CHAPTER III

CHRYSOSTOM AS CRITIC AND SCHOLAR

IF Chrysostom’s Canon of the Old Testament errs by excess, his Canon of the New, compared with that finally received by the Church, is marked by defect.

In the Synopsis a list of the Books is given. They are, the fourteen Epistles of St Paul, the four Gospels, the Book of the Acts, and of the Catholic Writings three Epistles. Thus the Second Epistle of St Peter, the two shorter Epistles of St John, that of St Jude and the Apocalypse are excluded. The Canon of Chrysostom coincides with that of the Peshito, and with that of Theodoret. Theodore appears also to have excluded for subjective reasons the Epistle of St James. The evidence of the Synopsis is generally confirmed by the range of the quotations in Chrysostom’s voluminous writings. I do not know that there are any indications of his acquaintance with the two shorter Epistles of St John or with that of St Jude. The case however is different with the Second Epistle of St Peter, and I venture to think that the evidence for Chrysostom’s knowledge of this Epistle has been understated. Cramer gives five fragments on this Epistle which bear Chrysostom’s name. They are examined in a note below.

Again, Chrysostom’s manner of reference to Prov. 26:11 shews that 2 Pet. 2:22 was in his mind. This appears if the passages and Chrysostom’s words are placed side by side.

Prov. 26:11. ὥσπερ κύων ὅταν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπὶ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἔμετον.

2 Pet. 2:22. κύων ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα.

Chrys. viii. 199. ἔοικε τῷ κυνὶ τῷ πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον ἔμετον ἐπανιόντι.

xi. 578 B. ὥσπερ κύων ἐστὶν ἐπὶ τὸν ἴδιον ἔμετον ἐπιστρέφων.

xii. 186 C. ἂν τοίνυν ἐπὶ τὸν πρότερον ἔμετον ὑποστρέψῃς.

I believe Chrysostom in each case to be quoting from the Old Testament; but it is obvious, I think, that the ἐπιστρέψας and the ἴδιον of the Epistle mould the form of the quotation in each case. To find the traces of both these words is very different from finding the traces of one.

The evidence as to Chrysostom’s acquaintance with the Apocalypse appears perhaps clearer.

Some words in the 1st Homily on St Matthew seem distinctly to refer to St John’s description of the Heavenly Jerusalem:—“We are about to enter into a city, if God permit, golden and more precious than all gold. Let us mark then its foundations, its gates made of sapphire and pearls. For indeed we have in Matthew a noble guide. It is through his gate that we enter now, and we must needs shew all diligence. For if he sees any not giving good heed, he casts him out of the city. For the city is a royal and glorious city, not like earthly cities with market-place and palace apart; but there the whole is a palace.”

Again, if we may trust Palladius’ report, Chrysostom used a phrase from the Apocalypse when leaving his flock at Constantinople. “Come,” he is represented as saying, “let us, when we have prayed, bid farewell to the angel of the Church (συνταξώμεθα τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐκκλησίας).” Other indications are less clear, but there can be little doubt that Chrysostom was acquainted with the Apocalypse.

Suidas expressly tells us that Chrysostom received the three Epistles of St John and the Apocalypse. This assertion together with the evidence already detailed may be thought to point to the conclusion that Chrysostom later in life used the disputed Books, and (if we accept the fragments on St Peter in Cramer’s Catena) commented on one of them, while at the same time they remained less familiar to him, and were thus outside the range of his common quotations.

Chrysostom’s position in regard to tradition needs but little discussion. He argues from the Apostolic precept, ‘Hold fast the traditions,’ that “the Apostles delivered many things without writing (ἀγράφως) … Therefore let us regard the tradition of the Church as worthy of credence. It is tradition, ask no more.” Another passage gives a special instance of this tradition. “It is not without reason,” he says, “that the Apostles ordained that mention should be made of the departed in the awful Mysteries.”

It is noteworthy that Chrysostom expressly rejects as forgeries the stories of miracles said to have been wrought by our Lord in His childhood.

The later writers of the Antiochene school shew little interest in textual questions. The most recent investigations tend to shew that, “before the close of the fourth century, a Greek text not materially differing from the almost universal text of the ninth century and the Middle Ages was dominant, probably by authority, at Antioch, and exercised much influence elsewhere.… The centre [of Greek Christendom], looked up to increasingly as such while time went on, was Constantinople. Now Antioch is the true ecclesiastical parent of Constantinople; so that it is no wonder that the traditional Constantinopolitan text, whether formally official or not, was the Antiochene text of the fourth century.” Chrysostom’s comparative silence on the subject of variations of reading seems to be an indication that he regarded the question of text as authoritatively settled. His archiepiscopate at Constantinople gave a quasi-formal sanction in that metropolis of Christianity to the traditions and decisions of the Antiochenes. Hence the importance of his position in regard to the history of the text of the New Testament. I propose briefly to discuss passages where Chrysostom (1) notices a variation of reading, or (2) a variation of punctuation; or (3) adopts a reading to which for some reason interest attaches.

(1) The discussion of various readings in Chrysostom is very rare and very meagre.

John 1:28. ταῦτα ἐγένετο ἐν Βηθανίᾳ. Note the order. “But the more accurate copies have, in Bethabara (ὅσα δὲ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει, ἐν Βηθαβαρᾷ, φησίν). For Bethany is not beyond the Jordan or in the wilderness, but quite near Jerusalem.” Chrysostom “doubtless follows Origen” (Westcott and Hort Notes on Select Readings). Compare Theodore (Migne 66. 733 C) ταῦτα δὲ ἐγένετο οὐκ ἐν τῇ Βηθανίᾳ, ἀλλʼ ἐν τῇ Βηθαρᾷ, ὡς τὰ ἀκριβῇ περιέχει τῶν ἀντιγράφων. The accuracy of the copies depends, it will be seen, on the plausibility of their reading.

John 17:7. νῦν ἔγνωσαν ὅτι πάντα, ἃ ἔδωκάς μοι, παρὰ σοῦ ἦσαν. Chrysostom is perhaps the only authority for ἦσαν. “Some read (τινὲς μὲν γὰρ λέγουσιν), Now I know that all things whatsoever Thou hast given me, are from Thee (ἔγνων … ὄσα δέδωκας … ἐστιν). But this is not reasonable; for how should the Son be ignorant of that which is the Father’s?”

Romans 2:26. οὐχὶ ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ εἰς περιτομὴν μετατραπήσεται; “He did not say, shall be reckoned (λογισθήσεται), but shall be turned (τραπήσεται), which is a more forcible word.” There seems to be no other authority for this reading. Compare Field’s note.

2 Corinthians 5:3. εἴγε καὶ ἐκδυσάμενοι, οὐ γυμνοὶ εὑρεθησόμεθα. “That is, though we lay aside the body, yet shall we not be presented there without a body, but with our present body then made incorruptible. But some have a reading, certainly to be preferred (τινὲς δέ φασιν, ὃ καὶ μάλιστα ἐγκριτέον), εἴπερ καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι, οὐ γυμνοὶ εὑρεθησόμεθα. For that all may not take courage by reason of the Resurrection, the Apostle says, If so be that having put on, that is, if we receive (λαβόντες) incorruptibility, we shall not be found naked, bereft of glory and safety.” Chrysostom reads ἐνδυσάμενοι elsewhere e.g. ii. 434. Compare Field’s note.

Philippians 1:18. πλὴν παντὶ τρόπῳ … Χριστὸς καταγγέλλεται. “He said not, καταγγελλἐσθω.” as some fancy, asserting that he admits the heresies, but, καταγγέλλεται.” Compare iii. 302 (a separate homily on the passage); see also Dr Swete’s note on Theodore (i. p. 208). This reading is also found in Eus. Vita Const. iii. 58.

Ephesians 5:14. καὶ ἐπιψαύσεις τοῦ Χριστοῦ. “But others read, ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός: and this is the better (μᾶλλον δὲ τοῦτό ἐστι).” Jerome tells a story of a preacher who explained the passage as a prophecy addressed to Adam, who was buried on Calvary:—“Surge Adam qui dormis, et exsurge a mortuis, et non ut legimus ἐπιφαύσει σοι Χριστός, id est, orietur tibi Christus, sed ἐπιψαύσει, id est, continget te Christus, quia videlicet tactu sanguinis ipsius et corporis dependentis vivificetur atque consurgat.” (See Dr Swete’s note on Theodore ad loc. and Westcott and Hort’s Appendix.) Chrysostom John 19:17 mentions the tradition as to Adam’s burial.

(2) Questions of punctuation receive more frequent and more adequate treatment.

Matthew 8:9. καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, ἔχων ὑπʼ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας. Chrysostom (vii. 318 c) mentions some who put the stop before the words ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν. Theodore, as his words are preserved by Facundus and in the Acts of the Fifth Council, adopted this punctuation (Migne 66. 707, 708):—“Homo enim et ego: sed tamen, quorum accepi potestatem, horum sum dominus.” On this he bases the conclusion that the Centurion did not approach Christ as Son of God but “tanquam hominem per virtutem adeptum a Deo majorem quam est hominis potestatem.” (For Theodore’s doctrine as to the Incarnation see the passages in Swete ii. p. 293 sq. especially p. 298 lines 10–20.)

Luke 1:27 (vii. 26 A, ii. 358 B). Chrysostom notices that the words ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς (sic) Δαυΐδ may be referred to the Virgin.

John 1:3, 4. χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν• ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν. “We shall not put the full stop after οὐδὲ ἕν as the heretics do; for in their desire to speak of the Holy Spirit as a creature, they read (φασίν), ὃ γέγονεν, ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν.” Chrysostom concludes an elaborate discussion by saying, “Let us turn to the recognised (τὴν νενομισμένην) reading and interpretation.” Athanasius, it may be noted, before the Macedonian heresy had developed, adopted the old punctuation which Chrysostom rejects (Orat. c. Ar. i. 13). Theodore (Migne 66. 729), apparently supporting Chrysostom’s punctuation, mentions (1) some who put the stop after ἐν αὐτῷ: τῶν διʼ αὐτοῦ γενομένων οὐδὲν γέγονε χωρὶς αὐτοῦ: (2) those who put the stop after οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν• πολλὰ γὰρ ἀμέτοχα ζωῆς ἐστιν, ὡς γῆ καὶ ὄρη. Does not the last sentence imply that ἐν αὐτῷ in this view is taken closely with ὃ γέγονεν, limiting it to the rational creation?

John 5:27. Chrysostom would put the stop after κρίσιν ποιεῖν, and then continue, ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστὶ μὴ θαυμάζετε. The ordinary punctuation he assigns to Paul of Samosata, adding that in it all connexion is sacrificed.

John 7:38. Chrysostom meets the difficulty as to the quotation by putting the stop (ὑποστίξαι δεῖ) after ἡ γραφή. “He that believeth in me, as the Scripture said.” The following clause is then the Lord’s statement.

1 Cor. 5:4. Chrysostom prefers the common arrangement of clauses. He however mentions some who put a comma or a colon (ὑποστίξαντες ἐνταῦθα ἢ μέσην θέντες) after the words ʼΙησοῦ Χριστοῦ, making the whole clause mean, “him who did despite to the name of Christ (τὸν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνυβρίσαντα).”

2 Corinthians 4:4. ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων. Chrysostom, vindicating this passage from the Marcionites, would so read it as to make it equivalent to τῶν ἀπίστων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ νοήματα: in other words, as Theodoret says distinctly, a comma should come after ὁ θεός. Chrysostom adds that the other reading and interpretation gives no real support to the heretics. Irenaeus (iii. 7. 1, comp. Tert. Adv. Marc. v. 11) was perhaps the inventor of this apologetic comma. Compare the Marcionite reading and punctuation of Luke 20:35, Quos vero dignatus sit Deus illiua aevi (Tert. adv. Marcionem, iv. 38.)

Colossians 2:17. τὸ δὲ σῶμα Χριστοῦ. “Some punctuate thus … But others, τὸ σῶμα Χριστοῦ μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω.” Chrysostom takes apparently τὸ σῶμα in apposition to ὑμᾶς. He explains that καταβραβεύειν is used when one person gains the victory and another receives the prize, and he gives as a gloss ἐπηρεαζέτω.

Sometimes Chrysostom adopts an unusual punctuation without any special notice.

Galatians 2:7. Chrysostom takes ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον in close connexion with the preceding clause. He then gives two interpretations: (1) The other apostles not only did not teach St Paul, but were even taught by him; (2) They were so far from blaming St Paul that they commended him. Chrysostom adopts the second interpretation. Theodore mentions this punctuation only to reject it.

Hebrews 12:1. τοσοῦτον ἔχοντες περικείμενον ἡμῖν νέφος μαρτύρων, ὅγκον ἀποθέμενοι πάντα. Chrysostom takes μαρτύρων ὄγκον in apposition to νέφος and πάντα as neuter plural, πάντα τὰ ἀνθρώπινα. So an anonymous writer in Cramer. Severian (in Cramer) and Theodoret do not follow Chrysostom.

(3) A third class of passages remains, where the reading followed by Chrysostom without discussion has some interest.

Chrysostom, as a preacher, quotes from memory. A single instance will illustrate what changes he introduces into a passage in repeated quotations:—Luke 22:31, 32, ἰδού, ὁ Σατανᾶς ἐξῃτήσατο ὑμᾶς, τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς σῖτον• ἐγὼ δὲ ἐδεήθην περὶ σοῦ. (1) The whole point is lost by the insertion of ποσάκις in the first clause (v. 344, vi. 166). (2) ἐξῃτήσατο appears as ᾐτήσατο (iii. 35), ᾔτησεν (i. 496), ἐξῄτησεν (v. 473), ἐξῄτησεν (v. 369), ἠθέλησεν (xi. 225). (3) The whole is changed by reading σινιάσαι σε (v. 344, xii. 288). (4) The last clause becomes καὶ οὐ συνεχώρησα (xii. 288). Yet no one disputes that our present Gospels were in Chrysostom’s hands.

Some of the following passages must no doubt be explained as quotations made by memory.

Matthew 6:28. Chrysostom in place of ἐν πάσῃ τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ (which yet appears at the head of the Homily) reads (vii. 275 c), ἐν πάσῃ τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ, which he explains thus, “Solomon was proved inferior to the flowers in splendour, not once or twice, but throughout his whole reign.”

Matthew 7:14. Once Chrysostom (xi. 492) reads τί στενὴ ἡ ὁδός; Christ “did not simply say, it is narrow, but wonderingly (μετὰ θαυμασμοῦ), τί στενὴ ἡ ὁδός, that is, σφόδρα στενή. (Codex φ reads τί στενὴ ἡ πύλη κ.τ.λ.) Elsewhere in Chrysostom’s works the words are correctly quoted.

Matthew 8:11. Chrysostom several times reads ἀνακλιθήσονται εἰς [τοὺς] κόλπους ʼΑβραὰμ καὶ ʼΙσαὰκ καὶ ʼΙακώβ (vii. 209, 315, 361, comp. 319). Has it been noticed that this is a ‘subsingular’ reading of Chrysostom and Clem. Hom. viii. 4?

Matthew 10:29. The familiar words are given in this form, ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐ πεσεῖται εἰς παγίδα ἄνευ τοῦ̣ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς (vii. 391). This reading is implied also in Clem. Hom. xii. 31 (ἐν παγίδι ἐμπεσεῖν). Chrysostom however may have known of the reading through Origen (see quotations in Field’s note). In another passage (vii. 133) these words are omitted though the addition τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς is still retained.

Matthew 27:49. Chrysostom introduces the words ἕτερος δὲ προσελθὼν λογχῇ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξε, before the words ὁ δὲ ʼΙησοῦς κράξας. His comment (καὶ εἰς νεκρὸν σῶμα λοιπὸν ὑβρίζοντες) betrays confusion, unless we may conjecture either (a) that before εἰς νεκρὸν a ὡς has fallen out, or (b) that ὡς has been changed to εἰς. (For the construction in the latter case comp. e.g. vii. 822 E.). That Chrysostom is influenced by the remembrance of St. John’s words is clear when he adds, “after He was smitten the fountains of our salvation gushed forth.”

Mark 7:19 (7:526). ὁ δὲ Μάρκος φησὶν, ὅτι καθαρίζων τὰ βρώματα, ταῦτα ἔλεγεν. See Field’s Otium Norvicense, Pars Tertia, p. 23.

Luke 9:31. See above page 80 note

John 5:13. Chrysostom substitutes ἐξέκλινεν for the harder word ἐξένευσε. Field (Otium Norvic. p. 65) notices that in Jud. 4:18 “the Vat. MS. reads ἔκκλινον but the Alex. ἔκνευσον.”

John 6:46. ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. Chrysostom substitutes the preposition ἐκ; hence his comment τοῦτο λέγων … κατὰ τὸν τρόπον τῆς οὐσίας.

John 7:1. Chrysostom reads οὐ γὰρ εἶχεν ἐξουσίαν ἐν τῇ ʼΙουδαίᾳ περιπατεῖν, explaining that the strong expression refers to Christ’s human nature. It appears to be an early Western reading (lat. vt., syr. vt.).

John 8:57. Chrysostom reads τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη οὔπω ἔχεις, adding, “so that Christ was now nearly forty years old.” The variant (which has the support of a few MSS. and Fathers) perhaps arose from a reminiscence of Irenaeus (ii. 33. 4, Ei autem qui sit xxx annorum diceretur utique: quadraginta annorum nondum es). Chrysostom says elsewhere (xi. 381), “Christ had not reached old age when He died, but was so fair that no words can describe His beauty.”

John 11:54. Chrysostom substitutes ʼΕφρατά for ʼΕφραίμ.

Acts 9:35. Chrysostom reads οἱ κατοικοῦντες Λύδδαν καὶ τὸν ʼΑσσάρωνα.

Acts 11:20 (ix. 200, 203). Chrysostom twice reads ἐλάλουν πρὸς τοὺς ʼΕλληνιστάς, but in both places in his comment he appears to revert to the reading Ἕλληνας.

Romans 4:1. Chrysostom (1) omits εὑρηκέναι and (2) wavers between πατέρα and προπάτορα (διὸ καὶ σφόδρα σεμνύνει προπάτορα καλῶν).

Romans 6:17. Chrysostom (ix. 430) adds καθαρᾶς from 1 Tim. 1:5; 2 Tim. 2:22. (Not so ix. 536.)

1 Corinthians 6:20. Chrysostom following a Western (Latin) reading has δοξάσατε δή, ἄρατε τὸν θεόν (x. 153 E), and elsewhere (227 D) δοξάσατε δή ἄρα τὸν θεόν. The latter reading, as shewing the origin of the Western variant, must be an early one. Bp Lightfoot’s note on ὁ θεοφόρος (Ignatius ii. p. 21) shews the prevalence of this thought in early Christian writers.

1 Corinthians 7:3. Chrysostom reads τὴν ὀφειλομένην τιμήν (cf. 1 Pet. 3:7). The same reading reappears vii. 117. But he goes on as if he had read ὀφειλήν:—διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὀφειλὴν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐκάλεσεν κ.τ.λ., and again, ἀποστέρησιν νῦν ἣν ὀφειλὴν ἀνωτέρω εἶπεν. But the common reading εὔνοιαν is given in i. 288, iii. 198 (see Field’s note on 1 Cor. 50. 100.). Chrysostom agrees with Theodoret’s explanation of εὔνοια: περὶ σωφροσύνης ταῦτα νομοθετεῖ.

1 Corinthians 8:11. οὐδὲ γὰρ εἶπεν, ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ τελειότητι οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ γνώσει ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ βρώσει.

1 Corinthians 15:36. Chrysostom in one place (xi. 473 B, not apparently elsewhere) reads σὺ ὃ σπείρεις οὐ ζωογονεῖται (comp. 1 Tim. 6:13). Theodoret has the same reading once viz. Orat. 3 de Providentia. A is the only Uncial authority which has it.

2 Corinthians 1:11. Chrysostom twice gives ἐν πολλῷ προσώπῳ (apparently a Western reading): yet his gloss immediately following seems to imply the common reading: ἵνα τὰ πολλὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῷ εὐχαριστήσῃ. In xi. 430 he gives the common reading; in xi. 534 the words in question are altogether omitted.

Hebrews 9:1. Chrysostom adds τότε after λατρείας, apparently reading τό τε twice over. He lays stress on his insertion—τότε• ὡσανεὶ νῦν, φησίν, οὐκ ἔχει• ἤδη δείκνυσιν αὐτὴν ἐκκεχωρηκυῖαν.

Hebrews 12:18. Chrysostom reads ψηλαφωμένῳ καὶ κεκαυμένῳ πυρί. His comment is worth noting as an indication of the way in which the gloss ὄρει arose.τί γὰρ τὸ Σινᾶ πρὸς τὸν οὐρανόν; τί δὲ τὸ ψηλαφώμενον πῦρ πρὸς τὸν ἀψηλάφητον θεόν;

A review of Chrysostom’s relation to textual questions appears to warrant three inferences:—(1) The rarity of any direct discussion on a matter of reading seems to confirm the theory that some authoritative settlement of the text had taken place; (2) the character of the few discussions we have noticed shews that the typical Antiochene teacher took surface plausibility as the standard of excellence; (3) the survival of curious Pre-Syrian readings, sometimes early traditional readings, oftener Western, may suggest the conclusion that the Antiochene recension was but recent in Chrysostom’s time.

The discussion of Chrysostom’s detailed treatment of the New Testament includes questions which were out of place in an investigation of his work on the Old Testament. In the latter case there lies an appeal to an original which he was unable to use. In the former he possessed advantages which are not ours. He spoke the language of the Books which he interpreted. It does not however follow that the opinion of Chrysostom must be always received as necessarily superior to that of modern scholarship. The very fact that he was dealing with works written in a language still in common use deprived him of an incentive to accurate and minute investigation. He is not conscious of that friction which a commentator of our own day feels. And further, though this is probably a consideration of less importance, the Greek language had not stood still during the three centuries which separated Chrysostom from the Apostles.

“Multa renascentur quae jam cecidere, cadentque

Quae nunc sunt in honore vocabula, si volet usus,

Quem penes arbitrium est et jus et norma loquendi.”

The last point deserves a brief notice. The history of Byzantine Greek has been divided into three periods, the first of which begins with Constantine’s foundation of ‘New Rome’ and ends with the first quarter of the seventh century. Chrysostom’s life falls within the earliest subdivision of the period. “The language, notwithstanding the changes it had undergone, retained its original character as late as the sixth century, that is, it was ancient Greek in the strictest sense of the expression. The spoken language formed the base of the written, but at the same time it contained many words and phrases which good scholars generally avoided. Thus Chrysostom’s style, although superior to that of an uneducated person, was level to the comprehension of the common people of Constantinople, with whom he was a great favourite.” The influence of this growth (or should it be called decay?) is seen in Chrysostom’s (1) grammatical constructions and (2) use of words.

(1) Grammatical constructions. The process of change in this respect was already in full operation in Hellenistic Greek. At the close of the fourth century the greater laxity of language had become dominant, and its results in Chrysostom’s case are visible side by side with traces of culture and learning. Thus the syntax of ἄν, εἰ, ἕως ἄν, ὅταν, ἵνα in his prose differs not only from the standard of Classical Greek, but also from that of the New Testament.

(2) The use of words. Besides words which are the special property of later or of colloquial Greek, we find instances of others, the sharpness of whose meaning has been blunted, or whose special sense has been merged in that which is general and colourless. Thus, to take an instance of a word of late growth, Chrysostom uses the colloquial πεῖσμα as a gloss on the word εὐδοκία, excusing his use of a novel expression on the plea that thus his comment was more pointed for humbler folk. Of the latter case the word αὐτομολεῖν is an example. In Classical Greek it consistently bears a bad sense—to desert: in Chrysostom’s time the general notion of ‘escape,’ ‘taking refuge with,’ alone survived, and any notion of disparagement had entirely passed away.

This development of the language blinds the commentator’s eyes to the full significance of at least two characteristically Pauline words.

There are few more striking metaphors in St Paul’s Epistles than that of the Heavenly citizenship. As it occurs in the Philippian Epistle (1:27; 3:20), it gathers up the Apostle’s remembrances of his first planting the church there, and the associations alike of the capital from which, and the colony to which, he is writing. It is an image instinct with life. But Chrysostom passes it over without any adequate notice. If he is not entirely unconscious of its force, its interest is too shadowy to detain him for a moment. But this neglect is not without a cause. It might be urged that in the age which produced a Eutropius, the less a Christian preacher said about Roman citizenship as a type of the Heavenly, the better. But the reason is really linguistic. Numberless instances might be quoted from Chrysostom and earlier writers in which the word πολιτεία is simply equivalent to βίος or ἀναστροφή.

If here Chrysostom misses a characteristic metaphor, in other places he overlooks a striking oxymoron for the same reason. In the Pauline phrase παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς … φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν, the word φιλοτιμεῖσθαι can only justify its insertion by the paradox it suggests. Chrysostom however says nothing, either here or in the two other places in which the word is found, which would not apply to the most colourless synonym. The edges of words are rubbed off by the wear of time.

The way has now been cleared for some examination of Chrysostom’s treatment of questions of Greek scholarship. I have collected his comments under different grammatical heads. It must never be forgotten that the works of Chrysostom in which these notes occur were not written dissertations but extemporary addresses to the people of Antioch and of Constantinople.

(1) The Article. A Greek preacher speaking to a Greek audience might often indicate the presence or the force of the article by the mere tone of his voice. But at times the point would need distinct explanation and illustration. Thus Chrysostom insists on the full significance of the article in the opening words of Psalm 44 (45), τὰ ἔργα μου τῷ βασιλεῖ (Hebr. לְמֶלָךְ). This king is the true king. More important is ἡ παρθένος (Hebr. הָעַלְמָה) of Isaiah 7:14. The article, Chrysostom urges, points to some one of note, alone answering to the prophet’s description. As parallels he adduces the phrases ὁ λόγος, ὁ Χριστός, ὁ προφήτης from St John’s Gospel. In such cases the article isolates (ὧν ἕκαστον ἐξαίρετον ἦν). This clear view of the use of the article is of service when its exact tone is not so obvious. Thus the expression ἡ ὀργή in the New Testament is specially applied to the Divine wrath. In 1 Thess. 2:16—ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος—Chrysostom inadequately explains the article as denoting a wrath foreordained and foretold. But his comment on Rom. 12:19—δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ—leaves nothing to be desired. The apostle speaks of the wrath of God. In one difficult and important passage (2 Cor. 3:16, 17) Chrysostom appeals to a subtler use of the article to decide a question of interpretation. Certain expositors, Chrysostom remarks, explain the words “whensoever it shall turn to the Lord” as referring to the Son, and compare the phrase which follows, ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστι, with the words of the Gospel πνεῦμα ὁ θεός. In answer to these he insists on the wide difference between the two constructions, and notes that the article is not put with the predicate (τῷ ἐπιθέτῳ ἄρθρον οὐ προστίθησιν). He himself understands the passage as vindicating the true Deity of the Holy Spirit.

It is indeed when doctrinal issues are involved, that the interest of these grammatical questions culminates. Such was not unfrequently the case, when the Catholic doctrine of the Son of God had not yet made good its victory over Arianism. Thus Chrysostom presses the force of the article with words descriptive of, or with the titles of, the Son. By prefixing the article to the word λόγος the Evangelist marks His complete separation from all other things, and refutes the notion that He is simply an uttered or an immanent word. And further, “as ‘the Word’ shews His unique position, and ‘the Son’ His superiority over all other sons, so also ‘the Lamb,’ ‘the Christ,’ ‘the Prophet,’ ‘the true light,’ ‘the good Shepherd,’ and all similar expressions with the article, mark the vastness of the interval between Him and all things else.” But a graver question still remained. The adherents of Subordinationism, and later the champions of Arianism, had insisted on a distinction which they drew between ὁ θεός used of the Father as αὐτόθεος, the Fountain of Deity, and θεός used of the Word as δεύτερος θεός. “The heretics,” says Chrysostom, speaking of his own days, “maintain that John used the phrase, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, where θεός is without the article, to signify the inferiority of the Deity of the Son, and again that when Paul says that the Son was in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ), he does not speak of the Father, because of the absence of the article.”

In answer to this argument Chrysostom in different parts of his writings urges the following considerations. (1) The anarthrous θεός is used of the Father in the immediate context, both in the Gospel and in the Epistle; also in Rom. 1:7 and Gal. 1:1. (2) In the preface to St John’s Gospel the article has been already used with the word λόγος, and is therefore superfluous. (3) The expression πνεῦμα ὁ θεός must be compared. If the Arians insist on this argument in regard to the Son, to be consistent they must be prepared on the strength of the anarthrous πνεῦμα to surrender the truth of God’s immaterial nature. (4) The words ὁ θεός are applied to the Son in Hebr. 1:8

(2) The Genitive. The genitive plays an important part in some of St Paul’s most suggestive phrases. Especially is this so in the Ephesian Epistle. A few instances of Chrysostom’s treatment of this difficult case are worth considering.

Eph. 1:13. (a) ‘The Word of the truth’; ‘the truth’ is here the correlative to the terms type and copy. (b) τῷ πνεύματι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τῷ ἁγίῳ.—Chrysostom seems to allow two interpretations; (1) ‘We received the Spirit according to promise.’ (2) ‘Past gifts are a pledge of future gifts.’ Hence the term ἀρραβών applied to the gift of the Spirit, a part of the whole. Of these interpretations Theodore adopts the latter, Theodoret the former. Chrysostom does not very sharply distinguish them.

Eph. 1:14. Chrysostom passes over the important phrase εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως. Theodore however writes, τὸ διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως καὶ τῆς ἀθανασίας τῶν ἐντεῦθεν ἀπαλλαττομένους κακῶν τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν οἰκείωσιν λαμβάνειν (see Severian in Dr Swete’s note). Thus the genitive is not objective, but two separate though allied processes in God’s work for man are shadowed forth; so Origen, ἵνα ἀπολυτρωθῶσιν, περιποιηθῶσι (Cramer vi. 121).

Eph. 2:2. Chrysostom’s punctuation has been already noticed. Joining τοῦ ἀέρος τοῦ πνεύματος he makes the latter a genitive expressing quality, πνεύματα ἀέρια.

Eph. 2:14. τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας. Chrysostom, after rejecting the view which Theodore, Severian, and Theodoret hold, viz. that the separation is between man and man, offers two explanations of the genitive; (1) μεσότοιχον ἦν διαφράσσον (Is. 59:2). (2) τὸ μεσότοιχον τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ φραγμοῦ. In this case ὁ φραγμός is the law (Is. 5:2; Rom. 4:15). This latter is the view of Theodoret. It must again be noticed that Chrysostom does not formally distinguish the two interpretations, but while discussing the one glides into the other.

Eph. 4:23. τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ νοὸς ἡμῶν. Chrysostom, understanding the Divine Spirit to be meant, explains the genitive—τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἐν τῷ νῷ. So apparently Theodore; Theodoret on the other hand, τὴν ὁρμὴν τοῦ νοου πνευματικὴν εἴρηκε. Origen (Cramer vi. 181) referring to 1 Cor. 14:15, speaks of the Spirit, ὅπερ, τοῦ νοὸς ἡμῶν ἀποκαθαιρομένου καὶ πᾶσαν ἀποβαλόντος ἀχλύν, ᾠκειωμένον αὐτῷ ἀνανεοῖ ἡμᾶς.

Eph. 4:24. ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληθείας. Chrysostom giving the genitive its proper force combines two interpretations. ‘The truth’ may be the opposite of what is (1) typical, or (2) false. Christians are thus contrasted both with Jews, and with Gentiles.

Col. 1:13. τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ. Chrysostom does not rise above the gloss ἀγαπητός. Theodore has the remarkable comment οὐ φύσει τοῦ πατρὸς ὄντα νἱὸν ἀλλὰ ἀγάπῃ τῆς υἱοθεσίας ἀξιωθέντα. This—an anticipation of later Adoptianist views—must be taken in connexion with his theory of a Divine indwelling εὐδοκίᾳ (Swete ii. p. 294). Comp. Dr Swete’s note on Theodore and Bp. Lightfoot in loco.

Col. 2:16. μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω.… ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς κ.τ.λ. Chrysostom, followed by Theodoret, takes the last words as disparaging the partial character of the would-be observance εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἐσαββάτιζον, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἀκριβῶς.

(3) The Verbs.

(a) The Passive voice. Chrysostom in several passages notices the use of the passive voice to present an action impersonally (ἀπροσώπως). Thus he explains, ‘it was said to them of old time’ (Matt. 5:21); ‘your house is left unto you desolate’ (Lk 13:35, Chrys. viii. 312); ‘that they might be taught not to blaspheme;’ ‘that the spirit may be saved in the, day of the Lord Jesus’ (1 Tim. 1:20; 1 Cor. 5:5). On Philem. 15 he points out the delicate tact of the phrase ἐχωρίσθη as contrasted with a possible ἔφυγε or ἐχώρισεν ἑαυτόν. Yet the most suggestive use of the passive—εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς (Rom. 6:17)—is not adequately treated in the comment—τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ βοηθείαν αἰνίττεται.

(b) The Tenses. Chrysostom dwells on the force of the present tense in several important passages as denoting continued action. Thus on the words of the Baptist (John 1:29), he remarks, “He said not, which shall take or which did take (ὁ ληψόμενος ἣ ὁ ἄρας) but, which taketh away the sin of the world, meaning that He ever doeth so”. Again, the Apostle speaks of a messenger of Satan given to him to buffet him. “The curb he needs,” adds Chrysostom, “is a continuous (διηνεκοῦς) one; for he said not, ἵνα κολαφίσῃ, but, ἵνα κολαφίζῃ.” Again, he finds a trace of St Paul’s generous hopefulness in the μετατίθεσθε of Gal. 1:6. The Apostle does not use the aorist but the present:—“I do not believe that this treachery has yet been consummated.” So the present participle ἐντρεφόμενος (1 Tim. 4:6) emphasises the continued attention which Timothy must pay to ‘the words of the faith.’ The tentative force of the imperfect ἐπόρθουν (Gal. 1:13) is rightly noted. The persecutor endeavoured (ἐπεχείρει) to quench the Church. The ‘man of sin’ (2 Thess. 2:4) can only try to set himself forth (πειρώμενον ἀποδεικνύναι) as God. A subtler nuance of the same tense is not unnoticed in Rom. 9:3 ηὐχόμην γὰρ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι κ.τ.λ. The speaker in such cases gives expression to a desire which is at once checked by some higher consideration. This Chrysostom brings out in his gloss εἴγε δυνατὸν ἦν (605 B), εἴγε ἦν χωρισθῆναι … (605 E). But at the same time he is fond of referring to the passage and intruding an Aorist ηὔξατο or even εἵλετο in the place of the imperfect. One other passage of theological importance must be added. Chrysostom is discussing the words ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. “As the word ὤν,” such is his comment, ‘applied to man simply denotes present time, but when used of God implies eternity; so the word ἦν when referring to our human nature signifies past time and that completed, but when it relates to God, it expresses eternity”.

The perfect is on more than one occasion not very accurately explained as implying the long duration of an act &c. in the past.

(4) Conjunctions, particles, etc.

εἴγε, εἴπερ “do not express doubt but are strong affirmations.” (Note on Eph. 4:21.) εἴπερ δίκαιον (2 Thess. 1:6) = ὅτι σφόδρα δίκαιον. Compare Chrysostom’s notes on Rom. 8:9 and Gal. 3:4 (where, he remarks, a loophole of escape is left).

εἴπως (Phil. 3:11) is explained as expressive of the Apostle’s awe before the magnificence of his hope. The ἐὰν ἄρα of Ezek. 2:5 (=ἴσως Lk. 20:13) marks at once the foreknowledge and the forbearance of God (vii. 670 D).

ἕως οὗ (Matt. 1:25). Chrysostom points out that the phrase is used in Scripture without implying the strict limitation of the period referred to, citing Gen. 8:7; Ps. 71:7; 89:2, and that the Evangelist simply asserts the virginity of the Saviour’s Mother till His birth, without implying that the case was different afterwards.

ἵνα. Chrysostom and Theodore earnestly contend for an ecbatic force in certain passages. Thus while himself maintaining that our Lord’s words, ‘that the works of God should be made manifest in him’ (John 9:3) imply no injustice on God’s part, even when they are taken to express purpose, Chrysostom continues, “Some take this particle (ἐπίρρημα) not as stating the purpose but the result (οὐδὲ αἰτιολογικὸν … ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐκβάσεως).” After citing as parallels John 9:39; Rom. 1:20; 5:20, he adds, “Do you not see that everywhere this particle denotes the result?” The same explanation is given of ἵνα on John 11:4 and more emphatically on John 17:12. So too Chrysostom with Theodoret urges on Rom. 5:20 (ἵνα πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτωμα) that “the law was given to lessen and to destroy the transgression, but the opposite result came to pass, not by reason of the nature of the law, but because of the indolence of those who received it.” So lastly the Apostle, says Chrysostom, does not mean that divisions exist for the purpose of manifesting the good (1 Cor. 11:19); but that the divisions had the result of making the good prominent, as the storm the helmsman. Quite similar is the treatment of εἰς τό with the infinitive in the important passages Romans 1:20; 11:11.

It will be noticed that this habitual position towards a question of grammar is really connected closely with the genius of Antiochene theology. A large part of the doctrinal system of the teachers of this school might be formulated in these two propositions;—God is good; Man is free. On the one hand, evil is permitted, not caused, by God; on the other, man is left by God to choose the good or to choose the evil, as he will.

καὶ … δέ. This form of connexion is noticed in 1 Tim. 3:10, where the καί is rightly said to draw a parallel between the proving of the Deacon and that of the Bishop.

μήποτε, μήπως. The former of these two words is said to be indicative of a mean between utter condemnation and complete confidence in 2 Cor. 11:3, of great longsuffering in 2 Tim. 2:25. The latter word is likewise explained as suggestive of fear and yet of hope in Gal. 4:10:—“The shipwreck is not yet accomplished, but I see the storm travailing therewith.”

ὅτι. In one passage the same difficulty arises as in the case of ἵνα. “For this cause they could not believe, for that (ὅτι) Isaiah said again …” (John 12:39). Chrysostom boldly asserts that ὅτι εἶπεν points to a result and not to a reason. “They did not fail to believe because Isaiah spoke, but Isaiah spoke because they should not believe.” The Evangelist uses this form of expression because he desires to mark the truthfulness of Scripture. The fulfilment exactly answers to the prediction. So οὐκ ἠδύναντο is explained to be equivalent to οὐκ ἤθελον.

πάντως. The word is applied to matters, says Chrysostom, which are taken for granted. Thus his comment on 1 Cor. 5:10 favours the margin of the R.V., ‘not at all meaning the fornicators &c.’ In 1 Cor. 9:10 the πάντως is said to shut the opponent’s mouth; in 1 Cor. 9:22 to reassure the doubter—a man so earnest as the Apostle must attain his end.

σχεδόν. In Heb. 9:22 σχεδόν, according to Chrysostom, marks the limitation of the verb καθαρίζεται. “Herein there was no perfect purification or perfect remission.” In 7:9 ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν has a like modifying influence.

ὡς. When St John speaks of a ‘glory as of the only begotten from the Father,’ the ὡς “does not denote comparison or likeness, but implies a strong assertion; as though the Evangelist had said, ‘We beheld His glory, such glory as it was but meet and likely the Only-begotten and True Son of the Father would have.’ ” In Acts 2:3 the same particle is said to guard against any material conception of the Spirit; in John 7:10 and in 1 Cor. 9:20 to denote an οἰκονομία on the part of Christ and of St Paul respectively.

(5) Prepositions.

διά. (1) With the genitive. The distinction between διά and ὑπό is clear. Thus on Matt. 1:22 Chrysostom well says, “The mouth was the mouth of Isaiah; but the oracle came from above.” But at times the difference is more subtle and the commentator does not discriminate. Thus the Lord says, ‘Woe to that man through whom (διʼ οὗ) the occasion of stumbling cometh’ (Matt. 18:7). The question of man’s responsibility seemed involved, and Chrysostom makes the διά = ὑπό, adding that in such cases (Gen. 4:1; 40:8; 1 Cor. 1:9) Scripture uses the former preposition to denote the primary not the secondary cause.

In Theological passages διά is frequently used of the Divine Son. From this usage the Arians were not slow to draw inferences which it was of supreme importance for their opponents to controvert. Chrysostom’s discussion of the question on John 1:3 (πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο) is typical. The preposition does not imply inferiority, he argues, for the following reasons; (1) Elsewhere Scripture assigns the same part in creation to the Son as to the Father (Ps. 102:25 (Hebr. 1:10), Jer. 5:21). (2) The preposition simply implies that the Son is not ingenerate. (3) The preposition ἐξ is applied not only to the Father but to the Son (Col. 2:19), and to the Spirit (Matt. 1:20). (4) The preposition διά is used by St Paul in speaking of the Father (1 Cor. 1:9, comp. on Eph. 1:1; Hebr. 2:10).

On Gal. 1:1 Chrysostom, like Theodore and Theodoret, notices that the single preposition διά is used of the Father and the Son.

(2) With the accusative. In John 6:57 and Rom. 8:11 (where Chrysostom reads the accusative), the preposition is rightly explained as denoting the cause. The paraphrase, “I endured a thousand deaths while preaching to you,” shews that in Gal. 4:13 the commentator makes διʼ ἀσθένειαν equivalent to διʼ ἀσθενείας.

εἰς. In one or two passages Chrysostom’s explanation is noteworthy. Thus a subtler use is adequately treated in Col. 1:16 τὰ πάντα … εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται• τουτέστιν, εἰς αὐτὸν κρέμαται ἡ πάντων ὑπόστασις. On the other hand a reference to union and brotherly love for Christ’s sake (comp. διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν vii. 609 C) does not satisfy the phrase εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα (Matt. 18:20). The εἰς τὸ ὄνομα of the Baptismal formula is likewise passed by unnoticed, though the note on 1 Cor. 12:13 (εἰς ἓν σῶμα), if confused, is substantially correct (comp. Theodoret, ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὥστε εἰς ἓν σῶμα τελεῖν). Further, εἰς is said to be equivalent to (1) διά, with the accusative in Rom. 8:21 (διὰ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν), with the genitive in Hebr. 6:6 (διὰ μετανοίας, where μετάνοια = ὁ διὰ λουτροῦ πάλιν ἀνακαινισμός); (2) ἐν in John 1:18.

ἐν. In theological passages, as Chrysostom truly notes (viii. 38), this preposition is specially used of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is also used frequently of the Son. Hence he rightly marks it when used in connexion with the Father in 1 Thess. 1:1.

But with Chrysostom ἐν is a Proteus among prepositions.

ἐν = ἀπό. 2 Tim. 1:15. “It is likely that many were in Rome at this time from the regions of Asia.” The converse is possible as in Hebr. 13:25, a passage which Chrysostom passes over without comment.

ἐν = διά. When ἐν is used of the Lord as in ἐν Χριστῷ this is the gloss in innumerable places (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:4; Eph. 1:3, 12, 13, 1 Tim. 1:4; 2 Tim. 2:1; Hebr. 1:1). On Colossians 1:16 a bad reason is given for a bad gloss;—ἐν is equivalent to διά because διά is used in the context. So too when the connexion is different, e.g. in John 17:12 (διὰ τῆς σῆς βοηθείας), Eph. 6:24 (ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ = διὰ ἀφθαρσίας = διʼ ἀρετῆς).

In Eph. 2:15 (comp. Col. 2:14) ἐν δόγμασι καταργήσας is taken to mean that Christ destroys the Law by the Gospel, δόγματα being equivalent either to the Christian faith or to the commands of the Lord, e.g. in the Sermon on the Mount.

But sometimes Chrysostom rises above this. Thus on Acts 17:28 he says, οὐκ εἶπε διʼ αὐτοῦ ἀλλʼ ὃ ἐγγύτερον ἦν, ἐν αὐτῷ. The notes also on Rom. 6:12, Gal. 1:16, Eph. 2:15 (αὐτὸς πρῶτος τύπον παρασχών) are on a higher level.

ἐν = κατά. Phil. 1:8; Eph. 6:1.

ἐν = παρά (with dative). Phil. 4:9.

ἐν = σύν. Phil. 4:4.

ἐν = ὑπέρ. Eph. 6:12 ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. The Christian’s struggle is for his Heavenly inheritance. Chrysostom is followed here by Theodore and Theodoret. He also illustrates by a common phrase: ἡ συνθήκη ἐν τίνι κεῖται; ἐν χρυσῷ.

Finally a curious explanation of 1 Cor. 6:2 (ἐν ὑμῖν κρίνεται ὁ κόσμος) is to be noticed. The ἐν denotes the standard of judgment, and a parallel is found in Matt. 12:41, 42 (comp. the interpretation of Matt. 19:28 where κρίνοντες is made equivalent to κατακρίνοντες).

πρός. Chrysostom notices the remarkable use in John 1:1 (ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν), where he contrasts a possible ἐν. The phrase shews that the Son is not ἀγέννητος, and proves τὴν καθʼ ὑπόστασιν αὐτοῦ ἀϊδιότητα.

ὑπέρ. This preposition is made equivalent to ἀντί in 2 Cor. 5:20, but not, I think, in any soteriological passage. On Rom. 14:15 Chrysostom gives the paraphrase ὁ μὲν Χριστός … οὐδὲ ἀποθανεῖν παρῃτήσατο διʼ αὐτόν.

It remains to discuss a few passages where prepositions are contrasted.

Rom. 3:30. ἐκ πίστεως … διὰ τῆς πίστεως. Chrysostom is silent. Theodore appears to be on the right track when he points out that the Jews would be likely to have other starting points (καὶ ἑτέρας ἀφορμάς) towards justification, in which benefit however they could not share except ἐκ τῆς πίστεως. Origen (Cramer iv. p. 25) compares 1 Cor. 11:12.

Rom. 11:36. ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα. Chrysostom explains the three prepositions as pointing respectively to the initiation, the formation, the co-haesion of the Universe, αὐτὸς εὗρεν, αὐτὸς ἐποίησεν, αὐτὸς συγκροτεῖ. Theodoret refers the first clause to the creation, the second to God’s continued governance, the third to the duty of all men to fix their gaze on God.

1 Cor. 8:6. Chrysostom takes ἐξ οὗ and διʼ οὗ to refer to the work of the Father and the Son respectively in creation. But we may be said to be ‘of God’ (ἐξ αὐτοῦ) in a double sense: in creation and in redemption. Hence εἰς αὐτόν is added in reference to the divine appropriation (τῆς οἰκειώσεως) of the faithful; and to this answers the ἡμεῖς διʼ αὐτοῦ in regard to the Son. (On the use Aetius made of this passage see Basil, ap. Cramer vii. p. 397, comp. Thdt.)

Gal. 1:1. οὐκ ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπων, οὐδὲ διʼ ἀνθρώπου. Chrysostom reads ἀνθρώπων in both clauses. In the latter clause, which is an advance on the first, St Paul claims his place among the true Apostles whom Christ “called not through men but by His own agency.” Theodore refuses to draw any such distinction (ipsa multitudine narrationis), fearing perhaps a hint of Apollinarian doctrine (see Dr Swete’s note).

Eph. 4:6. ἐπὶ πάντων is interpreted as referring to God’s sovereign exaltation; διὰ πάντων, to His providential ordering of all; ἐν πᾶσιν ἡμῖν (sic), to His indwelling. So Theodore and Theodoret. (On Theodore’s doctrine of ἐνοίκησις see Dr Swete i. p. 142, ii. 294.)

Heb. 2:10. διʼ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ διʼ οὗ τὰ πάντα. The first clause Chrysostom takes as pointing to God’s lovingkindness, the second to His relation to the world as Creator. Theodore supposes the Divine word to be referred to and finds here, as just before in the reading χωρὶς θεοῦ, a confirmation of his Christological views. His exposition of the passage is thus epitomized by Theodoret; τὸν θεὸν λόγον ἔδειξεν ἣν ἀνέλαβε τελειώσαντα φύσιν, ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ἡμετέρας σωτηρίας ἡ ληφθεῖσα φύσις.

Lastly Chrysostom not unfrequently notices the force of prepositions in composition.

ἀνά. In Gal. 6:2 the commentator notes that St Paul does not use the simple but the compound word, meaning κοινῇ πάντες πληρώσατε, διʼ ὧν ἀλλήλους φέρετε. Lower down he speaks of ‘each man through his patience filling up (ἀναπληρῶν) that which is lacking to his neighbour.’ The exposition is confused.

ἀπό. This preposition “has in many places an intensive force in St Paul’s writings as in the words ἀποστυγεῖν, ἀποκαραδοκία, ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, ἀπολύτρωσις” (ix. 674 B, cf. ix. 485 C). So the compounds ἀπαρνησάσθω (Matt. 16:24), ἀποκεκρυμμένον (Col. 1:26) are explained.

The force of ἀπό with words of giving and receiving is clearly brought out. Thus ἀποδώσει (Matt. 6:6) and ἀπολάβωμεν (Gal. 4:5) represent God as having made Himself man’s debtor. A similar explanation is wrongly given of ἀπέχω in Phil. 4:18 and probably also in Matt. 6:5 where the gloss, λήψονται μὲν, παρʼ ὧν δὲ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν αὐτοί, is not quite clear.

The important word ἀποκαταλλάσσω is dealt with inconsistently. In Col. 1:20, 21 the word is said to mean perfect reconciliation, the ἀπο being intensive. In Eph. 2:16 Chrysostom catches the deep meaning of the word; οὐκ εἶπε καταλλάξῃ, ἀλλʼ, ἀποκαταλλάξῃ, δεικνὺς ὅτι πρὸ τούτου ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις εὐκατάλλακτος ἦν, οἷον ἐπὶ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ πρὸ τοῦ νόμου.

ἐκ. The compound ἐκκαθαίρειν (1 Cor. 5:7–2 Tim. 2:21) is rightly said to imply the completeness of the cleansing.

ἐπί. This preposition in compound words implies addition. Thus the gloss on ἐπιχορηγία (Phil. 1:19) is, ἐὰν πλέον ἐπιδοθῇ τὸ πνεῦμα. The compound ἐποικοδομῆσαι (Acts 20:32) suggests the idea of a previous building (ἤδη ᾠκοδομήθησαν). Somewhat curiously in Rom. 15:15 Chrysostom seems to suppose that the apologetic tone of ἀπὸ μέρους (= ἠρέμα) is continued in ἐπαναμιμνήσκων (= μικρόν τι ἀναμιμνήσκων).

κατά. The force of κατεργάζεσθαι is more than once pointed out;—μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς σπουδῆς, μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς ἐπιμελείας (Rom. 1:27; Phil. 2:12. Comp. Severian ap. Cramer iv. p. 10, 11).

Two subjects remain, both closely connected with pure exegesis, which may yet best find a place under the general head of scholarship: the treatment of (1) etymologies; (2) synonyms.

Etymologies. The following list is probably far from complete, but it will serve to illustrate from the works of a single writer the way in which ancient Theology reckoned ancient Philology as her handmaid.

ᾅδης. Chrysostom (Frag. on Prov. 5:5) says; ᾅδης δὲ λέγεται παρὰ τὸ ἰδεῖν ἀηδῶς τὰ ἐκεῖσε ἅπαντα κολαστήρια τοὺς καταβαίνοντας. It will be noted that the Article as to ‘the Descent into Hell’ is peculiar to Western Creeds. If it has a place in the ‘Dated Creed’ of Sirmium and afterwards in the Creeds of Nicé and Constantinople (Hahn Biblio. der Symbole § 93, 94, 96), this was perhaps due to Western influence. Yet see Chrys. x. 379 C.

[ἀκόλαστος. “Men are called ἀκόλαστοι because they do not check (κολάζειν) their lust” (xi. 585 A). There are many kinds of lust, Chrysostom urges, and he would apply the term to the passionate, the envious, the avaricious, the insincere. Closely allied are the words ἄσεμνος, ἀσελγής. The word itself does not occur in the New Testament; compare however Prov. 19:29; 20:1; 21:11. Aristotle distinguishes the ἀκόλαστος from the ἀκρατής (2 Tim. 3:3; 1 Cor. 7:5) in that the former is ἀνίατος, the latter not so (Eth. Nic. vii. 9).]

ἀπόστολος. The derivation points to the deep truth that the Apostle does not speak his own words, ἀποστόλου γὰρ ἀξίωμα μηδὲν οἴκοθεν ἐπεισφέρειν (vi. 4).

ἔλαφος. Perhaps one of the most wonderful feats in etymology is that which Chrysostom records in connexion with this word. παρὰ τοῦτό φασιν αὐτὸν καλεῖσθαι ἔλαφον διὰ τὸ ὄφεις ἐσθίειν (xi. 747 A). This popular derivation together with a popular notion on which it was founded suggests to him an allegorical interpretation of Psalm 41:1, ‘As the hart panteth after the waterbrooks.’ “The hart is a thirsty animal,” the commentator tells us, “and therefore it ever runneth after the fountains of waters. And it is thirsty both by nature and because it devours serpents. Do thou therefore follow this example. Do thou devour the spiritual serpent, and thou shalt be able to be athirst with a longing for God” (v. 138). Comp. Pliny Nat. Hist. viii. 32.

εὐτραπελία (Eph. 5:4). Chrysostom alludes to the obvious derivation; ταχέως τρέπεται ὁ τοιοῦτος καὶ μεθίσταται. This ἄχαρις χάρις, to use his own phrase, has two chief characteristics. It is ill-natured (comp. Theodore’s comment) and it is low. ἀνάγκη τὸν εὐτραπελευόμενον ἔχθρας ἀναδέχεσθαι περιττὰς τῶν εἰκῆ σκωπτομένων, ἄν τε παρῶσιν, ἄν τε ἀπόντες ἀκούσωσιν. εἰ καλὸν τὸ πρᾶγμα, τί τοῖς μίμοις ἀφίεται; … πόρρω ψυχῆς ἐλευθέρας, πόρρω εὐγενοῦς, καὶ δούλων πόρρω. To so low a depth in Chrysostom’s view has this word fallen, once lofty in its associations. Aristotle (Eth. Nic. ii. 7) makes εὐτραπελία the mean between βωμολοχία and ἀγροικία; elsewhere (iv. 14) he notices the etymology; οἱ δʼ ἐμμελῶς παίζοντες εὐτράπελοι προσαγορεύονται οἷον εὔτροποι. Archbp. Trench in his very interesting discussion of the word leaves the impression that Chrysostom rates the word higher than he really does (New Test. Synonyms § xxxiv.).

καταβολή (Eph. 1:4). The commentator notes the word as appropriate. “It is as though the Apostle meant that the world had been cast down from some vast height. For in truth the height of God is vast and ineffable not in space but in the remoteness of His nature.”

κοιμητήριον. In a sermon preached on the Eve of Easter (σήμερον ʼΙησοῦς πρὸς τοὺς νεκροὺς κατέβη) in a martyry without the walls, “where there lay a great company of the dead,” Chrysostom draws comfort for his hearers from this word in common use. “Learn that those who passed away and lie here are not dead, but do sleep and take their rest” (ii. 398 A). Chrysostom strikingly notices that St Paul (1 Thess. 4:14) speaks of Christ’s death but of the Christian’s sleep. “With Him whose Resurrection is an assured fact the Apostle speaks of death. Our Resurrection is a thing yet hoped for; hence the very word he uses shall bring comfort” (i. 763 D).

μεριμνᾶν (Matt. 6:34). “Wherefore I bid thee,” so Chrysostom paraphrases our Lord’s words, “to refrain from seeking, not that thou shouldest receive nothing, but that thou shouldest receive abundance … lest being anxious and cleft asunder in thy care for these things (ἵνα μὴ μεριμνῶν μηδὲ σχιζόμενος εἰς τὴν τούτων φροντίδα), thou shouldest make thyself unworthy alike of worldly and of spiritual benefits.” There appears here to be a distinct allusion to the old derivation of μέριμνα from μερίζω. The line of Terence is often quoted in illustration: Tot me impediunt curae, quae meum animum divorse (v. l. divorsae) trahunt (Andr. i. 5, 25). Modern philological research connects the word with a Sanskrit root Smar, whence Lat. memor &c.

παροιμία. Of this compound word Chrysostom mentions two derivations. Some would explain the word as denoting “a ῥῆμα παρόδιον, transferred from one particular thing to another.” Others, apparently Chrysostom among them, offer a different solution. “The name παροιμία is given, because such sayings were inscribed by every roadside, for the correction and instruction of those travelling by the ways” (vi. 375).

πονηρός. “Wickedness (πονηρία) is so called because it always brings troubles (πόνους). Wherefore a certain wise man saith, If thou art evil (κακός), alone shalt thou endure evil things; but if thou art good, thou shalt have good things both for thyself and for those with thee” (Prov. 9:12, LXX. quoted inexactly: v. 419).

Σαῦλος. Some, Chrysostom tells us, held that ἡνίκα … τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐσάλευε Σαῦλος ἐλέγετο, … πάλιν Παῦλος ἀπὸ τοῦ παύσασθαι μετωνομάσθη. “But this account is foolish and false, and I have only mentioned it lest you should be led away by silly explanations” (ταῖς ψιλαῖς αἰτιολογίαις. iii. 110 D).

σημεῖον. Chrysostom is commenting on the sign given to Ahaz (Isaiah 7:14). Had the conception spoken of belonged to the common order, there could have been no sign. “A sign,” he says, “must overpass the common wont of nature; it must be strange and wonderful; so that every one who sees it or hears it notes it. For for this cause is it called a sign (σημεῖον) because it is noteworthy (διὰ τὸ ἐπίσημον).”

σωφροσύνη. Aristotle insisted on the etymology of the word. “We give it this name, ὡς σώζουσαν τὴν φρόνησιν” (Eth. Nic. vi. 5). Chrysostom echoes this (ἀπὸ τοῦ σώας ἔχειν τὰς φρένας, ix. 660 E). Elsewhere (xi. 750 C, comp. 661 E) he uses the Platonic phrase (ἡ τῶν φρενῶν σωτηρία, comp. σωτηρία φρονήσεως Plato Crat. 411).

ταπεινοφροσύνη. This, in Chrysostom’s opinion the cause, the very mother, of all virtues, stands at the opposite moral pole to selfishness (φιλαυτία) “the mother,” as he somewhere calls it, “of all heresies,” and “to arrogance (ἀπόνοια) the very citadel of evil” (vii. 186, viii. 414, ix. 660 D, xi. 229 E). Its essence lies in its voluntariness. And this thought is stamped upon the word. ταπεινοφροσύνη διὰ τοῦτο λέγεται, ὅτι τοῦ φρονήματός ἐστι ταπείνωσις (xi. 236 E).

χρήματα. The derivation is plain. καὶ γὰρ χρήματα διὰ τοῦτο λέγεται, οὐχ ἵνα κατορύξωμεν ἀλλʼ ἵνα εἰς δέον αὐτοῖς χρησώμεθα (vii. 508 E, comp. xi. 279 C with Field’s note). Elsewhere a different lesson is drawn: χρήματα λέγεται παρὰ τὸ κεχρῆσθαι, οὐ παρὰ τὸ κυρίους εἶναι. Here the transitoriness—vitaque mancipio nulli datur, omnibus usui—as there the responsibility of riches, is the preacher’s theme. The idea finds expression in a rhyming sentence: οὐκ ἔστι κτῆσις τοῦτο, χρῆσίς ἐστιν, οὐκ ἔστιν κυρία (xi. 608).

ψυχή. Chrysostom follows a playful, yet a more than half pathetic, suggestion of Plato (Crat. 399). The word ψυχή comes from the verb ψύχειν (xii. 17 c). For the soul is the element in man which revives and refreshes; and when it fails, man dies.

Synonyms. In an interesting passage (xii. 17, comp. Plato Cratylus ad fin.) Chrysostom draws a distinction between ideas and words. We form conceptions, which we in vain endeavour to express. The names which we give to persons or things do not bring out their essential nature. Words are half-veiled thoughts. But out of its failure language rises to its highest triumph. One word cannot express the reality of a conception; but different words can shadow forth different views of the truth, each word endowed with its living power of delicate sympathy. It is in dealing with these subtle yet very real distinctions that the scholar shews most clearly his insight into a language. And Chrysostom, I think, has no need to shrink from the test. His treatment of New Testament synonyms is not the least instructive part of his work as commentator.

ἅγιος, ἄμωμος (Eph. 1:4). “The former is he who is a partaker of the faith, the latter he whose life is blameless.”

ἁγνός, σεμνός (Phil. 4:8). “The former character belongs to the soul, the latter has to do with a man’s influence on others.” Theodore comparing 2 Cor. 7:11 takes ἁγνός to denote the man who abstains from complicity in evil actions.

ἀπρόσκοπος, εἰλικρινής (Phil. 1:10). “That ye may be εἰλικρινεῖς towards God; ἀπρόσκοποι towards men. For friendships often do hurt to men. Thou sufferest no hurt, yet haply thy neighbour stumbleth.” So Chrysostom explains the Apostle’s prayer. Just above he paraphrases somewhat differently:—“Under the plea of charity receive not ye any corrupt doctrine.”

ἀσέβεια, κοσμικαὶ ἐπιθυμίαι (Tit. 2:12). Here too the former is explained as referring to bad doctrine, the second to bad living. The same distinction is drawn between ἀσέβεια and ἀδικία in Rom. 1:18, though here Chrysostom adds that, since some interpret ἀδικία of doctrine, it may perhaps refer to error of doctrine and of life.

διάκονος, εὐαγγελιστής (x. 68 B), λειτουργός. The second office is confined to teaching; the first includes a ministry of gracious acts. On 1 Cor. 12:4–6 Chrysostom refuses to draw any distinction between χαρίσματα, ἐνεργήματα, and διακονίαι. “The things are the same; there is but a difference of name.” Again on Hebr. 1:14 λειτουργία and διακονία are confused. “What wonder if angels minister (λειτουργοῦσιν) to the Son, when they minister (λειτουργῶσιν) for our salvation?” But in a fine sentence lower down the difference is implicitly recognised:—τοῦτο ἀγγέλων λειτουργία, τὸ διακονεῖν τῷ θεῷ εἰς σωτηρίαν ἡμετέραν. The Fragment of Theodore recognises, but does not fully express, the distinction. He apparently explains λειτουργικά by the προσκυνησάτωσαν of 1:6 (ἀπὸ τῆς προκειμένης μαρτυρίας) and adds that “Angels do all things as those who do service for our salvation.”

διδάσκειν, προφητεύειν (1 Cor. 12:28). “He that prophesies uttereth all things of the Spirit, but he that teacheth at times speaketh of his own mind.”

δόγμα, ἐντολή (Eph. 2:15, comp. Col. 2:14). “There is a wide difference,” Chrysostom says, “between ἐντολή and δόγματα.” God abolished the commandment, i.e. the Law, by the Gospel (ἐν δόγμασιν); and this last expression may be more exactly defined as referring either to faith (Rom. 10:6–8), or to Christ’s commands as e.g. Matt. 5:22. Comp. p. 101.

δύναμις, κράτος (Col. 1:11). οὐκ εἶπε δύναμιν, ἀλλὰ, κράτος, ὅπερ μεῖζόν ἐστι. This brief sentence may be taken as a type of numberless passages in which Chrysostom, substituting for a moment a word of his own, brings out by the force of contrast the richness and vigour of the original.

Ἑβραῖος, ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ, Ἰσραηλίτης (2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5). In the first of these two passages Chrysostom rightly recognises the climax of the words, ‘Are they Hebrews? Are they Israelites? Are they the seed of Abraham?’; but he is obscure in details. On the second passage he gives the true explanation of Ἑβραῖος. “It was possible to belong to Israel and not to be a Hebrew of the Hebrews. For many had ere now corrupted their nationality, and were uninstructed in the Hebrew tongue.” Thus Ἑβραῖοι stand over against Ἑλληνισταί, whom elsewhere (ix. 169 D) he opposes to οἱ βαθεῖς Ἑβραῖοι. (The explanation of Theodore and Theodoret which lays stress on the antiquity of the name is probably alluded to by Chrysostom in his alternative interpretation:—ἢ τὴν πολλὴν εὐγένειαν δείκνυσιν).

εἰκών, χαρακτήρ, σκιά (Hebr. 1:3; 10:1). χαρακτήρ like μορφή is a word reaching deeper than εἰκών. The latter expresses likeness in position. Thus man is spoken of as the image of God, because he is on Earth what God is in Heaven. The former denotes essential likeness (ὁμοιότητα τὴν κατʼ οὐσίαν). As to the second pair of synonyms, σκιά is the rough sketch, the outline traced by the artist’s pencil; it is transfigured into an εἰκών when the colours being added have imparted a semblance of life. (Comp. p. 41 not

ἐκφέρειν, τίκτειν (Hebr. 6:7, 8). The writer “did not say τίκτουσα ἀκάνθας, he did not use so excellent a word, but, ἐκφέρουσα ἀκάνθας, as though one were to use the phrase, throwing, casting forth (ἐκβράσσουσα, ἐκβάλλουσα).”

ἐπιθυμία, εὐδοκία, θέλημα. εὐδοκία (which Origen on Eph. 1:5 (ap. Cramer’s Cat.) notes as no classical word, but an invention of the LXX) differs from θέλημα in that it expresses (1) the primary will (τὸ θέλημα τὸ προηγούμενον): thus the primary will of God is that those who have sinned perish not; the secondary that those who have become evil perish; (2) an earnest and intense desire (τὸ σφοδρὸν θέλημα, τὸ μετὰ ἐπιθυμίας θέλημα). Comp. notes on Rom. 10:1; Hebr. 10:8. In Hebr. 6:11, ‘We desire (ἐπιθυμοῦμεν) that each one of you may shew the same diligence,’ Chrysostom substitutes for a moment a possible θέλω. But the loss is at once apparent. θέλω would insist on the authority of the teacher; ἐπιθυμοῦμεν reveals the affection of a father. Chrysostom’s comment on Phil. 2:13 (ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας) slides from the meaning ‘love’ into the meaning ‘will’. In 2 Thess. 1:11 Chrysostom omitting ἀγαθωσύνης (unlike the kindred χρηστότης never used of God) and neglecting the parallelism of the clause ἔργον πίστεως, explains πᾶσαν εὐδοκίαν of God’s will (ἵνα τὸ πεῖσμα (comp. xi. 5 D) τοῦ θεοῦ γένηται … ἵνα ὡς βούλεται οὕτως ἦτε). But he is not quite clear. Theodore (implens vos omni bono) and Theodoret neglect εὐδοκίαν.

κατατομή, περιτομή (Phil. 3:2). To the circumcision of the Judaisers St Paul will not allow even the name. The very phrase he uses shall express its degradation. “Such περιτομή is nothing more than κατατομή, that is, a mere hacking of the flesh (for the word is used in reference to those who cut at random and without skill); or the term is employed because such men try to cut the Church asunder (διατέμνειν).” Of Chrysostom’s two explanations, the second is accepted by Theodoret; the former is that given by Theodore.

κλῆρος, μερίς (Col. 1:12). Chrysostom draws a distinction between the two words, in that the latter individualizes. “The portion is that which each man receives. Men may be in the same city and not enjoy the same privileges; this cannot be if they possess the same portion (τὴν αὐτὴν μερίδα). It is possible for men to be in the same lot (ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κλήρῳ) and not have the same portion. We all, for instance, are ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ, yet we do not all have the same portion. Here however the Apostle speaks of the lot and the portion together.” Chrysostom finds a further thought in the word κλῆρος. It excludes the idea of successful effort. “No one so lives as to deserve the kingdom; it altogether cometh of God’s gift.”

κοινωνία, μετοχή (1 Cor. 10:16). “Why,” Chrysostom asks, “did not the Apostle use the word μετοχή? It is because he wished to point out the completeness of the union. οὐ γὰρ τῷ μετέχειν μόνον καὶ μεταλαμβάνειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἑνοῦσθαι κοινωνοῦμεν.” In other words κοινωνία emphasises the idea of personal fellowship, comp. Prov. 1:11–18; 2 Cor. 6:14; Hebr. 2:14.

κολάζειν, παιδεύειν, τιμωρεῖν (1 Cor. 11:32). “The Apostle did not say, κολαζόμεθα (2 Pet. 2:9, Matt. 25:46, 1 John 4:18), nor τιμωρούμεθα (Hebr. 10:29), but παιδευόμεθα. For the purpose is to admonish, not to condemn, to heal, not to requite (τιμωρίας), to correct, not to punish (διορθώσεως ἢ κολάσεως).” Comp. 2 Cor. 6:9–1 Tim. 1:20, Hebr. 12:6–10, Apoc. 3:19.

μακροθυμία, ὑπομονή, χρηστεύεσθαι. Quoting Prov. 14:29 (μακρόθυμος ἀνὴρ πολὺς ἐν φρονήσει, ὁ δὲ ὀλιγόψυχος ἰσχυρῶς ἄφρων), Chrysostom calls μακροθυμία ‘the root of all true philosophy’ (x. 299 c). On Col. 1:11 he writes, “Unto all patience and longsuffering; longsuffering towards each other, patience towards those that are without. For a man is longsuffering towards those from whom he can, patient towards those from whom he cannot, defend himself. For this reason patience is never spoken of as belonging to God, but longsuffering often.” He brings out another side of the distinction when on 2 Tim. 3:10–11 he says, “Longsuffering is felt towards heretics; patience in regard to persecutions.” (Theodoret here makes longsuffering to be ‘the bearing the errors of the brethren.’)

μορφή, σχῆμα. These two important words occur side by side several times in the Pauline Epistles, either themselves or in their derivatives. Chrysostom brings out the distinction between them very clearly in his comments on Rom. 12:2 (comp. Theodoret’s note). Comparing 1 Cor. 7:31 he notes that while τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ implies perishableness, the derivative of σχῆμα adds the thought of unreality (τὸ ἀνυπόστατον). “Wealth, glory and c., these are simply a fashion (σχῆμα), not an actual verity, a show and mask, not an abiding reality.… That which belongs to the world is a fashion. That which pertains to virtue is not so but a true essence (μορφή) with a natural (φυσικόν) beauty of its own, a beauty which needs no external adjuncts and embellishments (ἐπιτριμμάτων τε καὶ σχημάτων).… If therefore thou wilt throw aside the fashion (σχῆμα), thou shalt soon reach the essence (μορφήν).” The distinction is of supreme importance in the Christological passage Phil. 2:5 sq. The whole passage will be discussed presently. For the present it must be enough to quote Chrysostom’s words (xi 238, 246). “The form qua form points to unchangeableness (τὸ ἀπαράλλακτον). A being of one essence (οὐσίας) cannot have the form which belongs to another essence. A man cannot have the form of an angel, nor an irrational animal that of a man.… In regard to us men, seeing that we are composed of divers elements (σύνθετοι), the form pertains to the body; in regard to Him who is (in nature) simple and without diversity of elements, it pertains to the essence.” Chrysostom will not allow that Christ’s act at the Last Supper (Jn. 13:4 sq.) explains the phrase ‘He took the form of a servant.’ This, he says, is simply to confuse form and work, nature and activity. On the other hand σχῆμα stands at the opposite pole to φύσις. It may be added that Theodore and Theodoret (on v. 11) substantially agree with Chrysostom, the former making φύσις the latter οὐσία or φύσις the strict equivalent of μορφή. Elsewhere (on Hebr. 1:3) Chrysostom treats μορφή and χαρακτήρ as practically identical in meaning. Chrysostom’s notes on 2 Cor. 11:13 (comp. Thdt.) and on 2 Tim. 3:5 are worth consulting. He contrasts this last passage (ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας) with Rom. 2:20 (ἔχοντα τὴν μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως). In the latter case according to him (comp. frag. of Theodore μόρφωσιν λέγει οὐ τὴν προτύπωσιν ἀλλʼ αὐτὴν τὴν ὑπόστασιν) μόρφωσις implies approbation, being equivalent to ἀρχέτυπον; in the former it is a term of disparagement not to be distinguished from σχῆμα. One brief sentence from his exposition deserves quotation, σχῆμά ἐστι μόνον χωρὶς δυνάμεως πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων.

ξενοδοχία, φιλοξενία (Hebr. 13:1, comp. 1 Tim. 5:10). Chrysostom notes that the writer enjoins the latter upon his friends, as a higher duty than the former. They must shew their love for the strangers whom they entertain (xii. 305 B).

ὁμοθυμαδόν, ὁμοῦ (Acts 2:46). Chrysostom distinguishes the words in that the latter could, the former could not, be applied to a company of men divided in opinion. Comp. Rom. 15:6.

οἰκητήριον, σκῆνος (2 Cor. 5:1, 2). Chrysostom identifies σκῆνος with σκηνή in meaning; and finds the reason for the Apostle’s introduction of a fresh word in the fact that while the σκηνή is readily taken down, the οἰκητήριον remains continually. Mr Field, it may be added, notes that “the depreciatory term σκῆνος for the human body is borrowed from the Pythagorean philosophy,” and gives several examples of this use (Otium Norvicense, Pars Tertia p. 113). Another good instance is Origen in Joan., Tom. vi. § 25 ἥντινα κατάβασιν αἰνίσσεσθαί τινες ὑπειλήφασι τὴν τῶν ψυχῶν κάθοδον ἐπὶ τὰ σώματα, θυγατέρας ἀνθρώπων τροπικώτερον τὸ γήϊνον σκῆνος λέγεσθαι ὑπειληφότες.

[παραβαίνειν, ὑπερβαίνειν (x. 718 c). “He who commits fornication,” Chrysostom remarks, “and he who practises virginity alike overstep the boundaries of the law, but in different ways … ὁ μὲν παραβὰς, ὁ δὲ ὑπερβὰς τὸν νόμον.” So, speaking of the Lord’s miracles on the Sabbath, Chrysostom says (viii. 214), ποιεῖ δὲ ταῦτα οὐ παραβαίνων, ἀλλʼ ὑπερβαίνων τὸν νόμον. Comp. Matt. 15:2, 3 (παραβαίνειν), 1 Thess. 4:6 (ὑπερβαίνειν in a different sense). προάγειν (2 Jn. 9) belongs to the same group.]

πνεῦμα, ψυχή. Deeper questions are at once raised than properly belong to a discussion of synonyms. It may however be well briefly to deal with the answer which the Antiochenes gave to one great problem of psychology. There are then several passages in which Chrysostom expressly asserts that man consists of body and soul, rejecting the theory of a trichotomy which found favour among the Alexandrian teachers. Thus Chrysostom deduces from Rom. 7:18 sq. the conclusion that St Paul divides man into the two parts, soul (ψυχή) and body, of which the former is the active, the latter the passive element. Foerster (p. 58) rightly points out that in one passage (xi. 37 B) where Chrysostom speaks of the spirit leaving the soul and the body, the reference is really to the Divine Spirit. There are two passages in the New Testament where the spirit of man is spoken of over and above the soul. In the first of these, ‘may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire’ (1 Thess. 5:23), Chrysostom and with him Theodore and Theodoret (see Dr Swete’s note on Th.’s commentary in loc.) explain τὸ πνεῦμα as equivalent to τὸ χάρισμα. As to the second passage, ‘even to the dividing of soul and spirit’ (Hebr. 4:12), Chrysostom gives a choice of interpretations. The writer either means that the Word of God “divides the spirit [which Chrysostom does not further define] from the soul or that it reaches to what is incorporeal, and not as an actual sword only to the body.” An examination of a large number of passages where the spirit of man is spoken of shews that the Antiochenes had three explanations whereby they escaped the plain meaning of the words—(1) τὸ πνεῦμα=ἡ ψυχή (ἡ καρδία). Chrysostom (xii. 17 c) makes ψυχή, καρδία, νοῦς, πνεῦμα all strictly synonymous terms. Thus he explains Matt. 6:3; Rom. 2:29 (Th. τῇ προθέσει, comp. Num. 14:23, 24; Hos. 4:12), 1 Cor. 5:5 (cf. Job 1:12, see below (2)), 2 Cor. 7:1 (probably, so Thdt. expressly), Gal. 5:17. (2) τὸ πνεῦμα = τὸ χάρισμα (or some synonymous term). Thus he explains Rom. 1:9 (so Th. Thdt.; see below (3)), 8:10, 16 (τῷ πν. ἡμῶν, so Diodore, Thdt. comp. 8:26 τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται κ.τ.λ. so Diod. Th. Thdt.), 1 Cor. 5:3 (so Thdt.), 5:5 (so Thdt.), 14:14, 15 (so Thdt.), 14:32 (so Thdt.), Gal. 6:18 (so Thdt. here and 5:17), Phil. 1:27; 1 Thess. 5:23; Hebr. 12:9 (so Thdt.; Chrys. gives as alternatives αἱ εὐχαί or αἱ ἀσώματοι δυνάμεις. (3) τὸ πνεῦμα = ἡ πνευματικὴ διάνοια (or equivalent phrase). Thus he explains Rom. 1:9 (see above (2)), 8:6, [8:10 Thdt. cf. Diod. on 8:16], 8:27. In 2 Cor. 7:13; Phil. 3:3 and Eph. 4:23 other evasive interpretations are given. Theodore further characteristically interprets the spirit as the man’s hope and pledge of a Resurrection in Rom. 8:2; 1 Cor. 5:5; Gal. 3:2; 5:18 (see Dr Swete’s note on the last two passages). Beyond the general desire for simplicity of conception which characterised the Antiochenes and their aversion to Platonic views—the reason for this elaborate evasion of obvious conclusions may be found partly in their exegetical, partly in their theological, position. Exegetically they were opposed to the theory of a manifold sense of Scripture, which Origen had connected with that view of man’s nature which they denied (Huet Origeniana ii. 13, 2). Theologically they were the most earnest opponents of Apollinaris, whose whole system of Christology was based on the assumption that man’s being included a πνεῦμα as well as a ψυχή. Doubtless their loss in completeness and depth of view was great. They gained simplicity of statement. They surrendered, or at best obscured, the belief that there is an element in man which,

tending up,

Holds, is upheld by, God, and ends the man

Upward in that dread point of intercourse,

Nor needs a place, for it returns to Him.

[προσαγωγή, πρόσοδος (Eph. 2:18, comp. Rom. 5:2; Eph. 3:12). “The Apostle did not say ἔχομεν τὴν πρόσοδον but τὴν προσαγωγήν. For we did not approach God of ourselves, but were brought thither by Him.” πρόσοδος does not occur in the N. T., but compare προσέρχεσθαι characteristic of the Epistle to the Hebrews, e.g. 4:16; 7:25 (διʼ αὐτοῦ).]

πτωχός (τῷ πνεύματι), ταπεινός (Matt. 5:3). Chrysostom holds that the former is the higher word, pointing out that ταπεινότης may be involuntary or exaggerated.

σάρξ, σῶμα. The view which more than one heretical sect held as to the inherent evil of matter made it necessary for Chrysostom again and again to insist on the distinction between the two words, lest it might seem that Scripture sanctioned the disparagement of the Body. Thus he remarks that σάρξ denotes sometimes the “whole man including the soul,” sometimes “the grosser impulse of the mind,” sometimes “the fleshly worldly life with all its debauchery and profligacy, making the man wholly flesh, but never the bodily nature itself” (ix. 566, 568, comp. 10:395 E and especially 720 B). Theodore in a striking note on Rom. 7:5 marks off four meanings of σάρξ;—(1) man’s nature; (2) man’s nature in its mortality, a view closely connected with his account of sin (comp. Dr Swete i. 94, n. 5); (3) suffering (Hebr. 5:7); (4) all that is transitory and frail.

[στέργειν, φιλεῖν (Rom. 12:10). The former word is an advance on the latter. St Paul bids the Romans οὐχ ἁπλῶς φιλεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ στέργειν Thus the latter part of the compound φιλόστοργος strengthens the former—καὶ φιλεῖ καὶ θερμῶς φιλεῖ. So Basil (ap. Cramer Cat. iv. p. 446) ἡ γὰρ στοργὴ κατʼ ἐπίτασιν τῆς φιλίας γένοιτʼ ἂν ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ καὶ διαθέσει διαπύρῳ τοῦ ἀγαπῶντος πρὸς τὸν ἀγαπώμενον.]

τρόμος, φόβος (Phil. 2:12). τρόμος, ὅπερ ἐπίτασίς ἐοτι τοῦ φόβου.

ὕμνος, ψαλμός, ᾠδή (Col. 3:16). The first two words are expressly distinguished. “Psalms are wide in compass (πάντα ἔχουσιν); hymns exclude anything merely human. When a man has been taught in psalms, then shall he also know hymns, seeing that is a diviner knowledge. αἱ γὰρ ἄνω δυνάμεις ὑμνοῦσιν, οὐ ψάλλουσιν.” (Cod. Regius adds ἁμαρτωλοὶ οὐχ ὑμνοῦσι.) And again, “What is the hymn of those above? The Faithful know. What said the angels? ‘Glory to God in the highest.’ Wherefore after the singing of psalms (μετὰ τὰς ψαλμῳδίας) the hymns come, seeing that the latter are a thing more perfect.” It is interesting to notice that Chrysostom throughout bases his distinction on the custom of his own days (comp. Bingham Antiq. xiv. cc. 1. 2). Chrysostom implies the larger meaning of ᾠδή when he says, νῦν δὲ σατανικὰς μὲν ᾠδὰς καὶ ὀρχήσεις ἐροῦσιν οἱ παῖδες οἱ ὑμέτεροι … ψαλμὸν δὲ οὐδεὶς οὐδένα οἶδεν.

This whole investigation has an immediate bearing upon questions which of late years have been earnestly discussed. Is accuracy the needful quality of a popular version? Does its attainment compensate for the loss of some grace and dignity of diction? The subject is a large one. But it is at least remarkable that the greatest preacher of ancient times in his popular expositions did not shrink from a somewhat technical discussion of grammatical minutiae, and felt bound to bring out latent shades of meaning, or the precise force of ambiguous words. Scholarly accuracy is the handmaid of reverence.