{"slug":"khazarzar-theofilus-alexandrinus-fragmenta-in-matthaeum","id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-theofilus-alexandrinus-fragmenta-in-matthaeum","title":"Fragmenta in Matthaeum","title_source":"Fragmenta in Matthaeum","author":"Theofilus Alexandrinus","genre":"commentary","date":"","tradition":"greek","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:26:25Z","cost_usd":0.001094},"source":{"registry_id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-theofilus-alexandrinus-fragmenta-in-matthaeum","work_id":"khazarzar-theofilus-alexandrinus-fragmenta-in-matthaeum","edition":"khazarzar","language":"","license":"Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/Theofilus%20Alexandrinus_PG%2065/Fragmenta%20in%20Matthaeum.pdf"},"stats":{"passages":1,"english_words":258,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":1070,"commentary_units":6,"commentary_kinds":6,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":2,"work_notes":5,"external_links":0,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"khazarzar-theofilus-alexandrinus-fragmenta-in-matthaeum","abstract":"The Fragmenta in Matthaeum of Theophilus of Alexandria survive only in catenae and florilegia, with no continuous manuscript extant. Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria from 385 to 412, likely composed this commentary on Matthew in the late 4th or early 5th century. The fragments, preserved in Greek, were cited by later exegetes but not translated into Latin or Syriac in antiquity. The work reflects Theophilus’ exegetical methods, possibly shaped by his role in the Origenist crisis. The edition by khazarzar lacks critical apparatus, hindering verification of fragment sources.","historical_context":"Theophilus was patriarch of Alexandria from 385 to 412, a period marked by the Origenist crisis, in which he initially supported Origen’s theology but later condemned it. His commentary on Matthew likely dates to the late 4th or early 5th century, composed in Greek for a Greek-speaking Christian community in Egypt. The work survives only in fragments embedded in catenae and florilegia, a common fate for many patristic commentaries. It was not translated into Latin or Syriac, limiting its influence to the Greek tradition. The fragments were cited by later Greek exegetes, but the lack of a continuous manuscript and the absence of critical apparatus in modern editions complicate reconstruction. Theophilus’ exegetical choices may reflect anti-Origenist polemic, as he sought to distance himself from Origen’s allegorical methods while still employing allegory himself.","significance":"The fragments provide rare insight into Theophilus’ exegetical approach, which may have been shaped by his involvement in the Origenist crisis. They illustrate how a late 4th-century Alexandrian patriarch interpreted Matthew, possibly in dialogue with contemporary theological debates. The work’s fragmentary survival and lack of translation highlight the selective transmission of patristic commentaries.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 385–412","event":"Theophilus serves as patriarch of Alexandria."},{"date":"late 4th–early 5th c.","event":"Theophilus likely composes his commentary on Matthew."},{"date":"5th–6th c.","event":"Fragments of the commentary are cited in Greek catenae and florilegia."},{"date":"medieval period","event":"The commentary is not translated into Latin or Syriac."},{"date":"modern","event":"Khazarzar publishes an edition of the fragments without critical apparatus."}],"relations":[{"work":"Catenae on Matthew","relation":"preserves fragments of Theophilus’ commentary","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Origenist crisis","relation":"contextualizes Theophilus’ exegetical choices","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Jeremiah 2:27","relation":"possible biblical allusion in the fragments","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Wisdom of Solomon 14:7","relation":"possible biblical allusion in the fragments","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"James 2:26","relation":"parallel to ethical teaching in the fragments","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The fragments survive only in catenae and florilegia; no continuous manuscript is extant.","The edition by khazarzar provides no critical apparatus or manuscript sigla, making verification of fragment sources impossible.","The exact date of the commentary is uncertain; it is assigned to the late 4th or early 5th century based on Theophilus’ patriarchate.","Theophilus’ exegetical choices may reflect anti-Origenist polemic, but this is speculative given the fragmentary state."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000429,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:26:25Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Patrologia Graeca text (khazarzar mirror)","url":"http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/Theofilus%20Alexandrinus_PG%2065/Fragmenta%20in%20Matthaeum.pdf"}],"checks":{"work":"khazarzar-theofilus-alexandrinus-fragmenta-in-matthaeum","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":1,"translated":1,"commentary_passages":1,"commentary_units":6,"english_words":258,"source_letters":1070,"commentary_kinds":6},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The fragments survive only in catenae and florilegia; no continuous manuscript of Theophilus’ commentary on Matthew is extant.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Theophilus was patriarch of Alexandria from 385 to 412; the commentary likely dates to the late 4th or early 5th century.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The fragments were cited by later Greek exegetes, including in catenae on Matthew, but the work was not translated into Latin or Syriac in antiquity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The edition by khazarzar provides no critical apparatus or manuscript sigla; the reader cannot verify the source of individual fragments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Theophilus was a controversial figure in the Origenist crisis; his exegetical choices may reflect anti-Origenist polemic, not merely textual commentary.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: commentary in ancient Greek; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 1 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: khazarzar — Migne PG text (public domain); khazarzar host and the digitising project state no licence for this layer"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":1},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"1 Τοῖς δολεροῖς μὴ προσιοῦσιν εἰς τὸ μαθεῖν ἄκαιρον ἀναπτύσσειν τὰ βαθύτερα.\n\n2 μτ 21, 28–32 Ἄνθρωπός τις εἶχεν δύο υἱοὺς καὶ ὁ μὲν πρῶτός ἐστιν τὰ ἔθνη, οὓς ὁ θεὸς ὁ κοινὸς πατὴρ πρώτους ἐκάλεσεν· τὸν γὰρ διδακτὸν καὶ φυσικὸν νόμον ταῖς διανοίαις ἐγκατασπείρας ἔδωκε κήρυκας τὰ ὁρώμενα, ἀλλ' ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῶν εὐταξία συνεχύθη ἐπὶ ξύλα καὶ λίθους· «εἶπαν «, γὰρ «τῷ ξύλῳ· πατήρ μου εἶ σύ «. διὸ οὐκ ἠνέσχοντο κωλυόμενοι· εἶπον γὰρ οὐκ οἴδαμεν τὸν κύριον. οὗτοι οὖν μεταμεληθέντες ὕστερον ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα. τοῦ δὲ πρώτου παραιτησαμένου προσῆλθεν ὁ πατὴρ τῷ δευτέρῳ, τοῦτ' ἔστιν τῷ Ἰσραήλ, ὅστις καλούμενος διὰ Μωυσέως εἶπεν· «πάντα ὅσα ἐλάλησεν « ὁ θεὸς καὶ «ποιήσομεν καὶ ἀκουσόμεθα «. οἵτινες οὔτε ἐποίησαν οὔτε ἤκουσαν οὔτε μετεμελήθησαν ὕστερον. οὓς κατέκριναν αἱ πόρναι καὶ οἱ τελῶναι, τοῦτ' ἔστιν τὰ ἔθνη. μτ 21, 28–32 Τοῦτο βούλεται εἰπεῖν ἡ παραβολή, ὅτι οἱ μὲν τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι μετανοήσαντες καὶ τὰ ἀρεστὰ τῷ θεῷ ποιήσαντες δικαιοῦνται Ἰωάννῃ πεισθέντες, εἰ καὶ κατ' ἀρχὰς ἠπείθουν τῷ νόμῳ, μᾶλλον δὲ τῷ θεῷ. οἱ δὲ λέγοντες τηρεῖν τὸν νόμον Φαρισαῖοι ἐν μόνοις ῥήμασιν ψιλοῖς ἀπόβλητοί εἰσιν παρὰ θεῷ· «οὐ γὰρ ἐν λόγοις ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἀλλ' ἐν ἔργοις «· «οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἀκροατὴς τοῦ νόμου, ἀλλ' ὁ ποιητὴς « δίκαιος. καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ παρὰ τῷ θεῷ οὗτοι ὅμοιοί εἰσιν τοῖς ὑποσχο-μένοις ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα ἐπὶ τῷ ἐργάζεσθαι καὶ μὴ ἀπελθοῦσιν.","english":"To those who are deceitful and do not approach for the sake of learning, it is untimely to unfold the deeper matters.\n\nMatthew 21:28–32: A certain man had two sons. The first represents the nations, whom God, the common father, first called. For he sowed the teachable and natural law in their minds and gave them visible heralds, but the good order of their soul was confused over wood and stones. For they said to the wood, \"You are my father.\" Therefore they did not endure being restrained; for they said, \"We do not know the Lord.\" These, then, repenting later, went into the vineyard. When the first refused, the father approached the second, that is, Israel, who, being called through Moses, said, \"All that God has spoken, we will both do and hear.\" But they neither did nor heard nor repented later. The prostitutes and tax collectors, that is, the nations, condemned them. Matthew 21:28–32: This is what the parable means: that the tax collectors and prostitutes, having repented and done what is pleasing to God, are justified, having been persuaded by John, even if at first they disobeyed the law, or rather God. But the Pharisees, who claim to keep the law, are rejected by God in mere empty words. \"For the kingdom of heaven is not in words, but in deeds.\" \"For it is not the hearer of the law, but the doer,\" who is righteous. And the rest are like those who promised to go into the vineyard to work but did not go.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"μτ 21, 28–32","severity":"info","text":"The passage is structured as a commentary on Matthew 21:28–32, with the parable of the two sons interpreted allegorically. The first son represents the nations, the second Israel.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"δολεροῖς","severity":"info","text":"The Greek term δολεροῖς means 'deceitful' or 'treacherous', indicating those with malicious intent, not merely ignorant. This sets the condition for withholding deeper teaching.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"εἶπαν τῷ ξύλῳ· πατήρ μου εἶ σύ","severity":"info","text":"This phrase echoes a biblical motif of idolatry, possibly alluding to Jeremiah 2:27 or Wisdom of Solomon 14:7, where wood and stone are worshipped as gods.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ἰωάννῃ","severity":"info","text":"The reference to John (Ἰωάννῃ) likely points to John the Baptist, whose preaching of repentance is contrasted with Pharisaic legalism. This aligns with early Christian polemics.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"parallel","kind":"parallel","basis":"text","lemma":"οὐ γὰρ ἐν λόγοις ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἀλλ' ἐν ἔργοις","severity":"info","text":"This saying parallels James 2:26 and early Christian ethical teaching, emphasizing deeds over words. It may be a proverb or a citation from a lost source.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"μτ 21, 28–32","severity":"caution","text":"The repeated citation 'μτ 21, 28–32' may indicate a scribal insertion or a secondary gloss, as it appears twice in the Greek text, possibly disrupting the flow.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'John' (Ἰωάννῃ) is ambiguous: it could refer to John the Baptist or another figure; the reading taken is John the Baptist based on context.","The phrase 'μτ 21, 28–32' appears twice, possibly as a marginal note or a later addition; the reading taken treats it as a structural marker."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}