gelasanianum. Edited by E. von Dobschütz. tu 38/4. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912. cpl-1676. Did. = Didache. Pages 416–443 in The Apostolic Fathers Volume i. Edited and translated by Bart D. Ehrman. lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. cpg-1735. Didymus of Alexandria. Comm. Gen. (Commentary on Genesis). Didyme l’Aveugle. Sur la Genèse: Text inédit d’aprés un papyrus de Toura. Edited by Pierre Nautin., 2 vols. sc 233, 244. Paris: Cerf, 1976, 1978; repr. 2008. et: Robert C. Hill, trans., Didymus the Blind: Commentary on Genesis. fc 132. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2016. Didymus of Alexandria. Ennarat. Ep. Cath. = Epistolas Catholicas Enarratio (Commentary on the Catholic Epistles). Didymi Alexandrini in Epistolas Canonicas Brevis Enarratio. Edited by Friedrich Zoepfl. nt Abh 4/1. Münster: Aschendorf, 1914. cpg-2562. Partial et in accs James.

352

bibliography

Didymus of Alexandria. Comm. Job (Commentary on Job). Didymos der Blinde. Kommentar zu Hiob: Tura-Papyrus. Teil iv. Edited by D. Hagedorn, U. Hagedorn, and L. Koenen. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 33.1. Bonn: Habelt, 1985. cpg2553.4 Diogenes Laertius = De clarorum philosophorum vitis. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R.D. Hicks. 2 vols. lcl 184, 185. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925. Ps.-Dionysius Coel. hier. = De coelesti hierarchia (The Celestial Hierarchy). Pages 7–59 in Corpus Dionysiacum ii: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De coelesti hierarchia, de ecclesiastica hierarchia, de mystica theologia, epistulae. Edited by G. Heil and A.M. Ritter. pts 36. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1991. cpg-6600. Ps.-Dionysius of Halicarnassus Rhet. = Ars Rhetorica (The Art of Rhetoric). Pages 368– 447 in Menander Rhetor. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ars Rhetorica. Edited and translated by W.H. Race. lcl 539. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019. Dionysius Thrax Ars gramm. = Ars grammatica (The Art of Rhetoric). Grammatici Graeci Vol. 1.1: Dionysii Thracis Ars Grammatica. Edited by G. Uhlig. Leipzig: Teubner, 1883. et: “The Tekhnē Grammatikē of Dionysius Thrax.” Translated by Alan Kemp. Pages 169–189 in The History of Linguistics in the Classical Period. Edited by Daniel J. Taylor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1987. Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi (Teaching of the Fathers on the Incarnation of the Word). Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi: Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des siebenten und achten Jahrhunderts. Edited by Franz Diekamp, rev. B. Phanourgakis and E. Chrysos. Münster: Aschendorff, 1981. cpg-7781. Eusebius Comm. Ps. (Commentary on the Psalms). pg 23. cpg-3467. Eusebius Dem. ev. = Demonstration evanglica. Eusebius Werke 6: De Demonstratio Evangelica. Edited by Ivar A. Heikel. gcs 23. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913. cpg-3487. et: The Proof of the Gospel. Edited and translated by W.J. Ferrar. Repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001. Eusebius Hist. eccl. = Historia ecclesiastica. Eusèbe de Césarée. Histoire ecclésiastique. Edited by Gustave Bardy. 3 vols. sc 31, 41, 55. Paris: Cerf, 1952–1958; repr. 1967. Accessed through tlg. cpg-3495. et: The History of the Church. Translated by Jeremy M. Schott. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2019. George Cedrenus Comp. hist = Compendium historiarum. (Compendium of History). Georgius Cedrenus Ioannis Scylitzae Opera. Edited by I. Bekker. 2 vols. Bonn: Weber, 1838. George Hamartalos (George the Sinner). Georgii Monachi Chronicon (Chronicles of George the Monk). Edited by C. de Boor. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1904. Gregory Nazianzus. Carm. = Carmina. Carmina dogmatica (Pedagogical Songs). pg 37: 397–522. cpg-3034. et: Brian P. Dunkle, “Gregory Nazianzen’s Poems on Scripture: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary” (s.t.l. thesis, Boston College, 2009).

bibliography

353

Gregory Nazianus. Or. = Orationes. Or. 1–26: pg 35:393–1252. Or. 27–45: pg 36:9–623. cpg-3010. et of select Orations: npnf2 7:203–434. Herm. Mand.= Shepherd of Hermas: Mandates (Commandments). Pages 244–304 in The Apostolic Fathers Volume ii. Edited and translated by Bart D. Ehrman. lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. cpg-1052. Hesychius. Comm. brev. Ps. = Commentarius brevis (Brief commentary on Psalms). Supplementum Psalterii Bononiensis. Edited by V. Jagić. Vienna: Holzhausen, 1917. cpg6553. Hesychius. Comm. magn. Ps. = Commentarius Magnus (Long Commentary on Psalms) = pg 93:1179–1340; pg 55:711–784 [under Chrysostom’s works]. cpg-6554. Hesychius. Epit. proph. = Epitome de prophetis. (Epitome on the Prophets). pg 93:1340– 1344. cpg-6556. Hesychius. Ps. tit. = De titulis psalmorum (On the Titles of the Psalms). pg 27:649–1344 [under Athanasius’ works]. cpg-6552. Ps.-Hilary of Arles Exp. vii. Ep. = Expositio in vii epistulas canonicas (Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles). Pages 52–76 (on James) in Scriptores Hiberniae minores i. Edited by Robert McNally. ccsl 108B. Turnhout: Brepols, 1973. cpl-508. Homer. Il. = Iliad. Homer Iliad. Translated by A.T. Murray, rev. W.F. Wyatt. 2 vols. lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924–1925. Ignatius of Antioch Rom. = Letter to the Romans. Pages 269–283 in The Apostolic Fathers Volume 1. Edited and translated by Bart D. Ehrman. lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. cpg-1025.4. Irenaeus Haer. = Adversus Haeresios (Against the Heresies). Irénée de Lyon. Contre les hérésies. Edited by Adelin Rousseau et al. 5 vols. sc. Paris: Cerf, 1969–2008. cpg1306. et: anf 1:315–567. Books 1–3: Against the Heresies. Translated by D.J. Unger, rev. J.J. Dillon. acw 55, 64, 65. New York: Paulist, 1992; New York: Newman, 2012. Isho’dad of Merv Comm. Cath. Ep. (Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles). Pages 36– 37, 48–51 in The Commentaries of Isho’dad of Merv, Bishop of Hadatha. Volume 4: Acts of the Apostles and three Catholic Epistles. Translated by Margaret Dunlop Gibson. HSem 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913. Partial et in accs James. Isidore of Pelusium Ep. = Epistulae (Letters). Isidore de Péluse: Lettres. Edited and translated by Pierre Évieux. Vol. 3 with N. Vinel. 3 vols. sc 422, 454, 586. Paris: Cerf, 1997– 2017. pg 78:177–1048. cpg-5557. Jerome Ep. = Epistula (Letters). Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae. Edited by Isidorus Hilberg. 3 vols. csel 54–56: Vienna: Tempsky, Leipzig: Freytag, 1910–1918. cpl-620. et: npnf2 6: 1–295. Jerome. “Preface” to Origen Hom. Ezek. = Homilies on Ezekiel. Pages 30–33 in Origène: Homélies sur Ézéchiel. Edited and translated by Marcel Borret. sc 362. Paris: Cerf, 1989. cpl-587a. et: Pages 23–24 in Origen: Homlilies 1–14 on Ezekiel. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. acw 62. Mahwah, nj: Paulist, 2010.

354

bibliography

Jerome Vir. ill. = De viris illustribus (On famous men). Gerolamo, Gli Uomini Illustri. Edited by A. Ceresa-Gastaldo. Biblioteca Patristica 12. Florence: Nardini, 1988. cpl616. et: Saint Jerome. On Illustrious Men. Translated by T.P. Halton. fc 100; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1999. John Chrysostom Compunct. Dem. = Ad Demetrium de compunctione 1. (To Demetrius On Contrition). pg 47:393–410. cpg-4308. et: Pages 1–54 in A Companion to the Sincere Penitent. Translated by J. Veneer. London: T. Worrall, 1728. John Chrysostom Hom. 1Cor. = Homilies on 1Corinthians. Ioannis Chrysostomi interpretatio omnium epistularum Paulinarum Vol. 2. Edited by Frederick Field. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1847. cpg-4428. et: npnf1 12:1–269. John Chrysostom Hom. 1Tim. = Homilies on 1Timothy. Pages 1–161 in Ioannis Chrysostomi interpretatio omnium epistularum Paulinarum Vol. 6. Edited by Frederick Field. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1861. cpg-4436. et: npnf1 13:407–473. John Chrysostom Hom. 2Thess. = Homilies on 2Thessalonians. Pages 443–496 in Ioannis Chrysostomi interpretatio omnium epistularum Paulinarum Vol. 5. Edited by Frederick Field. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1855. cpg-4435. et: npnf1 13:377–398. John Chrysostom Hom. 2Tim. = Homilies on 2Timothy. Pages 162–263 in Ioannis Chrysostomi interpretatio omnium epistularum Paulinarum Vol. 6. Edited by Frederick Field. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1861. cpg-4437. et: npnf1 13:475–518. John Chrysostom Hom. Col. = Homilies on Colossians. Pages 171–312 in Ioannis Chrysostomi interpretatio omnium epistularum Paulinarum Vol. 5. Edited by Frederick Field. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1855. cpg-4433. et: John Chrysostom: Homilies on Colossians. Translated by Pauline Allen. sblwgrw 46. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2021. John Chrysostom Hom. Eph. = Homilies on Ephesians. Pages 104–365 in Ioannis Chrysostomi interpretatio omnium epistularum Paulinarum Volume 4. Edited by Frederick Field. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1852. cpg-4431. et: npnf1 13:50–172. John Chrysostom Hom. Heb. = Homilies on Hebrews. Ioannis Chrysostomi interpretatio omnium epistularum Paulinarum Vol. 7. Edited by Frederick Field. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1862. cpg-4440. et: npnf1 14: 335–522. John Chryosostom Hom. Jo. = Homilies on John. pg 59: 23–482. cpg-4425. et: Saint John Chrysostom. Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist Homilies 1–47. Translated by Sr. Thomas Aquinas Goggin. fc. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1957. John Chrysostom Hom. Matt. = Homilies on Matthew. Joannis Chrysostomi Homiliae in Matthaeum. Edited by Frederick Field. 3 vols. Cambridge: Deighton, 1839 (= pg 57: 13–58:794). cpg 4424. et = npnf1 10. John Chrysostom Hom. Phil. = Homilies on Philippians. Pages 1–171 in Ioannis Chrysostomi interpretatio omnium epistularum Paulinarum Vol. 5. Edited by Frederick Field. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1855. cpg-4432. et: John Chrysostom: Homilies on Philippians.

bibliography

355

Translated by Pauline Allen. sblwgrw 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. John Chrysostom Hom. Rom. = Homilies on Romans. Ioannis Chrysostomi interpretatio omnium epistularum Paulinarum Vol. 1. Edited by Frederick Field. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1849. cpg-4427. et: npnf1 11:329–564. John Chrysostom Laz. = De Lazaro (On Lazarus). pg 48:963–1054. cpg-4329. et: Four Discourses of Chrysostom, Chiefly on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Translated by F. Allen. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1869. John Chrysostom Pan. Paul = Panegyrics on Paul. Panégyriques de Saint Paul. Edited and translated by Auguste Piédagnel. sc 300. Paris: Cerf, 1982. cpg-4344. et: M.M. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, 442–487; M.M. Mitchell, Problem Passages, 698–816. John Chrysostom Petr. et El. = Homilia in ss. Petrum et Heliam (Homilies on Saints Peter and Elijah). pg 50:725–736. cpg-4513. John Chrysostom Proph. obscurit. = De prophetiarum obscuritate homiliae 1–2 (Homilies on the Obscure Passages in the Prophets). Giovanni Crisostomo. Omelie sull’oscurità delle profezie. Edited by Sergio Zincone. Verba Seniorum N.S. 12. Rome: Edizioni Studium, 1998. cpg-4420. et= St. John Chrysostom: Old Testament Homilies Vol. 3. Translated by R.C. Hill, Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2003. John Chrysostom Sac. = De sacerdoties. Jean Chrysostome Sur le sacerdoce: Dialogue et Homèlie. Edited and translated by A.-M. Malingrey. sc 272. Paris: Cerf, 1980. cpg4316. et: St. John Chrysostom: Six Books on the Priesthood. Translated by G. Neville. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1964. John Damascene parall. = Sacra Parallela (Sacred Parallels). pg 95:1040–1096:441. cpg8056. Justin 1 Apol. = 1 Apology. Justin, Philosopher and Martyr Apologies. Edited and translated by Denis Minns and Paul Parvis. oect. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. cpg-1073. Justin Dial. = Dialogue with Trypho. Iustini Martyris Apologiae pro Christianis Dialogus cum Tryphone. Edited by Miroslav Marcovich. pts 47. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. cpg1076. et: anf 1:194–270. Ps.-Leontius of Byzantium Sect. = De sectis. (On the Sects). pg 86A:1193–1268. cpg-6823. Ps.-Libanius Char. ep. = Characteres Epistolici (Epistolatory Styles). Libanius Opera ix: Libri qui ferentur Characteres Epistolici. Edited by R. Foerster. bsgrt. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1963. et: Pages 66–81 in Ancient Epistolary Theorists. Translated by Abraham J. Malherbe. sblsbs. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. lae= Life of Adam and Eve. The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek: A Critical Edition. Edited by Johannes Tromp. pvtg 6. Leiden: Brill, 2005. et: otp 2:258–295. Marcus Aurelius Med. = Meditationes (Meditations). Pages 2–343 in Marcus Aurelius. Edited and translated by C.R. Haines. lcl 58. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916.

356

bibliography

Maximus the Confessor Qu. Thal. = Quaestiones ad Thalassium (Responses to Questions from Thalassius). Maximi confessoris quaestiones ad Thalassium. Edited by C. Laga and C. Steel. 2 vols. ccsg 7 & 22. Turnhout: Brepols, 1980, 1990. cpg-7688. et: On Difficulties in Sacred Scripture: the Responses to Thalassios. Translated by Maximos Constas, fc 136. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018. Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus. h.e. = Historia Ecclesiastica (Ecclesiastical History). pg 145:560–147:448. Oecumenius Comm. Apoc. = Commentary on Revelation. Oecumenii commenatarius in Apocalypsin. Edited by M. De Groote. teg 8; Leuven: Peeters, 1999. cpg-7470. et: Oecumenius: Commentary on the Apocalypse. Translated by J.N. Suggit. fc 112. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006. Ps.-Oecumenius. Comm. Ep. Cath. = Commentary on the Catholic Epistles. Oikoumeniou Episkopou Trikkēs Commentarius in Epistolam Catholicam Jacobi. pg 119.455–510. cpg-C177. et: Partial translation in accs James. Origen Cels. = Contra Celsum (Against Celsus). Origène. Contre Celse Edited by Marcel Borret. 4 vols. sc 132, 136, 147, 150. Paris: Cerf, 1967–1969. Accessed through tlg. cpg-1476. et: Origen: Contra Celsum. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953; repr. 1979. Origen Comm. Jo. = Commentary on the Gospel of John. Origène. Commentaire sur saint Jean. Translated by Cécile Blanc. 5 vols. sc 120, 157, 222, 290, 385. Paris: Cerf, 1966– 1992. Accessed in tlg. cpg-1453. et: Origen: Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. fc 80, 89. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1989, 1993. Origen Comm. Luc. = Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Pages 227–336 in Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus und die griechischen Reste der Homilien und des Lukas-Kommentars. Edited by Max Rauer. 2nd ed. gcs. Berlin: Akadamie, 1959. cpg-1452. et: Pages 165–227 in Origen: Homilies on Luke. Fragments on Luke. Translated by Joseph T. Lienhard. fc 94. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996. Origen Comm. Matt. = Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Origenes Matthäuserklärung iii. gcs 41.1. Leipzig: Teubner, 1941. Edited by Ernst Benz and Erich Klostermann. Origen: New Fragments from the Commentary on Matthew: Codices Sabaiticus 232 and Holy Cross 104 Jerusalem. Edited by Panayiotes Tzamalikos. Paderborn: Brill / Ferdinand Schöningh, 2020. cpg-1450. et: The Commentary of Origen on the Gospel of St. Matthew. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. 2 vols. oect Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Origen Comm. Rom. = Commentary on Romans. Origenes, Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes: Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins. Edited by Caroline P. Hammond Bammel. 3 vols. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1990– 98. cpg-1457. et = Origen

bibliography

357

Commentary on Romans. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. 2 vols. fc 103–104. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 2001–2002. Origen Fr. Exod. = Fragments on Exodus. pg 12:264–297; pg 17:16–17. cpg-1413–1414. Origen Hom. Ezek. = Homilies on Ezekiel. Origène: Homélies sur Ézéchiel. Edited and translated by Marcel Borret. sc 362. Paris: Cerf, 1989. cpg-1441. et: Origen: Homlilies 1–14 on Ezekiel. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. acw 62. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 2010. Origen Hom. Jes. Nav. = Homilies on Joshua. Pages 286–463 in Homilien zum Hexateuch in Rufins Übersetzung. Edited by W.A. Baehrens. gcs 30. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1921. cpg1420. et: Origen Homilies on Joshua. Translated and edited by Barbara J. Bruce and Cynthia White. fc 105. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 2002. Origen Hom. Lev. = Homilies on Leviticus. Homélies sur le Lévitique. Edited and translated by Marcel Borret. 2 vols. sc. Paris: Cerf, 1981. cpg-1415–1416. et: Origen Homilies on Leviticus 1–16. Translated by G.W. Barkley. fc 83. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1990. Origen Princ. = De principiis. Origen: On First Principles. Edited and translated by John Behr. 2 vols. oect. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. cpg-1482. Origen Sel. Ps. = Selecta in Psalmos (Scholia on Psalms). pg 12:1053–1686. cpg-1425–1427. Pelagius Exp. xiii Ep. Pauli. = Expositiones xiii Epistularum Pauli (Commentary on Paul’s Thirteen Epistles). Pelagius’s Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of Paul. Edited by A. Souter. 3 vols. ts 9 no. 1–3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922–1931. cpl-728. et: Pelagius’ Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Translated by T. de Bruyn. oecs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. Proclus Alc. = Proclus Diadochus. Commentary on the first Alcibiades of Plato. Edited by L.G. Westerink. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1954. et: Proclus Alcibiades i. Translated by W. O’Neill. 2nd ed. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971. Philo of Alexandria Leg. = Legum allegoriae (Allegorical Interpretation). Pages 146–472 in Philo Vol. 1. Translated by F.H. Colson, G.H. Whitaker. lcl 226. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929. Plato. Alc. i = Alcibiades i. Pages 98–223 in Plato vol. 12. lcl 201. Translated by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. Plato Leg. = Leges (Laws). Plato Laws. Translated by R.G. Bury. 2 vols. lcl 187, 192. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Procopius of Gaza Cat. Eccl. = Procopii Gazaei Catena in Ecclesiasten (Catena on Ecclesiastes). Edited by Sandro Leanza. ccsg 4. Turnhout: Brepols, 1979; ibid, Un nuovo testimone della Catena sull’Ecclesiaste di Procopio di Gaza. ccsg 4 Suppl. Turnhout: Brepols, 1983. cpg-7433. Procopius of Gaza Cat. Isa. = Catena to Isaiah. pg 87/2:1801–2718. cpg-7434. Procopius of Gaza Ecl. hist. lib. Vet. Test. ep. = Eclogarum in libros historicos Veteris Testamenti epitome. pg 87/1:21–1080. cpg–7430.

358

bibliography

Procopius of Gaza Comm. Gen. = Commentary on Genesis. Prokop von Gaza: Eclogarum in libros historicos Veteris Testamenti epitome Teil 1: Der Genesiskommentar. Edited by Karin Metzler. gcs n.f. 22. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. cpg-7430. German trans.: Prokop von Gaza; Der Genesiskommentar. Aus der “Eclogarum in libros historicos Veteris Testamenti epitome.” Translated by Karin Metzler. gcs n.f. 23. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Procopius of Gaza Comm. Exod. = Commentary on Exodus. Prokop von Gaza: Eclogarum in libros historicos Veteris Testamenti epitome Teil 2: Der Exoduskommentar. Edited by Karin Metzler. gcs n.f. 27. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020. cpg-7430. German trans.: Karin Metzler, trans. Prokop von Gaza: Der Exoduskommentar aus der Eclogarum in libros historicos Veteris Testamenti epitome. gcs n.f. 28. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020. Procopius of Gaza. Ep. Cant. = Epitome in canticum canticorum (Epitome on the Song of Songs). Procopii Gazaei Epitome in Canticum Canticorum. Edited by Jean-Marie Auwers. ccsg 67. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. cpg-7431, cpg-C82. Procopius of Gaza. Pan. Anast. = Panegyricus in Anastasium (Panegyric on the Emperor Anastatius). Pages 281–305 in Procope de Gaza: Discours et fragments. Edited by Eugenio Amato. Collection de Universités de France. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2014. cpg-7439. Quintilian Inst. = Institutio Oratoria. Quintilian The Orator’s Education. Edited and translated by D.A. Russell. 5 vols. lcl. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Rufinus Hist. = Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius Werke. Die Kirchengeschichte. Edited by Eduard Schwartz and Theodor Mommsen. 2nd ed. F. Winkelmann. gcs n.f. 6. Berlin: Adademie, 1999. cpg-3495 (Versiones latinae). et= History of the Church: Rufinus of Aquileia. Translated by Philip R. Amidon. fc. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 2016. Schol. Ep. Cath. = Scholia to the Catholic Epistles. ss Apostolorum Septem Epistolae Catholicae ad Codd. Mss. Mosqq. Edited by C.F. Matthaei. Riga: Hartknocht, 1782. Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem grammatican. (Scholia on Dionysius Thrax’s Art of Rhetoric). Grammatici Graeci Vol. 3. Edited by Alfred Hilgard. Leipzig: Teubner, 1901. Scottus Anon. Comm. Ep. Cath. = Scottus (Irish) Anonymous Commentary on the Catholic Epistles. Pages 1–51 on James in Scriptores Hiberniae Minores Pars i. Edited by Robert E. McNally. ccsl 108B. Turnhout: Brepols, 1973. Seneca Ep. = Epistula (Moral Epistles). Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales. Edited by R.M. Gummere. 3 vols. lcl 75–78. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1917– 1925. Severian of Gabala. Paen. = De paenitentia et compunction (de Rahab historia). (On Repentance and Compunction [On the story of Rahab]). pg 49:323–336. cpg-4186. et: Pages 86–110 in St. John Chrysostom: On repentance and almsgiving. Translated by Gus G. Christo. fc 96. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1998. Severus of Antioch. Contr. add. Iul. = Contra additiones Iuliani (Against the Additions

bibliography

359

of Julian). Edited and translated by Robert Hespel. csco, 295–296. Scriptores Syrii 124–125. Leuven: Secrétariat du CorpuSSCO, 1968. cpg-7029. Severus of Antioch. Ep. Iul. = Letters to Julian. La polémique antijulianiste i. Edited and translated by Robert Hespel. csco 244–245; Scriptores Syri 104–105. Leuven: Secrétariat du Corpus sco, 1964. cpg-7026. Severus of Antioch. Hom. Cath. = Homiliae cathedrales (Cathedral Homilies). Les Homiliae cathedrales de Sévère d’Antioche: Homélies xlvi à li. Edited and translated by M. Brière and F. Graffin. po 35/3. Turnhout: Brepols, 1969. cpg-7035. Sextus Empiricus Math. = Adversus mathematicos (Against the Professors). Translated by R.G. Bury. lcl 382. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1949. Stobaeus Anth. = Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium (The Anthology of John Stobaeus). Edited by Curt Wachsmuth and Otto Hense. Berlin: Weidmann, 1884–1923. Partial et: The Stoics Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia. Translated by Brad Inwood and Lloyd P. Gerson. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2008. Tertullian Marc. = Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion). Contre Marcion. Translated and edited by R. Braun and C. Moreschini. sc. 5 vols. Paris: Cerf, 1990–2004. cpl-14. et: Tertullian Adversus Marcionem, Books i–v. Edited and translated by E. Evans. 2 vols. oect. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Qu. in Reg. et Par. = Questiones in libros Regnorum et Paralipomenon (Questions on the Books of Kings and Chronicles). N. Fernández Marcos and J.R. Busto Saiz, Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones in Reges et Paralipomena. tecc 32. Madrid, 1984. cpg-6201. Theophilus of Antioch. Autol. = Ad Autolycum (To Autolycus). Theophilii Antiocheni ad Autolycum. Edited by Miroslav Marcovich. pts 44. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. cpg1107. et: Theophilus of Antioch ad Autolycum. Translated by Robert M. Grant. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970. Theophylact Exp. Ep. Jac. = Expositio Epistuli Jacobi (Commentary on the Letter of James). pg 125:1131–1190. cpg-C178. et: Partial translation in accs James. Valerius Maximus. Valerii Maximi Factorum et dictorum memorabilium (Memorable Deeds and Sayings). Edited by C. Kempf. Leipzig: Teubner, 1888. Vit. Isa. = Vita Isaiae Monachi (Life of Isaiah the Monk). Pages 3–10 (Latin) / 3–16 (Syriac) in Vitae Virorum apud Monophysitas Celeberrimorum. csco, Scriptores Syri, ser. 3 vol. 25 (1907). Zacharias Rhetor of Mytiline. The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity. Translated by Geoffrey Greatrex, Robert Phenix and Cornelia Horn. Translated Texts for Historians 55. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011. Zacharias Rhetor of Mytiline. Vit. Sev. = Life of Severus. Vie de Sévère. Edited by M.A. Kugener. Pages 1–115 in po 2/1. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907. et, with reprint of Kugener’s Syriac text: Lena Ambjörn, trans., The Life of Severus by Zachariah of Mytiline. Texts from Christian Late Antiquity 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2008.

360

bibliography

Secondary Literature Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1989. Albl, Martin C. “Ancient Christian Writers on Jews and Judaism.” Pages 15–56 in The ‘New Testament’ as a Polemical Tool: Studies in Ancient Christian Anti-Jewish Rhetoric and Beliefs. Edited by Hagit Amirav and Riemer Roukema. ntoa / sunt 118; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2018. Aldama, J.A. de, ed. Repertorium Pseudochrysostomicum. Documents, Études et Répertoires 10. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1965. Allen, Pauline. “Severus of Antioch: Heir of Saint John Chrysostom?” Pages 1–13 in Severus of Antioch: His Life and Times. Edited by John Dalton and Youhann Nessim Youssef. Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 7. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Allen, Pauline and C.T.R. Hayward. Severus of Antioch. London: Routledge, 2004. Allison, Dale C. James: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James. icc. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013. Amato, Eugenio. “Dati biografici d cronologia di Procopio di Gaza.” Pages 1–9 in Rose di Gaza: Gli scritti retorico-sofistici e le Epistole di Procopio di Gaza. Edited by Eugenio Amato. Hellenica 35. Alessandra: Edizioni dell’ Orso, 2010. Amato, Eugenio, ed. Procope de Gaza: Discours et fragments, Collection de Universités de France. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2014. Ashkenazi, Yakov. “Sophists and Priests in Late Antique Gaza according to Choricius the Rhetor.” Pages 195–208 in Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity. Edited by Brouria BittonAshkelony and Aryeh Kofsky. Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 3. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Aune, David E. The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Aussedat, Mathilde Sütterlin. “Les chaînes exégètiques grecques sur le livre de Jérémie (chap. 1–4).” Ph.D. diss. Université Paris iv-Sorbonne, 2006. Auwers, Jean-Marie. “Les chaînes exégétiques comme modèle de lecture polysémique: L’exemple de l’Épitome sur le Catique des Cantiques.” rtl 40 (2009): 213–235. Barbára, Maria Antonietta. “Note sulla tecnica redazionale dei commenti scoliastici di Esichio di Gerusalemme.” Pages 383–413 in A Book of Psalms from EleventhCentury Byzantium: The Complex of Text and Images in Vat. Gr. 752. Edited by Barbara Crostini and Glenn Peers. StT 504. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2016. Beck, Hans-Georg. “Bildung und Theologie in frühmittelalterlichen Byzanz.” Pages 69– 81 (ch. iii) in Ideen und Realitaeten in Byzanz: Gesammelte Aufsaetze. London: Variorum, 1972.

bibliography

361

Berger, Albrecht. “Procopius of Gaza.” dnp. Accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574​ ‑9347_bnp_e1009870. Bienert, Wolfgang A. Dionysius von Alexandrien. Zur Frage des Origenismus im dritten Jahrhundert. pts 21. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978. Blomqvist, Vemund. Euthalian Traditions: Text, Translation and Commentary. tu 170. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. Bitton-Ashkelony, Brouria and Aryeh Kofsky. The Monastic School of Gaza. vc Supplements 78. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Browning, Robert. “The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century.” Byzantion 32 (1962): 167–202; 33 (1963): 11–40. Carriker, Andrew. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. vc Supplements 67. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Cadiou, René. “La bibliothèque de Césarée et la formation des chaînes.” RevScRel 16 (1936): 474–483. Ceulemans, Reinhart. “The Transmission, Sources and Reception of Procopius’ Exegesis of Genesis: Observations in the Wake of the New Edition.” vc 71 (2017): 205–224. Chadwick, Henry. “Florilegium.” rac 7 (1969): 1131–1143. Chitty, Derwas. The Desert a City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967. Clark, Michael Allen. “The Catena of Nicetas of Heraclea and its Johannine Text.” Ph.D. diss., University of Birmingham, 2016. Constas, Maximos. “Introduction.” Pages 3–60 in On Difficulties in Sacred Scripture: the Responses to Thalassios. Translated by Maximos Constas. fc 136. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018. cpg = Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Edited by Maurice Geerard. Turnhout: Brepols, 1974– 2018. Online updates: https://clavis.brepols.net/clacla/Default.aspx. Crawford, Matthew R. “Theodore of Heraclea.” In Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online. Edited by D.G. Hunter, P.J.J. van Geest, and B.J.L. Peerbolte. 2018. http://dx.doi​ .org/10.1163/2589‑7993_EECO_SIM_00003394. Crawford, Sidnie White. “Catena (i: Judaism).” ebr 4 (2012): 1060–1061. Cribiore, Raffaella. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Curti, Carmelo and Maria Antonietta Barbàra. “Greek Exegetical Catenae.” Pages 605– 654 in Patrology: The Eastern Fathers from the Council of Chalcedon (451) to John of Damascus (750). Edited by A. Di Berardino. Cambridge: James Clark, 2006. Davids, Peter H. The Epistle of James. nigtc. Grand Rapids, MI, 1982. de Wet, Chris L. “Rahab the Harlot in Severian of Gabala’s De paenitentia et compunction (de Rahab historia): Paradox, anti-Judaism and the Early Christian Invention of the Penitent Prostitute.” hts Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 76 (3) (2020). https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i3.6309.

362

bibliography

Devreesse, Robert. Chaines exégètiques grecs. DBSup. Paris: Letouzey et Ané. 1928. Devreesse, Robert. Les anciens commentateurs grecs de l’Octateuque et des Rois (Fragments tires des chaînes). StT 201. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1959. Devreesse, Robert. Les anciens commentateurs grecs de Psaumes. StT 264. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1970. Dibelius, Martin and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Dickey, Eleanor. Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Diekamp, Franz. “Mittheilungen über den neuaufgefundenen Commentar des Oekumenius zur Apokalypse.” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Berlin (Phil.-hist. Klasse) 43 (1901): 1046–1056. Dobschütz, Ernst von. “Ein Beitrag zur Euthaliusfrage.” Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 10/2 (1893): 49–70. Dorival, Gilles. “Des commentaires de l’Ecriture aux chaînes.” Pages 361–383 in Le monde grec ancien et la Bible. Edited by C. Mondésert. Bible de tous les temps. Paris: Beauchesne, 1984. Dorival, Gilles. “Nouveaux fragments grecs de Sévère d’Antioche.” Pages 101–121 in αντιδωρον Hulde aan Dr. Maurits Geerard bij de voltooiing van de Clavis Patrum Graecorum Vol. i. Edited by J. Noret. Wetteren, Belgium: Cultura, 1984. Dorival, Gilles. Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes: contribution a l’étude d’une forme littéraire. 5 vols. ssl 43–46, 54. Leuven: Peeters, 1986–2018. Dorival, Gilles. “Biblical Catenae: Between Philology and History.” Pages 65–81 in Houghton, ed., Commentaries, Catenae. Dorival, Gilles. The Septuagint from Alexandria to Constantinople: Canon, New Testament, Church Fathers, Catenae. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. Downey, Glanville. “Christian Schools of Palestine: A Chapter in Literary History.” Harvard Library Bulletin 12 (1958): 297–319. Dubischar, Markus. “Typology of Philological Writings.” Pages 545–599 in Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship. Edited by Franco Montanari, Stephanos Matthaios, and Antonios Rengakos. 2 vols. Brill’s Companions in Classical Studies. Leiden: Brill, 2015. DzH = Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals). Edited by H. Denzinger and P. Hünermann. 43rd ed. et: San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012; orig. pub. 2010. Évieux, Pierre. Isidore de Péluse. ThH 99. Paris: Beauchesne, 1995. Faulhaber, Michael. “Babylonische Verwirrung in griechischen Namensigeln.” OrChr 7 (1907): 370–387.

bibliography

363

Faulhaber, Michael. “Die Katenenhandschriften der spanischen Bibliotheken.” bz 1 (1903): 151–159, 246–255, 351–371. Faulhaber, Michael. Hohelied, Proverbien and Prediger Catenen. Vienna: Mayer, 1902. Faulhaber, Michael. Die Propheten-Catenen nach römischen Handschriften. BibS(F) Freiburg: Herder, 1899. Feltoe, Charles, ed. The Letters and Other Remains of Dionysius of Alexandria. Cambridge Patristic Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904. Frankemölle, Hubert. “Das sementische Netz des Jakobusbriefes: Zur Einheit eines umstrittenen Brief.” bz 34 (1990): 161–197. Froelich, Karlfried. “Bibelkommentare—Zur Krise einer Gattung.” ztk 84 (1987): 465– 492. Fürst, Alfons. “Origen: Exegesis and Philosophy in Early Christian Alexandria.” Pages 13– 32 in Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad. Edited by Josef Lössl and John W. Watt. Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate, 2011. Gallagher, E.L. “Origen via Rufinus on the New Testament Canon.” nts 62 (2016): 461– 476. Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995. Greatrex, Geoffrey. “A Rediscovered Greek Fragment of Severus of Antioch.”Parekbolai: An Electronic Journal for Byzantine Literature (2011): 1–6. https://ejournals.lib.auth​ .gr/parekbolai. Greco, Claudia. “Late Antique Portraits: Reading Choricius of Gaza’s Encomiastic Orations (i–viii F.-R.)” Wiener Studien 124 (2011): 95–116. Grillmeier, Aloys. Christ in Christian Tradition 2/2. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Guéraud, Octave and Pierre Nautin. Origéne. Sur la Pâque: traité inédit publié d’après un papyrus de Toura. Paris: Beauchesne, 1979. Hadot, Ilsetraut. “Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike.” Pages 183–199 in Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter Volume 1. Edited by W. Geerlings and C. Schultze. Clavis Commentariorum Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi 2. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Hagedorn, Ursula and Dieter. Die Älteren griechischen Katenen zum Buch Hiob. pts 40. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. Haidacher, Sebastian. “Chrysostomus-Fragmente zu den katholischen Briefen.” zkt 26 (1902): 190–194. Hall, Linda Jones. Roman Berytus: Beirut in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge, 2004. Harl, Marguerite, with Gilles Dorival. La chaîne palestinienne sur le Psaume 118. sc 189– 190. 2 vols. Paris: Cerf, 1972. Helmholm, David and Vemund Blomqvist. “Parainesis as an Ancient Genre-Designa-

364

bibliography

tion: The Case of the ‘Euthalian Apparatus’ and the ‘Affliated Argumenta.’” Pages 299–344 in Blomqvist, Euthalian Traditions. Heine, Ronald. “The Introduction to Origen’s Commentary on John Compared with the Introduction to the Ancient Philosophical Commentaries on Aristotle.” Pages 3–12 in Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible. Edited by Gilles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec. betl 118. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, 1995. Hillis, Gregory K. “Introduction.” Pages 1:1–36 in St. Cyril of Alexandria. Glaphyra on the Pentateuch. Translated by Nicholas P. Lunn. 2 vols. fc. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 2018–2019. Hirshman, Marc. “The Greek Fathers and the Aggada on Ecclesiastes: Formats of Exegesis in Late Antiquity.” huca 59 (1988): 127–165. Houghton, H.A.G., ed. Commentaries, Catenae and Biblical Tradition: Papers from the Ninth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Texts and Studies 3rd ser. 13. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2016. Houghton, H.A.G. “The Layout and Structure of the Catena.” Pages 59–95 in Houghton and Parker, eds., Codex Zacynthius: Catena. Houghton, H.A.G., Panagiotis Manafis, and A.C. Myshrall, eds. The Palimpsest Catena of Codex Zacynthius: Text and Translation. Texts and Studies 3/22. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2020. Houghton H.A.G. and D.C. Parker. “An Introduction to Greek New Testament Commentaries with a Preliminary Checklist of New Testament Catena Manuscripts.” Pages 1– 35 in Houghton, ed., Commentaries, Catenae. Houghton, H.A.G. and D.C. Parker, eds. Codex Zacynthius: Catena, Palimpsest, Lectionary. Texts and Studies 3/21. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2020. irht = Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes. Pinakes / Πίνακες: Texts et manscrits grecs. https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr. intf = Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung. Kurzgefaste Liste of nt manuscripts: http://ntvmr.uni‑muenster.de/liste. Jackson-McCabe, Matt A. Logos and Law in the Letter of James: The Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, and the Law of Freedom. NovTSup 100. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. ab 37A. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Junod, Éric. “Que savons-nous de ‘scholies’ (σχόλια-σημείωσεις) d’Origène?” Pages 133– 149 in Origeniana Sexta. Edited by Gilles Dorival and Alain le Boulluec. betl 118; Leuven University Press, 1995. Karo, Georg and Hans Lietzmann. Catenarum Graecarum Catalogus. nkgwg. ph. Gōttingen: Lüder Horstmann, 1902. Kazhdan, Alexander, P, ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. 3 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Kelly, J.N.D. Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom: Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995.

bibliography

365

Kirchmeyer, Jean. “Hésychius de Jérusalem.” Dict. Sp. 7 (1969): 399–408. Klostermann, Erich. Über des Didymus von Alexandrien in Epistolas Canonicas Enarratio. tu n.f. 13 /2. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905. Pages 1–8. Lampe, G.W.H., ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Lamb, William. “The Theological Significance of the Catena.” Pages 121–135 in Houghton and Parker, eds., Codex Zacynthius: Catena. Lamb, William. “Conservation and Conversation: New Testament Catenae in Byzantium.” Pages 277–299 in The New Testament in Byzantium. Edited by Robert S. Nelson and Derek Krueger. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2016. Layton, Richard A. Didymus the Blind and His Circle in Late-Antique Alexandria: Virtue and Narrative in Biblical Scholarship. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2004. Leanza, Sandro. “L’esegesi biblica cristiana antica: scolii e catene.” Pages 209–227 in Esegesi, parafrasi e compilazione in età tardoantica: Atti del Terzo Convegno dell’Associazione di Studi Tardoantichi. Edited by Claudio Moreschini. Collectanea. Naples: D’Auria, 1995. Lietzmann, Hans. Catenen: Teilungen über ihre Geschichte und handschriftlich Überlieferung. Freiburg i. B.: Mohr-Siebeck, 1897. Luppe, Wolfgang. “Scholia, hypomnemata, and hypotheseis zu griechischen Dramen auf Papyri.” Pages 55–77 in Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalte Volume 1. Clavis Commentariorum Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi 2. Edited by W. Geerlings and C. Schultze. Leiden: Brill, 2002. MacLachlan, R.F. “The Context of Commentary: Non-Biblical Commentary in the Early Christian Period.” Pages 37–64 in Houghton, ed., Commentaries, Catenae. Magistris, Simone de, ed. S. Dionysii Alexandrini Episcopi. Rome, 1796. Mai, Angelo, ed. Nova Patrum Bibliotheca. 10 vols. Vols 9–10 edited by G. Cozza-Luzi. Rome: Sacri Consilii Propagando Christano Nomini, 1844–1905. Mai, Angelo. Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum. Tomus x. Rome: Collegium Urbanum, 1838. Maloney, Robert P. “The Teaching of the Fathers on Usury: An Historical Study on the Development of Christian Thinking.” vc 27 (1973): 241–265. Manafis, Panagiotis. “Catenae on Luke and the Catena of Codex Zacynthius.” Pages 137– 168 in Houghton and Parker, eds., Codex Zacynthius: Catena. Manafis, Panagiotis. “The Sources of Codex Zacynthius and their Treatment.” Pages 97– 120 in Houghton and Parker, eds., Codex Zacynthius: Catena. Markschies, Christoph. Christian Theology and its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire: Prolegomena to a History of Early Christian Theology. Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015. Marrou, Henri-Irénée. A History of Education in Antiquity. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956.

366

bibliography

Martin, Ch. “Une homélie De Poenitenicia de Sévèrien de Gabala.” rhe 26 (1930): 331– 343. Mayer, Wendy. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom—Provenance: Reshaping the Foundations. OrChrAn 273. Rome: Pontifical Oriental Institute, 2005. McKnight, Scot. Letter of James. nicnt. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011. McNamee, Kathleen. “Another Chapter in the History of Scholia.” cq 48 (1988): 269– 288. Mercati, Giovanni. Nuove note di letteratura biblica e christiana antica. Studi e Testi 95. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1941. Mercati, S.G. “Un testament inédit en faveur de Saint-Georges des Manganes.”Revue des études byzantines 6 (1948): 36–47. Metzger, Bruce M. and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Metzler, Karin. “Introduction.” Pages ix–lxxxviii in Prokop von Gaza: Eclogarum in libros historicos Veteris Testamenti epitome. Teil 1: Der Genesiskommentar. Edited by K. Metzler. gcs n.f. 22. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. Metzler, Karin. “Introduction.” Pages xv–lvi in Prokop von Gaza: Der Genesiskommentar. Aus der “Eclogarum in libros historicos Veteris Testamenti epitome.” Translated by Karin Metzler. gcs n.f. 23. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Metzler, Karin. “Introduction.” Pages xiii–clxiv in Prokop von Gaza: Eclogarum in libros historicos Veteris Testamenti epitome. Teil 2: Der Exoduskommentar. Edited by K. Metzler. gcs n.f. 27. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020. Meyendorff, Paul. The Anointing of the Sick. The Orthodox Liturgy Series 1. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 2009. Mitchell, Margaret M. The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Mitchell, Margaret M. John Chrysostom on Paul: Praises and Problem Passages. wgrw 48. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2022. Montana, Fausto. “The Making of Greek Scholiastic Corpora.” Pages 105–189 in From Scholars to Scholia: Chapters in the History of Ancient Greek Scholarship. Edited by Franco Montanari and Lara Pagini. Trends in Classics—Supplementary Volumes 9. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Morgan, Teresa. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Moss, Yonatan. Incorruptible Bodies: Christology, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity. Christianity in Late Antiquity. Oakland: University of California Press, 2016. Moss, Yonatan. “Saving Severus: How Severus of Antioch’s Writings Survived in Greek.” grbs 56 (2016): 785–808. Mühlenberg, Ekkehard. “Florilegien (i).” tre 11 (1983): 215–218. Mühlenberg, Ekkehard, “Katenen.” tre 18 (1989): 14–21.

bibliography

367

Mühlenberg, Ekkehard. “Catena (ii: Christianity).” ebr 4 (2012): 1061–1064. Mühlenberg, Ekkehard. Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung. 3 vols. pts 15, 16, 19. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975–1978. Nienhuis, David R. Not by Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. Neyrey, Jerome. “Limited Good.” Pages 122–124 in Handbook of Biblical Social Values. Edited by John J. Pilch and Bruce J. Malina. Updated ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. Panella, Theodora. “Resurrection Appearances in the Pauline Catenae.” Pages 117–139 in Houghton, ed. Commentaries, Catenae. Panella, Theodora. “The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Galatians.” Ph.D. diss. University of Birmingham, 2017. Parker, D.C. “The Undertext Writing.” Pages 19–31 in Houghton and Parker, eds., Codex Zacynthius: Catena. Parker, David and J. Neville Birdsall. “The Date of Codex Zacynthius (Ξ): A New Proposal.” jts 55 (2004): 117–131. Parpulov, Georgi. Catena Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament: A Catalogue. Texts and Studies, Third Series, vol. 25. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2021. Updated online version at https://itsee‑wce.birmingham.ac.uk/catenacatalogue. Perrone, Lorenzo. “Questions and Responses.” Pages 219–232 in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Scriptural Interpretation. Edited by Paul M. Blowers and Peter W. Martens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Petit, Françoise, “Introduction.” Pages xiii—xxxvii in La Chaîne sur la Genèse: édition intégrale i: Chapitres 1 à 3. Edited by F. Petit. Traditio Exegetica Graeca 1. Louvain: Peeters, 1991. Petit, Françoise. “La chaîne grecque sur la Genèse, miroir de l’exégèse ancienne.” Pages 243–253 in Stimuli, Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum, fs Ernst Dassmann. Edited by G. Schöllgen and C. Scholten. jac Suppl. 23. Münster: Aschendorff, 1996. Petit, Françoise. Philo: Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum, fragmenta graeca. Edited by F. Petit. Les Oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 33. Paris: Cerf, 1978. Petit, Françoise. “Introduction.” Pages xi–xxvii in La chaîne sur l’Exode i: Fragments de Sévère d’Antioch. Edited by Françoise Petit. Traditio Exegetica Graece 9. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Petit, Françoise. “Introduction.” Pages xi–xxxi in La chaîne sur l’Exode: Édition intégrale ii–iii, ed. F. Petit, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 10. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Poster, Carol. “Words as Works: Philosophical Protreptic and the Epistle of James.” Pages 235–253 in Rhetorics for a New Millenium. Edited by David Hester. New York: T&T Clark International, 2010. Rauer, Max. Der dem Petrus von Laodicea zugechriebene Lukaskommentar. NTAbh 8/2. Münster: Aschendorff, 1920.

368

bibliography

Reuss, Joseph. Lukas-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften. tu 130. Berlin: Akademie, 1984. Reuss, Joseph. Matthäus-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. tu 5, 6 (61). Berlin: Akademie, 1957. Reuss, Joseph. Matthäus, Markus und Johannes Katenen nach den handschriftlichen Quellen untersucht. NTAbh 18,4/5. Münster: Aschendorf, 1941. Reynolds L.D. and N.G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Richard, Marcel. “Un scolie d’Origène indûment attribuée à Denys d’Alexandrie.” rhr 33 (1937): 44–46. Richard, Marcel. “Les premières chaînes sur le Psautier.” Pages 87–98 in Opera Minora iii. Turnhout: Brepols 1977. Romeny, Bas ter Haar. “Procopius of Gaza and his Library.” Pages 173–190 in From Rome to Constantinople: Studies in Honour of Averil Cameron. Edited by Hagit Amirav and Bas ter Haar Romeny. Late antique history and religion 1. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Roosen, Bram. “The Works of Nicetas Heracleensis.” Byzantion 69 (1999): 119–144. Ropes, James Hardy. “The Greek Catena to the Catholic Epistles.” htr 19 (1926): 383– 388. Schäublin, Christoph. Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Exegese. Theophaneia 23. Cologne: Peter Hansein, 1974. Scieri, Emanuele. “The Catena Manuscripts on Acts: A Revised Classification.” vc 76 [2022]: 281–305. Scherbenske, Eric. “Scholia.” Pages 187–196 in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Scriptural Interpretation. Edited by Paul M. Blowers and Peter W. Martens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Sickenberger, Joseph. Die Lukaskatene des Niketas von Herakleia, tu n.f. 7/4. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902. Sickenberger, Joseph. Titus von Bostra: Studien zu dessen Lukashomilien. tu n.f. 6/1. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901. Siker, Jeffrey S. “The Canonical Status of the Catholic Epistles in the Syriac New Testament.” jts n. s. 38 /2 (1987): 311–340. Simonetti, Manlio, ed. Matthew 1–13. accs nt Ia. Downer’s Grove: Intervarsity, 2001. Soden, Hermann von. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte. Volume i/1. 2 ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911. Staab, Karl. “Die griechischen Katenenkommentare zue den katholischen Briefen.” Bib 5 (1924): 296–353. Staab, Karl. Die Pauluskatenen nach den handschriftlichen Quellen untersucht. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1926. Suggit, J.N. trans. Andrew of Caesarea: Commentary on the Apocalypse. fc 112, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006.

bibliography

369

Turner, Eric G. Greek Papyri: An Introduction. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Vailhé, Siméon. “Saint André de Crète.” Échos d’Orient 5 (1902): 378–387. Vianès, Laurence. “Chaînes de Jean le Droungaire sur les grands prophètes ou chaînes pro-Sévèriennes?” Pages 405–426 in Receptions of the Bible in Byzantium: Texts, Manuscripts, and their Readers. Edited by Reinhart Ceulemans and Barbara Crostini. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 20. Uppsala: University of Uppsala, 2021. Vianès, Laurence. La chaîne monophysite sur Ėzéchiel 36–48. Présentation, texte critique, traduction française, commentaire. Ph.D. diss., l’École practique des hautes études, 1997. Abstract: Annuaires de l’École practique des hautes études 106 (1997–1998): 569– 571. https://doi.org/10.3406/ephe.1997.12821. Voicu, Sever J. “How many authors? Hesychius on the Psalms.” Pages 301–327 in A Book of Psalms from Eleventh-Century Byzantium: The Complex of Text and Images in Vat. Gr. 752. Edited by Barbara Crostini and Glenn Peers. StT 504. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2016. Volk, Otto. Die byzantinischen Klosterbibliotheken von Konstantinopel, Thessalonike und Kleinasien. Ph.D. diss. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, 1955. Watson, Duane F. “James 2 in Light of Greco-Roman Schemes of Argumentation.” nts 39 (1993): 94–121. Webb, Ruth. “Procopius of Gaza.” Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity. Edited by Oliver Nicholson. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Westberg, David. “Rhetorical Exegesis in Procopius of Gaza’s Commentary on Genesis.” Pages 95–108 in Studia Patristica 55 Vol. 3: Early Monasticism and Classical Paideia. Edited by Samuel Rubenson. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. Willard, Louis Charles. A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus. antf 41. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Williams, Rowan. “Origenes / Origenismus.” tre 25 (1995): 397–420. Wilson, Nigel G. “Libraries of the Byzantine World.” grbs 8 (1967): 53–80. Wilson, N.G. Scholars of Byzantium. Rev. ed. London: Duckworth, 1996. Wolf, J.C. Anecdota graeca sacra et profana. Hamburg: Felginer, 1722–1724. Wuellner, Wilhelm. “Der Jakobusbrief im Licht der Rhetorik und Textpragmatik.” Linguistica Biblica: Interdiziplinäre Zeitschrift für Theologie und Linguistik 43 (1978): 5–65. Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002; orig. pub. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Zawadzki, Konrad F. Der Kommentar Cyrills von Alexandrien zum 1. Korintherbrief. Traditio Exegetica Graeca 16. Leuven: Peeters, 2015. Zuntz, Günther. “Die Aristophanes-Scholien der Papyri,” Byzantion 13 (1938): 631–690; 14 (1939): 545–614, 704. Repr. Die Aristophanes-Scholien der Papyri. Berlin: Richard Seitz, 1975.

Index of Modern Authors References in bold type indicate a more detailed treatment. Aland, Barbara 41n184, 97n376 Aland, Kurt 41n184, 97n376 Albl, Martin C. 303n240 Aldama, J.A. 324n269 Allen, Pauline 69, 81n308, 92n355, 93n358, 243n146 Allison, Dale C. 200n29, 208n47, 225n101, 227nn107–108, 228n112, 230n119, 235n126, 258n172, 260n176, 265n182, 290n223, 311n254 Amato, Eugenio 15n64 Ashkenazi, Yakov 96n366, 98 Aune, David E. 104n402, 198n19 Aussedat, Mathilde 20, 21n98, 82n311, 82n314, 85 Auwers, Jean-Marie 33n156 Barbára, Maria A. 2n1, 5n11, 8n27, 13n52, 18n75, 19n82, 19n84, 20n87, 20n90, 24n110, 73, 91n354 Beck, Hans-Georg 97 Bienert, Wolfgang 215n68, 278n200 Birdsall, Neville 25n115 Bitton-Ashkelony, Brouria 98n377 Blomqvist, Vemund 37, 38n178, 107, 112, 194, 195n10, 197 Bray, Gerald 46 Browning, Robert 22n101, 31nn147–148 Cadiou, René 19n83, 31 Carriker, Andrew 30n142 Cattaneo, Gianmario 280n205 Chadwick, Henry 10n38, 11nn42–43 Ceulemans, Reinhart 16n68 Chitty, Derwas 98 Clark, Michael Allen 6n17, 22nn100–101, 69n275 Constas, Maximos 91n352, 205n41 Conzelmann, Hans 230n120 Cramer, J.A. 7, 27, 43–45, 50, 57, 69, 76, 89n347, 117, 212, 258, 278 Crawford, Matthew 89n345 Crawford, Sidnie White 2n2, 8n28 Cribiore, Raffaella 9nn32–33, 10n35

Curti, Carmelo 2n1, 5n11, 8n27, 13n52, 18n75, 19n82, 19n84, 20n87, 20n90, 73, 91n354 Davids, Peter H. 298n234 de Wet, Chris L. 257n170 Devreesse, Robert 2n1, 4, 4n8, 5n11, 7n26, 14n58, 15n62, 19n84, 28n125, 33n156, 41n181, 42–43, 47, 58n232, 60n239, 62n249, 64n258, 74n283, 75n287, 75n289, 76n292, 81n306, 82n311, 82n313, 83, 84n323, 89, 214n68 Dibelius, Martin 230n120 Dickey, Eleanor 7n23, 11n45, 12nn47–49, 13nn54–55, 14n57 Diekamp, Franz 29n132 Dobschütz, Ernst von 195 Dorival, Gilles 2n1, 2n3, 6nn16–17, 15n62, 17, 19–25, 29n136, 30n137, 31, 33n156, 35, 69, 79n299, 80, 83n321, 85, 86n336, 88n342, 92–96, 99n387, 101, 216n77 Downey, Glanville 15n63, 97 Dubischar, Markus 12nn47–49, 194n2 Ehrman, Bart D. 32n154 Ėvieux, Pierre 76n291 Faulhaber, Michael 8n27, 18n75, 19, 35n161, 41n181 Feltoe, Charles 213 Frankemölle, Hubert 199n23 Froehlich, Karlfried 10n36 Fürst, Alfons 12n50 Gamble, Harry 30, 31n146, 31n149 Greatrex, Geoffrey 253 Greco, Claudia 96, 98n383 Grillmeier Aloys 86nn333–334, 92n356, 251n156 Guéraud, Octave 30n139 Hadot, Ilsetraut 11n46 Haidacher, Sebastian 69 Hall, Linda Jones 97n371 Hardy, E.R. 63n251

371

index of modern authors Harl, Marguerite 19n80, 26n120, 35n164 Hayward, C.T.R. 92n355, 93n358 Heine, Ronald E. 12n50 Hellholm, David 107 Hill, Robert C. 280n206 Hillis, Gregory K. 256n167 Hirshman, Marc 8 Houghton, H.A.G. 3n5, 4nn7, 9–10, 5nn12– 13, 23n103, 26n121, 29n130, 34n160, 59n235, 81n305, 83n318 Jackson-McCabe, Matt 196n14, 239n133 Johnson, Luke Timothy 78n297, 104n403, 208n47 Junod, Ėric 23n105 Kalogeras, Nikephoros 38n176, 44 Karo, Georg 26, 41n181, 57, 76, 100n388 Kelly, J.N.D. 69n272, 80n301, 246n150 Kirchmeyer, Jean 74n283, 75nn287– 288 Klostermann, Erich 64 Kofsky, Aryeh 98n377 Kramer, Bärbel 64n257 Labate, Antonio 278 Lamb, William 3, 10, 25–26, 34n158, 36, 41n181, 63, 82n311, 86–87 Layton, Richard A. 63n256 Leanza, Sandro 23n106, 24 Lietzmann, Hans 26, 41n181, 57, 68, 76, 100n388, 209 Luppe, Wolfgang 7n25 MacLachlan, R.F. 14n58 Mai, Angelo 278 Maloney, Robert P. 299n235 Manafis, Panagiotis 27–28, 35, 59n234, 76n292, 83n318 Markschies, Christoph 31n146 Martin, Ch. 257n170 Matthaei, C.F. 44, 47, 56 Marrou, Henri-Irénée 9n32, 10nn34–35, 10n39 Mayer, Wendy 69 McNamee, Kathleen 14 Metzger, Bruce M. 32n154 Metzler, Karin 3n4, 15n64, 16n68, 17n70, 18, 30n140, 31n146, 32n149, 99–100, 101n394

Meyendorff, Paul 307n250 Mitchell, Margaret M. 13n53, 199n25, 243n145, 310n252 Montana, Fausto 7n24, 13–15 Morgan, Teresa 10n39 Moss, Yonatan 79n299, 81n307, 82–83, 251n156 Mühlenberg, Ekkehard 2n1, 11n43, 15n62, 19n80 Nautin, Pierre 30, 280n206 Neyrey, Jerome 238n130 Nienhuis, David R. 78n297 Noret, Jacques 94n361 Panella, Theodora 20n92, 29n130 Parker, D.C. 3n5, 4nn7, 9–10, 20n89, 25, 26n121, 29n130 Parpulov, Georgi 4n7, 26n120, 41n181, 46n207, 47, 54n224, 55n226 Perrone, Lorenzo 13nn52–53 Petit, Françoise 13n52, 18, 30n139, 33, 36, 82, 83n320, 88n341 Poster, Carol 104n403 Pusey, Philip 62, 255n166 Rauer, Max 27n122, 28, 59n235 Renoux, Charles 45n203, 46, 89n346, 200n30, 260, 286 Reuss, Joseph 20, 27, 69n275 Reynolds, L.D. 13n55, 14n58, 15n61 Richard, Marcel 19n80, 84, 89n344, 215n68, 216n77 Romeny, Baas ter Haar 3n4, 16nn65–66, 18, 31, 71n278, 99–100 Ropes, James Hardy 64n258 Schäublin, Christoph 12n51, 109n421, 110n424, 111n426, 194n3, 200n32, 224n99, 248n152 Scherbenske, Eric 14n57, 24, 31n142 Scieri, Emanuele 43n193 Sickenberger, Joseph 20, 21n97, 28n123, 86n336 Siker, Jeffrey 201n36 Simonetti, Manlio 252n159 Soden, Hermann von 34n160, 37–38, 40, 41n180, 49, 95, 194n4 Staab, Karl 5nn13–14, 20, 29, 41n181, 42– 51, 54–69, 74, 76, 77nn294–295,

372 Staab, Karl (cont.) 79n298, 80, 87, 88n340, 89, 90n349, 91n354, 93, 94n362, 95 109, 208n46, 212n58, 214, 215n73, 218, 224n100, 226nn103–104, 228nn110–111, 229nn113–116, 285, 295 Suggit, J.N. 29n132 Turner, Eric 7n23, 11n46, 12n47 Tzamaliko, Panayiotes 288n220, 315, 317 Vailhé, Siméon 94n361 Van Rompay, Lucas 84n329 Vianès, Laurence 21n98, 82, 83n319, 84, 92 Voicu, Sever J. 75n287 Volk, Otto 32

index of modern authors Watson, Duane F. 107n419 Webb, Ruth 16n65 Westberg, David 99–100 Willard, Louis Charles 36n170, 37 Williams, Rowan 214n68 Wilson, N.G. 13n55, 14n58, 15n61, 15n63, 32 Wolf, J.C. 74n282, 218 Wuellner, Wilhelm 199n23 Young, Frances M. 10n36, 109, 223n96, 242n142, 247n152, 268n187 Zawadzki, Konrad 43n196 Zoepfl, Friedrich 64 Zuntz, Günther 7n25, 8, 14–15, 17, 23n107, 24, 32, 33n154

Index of Scriptural References (in Christian Canonical Order) Old Testament Gen 1:26 2:18 15:5 17:9 22:1

231 223 149 149 215

Exod 3:14 12:23 15:25–26 17:3

221 231 214 250

Lev 19:18 25:35–36

139 299

Num 14:27

60:8 64:12 67:14 93:12a 104:19 118:71 118:133 118:153 140:3

74 110, 155, 265 143 202 240 202 298 77, 175, 296 153

Prov 3:11a 3:34 14:31 27:1

202 290 137, 238 58, 74, 179, 300

Eccl 4:4

278

250 Isa

Deut 23:19–20

299

Josh 2

258

3Kgdms (1Kgs) 16:1 17:1

189 58, 323, 325

Job 1:21

183, 185

Psalms 17:5 25:2 31:1–2 33:14 36:23 38:2 39:3 50:7

218 215 256 156n4, 157, 269–270 298 153 298 216–218

10 10:14 43:10 43:26 63:9 65:16 66:24

294 173 221 175 173 185 246

3:6 7:16 15:19

250 189, 323 193, 328

Jer

Lam 3:27

202

Hos 6:6 9:1

135, 232, 234, 247 250

Mal 3:6

221

374

index of scriptural references (in christian canonical order)

New Testament Matt 4:8 5:3–12 5:21–5:22b 5:21–32 5:22 5:27–28 5:30 5:34–37 5:37 5:45 5:48 6:9 6:13a 6:13b 6:15 6:24 7:7 7:12 7:13–14 7:14 7:21 9:13 10:20 10:34–36 11:20–24 12:37 12:38–39 12:41–42 13:1–9 13:18–23 15:1–20 18:8–9a 19:6 22:13 22:40 25:31–46 25:41

252 314 139 314 242 139 287 77, 311 314 167 247 135 121, 215 123 161 167, 287 165 139, 240 169 121, 179 248 135, 232, 234, 247 193, 329 167 275 157, 269 301 301 191, 326 326 263 167, 287 253 263 241 246 263

Mark 7:4 9:43–48 10:9 16:15

276 246 253 224

Luke 6:31

240

6:36 6:37 11:1–4 11:4c 11:9 11:10 12:49–53 14:31–32 16:13 16:24 18:9–14 22:42 22:46

135, 143, 247 298 283 123, 215 77, 165, 280, 283 165 167 300 167 263 278–279 213n64 213

John 1:10 3:3–8 3:35–36 10:10 14:15 14:27 16:20ab 16:33 17:3

155 230 248 173, 294 157, 269 167 202 121 145, 248

Acts 8:1 15 15:1 15:13–29

199 111, 259, 276 259 195

Rom 2:1 4 4:5 4:6–8 5:3–4 5:3b–5a 8:15 8:19–23 9:16 9:22–24 12:1 12:2 12:4–5 12:16 14

177 256 253 256 121, 167–171, 204 203–204 224 226 68, 179 299 256 106, 129, 221 234–235 235 276

index of scriptural references (in christian canonical order) 1Cor 2:9 2:12 3:3 4:3–5 5:1–2 5:5 9:26 10:10 10:12 13:4–8

211–212 277 163, 277 295–296 295 231 169 230 232 253

2Cor 4:8 11:16–12:10

169 167

Gal 1:19 2 2:9 3:9 4:5 5:6 5:14

195 276 195, 199 253 224 149, 253 241

Eph 1:1 3:16–17 4:29 5:4

199 173, 293–294 153, 261 261

Phil 2:15 4:12

220 169

Col 1:11b 1:12 1:15 1:23 2:12 2:16 4:6

307 68, 309–310 223 224 277 277 153, 261

1Thess 5:21

34n158

2Thess 1:10

308–309

2:5 3:6–12 3:13 3:15 3:14–15

326 237 67, 237n128 137, 236 236

Phlm 9

199

1Tim 2:1–4 4:1–5 4:3–4 4:4

273 303–304 181 224

2Tim 1:10 2:26 3:1 3:5 4:8

173, 294 233–234 251 251 210

Titus 3:5

230

Heb 4:11 4:11–13 6:2 6:8 6:16 8:13 9:10 10:1 10:30–31 11:19 12:23 12:25–29

106, 145 249–250 277 243 319 141, 242 277 243 238–239 149 226 245

1Pet 1:1 1:3 1:4 1:6 1:23 2:2 4:12 5:4

195 199 230 77n295 205 230 256 212 210

375

376

index of scriptural references (in christian canonical order)

2Peter 2:5 3:9 3:15–16

74 305 112n427

1John 3:18

143

2John 1:7

194–195 195

Jude 6

43, 46, 121, 194, 200 74

Deuterocanonical Books Jdt

Sir 16:17

Wis 2:24 18:25

246

173, 293–294 231

2:1 7:17 28:18–20

121 246 58, 154n5, 155, 264, 323

Index of Ancient Jewish References 4Q175 (4QTestimonia) 8

Palestinian Talmud

8–9

4Q177 (4QCatenaa)

2n2, 8

58n232

Babylonian Talmud

9n29

lae 12–15

293

Philo of Alexandria Leg. 1.22 2.10 3.81 qg qe

Midrash Qohelet

9

248 223 262 13n52, 58n232 13n52

Index of Ancient Christian References 1 Clem. 19.2 23.2 53.1

209 209 290

2 Clem. 11.5

209

Abba Isaiah

98

Acts Phil. 130

231

Aeneas of Gaza

98

to Jas 5:3 to Jas 5:7 to Jas 5:12 to Jas 5:20

Ammonius of Alexandria 58 Amphilocius of Iconium Seleuc. 310–315 201 Ps.-Andrew of Crete Laud. 4

to Jas 3:5 to Jas 3:8 to Jas 3:13 to Jas 4:4 to Jas 4:5

Apollinarius of Laodicea 19, 21, 33, 34n158, 35– 36, 42, 48, 57, 59–60, 139, 239 Arnobius

34n158

Asterius

19

Athanasius

11, 19, 35, 58, 60, 63, 75n285, 78, 87, 223n96, 247n152, 252

94–95 199

Anonymous Commentary on James (ac) 29, 44, 46–55, 91– 93 to Jas 1:2 203 to Jas 1:5 206–207 to Jas 1:6 207 to Jas 1:12 209 to Jas 1:13 52–53, 212 to Jas 1:14–15 53–54, 215, 217 to Jas 1:17 219–220 to Jas 1:17c 221 to Jas 1:18 222, 224–225, 226 to Jas 1:21 227, 228 to Jas 1:22 229 to Jas 1:23 49–50, 229, 230 to Jas 1:26 231–232 to Jas 2:9 239 to Jas 2:10 240–241, 242 to Jas 2:12 244 to Jas 2:21 252, 254–255 to Jas 3:1 259, 260–261

262, 265–267 270–271 274–275, 276–277 284, 285 289–290, 291, 292– 293, 299 303 304–305 313–314, 315, 318, 319 328

Decr. 2.4 C. Ar. 3.61.3 Ps.-Athanasius Synops. Augustine Cons. 2.3.6 Div. quaest. lxxxiii 76.1–2 Ep. 140.62 167 Nat. Grat. 15 (16) Serm. 2.9 57.9 179A

209 225

195

223n95 254 225 241 271 254 215 241

379

index of ancient christian references Barn. 19.5 Basil of Caesarea

Hom. Ps. to Ps 33:14 Leg. lib. gent. Bede Ep. Cath. Pref. to Jas 1:1 to Jas 1:3 to Jas 1:6 to Jas 1:13 to Jas 1:15–16 to Jas 1:17 to Jas 1:18 to Jas 1:21 to Jas 1:25 to Jas 2:7 to Jas 2:10–12 to Jas 2:22–23 to Jas 3:1 to Jas 3:6 to Jas 3:8 to Jas 3:13 to Jas 5:5–6 to Jas 5:14 Cassian Coll. 9.23.1–2 Inst. 7.15.2 Cassiodorus Div. inst. 1.8.6

209 19, 32, 35, 57, 60–61, 78, 91n354, 97, 268, 299 157, 269–270 61n243

195n11 199 204 209 196, 213, 215 219 220 223, 225 228 230 239 241 253–254 259–260 263 271 274 302–303 307

Catena to Ecclesiastes Cat. Hav. Eccl. to Eccl 4:4 277–278 Catena to Exodus (see also Catena to the Octateuch) to Exod 15:25 214, 214n68 Catena to Ezechiel

34–35, 82n311

Catena to Galatians

6n15, 20

Catena to Isaiah

34–35, 81, 82n311, 95

Catena to James (Armenian trans.) 45–46, 56, 89, 156n4, 200, 213, 216, 219–220, 232, 237n128, 239, 261, 278, 280, 285, 286–287, 292, 300, 304 Catena to Jeremiah

20, 34

Catena to John

6, 20, 34

Catena to Luke

20–21, 27–28, 34, 36, 83 (see also Codex Zacynthius) 297–298 297n233 207 278–279

to Luke 6:37 to Luke 6:41 to Luke 18:1 to Luke 18:9–14

215n72 209

64

Catena to 2Thessalonians to 2Thess 1:10 308 Catena to Acts

6, 83

Catena to Daniel

34

Catena to the Major Prophets 21, 34–35, 82n311, 312 Catena to Mark Pref. to Mark 9:43

6n21 288

Catena to Matthew to Matt 5:33 to Matt 18:8–9

20, 34, 83, 89 317n260 288

Catena to the Octateuch 18, 82n311, 83, 213– 214

380 Catena to Psalms to 50:7 Catena to Romans to Rom 9:22–24 to Rom 12:4–5

index of ancient christian references 6n16, 19, 21, 80, 83– 85, 89n344 216

299 235

Catena to Song of Songs 18n75, 19 Catena to the Twelve Prophets 19 Choricius of Gaza Laud. Marc. 1–2 1.7 2.8–9 2.9 8 Or. fun. Marc.

15–16, 96, 98, 100 98 96 96 16n67, 100n393 96 98

Chrysostom: see John Chrysostom Clement of Alexandria Paed. 1.12.98.2–3 231 Strom. 2.22.131.6 231 7.14.3 296 Ps.-Clem. Rec. 1:36 Codex Zacynthius

to Luke 6:36–38

315 5, 20, 25, 28, 33–34, 59, 81, 83n318, 86 (see also Catena to Luke) 297n233

Cosmas Indicopleustes Top. 7.68 201 Cyril of Alexandria

11, 19, 21, 26–27, 34– 36, 47, 57, 60, 61–63, 69, 75, 77–78, 80, 83, 86–88, 97, 102, 153,

177, 181, 261, 299, 304 Comm. Isa. to Isa 34:5–6 Comm. Jo. to John 1:2 to John 1:32–33 Comm. Luc. to Luke 6:37 to Luke 18:1–8 Comm. Matt. to Matt 5:33–35 to Matt 5:33–37 Comm. Rom. to Rom 4:2 Ep. 44.1 Exp. Ps. to Ps 8:6 to Ps 48:2 Glaph. Gen. 3 Hom. Pasch. 22.4 Thes. 20 Cyril of Jerusalem Procatech. 2

179, 302 224 242 177, 297–298 123, 207–208 318 317n260 149, 255–256 34 220n86 261 149, 256–257 261 242

254

Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem Myst. 5.17 215n72 Did. 4.4

209

Didymus of Alexandria 17, 19, 21, 30n140, 35, 47, 57, 63–64, 75, 104–105, 107, 173, 295 Comm. Job to Job 12:4 Enarrat. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:1 to Jas 1:2–4 to Jas 1:12 to Jas 4:2–3 to Jas 4:4

295 64–66, 77, 108 121, 199, 201 121, 203 125, 209–211 280, 281–283 284–285, 286, 287

Diodore of Tarsus

68, 109, 111, 194

381

index of ancient christian references Ps.-Dionysius Coel. hier. 1.1

220n88

Dionysius of Alexandria 66–67, 163, 213, 277– 278 Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione Verbum 11 Ephraem

58

Epiphanius

78

Eusebius of Caesarea

19, 21, 30n140, 31n142, 35, 42, 58

Dem. ev. 4.9 Eccl. Hist. 2.23.24–25 2.23.25 3.25.3 5.27.1 6.20–21 7.26.2 Comm. Ps. to Ps 56

to Jas 1:26 to Jas 2:10 to Jas 2:20–21 to Jas 3:8 to Jas 3:17 to Jas 4:5 to Jas 5:3 to Jas 5:7 to Jas 5:12 to 5:13 to Jas 5:16

233 240 252 270 276 289–290, 292, 294 303 305 313–314, 319 320 57, 320

Gregory of Nazianzus 11, 22, 32, 35, 58, 78 Or. 40.11 273 Gregory of Nyssa

19, 35

294 Hesychius of Jerusalem 121, 200 195n11 200n35 6n18, 194n1 31n146 213 200n35

Comm. brev. Ps. Comm. magn. Ps. on Ps 50:7 on Ps 104:19 Epit. proph. pref. Ps. tit.

19, 23–24, 57, 63n255, 74–75, 77–78, 85, 129, 141, 159, 175, 179, 244, 296, 301 75 74 129, 217–218 240

Eusebius of Emesa

35, 58

23–24 75

George Cedrenus Comp. hist.

223

Henoticon (Emperor Zeno) 26, 93

George Hamartolos Chronicon

223

Glosses Source (gs) to Jas 1:1 to Jas 1:5 to Jas 1:8 to Jas 1:9 to Jas 1:10 to Jas 1:13 to Jas 1:14 to Jas 1:17 to Jas 1:18 to Jas 1:19 to Jas 1:22 to Jas 1:24

55–57 200 56, 206 56 57 57 212 215 219 222, 224–225, 226 228 229 231

Ps.-Hilary of Arles Exp. vii Ep. to Jas 1:18 to Jas 1:23 to Jas 2:10

225 230 241

Ignatius of Antioch Rom. 2.2 6.2

296 284

Irenaeus Haer. 5.6.1 5.16.1–2

231 231

382 Isho’dad of Merv Comm. Cath. Ep. to Jas 3:6 Isidore of Pelusium Ep. 2.158 3.31 4.10 (1298)

index of ancient christian references

263n180 13, 35, 47, 76, 92, 108 155, 265–267 129, 222–224 155–157, 267–268

Jerome 30, 78 Ep. 62.2 34n158, 60 “Preface” to Origen Hom. Ezek. 23 Vir. ill. 2 195n11, 200n35 John of Caesarea (John the Grammarian) 86, 92 John Chrysostom

Compunct. Dem. 10 Hom. 1Cor 11.4 to 1Cor 4:3–5 Hom. 1Tim. 6 to 1Tim 2:1–4 12 to 1Tim 4:1–5 Hom. 2Thess. 3 on 2Thess 1:10 3 on 2Thess 2:5 5 to 2Thess 3:15 Hom. 2Tim. 6 to 2Tim 2:26 8 to 2Tim 3:5 Hom. Col. 2 to Col 1:9–10 2 to Col 1:12 Hom. Eph. 8 to Eph 4:1 Hom. Heb. 7 to Heb 4:11–13 10.4 to Heb 6:8 17 to Heb 10:1 20.7 to Heb 10:30–31

19–21, 27, 32–33, 47, 67–75, 77, 79–80, 85, 87–88, 91, 93–94, 97, 101–102, 106, 209 151, 258 175, 295–296 159–161, 272–273 181, 304 183, 308–309 191–193, 327 137, 236–238

20.8 to Heb 10:30–31 185, 310–311 32.7 to Heb 12:25–29 141–142, 245–247 Hom. Jo. 25 to John 3:5 250 26.1 to John 3:6 250 31 to John 3:35–36 145, 248–249 51.3 254 73.3 272 Hom. Matt. 27, 288n220 17 to Matt 5:33–34 185, 312–313 37.7 to Matt 11:7–9 161, 275 43.7 to Matt 21:38–39 179, 301 51.5 to Matt 15:1––20 155, 263–264 59.4 to Matt 18:8 167, 287 Hom. Phil. 16 (15).5 to Phil 4:22–23 121, 201–202 Hom. Rom. 17 (16) to Rom 9:22–24 179, 299–300 22 (21) to Rom 12:4–5 135, 234–235 23 (22) to Rom 12:16 135, 235–236 Laz. 4.4 127–129, 217–218 Petr. et El. 191, 324–325 Proph. obscurit. 2.8 159, 272 Sac. 3.6 307 John Damascene Parall. Γ 14

95n363 264

John Droungarios

21, 35n161

135, 233–234 147, 250–251

Julian of Halicarnassus

183, 307–308 183–185, 309–310

Justin Martyr 1 Apol. 4.3 Dialogue with Trypho 19.6 29.2 124.4

199 106, 145, 249–250 141, 243 243 137, 238–239

251–252

Lambronacʿi, Nersēs

248 315 242 6n18 45–46

383

index of ancient christian references Macarius Chrysocephalus 28 Marcion, Bishop of Gaza 96, 98 Maximus the Confessor 7, 13, 35, 42, 57, 90– 91, 93, 101–102, 108 Qu. Thal. 57 58.4 64.31 64:31–33

187–189, 320–323 121–123, 204–206 240 241–242

Methodius of Olympus 78 Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus H.E. 14.3 31n149 Nicetas of Heraclea Cat. Jo. Cat. Lc. Cat. Ps.

22, 27, 31, 35, 61, 64, 69, 76, 97–99 6n17, 69 86n336 99–100

Nilus of Ancyra

19

Novatus

34n158

Ps.-Oecumenius Comm. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:2 to Jas 1:21 to Jas 2:20–26

3, 4, 28–29

Origen

Cels. 1.46 3:9 4.30 Comm. Jo. 19.20 (139)

Comm. Luc. to Luke 11:9 Comm. Matt. to Matt 5:33–37 Comm. Rom. 2.12.4 4.5.11 4.8 (2) Fr. Exod. to Exod 15:25 Hom. Lev. 2.4.5 Princ. 3.2 3.6.1 Sel. Ps. to Ps 118:153

279–281 311–312, 315 316–317 253 231 195n11 214n68 306–307 214 231 296–297

Pelagius Exp. xii Ep. Pauli to Rom 3:28

254

Peter of Laodicea

21, 27–28

Philo of Carpasia

58n232

Polychronius

35

Procopius of Gaza

1, 2, 3n4, 6n15, 8– 9, 14, 15–17, 18–19, 20, 29–31, 32n149, 33n156, 71n278, 96, 98–100 17 17, 220n86

215n71 228 254

Cat. Eccl. Cat. Isa. Ecl. lib. hist. Vet. Test. ep.

8, 12, 17, 19n83, 21, 23–24, 27, 30–31, 34n158, 35, 47, 51, 57, 62, 67, 75, 76–78, 97, 105, 109, 125, 165, 212–214, 247n152, 283, 285, 288n220

Ep. Cant. Pan. Anast. 2, 10 Rufinus Hist. 11.7

63

254 254 231

Scottus Anon. Comm. Ep. Cath. to Jas 1:17 to Jas 1:18

220n87 225

285

16–17, 30, 99 17 16n66 78n297

384

index of ancient christian references

Severian of Gabala Poen. 7.5 (16)

57, 79–80, 173 149–150, 257

Severus of Antioch

8, 11, 27, 35, 42, 47, 53, 57, 62, 69, 79, 80–87, 92– 93, 97, 102, 106, 129, 151, 163–165, 220–221, 260, 278– 279 127, 216–217

Contr. add. Iul. Ep. Iul. 2 Hom cath. 46

147–149, 251–254

Qu. in Oct. Qu. in Reg. et Par. 45

13n52, 88 88 191, 325–326

Theodore of Mopsuestia 35, 57, 62, 75, 89–90, 109, 110n424, 111, 194, 224 Theophylact

28–29

139–141, 242–243

Theophilus of Antioch Autol. 1.4 222

Shepherd of Hermas Herm. Man. 9.1–3

87 91, 123–125, 208–209

Theophilus of Alexandria 85

Tertullian Marc. 2.18

34n158

Titus of Bostra

315

Zacharias Rhetor of Mytilene 97–98 Vit. Isa. 380n379 Vit. Sev. 48–49 97 52–54 97 64–65 97 90 98n379

Theodore of Heraclea 35, 89, 317 Theodore of Studios

32

Theodore the Monk

57, 88, 89–90, 311

Theodoret of Cyrrhus 13, 19–21, 31, 35, 48, 57, 69, 88–89, 91n354, 311

21, 27

Zigabenus, Euthymius 29, 32, 44

Index of Greco-Roman and Other Ancient References Alexander of Aphrodisias In metaph. 248 Aristotle Gen. corr. 320a Eth. nic. 1147b Metaph. 1021b 1035a Rhet. 1.2.4 (1356a) 1.3.3 (1358b) Cicero De inv. 20 22 Diogenes Laertius 7:101–103

284 262 211 284 198 104, 105, 204

198 198

Homer Il. 13.798 Ps.-Libanius Char. ep. 4 5 31 78

262

Plato Alc. i 109d Leg. 811a 937a

10n39 262

Proclus Alc. 312

295

Quintilian Inst. 4.1.1

198

96n370

Scholia to Dionysius Thrax Artem Grammaticam 9 288

Ps.-Dionysius of Halicarnassus Rhet. 2.1 320 Dionysius Thrax Ars Grammatica 7

Marcus Aurelius Med. 3.12

10n33 223

279

104, 197 105 104 104

Seneca Ep. 5.4

198 227

Sextus Empiricus Math. 1.91–96

10n35

Stobaeus, Joannes Anth. 2.11g

11 206n43

Valerius Maximus Factorum

10–11