Where did Chrysostom say προεδροις καὶ προεστωσι

Status
Not open for further replies.

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I don't know Greek and I'm not sure even where to look for this in Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew or on 1 Timothy?). Gillespie (in Assertion) draws the Greek from Junius (Controversy 3 with Bellarmine) who does not give a citation. Any ideas?
The presbytery whereof mention is made (1 Tim. 4:14), “Tell the church;” that is, προεδροις καὶ προεστωσι, says Chrysostom, expounding the place,—he means the presbytery made up of pastors and ruling elders.​
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Okay; because the chapter has to do with Matthew 18:17, I'm assuming "expounding this place" refers to that and so the below is from the English; but I'm still not finding the greek anywhere associated with Chrysostom as far as that phrase (not one instance on Google).
‘But if he shall neglect to hear them also, tell it to the church,’ that is, to the rulers of it;” Homily LX, Homilies on Matthew, NPNF1, vol. 10, p. 373. the way this is phrased it would seem the Greek given is what underlays the English "the rulers of it."
 

py3ak

They're stalling and plotting against me
Staff member
I take it this is the passage you have in mind:

Wherefore, by the church whereof our Master speaketh, we must needs understand such a representative meeting of the church, wherein a scandalous and obstinate person may and ought to be judged. And what is that? Collegium presbyterorum, saith Camero [Praelect. tom. 1., p. 23.] The presbytery whereof mention is made, 1 Tim. 4.14, "Tell the church;" that is, προεδροις και προεστωσι, saith Chrysostom, expounding the place,—he meaneth the presbytery made up of pastors and ruling elders. And so Zanchius [In 4 Praecept., col. 741.] and Junius [Contr. 3, lib. 2., cap. 6.] expound him. The pastors were προεδροι, because of their presiding in the consistories of the church; the ruling elders were προεστωτες, because of their ruling the flock.

What Chrysostom says on Matthew 18:17 is:

Seest thou how this is done not for the sake of just punishment, but of amendment? Therefore He doth not at once command to take with him the two, but when himself hath failed; and not even then doth He send forth a multitude against him; but makes the addition no further than two, or even one; but when he has contemned these too, then and not till then He brings him out to the church.

So much earnestness doth He show, that our neighbor’s sins be not exposed by us. And indeed He might have commanded this from the first, but that this might not be, He did not command it, but after a first and second admonition He appoints this.

But what is, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established?” Thou hast a sufficient testimony. His meaning is, that thou hast done all thy part, that thou hast left undone none of the things which it pertained to thee to do.

“But if he shall neglect to hear them also, tell it to the church,” that is, to the rulers of it; “but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican.” For after this such a one is incurably diseased.
(NPNF 1.10, 355)

On 1 Timothy 4:14 it's:

“With the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” He speaks not here of Presbyters, but of Bishops. For Presbyters cannot be supposed to have ordained a Bishop.
(NPNF 1.13, 449)

It sounds like Gillespie is maybe mixing his appeal to Cameron, Zanchius, and Junius, with a much narrower witness of Chrysostom that in Matthew 18:17 "church" = "rulers of the church."
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
It sounds like Gillespie is maybe mixing his appeal to Cameron, Zanchius, and Junius, with a much narrower witness of Chrysostom that in Matthew 18:17 "church" = "rulers of the church."
Yes; at least the Greek phrase is in Junius. I'll cut and paste it below. Question is, is that Junius's Greek, Chrysostom, a paraphrase of Chrysostom, or some old no longer held as accurate text of Chrysostom. I tried reading the Greek, and simply have not spotted that phrase; and it only found in Gillespie via Google.
1590094100122.png
 
Last edited:

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Here is the Greek for the passage in question. There is one form of the words present but certainly not the phrase given in Junius.
1590095842256.png
I take it this is the passage you have in mind:



What Chrysostom says on Matthew 18:17 is:


(NPNF 1.10, 355)

On 1 Timothy 4:14 it's:

(NPNF 1.13, 449)

It sounds like Gillespie is maybe mixing his appeal to Cameron, Zanchius, and Junius, with a much narrower witness of Chrysostom that in Matthew 18:17 "church" = "rulers of the church."
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
Based on the matching Latin rendering in this reference I would think Homily 60 on Matthew is almost certainly in view (Migne notes that 60 is typically denominated 61 in earlier writings). I'm pretty sure the term Chrysostom used in the place you show is an extended form of προεδροις (προεδρεύουσιν). Also towards the bottom of that page he again speaks of "the ruler of the church" using προέδρω τής εκκλησίας (both also @ PG 58:586).

Regarding the two Greek words as given I wonder if it's just a generalized and amalgamated reference to the phraseology Chrysostom typically used in that context. Speaking of church leadership in his Homily 14 on 1 Timothy (5) Chrysotom uses the other term, προεστώσι τής Εκκλησίας (PG 62:576) and also Εκκλησιών προεστώσι in De Sacerdotio III (PG 48:636). I can't find anywhere where he used both words together.
 
Last edited:

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Okay; with all the input and many thanks to Phil, is this note too much to explain the phrase which is not Chrysostom but Junius's explanation or summary of him? I note Schaff adduces the word προεδρεύουσιν and ponders if it is not a gloss? https://books.google.com/books?id=4...QAg#v=onepage&q=chrysostom præsidibus&f=false
[“‘But if he shall neglect to hear them also, tell it to the church,’ that is, to the rulers of it;” Homily LX, Homilies on Matthew, NPNF1, vol. 10, p. 373. In Latin, this reads, “Si autem nec hos audierit, dic Ecclesiæ, id est, præsidibus;” The Greek is, “᾿Εὰν δὲ καὶ τούτων παρακούσῃ, εἰπὲ τῇ ᾿Εκκλησίᾳ, τουτέστι, τοῖς προεδρεύουσιν” (PG 58.586). Some lines later Chrysostom also speaks of “the ruler of the church,” προέδρω τής εκκλησίας. The text Gillespie cites is Junius’s Greek phrase which is used perhaps as a generalized summary of Chrysostom’s thought rather than a single citation (Junius cites no source). As far as could be determined, Chrysostom does not used the phrase or two words together. He speaks of church leadership in Homily 14 on 1 Timothy 5 (προεστώσι τής Εκκλησίας, PG 62:574) and also in De Sacerdotio III (Εκκλησιών προεστώσι, PG 48:646).]
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
Going back to the beginning (sorry, this may be somewhat unwelcome at this later point...), the only thing that might give me some pause is that the phrase dic ecclesiae, praesulibus scilicet ac praesidentibus corresponds so nicely with προεδροις καὶ προεστωσι. While I didn't find any full editions of the homilies that uses that Latin phraseology there are several later accounts that clearly attest to it. The earliest I came across (with a given reference) was Thomas Bilson's The Perpetual Governement of Christes Church (p.103), written 1593. This raises the question if an earlier Greek edition of Chrysostom may have had that Greek wording in place of προεδρεύουσιν. There are several even earlier Greek editions of Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew, but the earliest I found (Norton, 1612, p.385, line 40) is the same as Migne. So this line of thought is merely speculative...
 
Last edited:

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Going back to the beginning (sorry, this may be somewhat unwelcome at this later point...), the only thing that might give me some pause is that the phrase dic ecclesiae, praesulibus scilicet ac praesidentibus corresponds so nicely with προεδροις καὶ προεστωσι. While I didn't find any full editions of the homilies that uses that Latin phraseology there are several later accounts that clearly attest to it. The earliest I came across (with a given reference) was Thomas Bilson's The Perpetual Governement of Christes Church (p.103), written 1593. This raises the question if an earlier Greek edition of Chrysostom may have had that Greek wording in place of προεδρεύουσιν. There are several even earlier Greek editions of Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew, but the earliest I found (Norton, 1612, p.385, line 40) is the same as Migne. So this line of thought is merely speculative...
Correct; this was my thinking too. And Bilson is interacted with by Gillespie. I have been searching the earlier Greek. The manuscript Field published in 1839 (which I clipped above) has προεδρεύουσιν. But I was looking for earlier Greek/Latin editions and so far haven't found it. Also, it would need to look at the Latin but the Latin may exist without there ever being a Greek back up; i.e. paraphrastic translations, etc. Those are the types of things I've run into with other fathers. I'll look some more.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Cansius uses the Latin in his summa (1555) here in a later edition. https://books.google.com/books?id=y04AAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA388&ots=JKB5kHZxHi&dq=dic%20ecclesiae%2C%20praesulibus%20ss%20ac%20praesidentibus&pg=PA388#v=onepage&q=dic%20ecclesiae,%20praesulibus%20ss%20ac%20praesidentibus&f=false
Going back to the beginning (sorry, this may be somewhat unwelcome at this later point...), the only thing that might give me some pause is that the phrase dic ecclesiae, praesulibus scilicet ac praesidentibus corresponds so nicely with προεδροις καὶ προεστωσι. While I didn't find any full editions of the homilies that uses that Latin phraseology there are several later accounts that clearly attest to it. The earliest I came across (with a given reference) was Thomas Bilson's The Perpetual Governement of Christes Church (p.103), written 1593. This raises the question if an earlier Greek edition of Chrysostom may have had that Greek wording in place of προεδρεύουσιν. There are several even earlier Greek editions of Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew, but the earliest I found (Norton, 1612, p.385, line 40) is the same as Migne. So this line of thought is merely speculative...
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Here the Latin appears in a 1521 work.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z...iae, praesulibus ss ac praesidentibus&f=false
Going back to the beginning (sorry, this may be somewhat unwelcome at this later point...), the only thing that might give me some pause is that the phrase dic ecclesiae, praesulibus scilicet ac praesidentibus corresponds so nicely with προεδροις καὶ προεστωσι. While I didn't find any full editions of the homilies that uses that Latin phraseology there are several later accounts that clearly attest to it. The earliest I came across (with a given reference) was Thomas Bilson's The Perpetual Governement of Christes Church (p.103), written 1593. This raises the question if an earlier Greek edition of Chrysostom may have had that Greek wording in place of προεδρεύουσιν. There are several even earlier Greek editions of Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew, but the earliest I found (Norton, 1612, p.385, line 40) is the same as Migne. So this line of thought is merely speculative...
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Presmably the Greek text was "set" after Savile. I was hoping to find an online Greek and Latin to make searching easier. But may just have to look for stand alone early Greek. "Widely used editions of Chrysostom's works are available in Greek, Latin, English, and French. The Greek edition is edited by Sir Henry Savile (eight volumes, Eton, 1613); the most complete Greek and Latin edition is edited by Bernard de Montfaucon (thirteen volumes, Paris, 1718–38, republished in 1834–40, and reprinted in Migne's "Patrologia Graeca", volumes 47–64). " Wikipedia.
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
Unfortunately pre-15th century manuscript editions can tend to look like this - with no readily discernible divisions and unfamiliar and difficult fonts... Yikes!!!
 
Last edited:

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Unfortunately pre-15th century manuscript editions can tend to look like this - with no readily discernible divisions and unfamiliar and difficult fonts... Yikes!!!
I think I have the Montfaucon edition of the homilies on Matthew. But I just don't know enough greek to navigate to Homily 60/61 but I'm going to give it a look. If the Greek is the same then it will have to be earlier than 1718 and so will have to find the Savile. However, I have read hat is not online. https://books.google.com/books?id=s...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Thats the same edition I linked to above. I went by the listed publisher John Norton, who was also the first to publish some of Calvin's works in English. You hit 60 right on, which in Byzantine greek form is ξ
Okay; and thanks (I missed that); that means both the Saville and Montfaucon 1612 (bottom of page here) and early 18th century 'critical' Greek sets have the long form word you noted. So that means if the Latin has that Greek counterpart anywhere we need to look in older Greek texts. I'm having trouble finding the Matthew Homilies in Greek in the 16th century.
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
I thought I read somewhere along the way that the first real attempt at a critical Greek/Latin edition was the Heidelberg, 1602, which evidently has some introductory material and notes by Casaubon. I wonder if this might also be when the 61 to 60 transition took place.? Of course now I can't seem to find where I saw that, nor have I been able to find online access to that edition.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I thought I read somewhere along the way that the first real attempt at a critical Greek/Latin edition was the Heidelberg, 1602, which evidently has some introductory material and notes by Casaubon. I wonder if this might also be when the 61 to 60 transition took place.? Of course now I can't seem to find where I saw that, nor have I been able to find online access to that edition.
The publication date for a Greek text of the Matthew Homilies needs to predate Junius's citation which appears in his controversies with Bellarmine circa 1600-1603 (probably should check Bellarmine's use where Junius is interacting; maybe that has some clues). Given we have found the Latin dic ecclesiae, praesulibus scilicet ac praesidentibus throughout the sixteenth century, and if the Greek was rare or not in print of the Matthew Homilies, could it simply be the case the Greek phrase προεδροις καὶ προεστωσι was created from the Latin? That is why it matches up so nicely?
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I thought I read somewhere along the way that the first real attempt at a critical Greek/Latin edition was the Heidelberg, 1602, which evidently has some introductory material and notes by Casaubon. I wonder if this might also be when the 61 to 60 transition took place.? Of course now I can't seem to find where I saw that, nor have I been able to find online access to that edition.
Here is the Greek and Latin edition of 1602; it has the Latin phrase we have found but the same long form of the single Greek word if I'm seeing correctly. https://books.google.com/books?id=WtScUckVgmYC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=secundum Matthaeum 1602&pg=PA539#v=onepage&q=secundum Matthaeum 1602&f=false [the latin is right below the center column "B" and the Greek a few lines lower.]
This means still an earlier Greek might exist but that the Latin is paired with the form we've been finding of the Greek makes me wonder if any such construction like Junius occurs in any Chrysostom sixteen century Greek editions.
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
Good grief - not sure why my searches didn't bring up the readable 1602. Interestingly, as to the numbering, it heads the Latin column as homily 61, though it notes it is 60 in the Greek codexes and heads the Greek column accordingly.

Textually, I'm still not entirely sure what to think. The bracketed Greek throughout the 1602 would indicate a critical edition, but the text in question is not bracketed. The fact that is shows the older and extended Latin phrasing alongside the shorter Greek makes it seem like such was simply deemed a suitable translation. That's what seems most likely on the surface, anyway, yet later translators like the one in the Migne edition have considerably altered the Latin, which still leaves some questions. While Junius obviously wouldn't have had access to the printed 1602, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to think he may well have had access to earlier manuscripts at Leiden, and copied the Greek from those. Hard to know for sure. In any case I do think the footnote you came up with would still be satisfactory.
 
Last edited:

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Migne used the Greek text of Field (1839) which was the text from a specific 9th century manuscript, which interestingly was sold at auction in 2018. Migne used the Latin text of Montfaucon and which reads: Si autem nec hos audierit, dic Ecclesiæ, id est, præsidibus,” ommitting the last bit of the 1602 text: "Si autem eos non audierit, dic ecclesiae: praesulibus scilicet, ac praesidentibus." I read that the Montfaucon was not really all that critical and this may be a mistake as scilicet and id est are equivalent so looks like a missing word. The older texts I found above (1544 homilies and other works Catholic or otherwise), though varied in wording, retain praesidentibus.
 
Last edited:

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Yet one more twist, however: "The manuscript includes the first 44 homilies of John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew."
Ah, so he likely reverted to the Montfaucon on those, I would guess and it may say that in the Latin intro?
 

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
Ah, so he likely reverted to the Montfaucon on those, I would guess and it may say that in the Latin intro?
The main intro is in French (vol 57 which has the first Matt. homilies), and I'm not very good at that. Montfuaucon is mentioned once along with a number of other sources, but I'm not finding mention of Field. Most interestingly, however, both volumes also have a "monitum" inserted that mentions both Montfuaucon and Field, but I'm not fluent enough to make out all what's being said. However, one thing it seems to note is that there are some 600 places where the editors' textual decisions may be suspect! Crazy... Time to consult a real scholar - or maybe just move on...
 
Last edited:

DTK

Puritan Board Junior
Nope; Bellarmine presumably refers to the Latin of Chrysostom's Matthew Homilies and sort of sites the words we've been seeing but not exactly.
Chris, I don't know whether this is helpful, but here is an English translation of the above paragraph in Bellarmine...

Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621): But there are three arguments against this proposition. The first one is taken from the words in Matt. 18:17, Tell it to the Church, where it seems that the supreme tribunal of the Church has been placed in the hands of all the faithful.
We respond that the expression “tell it to the church” means, bring it to the public tribunal of the Church, that is, to those who function as the public person of the Church. For, this is how Chrysostom explains “tell it to the Church,” that is, to the presider. Surely the praxis of the Church confirms this; for, we have never seen, or heard, that anyone pleaded a criminal case before the multitude of the people; but we have often seen, often heard that someone pleaded his case before the bishop. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, S.J., Controversies of the Christian Faith, III On the Sovereign Pontiff, Book One, chapter 6, trans. Kenneth Baker, S.J. (Keep the Faith, Inc., 2016), pp. 624-625.

It appears to me that Bellarmine, if referring to Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew (Homily 60), has misrepresented him, because rulers (τοῖς προεδρεύουσιν) is plural in Chrysostom.

Chrysostom (349-407): “But if he shall neglect to hear them also, tell it to the church,” that is, to the rulers of it; “but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican.” For after this such a one is incurably diseased. NPNF1: Vol. X, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 60, §2.
Greek text: Ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τούτων παρακούσῃ, εἰπὲ τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ· τουτέστι, τοῖς προεδρεύουσιν. Ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας παρακούσῃ, ἔστω σοι ὡς ὁ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ὁ τελώνης. Λοιπὸν γὰρ ἀνίατα ὁ τοιοῦτος νοσεῖ. In Matthaeum, Homlia LX, §2, PG 58:586.

PS. I have been exploring the Chrysostom reference in the background of this discussion. I will let you know if I find anything interesting. Below is Lampe on the Greek term of Chrysostom's Greek in this place.
 

Attachments

  • 1590217814334.png
    1590217814334.png
    143.9 KB · Views: 0
  • 1590217884887.png
    1590217884887.png
    64 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks very much David. This is helpful and confirms that Junius was correcting the cardinals reading of Chrysostom. This is very hard to verify, but was there any Greek text of Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew published before the 1602 Latin and Greek text? I can confirm that it is the case that the edition of the homilies of John in Greek were first published in the 1620 volumes of Chrysostom. I'm thinking this is the same case for Matthew. The Sevile critical set ten years later, I read his printer's volumes (the texts he gave to the printers to use,), for the John and Matthew, they contained this 1602 edition which I can confirm the John had Seville's critical work against some MS.
Edit: Looks Like this thesis also starts the published text in 1602. So I think that answers the question. I somehow doubt Junius resorted to a variant MS simply to answer Bellarmine, so my thesis is still that the Greek is simply his rendering of the often cited Latin statement into the equivalent Greek.
Chris, I don't know whether this is helpful, but here is an English translation of the above paragraph in Bellarmine...

Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621): But there are three arguments against this proposition. The first one is taken from the words in Matt. 18:17, Tell it to the Church, where it seems that the supreme tribunal of the Church has been placed in the hands of all the faithful.
We respond that the expression “tell it to the church” means, bring it to the public tribunal of the Church, that is, to those who function as the public person of the Church. For, this is how Chrysostom explains “tell it to the Church,” that is, to the presider. Surely the praxis of the Church confirms this; for, we have never seen, or heard, that anyone pleaded a criminal case before the multitude of the people; but we have often seen, often heard that someone pleaded his case before the bishop. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, S.J., Controversies of the Christian Faith, III On the Sovereign Pontiff, Book One, chapter 6, trans. Kenneth Baker, S.J. (Keep the Faith, Inc., 2016), pp. 624-625.

It appears to me that Bellarmine, if referring to Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew (Homily 60), has misrepresented him, because rulers (τοῖς προεδρεύουσιν) is plural in Chrysostom.

Chrysostom (349-407): “But if he shall neglect to hear them also, tell it to the church,” that is, to the rulers of it; “but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican.” For after this such a one is incurably diseased. NPNF1: Vol. X, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 60, §2.
Greek text: Ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τούτων παρακούσῃ, εἰπὲ τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ· τουτέστι, τοῖς προεδρεύουσιν. Ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας παρακούσῃ, ἔστω σοι ὡς ὁ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ὁ τελώνης. Λοιπὸν γὰρ ἀνίατα ὁ τοιοῦτος νοσεῖ. In Matthaeum, Homlia LX, §2, PG 58:586.

PS. I have been exploring the Chrysostom reference in the background of this discussion. I will let you know if I find anything interesting. Below is Lampe on the Greek term of Chrysostom's Greek in this place.
 
Last edited:

Phil D.

Puritan Board Junior
I read one patristic scholar who believed a 1540 something edition of the homilies on the Pauline epistles was the first printed work of Chrysostom in Greek. His list of known documents didn't include any subsequent editions of the Matthew homilies until the opera omnia of 1602.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top