John Chrysostom On Paul Praises and Problem Passages Margaret M Mitchell Full Chapter

John Chrysostom on Paul: Praises and
Problem Passages Margaret M. Mitchell

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/john-chrysostom-on-paul-praises-and-problem-passa
ges-margaret-m-mitchell/
WRITINGS FROM THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD
John Chrysostom on Paul

Praises and Problem Passages
Introduction, translation, and notes by

Margaret M. Mitchell
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON PAUL
WRITINGS FROM THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD
General Editors
John T. Fitzgerald and Clare K. Rothschild
Editorial Board
Theodore de Bruyn
Andrew Cain
Teresa Morgan
David T. Runia
Karin Schlapbach
Number 48
Volume Editor
Judith L. Kovacs
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON PAUL
Praises and Problem Passages
Introduction, translation, and notes by

Copyright © 2022 by SBL Press
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by
means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permit-
ted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission
should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, SBL Press, 825 Hous-
ton Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022947312

For Rick
The frontispiece above is from Henry Savile, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν
Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν
εὑρισκομένων τόμοι ὀκτώ (Eton: Ioannes Norton, 1611–1612), 5:1.
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments.............................................................................................ix
Abbreviations.................................................................................................. xiii
Introduction..............................................................................................................1
Pauline Problems, Pauline Praises 1
The Contents and Rationale for this Volume 3
The History of Publication of the “Occasional Homilies”
on Pauline Passages 15
Henry Savile and the “Eton Chrysostom” 17
Fronto Ducaeus and, Later, the “Morel Edition” 28
Bernard de Montfaucon and, Later, the “Paris Edition” 32
Jacques-Paul Migne and the Patrologia Graeca 39
The Greek Texts Printed in the Present Volume 43
The Eighteen “Occasional Homilies” on Pauline Passages 43
The Authenticity of the Eighteen “Occasional Homilies” 45
Manuscript Witnesses of the Occasional Homilies 59
The Seven Homilies De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli 62
Prior Translations of These Twenty-Five Homilies 66
Research Areas and Topics for the Future 69
Editorial and Translation Decisions for This Volume 72
Translation Goals, Principles, Style, and Format 72
An Oral Idiom 72
Gendered Language 74
Replicating Cultural Assumptions Embedded in
the Texts and Their World 75
Scriptural Quotations and Allusions 76
Paragraphing 79
Titles of the Homilies 79
Notes Accompanying the Text and Translation 81
John Chrysostom on Paul 83
Text, Translation, and Notes.................................................................................85
Part 1
Hom. Rom. 5:3 (CPG 4373) 86
Hom. Rom. 8:28 (CPG 4374) 114
Hom. Rom. 12:20 (CPG 4375) 132
Hom. Rom. 16:3 A (CPG 4376) 180
Hom. Rom. 16:3 B (CPG 4376) 208
Hom. 1 Cor. 7:2–4 (CPG 4377) 246
Hom. 1 Cor. 7:39–40 (CPG 4378) 284
Hom. 1 Cor. 10:1–11 (CPG 4380) 310
Hom. 1 Cor. 11:19 (CPG 4381) 346
Hom. 2 Cor. 4:13 A (CPG 4383) 372
Hom. 2 Cor. 4:13 B (CPG 4383) 404
Hom in 2 Cor. 4:13 Γ (CPG 4383) 436
Hom. 2 Cor. 11:1 (CPG 4384) 470
Hom. Gal. 2:11–14 (CPG 4391) 498
Hom. Phil. 1:18 (CPG 4385) 554
Hom. 1 Tim. 5:9–10 (CPG 4386) 586
Hom. 2 Tim. 3:1 (CPG 4423) 636
Hom. Tit. 2:11–12 (CPG 4456) 666
Part 2
Hom. 1 De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli (CPG 4344) 698
Bibliography of Works Cited.........................................................................817

Textual Editions and Translations 817
Reference Works 823
Secondary Literature 823
Index of Biblical Passages Cited...................................................................837

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This book has been with me a long time. I am most grateful for the intel-
lectual, institutional, and personal assistance and encouragement that
I have received from many sources along the way. First, I would like to
thank the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation for the fellowship that
allowed me a full year’s leave in 2015–2016, that was timely in so many
ways. And I thank the University of Chicago for a leave in 2020 to polish
the apple and move this book into press, as well as to move ahead to other
planned projects. Like all humanists, I am especially grateful to librar-
ians for the indispensable resources they provide us. In this case, I thank
librarians at the University of Chicago Libraries, Loyola University of Chi-
cago, and the Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, in particular, for
timely responses to inquiries and for granting gracious and accommodat-
ing access to their rare book collections. I am also the beneficiary of the
work that so many persons have tirelessly done to digitize manuscripts
and make them accessible for research, both in online formats, such as
https://gallica.bnf.fr and https://digitale-sammlungen.de, and via acts of
personal kindness such as by Father Justin at Saint Catherine’s Monastery,
who provided me with excellent digital images of folios from Sinai. gr.
491, and the staff at the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana who did the same
for Vat. gr. 559.
Translation is both a technical craft and an art form, and it is truly one
of the greatest joys of my work as a scholar of New Testament and Early
Christian Literature. I find it fascinating to try to think my way inside an
ancient text in its source language and deliberate hard about how the target
language of English would correspond, both to the points the author seeks
to make and to the diction and tone in which they are communicated. For
me it has also meant enlisting as partners in this work, both in the class-
room and in lectures and other presentations, those who would give me
candid, keen and creative feedback on how my English for John’s Greek
worked or did not as I read my provisional translations aloud. I thank the
-ix-
x Acknowledgments
students in my research seminars on Early Christian Biblical Interpreta-

tion at the University of Chicago in 2019 (Emily Barnum, Michael Din-
smore, Bradley Hansen, Elizabeth Knapp, Matthew Neumann, Jonathan
Wegner, and Stephen Wunrow) and 2017 (Nathan Hardy, Elon Harvey,
Kelly Holob, and Megan Meagher) for wonderful conversations about all
aspects of this endeavor: the words, ideas, concepts, and arguments, and
all manner of syntactical, text-critical, exegetical, rhetorical, philosophi-
cal, theological, aesthetic, and ideological issues. Their suggestions have
made me think hard about specific points on all of these issues. They will
recognize some things that are here only because of our common work late
into the night in our seminar, even as at other times I’ve gone with other
options than they have suggested, and perhaps disappointed them (sorry!).
I am also grateful for invitations to speak and for lively and thought-
ful audiences, including for this book in particular: The Haskell Lectures
at Oberlin College, The Parchman Lectures at Truett Seminary (Baylor
University), Nils Alstrup Dahl Lecture, University of Oslo, Harriet Drake
Kirkham-Hay Memorial Lecture, Drake University, The University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Candler School of Theology, Emory Univer-
sity, Princeton Theological Seminary, Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theologi-
cal Seminary, and Smith College, as well as conference and seminar pre-
sentations at the North American Patristics Society, The Society of Biblical
Literature, and Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. And I have also had
the opportunity to present several of these translations in the University of
Chicago Early Christian Studies Workshop, where I have received custom-
arily terrific feedback. I am the grateful beneficiary of so many excellent
conversation partners who embraced the issue of “problems and solutions”
in biblical interpretation, and joined me in thinking with this particular set
of inventive, quirky, curious, audacious, strained and Scripture-saturated
homilies by John Chrysostom on Paul and Pauline problem texts.
I have been especially fortunate in having Professor Judith Kovacs
(now of blessed memory), of the University of Virginia as volume editor.
Judith’s very detailed notes on my draft translations were a treasure trove
of insights on the Greek, on how my proposed English worked (or did
not), on the proper placement of qualifiers and commas (such a huge
issue!), on the level of detail in the footnotes, and especially on the basic
issue of “what exactly is John seeking to say here?” I thank Judith profusely
for the ἀκρίβεια and expertise that she lent to my project, which is I know
all the better for having her eyes on it. I have also had the pleasure of serv-
ing with Judith and with Professor Wendy Mayer of Australian Lutheran
Acknowledgments xi
College for some years in founding the Chrysostom subseries of WGRW. I

am honored to contribute to the series, and especially to have this volume
appear alongside the first, excellent volumes by Professor Pauline Allen of
Australian Catholic University on Chrysostom’s homilies on Philippians
and on Colossians. I am sure that the influence of the scholarship of all
three of these remarkable scholars is evident throughout this volume.
I am immensely grateful to Professor John T. Fitzgerald of the Univer-
sity of Notre Dame for his leadership of the Writings from the Greco-Roman
World series, for his collegial encouragement and patience with me in this
process of finalizing the book, and for his specific and detailed comments
on the manuscript. I would also like to take this chance to salute John for
the fruits of his labors in what the series WGRW has become, thanks to his
vision and his utterly tireless efforts on its behalf over the past decades. I
am also tremendously grateful to the current series editor, Professor Clare
K. Rothschild of Lewis University, for taking such an interest in this proj-
ect and being willing to lend her expertise by offering suggestions on the
manuscript in its final stages, as well as valiantly championing it through
the production process.
In the process of putting this book to bed I have incurred further
debts. I especially thank Dr. Justin Howell for doing such a careful edit-
ing of the penultimate version of this manuscript and Dr. Jeremy Thomp-
son for expert work with the Greek texts and index. I also thank Mr. Paul
Hosle for lending his careful eye to the final version. I am hugely grateful
to Bob Buller, Director of SBL Press, and his staff, for handling a complex
manuscript so competently and surely.
I would also like to express gratitude to Mohr Siebeck publishers for
the generous permission to reprint my translation of the seven homilies De
laudibus sancti Pauli in The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the
Art of Pauline Interpretation (2000). I also thank Les Éditions du Cerf for
the permission to print the Greek text of those homilies from the Sources
chrétiennes volume by Auguste Piédagnel (1982).
Engaging the history of transmission, editing and publication of these
homilies has been a compelling and illuminating part of this research for
me, involving a set of encounters with monumental figures, most espe-
cially Henry Savile, the first to publish a Greek text of most of the homilies
in this volume, and all his successors, such as Fronto Ducaeus, Bernard
de Montfaucon and Jacques-Paul Migne, as I traced their efforts, deci-
sions and interventions. There is nothing like this to impress upon one a
proper perspective on the contingent nature of all of our scholarly efforts,
xii Acknowledgments
their value and limitations, as well as their fallibility. That is one reason it
has been hard to let this book manuscript leave my hands, since one can
always fine-tune, correct, learn more and reconsider decisions. But now
it is time to let this book go, and it is my earnest hope that this volume of
texts and translations of these twenty-five late antique works may (despite
the shortcomings that I fear remain) make a contribution to research proj-
ects and teaching on any number of topics across the interacting set of
disciplines we who study ancient Christianity share.
Many scholarly friends, too numerous to mention, have helped me
along the way and make my life so wonderful, and this precious work so
fulfilling. No one has been as influential a conversation partner, teacher
and friend to me as Hans Dieter Betz, who has simply the most extraordi-
nary mind and formidable spirit I’ve ever encountered. This book will be
published in the year of his ninetieth birthday, and so I am especially hon-
ored to extend my profound gratitude to Dieter for all I continue to learn
and enjoy in his company. Among other friends I would especially like to
thank Professor Paula Fredriksen of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
for superb conversations in both the first and the fourth centuries, Profes-
sor David Moessner of Texas Christian University for such a great part-
nership in all aspects of New Testament studies and ancient hermeneu-
tics, and Professor Paul Duff of George Washington University for highly
prized conversations over decades now on all things Pauline.
I could never adequately express my gratitude for Rick, Nora, Katie,
and all the Mitchells and Rosengartens, who are my joy and my strength.
All my books are imbued with the spirit of my tremendous family and in
so many ways are made possible by their love and companionship. But this
one in particular is and always will be for Rick.
July 26, 2020
Chicago, Illinois
ABBREVIATIONS
Text Editions and Translations
AP Piédagnel, Auguste, ed. and trans. Jean Chryso

stome, “Panégyriques de Saint Paul.” SC 300. Paris:
Cerf, 1982.
AW Wenger, Antoine, ed. and trans. “Une homélie
inédite de Jean Chrysostome sur l’épiphanie.” Revue
des études byzantines 29 (1971): 117–35.
CPG Geerard, Maurice, ed. Clavis Patrum Graecorum. 6
vols. plus supplementum. Turnhout: Brepols, 1974–
1998.
DMD Mazzoni Dami, Daniela, ed. Giovanni Crisostomo,
prima omelia sul matrimonio: “In illud, Propter
fornicationes uxorem.” Studi e testi 14. Florence:
Università degli Studi di Firenze Dipartimento di
Scienze dell’Antichità “Giorgio Pasquali,” 1998.
FD Ducaeus, Fronto, ed. and trans. Sancti patris nostri
Ioannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantino
politani: De diversis novi Testamenti locis Sermones
LXXI; Nunc primum Graece et Latine coniunctim
editi. Paris: A. Estienne, 1616.
HS Savile, Henry, ed. Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν
Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ
Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμοι ὀκτώ. Eton:
Ioannes Norton, 1611–1612.
HT Mitchell, Margaret M. The Heavenly Trumpet: John
Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation.
HUT 40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2002. Appendix 1, “English
translation of De laudibus sancti Pauli.” Pp. 442–87.
-xiii-
xiv Abbreviations
JPM Jacques-Paul Migne. See PG below

KJV King James Version
ME Sancti patris nostri Ioannis Chrysostomi archiepis
copi Constantinopolitani explanationes in Novum
Testamentum in sex tomos distributa. Frankfurt am
Main: Balthasar Christopher Wustius, 1697. Reprint
of Sancti patris nostri Ioannis Chrysostomi archiepis
copi Constantinopolitani opera omnia in 12 tomos
distributa. Paris: Morel, 1633.
Mf Montfaucon, Bernard de, ed. Sancti patris nostri
Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantino
politani opera omnia quae exstant. 13 vols. Paris:
Sumtibus Ludovici Guerin, Caroli Robustel, Joannis
and Josephi Barbou, Guillelmi Desprez, and Joannis
Desessartz, 1718–1738.
NA28 Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavido-
poulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger,
eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.
NETS Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A
New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other
Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That
Title. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
NIV New International Version
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
PE Montfaucon, Bernard de, ed. Sancti patris nostri
Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantino
politani opera omnia quae exstant. Editio parisina
altera, emendata et aucta. Paris: Gaume fratres,
1835–1839.
PG Patrologia Graeca [= Patrologiae Cursus Completus:
Series Graeca]. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. 161
vols. Paris: Migne, 1857–1886.
Rahlfs Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1935.
RP Robinson, Maurice A., and William G. Pierpont,
compilers and arrangers. The New Testament in the
Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2018. Nürnberg:
VTR, 2018.
Abbreviations xv
RSV Revised Standard Version

SBLGNT Holmes, Michael W. ed. The Greek New Testament:
SBL Edition. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature;
Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010.
TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. A Digital Library of
Greek Literature. Project Director Maria Pantelia.
University of California, Irvine, 2013. Continually
updated at stephanus.tlg.uci.edu.
Manuscripts: General
Athous Lavra Greece, Mount Athos, Great Lavra Monastery

Athous Pant. Greece, Mount Athos, Panteleimon Monastery
Bodl. Auctarium Oxford, Bodleian Libraries, Auctarium
Cantab. Trin. Coll. Cambridge, Trinity College
Cod. Eton Coll. Eton, Eton College Codex
Laurentianus Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana
Marc. gr. Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, Codices graeci
Mon. Leimonos Greece, Lesbos, Leimonos Monastery
Monac. gr. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Codices graeci
Monacenses
Mone Iberon Greece, Mount Athos, Monastery of Iberon (Iveron)
Oxon. Coll. Nov. Oxford, New College
Paris. gr. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Parisinus
graecus
Patmiacus Greece, Patmos, Monastery of St. John the Theologian
Sinait. gr. Mount Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine
Sinod. gr. Moscow, State Historical Museum, Synodal collec-
tion
Stavronikita Greece, Mount Athos, Stavronikita Monastery
Vat. gr. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vati-
cani graeci
Vat. Ottob. gr. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Otto-
boniani graeci
Manuscripts: The Eighteen “Occasional Homilies”
See the tables on pages 19–26, 34–36, and the initial footnote on each
translation.
xvi Abbreviations
Manuscripts: De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli
A Paris. gr. 755

B Vat. gr. 1628
C Marc. gr. 113
D Marc. gr. 567
E Patmiacus 164
F Laurentianus pluteus IX codex 4
G Athous Lavra Β 94
H Paris. gr. 728
L Athous Lavra Β 112
M Athous Pant. 58
P Stavronikita 22
Manuscripts: Biblical
Sigla for LXX manuscripts and recensions follow Rahlfs; those for New
Testament manuscripts follow NA28.
General Abbreviations
app. crit. apparatus criticus (critical apparatus)

des. mut. desinit mutile (ending cut off)
inc. mut. incipit mutile (beginning cut off)
MS(S) manuscript(s)
v.l. varia lectio (variant reading)
Primary Sources
Add Dan Additions to Daniel

Adv. Jud John Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos
Ag. Aeschylus, Agamemnon
A.J. Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae
Anna John Chrysostom, De Anna
Anom. John Chrysostom, Contra Anomoeos (De incompre
hensibili dei natura)
Ant. exsil. John Chrysostom, Sermo antequam iret in exsilium
Apol. Tertullian, Apologeticus
Bab. John Chrysostom, De sancto hieromartyre Babyla
Abbreviations xvii
Bab. Jul. John Chrysostom, De Babyla contra Julianum et

gentiles
Bapt. John Chrysostom, De baptismo Christi
Barl. John Chrysostom, In sanctum Barlaam martyrem
Byz Byzantine text
Catech. illum. John Chrysostom, Catecheses ad illuminandos
Catech. ult. John Chrysostom, Catechesis ultima ad baptizandos
Cod. Theod. Codex Theodosianus
Comm. in Gal. John Chrysostom, Commentarium in epistulam ad
Galatas
Comm. Ps. Diodore of Tarsus, Commentarius in Psalmos
Comm. Rom. Origen, Commentarii in Romanos
Compunct. Dem. John Chrysostom, Ad Demetrium de compunctione
Conj. Praec. Plutarch, Conjugalia Praecepta
Corp. herm. Corpus hermeticum
Dav. John Chrysostom, De Davide et Saule
Delic. John Chrysostom, De futurae vitae deliciis
Diab. John Chrysostom, De diabolo tentatore
Diatr. Epictetus, Diatribai (Dissertationes of Arrian)
El. vid. John Chrysostom, In Eliam et viduam
Enn. Plotinus, Enneades
Eth. Nic. Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea
Exp. Gal. Augustine, Expositio in epistulam ad Galatas
Exp. Ps. John Chrysostom, Expositiones in Psalmos
Ep. Epistulae
Ep. Lugd. Epistula ecclesiarum apud Lugdunum et Viennam
Ep. Olymp. John Chrysostom, Epistulae ad Olympiadem
Epid. Menander Rhetor, Peri Epideiktikōn
Exil. Plutarch, De exilio
Hier. Eusebius, Contra Hieroclem
Hist. eccl. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica
Hom. Act. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Acta apostolorum
Hom. Act. 9:1 John Chrysostom, De mutatione nominum
Hom. Col. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam ad Colos
senses
Hom. 1 Cor. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam i ad Corin
thios
Hom. 1 Cor. 7:2–4 John Chrysostom, In illud: Propter fornicationes
autem unusquisque suam uxorem habeat
xviii Abbreviations
Hom. 1 Cor. 7:39–40 John Chrysostom, De libello repudii

Hom. 1 Cor. 10:1–11 John Chrysostom, In dictum Pauli: Nolo vos igno
rare
Hom. 1 Cor. 11:19 John Chrysostom, In dictum Pauli: Oportet haereses
esse
Hom. 2 Cor. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam ii ad
Corinthios
Hom. 2 Cor. 4:13 John Chrysostom, In illud: Habentes eundem spiri
tum
Hom. 2 Cor. 11:1 John Chrysostom, In illud: Utinam sustineretis mod
icum
Hom. Eph. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam ad Eph
esios
Hom. Gal 2:11–14 John Chrysostom, In illud: In faciem ei restiti
Hom. Gen. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Genesim
Hom. Heb. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam ad
Hebraeos
Hom. Jo. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Joannem
Hom. Jo. 5:17 John Chrysostom, In illud: Pater meus usque modo
operatur
Hom. Jo. 5:19 John Chrysostom, In illud: Filius ex se nihil facit
Hom. Matt. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Matthaeum
Hom. Matt. 18:23 John Chrysostom, De decem millium talentorum
debitore
Hom. Phil. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam ad Philip
penses
Hom. princ. Act. John Chrysostom, In principium Actorum
Hom. Ps. Origen, Homiliae in Psalmos
Hom. Rom. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam ad Roma
nos
Hom. Rom. 5:3 John Chrysostom, De gloria in tribulationibus
Hom. Rom. 8:28 John Chrysostom, In illud: Diligentibus deum omnia
cooperantur in bonum
Hom. Rom. 12:20 John Chrysostom, In illud: Si esurierit inimicus
Hom. Rom. 16:3 John Chrysostom, In illud: Salutate Priscillam et
Aquilam
Hom. 1 Tim. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam i ad Timo
theum
Hom. 1 Tim. 5:9–10 John Chrysostom, In illud: Vidua eligatur
Abbreviations xix
Hom. 2 Tim. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam ii ad Timo

theum
Hom. 2 Tim. 3:1 John Chrysostom, In illud: Hoc scitote quod in
novissimis diebus
Hom. Tit. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam ad Titum
Hom. Tit. 2:11–12 John Chrysostom, In illud: Apparuit gratia dei
omnibus hominibus
Ign. John Chrysostom, In sanctum Ignatium martyrem
Laed. John Chrysostom, Quod nemo laeditur nisi a se ipso
Laud. Const. Eusebius, De laudibus Constantini
Laud. Max. John Chrysostom, Quales ducendae sint uxores
(=De laude Maximi)
Laud. Paul. John Chrysostom, De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli
Laz. John Chrysostom, De Lazaro
LXX Septuagint
𝔐 Majority Text
Marc. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem
Mart. John Chrysostom, De sanctis martyribus
MT Masoretic Text
Math. Sextus Empiricus, Adversus mathematicos
Mor. Plutarch, Moralia
Mut. Philo, De mutatione nominum
Nem. Pindar, Nemeonikai
Non desp. John Chrysostom, Non esse desperandum
Od. Homer, Odyssea
OG Old Greek
Paenit. John Chrysostom, De paenitentia
Pecc. John Chrysostom, Peccata fratrum non evulganda
Phaedr. Plato, Phaedrus
Pomp. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Epistula ad Pompeium
Geminum
Princ. Origen, De principiis (Peri archōn)
Prog. Aphthonius, Progymnasmata
Proph. obscurit. John Chrysostom, De prophetarum obscuritate
Quaest. Theodoret, Quaestiones in Libros Regnorum et Para
lipomenon
Rer. nat. Lucretius, De rerum natura
Res. Chr. John Chrysostom, Adversus ebriosos et de resurrec
tione domini nostri Jesu Christi
xx Abbreviations
Res. ges. Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gestae

Resp. Plato, Respublica
Rhet. Aristotle, Rhetorica
Sac. John Chrysostom, De sacerdotio
Sanct. Anast. John Chrysostom, Homilia dicta in templo sanctae
Anastasiae
Scand. John Chrysostom, Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt
Stag. John Chrysostom, Ad Stagirium a daemone vexa
tum
Stas. Hermogenes of Tarsus, Peri staseōn
Stat. John Chrysostom, Ad populum Antiochenum de sta
tuis
Stud. praes. John Chrysostom, De studio praesentium
Terr. mot. John Chrysostom, De terrae motu
Theod. laps. John Chrysostom, Ad Theodorum lapsum
Trin. Didymus the Blind, De Trinitate
Tu. san. Plutarch, De tuenda sanitate praecepta
Virginit. John Chrysostom, De virginitate
Virt. Philo, De virtutibus
Vit. Apoll. Philostratus, Vita Apollonii
Vit. Const. Eusebius, Vita Constantini
Vit. Greg. Pseudo-Gregentius, Vita sancti Gregentii
Vit. phil. Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum
Secondary Sources
AB Anchor Bible
AnBoll Analecta Bollandiana
Aug Augustinianum
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BDAG Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F.
Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexi
con of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2000.
BDF Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W.
Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1961.
Abbreviations xxi
BGBE Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese

BibInt Biblical Interpretation Series
BNP Cancik, Hubert, ed. Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia
of the Ancient World. 22 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002–
2011.
CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology
CCG 1 Aubineau, Michel. Codices Chrysostomici Graeci I:
Codices Britanniae et Hiberniae. Documents, études
et répertoires publiés par l’Institut de Recherche et
d’Histoire des Textes 13. Paris: CNRS, 1968.
CCG 2 Carter, Robert E. Codices Chrysostomici Graeci
II: Codices Germaniae. Documents, études et
répertoires publiés par l’Institut de Recherche et
d’Histoire des Textes XIV. Paris: CNRS, 1968.
CCG 5 Carter, Robert E. Codices Chrysostomici Graeci V:
Codicum Italiae partem priorem. Paris: CNRS, 1983.
CCG 6 Voicu, Sever J. Codices Chrysostomici Graeci VI:
Codicum Civitatis Vaticanae, partem priorem. Paris:
CNRS, 1999.
CCG 7 Augustin, Pierre, with Jacques-Hubert Sautel. Codi
ces Chrysostomici Graeci VII: Codicum Parisinorum
partem priorem. Paris: CNRS, 2011.
CCSG Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca
CH Church History
CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum
ECF Early Church Fathers
EECh Berardino, Angelo di, ed. Encyclopedia of the Early
Church. Translated by Adrian Walford. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992.
GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten
drei Jahrhunderte
HT Mitchell, Margaret M. The Heavenly Trumpet: John
Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation.
HUT 40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2002.
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUT Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie
ICC International Critical Commentary
ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly
xxii Abbreviations
JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies

JJMJS Journal of the Jesus Movement in its Jewish Setting
JR Journal of Religion
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hel
lenistic, and Roman Period
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LSJ Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart
Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised
supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum
NPNF1 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1
NTS New Testament Studies
OCT Oxford Classical Texts/Scriptorum classicorum bib-
liotheca oxoniensis
OrChrAn Orientalia Christiana Analecta
PCBCH Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul, the Corinthians and the
Birth of Christian Hermeneutics. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2010.
PGL Patristic Greek Lexicon. Edited by Geoffrey W. H.
Lampe. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961.
Pinakes Pinakes, Base de données de l’Institut de Recherche
et d’Histoire des Textes, Paris (irht.cnrs.fr).
PW Wissowa, Georg, and Wilhelm Kroll, eds. Paulys
Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissen
schaft. 50 vols. in 84 parts. Stuttgart: Metzler and
Druckenmüller, 1894–1980.
RB Revue Biblique
SC Sources chrétiennes
SK Skrif en Kerk
Smyth Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Revised by
Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge: Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 1980.
ST Studia Theologica
StPatr Studia Patristica
TK Texte und Kommentare
VC Vigiliae Christianae
Abbreviations xxiii
VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements

WGRW Writings from the Greco-Roman World
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Tes-
tament
INTRODUCTION
Pauline Problems, Pauline Praises
The letters of Paul are mines and fountains of the Spirit. They are mines,
in that they provide us with a wealth that is more precious than any gold;
fountains, in that they never run dry. No, as much as you empty out of
them, all the more flows out again.1
Such moments of exultation about the power, wisdom, sagacity, and

beauty of the Pauline letters are, as is well known, neither rare in the
oeuvre of John Chrysostom nor confined to his seven remarkable homi-
lies De laudibus sancti Pauli (“In Praise of Saint Paul”).2 And yet, despite
being regarded as such an unending treasury of gold and of life-giving
water, in truth Paul’s letters also provided Chrysostom and his congre-
gants at Antioch and Constantinople with a steady stream of statements
that were the cause of vexation, consternation, embarrassment, and
puzzlement—less gold, apparently, than gall. As a late fourth-century
Christian preacher and ecclesiastical leader, Chrysostom wished to
make the case continually to his congregants that the entirety of the
Scriptures should be the basis of their individual and communal Chris-
tian lives and of their civic polity and culture, and that these texts were
completely authoritative, reliable, and trustworthy guides for those
ends. And at the same time, the Scriptures also presented him and his
audiences with considerable problems and quandaries of various kinds:
literary, philological, theological, historical, ethical, logical, social, legal,
practical, and aesthetic. Of course, for the Christian intellectuals and
1. John Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Cor. 4:13 Γ §1 (PG 51:291).

2. For a full argument and collection of the evidence, see Margaret M. Mitchell,
The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation, HUT 40
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002).
-1-
2 John Chrysostom on Paul: Praises and Problem Passages
orator-bishops and priests of the post-Constantinian period, all of

Scripture, in part and as a whole, raised such issues in various ways,
such as the lustiness of the Song of Songs, the apparent contradictions
among the gospels,3 or the lack of complete concordance between the
Old and the New Testaments—even, or perhaps especially, where conti-
nuity is claimed but hard to maintain.
Within this larger phenomenon of the need to defend the entirety
of the Christian Scriptures as sacred text, the Pauline Epistles posed
some particular problems: (1) their genre as letters directed to specific
addressees handling their time-sensitive and local issues; (2) their treat-
ment of shocking and unseemly subject matter, like “a man having his
father’s wife” (1 Cor 5) or πορνεία, “sexual misconduct” (1 Cor 5–7);
(3) their diverse treatments of major issues (e.g., the status of the scrip-
tures of Israel or the mechanics of sin, belief, and salvation), which
raised questions of whether Paul, in his own letters and in relation to
the Acts of the Apostles, is or was consistent or self-contradictory;4 (4)
the boasting and bombastic tone and tenor of some of Paul’s statements
that seemed to contradict a saintly bearing and stature; (5) the attitude
exhibited in them toward whether “heresies” are to be expected or are
surprising aberrations; (6) the urgency of their eschatological visions
and expectations still unmet now centuries later; (7) their ambiguous
positions vis-à-vis Jews, “Judaism,” the law, and the Jewish tradition both
in Paul’s time and later; (8) their ambiguous or conflicting ethical norms
about women, slaves, social class, and other issues; (9) their testimony
to internal conflicts in the apostolic age, including evidence of outright
contestation and distrust of Paul’s own authority as an apostle (e.g., Gal
2; 2 Cor 10–13); (10) their hermeneutical malleability and hence ability
to be drawn upon as warrant for views that some interpreters regard as
3. E.g., in the genealogies of Jesus, the birth narratives, the lists of the apostles,
the wording of sayings, the date and circumstances of his death, and the tomb and
resurrection narratives. All of these problems were well recognized already by ancient
interpreters, who devised various strategies in turn (historical, text-critical, theologi-
cal, philosophical, hermeneutical, etc.) to deal with them. For an entrée into these
discussions, see Claudio Zamagni, Eusèbe de Césarée, Questions évangéliques, SC 523
(Paris: Cerf, 2008), 33–40, on the form of problems and solutions, and further bibliog-
raphy in p. 7 n. 15 below.
4. A “problem” made all the more urgent because it was pointed out by non-Chris-
tian intellectuals such as Porphyry and Julian.
Introduction 3
errant or scandalous. What is a preacher to do when faced with such chal-

lenges?
The Contents and Rationale for This Volume
Part 1 of the present volume contains the Greek texts and my English trans-
lations of eighteen homilies preached by John Chrysostom on individual
passages in the corpus Paulinum.5 These eighteen homilies stand outside
of Chrysostom’s famous homily sets on the fourteen letters (including the
Letter to the Hebrews, treated by John as Pauline) that have been widely
available in English translation for more than a century and a half and
that are very well known and well read, both among scholars of ancient
Christianity and New Testament exegetes.6 In contrast, most of the eigh-
teen “occasional homilies”7 in this volume have not been translated into
English (either in part or in whole)8 and are much less well known and
cited. Complementing these exegetical homilies, in part 2 of the volume
are the SC text by Auguste Piédagnel (1982) of Chrysostom’s seven homi-
lies De laudibus sancti Pauli and my English translations of them. The
primary goal of this volume is to make these twenty-five important ora-
torical and exegetical sources from the late fourth century better known
and more readily accessible in a bilingual edition to scholars and students
with interests in the New Testament, in early Christian studies generally,
in patristic exegesis specifically, and in hermeneutics and literary criticism,
5. The Greek texts are in most cases from PG 51, but see below on the complicated
history behind this Greek text and its associated notes, and their limitations.
6. These homilies are available in the English translation from the Oxford team,
with a revised American edition of that translation (in some cases drawing upon the
superior critical text of Frederick Field) in Phillip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, Series 1, vols. 11–14 (1886–1889; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
On this project, see Elizabeth A. Clark, Founding the Fathers: Early Church History
and Protestant Professors in Nineteenth-Century America, Divinations: Rereading Late
Ancient Religion (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 47–49.
7. The term “occasional” is sometimes used to distinguish these from the “serial”
homilies on the Pauline letters, and I use it here for convenience. But note that all the
Chrysostomic homilies are in some sense occasional (i.e., prepared for and most likely
delivered at a particular liturgical synaxis or other meeting), including those in the
serial homily sets on each of the Pauline letters. But these works have come down in
the transmission history independent of the series on the Pauline letters.
8. See below (pp. 66–69) on modern-language translations of these homilies.
ancient and modern, with an English translation that reflects their style
of live oratory, vivid imagery, rhetorical invention, detailed and complex
argumentation, and thoroughly dialogical character. At a time when the
study of ancient Christian biblical interpretation is in a heyday, it is hoped
that these sources can be all the more a part of that scholarly conversation.
Although the eighteen homilies on individual passages in the Pauline
epistolary that are collected here did not in Chrysostom’s life,9 nor in the
manuscript traditions stretching back to late antiquity that have preserved
his voluminous writings, represent a whole, unified or continuous collec-
tion, the present volume is not based on a random selection, nor does it
merely follow what has over time become a traditional clustering of these
sources, as reflected in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca volume 51.10 This collec-
tion is also based, as the opening to this introduction has indicated, upon
the analytical conclusion to which I came as I worked with these texts over
the years, that it is useful to study these eighteen homilies together because,
in addition to their focus on isolated Pauline lemmata apart from the serial
homilies on each letter, they all deal in some ways with “problem passages,”
or, if not self-evidently problematic at first glance, texts that John will make
into problems in order—inventively—to solve them. While these homi-
lies are by no means unique in this regard within Chrysostom’s oeuvre,
and while they are not the only homilies within Chrysostom’s oeuvre apart
from the homily sets on the fourteen letters that can be seen to have a
chief focus on a Pauline text,11 part of what further justifies this collection
9. With a few exceptions, most of the eighteen homilies in part 1 are very diffi-
cult to date, except in relation to some other homilies (see p. 48 n. 164 below, under
“Authenticity”). The magisterial work on the dating of Chrysostom’s homilies by
Wendy Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom—Provenance, Reshaping the Foun
dations, OrChrAn 272 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2005), has been essential to
my study of these. In each translation the chief arguments for the place of the homily
(in Antioch, 386–398, or Constantinople, 398–403) are provided in brief in the initial
note. This is another area requiring further research.
10. See below on the publication history of these Greek texts.
11. One should note as well that Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen, in a series of
articles, have demonstrated that the original sequence of what were published as homily
sets is not necessarily secure, as the sets in some cases may include sermons from both
Antioch and Constantinople, and there are some overlaps in treatments of passages.
See Pauline Allen and Wendy Mayer, “Chrysostom and the Preaching of Homilies in
Series: A New Approach to the Twelve Homilies In epistulam ad Colossenses [CPG
4433],” OrChrAn 60 (1994): 21–39; “The Thirty-Four Homilies on Hebrews: the Last
Introduction 5
in the present volume is that these homilies provide a vibrant laboratory

for investigating how a Christian orator-bishop in the late fourth cen-
tury dealt with the ways his Bible was unmistakably a problem. And the
seven homilies De laudibus sancti Pauli are included as well,12 since they
are an essential part of the overall project of resolving Pauline problems
and problematics in that John praises Paul at times by celebrating precisely
what his opponents and interlocutors, both Christian and non-Christian,
find blameworthy: his apparent inconsistency, his boasting, or his bellicos-
ity. In turn, the praiseworthy nature of Paul the author is the foundational
assumption behind the homiletic engagement with the “problem passages,”
because in the end John cannot and will not accept that his beloved and
saintly apostle erred, left behind deficient texts, or did not foresee the later
uses to which they would be put. For Chrysostom it is in the crucible of
the character of his saintly author, Paul, and the always fully deliberate
wording of the letters, that he gets down to the work of interpreting Paul.13
Hence the second goal of the present volume is to provide resources for
further research into the problematics of Pauline interpretation as Chryso-
Series Delivered by Chrysostom in Constantinople?” Byzantion 65 (1995): 309–48;

“Chrysostom and the Preaching of Homilies in Series: A Re-examination of the Fif-
teen Homilies In epistulam ad Philippenses [CPG 4432],” VC 49 (1995): 270–89). For
a recent evaluation of their arguments, see James Daniel Cook, Preaching and Popular
Christianity, Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2019), 201–10: “Appendix: “The Use of Lectio Continua.” To the degree that there
is some doubt about the coherence of any given series (though in some cases, it is clear
that John is preaching through a biblical book and one sermon follows after another),
the claim for these more isolated homilies is not meant to imply that they stand in
complete distinction from the others in this regard. And yet, none of the eighteen
homilies on Pauline lemmata presented here indicates that it follows a previous homily
on that Pauline letter, with the exception of the homilies that are themselves clearly
following in sequence from one another and comprise a miniseries; these are Hom.
1 Cor. 7:2–4 and Hom. 1 Cor. 7:39–40; the two Hom. Rom. 16:3, and the three Hom.
2 Cor. 4:13. Beyond that, each of these homilies has its own argumentative structure
and purpose and is often not working through large portions of the text seriatim in
precisely the way the homilies within the sets often do.
12. For the first time since the Morel Edition of the seventeenth century, as noted
below, p. 32.
13. A fuller argument for this thesis, which also contextualizes John’s interpretive
work within late fourth-century literary, rhetorical, artistic, theological and philosoph-
ical culture, may be found in Mitchell, Heavenly Trumpet.
stom, the self-proclaimed most devoted expositor of Paul, practiced it in

these lesser known and understudied homilies.
The first eighteen homilies by John Chrysostom translated here in part
1 include treatment of such vexing questions as these:
◆ How is it that Christian Scripture contains things that appear to be

trivial and insignificant, such as the epistolary greeting to Priscilla
and Aquila in Rom 16:3?
◆ If Christ commanded his disciples not to own sandals or a cloak
(Matt 10:9–10), then why did his two chiefs, Peter and Paul, have
sandals (cf. Acts 12:8) and cloaks (cf. 2 Tim 4:13), respectively?
◆ Did Paul really command one to feed or clothe one’s enemies by
appealing to the vengeful and mean-spirited expectation of “heap-
ing burning coals on their heads” (Rom 12:20)?
◆ Is it possible to reconcile the apparent legal discrepancies in the
legislation about divorce and marriage offered by Paul (1 Cor 7)
with the laws given by Christ in the gospels (e.g., Matt 5:27–32;
19:3–9 and parr.) or Moses in the Pentateuch (e.g., Deut 24:1–4)?
◆ Did Paul endorse and even sanction the need for there to be “her-
esies” in the church (1 Cor 11:19) or a variety of gospel messages
with divergent and even conflicting motives (Phil 1:18)?
◆ Do the Old Testament and the New really share “the same spirit of
faith” (2 Cor 4:13) or even the same god?
◆ Do passages like Gal 4:22–24 on the two covenants give support
to the Manichaean position that the god of the Old Testament is a
different lawgiver from the god of the New Testament?
◆ How could Paul seem to allow for equality in marriage between
husband and wife in 1 Cor 7:2–4, when Paul himself in 1 Tim 2:11–
15 clearly emphasizes the husband’s superiority and dominance?14
◆ Was Paul utterly inconsistent in saying or doing one thing in one
context and another in a different one (cf. his bold claim to be “all
things to all people” in 1 Cor 9:22b)?
◆ Does Gal 2:11–14 demonstrate that both of the founders of the
Christian movement (Peter and Paul) were “hypocrites” who were
unalterably opposed to one another and were exposed publicly at
14. Throughout this volume we are addressing Chrysostom’s “Paul”; he regarded

all fourteen of the letters in the canon (including Hebrews) to be equally and genu-
inely Pauline.
Introduction 7
Antioch—Peter as cowering in fear before “the men from James”

and under Pauline censure, and Paul as breaking the command-
ment of Matt 18:15 to rebuke a brother only in private?
◆ How can Paul describe the saving grace of God as παιδεύουσα
ἡμᾶς (Titus 2:12), since that casts χάρις in a punitive role vis-à-vis
humanity rather than a salvific one (ἡ σωτήριος)?
Throughout these eighteen homilies, one finds Chrysostom employing the

language, logic, and rhetoric of the ancient pedagogical form known as
ζητήματα καὶ λύσεις, or “problems and solutions.”15 Adoption of the zetetic16
15. Among important scholarly treatments see especially Claudio Zamagni, “Une
introduction méthodologique à la littérature patristiques des questions et réponses:
Le cas d’Eusèbe de Césarée,” in Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Question-and-Answer
Literature in Context, ed. Annelie Volgers and Claudio Zamagni, CBET 37 (Leuven:
Peeters, 2004), 7–24, esp. 10, in which he distinguishes between “le genre littéraire”
and “le procédé littéraire.” See also Marie-Pierre Bussières, ed., La littérature des ques
tions et réponses dans l’antiquité profane et chrétienne: De l’enseignement à l’exegèse,
Instrumenta patristica et mediaevalia 64 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), and in particular
the essay in that volume by Claudio Zamagni, “Is the Question-and-Answer Literary
Genre in Early Christian Literature a Homogenous Group?” (241–68), which repeats
and slightly refines the earlier proposal to distinguish between “a literary genre and a
literary pattern (or literary format, procedure)” (242, emphasis original); Yannis Papa-
doyannakis, “Instruction by Question and Answer: The Case of Late Antique and Byz-
antine Erotapokriseis,” in Greek Literature in Late Antiquity: Dynamism, Didacticism,
Classicism, ed. Scott Fitzgerald Johnson (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006), 91–106; and,
most recently, Lorenzo Perrone, “Questions and Responses,” in The Oxford Handbook
of Early Christian Biblical Interpretation, ed. Paul M. Blowers and Peter W. Martens
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 198–209. Still valuable is the earlier treat-
ment of Gustave Bardy, “La littérature patristique des ‘quaestiones et responsiones’ sur
l’écriture sainte,” RB 41 (1932): 210–36.
16. The lexicon for referring to the “problems” in ancient texts includes those that
are properly “zetetic” (ζήτημα, ζήτησις, ζητεῖν) along with προβλήματα (“problems”),
ἀπορίαι (“quandaries” or “perplexing issues”), and other words. For the translation
of the zetetic terms as “problems” when dealing with exegetical discussions such as
we find in these homilies of Chrysostom, see ζητέω, PGL 591: “2: inquire, seek …
hence pass. ptcpl neut., problem of exegesis or theology.” See also ζήτησις, PGL 591: “1.
question, inquiry, in gen. … esp. ref. exegetical problems” (emphasis original for the
glosses). Chrysostom uses the participle and both the cognate nouns at key moments
in many of these homilies to articulate his argument, as the notes within the trans-
lations will show. He does not use the term πρόβλημα, though he knows well of its
connection in the Psalms with murky and enigmatic sayings that require interpreta-
tion. See, e.g., Exp. Ps. Ψ 49 §3 (PG 55:226) where, confronted by Ps 49:5 (κλινῶ εἰς
form of problems and solutions (often referred to in scholarship by the

Byzantine neologism, erōtapokriseis), which was already traditional among
Christian exegetes since at least Origen17 (and going back to Philo of Alex-
andria among Jewish readers of the Greek Bible), is one of the ways the
Christian Scriptures were placed among the preeminent textual authori-
ties of the culture, subject to scrutiny by believers and nonbelievers alike.
This was both a strong bid for authority for these Scriptures (i.e., that they
deserve such close and detailed study) and in turn a demand placed on
them by the claims being made for their authoritative status as sources
of philosophical and theological wisdom. But how exactly is the rather
odd collection of literary sources contained within the biblical anthology,
including the pedestrian form of the personal letter that predominates in
the New Testament,18 suitably a sacred text, one that can claim not only
to stand alongside but also to supersede the Homeric epics, for instance?
And can these Christian Scriptures hold up under the very questions to
which ancient philosophers and literary critics had subjected those and
other works: are the things they say true? Are the things said and done in
them evidence of virtue, or vice? Are there self-contradictions? Are things
said that are impossible, or contrary to reason?19
παραβολὴν τὸ οὖς μου, ἀνοίξω ἐν ψαλτηρίῳ τὸ πρόβλημά μου [sic]), he says, πρόβλημα
δέ ἐστι λόγος συνεσκιασμένος καὶ αἰνιγματώδης; “a ‘problem’ is a statement that is shad-
owy and enigmatic in meaning.” John can also use the term ἀπορία, as in Hom. Rom.
12:20 §5 (PG 51:180), where the verse is said to contain “an apparent problem” (τὸ
δοκοῦν ζήτημα), but not in the first half; rather, it is “the part that follows that contains
a great quandary” (τὸ δὲ ἐντεῦθεν λοιπὸν πολλὴν ἔχει τὴν ἀπορίαν). He goes on to ask,
“What then is the solution?” (Τίς οὖν ἐστιν ἡ λύσις; PG 51:181). Among many other
examples, see Hom. Rom. 16:3 Β §2: “let’s proceed at last to the solution to these prob-
lems. What will the solution be?” (ἐπ’ αὐτὴν ἴωμεν λοιπὸν τῶν ζητουμένων τὴν λύσιν.
Τίς οὖν ἡ λύσις ἔσται; PG 51:197).
17. Origen was certainly not the first. Bardy, “La littérature patristique,” discusses
such second-century figures as Marcion, Apelles, and Tatian as exemplars of this form
of question-and-answer literature. On Tatian, see more recently Matthew R. Crawford,
“The Problemata of Tatian: Recovering the Fragments of a Second-Century Christian
Intellectual,” JTS 67 (2016): 542–75.
18. Of the twenty-seven documents in the New Testament, arguably twenty-one
are or were received as letters, and two other works (Acts and Revelation) contain let-
ters within them.
19. Here I am paraphrasing the well-known ch. 25 of Aristotle’s Poetica (1460b),
which begins, Περὶ δὲ προβλημάτων καὶ λύσεων, “Now concerning problems and solu-
tions” (ed. Kassel, my translation). As Perrone, “Questions and Responses,” 201, notes,
Introduction 9
By drawing upon the form of problems and solutions in these homilies

on Pauline problem texts, Chrysostom situates his oratory at the nexus
of schoolroom techniques for literary analysis and philosophical investi-
gation, on the one hand, and of public rhetorical performance carefully
poised between apologetics and entertainment, on the other.20 Chrysos-
tom seeks to make public study and talk about the Scriptures a competitor,
not just to the study of Greek philosophy and its mythic, poetic, and epic
sources of inspiration, but also to the conventional popular-entertainment
vehicles of the late antique polis: the theater, the racetrack, athletic games,
and oratorical competitions.21 Chrysostom himself foregrounds the com-
parison in one of our homilies:
we find the same “topics of problemata” in the discussion on scriptural interpreta-

tion in Origen, Princ. 4.1 (SC 268:256–92, ed. Crouzel and Simonetti), and throughout
his oeuvre. By Chrysostom’s time, the form and procedure of προβλήματα καὶ λύσεις
were firmly established among Christian intellectuals charged with expounding and
defending their Bible.
20. Attending to Chrysostom’s use of ζητήματα καὶ λύσεις confounds attempts to
impose dichotomies on his homiletics, such as that they are “essentially a scholastic
activity” rather than “works of oratory”—so Cook, Preaching and Popular Christianity,
55–56, passim—or they are “a form of mass communication” and not “a form of dia-
logue”—so Isabella Sandwell, “Preaching and Christianisation: Communication, Cog-
nition, and Audience Reception,” in Revisioning John Chrysostom: New Approaches,
New Perspectives, ed. Chris L. de Wet and Wendy Mayer, Critical Approaches to Early
Christianity 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 137–74, esp. 157. The works translated in the pres-
ent collection repeatedly demonstrate that Chrysostom’s homiletical practice involves
all these things—pedagogy (including both instruction and correction), oratory (both
conventional and innovative), dialogue (of various types and demeanors and with dif-
ferent partners), and mass communication (or, better, attempts at such). Rather than
bifurcate, we do best to analyze how they come together in this particular, deliberately
designed alchemy.
21. For the particular social spaces occupied by late fourth-century orator-
bishops in relation to philosophical preaching and widespread forms of urban
entertainment, see Jaclyn L. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication in Late
Antiquity: John Chrysostom and His Congregation in Antioch (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2006), 11–64. On the physical spaces and attempts (mate-
rial, political and rhetorical) to claim authority over them, see Christine Shepard-
son, Controlling Contested Places: Late Antique Antioch and the Spatial Politics of
Religious Controversy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014). On Chryso-
stom’s famous competitiveness with the theater, see Blake Leyerle, Theatrical Shows
and Ascetic Lives: John Chrysostom’s Attack on Spiritual Marriage (Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press, 2001).
Those who are all aflutter over the spectacle of horse-racing can tell you
the names, herd, ancestry, hometown, and upbringing of the horses with
complete accuracy and detail,22 as well as how old they are, their perfor-
mance on the track, and which horse, matched up in a heat with what
other horse, will snatch up the win. And they can tell you what breed
of horse, launched from a certain kind of starting gate and with what
rider, will prevail in the race and run right past its rival. Likewise, those
who devote their time to dance performances aren’t inferior to the horse-
racing enthusiasts, but they display even more madness about those who
behave indecorously in the theater—the mimes and the dancing girls, I
mean—and can recount in detail their ancestry, hometown, upbringing,
and everything else. But when we’re asked, “How many and what are the
names of the letters of Paul?” we can’t even tell their number! And even if
there might be a few people who know their number, they’re still at a loss
when asked to provide an answer to the question of what cities received
the letters. Yet a man who was a eunuch and a barbarian (cf. Acts 8:26–
40), whose mind was pulled in many directions by countless business
matters, was so devoted to the sacred books that he didn’t even rest on the
occasion of a journey but, when sitting in his chariot, was absorbed in the
task of reading the divine Scriptures with complete attention. But in our
case, although we don’t have even a fraction of his occupational burden,
we’re like foreigners when it comes to the names of the letters. And that’s
the case even though we are assembled here every Lord’s day and have
the benefit of hearing the divine Scripture. 23
Using these analogies to other forms of cultural knowledge, to horse racing

and the theater, John insists that valuation is demonstrated in quality of
attention. A properly “Christian” public and private culture, in Chrysos-
tom’s eyes, is one that spends its time and places its intense focus on deep
knowledge and scrutiny of the Scriptures. This is for him a catechetical
and pedagogical commitment, as well as an apologetic one, that creates
its own tensions, for John will use the “problems” in Scripture to capture
his audience’s attention, and yet he always wishes to leave them, not with
unanswered questions, doubts, or concerns about Scripture, but with the
full assurance provided by his solution to the problem he has brought
22. The term ἀκρίβεια, enormously important for John, is used in this homily (as
throughout his oeuvre) with all its senses: “attention,” “detail,” “care,” “accuracy,” and
“rigor” (compare the entries in LSJ and PGL). I occasionally double-gloss it so the
reader can see the full resonances within the argument.
23. Hom. Rom. 16:3 A §1 (PG 51:188).
Introduction 11
to light. He wishes to teach them in a manner that piques their interest,

but he does not wish to sully the scriptural record too much by allowing
that it just may have “problems.” And Chrysostom eagerly (if unrealisti-
cally) wishes diligent study of the sacred Scriptures and keen knowledge of
them to replace his congregants’ appetite for and interest in other forms of
entertainment and enjoyment in the life of the late antique polis, including
oratorical performances other than his own stylized and dramatic ones.
In another homily, John draws the contrast between these forms of
public pursuits and entertainment with a striking gustatory image:
Again today I wish to lead you to fountains of honey, a honey of which

one can never get enough. For such is the nature of Paul’s words, and all
those who fill their hearts from these fountains speak forth in the Holy
Spirit. And indeed, the pleasure of the divine utterances makes one lose
sight of even the good taste of honey. The prophet shows this when he
says: “How sweet in my throat are your utterances, more than honey and
honeycomb in my mouth” (Ps 118:103).… For indeed, honey is destroyed
in the digestive process, but the divine utterances when digested become
sweeter and more useful, both to those who possess them and to many
others. Now someone who has plentiful enjoyment from a physical meal
and then belches from it is most unpleasant to their companion. But one
who has belched forth utterances from the spiritual teaching shares the
rich fragrance with their neighbor. Indeed, David, when he had con-
tinually enjoyed this kind of feasting, said, “My heart belched out a good
word” (Ps 44:2). Yet it’s possible to belch forth a wicked word, too. In the
case of a physical meal, the quality of the belching corresponds to the
nature of the foods eaten. The same is true also with the power of words:
many people belch forth things akin to what they eat. For example, if
you go up to the theater and you listen to whorish hymns, then those
are the kind of things you will surely belch forth in the presence of your
neighbor. But if by coming to church you share in the hearing of spiritual
things, then those are the kind of belches you’ll have, as well. That’s why
the prophet said, “My heart belched out a good word” (Ps 44:2), showing
us the nature of the meal he shared.24
Biblical study, including careful consideration of things that “appear to be

problems” should, on John’s gustatory metaphor, produce beneficent biblical
belchings. The Golden Mouth’s sweet oratory is meant to handle the difficulties
and stop bellies from roiling, resulting in the fresh breath of scriptural security.
24. Hom. 1 Cor. 7:2–4 §1 (PG 51:208–9).

And, as Chrysostom often states, he wishes by his clever apologetic arguments

of refutation (ἀπολογία, ἔλεγχος) of the apparent problems in the Pauline letters
as Scripture, not just to entertain, but to arm his congregants with ammunition
against the opponents of Paul and the church that await them “outside.”25
Chrysostom employs some consistent techniques across these homi-
lies, techniques that are found also elsewhere in his extensive corpus of
homilies and other writings. As we have noted, the “problem” (τὸ ζήτημα,
τὸ ζητούμενον) for which one seeks a solution is often introduced as an
“apparent” (δοκοῦν) one, a formulation that simultaneously grants the
problem and raises doubt about its reality. Often after bringing forward
the “apparent problem,” Chrysostom will first use the rhetorical form of
αὔξησις, “amplification,”26 to make the problem even more dire before he
eventually—after deliberately building dramatic tension and suspense—
reveals the solution (λύσις). He appears to do this for several reasons. First,
John wants to get his audience interested in the problem and all the more
eager for the satisfactory solution to it that his homily will provide. Second,
in the way he defines and aggrandizes the problem, Chrysostom often
seeds key elements of the solution he will later offer via his argumentation.
Third, amplifying or exaggerating the problem is a kind of high-wire act by
which the preacher deliberately increases the degree of difficulty of the task
so that when he does produce the solution, his achievement is all the more
impressive.27 In some cases, John is addressing famous “problem texts”
25. See Hom. Rom. 16:3 B §1 (PG 51:197); Hom. 1 Cor. 11:19 §5 (PG 51:260);
Hom. 2 Cor. 4:13 B §4 (PG 51:284); Laud. Paul. 6.5 (AP 272), all using ἐπιστομίζειν
(“muzzle them”); or Hom. 2 Cor. 4:13 B §4 (PG 51:284), ἀπορράπτειν (“zip their lips”).
26. For references to this term and the forms of instruction in rhetorical school, see
R. Dean Anderson Jr., Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms, CBET 24 (Leuven: Peeters,
2000), 26–29. John would have learned this in his rhetorical education, whether under
the famous rhetor, Libanius (so Socrates, HE 6.3, followed by many scholars even
today), or another, if not Libanius. See the critical case against made by Pierre-Louis
Malosse, “Jean Chrysostome a-t-il été l’élève de Libanios?” Phoenix 62 (2008): 273–80,
who agrees nonetheless that “il est évident que Jean Chrysostome a reçu une solide
formation rhétorique” (275).
27. In one of our homilies, Hom. Gal. 2:11–14 §2 (PG 51:374), John quite explic-
itly names what he is doing: Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ παρακαλῶ προσέχειν. Καὶ γὰρ αὔξω τὴν
κατηγορίαν, και μείζονα ποιῶ, ἵνα ἐπιτείνω ὑμῶν τὴν σπουδήν (“that’s why I’m urging
you to pay close attention, for I’m going to amplify the accusation and make it worse,
so I might heighten your attention”). That John is aware of this dynamic is shown
also in the way he regards Paul himself as having used this very procedure, as, e.g., in
his skilled argumentative move from Rom 9:14–15: Καὶ πάλιν αὔξει τὴν ἀντίθεσιν διὰ
Introduction 13
that have become traditional by his time and require attention (such as
the Antioch incident in Gal 2:11–14); in others, he takes a text that might
appear to be innocuous or unproblematic (such as the epistolary greeting
to Priscilla and Aquila in Rom 16:3), and he will find a way to turn it into a
“problem” only in order—voilà!—to “solve” it.28
And yet in turn, often the solution to one “problem” engenders fur-
ther problems, in a kind of whack-a-mole dynamic that starts the whole
process over again. For example, when treating Rom 16:3, John asks why
it is that in his greeting Paul names the wife, Priscilla, before her husband,
Aquila. Refusing the explanation that Paul did this casually or without
purpose (ἁπλῶς), John concludes, “it seems to me (ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ) this was
in recognition of the fact that her piety (εὐλάβεια) was superior to her
husband’s.”29 John then defends this solution as more than a mere conjec-
ture (στοχασμός) of his own, by appealing to Acts 18:24–26, where Priscilla
provides remedial catechesis to Apollos from Alexandria. But this solu-
tion then leads to another set of problems: (1) does this mean that women
of Chrysostom’s day also can teach and hold positions superior to their
husbands? (2) And didn’t Paul himself in 1 Tim 2:12 forbid a woman to
teach? Not surprisingly, John will find a solution to these problems, too. In
both of these cases, he will constrain, rather than universalize, the author-
ity and example of the past, setting a time limit or other restriction on the
apostle’s words. To question (1) comes solution (1): no, it was just back in
the time of the apostles that women displayed such fervor for the gospel
and were allowed to play more “manly roles,” and, to question (2), solution
(2): women’s instruction, even back in the day, was only of a very particu-
lar kind—leading others to faith by good example. Even in Paul’s praise of
Priscilla in Rom 16:3, as set alongside the apparently contradictory injunc-
tions of 1 Tim 2:9–15, one should be able to see that what the apostle was
strictly forbidding was for women to teach from the pulpit, engaging in
μέσου διακόπτων αὐτὴν, καὶ λύων, καὶ ἑτέραν πάλιν ἀπορίαν ποιῶν (“and again Paul
amplifies the contradiction, cutting it off in midstream and solving it, and in turn fash-
ioning yet another quandary”). See Hom. Rom. 16.7 (PG 60:558).
28. That is, as pronounced by himself. We cannot assume the audiences, in whole
or in part, were actually convinced. And indeed, in various homilies in miniseries we
have evidence that in fact they were not, or at least some members of the congregation
challenged his answers with what he considers to be new “problems.” See, e.g., Hom.
Rom. 16:3 B §§1–2 (PG 51:195–200).
29. Hom. Rom. 16:3 A §3 (PG 51:191).
“public speaking, and the oratory that is proper to the priesthood.”30 That
the apostle didn’t speak about pulpits at all does not bother John! The prob-
lems, both of his text and of his own context, are pronounced solved. And
yet we certainly cannot assume that his audiences always were persuaded,
even as the very form of ζητήματα καὶ λύσεις presumes an acknowledged
degree of disagreement or anxiety about the text and its possible meanings
that the preacher seeks to confront.
It is especially fascinating to watch in these homilies how John can deal
with material that is deadly serious, such as engaging some “problems”
that have been hurled by outsiders against the Christ-believers, or readings
promulgated by those John designates “heretics” (such as Marcionites and
Manichaeans), and yet accept that challenge in a way that is part apologist,
part bravado, part purposeful catechist, part public theologian, and part per-
formance artist. These homilies provide an excellent opportunity to study
the relationship in late antique oratory between problem and opportunity;
between deadly serious and entertaining; between problems imposed and
problems fashioned for the sake of argument. And looking at ancient Chris-
tian biblical interpretation according to this approach of “problems and
solutions” allows us to see many things that do not fit any traditional divide
between a “literal” or an “allegorical” interpretation of the biblical text and
that certainly contest simple declarations that the Antiochenes uniformly
practiced the former.31 Watching a skilled public orator like Chrysostom
engage with his biblical text’s “apparent problems” enables us to see that
textual meaning is not simply a given, by either “literal” or “allegorical”
reading—or the great volume of biblical interpretation that operates in the
middle—but is fashioned in each moment of interpretive contestation.32
30. Hom. Rom. 16:3 A §3 (PG 51:192).

31. As just one example of this, see John’s clever treatment of “surface” and “deep”
meanings of the text of Gal 2:11–14 in Hom. Gal. 2:11–14 (passim). On the issue, see
Perrone, “Questions and Responses,” 200, who recognizes that, although the procedure
can be thought to be a way of avoiding allegory, “yet, the method is not tied to literal-
ism.” And, indeed, the form can equally be a vehicle of “allegorical interpretation,” as
can be seen, e.g., in Donald A. Russell and David Konstan, eds. and trans., Heraclitus,
Homeric Problems, Writings from the Greco-Roman World 14 (Atlanta: Society of Bib-
lical Literature, 2005). On how Chrysostom confounds the claim about Antiochene
literalism, see Mitchell, Heavenly Trumpet, esp. 389–94.
32. In this regard Chrysostom is but one example of what I have termed “the
agonistic paradigm” that pervades ancient Christian biblical interpretation (see below,
84 n. 267).
Introduction 15
The History of Publication of the

“Occasional Homilies” on Pauline Passages
The present volume stands within, and is fully indebted to, the long and
involved process by which Chrysostom’s homilies have been transcribed,
edited,33 collected, and then separated and recombined, from his own
lifetime forward to the present. Having been preserved in manuscripts
from late antiquity forward, the earliest print publication of these eigh-
teen homilies was embroiled in the complex and conflicted history of the
publication of Chrysostom’s works in the early modern (Reformation and
post-Reformation) period.34 A signally important moment toward the
modern publication of this collection of varied homilies by Chrysostom
on individual Pauline passages was an intervention by a young Jesuit in
the 1580s who remained “anonymous” yet was to become known to his-
tory as the famous Fronto Ducaeus.35 He designed for the Opera omnia in
Latin translation what would become the usual mode of presentation of
Chrysostom’s homilies on biblical texts: five volumes, with the first four
containing the large homily sets on biblical books in the Old Testament
33. On the combination of stenographic notes and later editing that can be detected
in some of the homilies, see the important study of Blake Goodall, The Homilies of St.
John Chrysostom on the Letters of St. Paul to Titus and Philemon (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1979). This issue deserves continual attention as we work with texts
of what were once oral performances, and yet have likely been subjected to various
forms of editing toward publication in written form. See also p. 72 n. 243 below.
34. A concise general introduction to major editions of all of Chrysostom’s works
(in Greek and in Latin) up until the end of the nineteenth century may be found in W.
R. W. Stephens, Saint John Chrysostom: His Life and Time: A Sketch of the Church and
the Empire in the Fourth Century (London: Murray, 1883), viii–xii; a fuller treatment
with bibliographic catalogue may be found in Chrysostomos Baur, Jean Chrysostome
et ses oeuvres dans l’histoire littéraire, Université de Louvain Recueil de Travaux 18
(Louvain: Bureaux du Recueil; Paris: Fontemoing, 1907).
35. So Jean-Louis Quantin, “Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec: Une
histoire européenne (1588–1613),” in Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren: Facetten
der Wirkungsgeschichte eines Kirchenvaters, ed. Martin Wallraff and Rudolf Brändle,
Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 105 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 267–346, esp. 269: “Le
responsable de cette révision était délibérément resté anonyme, mais il s’agissait d’un
jeune jésuite, alors étudiant « en Theologie dans le Collège de sa Companie à Paris »
(le Collège de Clermont), le P. Fronton du Duc. Il inaugurait ainsi son œuvre d’éditeur
des Pères grecs : le fait, capital pour comprendre la suite de son travail chrysostomien,
ne semble pas avoir été relevé jusqu’ici.”
(Genesis and Psalms) and the New Testament (Matthew, John, and the Pau-
line Letters),36 arranged according to canonical order, and the fifth volume
consisting of a fourre-tout (“grab bag”) “pour les sermons isolés, les traités
et les lettres.”37 This reflects also the circumstances of continual discovery
of manuscripts and of print publication of further works, as the “Opera
omnia” of Chrysostom were expanded, often without a clear arrangement,
into the fifth (and subsequent) volumes, including exegetical homilies
among them, but not exclusively or as separated out. In the multiple edi-
tions to follow in the early seventeenth century, homilies on individual
Pauline passages become included in this category of “les sermons isolés,”
in the rush by both Protestant and Catholic scholars to locate, edit, translate,
publish, and disseminate the works of Chrysostom. The story of collabora-
tion and competition across national and confessional lines in the quest
to discover manuscripts, transcribe previously unpublished works, share
findings, and publish Chrysostom’s writings is a fascinating one.38 The idea
of a Chrysostomic “miscellany” was, however, not new, since many medi-
eval manuscripts of Chrysostom’s works contain assortments of various
homilies, often without any clear overriding scheme or thematic arrange-
ment, even if sometimes there appear to be clusters or groupings of like
sermons in parts. Even the Byzantine Catalogus Augustanus (preserved
36. Earlier, the editio princeps of the Greek text of Chrysostom’s homily sets, the
1529 edition published at Verona, had four volumes just for the serial homilies on the
Pauline Letters. See Bernardino Donato, ed., Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi in omnes Pauli
apostoli epistolas accuratissima, vereque aurea, et divina interpretatio (Verona: Stepha-
nus et fratres, 1529).
37. Quotation from Quantin, “Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec,” 269.
Quantin contrasts the 1530 edition of Erasmus, which was “marquée par le plus grand
désordre … les homélies sur Paul étant même dispersées entre le t. I (imprimé après
les autres) et le t. IV, à cause de l’arrivée tardive de textes nouveaux qu’il avait fallu
traduire” (“Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec,” 269 n. 5).
38. See the analysis of Quantin, “Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysosome grec,” 325:
“Même si cette collaboration interconfessionnelle n’était pas tout à fait sans précédents
… elle était unique par son ampleur et sa durée.” Quantin’s article (especially pp. 311–
25) documents this history beautifully, including in the correspondence of the key
figures on the continent and beyond who assisted Henry Savile and his assistants in
their pursuit of manuscripts and corrected readings. At the same time, this was no easy
ecumenism: “Rien, pourtant, n’en transparaît dans le Chrysostome, où les notes sont
purement philologiques, sans aucune incursion dans la théologie” (326). Fuller docu-
mentation may be found there as well as in his earlier study; see Jean-Louis Quantin,
“Les jésuites et l’érudition anglicane,” Dix-septième siècle 237 (2007): 691–711.
Introduction 17
in Monac. gr. 478 [XII]), which listed individual homilies by Chrysostom

thought to be authentic, although including ten of our homilies, did not
place them together or in any ordered pattern.39 One of the reasons for this
is that the line between exegetical and ethical or theological or ascetic writ-
ings by Chrysostom is not so firm, and hence different classifications of the
same homilies were—and remain—possible.
Henry Savile and the “Eton Chrysostom”
It was the Oxonian Henry Savile who, in his splendid eight-volume edi-
tion of the works of Chrysostom in Greek (published in full at Eton in
1611–1612),40 was largely responsible for shaping a modern collection of
“isolated homilies” on Pauline passages.41 While for the homily sets on all
fourteen Pauline letters Savile depended upon the 1529 Verona edition as
the basis for his Greek text,42 he relied on fresh research in manuscripts
from all over Europe, by himself and his team, as well as other collabo-
rators, for his fifth volume (published in 1611), which, likely inspired
by Ducaeus’s precedent, was devoted to Χρυσοστόμου εἰς διαφοροὺς τῶν
ἁγίων γραφῶν περικοπὰς γνήσιοι λόγοι (“genuine homilies of Chrysostom
on various passages of the Holy Scriptures”).43 Within this volume, Savile
39. 3 Hom. 2 Cor 11:1; 14 Hom. Rom. 5:3; 16, 17 Hom. Rom. 16:3 A, B; 18, 19, 20
Hom. 2 Cor. 4:13 A, B, Γ; 27 Hom. 1 Tim. 5:9–10; 35 Hom. Gal. 2:11–14; 93 Hom. 1 Cor.
10:1–11. See discussion of this catalogue below, under Authenticity.
40. See Henry Savile, ed., Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου
Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμοι ὀκτώ (Eton: Ioannes
Norton, 1611–1612); volume 5 bears the date 1611 and volume 8, 1612. Baur, Jean
Chrysostome et ses oeuvres dans l’histoire littéraire, 106, explains that after the publica-
tion of the whole, in 1613 Savile added “en tête une magnifique gravure, portant la date
de 1613” (so in some scholarly references the date is given as 1611–1613).
41. Savile’s dependence upon his precursors is well documented by Quantin, “Du
Chrysostome latin au Chrysostom grec,” passim.
42. One can see this in Savile’s own printer’s copy for these volumes, which con-
sisted of the Verona edition plus his corrections. See Oxford, Bodl. Auctarium E.3.5
[olim Miscell. 515] and E.3.6 [olim Miscell. 516], in CCG 1.140 and 141, pp. 118–20,
with helpful description by S. L. Greenslade, “A Printer’s Copy for the Eton Chryso-
stom,” StPatr 7 (1966): 60–64. On the textual basis of the Verona edition in a single
manuscript, see Goodall, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Letters of St. Paul
to Titus and Philemon, 2–3.
43. Savile’s decision to publish only the Greek text and not a Latin translation with
it can be seen as both a practical matter (in terms of the size and time to production
collected eighteen homilies on Pauline passages, arranged in canonical

order by book.44 These followed miscellaneous homilies on Old Testament
passages first, then New Testament passages from the gospels and Acts.
The homilies on Pauline lemmata appear in the canonical order of the let-
ters, but they are not set apart or separately numbered from among these
other biblical homilies. As the notes to the fifth volume indicate, in only
one case was Savile able to rely on a previously published edition for the
Greek text of these homilies, that of Hom. Rom. 5:3 published by Fronto
Ducaeus (Fronton du Duc) in 1604.45 In all of the other cases, Savile edited
the Greek text from transcriptions of one or more manuscripts. The page
proofs (exemplaria Savilii) that Savile sent to the printer, held now at the
Bodleian, consist of transcriptions made by himself or various assistants
or colleagues that he used as his base text, together with his own edito-
rial interventions.46 These include adding new, standardized titles at the
beginning (such as εἰς τό, plus abbreviated lemma47), making his own
enumeration of the homilies for his edition, capitalizing of proper names,
marking paragraph breaks, making textual emendations,48 adding nota-
tions of variant or conjectural readings to be printed in the margins, and
of his edition) and a theological one vis-à-vis Protestant-Catholic polemics and con-
testations: “Mais s’en tenir à l’original permettait aussi d’échapper aux soupçons et aux
polémiques qu’auraient fatalement suscités des traductions” (Quantin, “Du Chryso-
stome latin au Chrysostome grec,” 327). See Quantin’s astute discussion of the issue,
and the degree to which for the Catholic editions it was the Latin translation that stood
as the crucial authority for theological debate: “C’est dans celles-ci [sc. les traductions
Latins], on l’a vu, beaucoup plus que dans les éditions grecques, que théologiens et éru-
dits de la Contre-Réforme avaient coutume de repérer et de dénoncer des alterations.”
44. See HS 5:292–437. In HS 8:30–59, Savile included the seven homilies De lau
dibus sancti Pauli apostoli, from transcriptions made by his assistant, Samuel Slade, in
Constantinople and Mount Athos.
45. See HS 5:729–33. Savile drew upon Fronto Ducaeus, ed., Sancti patris nostri
Ioannis Chrysostomi tractatuum decas de diversis Novi Testamenti locis, nunc primum
graece et latine in lucem edita, opera (Bordeaux: apud Franciscum Buderium, 1604),
434, as confirmed in Savile’s printer’s copy: Oxford, Bodl. Auctarium E.4.4 (olim Mis-
cell. 5120). See CCG 1.155, p. 155.
46. See CCG 1:xv–xvii, 116–58. Savile donated them to the Bodleian in 1620.
47. E.g., at R.58, p. 610, he crosses out τοῦ αὐτοῦ ☧οῦ ὁμιλία (“a sermon by the
same author, Chrysostom”).
48. For one such example, in Hom. 1 Cor. 7:39–40 Savile adopted the conjectural
reading of κοιμηθῇ in the lemma within the title to the homily, but his marginal note
says that his manuscript (Monac. gr. 352, fol. 63) reads ἀποθάνῃ (HS 5:337, line 14).
Introduction 19
supplying marginal biblical references (in Greek abbreviations) to passages

Chrysostom has quoted.
In creating his edition of the Greek text of the homilies on individual
Pauline passages, Savile did not follow any single Greek manuscript, for
no manuscript now in existence, let alone the limited number available to
Savile, contains all the eighteen homilies he printed, and never in a com-
plete canonical sequence. For Savile’s miscellaneous Pauline homilies, as
we know from his printer’s pages and notebooks and the “Notae” in volume
8, he relied upon transcriptions of manuscripts at Augsburg,49 Munich,
Oxford, Paris, Venice, and Constantinople, as shown in the following list.
Each entry provides the following information: (1) the homily title and
CPG number; (2) the manuscript(s) drawn upon by Savile;50 (3) the pages
of Savile’s printer’s copy;51 and (4) the pages in Savile’s published edition.
Hom. Rom. 5:3 (CPG 4373)

Manuscript: Monac. gr. 6, fols. 278–86,52 from Ducaeus (print edition, 1604)53
49. Savile thanks David Hoeschel, the Lutheran rector of Saint Anna’s gymna-
sium and the librarian of the manuscript collection at Augsburg, among others, in
8:1. Hoeschel is the only scholar he commends in HS 8:707–8 specifically for his assis-
tance with the miscellaneous sermons in HS 5. See also Greenslade, “Printer’s Copy
for the Eton Chrysostom,” 61. For Savile’s connections with the vibrant scholarly and
ecumenical patristics scholarship led by Hoeschel at Augsburg, see Quantin, “Du
Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec,” 289–300, under the subtitle, “La paix patris-
tique d’Augsbourg? David Hoeschel et ses correspondants” (the latter including Greek
Orthodox as well as Roman Catholics).
50. This represents my inferences based on the information Savile gives in his
“Notae in Tomum Quintum” (HS 8:729–33, including notes from one of his assistants,
John Bois), as cross-referenced with the information provided in CCG, the Pinakes
website, and older collection catalogues, as necessary.
51. From CCG 1:125–56 (Oxford, Bodleian, Auctarium), with our homilies rep-
resented in codices K, L, O, P, Q, R, and X (CCG 1.144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 155).
52. The Munich codices are in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (BSB) and are now
accessible at Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, “Münchener DigitalisierungsZentrum: Digi-
tale Bibliothek,” https://digitale-sammlungen.de.
53. As noted above, Savile used the print edition of this homily from Fronto
Ducaeus, Sancti patris nostri Ioannis Chrysostomi (1604), 259–60, as found in Auc-
tarium E.4.4 in the Bodleian collection, exemplaria Sauilii, codex X. In his proofs to
the printer, Savile included the pages of Ducaeus’s printed edition where Ducaeus says
the Greek text of this homily came from a manuscript in the Augustana bibliotheca, as
transcribed for him by the humanist and man of letters Marcus Velserus. See Fronto
Exemplarium Sauilii Codex X.5 (pp. 257–97)

Savile (1611): 5:292–98
Hom. Rom. 8:28 (CPG 4374)

Manuscript: Monac. gr. 352,54 fols. 1–7v
Exemplarium Sauilii Codex L.1 (pp. 1–9)
Savile (1611): 5:299–303
Hom. Rom. 12:20 (CPG 4375)

Manuscript: Oxon. Coll. Nov. 80,55 fols. 220–33v
Exemplarium Sauilii Codex K.14 (pp. 153–68)
Savile (1611): 5:304–14
Hom. Rom. 16:3 Α (CPG 4376)

Manuscripts
(1) Monac. gr. 6, fols. 229–3656
Ducaeus, Sancti patris nostri Ioannis Chrysostomi, 412. This must be Monac. gr. 6 (see
CCG 2.40, pp. 40–42), the only Munich manuscript that contains this homily, on fols.
278–86; see also the evidence of mutilation at the end of Hom. Rom. 16:3 B, as dis-
cussed below. However, this manuscript was not at that time in Augsburg (as Ducaeus
says) but in the Bavarian Library in Munich. Savile did make some corrections and
conjectural emendations to Ducaeus’s text (8:729: “quam editionem perpaucis in locis
emendatam sequuti sumus”) but does not mention having any other manuscript wit-
nesses. The Bodleian Auctarium T.1.1 is a transcription from Ducaeus that includes
this homily (CCG 1.163, p. 161, with this homily on pp. 142–45 bis).
54. Greenslade, “Printer’s Copy for the Eton Chrysostom,” 61: “L is from the Augs-
burg manuscripts. Later moved to Munich” (but note that it also contains manuscripts
that were already in Munich, such as Monac. gr. 6). This is the only manuscript in
Germany containing this homily (CCG 2.72, p. 61). Indeed, Pinakes lists only one
other manuscript known to contain it: Mon. Leimonos 42 (Lesbos), fols. 71–78* (X).
The famous Augsburg Library codices were moved to Munich in 1806 and hold
the numbers 348–574, among which is this manuscript, Monac. gr. 352. On the his-
tory, see Donald F. Jackson, “Augsburg Manuscript Acquisitions 1545–1600,” Codices
manuscripti 29 (2000): 1–10.
55. CCG 1.98: “Nostro codice Harmarius … deinde Sauilius pro editione sua usi
sunt.” In HS 8:730, Savile says he used the transcription of the New College manu-
script, which was in a few places not satisfactorily corrected (“aliquot in locis non satis
emendata, quod dolendum est”), and, lacking the help of any other codex, he could not
be sure of the readings; he then gives seven disputed readings with his conjectures.
Pinakes to date lists just three manuscripts that contain this homily: Athens, Ethnike
Bibliotheke tes Hellados 375 (XIII); Genova, Biblioteca Franzoniana, Urbani 13 (XI);
and Moscow, Gosudarstvennyj Istoričeskij Musej 128 (X).
56. Savile mentions two codices containing both homilies, “quorum unus Archi
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Pues bien: el hombre busca siempre, para su pareja, la mujer de
mejores formas, más amable y menos escrupulosa.
Lo que esto quiere decir, me excusa de lo que callo por respeto á
vosotras, que, dicho sea de paso, me arañaríais de buena gana si
me tuviérais á mano.
Pero sospecho que, por lo crudo de esta aseveración, sois capaces
de recusarme por apasionado. Lo cierto es que pocos se han
atrevido á hablar tan claro en tan revuelto asunto. Veamos si hallo
una razón que no tenga vuelta.
El baile es una sociedad como otra cualquiera, regida por leyes
especiales y con sus costumbres propias.
Tratemos de formar con ellas un cuadro exacto y compendiado, de
modo que de una sola mirada se aprecie el asunto en su verdadero
valor; y con este objeto, examinemos el salón, reparemos lo que los
concurrentes hacen, y escribamos el resumen de nuestras
impresiones.
Hele aquí:
—«El baile es una república en que no tienen autoridad ni derechos
los padres y los maridos sobre sus hijas y mujeres respectivas.
Éstas pertenecen al público, que puede necesitarlas para bailar, al
tenor de los siguientes dos preceptos:
Deberes de la mujer: Ésta, sin faltar á la buena educación, no puede
negarse al que primero la solicite.
Derechos del hombre: El hombre es dueño de elegir la mujer que
más le guste, y, ya en la arena, puede estrecharla entre sus brazos;
poner en íntimo contacto con ella, por lo menos, todo el costado
derecho, desde la coronilla á los talones; pisarle los pies, romperle
el vestido y limpiarle el sudor de la cara con las patillas, si no con el
bigote, sin faltar á las leyes de la decencia; pues contando con la
agitación y la bulla de la fiesta, no es posible establecer un límite á
los puntos de contacto, ni amojonar el cuerpo para decir al hombre:
«aquí no se toca».
Nota.—Las anteriores prescripciones se observan rigorosamente,
desde el hombre más feo y antipático, hasta la mujer más linda y
exigente».
Repárese que en la tal república, donde el hombre tiene derechos
tan peregrinos, la mujer no tiene más que deberes.
Creo que esta fidelísima fotografía que acabo de hacer del baile,
completa sobradamente mi propósito.
Una observación en honor del hombre culto.—No hay padre ni
marido que repare en enviar sus hijas y su mujer al baile; pero la
sociedad se escandaliza el día en que una soltera atraviesa sola, de
acera á acera, la calle en que vive.
Fundándome en mejor lógica, establecería yo la siguiente
«Jurisprudencia: Los padres y los maridos que proveen los bailes
con sus hijas y sus mujeres, no tendrán derecho á ampararse á las
leyes de la justicia ni del honor, en los casos de agravio... de mayor
cuantía; se les negará la sal y el fuego, y, con un cencerro al cuello,
expiarán su estupidez... de baile en baile».
Consignado así mi voto, no debo insistir en nuevas deducciones, y
doy por acabada mi corta tarea.
Porque creo que se necesita mucho menos que sentido común,
para condenar el baile bajo el aspecto puramente estético, y no hay
necesidad de que yo gaste tinta ni paciencia en ello.
Un hombre de frac y chistera, máxime si peina canas, y una mujer
bonita, muy prendida y remilgada, dando brincos como dos salvajes
de Mozambique, sudando el quilo y sacando la lengua de
cansancio, solamente los puede uno soportar delante sin echarse á
reir, cuando considera... que el fin justifica los medios.
Ahora bien: ¿por qué escribo yo esto? ¿Aspiro á la austeridad del

anacoreta?
No tengo, desgraciadamente, tanta virtud: me gusta la carne más
que las raíces.
Si en el baile encuentro un filón de verdaderas gangas, ¿por qué, en
vez de procurar su destrucción, no le exploto callandito?
Veamos si mis lectoras, cuyos pies beso á pesar de lo dicho, hallan
la respuesta en la siguiente
MORAL DEL CUENTO

Yo he bailado también; pero preguntándome con horror á cada
vuelta:
¿Me casaré yo algún día?
Y si me caso, ¿habrá bailado mi mujer?
¿Llegaré á tener hijas?
Y si las tengo, ¿dejaré que me las bailen?
Temiendo ser tan padre y tan marido como todos los demás, he
escrito estos renglones: quiero tenerlos delante de los ojos cada vez
que mi ceguera de marido y de padre vaya á hacerme merecedor
del castigo á que condeno á todos los mansos del gran rebaño de la
sociedad danzante.
1853.
LOS BUENOS MUCHACHOS
Lector, cualquiera que tú seas, con tal que procedas de uno de ésos
que llamamos centros civilizados, me atrevo á asegurar que estás
cansado de codearte con los personajes de mi cuento.
Así y todo, pudiera suceder que no bastase el rótulo antecedente
para que desde luego sepas de qué gente se trata; pues aunque
ciertas cosas son en el fondo idénticas en todas partes, varían en el
nombre y en algunos accidentes exteriores, según las exigencias de
la localidad en que existen.
Teniendo esto en cuenta, voy á presentarte esos chicos definidos
por sí mismos.
—«Yo soy un hombre muy tolerante: dejo á todo el mundo vivir á su
gusto; respeto los de cada uno; no tengo pretensiones de ninguna
clase; me amoldo á todos los caracteres; hago al prójimo el bien que
puedo, y me consagro al desempeño de mis obligaciones».
Esta definición ya es algo; pero como quiera que la inmodestia es un
detalle bastante común en la humanidad, pudiera aquélla, por
demasiado genérica, no precisar bien el asunto á que me dirijo.
Declaro, aun á riesgo de perder la fama de buen muchacho, si es
que, por desgracia, la tengo entre algunos de los que me leen, que
soy un tanto aprensivo y malicioso en cuanto se trata de gentes que
alardean de virtuosas.
Esta suspicacia que, de escarmentado, á más de montañés, poseo,
es la causa de que los llamados por ahí «buenos muchachos»
hayan sido repetidas veces, para mí, objeto de un detenido estudio.
Por consiguiente, me encuentro en aptitud de ser, en datos y
definiciones, tan pródigo como sea necesario hasta que aparezca
con todos sus pelos y señales lo que tratamos de definir.
Pero como no ha de ser interminable esta tarea, he de reducir la
infinita procesión de ejemplares que veo desfilar ante mis ojos, á
tres grandes modelos, en cada uno de los cuales se hallan reunidas
las condiciones típicas que andan repartidas entre todos sus
congéneres.
Primer modelo.—Buen muchacho que ya cumplió los cuarenta años.
—Señas particulares, indefectibles: es gordo, colorado, nada
garboso, muy escotado de cuello y de chaleco, recio de barba y
escaso de pelo. Habla mucho y se escucha.
Segundo modelo.—Buen muchacho que no ha cumplido los treinta y
cinco.—Señas particulares: enjuto, macilento, cargado de entrecejo
y de espaldas, vestido de obscuro, muy abrochado, largo de
faldones y pasado de moda. Este ejemplar tiene, necesariamente, á
la vista y como si fuera marca de ganadería, una señal indeleble:
verbigracia, un lobanillo junto á la oreja, un lunar blanco en el pelo,
una verruga entre cejas y la nuez muy prominente, ó toda la cara
hecha una criba de marcas de viruelas. Habla bastante y con timbre
desagradable, casi siempre en estilo sentencioso, y á menudo con
humos de gracioso.
Tercer modelo.—Buen muchacho que raya en los veinticinco.—
Señas infalibles: rollizo, frescote como un flamenco, y miope.
Rompe mucha ropa, y procura llevarla muy desahogada; es hombre
de poco pelo y de no mucha barba; habla más que una cotorra, muy
recio y con los términos más escogidos del diccionario.—Detalle
peculiarísimo: antes de adquirir en público el título de «buen
muchacho», ha gozado, durante seis años, entre las diversas tribus
de su familia, la opinión de hombre precoz.
En vista de todos estos datos, podemos sentar la siguiente regla
general:
La edad de los «buenos muchachos» varía entre veinticinco y
cincuenta años.
Como detalles comunes á los tres modelos, pueden apuntarse los
siguientes:
Son mesurados en el andar; saludan muchísimo, descubriendo toda
la cabeza; en sus paseos buscan la compañía de los señores
mayores, y en tales casos, miran con aire de lástima á los jóvenes
que á su lado pasan, si van muy alegres ó muy elegantes; usan á
todas horas sombrero de copa, y se calzan con mucho desahogo;
temen de lumbre los tacones altos, y por eso los gastan anchos y
muy bajos; sacan chanclos y paraguas al menor asomo de nube en
el horizonte, y en cuanto estornudan tres veces seguidas, guardan
cama por dos días y se lo cuentan después á todo el mundo; no
fuman, ó fuman muy poco, pero chupan caramelos de limón y saben
dónde se venden un vinillo especial de pasto y garbanzos de buen
cocer; conservan con gran esmero las amistades tradicionales de
familia, y al hacer las visitas de pascuas ó cumpleaños, llaman á la
visitada «mi señora doña Fulana»; la preguntan minuciosamente por
todo el catálogo de sus achaques físicos, y siempre tienen algún
remedio casero que recomendarla; se dedican á negocios lucrativos,
mejor dicho, están asociados, y en segunda fila, á personas que
saben manejarlos bien; y, por último, se perecen por echar un
párrafo en público y familiarmente con las primeras autoridades de
la población, y se rechupan por formar parte de cualquiera
corporación oficial ú oficiosa, con tal que ella transcienda á
influyente y á respetable.
Hasta aquí, algo de lo que el menos curioso debe haber visto en
esos personajes; desde aquí, lo que todo el mundo puede ver en los
mismos si se toma la molestia de levantar los pliegues de la capa
con que la señora fama parece haberse empeñado en protegerlos
contra críticas y murmuraciones.
II
Hallábame yo, no ha mucho, cerca de un pequeño círculo de
murmuradores de mayor edad, con quienes ningún lazo de amistad
íntima, ni siquiera de simpatía personal, me ligaba; y dicho está que
yo oía, veía y callaba. Hablábase á la sazón de un suceso ocurrido
recientemente en el pueblo, con sus vislumbres de escandaloso,
cuando entró en escena un personaje muy conocido mío, y muy
amigo, al parecer, de aquellos murmuradores. Parecía el tal fundido
en uno de los tres modelos que dejo registrados; y no digo en cuál,
porque no es necesario.
—Aquí llega... Fulano, que podrá darnos algunos pormenores más
del suceso,—dijo un murmurador.
—Voy muy de prisa, señores—respondió el aludido,—y sólo me he
acercado á ustedes con el objeto de saludarlos... Pero, en fin, ¿de
qué se trata?
—Pues, hombre, de la novedad del día... de cierta joven que ha
desobedecido la paterna autoridad.
—Efectivamente: tengo entendido algo que suena á eso mismo;
pero como no me gusta meterme en la hacienda del vecino, y dejo á
cada uno vivir á su antojo, no he querido enterarme muy á fondo.
—Pero es lo cierto que usted sabe algo...
—De manera que algo, algo, por muy sordo que uno se haga...
—Vamos, que ya sabrá usted más que nosotros.
—Les aseguro á ustedes que no. Soy de lo menos dado á chismes y
murmuraciones, como es bien notorio... Pero entendámonos: ¿se
refieren ustedes á la chica mayor de don Geroncio?
—Cabales.
—¿De la cual se dice que dos horas antes de ir á la iglesia á
casarse con el chico menor de don Atanasio, se plantó y dijo: «no
me caso ya», por lo que su padre la amenazó iracundo, de lo cual
no hizo ella caso maldito, y resultó un escándalo, y se deshizo la
boda?...
—¡Justamente... eso es!... ¡Ven ustedes cómo... Fulano sabía los
pormenores del lance?
—Repito que no sé una palabra más de lo que de público se dice.
Hay asuntos, como éste, que, sin saber por qué, me repugnan...
Pero observo que ustedes me miran con recelo, como si me callara
cosas muy graves.
—¡Hombre, no!
—Pues á mí se me antoja que sí; y, señores, yo soy muy delicado
en ciertas materias: está por medio la reputación de una joven que
puede lastimarse con una sola suposición injuriosa, y esto es
bastante á mis ojos para que, en descargo de mi conciencia, me
apresure á contar la verdad del caso, es decir, lo que á mí se me ha
referido:—Saben ustedes que hace quince días tuve un golpe de
sangre á la cabeza, por lo cual, ya repuesto, me ordenó el médico
que paseara de madrugada cuando la temperatura lo permitiera.
Salía yo esta mañana á cumplir este precepto, con el cual, por
cierto, me va muy bien, cuando ¡plaf! tropiezo, al volver la esquina
de la plaza, con doña Severa, que, como no ignoran ustedes, por
parte de su difunto marido don Estanislao es prima política de la
señora (que esté en gloria) de don Geroncio, y, por consiguiente,
tiene motivos poderosos para estar al tanto de los asuntos
particulares de esta familia, aparte de que á doña Severa siempre
se la ha considerado mucho en aquella casa, por su capacidad y
don de gobierno. Pues, señor, como daba la casualidad de que no
veía yo á esta señora lo menos hacía... sí, ¡vaya! ¡yo lo creo!... lo
menos... lo menos... quince días... ¿qué digo! aguárdense ustedes y
perdonen: el día de San Lorenzo fué cuando la vi; estamos hoy á...
veintitrés días justos hace que la saludé á la puerta de su casa...
cabalmente tenía yo que preguntarla dónde había comprado una
pasta para matar ratones, que ella usaba con gran éxito, y allí
mismo me dió la receta de memoria, porque resultó que la tal pasta
era invención suya, digo, de un choricero extremeño que se la confió
en secreto por no sé qué favores que la debía... Pues á lo que iba:
encuentro esta mañana á doña Severa, y—«¿Cómo está usted,
señora mía?—la pregunto.—Bien; ¿y usted, don Fulano?—Pues
para servir á usted.—¿Y la familia?—Tan buena, gracias...
¡Caramba, cuántos días hace que no la veo á usted!—Pues no he
perdido una misa desde que no nos vemos. Precisamente es hoy el
día en que debí haberme quedado en cama, siquiera hasta las diez.
—Efectivamente: la encuentro á usted algo pálida y desmejorada.—
Le aseguro á usted que no sé cómo me tengo de pie.—¿Se
encuentra usted mal?—Mal, precisamente, no; pero ayer tuve un
disgusto con la cocinera, y estoy sufriendo hoy las consecuencias.
Figúrese usted que á mí me gusta mucho la merluza: pues, señor, la
condenada (Dios me perdone) de la chica, dale con que había de
traerme siempre abadejo. Chocándome, como era natural, tanta
obstinación, pues yo sabía muy bien que no faltaba merluza en la
plaza, indago por aquí, pregunto por allá, y averiguo ayer que la muy
pícara daba todos los días las sobras del principio á un soldado, su
novio, que se pela por el abadejo. ¡Imagínese usted cómo yo me
pondría al saberlo!... Por supuesto que lo primero que hice fué
plantarla de patitas en la calle, y tan de prisa, que la dije que
volviera más tarde por el baúl y la cuenta. ¡En mal hora á mí se me
ocurrió semejante idea! ¿Creerá usted, Fulanito, que, la muy
sinvergüenza, se me presentó á las dos horas acompañada del
soldadote para que éste repasara la suma, y que entre los dos me
pusieron como hoja de perejil sobre si faltaban ó dejaban de faltar
seis maravedís?—Nada me choca, doña Severa, de cuanto usted
me dice, que algo parecido podía añadir yo de lo ocurrido en mi
casa: el ramo de sirvientas está perdido.—¡Ay, Fulano, lo peor es
que el de amas no está mucho más ganado!—También es cierto.—
Vea usted á mi pobre primo Geroncio: ¡qué horas está pasando por
causa de esa hija á quien ha mimado tanto!—En efecto, he oído
anoche que esa chica ha roto, por un capricho, su proyectado
casamiento.—¿Capricho, eh? ¡buen capricho me dé Dios!—Así se
dice al menos.—Así se dice, porque de alguna manera decente ha
de tapar la familia el pastel descubierto.—¿Luego ha pasado algo
grave?—¡Gravísimo... Fulano!... y ya ve usted si yo lo sabré cuando
he sido y estoy siendo el paño de lágrimas del desdichado Geroncio.
—No lo dudo... Pero ahora caigo en que, siendo secretos de familia
esos sucesos, estoy pecando de indiscreto al hacer ciertas
preguntas.—De ningún modo, Fulano; usted es una persona muy
decente, y hasta debe conocer esa clase de líos para ejemplo y
escarmiento en el día de mañana, si se resolviera á casarse.—
Usted me favorece demasiado, doña Severa.—Le hago á usted
justicia, Fulano.—Gracias, señora.—Repito que no hay por qué
darlas; y sepa usted (por supuesto, con la debida reserva) que si la
boda de mi sobrina no se ha llevado á cabo, es porque el novio
descubrió á última hora que la muy taimada había tenido un año
antes relaciones íntimas, muy íntimas, entiéndalo usted bien, con un
joven andaluz que estuvo aquí veraneando.—Pero ¿tan íntimas
fueron, señora?—Tan íntimas, que faltando horas nada más para ir
á la iglesia, se plantó el novio al conocerlas, y dijo que nones.—
¿Luego no fué ella quien se opuso?—¡Qué había de ser, hombre!...
eso se ha dicho para tapar»... Y etcétera, señores—añadió el
narrador, con una sonrisita que apenas tenía malicia;—por ahí fué
hablándome doña Severa, y lo que acabo de referir es lo único que,
en substancia, hay de cierto sobre el particular.
—¡Que no es poco!—objetó un chismoso, con diabólica expresión.
—¡Cuando yo decía que usted sabía grandes cosas!
—Hombre, si bien se mira, no es tanto como parece—continuó el
suavísimo Fulano.—Y de todas maneras, señores, conste que lo he
referido aquí en el seno de la confianza y teniendo en cuenta,
además de lo que dije al empezar, que una cosa leve callada con
misterio, autoriza á suponer otra muy grave: que la mayor parte de
ustedes son padres de familia que no echarán el ejemplo en saco
roto.
—¡Bravo!—exclamaron algunos oyentes casi enternecidos con este
rasgo.
—Conque, señores, vuelvo á recomendar la reserva, y me voy á mis
quehaceres,—saltó casi ruborizado el amiguito de doña Severa.
Y se marchó.
—¡Qué discreta observación!—dijo uno de los que se quedaron.
—¡Qué juicio tan aplomado!—añadió otro.
—¡Es un gran muchacho!—exclamaron todos
—¡Valiente infame!—dije yo, y era lo menos que podía decir, con
esta franqueza que Dios me ha dado, largándome también, y sin
despedirme, por más señas.
Nada se me contestó en el acto; pero me consta que, refiriéndose á
mí, se dijeron luego en el corrillo primores como los siguientes:
—¡Qué víbora!
—¡Qué lengua de acero!
—Con veneno semejante es imposible que haya en la sociedad una
sola virtud incólume.
Todos estos pormenores forman un detalle que no es de los menos

típicos en los «buenos muchachos».
Veamos otros.
Detestan cordialmente todo cuanto no pertenece al gremio del cual
son, según dicen, humildísimos miembros; y hablan con afectada
lástima, pero con sincera indignación, de los hombres aficionados á
los trabajos del ingenio; se jactan de apreciar la prensa periódica,
sea del matiz político, científico ó literario que se quiera, en mucho
menos que el papel de empaque, y son para ellos novelistas y
poetas sinónimos de gente perdida. Esto, en general; pero cuando
son sus convecinos, sus antiguos condiscípulos, tal vez sus amigos,
los que escriben, los que peroran, los que pintan, ¡de Dios les venga
el remedio á estos desdichados!
—Hoy todo el mundo escribe, todo el mundo charla, todo el mundo
emborrona un lienzo y garrapatea el pentágrama—gritan
escandalizados los «buenos muchachos».—¿Qué es esto? ¿Dónde
estamos? ¿Adónde vamos á parar? Señores, el que más y el que
menos de los que en nada figuramos conocemos algo de esas
materias, y pudiéramos echar en ellas nuestro cuarto á espadas
practicando un poco; pero ¿sería esto suficiente? ¿nos autorizaría
para erigirnos en maestros ni en directores de la opinión pública?
¡No faltaba más!... ¡Pues no son pocas las pretensiones de la gente
del día!
Así se explican; veamos cómo se conducen.
Estarán ustedes cansados de hallar en los periódicos de su pueblo
centenares de remitidos, al tenor del siguiente:
Señor Director de El Vigilante.

«Muy señor mío y de mi mayor consideración: Aunque ajeno por
carácter y por mis habituales ocupaciones á las lides periodísticas,
me tomo la libertad de remitir á usted las adjuntas mal perjeñadas
líneas, por si tiene á bien insertarlas en su apreciable periódico. La
cuestión que las motiva es, en mi humilde sentir, de gran interés
para toda la población, y en ello confío para que usted, etc., etc.,
etc.».
El asunto que se desenvuelve en el remitido y que, según el humilde
sentir del comunicante, encierra gran interés para toda la población,
es un guardacantón que sobresale media pulgada más de lo que
previenen las ordenanzas, ó un árbol que se seca en el paseo... ó si
debe andar cubierto ó en pelo por los claustros, durante la
celebración de la misa, el perrero de la catedral.
Otros tres detalles esencialísimos distinguen siempre á estas
producciones, á saber: lo poco que figuran en ellas los artículos
determinados, y lo demasiado que juega la rosa de vientos, lo cual
da motivo á cada paso á frases del siguiente jaez: «entrando en
mencionado paseo por el lado del Sudeste; tomando la alineación
por la fachada vendaval de repetida casa»... Por último, la firma.
Ésta tiene que ser necesariamente Un curioso, Un contribuyente, Un
vecino, ó Un amante de su país.
Pues bien, lector: cualquiera de estos motes es el modesto velo con
que tapa el rubor de su vera efigies, para dirigirse al público, un
«buen muchacho», es decir, uno de esos hombres sensatos,
aplomados y «sin pretensiones», que detestan la prensa porque no
sabe tratar cuestiones que enseñen algo, porque no es capaz de
exponer teorías de transcendencia ó de universal interés; uno de
esos hombres, en fin, que no hallan jamás otro bastante autorizado
para erigirse en intérprete, ya que no en director de la opinión
pública.
Y no puede quedar la menor duda de que citados artículos
pertenecen á referidos autores, porque éstos, en el mismo día del
alumbramiento, ó en el siguiente, á más tardar, teniendo la bondad
de interesarse mucho por la salud de uno, le abordan en la calle
para enredarle en un diálogo como el siguiente:
—¿Cómo va, amigo mío?
—Pues, hombre, vamos viviendo.
—¡Cuánto me alegro!
—Muchísimas gracias... ¿Usted tan gordo y tan guapo?
—Gracias á Dios... Pero retírese usted un poquito á la derecha.
—¿Qué ocurre?
—Que está usted colocado junto á una losa quebrada, y un pie se
disloca con la mayor facilidad.
—No veo yo la quebradura...
—En efecto, era una ilusión mía... Como en este pueblo anda el
ramo de empedrados peor que en Marruecos... Y, á propósito, ¿ha
visto usted un comunicado que publica ayer El Vigilante?
—¿Sobre Marruecos?
—No, señor: sobre el guardacantón de la calle X...
—Sí que le he visto.
—¿Y qué le ha parecido á usted?
—Pues, hombre... bien.
—Lo celebro infinito, pues como está hecho al correr de la pluma, no
hubiera sido difícil que algún descuidillo...
—Según eso, ¿es de usted?
—Ya que usted lo ha conocido, no lo quiero negar.
—Es usted muy modesto.
—Hombre, no; pero no tengo pretensiones de escritor. Así es que
cuando quiero llamar la atención del público hacia un asunto de
interés tan general como el que ayer saco á relucir en mi escrito,
firmo con un nombre cualquiera... Yo he escrito mucho sobre policía,
¡muchísimo! sólo que no me gusta darme importancia; porque,
vamos, no tengo pretensiones de ninguna clase.
—¡Oh! ya se conoce bien.
—Por lo demás, el artículo de ayer creo que abraza cuanto se
puede decir sobre el particular.
—¡Vaya si abraza!
—Pues me alegro mucho; que eso me ha de animar á concluir otro
que traigo entre manos acerca de la maldita costumbre que hay aquí
de colgar la ropa blanca en los balcones... Por supuesto que es un
trabajillo sin pretensiones de ninguna clase.
—Naturalmente; pero eso no impedirá que yo le lea con gusto.
—Muchas gracias.
—No hay por qué».
También me consta que esos remitidos se leen, por su autor, en
familia, con grande aplauso del severo papá que, rebosando en
satisfacción por todos los poros de su cuerpo, se vuelve hacia su
conjunta para decirle, muy bajo, pero de modo que lo oiga el
elogiado: «Estos muchachos son el mismo demonio. ¡Mira que está
bien hilado el tal impreso!».
Vamos ahora á otro terreno.
Hay una junta de acreedores, de contribuyentes, de vecinos
formales, ó de arraigo; una junta, en fin, en la que se trate del vil
ochavo ó de salvar los intereses de la plaza. Toman la palabra los
más expertos y autorizados; llénanse recíprocamente de piropos,
abordan la cuestión por cien lados diferentes; llégase, tras de
muchos sudores y fatigas, á vislumbrar un acuerdo definitivo; va á
darse por concluida la sesión, y he aquí que se oye una voz
perezosa y afectadamente tímida que pide la palabra. Concédesela
el presidente, y se levanta una persona que comienza á hablar en
estos términos:
—«Señores: como desconozco completamente la ciencia del
derecho, y soy en materia de negocios la más incompetente de
todas las personas que componen esta respetable reunión; y como
tampoco tengo pretensiones de orador, quizá vaya á decir un
disparate al hacer uso de la facultad que me ha concedido el digno
señor presidente; pero, así y todo, me parece á mí que teniendo en
cuenta esto y lo otro (resume desastrosamente cuanto han dicho los
que han hablado antes, y añade cincuenta desatinos de su
cosecha), la dificultad está vencida. Repito, señores, que tal es el
punto desde el cual debe mirarse la cuestión, según mi humilde
entender. He dicho».
«Bravos» por acá y «bravos» por allá. Rumores en todos los
rincones.—¿Quién es ése?—Pues el hijo de don Zutano.—
¡Excelente chico!—Nómbrase la indispensable comisión, y entra en
ella, el primerito, el orador. Al día siguiente no se le puede sufrir.—
Como yo dije, como yo propuse... bien que ya usted me oiría... ¡y
eso que no está uno hecho á esos lances, ni tiene pretensiones de
orador!... ¡Ah! pues si no me tira de la levita don Práxedes, que
estaba á mi derecha, ¡qué cosas salen á relucir! Pero es uno
condescendiente y poco amigo de llamar la atención, ¡que si no!...
Aunque no necesito decir quién es este orador, bueno es que se
tenga presente que pertenece, por su tipo, al tercer modelo.
Veámosle ahora en el teatro. Se acaba de representar un drama
moderno que ha alcanzado un triunfo. Á él no le ha merecido un
solo aplauso. Lejos de ello, se vuelve á su vecino y le dice:
—Amigo, yo no sé si diré un disparate, porque no soy competente
en literatura; pero esta obra, según mi humilde entender, no merece
el ruido que está metiendo. Valerse de una aldeana para el principal
papel, y no haber en toda la comedia más que dos personajes de
buena sociedad, me da muy pobre idea del talento del autor. De ese
modo también yo hago comedias.
El vecino le mira estupefacto, y el censor, creyendo que le apoya,
continúa:
—Desengáñese usted, el teatro va en decadencia; ya no se
escriben comedias como La trenza de sus cabellos y La conquista
de Granada. ¿Pues y los actores? Ahí han estado ustedes
aplaudiendo á ese primer galán como si supiera lo que hace...
¡Donde estaba aquel Lozano!... ¡Ése sí que cortaba el verso! Parece
que le estoy viendo salir, vestido de moro y á caballo, por debajo del
palco del ayuntamiento. Valía más una mirada de aquel hombre, que
toda esta comiquería junta.
Oyendo música, aunque no menos descontentadizos, son más
lacónicos siquiera.
—¿Qué le parece á usted?—se pregunta á uno de ellos.
Y responde necesariamente:
—Hombre, yo no soy del arte; pero por más que ustedes digan, esta
música está tomada, al pie de la letra, de «El Hernani».
Si le buscamos á la esquina de la plaza, se le hallará deteniendo á
un transeúnte para decirle con mucho misterio:
—¿Ve usted aquella chica que está hablando con un cabo de la
guarnición? Pues es la cocinera de don Ruperto Puntales: dos horas
lleva ahí; he tenido la curiosidad de contarlas en mi reló. Buena
andará aquella cocina, ¿eh?
Ó si no:
—Don Aniceto, una palabra: esa doncella que cruza ahora la
esquina y va cargada de cartones, me parece que sirve en casa de
doña Telesfora.
—Bien, ¿y qué?
—Nada, que es la sexta vez que, en hora y media que llevo en esta
esquina, ha salido de ese bazar cargada de género. Sospecho que
el pobre marido de su ama no hace hoy el gasto con dos mil reales.
Después vendrán los apuros... y algo peor. Bien empleado les está.
En un paseo público hacen el mismo papel: comparar las galas que
ven, con los caudales de quienes las lucen, y demostrar siempre, y
donde quiera, que llevan el alza y baja de cuanto respira y se agita
en la población.
Creo que el lector no necesita más noticias para orientarse por
completo en el terreno á que he querido traerle, ni para hallar
pertinente y hasta de alguna transcendencia moral la exposición de
estos apuntes...
Se me olvidaba decir que los buenos muchachos son, por regla
general, solteros. Si les da por casarse, son en el hogar doméstico
unos tiranuelos, chismosos y cascarrabias; y esto es lo único en que
varían al variar de estado.
Otro dato.—Casados ó solteros, son en política conservadores, de
justo medio y ancha base.
III
Si tratáramos ahora de llamar las cosas por su verdadero nombre,
deduciríamos de todo lo expuesto, dentro de la más inflexible lógica,
que el «buen muchacho» no es otra cosa que un quidam soberbio,
entremetido, fisgón é ignorante. Escandalízase de los hombres que,
sin remilgos ni estudiadas protestas de humildad, se muestran en lo
que valen, y él, con la previa advertencia de que no vale nada, se
atreve á meterse en todas partes para imponer su razón á los
demás. Á nadie concede competencia para nada, al paso que él,
confesándose el último de los hombres, se porta como si la tuviera
para todo; no halla en la pluma ni en los labios de su vecino una
cuestión que le parezca bastante digna de ocupar la atención
pública, y al día siguiente pretende él absorberla entera sacando á
plaza pequeñeces y vulgaridades de portería. Ofende á su
moralidad un pecado oculto, y él, para enmendarlo, le descubre, le
comenta y le propaga; no juega, no jura, no malgasta; pero, con la
mejor intención, se conduele á gritos de Juan y de Pedro, que juran,
no ahorran y, según sus noticias, juegan. En suma, sus labios jamás
se abren para elogiar; siempre para maldecir.
Por lo demás, el ser «buen muchacho» es un gran negocio, máxime
cuando el teatro representa una población lo suficientemente
pequeña para que todos nos codeemos y nos conozcamos.
El vecino de enfrente, persona que tiene el don de discurrir con
alguna claridad más que la multitud, es víctima de una adversidad
cualquiera, acarreada por una serie de sucesos inevitables.—Me
alegro—dice el rumrum:—ese hombre lo tenía bien merecido; es
una mala cabeza, un fatuo, un pretencioso.
Sucédele eso mismo á un «buen muchacho», y dice la Fama:—
¡Pícara suerte, que nunca quiere proteger á los buenos!
Acúsasele por alguien de una acción poco edificante, y dice la
misma señora:—¡Calumnia!... Fulano no puede ser reo de
semejante delito; yo abono su conducta, porque... es un excelente
muchacho.
Al primero se le enreda, al pasar, un botón en los flecos del chal de
una modista, y doña Opinión, la mala, le marca con el dedo como á
un desenfrenado corruptor de la pública moralidad.
Enrédasele al otro la honra entera entre los hechizos de la mujer de
su vecino; asoma el escándalo la oreja, y exclama doña Opinión, la
buena:—«¡Atrás! que es un buen muchacho incapaz de cometer tan
feo delito». Si el escándalo pugna, y forcejea y vence al cabo, la
mujer es la serpiente que le ha seducido: todo menos lastimar en lo
más mínimo la cándida sensibilidad de su amante.
Hay vacante un puesto que exige á quien ha de ocuparle mucho
tacto y mayor experiencia, y, sin saber cómo, empieza á sonar el
nombre de un buen muchacho; crece el ruido, fórmase la atmósfera,
provéese la plaza en un hombre nulo ó sin merecimientos, y apenas
la justicia severa se dispone á condenar la elección, grita el rumor
atronador de la Fama:—Me alegro, porque el elegido es... «un buen
muchacho».
Trátase de una heredera rica que se halla en estado de merecer, y
al punto dice aquella señora:—«¡Qué buena pareja haría esa chica
con... Fulano, que es un gran muchacho!». Y los ecos van repitiendo
la ocurrencia, y se la llevan á la aludida, y se echa ésta á cavilar, y
comienzan las embajadas oficiosas de los aficionados á la
diplomacia casamentera, y aceptan la mediación las partes
beligerantes, y...—«es cosa hecha»—exclama un día con aire de
triunfo la gente.—Y añade:—«y me alegro, no solamente por el
novio, que es un buen muchacho, sino por lo que van á
reconcomerse los otros».
...«Los otros», lector, son los desheredados de la fama de «buenos
muchachos», que tal vez no conocen á la novia, y que, de seguro,
no han cruzado una palabra con ninguno de los que forman la
opinión que tan cordialmente antipática se les presenta.
Cuando un padre sencillo reprende á su hijo por una falta propia de
la edad, vuelve los ojos con envidia á un «buen muchacho»; si éstos
no van al teatro más que dos veces por semana, no se puede ser
hombre de bien yendo tres; cuanto en costumbres es un pecado,
deja de serlo desde el momento en que le comete un «buen
muchacho»; las mamás los miran con un memorial en cada ojo; las
autoridades los saludan como á las mejores garantías del orden...
hasta los agentes de policía los acatan y reverencian, porque ven en
ellos otros tantos futuros concejales...
Júzguese ahora del riesgo que yo corro al estrellarme contra tanta
popularidad... y eso que todavía no he dicho que un «buen
muchacho» es necesariamente tonto de remache.
Y dirá aquí el lector cándido:—¿Cómo puede un tonto adquirir tal
fama de discreto?

John Chrysostom On Paul Praises and Problem Passages Margaret M Mitchell Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Chrysostom On Paul Praises and Problem Passages Margaret M Mitchell Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Chrysostom on Paul: Praises and

Problem Passages Margaret M. Mitchell

John Chrysostom on Paul

Introduction, translation, and notes by

Praises and Problem Passages

Introduction, translation, and notes by

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022947312

Bibliography of Works Cited.........................................................................817

Index of Biblical Passages Cited...................................................................837

students in my research seminars on Early Christian Biblical Interpreta-

College for some years in founding the Chrysostom subseries of WGRW. I

Text Editions and Translations

AP Piédagnel, Auguste, ed. and trans. Jean Chryso­

JPM Jacques-Paul Migne. See PG below

RSV Revised Standard Version

Athous Lavra Greece, Mount Athos, Great Lavra Monastery

Manuscripts: The Eighteen “Occasional Homilies”

Manuscripts: De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli

A Paris. gr. 755

app. crit. apparatus criticus (critical apparatus)

Add Dan Additions to Daniel

Bab. Jul. John Chrysostom, De Babyla contra Julianum et

Hom. 1 Cor. 7:39–40 John Chrysostom, De libello repudii

Hom. 2 Tim. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam ii ad Timo­

Res. ges. Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gestae

BGBE Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese

JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies

VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements

Pauline Problems, Pauline Praises

Such moments of exultation about the power, wisdom, sagacity, and

1. John Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Cor. 4:13 Γ §1 (PG 51:291).

orator-bishops and priests of the post-Constantinian period, all of

errant or scandalous. What is a preacher to do when faced with such chal-

The Contents and Rationale for This Volume

in the present volume is that these homilies provide a vibrant laboratory

Series Delivered by Chrysostom in Constantinople?” Byzantion 65 (1995): 309–48;

stom, the self-proclaimed most devoted expositor of Paul, practiced it in

◆ How is it that Christian Scripture contains things that appear to be

14. Throughout this volume we are addressing Chrysostom’s “Paul”; he regarded

Antioch—Peter as cowering in fear before “the men from James”

Throughout these eighteen homilies, one finds Chrysostom employing the

form of problems and solutions (often referred to in scholarship by the

By drawing upon the form of problems and solutions in these homilies

we find the same “topics of problemata” in the discussion on scriptural interpreta-

Using these analogies to other forms of cultural knowledge, to horse racing

to light. He wishes to teach them in a manner that piques their interest,

Again today I wish to lead you to fountains of honey, a honey of which

Biblical study, including careful consideration of things that “appear to be

24. Hom. 1 Cor. 7:2–4 §1 (PG 51:208–9).

And, as Chrysostom often states, he wishes by his clever apologetic arguments

30. Hom. Rom. 16:3 A §3 (PG 51:192).

The History of Publication of the

in Monac. gr. 478 [XII]), which listed individual homilies by Chrysostom

Henry Savile and the “Eton Chrysostom”

collected eighteen homilies on Pauline passages, arranged in canonical

supplying marginal biblical references (in Greek abbreviations) to passages

Hom. Rom. 5:3 (CPG 4373)

Exemplarium Sauilii Codex X.5 (pp. 257–97)

Hom. Rom. 8:28 (CPG 4374)

Hom. Rom. 12:20 (CPG 4375)

Hom. Rom. 16:3 Α (CPG 4376)

Ahora bien: ¿por qué escribo yo esto? ¿Aspiro á la austeridad del

MORAL DEL CUENTO

AP Piédagnel, Auguste, ed. and trans. Jean Chryso

Hom. 2 Tim. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in epistulam ii ad Timo