THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERS Tie OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES
THE COMMENTARY OF ORIGEN
ON S. JOHN’S GOSPEL
London: C. J. CLAY anv SONS, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AVE MARIA LANE.
Glasgow: 263, ARGYLE STREET.
Leipsig: F. A. BROCKHAUS. few Bork: MACMILLAN AND CO.
THE COMMENTARY OF
ORIGEN ON S. JOHN’S GOSPEL
THE TEXT REVISED
WITH A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION AND INDICES
BY Ao. BROOKE
FELLOW AND DEAN OF KING’S COLLEGE
νοι. I.
CAMBRIDGE AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1896 [All Rights reserved]
Cambrioge :
PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
~~. |
IN MEMORIAM
GVILLELMI GEORGII SELWYN QVI IN CHRISTO OBDORMIVIT A.D. Ill NON. OCT.
A.S. MDCCCXCIII
B,
LO’ YQAQAL Ί pk rf bag Dae
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Microsoft Corporation
https://archive.org/details/commentaryoforigO1 orig
CON TENTS.
FIRST VOLUME.
INTRODUCTION
I.
2.
3 4 5. 6
The Extant Mss . Relations of the Mss Codex Monacensis Bentley’s Emendations Fragments from Catenae
On the Text of this Edition
THE TEXT OF THE COMMENTARY
Tom. I Tom. II Tom. VI
PAGE iX—xXViil ix
xili
ΧΧΙ
Xxl
Xxlil
ΧΧΥῚ
ἔν. “1
INTRODUCTION.
The Extant Manuscripts.
The Extant Manuscripts of Origen’s Commentaries on S. John are the following’.
I. Codex Monacensis. Munich. Stadt-Bibl. Gr. Cxct. Cent. xu. Chart. Bombyc.
ff. 1—110. Origen. Comm. in S. Matt. books 1o—17 (inc. τίνι δὲ λάμψουσιν ἐν τοῖς ὑποδεεστέροις K.T.A.).
ff. 112 sqq. Origen. Comm. in 8. Joann., books 1, 2, 6, το; 13; 10, 20) 25, 32.
In the first part of the MS leaves have been misplaced by the binder ; one or two, including the first, are missing. As a copy of this MS, made in the 14th century, before the first leaf was lost, begins with Book το, it is unlikely that the MS ever contained any of the earlier Books.
Minuscules are used, hanging from ruled lines. The Comm. in Matt. have one column of 36 lines on each page; the Comm. in Joann., written by another scribe, one column of 30 lines. The MS is stained at top and bottom, so that some lines, or parts of them, are difficult toread. Occasion- ally the bottom line is illegible.
The Comm. in Joann. are preceded by a short preface (inc. ἰστέον ws ἐν μετωπίοις... expl. ἀπαραλλάκτως, ws εἶχον) in which the scribe states that he found in his exemplar several marginal notes drawing attention to Origen’s blasphemies, and copied them as he found them.
1 Fuller information with regard to these MSS (except VI) may be found in Zexts and Studies (Cambridge, 1891), 1. 4, Fragments of Heracleon, Introduction. Since the publication of that book I have received informa- tion about one MS (of the existence of which I did not then know), through the kindness of Dr J. Rendel Harris, who visited Mt Athos in 1892. It
Χ INTRODUCTION.
II. Codex Venetus. Venice. Bibl. Marciana, Gr. 43’.
AD. 1374. Vellum:
ff. 1—117. Origen. Comm. in S. Matt., books 10o—17 (inc. τότε ἀφεὶς τοὺς ὄχλους κ.τ.λ.).
f. 118. A preface on Origen’s blasphemies (inc. πολλῶν
2 .
μὲν κιτιλ,, expl. καὶ αὖθις ἁψώμεθα) ff. ττο---294. Origen. Comm. in S. Joann. Same books as in I.
This MS was used by Ambrosius Ferrarius, who in A.D. 1551 translated the Comm. in Joann. into Latin. The Commentaries are divided into 32 Books, to give the work the appearance of being a complete whole. A note at the end of the MS states that it was copied in A.D. 1555 by Georgius Trypho? (vid. infra p. xii).
11. Codex Regius. Paris. Bibl. Nationale, Gr. CDLv.
Cent. xvi.
Origen. Comm. in S. Matt., book x. c. 4 (inc. πάλιν ὁμοία «.t.A.)—book XVII.
Origen. Comm. in S. Joann. Same books as in I.
Apparently the only MS used by Huet, though he knew of others. It was also used by Perionius for his translation of the Comm. in Joann. into Latin4.
proves to be a copy of Cod. Venetus (11). Subsequent visits to Munich, Venice and Rome, have enabled me to correct a few mistakes, and in some few instances to strengthen the arguments by which I supported the classifi- cation of MSS there adopted. I have seen no reason to modify that classifi- cation, and the present edition is based upon it.
1 I am indebted to Herr Preuschen for pointing out a mistake which I had made as to the number of this MS (see Harnack, Altchristliche Litteraturgeschichte, p. 391). I have verified the accuracy of his correc- tion.
* This Preface is quite different from the Preface in Cod. Monac. con- cerning the marginal notes in its ancestor. Its presence in Cod. Ven. cannot determine the question of the derivation of this MS from Cod. Monac.
3 For what is known of this scribe see Gardhausen, Grzechische Palaeo- graphie, p. 322.
+ This translation was made ‘about 1554.’ Duct. Christian Biography, iv. 140 (Origen).
INTRODUCTION. ΧΙ
IV. Codex Barberinus I. Rome. Bibl. Barberina, Gr. v. 52:
Cent. xv, XVI.
τ. Origen. Comm. in S. Matt., book x. (inc. τότε ἀφεὶς τοὺς ὄχλους k.7.A.)—book xvit. (expl. ἐπιστρέψαι πρὸς αὐτόν).
f. ττῇῦ. Preface on Origen’s blasphemies (inc. πολλῶν μὲν κιτιλ., expl. ἁψώμεθα) as in 11.
f.118. Origen. Comm. in S. Joann. Same books as in I. Divided into 32 Books (cf. II).
f. 281. Philo περὶ τοῦ βίου τοῦ Μωυσέως.
f. 326. Philo περὶ τοῦ βίου πολιτικοῦ (Joseph).
f. 345. Philo περὶ νόμων ἀγράφων (Abraham).
For the probable history of this MS see p. xii.
V. Codex Barberinus IT. Rome. Bibl. Barberina, Gr. v1. 14.
Cent. xv, XVI.
f. 1. Origen. Comm. in S. Matt., book x. (inc. rim δὲ λάμψουσιν «.t.d.)—book Xvi. (ἐπιστρέψαι πρὸς αὐτόν).
f. 140 (verso). Preface on Origen’s blasphemies, as in I.
f. 141. Origen. Comm. in S. Joann. Same books as in I.
VI. Codex Batopedianus. Mt Athos. In the Library of the Monastery at Vatopedi. Cod. ότι.
Cent. xv.
Origen. Comm. in S. Joann. Same books as in I.
The text is divided into 32 Books (cf. II).
VII. Codex Matritensis. Madrid. Bibl. Nacional. O. 32.
A.D. 1555. f, 2. Preface on Origen’s blasphemies, as in II.
f. 3. Origen. Comm. in S. Joann. Same books as in I.
The text is divided into 32 Books, as in II. The date is given at the
Xli INTRODUCTION.
end, ,apve’ ἐν μηνὶ Αὐγούστου x, after which there is a colophon, giving in cryptograph the name of the scribe,‘Georgius Trypho!. Cf. II.
VIII. Codex Bodleianus. Oxford. Bodleian Library. Misc. 58.
Cent. xvii. Now bound in three volumes.
Origen. Comm. in Joann. Same books as in I.
Two sets of conjectural emendations have been added in the margin: (i) introduced by the word τάχα, and generally based on the Latin Transla- tion of Ferrarius, (ii) introduced by tows, later and of less value. A partial collation of this MS in Bentley’s hand is preserved in a copy of Huet’s edition of the Commentaries, which belongs to the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. Bentley has made a few emendations of his own, of which a list is given below.
IX. A transcript of VIII, made by Herbert Thorndike, Trinity College, Cambridge. Β. 9. 11.
Most of the suggestions contained in the margin are copied from the margin of VIII. I have not compared the two sufficiently to be able to state to what extent the transcriber has added conjectures of his own.
X. The existence of a tenth MS is doubtful.
Miller in his Catalogue of the Escurial Library, pp. 305 ff., gives a list, found in one of the Escurial MSS (x. i. 15), of the Greek Manuscripts which belonged to Cardinal Sirlet s Library, and passed into the possession of Cardinal Ottoboni (Alexander VIII). It is said that Benedict XIV sub- sequently placed them in the Vatican. In this list a MS is mentioned, containing Origen’s Commentaries on S. Matthew and S. John, and Philo περὶ τοῦ βίου Μωσέως, περὶ τοῦ βίου πολιτικοῦ, περὶ νόμων ἀγράφων. I can find no trace of it in the Catalogue of the Ottobonian part of the Vatican Library. But the exact correspondence of this description with that of the Barberini MS (Gr. v. 52), which I have numbered IV, suggests the proba- bility that this MS was acquired by the Barberini from one of its former owners. It is known that during the time when Cardinal Sirlet’s Library was in the possession of the Altemps, before it was bought by Alex-
1 Cod. Matrit. O. 47, containing the Comm. in S. Matt., is a copy of the first part of Vez. 43, and has a similar colophon.
INTRODUCTION. ΧΙ
ander VIII, the collection was ill kept, and several volumes passed into the hands of the Chigi and Barberini!.
The following diagram shews the probable relations of these Manuscripts.
SaAEc. ΠῚ
Monac. (1)
Venet, (11)
a aioe OD £ |
Barb. (1) Matrit. (VIL)
Bodl. (VIII)
Relation of 77 to J.
The justification of this genealogical scheme has been given elsewhere*. But as the correctness of its classification has been disputed® in regard to one important point—the derivation of the text of Cod. Venetus from Cod. Monacensis, without any secondary source—I shall restate the evidence, with some ad- ditions and alterations. As lacunae similar to those found in Cod. Venetus, or omissions without any gap, occur in the same passages in all the other extant manuscripts, their derivation
1 Cf. Batiffol, Za Vaticane de Paul 717 ἃ Paul V. Paris, 1890, p. 59.
5. Cf. Fragments of Heracleon, Introd. pp. 7 ff.
3 By Herr Preuschen. Cf. Harnack’s Altchristliche Litteraturgeschichte, P- 391.
B. c
X1V INTRODUCTION.
from Cod. Monacensis is merely a corollary of the proof of the relation in which Cod. Venetus stands to that manuscript.
(τὸ ΤΥ} {05 5;2lcomm.: voles 0. ΤῊ}
Μ. ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γραφέντα (6)! ἐξουσίαν (9) ἀποστολικὴν οὐ μὴν τὸ εἰλικρινὲς κιτιλ. The words between γραφέντα and εἰλικρινὲς are much damaged, and very hard to read, but I am almost certain of the words here given.
V. ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γραφέντα καὶ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν (25) οὐ μὴν τὸ εἰλικρινὲς k.T.D. In this and all the following instances the space has been left blank, The MS has suffered no damage.
(2) I. 6 (p. 6, Lomm. p. 14).
M. παρὰ τῷ ᾿Ιωάννῃ (14) ἐν ἀρχῇ λόγον θεὸν λόγον, ἀλλὰ καὶ Λουκᾶς εἰρηκὼς (go) διδάσκειν. At the end of the first gap I thought that I could read τὸν. The second gap is almost, if not quite, illegible; but it was cer- tainly filled with Acts 1. 1 τὸν μὲν πρῶτον κ.τ.λ.
V leaves space for 15 letters between ᾿Ιωάννῃ and ἐν. And in the second place it omits the words of Actsi. τ, leaving a space of one line, all but three letters, blank.
(3) I. 8 (p. 9, Lomm,. p. 18).
M. τῷ παραδείγματι τοῦ μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ (2 line) υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων κιτ.ιλ. The words after μικρὰ are very nearly gone, and it was not till a third attempt that I made out what they were. I thought that I could trace ὅτε after ξυμοῖ, but was not certain.
V. τῷ παραδείγματι τοῦ μικρὰ Kal ὅτι ὅλον (11) ὅταν γὰρ (4 line) υἱοὺς κιτ.λ.
(4) 1. 9 (p. 11, Lomm. p. 20).
M. ἐν φανερῷ ᾿Ιουδαῖός τίς ἐστι καὶ περι (28) καὶ ἄλλος ἐν κρυπτῷ οὕτω Χριστιανὸς κιτ.λ. All the words between ἐστι and οὕτω are much damaged. Most of them are illegible, but I am almost certain of καὶ περι at the begin- ning, and καὶ ἄλλος ἐν κρυπτῷ at the end.
V. ἐν φανερῷ ᾿Ιουδαῖός τις ἐστι καὶ περιτετμημένος (2 line) οὕτω Xproria- νὸς κιτ.λ.
(5) ἽΞ τῇ (Ρ. 21. onal. 26):
Μ. ἵνα μάταια τὰ κατὰ σώματα ἢ καὶ τὸ ποιεῖν τὰ σωματικὰ, ὅπερ ἀναγ- καῖον (4) τῷ ἐν σώματι (1 line) ὑπάρχῃ. I think that the MS reads μάταια τὰ κατὰ, but the whole passage is very much damaged. In the text of this edition I have filled up the space, of one line, by conjecture.
1 The numbers enclosed in brackets give the approximate number of letters which the blank, or illegible, spaces could contain.
INTRODUCTION. XV
V. wa ἐν ματαιότητι τὰ σώματα ἢ καὶ τὸ ποιεῖν τὰ σωματικὰ ὅπερ ἀναγ- καῖον (4) τῷ ἐν σώματι (space) ὑπάρχει κ.τ.λ.
(6) 1. 21 (p. 24, Lomm. p. 40).
M. τοῖς οὖσι καὶ τῇ ὕλῃ παρασχεῖν καὶ (?) τὴν πλάσιν καὶ τὰ εἴδη, ἐγὼ δὲ ἐφίστημι εἰ καὶ τὰς οὐσίας. οὐ χαλεπὸν μὲν οὖν παχύτερον εἰπεῖν ἀρχὴν τῶν ὄντων εἷναι κιτ.λ. The whole passage is very much damaged, and the words τὰς οὐσίας οὐ χαλεπὸν μὲν οὖν παχύτερον can only be recovered by reading backwards the blot on the opposite page.
V. τοῖς οὗσι καὶ τῇ ὕλῃ (το) Kal τὰ εἴδη ἐγὼ δὲ ἐφίστημι εἰ καὶ (23) εἰ- πεῖν ἀρχὴν κιτ.Ὰ. In the margin a note is added οἶμαι παρασχεῖν τὴν ὕπαρξιν καὶ τὴν πλάσιν καὶ τὰ εἴδη.
(7) I. 23 (p. 25, Lomm. p. 43).
M. Ἴδωμεν δὲ ἐπιμελέστερον τίς ὁ ἐν αὐτῇ λόγος. θαυμάζειν μοι πολλάκις ἐπέρχεται σκοποῦντι κιτ.λ. The words from τίς to ἐπέρχεται are damaged, and the blot from the opposite page gives the appearance of there having been another line of text after ἐπέρχεται, the last word of the last line on the page in this MS; but if the number of lines on the page is counted, it is clear that this was not the case.
V reads as M, but between ἐπέρχεται and σκοποῦντι leaves space for 1 line.
(8) XIII. 4 (p. 250, Lomm. vol. ii. p. 8).
M. καὶ τάχα ἐπεὶ πεινῆσαι καὶ διψῆσαι δέ τις εἰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην πρὸ τοῦ χορτασθῆναι, ὑπὲρ τοῦ κορεσθῆναι ἐμποιητέον τὸ πεινῆν καὶ διψῆν.
V. καὶ τάχα ἐπεὶ πεινῆσαι καὶ διψῆσαι τὴν δικαιοσύνην χορτασθῆναί ἐστιν εἴ τις τὴν δικαιοσύνην πρὸ τοῦ χορτασθῆναι ποιήσειεν, ὑπὲρ τοῦ κορε- σθῆναι ἐμποιητέον κ.τ.λ,
A cursory glance might suggest that words belonging to the true text and preserved in V have been omitted in M owing to the recurrence of τὴν δικαιοσύνην, in which case we should have to assume a second source for the text of V besides M. But though the text of V can be construed, it does not make sense. If we replace the impossible δέ τις ef of M by δεήσει (TI for H), all becomes plain. ‘‘ And perchance, since it will be necessary to have hungered and thirsted for righteousness before being filled, the hungering and thirsting must be produced for the sake of the satisfaction.” The scribe of V has attempted a lengthier, but less satisfactory emendation, by inserting τὴν δικαιοσύνην χορτασθῆναί ἐστιν, omitting δὲ, transposing τις and εἰ, and adding ποιήσειεν. Here again, therefore, the text of V presup- poses a corruption already existing in M.
22
Xvi INTRODUCTION.
(9) XIII. 39 (p. 289, Lomm. p. 73).
M. τὸν καλούμενον παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς εἰ yap καὶ οὕτως. Here the true Idp has been corrupted by the scribe of M or one of its ancestors into εἰ yap.
V. τὸν καλούμενον map αὐτοῖς (space) καὶ γὰρ καὶ οὕτως. The most natural explanation of this is that the scribe of V discovering that the name suggested by καλούμενον was missing, left a space for it, and substituted καὶ γὰρ for εἰ yap, connecting the words with what follows.
A little further on M reads ἤτοι ak(3 or 4)οντα ἢ ἐγγύς που τοῦ λήγειν ὄντα. The true reading is certainly ἀκμάζοντα, but the letters waf must have been illegible or wanting in the ancestor of M, as the lacuna is left by the scribe and is not due to subsequent damage.
V reads ἤτοι (6) οντα ἢ κιτλ. The scribe apparently preferred to omit the letters ax which were unintelligible to him, and did not hazard a conjec- ture. This seems to be the most natural explanation, though the phenomena do not exclude the possibility that the scribe of V had access to an ancestor of M.
(10) XIII. 21 (p. 267, Lomm. p. 35).
In this passage we should certainly read καίτοι τὸ προνοοῦν τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας λέγοντες εἶναι τοῖς προνοουμένοις γενικῷ λόγῳ, τέλειον ἀλλ᾽ οἷον τὸ Tpo- νοούμενον.
This is the reading of M, but ἀλλ᾽ οἷον is written ἀλλοιον (sic). We are not surprised therefore to find that in V the following τὸ προνοούμενον has been altered to the genitive, while ὅμως has been inserted between τελεῖον and ἀλλοῖον. The scribe has again yielded to the temptation of inserting words which form a grammatical sentence, but destroy the sense of the passage.
(11) XIII. 23 (p. 269, Lomm. p. 38).
V reads ἀνάγκη αὐτὸν νοητὸν τυγχάνοντα καὶ ἀόρατον καὶ ἀσώματον τού- του ἡμᾶς αὐτὸν ὑπολαμβάνειν φῶς (10) τῷ μήποτε καὶ πῦρ καταναλίσκον (13) σωματικὸν [πῦρ σωμάτων] ἀναλωτικὸν εἷναι δοκεῖ, οἷον ξύλων καὶ χόρτου καὶ καλάμης" εἰ δὲ [ἐν ἡμῖν ἔστιν ἰδεῖν] ξύλα καὶ χόρτον κιτιλ. [The brackets are mine. ]
M has the same text and lacunae (in this case not due to damage), except that it has lacunae instead of the words enclosed in square brackets.
Here, it would seem, the scribe of V left two of the lacunae which he found in his exemplar, and filled up two of them with the words which I have bracketed. A comparison of these conjectures with the restoration attempted in this edition (p. 269) from the data afforded by M will, I think, shew that the supplements of V have no special claim to be regarded as part of the true text.
INTRODUCTION. “XVI
(12) XX. 2 (vol. ii. p. 35, Lomm. p. 196).
M. ἐπεὶ ταράξαι ἄν τινα τὰ τοιαῦτα, συνθέντα μὲν ταῦτα, μὴ ἀκριβοῦντα δὲ, κινδύνῳ παραβαλοῦμεν κιτ.λ. The words συνθέντα μὲν are damaged and difficult to read.
V has replaced them by the words καὶ yap παραθέντα.
(13) XX. 23 (p. 80, Lomm. p. 267 f.).
M. ἐνθάδε μὲν γὰρ περὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου λέγεται τό; Ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ" ἐν δὲ ψαλμοῖς τό" ᾿Ε γὼ δὲ εἶπον ἐν τῇ ἐκστάσει μου Πᾶς ἄνθρω- πος ψεύστης.
In the preceding sentence Origen calls attention to the fact that the term ψεύστης is applied in Holy Scripture both to the Devil and to Man, He justifies this statement by the sentence quoted above. ‘‘For here (in S. John) we read that the man (who tells a lie) is a ψεύστης, and so is his father (the Devil), and in the Psalms we find ‘every man is a ψεύστης". This is in perfect agreement with the interpretation of the passage in S. John, which Origen has given a few chapters earlier. He says there that the subject of λαλῇ (ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος) is either Antichrist, the son of the Devil, or anyone who tells a lie. Whenever such an one tells a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar, and so is his father (the Devil). But unless this earlier chapter is kept in mind, we should naturally expect the first quotation in the passage under consideration to justify more especially the statement that the term ψεύστης is applied to the Devil, and not to man only, as the true text seems at first sight to imply. So thought the scribe of V, who accordingly inserts the words περὶ τοῦ διαβόλου λέγων after the first quotation (i.e. after αὐτοῦ), and the words ἐπὶ ἀνθρώπου μόνου ὡς before the second (i.e. between ψαλμοῖς and τόδ. He has again been tampering with his text, and as usual he has failed to improve it.
(14) XXVIII. 18 (p. 141, Lomm. p. 365).
V. οὐ κατέσχητο μὲν av, ὅμως δὲ οὐκ ἐπέβαλεν οὐδεὶς τὴν χεῖρα. The words ὅμως--- χεῖρα interrupt the argument; the point of the sentence is that Christ would not have been taken if He had remained, not that, as a matter of fact, no one laid hands on Him.
M reads ov κατέσχητο μὲν ἂν ἡμεῖς, without the words éuws—yeipa. The reading of M is probably a corruption of οὐκ av κατέσχητο (KAN having disappeared before KAT) μεμενηκώς. Here again we have to credit the scribe of V with a bad conjecture, founded on the already corrupt text of M.
(15) XXXII. τὸ (p. 168, Lomm. p. 410). M. τοὺς ἄλλους κυρίους, μὴ βουλομένους ἵνα γένηται ws ὁ διδάσκαλος ὡς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ. The words ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος after γένηται are probably due to
XViii INTRODUCTION.
the words (γένηται ws ὁ διδάσκαλος) which occur two or three lines earlier. The true text may probably be restored by substituting for them the words ὁ δοῦλος.
V gives a more extensive change, ἵνα γένηται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος ὁ μαθητὴς ἢ ὡς ὁ κύριος ὁ δοῦλος αὐτοῦ. But as the sentence has to do with κύριοι exclusively, the insertion of διδάσκαλος and μαθητὴς is only cumbrous. The corruption in M requires simpler treatment.
It may be admitted that most, if not all, the readings of V which have been discussed, except those taken from Book I, could be explained by the hypothesis that its scribe had access to a second source in some MS whose text (or marginal glosses) was based on an ancestor of M. But, when considered in con- nexion with the evidence derived from Book I, such a theory would present so complex an array of improbabilities that we are certainly justified in adopting the simpler explanation. The scribe knew Greek, and was fond of trying to improve his text, but his zeal outran his discretion. His division of the extant Books into 32, if indeed he is to be credited with this device, points to a less commendable form of sagacity.
All the variants of V from M of which I have any know- ledge may be readily explained on this hypothesis. The only tangible evidence for a second source is the fact that V con- tains a preface on Origen’s heresies which is not found in M. But there is no difficulty in supposing that the scribe found elsewhere a preface on this subject which he preferred to the shorter statement contained in M. It offers no proof of a second textual source.
Relation of V to M in the Comm. in S. Matt.
The proof may be strengthened by the following evidence of the derivation of the text of V from M in certain passages of the Comm. in Matt. I see no reason to doubt that the whole of the text of V in these Commentaries is derived from
INTRODUCTION, ΧΙΧ
M, though I have not examined enough of the texts of the two MSS in this part to offer a complete proof.
(1) Comm. in Matt. xii. 20 (Lomm. p. 165).
"Emel δὲ οὐκ ἐνεδέχετο [προφήτην ἀπολέσθαι ἔξω ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ, ἀπώλειαν ἀναλογίαν ἔχουσαν πρὸς [τό Ὃ ἀπολέσας τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐ]μοῦ εὑ- ρήσει αὐτήν" διὰ τοῦτο ἔδει αὐτὸν εἰς Ιεροσόλυμα ἀπελθεῖν, ἵνα [πολλὰ παθὼν ἐν] ἐκείνοις κιτ.λ.
The words and letters which I have enclosed in square brackets are damaged in M. V reads τὰ τοιαῦτα ἀποτέλεσθαι instead of προφήτην ἀπο- λέσθαι, resorting as usual to conjecture, where the exemplar was difficult to read.
It omits τό" ---ἕνεκεν, leaving space for 15 letters; and it omits πολλὰ παθὼν, leaving space for ro letters.
(2) xii. 24 (Lomm. p. 170). φέρε εἰπεῖν τὰ Βασιλίδου 7. These words are damaged in M. V omits Βασιλίδου, leaving space for 7 letters, and reads καὶ instead of 71.
(3) xiv. 19 (Lomm. p. 312).
M. ὕστερον (8) μὴ εὑρηκέναι χάριν. The words in the space are damaged and almost illegible. I thought that I could read δὲ ἐκείνην. V omits the words δὲ ἐκείνην, leaving space for about g letters between ὕστερον and μὴ εὑρηκέναι.
Relation of VI to I.
Codex Batopedianus exhibits either lacunae, or unfortunate conjectures, in places where M is damaged and illegible, and
1 It may be of interest to add some information as to the readings of Vaticanus Gr. 597 in these places. In (1) it reads τὰ τοιαῦτα ἀποτέλεσθαι, with V; it omits 7é'—évexey and πολλὰ παθὼν, but without leaving any space in either case. There can therefore be little doubt that it is derived from V.
In consequence of this evidence I am of course unable to accept Herr Preuschen’s classification of the MSS of the Comm. in Matt. (Harnack, A/t. Zz. p. 392). He has apparently not taken into account the evidence which I published in 1891 (Fragments of Heracleon, Introd. p. 16).
The MS contains, not Libb. x—xii, as he has stated, but x—xiii c. 8 κατανόει γὰρ ὅτι ὁ μὲν πῆρ (Lomm. p. 227), some pages having been lost.
I have not fully examined the MS of the Comm. in Matt. in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. 8. 10); but it is certainly not copied from V, and I think that it is independent of M.
xX INTRODUCTION,
cannot therefore be independent of that MS. No fresh evi- dence for the text of the Commentaries can therefore be obtained from it. The following information, for which I am indebted to Dr J. Rendel Harris, makes it probable that it was copied from V, and not from M.
(r) i. 5 (p- 5, Lomm. p. 11).
Batop. γραφέντα καὶ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν σωματικὴν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πνευματικὴν, οὐ μὴ τὸ εἰλικρινὲς κιτιλ. The scribe has apparently filled up the lacuna with a very poor attempt at emendation.
(2) i. 6 (p. 6, Lomm. p. 14).
Batop. τὸ τέλος αὐτοῦ παρὰ τῷ ᾿Ιωάννῃ φάσκοντι ἕν ἀρχῇ λόγον θν λόγον ἀλλὰ καὶ Λουκᾶς εἰρηκὼς (18) ἀλλά γε τηρεῖ. Here the conjecture (φά- σκοντι) is not altogether satisfactory; and the space left after εἰρηκὼς is undoubtedly to be traced ultimately, though not immediately, to the damage sustained by M.
(3) i. 8 (p. 9, Lomm. p. 18).
Batop. τῷ παραδείγματι τοῦ μικρὰ Kal ὅτι ὅλον αὐτὸν ὅταν yap KaTovo- μάζων υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων κιτ.λ. As M reads ζύμη after μικρὰ, and not καὶ ὅτι, these words appear first in V; Cod. Vatop. must therefore have been copied from it, or one of its descendants. The conjectural supple- ments αὐτὸν and κατονομάζων are not more fortunate than the scribe’s other attempts,
(4) 1. 21 (p. 24, Lomm. p. 41).
Batop. τοῖς οὖσι καὶ τῇ ὕλῃ οἶμαι παρασχεῖν τὴν ὕπαρξιν καὶ τὴν πλάσιν καὶ τὰ εἴδη, ἐγὼ δὲ ἐφίστημι εἰ καὶ εἰπεῖν ἀρχὴν κιτ.λ. The scribe has in- serted in his text the marginal conjectures of V, and has closed up the space which in V is rightly left between εἰ καὶ and εἰπεῖν.
It is unnecessary to quote any more passages to demon- strate the ancestry of Cod. Batop. The MS only affords further examples of the tendency to conjectural emendation, which seems to have been a confirmed habit of the scribes of the fourteenth and two following centuries.
INTRODUCTION. ΧΧΙ
Codex Monacensis.
We are thus wholly dependent upon M for our knowledge of the text of the extant books of Origen’s Comm. in S. Joann. There is no reason to suppose that any help for the determi- nation of the text of these books is to be obtained from Catenae’, though a considerable amount of lost matter from other books may be recovered. The bad condition of M renders it more necessary than usual to resort to conjectural emendation. Fortunately it is not so badly damaged as to preclude the possibility of restoring nearly everything which it contained with tolerable certainty. But its ancestor also contained several lacunae. The number of omissions of the terminations of words, and of errors in their transmission, suggests that the exemplar of M must have been written in cursive script. And the frequent occurrence of corruptions due to confusion of the letters €@0c points to an uncial stage in the transmission of the text. Beyond this we know nothing of its history. A probable connexion with Constan- tinople, suggested by the heading τοῦ βασιλέως, is all that we know, or can conjecture, of the history of the MS itself. But, with some few exceptions, the MS gives us material for a satisfactory restoration of Origen’s text.
Bentley's Emendations.
Some of the materials which Bentley collected for the purpose of an edition of Origen’s works are preserved in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. I subjoin a list of the few emendations which he has left in the copy of Huet’s edition of the Commentaries, in which he made a partial col- lation of Huet’s text with Codex Bodleianus. In the left-
1 Vide inf. p. xxv.
XXil
INTRODUCTION.
hand column I have given the readings of Huet on which they are based. The numbers refer to the volume, page and
line, of this edition.
HUvET. I. 76, 14 αὐτοῦ γενόμενον 83, 20 δύο ἕν 86, 25 αὐτὸν 99, 30 τὸ ᾿Ιωὰ χωρὶς τοο; 2 μνήμη 3 ἕβδομον 126, 24 ἐσχέδασται 134, 32 χαλκὸς ἦσαν ἠχοῦντες 138, 23 τὸν τῶν Φαρισαίων περὶ ὃξ αὐτολόγων 143, 272 , οἱ μεν γὰρ ὄχλοι 143, 21 ἢ ὡς ὁ Λουκᾶς φησίν
180, τί. καὶ ψυχῇ ἡ ἀγάπη
217, 23 ἐκβάλλει τοὺς ἀγορά- ζοντας
223, 19 καθήμενος ἀντὶ τοῦ με- ταβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ πῶλον ὄνου, ἐπὶ ὑποζύγιον
244, 27] ἀνακληθῆναι
273, 5ϑεκαὶ λέγειν
275, 18 ἐπὶ τοῦτο
293, 32 βασιλείοις
312, 17 εἰς γάρ Twa
21 οὐκ ἀπορεῖ 313, IO τιμὴν ,
7f. διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν δέχεσθαι 317, 19 ἀκολουθεῖ τὸν υἱὸν 218, 12 φησὶ καὶ ὁ σωτήρ
BENTLEY.
lego χωρὶς αὐτοῦ οὐ γενόμενον μὲν, ὃν δὲ οὐδέπ.
lego δύο ἐν
leg. αὐτῶν (erased)
Iwav 00 χάρις χωρὶς
μνήμη θεοῦ
ἑβδομὰς
leg. ἐσχεδίασται
leg. vel χαλκὸς ἠχῶν vel χαλκοὶ ἠχοῦντες
lege τὸ τῶν Φαρισαίων περιαυτολόγον
addendum puto τοῖς δὲ ὄχλοις, Μὴ ἄρξησθε λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, πατέρα ἔχομεν ᾿Αβραάμ'" omissum ob ὁμοιο- τέλευτον
lege Μάρκος non Λουκᾶς ut Origenes ipse p. 118
leg. ψυγῇ vel ψυχθῇ. porn
leg. τοὺς πωλοῦντας
Cod. Oxon.
leg. καὶ ἐπὶ πῶλον ὄνου, ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἐπὶ ὑποζυγίου
leg. kd.
leg. τί det καὶ λέγειν
leg. ἐπὶ τούτῳ
lege βασάνοις Thorndike, Wetstein leg. els yap τίνα
leg. εὐπορεῖ vel εὐθυπορεῖ (erased) αὐτοῖς (leg. αὐτοὺς B.)
leg. διὰ τοῦτο
leg. τῷ
immo ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης vel ὁ βαπτιστής
INTRODUCTION. XXiil
HUET. BENTLEY. 11. 7, 27 ἐκκενουμένην Marg. ἐκχεουμένην (immo ἐκχυνομέ- νην B.) 12, 18 ἐλαχίστη μόριον lego ἐλαχιστημόριον ut πολλοστημό- ριον 57. 13 νοηθείη leg. εἰ νοηθείη 58, 21 εἷπεν οὖν ἀληθές leg. εἴπερ 70, Of. τὴν μνημονικὴν , aadde παρὰ τὴν μνημονικὴν 113, 18 διὰ λογισμοῦ lege διαλογισμοῦ [40, 17 μὴ κατ᾽ ἐκείνων σκο- lege μὴ καὶ τὰ ἐκ. ποῦντες
Ι have not found it worth while to make regular use of the notes of Thomas Mangey in a MS at the British Museum (Add. 6428), nor of Thorndike’s marginal suggestions, in his transcript of the Bodleian MS, nor of the conjectures in the margin of that MS.
Fragments from Catenae.
For the text of the Fragments, except those taken from the Philocalia’, I have made use of the Catena published by Corderius, and of three MSS.
(tr) Rome. Vatican, Reg. Gr. 9 (=R). S. John’s Gospel, with Catena.
A vellum MS Saec x.(?) ff. 197, size 12 x 1oin. 1 col. of 38 lines on each page. A note on f. 180 states that it formerly belonged ‘Matariotae Metropolitae*.’ The Catena begins with the words πᾶσα μὲν ἡ τῶν ev- αγγελίων φωνὴ μεγαλοφυεστέρα τῶν λοιπών κιτιλ. The MS is in good preservation and easy to read. Shorthand contractions occur frequently. The Catena is probably taken from the same source as that from which Corderius’s Catena is derived, though more space has been given to some writers, especially to Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia. There are two sets of attributions of which the earlier, where extant, agree with those in (2), the later differ in certain cases.
1 The text of the Philocalia fragments is reprinted from Professor Robinson’s edition, Ze Phzlocalia of Origen, Cambridge, 1893. 2 See Stevenson’s Catalogue.
XXIV INTRODUCTION.
(2) Venice. Bibl. Marciana. Gr. 27 (=V).
The Four Gospels, with Catena.
Vellum, Saec. x. ff. 372. This MS must have been copied from the same exemplar as (1). The contents, so far as concerns the Catena on S. John, are the same; and there is hardly any difference in their texts. The most obvious and easily corrected blunders are common to both. Towards the end (2) is much damaged and often illegible. I discovered no proof of the derivation of either MS from the other.
Venice Gr. 28 is a Catena on SS. Luke and John, of the eleventh century, derived ultimately from the same Catena as the preceding, but with many different extracts. The extracts are generally in a shorter form than that in which they appear in (1) and (2), but occasionally I was able to supplement the text of (1) and (2) from this source.
(3) = Rome. VatiGr. 758 (Ss):
S. Luke and S. John with Catena. Vellum. Saec. x.! This MS is very closely related to Rand V. The three are probably copied from the same exemplar. All the phenomena presented by their texts would be consistent with the hypothesis, either (1) that Rand V are copied from S, as corrected, either by the scribe himself or a nearly contemporary corrector; or (2) that S has been corrected by comparison with V. R is certainly not the exemplar of either S or ἡ. S and V are even more closely connected by common itacisms than R and V. S was written carelessly. The readings of S*, as opposed to 535, are worthless, being generally mere blunders. Occasionally S has preserved, or points to, the true reading, against R and V.
Vat. Gr. 1423 (?Saec XVI.) contains a later and much shorter form of the Catena, and of the same type as that which Cramer published on S. John. I found nothing in it which was not contained in the earlier and fuller sources.
I found the Vienna Codices Theol. Gr. 29, 38, 39, 40 (according to the numbering of Lambecius) useless.
1 T was unfortunately unable to finish my collation of S, and revision of R, before the Vatican Library closed for the summer. My thanks are due to the Rev. F. Ehrle, S.J., who very kindly made arrangements for having the collation of those Fragments (7o—end), which I had not time to finish, completed. In these Fragments no attempt has been made to distinguish the hands of 5. For a few of them I was unable to obtain a collation of 8. When S is not quoted therefore, this does not mean that the Fragment is not contained in it.
INTRODUCTION. XXV
Munich. Gr. 437 contains two fragments of Origen on S. John, on the meaning of Bethsaida, and on πρόδρομος. The latter supplied some words not found in the other MSS.
In view of the difficulty of determining in many cases whether fragments, which have been attributed to Ongen, are really his, I have preferred to risk error on the side of inclusion. I have therefore included some very doubtful frag- ments which are attributed to him, rejecting only those about which doubt was hardly possible. I have probably failed to detach some fragments, at any rate, which properly belong to Theodore of Mopsuestia. It is to be hoped that the Catenae at Rome (Vat. Gr. 758; Reg. Gr. 9) and Venice (Gr. 27) may be searched for fragments of this author, as much unpublished matter is contained in them. The discovery of a Syriac translation of his Commentary on S. John ought to make their identification easy.
Where the Catena fragments cover the same ground as the continuous text, it will be seen at once that they are very much curtailed, even in their longest Catena form. I have therefore made no use of them for the critical apparatus of the con- tinuous text, but have printed them, in their Catena form, in their proper place among the fragments. A comparison of them with the continuous text, where it is possible to compare the two, shews that, while a considerable amount of lost matter may be recovered from Catenae of the tenth and eleventh centuries, they are practically useless for textual purposes. The later Catenae are altogether useless. These conclusions, to which an examination of the fragments of Origen leads, are probably true with regard to other writers also, except perhaps Chrysostom. In his case the extracts are much longer, and keep closer to the text. A systematic examination, however, of early Catenae is much needed.
ΧΧΝῚ INTRODUCTION.
The text of this Edition.
For the continuous text of the Commentaries the readings of Cod. Monac. alone are given in the critical notes, except in a very few places, where it seemed desirable to record a reading of Cod. Venetus. I have endeavoured to record all substantial variants ; but of itacism, contraction, and clerical errors, only specimens have been given. In a few instances I have recorded a difference of accentuation, where the accent pointed to the right reading, although the letters had been altered.
The spelling of proper names which is found in the MS has generally been adopted. Where this has not been done, the MS spelling has been recorded in the notes.
The pages of Delarue’s edition have been given in the margin of this edition, and the numbers of his chapters have been added in brackets where his division differs from mine.
In the critical notes to the Fragments the variants of the MSS (Rome, Vat. Gr. 758, Reg. Gr. 9; and Venice, Gr. 27) and of Corderius have been recorded.
The Index of Words is intended to illustrate the vocabulary of Origen, and to aid the student in the interpretation of the text. Words occurring in Scripture quotations, and in the Fragments of Heracleon, have accordingly been excluded from it’.
Since some sheets of this edition were printed off an unexpected opportunity of revising my collations at Munich has enabled me to make several corrections. I found myself able to decipher more words in damaged places, as well as to correct some mistakes made in collating. Accordingly I give here a list of the passages where the information given in the text and critical notes is incorrect or incomplete.
1 The latter are indexed in my edition of the Fragments of Heracleon.
29;
39,
31,
τ 21
21
20
15
3
7
32, 27
345
7
35, 24 36, 2
32
37,9 40, 30 44.9 48, 29 49, 6
80,
28 2
4
51, 22 52,9
54>
57> 62,
63, 64;
10 19 10 13 29 3
INTRODUCTION.
οὐρανὸς τυγχάνοντες
n. ins. ἔτι (vid) ἕως av θῇ τοὺς δὲ
Ἐν
ἐν ματαιότητι τὰ σώματα Γενηθήτω
n. διὸ pr. man. καὶ τὴν πλάσιν Κορινθίους
πρὸς λέξιν δυναμένη
δὲ
προσιεμένοις
f. τίνα τε αἰτίαν
ῃ.
ἀληθινὸν
πρὸς Κορινθίους note στενάξασαν (vid) οὐδέποτε
n. συνυπάρχουσαν γεγενημένην διστάζει ἐξελεύσεσθαι
εἰ μὴ ἐλευθεροῦνται
κυρίου μόνον τοῦ
ἐρραντισμένον
leg. οὐράνιος τυγχάνοντες (Cf. Le. ii.
14). MS οὐρανὸς dele dix pus) ov θῇ πάντας omit extra lin. in MS
μάταια τὰ κατὰ σώματα (vid)
pr. τὸ
ὃς pr. man. (vid.) καὶ incert. κορινθίους dus (sic) pr. τὸ
τῇ
δὴ
προσιεμένους
τίνι τε αἰτία
ἢ τοιάνδε leg. τοιάνδε] τοιάν δε (sic)
pr. τὸ
pr. ἐν τῆ στενάζουσαν οὐ δή ποτε leg. γινωσκοσκόμενα (sic) οὖν ὑπάρχουσαν γεγενημένον διστάξει ἐξελευσὲ (sic) εἰμὶ ἐλευθερωνται omit
ἔσται
ἄνθους
δὴ
omit
dele
δὴ
pr. τοῦ μόνων
τῆς ῥεραντισμένον
XXVili INTRODUCTION.
64, 14 note παραδέχεσθαι παραδέξασθαι 65, 13 βεβαιώτερον βεβαιότερον 67,7 wv’ ἕν
69, 11 μεμαθήκαμεν μεμαθήκειμεν 71, 1 παρὰ περὶ
73, 6 n. ὑπισκνούμενον dele
19. n. om. καταβαῖνον &c. 1. τό
TOMOZ A.