[textualcriticism] Mark 16:9-20, Severian of Gabala and Chrysologus
> James Snapp
> .... Peter Chrysologus clearly used Mark 16:14-20 as his sermon textfor Sermon #83. But I'm just not sure about that being Severian's work. Aside from the reference in Aquinas, I haven't found evidence that we are looking at a case of Chrysologus recycling material from Severian, instead of a collection of material that began with Severian's work (and took his name as its title for that reason) and had some other writers' materials thrown in. Have you happened across any use of Mk. 16:9-20 by Severian that is not associated with Peter Chrysologus? I rather suspect that the editors of UBS-GNT would have needed more than a reference from Aquinas to include Severian's testimony without qualification.
Apparently, the identification with Severian is not simply Aquinas.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia it is in the manuscript tradition as well.
The Codex Ambrosianus of Milan, c. 77 sup. (VII-VIII saec.) contains eighty-eight "sermones sancti Severiani"; the "Homilarium Lacense" (Berlin Cod. lat. 341) has addresses of Peter Chrysologus under the name of "Severianus episcopus".
So, if Chrysologus is not given separately in the UBS-GNT apparatus, that is quite strong circumstantial evidence that they are considering these Chrysologus references as Severian. (Could they really miss two sermons of Chrysologus ?)
In addition to your find from Sermon 83, we also have Sermon 82.
Selected Sermons, Volume 3 Peter Chrysologus, Archbishop of Ravenna (2005)
Translated by William B. Palardy
A Ninth on the Lord's Resurrection
7. After this, it says, he appeared to two of them as they were walking (v.12). Why not to three? Why not to four, but to two? Because here it is being shown that the faith in the Resurrection is to be preached to the two peoples, that is, to the gentiles and the Jews. From this, as we have said, it is thus being demonstrated that the one Church is being represented either in the two women or in the two disciples.
He appeared in another form (v. 12).
Let no one think that with is Resurrection Christ changed the form of his features, such that he who was himself with his wounds was different in his features. But the form is changed, since from being mortal he becomes immortal, and from corruptible incorruptible, so that it is a case of having changed the substance, not of having
changed the Person, and of having acquired glorious features, not of having lost the recognizable characteristics of his features.