Chapter 13 187
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The commentary by Oecumenius on the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written in the same manner as a common Bible commentary, written by one author, who interprets the Scripture passages, using his own thoughts and creativity throughout the body of work. But this commentary is a compilation of comments on each passage of Scripture that was gleaned from multiple Bible commentators and Early Church writers. This technique of taking excerpts from other writers and compiling them together to form a running commentary on Scripture was an exegetical style called Catena, which became a practice in Early Christianity for creating a study tool for clergy and students of the Scriptures.
As for the authorship of this catena, or to speak more precisely, the “compiler” of this catena, for centuries has been credited to Oecumenius, the Greek bishop of Tricca. For a long time it was believed that Oecumenius wrote his Bible commentaries around 990AD, but when his lost commentary on the book of Revelation, which Franz Diekamp rediscovered in 1901, and H. C. Hoskier published in 1928, the date of the Revelation manuscript pointed towards an earlier date, around the 6 th century, making him a contemporary of Andrew of Caesarea. Andrew also wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation in the 6 th century and somewhat in opposition to the commentary on Revelation by Oecumenius. H.C. Hoskier, who published the first critical edition of the commentary on Revelation by Oecumenius, understood Oecumenius to be the same author of the commentary on Revelation and all of the other NT commentaries, saying…
It is, therefore, not inappropriate to bring to public attention the text and commentary of OECUMENIUS, who flourished in the sixth and seventh centuries, and whose commentary on the Apocalypse has been missing for a long period, although some of his commentaries on other New Testament books have come down to us. Attributed generally to the tenth century, the document which we now publish itself gives us the correct date (preceding Andrew [of Caesarea] 563-614 A.D. and Arethas 860-939 A.D.), and we can now place Oecumenius, Greek Bishop of Tricca, towards the beginning of the seventh century. 1
Naturally, this led some scholars to place the date of the other commentaries by Oecumenius to the 6 th century. Many scholars today do not accept that the Oecumenius who wrote the commentary on Revelation to be the same author of the commentaries on Acts, Paul’s Epistles, and the Catholic Epistles. For nearly a century now, there has been a renewed interest in Greek catenae, and effort has been taking place where scholars are in the works of producing critical texts of what they term the Pseudo-Oecumenian catena, which means that they believe that these commentaries have been falsely attributed to Oecumenius. I personally hold to the traditional view that the author of the commentary on Revelation to be the same author who wrote the other commentaries. But I do want to say that I am in no way dogmatic and I am completely open to the view held by modern scholars that the catena was perhaps falsely attributed to Oecumenius. I will explain my reasons below why I hold this position, and I will provide some excerpts from both points of view and then let you the reader come to their own conclusions.
In this catena on Hebrews there are many excerpts from some of the Early Church Fathers that Oecumenius gleaned from. Not all excerpts have the names given from whom the sources are from. For those excerpts which have been named throughout the catena, Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457A.D.), Gennadius of Constantinople (died around 471A.D.), Cyril of Alexandria (died around 444A.D.), Photius of Constantinople (810-891A.D.), and Oecumenius (6 th century) himself have been specifically quoted and labelled as excerpts. Oecumenius also referenced and partially quoted Gregory of Nyssa (335-395A.D.) and Gregory Nazianzen (329-390A.D.). Cyril of Alexandria was mostly referenced and partially quoted in most cases, but there are a couple of places where his name was prefixed with the excerpts. One excerpt from Cyril was mistakenly credited to Oecumenius, but I corrected that excerpt and footnoted it and provided the source of the work, which is found in the comment section for Hebrews 13:12-15. There are undoubtedly more excerpts that are not identified, but I limited the amount of time that I spent to locate all the sources, though I truly wish that I had the time to identify as many of the excerpts as I could. Oecumenius relied heavily upon the homilies on Hebrews by John Chrysostom (died around 407A.D.) throughout the entire catena, but his name is never given as a source [on Hebrews]. Oecumenius took the interpretations from Chrysostom as the primary source but repackaged it, oftentimes in a more concise manner. Oecumenius did that same technique with some other sources as well, which makes it a bit challenging to locate the sources from where the original thoughts came from. The excerpts from Photius of Constantinople were a later stage of manuscript development and are plentiful throughout the catena, but those excerpts were added later by copyists, oftentimes as outer marginal notes, but then were later grafted into the main text by later editors. Photius was the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from 858 to 867 and from 877 to 886, which means that he came much later than Oecumenius of the 6 th century.
My Translation
I have recently translated the commentaries on the Catholic Epistles by Oecumenius, and they are published and available in print and electronic versions 2 . That translation of the commentaries on the Catholic Epistles was translated directly from volume 119 of the Patrologia Graeca printed edition of 1864. Originally, my intentions were to do the same thing for this commentary on Hebrews, and even though I did rely upon the Patrologia Graeca as the primary source, I also consulted an earlier Greek version that was published in 1844 by Theoclitus Pharmakides 3 . In the Pharmakides version of the commentaries by Oecumenius, Theoclitus Pharmakides made numerous modifications to the Greek text that expanded the commentary in order to enhance and clarify what appears to be a sloppy manuscript tradition created by the editors and copyists throughout the centuries after the original commentary was written. Theoclitus Pharmakides explains…
The text of the commentaries of Oecumenius is in many parts so poor that it sometimes becomes difficult to understand. This is certainly not the fault of the author of the commentaries; the poor quality arises either from the copyists or from the editors of the commentaries themselves. From where could we correct the errors? From manuscripts? But where, as far as we know, are such found in Greece? From other editions? But we have used the newer one, the one made in Paris in the year 1631 by Morellus. Besides these and similar aids, we have moved some texts to their proper place, which were previously misplaced; and we corrected other wrongly rendered parts in the text, some by being helped by the Latin translation of Entenius, others guided by Theophylact, and never by our own speculation. Theophylact (1055-1107A.D.) is later than Oecumenius; and in many respects, he agrees with him so much that it becomes evident that he took much from Oecumenius, often word-for-word. Thus, the small changes made from Theophylact to the text of Oecumenius can, in some sense, be considered as peculiar to Oecumenius himself. From Theophylact also some additions were made to the text of Oecumenius, some small, others greater, either to fill gaps or to contribute to greater clarity of Oecumenius's text. These things were undertaken by us for the sake of the purpose for which these commentaries are chiefly published. 3
I did adopt a significant amount of the modified readings from Pharmakides, but I left many out as well. Every part that I adopted from Pharmakides is marked and has been footnoted. My goal for this translation is for the benefit of those who are seeking Patristic interpretations on the book of Hebrews for better insight, and not for creating an English translation of a critical text of the catena.
I also used the Pauline commentaries from the Greek Church, Collected and edited from catena manuscripts, by Dr. Karl Staab 4 , published in 1933. This edition was very helpful for me to locate many excerpts from the text that were not identified who the sources were, nor given any indication of where the excerpts began or ended.
Oecumenius vs Pseudo-Oecumenius
As mentioned above, I am not dogmatic about whether the original compiler of the catena on Paul’s Epistles, Acts, and the Catholic Epistles is the same author of the 6 th century commentary on Revelation, but I do favor that it is the same Oecumenius who authored both. As an author of over twenty published books, I can relate to writing in two different styles, one as a complier, and also as an author based upon my own thoughts and creativity. I have also seen different styles of writings among many authors of the Early Church. I have not only seen different styles of writings from a single author, but I have also seen different manuscripts of the same writing from the same author have significant differences between them. That is one reason why textual critics are motivated to develop critical texts based upon the best manuscripts that are available in order to have a reliable standardized text. I have encountered this “dilemma” in my own translation projects in the past, especially with the English translation of the Glossa Ordinaria on the book of Revelation and the Questions on the Old and New Testaments by Ambrosiaster. As the editor of the translation of the Glossa Ordinaria on the book of Revelation, I chose to use a 12 th century Gloss manuscript as well as a 13 th century manuscript, and then a 15 th century version of the Gloss. Instead of trying to create a critical text, I decided to adopt glosses that I knew were not from the original glossator because they added value to the commentary as an exegetical tool for the readers. I had the same motivation when I translated the Questions on the Old and New Testaments by Ambrosiaster. There were two versions of the work by Ambrosiaster, one was a shorter version and another a longer version. I translated both for the same reason, and that is for the value of the commentary. And for this translation of the Catena on Hebrews by Oecumenius, there are excerpts that I know that are not original to the author but the content that has been carefully modified in over time. The Photius excerpts are an obvious addition by editors and copyists, but they add value to the commentary as a tool for exegetical purposes.
For those who reject the Oecumenian authorship, they provide legitimate arguments, but I am still not convinced even after examining all the arguments. The primary argument is that the name “Oecumenius” has been prefixed to some of the excerpts, as if an anonymous author or a later copyist added excerpts from an Oecumenius scholia. Since the catena has excerpts from Oecumenius, then the original author would not be Oecumenius. This is the argument that Karl Staab makes…
One only needs to examine the commentaries of Paul of more recent and newest times and one will repeatedly find Oecumenius cited as a key witness of Greek Pauline exegesis. But research based on the earliest manuscript sources increasingly destroys his fame. In the introductory volume I believe I have provided the definitive proof that this great compilation of all the Pauline epistles does not belong to our Oecumenius, that it contains only a number of scholia from his hand. 4
That does make logical sense, but I find the argument in the introductory material of the Patrologia Graeca to be quite satisfying to me, saying…
Moreover, although in the earlier books no one has prefixed his name, as is the custom among the Greeks, never publishing under his own name what he has not elaborated by his own effort, but rather collecting certain patches from various sources: yet from evident conjectures we gather that Oecumenius is partly the author of these, partly the collector who, however, sometimes, when he presents his opinion after others, has also added his own name, lest anyone attribute it to others, which he himself did not consider worthy to be compared with their opinions. 5
I can totally relate to that myself. Years ago I was creating a catena, that I called The Aquinas Study Bible , for my website 6 where I would provide the Scripture text followed by excerpts from the Church Fathers as well as some of the Scholastic theologians, and there were some places where I would add my own comments and I would prefix my own name to the excerpt so that people knew what was coming from me, and not by Patristic writers who I considered far superior to myself.
The commentaries by Oecumenius on Acts, Paul’s Epistles, and the Catholic Epistles gained a lot of favor throughout the centuries and were consulted by many great theologians throughout the centuries, but his commentary on the book of Revelation, even though his was the very first Greek commentary on Revelation, did not have the same fame because the church of the East were very slow to accept Revelation as canonical, and it was overshadowed by the commentary on Revelation by Andrew of Caesarea, and it was considered lost until it was rediscovered in 1901. As for me, I place great value upon all of his commentaries because he does an excellent job providing clear and well balanced interpretations of the Scriptures, which has been my main motivation for taking on the work of translating his commentaries into English so that more people can read and benefit from his commentaries on Scripture the way I have over the years. Lord willing, I will continue this labor of love by translating as many of his Bible commentaries as I can.
Acknowledgements
I want to give a special thank you to Darren Weeks, who has spent many hours proofreading my translation and giving me encouragement and sharing many links to very helpful content concerning this project, as well as other projects that I have done in the past. I also want to thank Dr. Clark Bates, Professor of NT, at Forge Theological Seminary who has shared his time answering my questions and sharing important information and resources that have aided this project. Dr, Clark Bates has an upcoming book, soon to be published by De Gruyter, called The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Ephesians: Text, Translation, and Commentary. 7
_______________
Translator notes for the introduction
1. The complete commentary of Oecumenius on the Apocalypse : now printed for the first time from manuscripts at Messina, Rome, Salonika, and Athos, Ann Arbor : University of Michigan, Hoskier, H. C. (Herman Charles), 1864-1938, editor. Page 4
2. The electronic versions are on Kindle from Amazon, and Archive.org.
3. Theoclitus Pharmakides, With footnotes of ancients, published by Theoclitus Pharmakides. In Athens, from the printing house of Nikolas Angelidis on Hermous Street near Kapnikarea 1844
4. Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. Aus Katenenhandschriiten gesammelt und herausgegeben. Von Dr. Karl Staab. 1933.
5. Patrologia Graeca (Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca) 118. Oecumenius v.1: Commentary on Acts, Commentary on Paul’s letters, Commentary on the Catholic letters. Pages 16-17
6. The website was called Patristic Bible Commentary, which was a Google site, that was deleted by Google a few years ago. Sadly that website is no longer available but there is a lot of the commentary preserved by Catena Bible, who has a website and https://catenabible.com/mt/1 and an app.
7. Clark Bates, The Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Ephesians: This work advances the understanding of the production and purpose of the Ps.-Oecumenian catena on Ephesians through the creation of a critical edition, its translation, and theological commentary. The edition is created through the full transcription and collation of seventeen catena manuscripts, drawn from all known catena manuscripts containing the Ps.-Oecumenian catena on Ephesians. The selected manuscripts were chosen on the basis of a test passage applied to all manuscript witnesses of this catenae tradition and they represent three of the main catena types established by Karl Staab and indicative of the development of the catena from its earliest recoverable period containing the Urkatena and Corpus Extravagantium , to the addition of the Scholia Photiana . An analysis of the seventeen manuscripts selected for the edition is provided alongside a stemma codicum representing a conceptualisation of textual relationships between the manuscripts and the process of the transmission of the catena. The presence of author attributions in the manuscript tradition and the source material of unattributed scholia are examined with discussions related to their reliability. The identification of Oecumenius as a source for select scholia within the catena is paralleled with similar material in the commentary on the Apocalypse produced by Oecumenius, concluding that the same source is likely responsible for both. The editorial text of the critical edition is presented alongside its English translation with an accompanying theological commentary. The commentary analyses the content of each scholion in light of patristic exegesis from the second to seventh centuries. A critical edition with apparatus is provided for the entire catena of Ephesians with a separate edition and apparatus, with English translation, included for the Scholia Photiana . A critical edition produced from the most current catalogue of manuscripts. Analyses each stage of production in the life of the Ps.-Oecumenian catena. Theological commentary on the content of the catena
Oecumenius
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews
__________________
HYPOTHESIS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Paul writes this from Italy. The occasion of the letter was this. Since the Jews were insisting on the law and shadowy figures, the apostle Paul, having become the teacher of the Gentiles and sent to preach the Gospel to the nations, wrote this letter after he had written to all the Gentiles, also to the Hebrews who had believed from the circumcision, to teach them through this Epistle, in which he declares that Christ has come and that the shadow of the law has ceased. And indeed, it first demonstrates that prophets and announcers [μηνυτὰς] of his coming were sent for this reason, and that Christ himself is the Son of God, through whom all things were made. And that this Son had to become a man, so that by the sacrifice of his body he might destroy death. For salvation was to come to all not through the blood of calves or goats, but through the blood of Christ. Moreover, it shows that the law made no one perfect but had only a shadow of the good things to come. The Jewish people did not find rest, but a day of rest was left to all of us in common. Furthermore, it also demonstrates that the priestly ministry was transferred from Aaron to Christ: whose figure was Melchizedek, who was not descended from Levi. It signifies that the fathers were justified by faith, and not by the works of the law. Then, after Paul also urged them to have good morals and praised their tolerance for Christ, and advised them to honor the elders, he concludes the Epistle.
ANOTHER HYPOTHESIS
The Epistle to the Hebrews indeed seems not to be from Paul, both because of the style of writing and because it does not attach his name, as in all the other Epistles; also because it says: "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness with signs and wonders?" (Heb. 2:3-4) And indeed the reason why the style was changed is evident. For it is said to have been written to the Hebrews in their own language, later translated, as some think, by Luke, but as it seems to most, by Clement; for he also preserves its character. However, the reason why he did not attach his name to the Epistle is the order of the matter. For Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles, and not of the Jews. For he had given the right hand of fellowship to Peter and the other apostles, so that he himself would minister among the Gentiles with Barnabas, while those around Peter would go to the circumcision. Since there was a partnership in preaching, and the Jews had heard that Paul was teaching a departure from the law, it is fitting that he writes a letter to the Hebrews to show the agreement of the preaching. However, when he was writing to them, it was not appropriate for him to declare himself an Apostle at the beginning. The letter itself also testifies that it is Paul's, as it says: You have also shared in the afflictions that have come upon me in my chains. (Heb. 10:34) And when he says: "Pray more earnestly that I may be restored to you more quickly" (Heb. 13:19); furthermore, when he says: "You know our brother Timothy has been released, with whom, if he comes soon, I will see you." (Heb. 13:23) For no one except Paul, as I believe, had sent Timothy into ministry: and while waiting for him more quickly, he promises them his own and Timothy's arrival, as he often does. Many other things also show us that this is his Epistle, as the reading itself teaches in the course of it.
THEODORET 1
For what reason does Paul, being the Apostle to the Gentiles, write to the Hebrews? And this while they were hostile towards him because he was paralyzing [παραλύειν] the law? For Peter and the others who were with him, lowering themselves to the weak understanding of the Jews, were somewhat following the law. We say that just as it was not committed to Paul to baptize, yet out of an abundance of ministry he was also baptizing: so he writes to the Hebrews, although he was sent to the Gentiles. Indeed, he had anxious care for them, so much so that he even said: "I could wish to be accursed from Christ for their sake" (Rom. 9:3); and again: "I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints." (Rom. 15:25) Therefore, Paul writes to those who had already believed in Jerusalem and in Palestine: he writes, however, to comfort them because they had suffered many afflictions from their own fellow countrymen who did not believe, as he himself indicates, saying, "Strengthen your limp hands and your weak knees." (Heb. 12:12)
However, two points in this in the Epistle: Paul comforts them that they have bravely endured temptations, and that a good reward will be given for these things. Moreover, he discusses many things about faith, showing that the Jewish practices are no longer necessary, as it was a figure of the truth, while our own practices are necessary as they are the truth.
Therefore, why Paul did not add a proper name when writing to the Hebrews, Clement 2 writes in his "The Hypotyposes" as follows: Now indeed, as the blessed elder says: When the Lord was sent as the apostle of the Almighty God to the Hebrews, it was done out of modesty that Paul, who was sent to the Gentiles, did not write himself as the apostle of the Hebrews, out of honor bestowed upon the Lord. Furthermore, out of abundant love, it was done that the preacher and apostle of the Gentiles also wrote to the Hebrews.
_________________________
Translator’s notes on the preface
1. Theodoret of Cyrus was a significant theologian of the School of Antioch, biblical commentator, and bishop of Cyrus (423–457AD).
2. Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD). The Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria is one of his lost works. It still existed in the 9th century, but probably perished with so much else in the sack of Constantinople by the renegade army originally hired for the Fourth Crusade. [Roger Pearse]
THE APOSTLE PAUL
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS