Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeNuméros16Edition and Translation of the Ps...

Edition and Translation of the Pseudo-Chrysostomic Homily In Divitem et Lazarum (CPG 4854)

Edition et traduction de l’homélie pseudo-chrysostomienne In Divitem et Lazarum (CPG 4854)
Uitgave en vertaling van de Pseudo-Chrysostomische preek In Divitem et Lazarum (CPG 4854)
Mathieu Cuijpers

Abstracts

This article offers the first critical edition and translation of the Ps.-Chrysostomic homily In Divitem et Lazarum (CPG 4854). While the homily is ascribed to John Chrysostom by two manuscripts, its exegesis of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16,19-31) proves to be more similar to that of Theophylact of Ohrid’s Enarrationes in evangelia.

Top of page

Full text

I would like to express my gratitude to Geert Roskam, Joseph Verheyden and Peter Van Deun for carefully reading this article and for their insightful remarks. I am also grateful for the comments of the anonymous reviewer. Any shortcomings are mine only.

1 Introduction

  • 1 Just Jr, A. A. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. New Testament, III. Luke. Downers Grove, (...)
  • 2 On Augustine’s interpretation of the parable, see Dunn, G. D. Augustine on the Rich Man and Lazarus (...)
  • 3 Ambrose. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 13-20. In: Adriaen, M. –Ballerini, P. A. Ambrosius Med (...)
  • 4 For Chrysostom’s use of the parable, see Signifredi, M. L’esegesi di Giovanni Crisostomo sulla para (...)
  • 5 Theophylact of Ohrid. Enarrationes in Evangelia. PG 123, 980-981.

1When dealing with the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16,19-31), Early Christian exegetes were predominantly concerned with the visions of the afterlife and with the social (in)justice as portrayed therein1. In anti-Jewish polemics, some exegetes such as Ambrose and Augustine2 also read the story allegorically, taking the rich man to represent the Jews and Lazarus the gentiles3. While keeping to a literal reading, John Chrysostom interprets the parable with a view to salvation and eschatology but also with more immediate concerns such as social justice and the distribution of wealth4. Against this tradition, the unedited Ps.-Chrysostomic homily In divitem et Lazarum (CPG 4854) offers a purely allegorical and supersessionist interpretation of the parable which has its closest parallel in the 11th century Enarrationes in Evangelia of Theophylact of Ohrid5. After a brief comparison with Theophylact’s exegesis, this article offers a critical edition and the first modern translation of In divitem et Lazarum.

2 The Reception of Luke 16,19-31 in Theophylact and in In divitem et Lazarum

  • 6 PG 123, 973-981. For a translation, see Stade, C. The Explanation by the Blessed Theophylact, Archb (...)

2While differing greatly from the early Christian exegesis on the pericope, the homily In divitem et Lazarum may be compared to the Enarrationes in Evangelia by the 11th century Byzantine exegete Theophylact of Ohrid6. After a more literal reading, Theophylact writes that there is also “a more figurative” interpretation (cf. τροπικώτερον, 980b) of the parable, in which the rich man represents the Jews and Lazarus the Gentiles. The rich man’s wealth, then, consists of “knowledge, wisdom and the words of God” (980c); his purple signifies “kingship” and his fine linen “priesthood”, as a reference to the linen clothing of the Levites. Consequently, the daily feasts are interpreted as the daily sacrifices to God. Lazarus, however, representing the Gentiles, is “poor in divine grace and wisdom”, lying before the gate as he is not allowed to enter the house of God. His sores are interpreted as his sins and the dogs that came to lick them as demons (980d).

3The anonymous homilist proceeds in much the same way, allegorizing the various different aspects of the pericope. The wealth of the rich man, who represents the Jews, consists of Scripture and the Law; their purple signifying the Mosaic Law and the linen the Messianic Prophecies. Moreover, the rich man’s dress as a whole is read as the predicate “of God”. Unlike Theophylact, the anonymous makes no reference to the Levites and takes the daily feasts to mean the daily reading of Scripture. Lazarus, then, represents the “demon-ridden” Gentiles, who seek to be fed from the rich man’s table, which represents the synagogue of Israel. The crumbs falling from the table are “grace, truth and adoption”. With the term “adoption” (υἱοθεσία), the anonymous refers to the supersessionist view of the Gentile church taking the place of the Jews as the people of God; the Jews “died” as they lost their inheritance (ἐκβληθεὶς τῆς κληρονομίας). Theophylact asserts that the Jews, much as the rich man, “died to God” (ἀπέθανε τῷ Θεῷ, 980d), while the Gentiles, read Lazarus, “died to sin” (ἀπέθανε τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, 981a) and were adopted into “the bosom of Abraham”. Similarly, the anonymous writes that the Jews truly died, while the Gentiles only “died to their former unbelief” (ἀπέθανε τῇ ποτὲ ἀπιστίᾳ).

4The question of authorship, certainly among the Pseudo-Chrysostomica, is notoriously vexing and will not be dealt with in the present contribution. Given the quite elaborate allegory and the apparent dissimilarity with patristic exegesis in combination to the similarities with Theophylact, Chrysostom seems excluded.

3 Some similarities with Ps.-Chrysostom, In praecursorem domini sermo

  • 7 Some early Christian authors – Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Arnobius, Hilary of Poitiers and Peter C (...)
  • 8 In Fr. in Matth., 12 (CPG 3840, Reuss, J., (ed.) Matthäuskommentare aus der griechische Kirche [TU, (...)

5A similar anti-Jewish and supersessionist sentiment is also espoused in the Pseudo-Chrysostomic homily In praecursorem domini sermo (CPG 4571; BHG 858; PG 59, 489-492). Commenting on Matt 3,1-2;4, the homilist offers a detailed allegorical interpretation of the Baptist’s clothing and diet, in a way comparable to In divitem et Lazarum and Theophylact’s Enarrationes7. The Baptist’s clothing (τὸ ἔνδυμα) represents “the converted gentile people” (τῶν ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἐπιστρεφόντνων λαῶν) and his girdle is an expression of the mortified bodily desires. The locusts and the honey each denote the Jews. Like locusts, the Jews have “hopped away” (ἀποπηδῶντας) from the divine law and precepts. As further proof of this interpretation, he cites Nahum 3,16-17, whom he takes to refer to the Jews as locusts. Using wordplay, he asserts that the “wild honey” (μέλι δὲ ἄγριον) represents the Jews since they “have acerbated (ἐξαγριᾶναι) the sweetness (γλυκύτητα) of the law by transgressing the divine precepts.” So according to the homilist, while the Jews have turned away from the law, the Gentiles (ἐθνικοὺς), who were formerly covered by “camel hair”, i.e., the devil, are now gathered into the Church8.

  • 9 See Voicu, S. J. Tracce origeniane in uno pseudocrisostomo cappadoce. In: Girardo, M. –Marin, M. (e (...)
  • 10 See Zaleski, J. Who Is the Man on the Camel?: Historical Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible and Christian (...)
  • 11 See Reeves, J. C. Muslim Appropriation of a Biblical Text. The Messianic Dimensions of Isaiah 21:6- (...)

6According to S. J. Voicu, this homily was preached by a homilist of Cappadocian origin at the end of the 4th century in Constantinople9. However, there are arguments for a later dating. To reinforce his interpretation of the camel hair as signifying the devil, the homilist quotes Is 21,7, taking the rider of the ass to refer to Jesus and the rider of the camel to refer to the antichrist. Zaleski suggested that this peculiar interpretation is a response to the Muslim exegesis of Is 21,7 (i.e., that the rider of the camel represents Mohamed)10. In any case, according to Reeves, such Christological manipulations of Is 21,7 “figure in the interreligious disputation literature which begins to flourish near the end of the eight CE11.” This would date In praecursorem to around the end of the eight century. Given the similarity in exegetical approach and supersessionist sentiment, an early Byzantine time of composition seems at hand for In divitem et Lazarum as well.

4 Manuscripts

  • 12 For the Oxford manuscript, see Sgandurra, M. F. Un manoscritto italogreco con annotaioni marginali (...)

7The homily has been preserved in two manuscripts, both of which can be traced back to the S. Salvatore monastery in Messina: Brussels, Royal Library of Belgium, IV, 459, ff. 37r-38v and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson, G 4 (misc. 142), ff. 130v-132v. As the Brussels manuscript has received ample scholarly attention and a detailed study of the Oxford manuscript is on its way, I limit myself to a general description12.

B Brussels, Royal Library, IV, 459, palimpsest, C + 153 folios, 300 × 245 mm, s. 14 (dikt. 10033)

8The scriptio superior of the manuscript contains a panegyricon written by various hands. The main part, foll. B-C, 1-13 and 23-130, was written in the early 14th century by Daniel, skeuophylax of the S. Salvatore monastery in Messina. A terminus post quem for the transcription was given by a Latin uncial document from James II of Sicily in the scriptio inferior (f. 101r) addressed to his brother Barnabas in 1295. Perhaps shortly after copying, the manuscript was taken to Alexandria. It passed on to the library of Thomas Phillipps (1792-1872; n° 22.406) and, after its dissolution, to the collection of Lionel and Philip Robinson in London. It was acquired in 1967 by the Royal Library of Belgium. The homily In divitem et Lazarum is preserved on foll. 37-38v. The title of the homily is written in red ink. The homily is divided into two parts by means of a large red capital in the margin (Ἀνεγνώσθη and Ἑξῆς).

9A. Ehrhard, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, 1. Teil, Bd. 3, Leipzig: Hinrich, 1939, pp. 482-483. M. Richard, Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs (Documents, études et répertoires de l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, 1), 2nd edition, Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1958, pp. 72, 74. Bibliotheca Phillippica, Medieval Manuscripts, New Series: Second Part, Catalogue of Forty-Four Manuscripts of the 9th to the 17th century, from the Celebrated Collection of Sir Thomas Phillipps, Auction: 29 November 1966, London: Sotheby, 1966, pp. 46-49. J. Noret, Le palimpseste grec Bruxelles, Bibl. Roy., IV. 459, in Analecta Bollandiana, vol. 95 (1977), pp. 101-117. J. Noret, Fragments de la ‘Praeparatio Evangelica d’Eusèbe dans le palimpseste ‘Bruxelles, Bibl. Roy., IV. 459’, in Sacris Erudiri, vol. 22/2 (1975), pp. 287-288. J. Noret, Un folio du “Grand commentaire d’Hésychius de Jérusalem sur les psaumes” conservé à Bruxelles, in Sacris Erudiri, vol. 49 (2010), pp. 243-248. J. Noret, Trente-six grands folios onciaux palimpsestes (avec un fragment inédit) de Paul d’Égine, in Byzantion, vol. 49 (1979), pp. 307-313. J. Noret, À propos du copiste d’un des appendices du manuscrit Bruxelles, Bibl. Roy., IV. 459, in Scriptorium, vol. 46/1 (1992), pp. 61-62. H. Liebaers, Quinze années d’acquisitions: de la pose de la première pierre à l’inauguration officielle de la Bibliothèque (exhibition catalogue), Bruxelles: Bibliothèque royale Albert 1er, 1969, pp. 30-32. M. B. Foti, Il monastero del S.mo Salvatore ‘In lingua phari’. Proposte scrittorie e coscienza culturale, Messina: s.n., 1989. M. Aubineau, Hésychius de Jérusalem, Basile de Séleucie, Jean de Béryte, Pseudo-Chrysostome, Léonce de Constantinople. Homélies pascales (cinq homélies inédites) (Sources Chrétiennes, 187), Paris: Cerf, pp. 176-181.

R Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson, G, 4 (Misc. 142), parchment and paper, 137 folios, 200 × 150 mm, s. 12-15 (dikt. 48342). A: ff. 2-23v, 28-83v, s. 12-13, parchment, 24 linn.; B: ff. 24-27v, 84-132v, s. 15, paper, 17 linn., various hands; C: ff. 133-137v, s. 13-14, paper, 23 linn

  • 13 My description of the oldest part of the manuscript is greatly indebted to the description by Santo(...)

10The original manuscript in parchment, consisting of foll. 2-23v and 28-83v, originally circulated in the diocese of Bova and later belonged to the library of S. Salvatore monastery in Messina13. This can be inferred from the signature “RMH” (f. 2r) which corresponds to the Greek inventory from the late 16th – early 17th century. The manuscript contains a non-Metaphrastic collection of homilies and hagiographies, mainly written in one hand related to the “Reggio style”. Later additions have been made presumably in Bova before its transfer to Messina, but before the 16th century. The parchment is of poor quality and the ornamentation is traditional, sober and colorless. The second section in paper, comprising foll. 24-132, is a small non-menological collection written by various hands. The third section, of foll. 133-137v, seems to originate from another manuscript. During the 18th century, the manuscript came into possession of the English priest and bibliophile Richard Rawlinson (1690-1755), who bequeathed his manuscripts to Oxford University. The homily In divitem et Lazarum, preserved on foll. 130-132v, is written in one column in 21 to 23 lines. The paper is severely damaged around the top and outer side of the codex, resulting in numerous lacunae. The text has not been ornamented and contains no internal division of the homily into paragraphs. At the end of the homily, a different hand added: καὶ οὐδὴς ἐξαὐτὸν ἐποι (132v).

11C. van de Vorst – H. Delehaye, Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum graecorum Germaniae Belgii Angliae (Subsidia Hagiographica, 13), Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1913, pp. 349-350. M. Aubineau, Codices Chrysostomici graeci. I: Codices Britanniae et Hiberniae (Documents, Études et Répertoires, 13), Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1968, p. 243. A. Ehrhard, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, III. Band, 2. Hälfte, 1./2. Lieferung, Berlin – Leipzig: Akademie – Hinrichs, 1952, p. 757. H. O. Coxe, Greek Manuscripts, Quarto Catalogues, vol. 1, 1853, repr. 1969, coll. 706-709. G. Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos. Der heilige Nikolaos in der griechischen Kirche, Band II: Prolegomena, Untersuchungen, Indices, Leipzig – Berlin: Teubner, 1917, 173. A. Kraft, An Inventory of Medieval Greek Apocalyptic Sources (c. 500-1500 AD): Naming and Dating, Editions and Manuscripts, in Millennium-Jahrbuch, vol. 15 (2018), pp. 69-143, esp. p. 94. M. Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres: Texts and Contexts, vol. 2 (Wiener Byzantinistische Studien, 24/2), 2019, p. 36. L. Santo, ‘Italograeca’, I: Manoscritti nuovi o poco noti allestiti nel mezzogiorno medieval di lingua greca (con una premessa sulla produzione libraria Calabro-Sicula), in Archivio Storico per la Calabria e la Lucania, vol. 88 (2022), pp. 93-204, esp. pp. 184-185.

12The quality of the text as preserved in both manuscripts is relatively low, due to many orthographic errors and, certainly in the case of R, lacunae as a result of damage. Orthographic mistakes are often caused by iotacism, the shared pronunciation of αι and ε, and ω and ο, the double sigma, and the misuse of the ν-ἐφελκυστικόν. I offer an non-exhaustive list:

  1. Due to iotacism: 4 ἐνεδιδύσκετο] ἐνεδηδύσκετο B, ἐνεδεδύσκετο R. | 14 κηρύττον] B, κηρήσσον (id est, κηρύσσον) R. | 22 ἀλήθεια] ἀλείθια BR.| 25 ὑπομονὴ] B, ἡπομονῆ R. | 27 ἀπιστίᾳ] B, ἀπιστειἀ R. | 37 εἰς] B, ἥς R. | 37 ἴδια] B, οἴδια R. | 41 δεινῶς] B, δυνὸς R. | 41 φλογὶ] B, φλογῆ R. | 43 ἐμιμήσω] corregi, ἐμημίσω B, des. R. | 47 χρείαν] χρίαν BR. | 51 σὺ] B, σὶ R. | 52 ὑπάρχειν] B, ὑπάρχην R. | 53 λιπανάτω] corregi, λειπανά[το] B, λυπανάτω R. | 58 παρακαλεῖς] B, παρὰκαλῆς R.

  2. Due to the pronunciation of αι and ε: 32 ἐγεῖραι] B, ἐγειρε R. | 41 ὀδυνῶμαι] B, ὅδύνομε R.

  3. Due to the pronunciation of ω and ο: 17 εἰδώλων] εἰδόλων BR. | 20 ἐπτώχευεν] ἐπτόχευεν BR. | 25 ὧδε] B, ὅδε R. | 28 ἐπωνυμίαν] ἐπονυμίαν B. | 28 ἔχων] corregi, ἐχῶν R, ἔχον B. | 29 γωνιῶν] γονιῶν BR. | 30 εἰδόλων BR.

  4. Undoubling of sigma’s: 29 τεσσάρων] τεσάρων BR.

  5. Accent: 35 ἐπιγνοὺς] B, ἐπιγνοῦς R.

  6. ν-ἐφελκυστικόν: 38 ἀπέθανε] B, ἀπέθανεν R. | 38 εἶδε] ἶδε B, εἰδεν R. | 42 εἶπεν] εἶπε[ν] B, des. R | 46 ἐστὶ] B, ἐστὶν R. | 53 ἔπεισέ] B, ἔπισέν R.

13There are minor lacunae in B. Unless noted in the apparatus, I list them here:

18 π[ιπ]τ[ό]ν[των ἐκ τ]ῆς B | 18 [] συναγωγὴ B | 40 [καὶ] καταψύ[ξ] B | 40 γλῶ[σ]σαν BR | 42 εἶπε[ν] B | 45 εἰ[ς] B, εἰ[ς …] R | 49-50 τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων B | 58 ἐξ[ο]μολογήσεταί B, ἐξομο[λογή]σεταί R | 58 [σ]οι B | 59 ὅτ[ι ]κου[ες] B | 59 ἀν[ε]γίνωσκ[ες] B.

14R has been severely damaged, causing extensive lacunae at the top of the folium and minor lacunae all along the outside of the folium. Unless noted in the apparatus, I list them here:

[130v] 3 [Ἀνε]γνώσθη R | 4 []ν R | 4 [καὶ] βύσσον R | 8 πτω[χ]ὸς R | 10 πτω[χ]ὸς R | 11 πλού[σιο]ς R | 11-12 [καὶ] νόμῳ R | 12 [ἐσ]τὶ R | 13 []στὶν R.

[131r] 14 βασιλ[είας τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῦ οὐρανίου βα]σιλέως R | 15 καθημ[ερινὴ εὐφρασία ἐστὶν καθη]μερινὴ R | 15 γρα[φων. οὗτος ἦν ] πλούσιος R | 16 οὗτ[ός ἐστιν] R | 16-17 ἔχ[ων τὴν] R | 18 τραπέζ[ης τοῦ] R | 18-19 [καὶ] τί R | 19 ἀλ[ήθεια] R | 20 χορ[τασθῆναι] R | 20 ἐπτώχ[ευεν] R | 21 [ἦλθε] γὰρ R | 21 μα[κάριος] R | 22 χάρ[ις] R | 23 ποτ[] R | 23 Ἀβραά[μ] R | 24 οὐράνι[ος] R.

[131v] 27-28 [κυρίῳ. καὶ καλῶς ἐκλήθη Λάζαρος] R | 28 ἀνα[στάντος τὴν ἐπωνυμί]αν R | 29 [τετραήμερος ζῶν ]κ R | 30 νεκ[ρῶν εἰ]δώλων R | 30 εὐα[γγε]λίων R | 31 φ[ησι]ν R | 32 [π]οίων R | 33 ἀπέθα[νε δὲ] R | 34 [πέ]θανεν R | 35 [τὸ]ν γὰρ R | 35 [τ]ὸν ποιήσαντα R | 35 ῥυσάμεν[ον ἐκ] R | 36 [ἐν] Ἐρυθρᾷ R | 37 [παρῆλ]θεν R | 38 [καὶ] ἀπηνέχθη R | 39 [εἰς τοὺ]ς R | 39 [πάτερ] R | 40 βρέ[ξας] R | 40 γλῶ[σ]σαν BR.

[132r] 42 ἀνθρώπου [ἔλεος ἐξαιτεῖ. οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν· θεὲ ἐλέησόν με, ἀλλὰ] R | 43 κ[ἂν τὸν Δαυὶδ ἐμιμήσω τὸν] R | 43-44 [κατὰ τὸ μέγα] R | 44 ἐλέ[η πλείο]να R | 45 εἰ[ς τὸν αἰῶν]α R, εἰ[ς] τὸν αἰῶνα B | 45 τ[ μέγα ἔλεό]ς R | 46 ἡμ[ῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός] R | 47 Λά[ζαρον π]έμπεσθαί R | 48 ὑποδεξάμεν[ος; ] γὰρ R | 49 [Λά]ζαρος R | 49 πᾶ[σι] R | 50 λα[ὸς] R | 52 πτωχὸ[ς] R | 53 σ[ε] R | 53 ἔλαιο[ν δὲ ]μαρτωλοῦ R.

[132r] 56 [τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ δακτύλου βρέξας] R | 56-57 [τὸν Ἰορδάνην ἡγιάσας] R | 57 [δέξω, οὐ]δὲ R | 57 ἀπο[θανὼν] R | 58 γέγρα[πται] R | 58 ἐξομο[λογή]σεταί R, ἐξ[ο]μολογήσεταί B | 59 [παρή]κουες R | 59 οὐ[κ ἐπιγίνωσκε]ς R | 60 γράμμ[ατι] R | 60 χ[άρι]τος B | 61 [ἀπ]οκτένει B | 63 [ἁγί] R.

15On l. 10, at the end of the series of questions, B has introduced the marginal note ἐρώτησις in the text and added a dotted line underneath (37r A). On l. 42, B had at first omitted ἀλλὰ Ἀβραὰμ ἐλέησόν με due to “saut du même au même”. The copyist crossed out the preceding με, added an asterisk in the text and wrote the omitted text in the margin (38r B). When there is no clear preference of one variant over the other, I systematically choose the reading of B.

5 Conspectus siglorum and critical edition

16B Brussels, Royal Library of Belgium, IV, 459, s. 14, ff. 37r-38v.

R Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson, G, 4 (Misc. 142), s. 15, ff. 130v-132v.

αβγ italics indicate Biblical quotations

Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου λόγος εἰς τὸν πλούσιον καὶ εἰς τὸν Λάζαρον. εὐλόγησον

17Ἀνεγνώσθη ἡμῖν σήμερον, ἀδελφοὶ ἀγαπητοὶ, ἐν τῷ κορυφαιοτάτῳ εὐαγγελίῳ περὶ πλουσίου καὶ πτωχοῦ οὕτως· ἄνθρωπος τις ἦν πλούσιος, καὶ ἐνεδιδύσκετο πορφύραν καὶ βύσσον εὐφραινόμενος καθημέραν λαμπρῶς. πτωχὸς δέ τις ἦν ὀνόματι Λάζαρος, ὃς ἐβέβλητο πρὸς τὸν πυλῶνα αὐτοῦ εἱλκωμένος καὶ ἐπιθυμῶν χορτασθῆναι ἀπὸ τῶν ψυχίων τῶν πιπτόντων ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης τοῦ πλουσίου· ἀλλὰ καὶ κύνες ἐρχόμενοι ἐπέλειχον τὰ ἕλκη αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. ζήτησον οὖν, ἀγαπητὲ, τίς ἦν ὁ πλούσιος καὶ τίς ἦν ὁ πτωχὸς, τί δὲ ἡ βύσσος ἢ τί ἡ πορφύρα ἣν ἐνεδιδύσκετο ὁ πλούσιος, καὶ τί ἡ καθημερινὴ εὐφρασία, [37r B] τί δὲ ἡ τράπεζα καὶ τί τὰ πεσόντα ἐκ τῆς τραπέζης. ὁ λαὸς τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἦν ὁ πλούσιος, ὁ δὲ πτωχὸς καὶ εἱλκωμένος ἦν ὁ λαὸς ὁ ἐξ ἐθνῶν. ἦν δὲ πλούσιος ὁ λαὸς τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ οὐ χρήμασιν ἀλλὰ γραφαῖς προφητῶν καὶ νόμῳ θεοῦ. τὸ οὖν ἔνδυμα τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ὄνομα ἐστὶ τὸ ποτὲ ἐπικεκλημένον ἐπ’ αὐτόν. ἡ δὲ βύσσος ἐστὶν ὁ νόμος ὁ διὰ Μωυσέως δοθεῖς. καὶ ἡ πορφύρα τὸ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν κήρυγμα τὸ κηρύττον τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῦ οὐρανίου βασιλέως. καὶ ἡ καθημερινὴ εὐφρασία ἐστὶν ἡ καθημερινὴ ἀνάγνωσις τῶν θείων γραφῶν. οὗτος ἦν ὁ πλούσιος. ὁ δὲ πτωχὸς καὶ εἱλκωμένος οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λαὸς ὁ ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν ποτὲ καὶ τὴν δυσωδίαν ἔχων τὴν τῶν εἰδώλων, ἐχόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν δαιμόνων καὶ ἐπιθυμῶν χορτασθῆναι ἀπὸ τῶν [37v A] πιπτόντων ἐκ τῆς τραπέζης τοῦ πλουσίου. τί οὖν ἐστὶν ἡ τράπεζα; ἡ συναγωγὴ τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ. καὶ τί τὰ πεσόντα ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς; ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ υἱοθεσία. ἐπεθύμει οὖν ὁ πτωχὸς ὁ λαὸς χορτασθῆναι τούτων. τῆς γὰρ χάριτος αὐτῷ μὴ παρούσης ἐπτώχευεν, νῦν δὲ ἐλθούσης τῆς χάριτος πλουτεῖ ὁ ποτὲ πένης. ἦλθε γὰρ ἡ χάρις διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, ὡς εἶπεν ὁ μακάριος Ἰωάννης· ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωυσέως ἐδώθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο. νῦν οὖν πλούτει ὁ ποτὲ πτωχὸς λαὸς καὶ ἀναπαύεται εἰς τοὺς κόλπους τοῦ Ἀβραάμ. τίνες οὖν εἰσὶν οἱ κόλποι τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ; τῶν δικαίων ὁ τόπος, τὸ αἰώνιον φῶς, ἡ οὐρανίος βασιλεία, ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή, ἡ τῶν δικαίων ἀνάπαυσις, ἡ ἀγάπη τῆς πίστεως, ἡ μισθαποδοσία, ἡ ὧδε ὑπομονὴ, καὶ ἡ οὐρανίος ἐλπίς. πῶς οὖν ἀπέθανεν ὁ λαὸς [37v B] ὁ πλούσιος; ἀπέθανεν ἐκβληθεὶς τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ κληρονομίας. ὁ δὲ πτωχὸς λαὸς καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπέθανεν τῇ ποτὲ ἀπιστίᾳ, νῦν δὲ ζεῖ τῷ κυρίῳ. καὶ καλῶς ἐκλήθη Λάζαρος τοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάντος τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν ἔχων. ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ Λάζαρος τετραήμερος ζῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνέστη, οὕτω καὶ ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων γωνιῶν τοῦ κόσμου ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν εἰδώλων πιστεύσας τῷ κυρίῳ διὰ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων. ἀπέθανεν οὖν ὁ πτωχὸς, καὶ ἀπηνέχθη ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων εἰς τοὺς κόλπους τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ. δυνατὸς, γάρ φησιν, ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων ἐγεῖραι τέκνα τῷ Ἀβραὰμ. ποίων λίθων; τῶν εἰδώλων. ποῖα τέκνα; τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὰ, τοὺς λιθίνην καὶ πεπορωμένην ἔχοντας καρδίαν. ἀπέθανε δὲ καὶ ὁ πλού- [38r A] σιος καὶ ἀπηνέχθη εἰς τὸν ᾅδην. ὄντως γὰρ ἀπέθανεν, οὐ σώματι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ψυχῇ καὶ πνεύματι. τὸν γὰρ θεὸν μὴ ἐπιγνοὺς τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτὸν καὶ ῥυσάμενον ἐκ πικρᾶς δουλείας καὶ ἐκ χειρὸς Φαραῶ καὶ διασώσαντα ἐν Ἐρυθρᾷ θαλάσσῃ καὶ μαννοδοτήσαντα ἐν γῇ ἐρήμῳ, τοῦτον οὐκ ἔλαβον ἴδιον ὄντα· εἰς τὰ ἴδια παρῆλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. ὄντως οὖν ἀπέθανε καὶ ἀπηνέχθη εἰς τὸν ᾅδην καὶ ἀναβλέψας εἶδε Λάζαρον εἰς τοὺς κόλπους τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ἀναπαυόμενον καὶ εἶπεν· πάτερ Ἀβραὰμ, ἐλέησόν με· καὶ πέμψον Λάζαρον ἵνα βρέξας τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ δακτύλου ὕδατος, καὶ καταψύξῃ τὴν γλῶσσαν μου, ὅτι δεινῶς ὀδυνῶμαι [38r B] ἐν τῇ φλογὶ ταύτῃ. †[…] πῶς ὁ τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ θεοῦ μὴ προσδεξάμενος, παρὰ ἀνθρώπου ἔλεος ἐξαιτεῖ; οὐ γὰρ εἶπε· θεὲ ἐλέησόν με, ἀλλὰ· Ἀβραὰμ ἐλέησόν με. οὐδὲ κἂν τὸν Δαυὶδ ἐμιμήσω τὸν εὐχόμενον καὶ λέγοντα· ἐλέησόν με ὁ θεὸς κατὰ τὸ μέγα ἔλεός σου.† ἀλλὰ πάντως ἐρεῖς μοι ὅτι παρὰ θεῷ εἰσὶν ἐλέη πλείονα, καθῶς γέγραπται· τὰ ἐλέη σου κύριε εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ᾄσομαι. καὶ πάλιν· ἐλέησόν με ὁ θεὸς, κατὰ τὸ μέγα ἔλεός σου. ποῖον οὐν μέγα ἔλεος ἐστὶ παρὰ τῷ θεῷ; ποῖον; ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. ὦ λαὲ σκληροτράχηλε, τί χρείαν ἔχεις τὸν τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ Λάζαρον πέμπεσθαί σοι τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ υἱὸν μὴ ὑποδεξάμενος; ὁ γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ Λάζαρος ὁ κύριος ἐστὶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, ὃν ἤγειρεν ὁ πατὴρ ἐκ νεκρῶν. ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ Λάζαρος ἀνέστη τετραήμερος ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ ἐγνώσθη πᾶσι διὰ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγε- [38v A] λίων, οὕτω καὶ ὁ ἐξ ἐθνῶν λαὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ τῆς καταπτώσεως τῶν εἰδώλων. σὺ μὲν ἐμπερίτομος, ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἀπερίτμητος. καὶ σὺ μὲν, ὦ Ἰουδαῖε, καυχάσε ἐν πλούτῳ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ ὑπάρχειν, ὃ οὐκ ἔχεις. ἐκεῖνος δὲ πτωχὸς καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς. πῶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρὸς σε· ἢ, οὐδὲ αὐτὴ ἡ γραφὴ ἔπεισέ σε λέγουσα· ἔλαιον δὲ ἁμαρτωλοῦ μὴ λιπανάτω τὴν κεφαλήν μου; τὸν τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ Λάζαρον ἠβούλου πεμφθῆναί σοι, τὸν δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἠβουλήθης προσδέξασθαι; ὁ γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ Λάζαρος, ὅστις ἐστὶν ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, ἦλθεν πρὸς σὲ· οὐ μόνον τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ δακτύλου βρέξας, ἀλλ᾿ ὅλον τὸν Ἰορδάνην ἡγιάσας ἐδωρήσατό σοι. σὺ δὲ οὐκ ἐδέξω, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄξιος ἐγένου. νῦν οὖν ἀποθανὼν παρακαλεῖς; οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι γέγραπται καὶ τοῦτο· ἐν δὲ τῷ ᾅδῃ τίς ἐξομολογήσεταί σοι. ναὶ, οἶδα ὅτι ἤκουες, ἄλλα [38v B] παρήκουες. ἀνεγίνωσκες γὰρ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐπεγίνωσκες. διὰ τοῦτο ἀπέθανες, τῷ γράμματι τοῦ νόμου προσέχων καὶ οὐ τῷ πνεύματι τῆς χάριτος. ἢ οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι τὸ γράμμα ἀποκτένει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωοποιεῖ; ἡμεῖς δὲ ἔχοντες τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα, εἰ καὶ τεθνηξόμεθα, ζωοποιηθησόμεθα ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, ᾧ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος σὺν τῷ πατέρι καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ἀμήν. +

Apparatus fontium

184-7 ἄνθρωπος ... αὐτοῦ] Lc 16,19-21 | 22 ὁ νόμος ... ἐγένετο] Jn 1,17 | 30-31 ἀπέθανεν ... Ἀβραὰμ] cf. Lc 16,22 | 31-32 δυνατὸς ... Ἀβραάμ] Mt 3,9 | 37-38 εἰς ... παρέλαβον] Jn 1,11 | 39-41 πάτερ ... ταύτῃ] Lc 16,24 | 42-43 Ἀβραὰμ ... με] Lc 16,24 | 43-44 ἐλέησόν ... σου] Ps 50,3 | 45 τὰ ἐλέη ... ᾄσομαι] Ps 88,2 | 45 ἐλέησόν ... σου] Ps 50,3 | 53-54 ἔλαιον μου] Ps 140,5 | 58 ἐν δὲ ... σοι] Ps 6,6 | 61 τὸ γράμμα ... ζωοποιεῖ] 2 Cor 3,6.

Apparatus criticus

191-2 (titulus) Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου λόγος εἰς τὸν πλούσιον καὶ εἰς τὸν Λάζαρον. εὐλόγησον B, […] π τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου· ἑρμ[ηνεία] τοῦ [… πλ]ουσίου καὶ πτωχοῦ· κύριε εὐλόγησον R. | 3 ἀδελφοὶ] μου add. R. | 5 ἦν] B, om. R. | 5 ὃς] B, καὶ R. | 6 ἐπιθυμῶν] B, ἐπεθύμη (id est, ἐπεθύμει) R. | 7 ἀλλὰ] B, ἀλλ’ ἐτι R. | 7 κύνες] B, οἱ κύνες R. | 7 ἐρχόμενοι] B, om. R. | 7 ἐπέλειχον] B, ἀπέλυχον (id est, ἀπέλειχον) R. | 7 ζήτησον] B, ζητήσωμεν R. | 8 ἀγαπητὲ] B, om. R. | 8 ἦν (sc. ὁ πλούσιος)] B, ἐστὶν R. | 8 ἦν (sc. ὁ πτωχὸς)] B, om. R. | 8 ἡ (sc. πορφύρα)] B, om. R. | 9 ἐνεδιδύσκετο] ἐνεδηδύσκετο B, ἐδεδύ[σ]κετο R. | 9 τί (sc. ἡ καθημερινὴ)] corregi, τίς BR. | 9 τί (sc. ἡ τράπεζα)] R, τίς B. | 10 πεσόντα] B, πίπτοντα R. | 10 τραπέζης] ἐρώτησις add. in textu B. | 10 ὁ] B, om. R. | 11 προφητῶν] B, om. R. | 12 αὐτόν] R, αὐτούς B. | 13 Μωυσέως] R, Μωσέως B. | 16 ὁ ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν ποτὲ· καὶ τὴν δυσωδίαν] ὁ ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν ποτὲ· καὶ τὴν δυσοδίαν B, ἐ ἐξ ἐθνῶν· ὁ ποτὲ τη δυσωδίαν R. | 17 ἐχόμενος] B, ἡλκόμενος (id est, εἱλκωμένος) R. | 17 ἐπιθυμῶν] B, [ἐπεθύ]μη (id est, ἐπεθύμει) R. | 18 τί] B, τῆς (id est, τίς) R. | 18 οὖν] B, om. R. | 19 τί] ἐστὶ add. R. | 19 ἡ] B, om. R. | 19 ὁ (sc. λαὸς)] R, om. B. | 20 τούτων] B, τοῦτον R. | 20 αὐτῷ] B, αὐτοῦ R. | 21 ἡ χάρις] R, om. B. | 21 ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ add. R. | 22 Ἰωάννης] ὁ εὐαγγελιστής add. R. | 22 Μωυσέως] Μωσέως B, Μωισέος (id est, Μωυσέως) R. | 22 καὶ] R, ἡ B. | 23 πτωχὸς] B, πενῆς R. | 23-24 τίνες οὖν εἰσὶν οἱ κόλποι τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ] B, om. R per hom. | 24 καὶ ante τῶν add. R. | 24 βασιλεία· ἡ αἰώνιος] B, om. R per hom. | 25 ἀγάπη] B, ἀγαθῆ R. | 25 καὶ] B, om. R. | 26 ἐλπίς] κ[αὶ] add. R. | 26 ἀπέθανεν] B, om. R. | 26 ἐκβληθεὶς] B, εἰσβληθεὶς Bac, ἐκβλυθει[ς] R. | 27 δὲ] R, om. B. | 27 καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπέθανεν] κ[αὶ] αὐτὸς ἀπέθανεν R, ἀπέθανεν ἀπέθανε B. | 27 τῇ ποτὲ] B, τίποτὲ R. | 29 οὕτω] B, οὕτος R. | 29 οὗτος] B, ὁν […] R. | 30 τῷ] R, τὸ B. | 30 κυρίῳ] B, κυρίου R. | 30 ἀπέθανεν] B, ὅται R. | 31 ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων] ὑπὸ τῶν [ἀγγ]έλων R, om. B. | 32 τῷ] B, τοῦ R. | 32 ποῖα τέκνα] addidi. | 33 τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὰ] B, ὧν προσἐκύνουν αὐτοῖ R. | 33 ἔχοντασ] B, ἐχῶν τὴν R. | 34 ᾅδην] B, αδή R. | 35 καὶ] B, om. R. | 37 ἴδιον ὄντα] B, ἰδωνοντα R. | 37 ἴδιοι] B, om. R. | 38 ὄντως] R, οὕτως B. | 38 οὖν] B, om. R. | 41 […] πῶσ] R, καὶ [...] B. | 42 προσδεξάμενος] B, πρὸσἐξαμενος R. | 42 ἀνθρώπου] B, [ἀνθρώπ]ου R. | 42 ἔλεος] B, ἐξι[…] R. | 42 ἐξαιτεῖ] corregi, ἐξετοιλάμ B, des. R. | 42 με] del. et asteriscum add. B. | 42-43 ἀλλὰ Ἀβραὰμ ἐλέησον με] ἀλλὰ Ἀβ[ρα]ὰμ [ἐ]λέησο[ν] με in margine B, […] Ἀβραὰμ ἐλέησον με R. | 44 ἐρεῖς μοι] B, om. R. | 44 πλείονα] ναῖ add. R. | 45 εἰς] εἰ[ς] BR ob lacunam. | 45 πάλιν] φησίν add. R. | 46 τῷ] B, om. R. | 46 ποῖον] B, om. R. | 47 Ἀβραὰμ] B, θεοῦ R. | 48 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς] B, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς R. | 48-49 ὃν ἤγειρεν ὁ πατηρ ἐκ νεκρῶν] B, om. R. | 50-51 οὕτω καὶ ὁ ἐξ ἐθνῶν λαὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ τῆς καταπτώσεως τῶν εἰδώλων] R (λα[ὸς] supplevi), om. B. per homoe. | 51 μὲν] B, om. R. | 51 ἐμπερίτομος] ἐνπερίτομος BR. | 51 δὲ] B, om. R. | 51 καὶ] B, om. R. | 51 μὲν ὦ Ἰουδαῖε] B, om. R. | 52 δικαιοσύνῃ] B, δ[ικαι]ὁσύνην R. | 52 ὃ] B, om. R. | 52 δύναται] R, δύναμαι B. | 53 οὐδὲ] ἐ add. et del. B. | 53 ἔλαιον] B, ἔλεο[ν] R. | 54 ἠβούλου] B, ἐβόλου R. | 54-55 τὸνδε τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἠβουλήθης προσδέξασθαι] B, ὦ λ[...] τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ υἱὸν μὴ πρὸδεξάμενος R. | 55 ὅστις ἐστὶν] εἴ ὅστις ἐστὶν B, om. R. | 57 ἐδωρήσατό] B, ἠνεγκέν R. | 57 οὐδὲ] B, [οὐ]τε R. | 59 ἐπεγινωσκες] supplevi, ἐπεγιν[...]κες B, [...]ς R. | 60 τοῦ νόμου] B, τοῦτῳ R. | 61-62 τὸν πατερα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα] B, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα R. | 62 εἰ καὶ τεθνηξώμεθα ζωοποῖηθησόμεθα] B, ζῶμεν R. | 62 Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν] B, κυρίῳ R. | 62-63 καὶ τὸ κράτος σὺν τῷ πατερι καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ] B ([ἁγί]ῳ supplevi), om. R. | 64 +] B, om. R.

6 Translation

20A sermon by our holy father John Chrysostom on the rich man and Lazarus. Give Your blessing.

21Today, beloved brethren, [the story] about the rich man and Lazarus was read for us from the most exalted gospel in this way: “There was a rich man, who was dressed in purple and fine linen, and lived lavishly every day. And there was a beggar named Lazarus, lying at his gate, covered in sores. And he desired to be sated with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table, but dogs also came and licked his sores.” And so on. Now examine, beloved [brother], who was the rich man, who was the beggar, what was the fine linen, or what was the purple in which the rich man was clothed, and what was the daily feast, [37rB] what the table, and what that which fell from the table. The rich man is the people of Israel, the beggar covered with sores is the people of the Gentiles. Rich was the people of Israel, not by means, but by the writings of the prophets and by the law of God. The garment, then, is the name of God that was once called upon it. The fine linen is the law given by Moses, the purple is the announcement by the prophets that announced the reign of the One-Born Son of God, the Heavenly King, and the daily feast is the daily reading from the divine Scriptures. That, now, is the rich man. The beggar, however, covered with sores, is the people of those who were once pagans, who reeked of idolatry and were oppressed by demons, and desired to be satiated of that [37vA] which fell from the rich man’s table. What, then, is the table? The synagogue of Israel. And that which fell from it? Grace and truth and adoption. So the beggar desired to be satiated of these things. For when grace did not stand by him, he was a beggar, but now that grace has come, the once poor man is in wealth. For grace has come through Our Lord, as Blessed John said, “The Law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” So the people who were once poor are now in riches and repose in the bosom of Abraham. What, now, is the bosom of Abraham? The abode of the righteous, the eternal light, the heavenly kingdom, the eternal life, the repose of the righteous, the love of faith, the recompense, the endurance, and the heavenly hope. In what way, now, did [37vB] the rich people come to die? They died rejected from the inheritance of God. The poor people, too, came to die to their former unbelief, but now live to the Lord. And rightly they were called Lazarus, named after the one resurrected from the dead. For just as Lazarus rose from the dead after four days and lived, so too [did] that people from the four corners of the world [rise] from the dead idols through their faith in the Lord thanks to the four Gospels. So the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. After all, it is written that “God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.” Out of what stones? Out of idols. Which children? Those who worship them, those who have petrified and stiffened hearts. But also the rich man died [38rA] and was taken away to hell. For he really died: not only his body, but also his soul and his spirit. For he who does not acknowledge God, who created him, who rescued him from bitter slavery and from the hands of Pharaoh, who preserved him in the Red Sea and gave him the manna in the desert, did not take Him as his own: He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. He truly died therefore and was taken away to hell. And having cast his gaze upward, he saw Lazarus repose in the bosom of Abraham, and said, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am greatly tormented [38rB] in this flame.” But how come that he who has not accepted the greatness of God has sought pity from a man. For he did not say, “God, have mercy on me,” but, “Abraham, have mercy on me.” No, not even if you had imitated David, who prayed and said, “Have mercy upon me, God, according to Your great mercy.” But in any case you will tell me that with God there is a greater pity, as it is written, “Of Your mercies, Lord, I will sing forever.” And again, “Have mercy upon me, God, according to Your great mercy.” What, now, is this great mercy of God? What? Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Ah obstinate people, what use is it that Abraham should send Lazarus to you, if you do not receive the Son of God? For he is the Lazarus of God, he is the Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Father raised from the dead. For as Lazarus rose from the dead after four days and was made known to all by the four Gospels, so, too, did the people from the Gentiles rise from their idolatrous ruin. [38vA] You are circumcised, but he is uncircumcised. And you, Jew, you boast to live in riches and righteousness, which you do not. But he is a beggar and a sinner. How can he come to you? Or did Scripture not convince you, saying, “Let not the oil of the sinner anoint my head.” You wanted Abraham’s Lazarus to be sent to you, but the man of God you did not want to accept? For the Lazarus of God, Who is Our Lord Jesus Christ, has come to you, and has not only moistened the top of your finger, but has given to you the whole Jordan. But you did not accept it. For you were not worthy. Now then, now that you are dying, do you beg for help? Do you not know that this also is written, “Who will give you thanks in hell?” Verily, I know that you heard, but [38vB] you did not listen. For you read, but you did not understand. For this you died, because you were attentive to the letter of the law, but not to the spirit of grace. Or do you not know that the letter kills and the spirit gives life? We, however, who have the Father and the Son and the Spirit with us, even if we come to die, will be made alive in Jesus Christ our Lord. To Him be the glory and the power with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Top of page

Bibliography

Adriaen, M., Ballerini, P. A. (eds.). Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam. Fragmenta in Esaiam [CCSL, 14]. Turnhout: Brepols, 1957.

Dunn, G. D. Augustine on the Rich Man and Lazarus. Augustinianum. 2021 vol. 61, n°1, pp. 153-180.

De Coninck, L., Coppieters ‘t Wallant, B (eds.). Augustinus. Sermones de novo testamento (71-94). Sermones in Matthaeum II [CCSL, 41Ab]. Turnhout: Brepols, 2020.

Just Jr., A. A. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. New Testament, III. Luke. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Kelhoffer, J. A. The Diet of John the Baptist. “Locusts and Wild Honey” in Synoptic and Patristic Interpretation (WUNT, 176). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

Lehtipuu, O.-I. E. Lazarus and Dives: Christianity. In: Helmer, C. e.a. (eds.). Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017, vol. 15, pp. 1090-1092.

Mayer, W. John Chrysostom’s Use of Luke 16:19-31. Scrinium. 2008, vol. 4, pp. 45-59.

Reeves, J. C. Muslim Appropriation of a Biblical Text. The Messianic Dimensions of Isaiah 21:6-7. In: Holum, K. G., Lapin, H. (eds.). Shaping the Middle East. Jews, Christians, and Muslims in an Age of Transition 400-800 C.E. Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, 2011, pp. 211-222.

Reuss, J. (ed.). Matthäuskommentare aus der griechische Kirche [TU, 61]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1957.

Santo, L. ‘Italograeca’, I: Manoscritti nuovi o poco noti allestiti nel mezzogiorno medieval di lingua greca (con una premessa sulla produzione libraria Calabro-Sicula). Archivio Storico per la Calabria e la Lucania. 2022, vol. 88, pp. 93-204.

Sgandurra, M. F. Un manoscritto italogreco con annotaioni marginali greco-romanze conservato alla Bodleian Library: il Rawl. G 4 (provisional title). Νέα Ῥώμη (forthcoming).

Signifredi, M. L’esegesi di Giovanni Crisostomo sulla parabola del ricco e del povero Lazzaro (‘LC’ 16,19-31). Giovanni Crisostomo. Oriente e occidente tra IV e V secolo. XXXIII Incontro di studiosi dell’antichità Cristiana (Roma, 6-8 maggio 2004) (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 93). Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2005, pp. 429-442.

Stade, C. The Explanation by the Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Ochrid and Bulgaria, of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke (Bl. Theophylact’s Explanation of the New Testament, 3). House Springs, MO: Chrysostom Press, 2004.

Top of page

Notes

1 Just Jr, A. A. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. New Testament, III. Luke. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003, pp. 259-264; Lehtipuu, O.-I. E. Lazarus and Dives: Christianity, in Helmer, C. e.a. (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017, vol. 15, pp. 1090-1092.

2 On Augustine’s interpretation of the parable, see Dunn, G. D. Augustine on the Rich Man and Lazarus, in Augustinianum. 2021, vol. 61, n°1, pp. 153-180.

3 Ambrose. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 13-20. In: Adriaen, M. –Ballerini, P. A. Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam. Fragmenta in Esaiam [CCSL, 14]. Turnhout: Brepols, 1957; Augustine. Sermones de Novo Testamento, 79, 9. In: De Coninck, L. - Coppieters ‘t Wallant, B. Augustinus. Sermones de novo testamento (71-94). Sermones in Matthaeum II [CCSL, 41Ab]. Turnhout: Brepols, 2020.

4 For Chrysostom’s use of the parable, see Signifredi, M. L’esegesi di Giovanni Crisostomo sulla parabola del ricco e del povero Lazzaro (‘LC’ 16,19-31). In: Giovanni Crisostomo. Oriente e occidente tra IV e V secolo. XXXIII Incontro di studiosi dell’antichità Cristiana (Roma, 6-8 maggio 2004) (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 93). Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2005, pp. 429-442 and Mayer, W. John Chrysostom’s Use of Luke 16:19-31. Scrinium. 2008, vol. 4, pp. 45-59.

5 Theophylact of Ohrid. Enarrationes in Evangelia. PG 123, 980-981.

6 PG 123, 973-981. For a translation, see Stade, C. The Explanation by the Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Ochrid and Bulgaria, of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke (Bl. Theophylact’s Explanation of the New Testament, 3). House Springs, MO: Chrysostom Press, 2004.

7 Some early Christian authors – Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Arnobius, Hilary of Poitiers and Peter Chrysologus – also interpreted the Baptist’s diet allegorically, but never take it to refer to the Jews. See Kelhoffer, J. A. The Diet of John the Baptist. “Locusts and Wild Honey” in Synoptic and Patristic Interpretation (WUNT, 176). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, pp. 148-153.

8 In Fr. in Matth., 12 (CPG 3840, Reuss, J., (ed.) Matthäuskommentare aus der griechische Kirche [TU, 61]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1957, p. 100), Theodore of Mopsuestia also interprets the Baptist’s girdle allegorically: as camels are considered neither fully pure or impure, the girdle of camel hair shows that the kingdom God will accept both the (“pure”) Jews and the (“impure”) Gentiles. Theodore’s interpretation stands in stark contrast with the supersessionism of In praecursorem.

9 See Voicu, S. J. Tracce origeniane in uno pseudocrisostomo cappadoce. In: Girardo, M. –Marin, M. (eds.). Origene e l’alessandrinismo cappadoce (III-IV secolo): atti del V Convegno del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su “Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina” (Bari, 20-22 settembre 2000) (Quaderni di Vetera Christianorum, 28). Bari: Edipuglia, 2002, pp. 333-346, esp. pp. 341-342.

10 See Zaleski, J. Who Is the Man on the Camel?: Historical Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible and Christian-Muslim Debate. In: Medieval Encounters. 2020, vol. 26, n°24, pp. 49-80, esp. p. 58.

11 See Reeves, J. C. Muslim Appropriation of a Biblical Text. The Messianic Dimensions of Isaiah 21:6-7. In: Holum, K. G. –Lapin, H. (eds.). Shaping the Middle East. Jews, Christians, and Muslims in an Age of Transition 400-800 C.E. Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, 2011, pp. 211-222, esp. p. 217.

12 For the Oxford manuscript, see Sgandurra, M. F. Un manoscritto italogreco con annotaioni marginali greco-romanze conservato alla Bodleian Library: il Rawl. G 4 (provisional title). Νέα Ῥώμη (forthcoming).

13 My description of the oldest part of the manuscript is greatly indebted to the description by Santo, L. ‘Italograeca’, I: Manoscritti nuovi o poco noti allestiti nel mezzogiorno medieval di lingua greca (con una premessa sulla produzione libraria Calabro-Sicula). Archivio Storico per la Calabria e la Lucania. 2022, vol. 88, pp. 93-204, esp. pp. 184-185.

Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Mathieu Cuijpers, Edition and Translation of the Pseudo-Chrysostomic Homily In Divitem et Lazarum (CPG 4854)In Monte Artium [Online], 16 | 2025, Online since 01 October 2025, connection on 22 January 2026. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/ima/890; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/14z61

Top of page

About the author

Mathieu Cuijpers

Mathieu Cuijpers obtained the degree of Master of Linguistics and Literature (Greek – Latin) at the KU Leuven in 2020. Since then, he works as a doctoral fellow in the research group Greek Studies at the KU Leuven. He is currently writing a dissertation on the reception history of king David in Greek early Christian literature.

Top of page

Copyright

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

The text only may be used under licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) may be subject to specific use terms.

Top of page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search