PG 10 · cols. 209–222
S. Anatolius Alexandrinus, Canon paschalis
Editors' preface
Migne Reading Room
PG 10 · cols. 209–222
Editors' preface
NOTE: Latin-only text (no Greek column); notes are filed under the column at whose foot they are printed. The calls of (8)–(13) are not visible in the lower part of the page (they stand in the title matter above). (printed under page 117)
(8) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 209
Bucher., De doctr. temp., p. 439-449.
Bucherius, De doctrina temporum, pp. 439–449.
(printed under page 117)
(9) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 209
Fontan., Hist. litter. Aquil. lib. v, c. 15, § 1, p. 380.
Fontanini, Historia litteraria Aquileiensis, book 5, ch. 15, § 1, p. 380.
(printed under page 117)
(10) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 209
Rufin., Hist. eccl. Euseb. lib. VII, c. 25.
Rufinus, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, book 7, ch. 25.
(printed under page 117)
(11) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 210
Usser., Synt. de LXX Interp., c. v, p. 50.
Ussher, Syntagma de Septuaginta interpretibus, ch. 5, p. 50.
(printed under page 117)
(12) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 210
Rufin., Hist. eccl. Euseb. lib. VII, c. 28.
Rufinus, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, book 7, ch. 28.
(printed under page 117)
(13) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 210
Vid. infr. col. 221.
See below, col. 221.
(printed under page 117)
(14) ‹anchor: et lunae VII› · call in col 210
Lunae VII. Forte lunae XIV. BUCHER.
"Of the moon VII": perhaps "of the moon XIV". BUCHERIUS.
(printed under page 117)
NOTE: Lower page: old Latin version (col 211) above Greek of Eusebius' excerpt (col 212), with Valesius' Latin translation set full-width beneath. Notes are filed under col 211; where the call is seen only in the Greek, the anchor given is Greek. (printed under page 118)
(15) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 211
A . . . . In ms. erat accc. Nescio an sit, ac cc. an ac c. BUCHER.
"A . . . .": the manuscript had "accc". I do not know whether it should be "ac cc." or "ac c." BUCHERIUS.
(printed under page 118)
(16) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 211
Id est VIII Kalendas. Ita expresse ms. codex, licet conformiter ad praecedentes numeros legendum esset XI. Credo esse verum antiqui textus vestigium. ID.
"That is, the 8th before the Kalends": so the manuscript codex expressly, although to agree with the preceding numbers it should read 11. I believe it is a true trace of the ancient text. THE SAME.
(printed under page 118)
(17) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 211
Ἔχει τοίνυν. Hic subaudiri aliquid manifestum est. Christophorsonus quidem festum paschale subaudiri existimavit; quod est absurdum. Neque enim Pascha incidit in novilunium primi mensis. Ego vero existimo scribendum esse ἔχεις: vel certe ἔχε in imperativo. VALES. — Graeca haec Anatoliana servavit nobis Eusebius Hist. eccl. lib. VII, cap. 32. Ea sistimus inter veterem interpretem Bucherianum, et recentiorem Valesium.
"Ἔχει τοίνυν" ("It has, then"): plainly something is to be understood here. Christophorson thought "the paschal feast" was to be understood, which is absurd, for Easter does not fall on the new moon of the first month. I think ἔχεις ("you have") should be written, or at least the imperative ἔχε ("have"). VALESIUS. — Eusebius preserved this Greek of Anatolius for us, Ecclesiastical History book 7, ch. 32. We set it between the old translator published by Bucherius and the more recent one of Valesius.
(printed under page 118)
(18) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 211
Τῇ κατ' Αἰγυπτίους μὲν Φαμενώθ. In cod. Med., Fuk. et Mazar. legitur τήν. Sed omnino legendum est τῇ, ut sequentia demonstrant. BUCHER.
"Τῇ κατ' Αἰγυπτίους μὲν Φαμενώθ" ("on [the day] of Phamenoth according to the Egyptians"): the Medicean, Fuk. and Mazarin manuscripts read τήν. But τῇ must certainly be read, as what follows shows. BUCHERIUS.
(printed under page 118)
(19) ‹anchor: καὶ ἄφεσιν (Greek)› · call in col 211
Καὶ ἄφεσιν τοῦ δρόμου. Hanc vocem non intellexerunt interpretes. Ἄφεσις proprie est transenna, ex qua emittuntur quadrigae, ut recte notavit Scaliger in notis ad Manilium pag. 126. Primum igitur dodecatemorium vocabatur ἄφεσις, quod ab illo tanquam a carceribus inciperet cursus planetarum. Ἄφεσις ergo idem est quod ἀφετηρία. VALES.
"Καὶ ἄφεσιν τοῦ δρόμου" ("and the starting-point of the course"): the translators did not understand this word. Ἄφεσις is properly the barrier from which the four-horse chariots are released, as Scaliger rightly noted in his notes on Manilius, p. 126. So the first twelfth-part [of the zodiac] was called ἄφεσις, because from it, as from the starting-gates, the course of the planets began. Ἄφεσις, then, is the same as ἀφετηρία. VALESIUS.
(printed under page 118)
(20) ‹anchor: λαμβάνοντας (Greek)› · call in col 211
Κατ' αὐτὴν λαμβάνοντας. Omnino scribendum est κατ' αὐτό, ut jam pridem conjeceram. Atque ita emendavit Petavius in animadversionibus ad Epiphanium, pag. 190, ubi hunc Anatolii locum diligenter exponit. In quo etiam exponendo egregiam operam navavit Aegidius Bucherius. ID.
"Κατ' αὐτὴν λαμβάνοντας" ("taking it according to it"): κατ' αὐτό should certainly be written, as I had long since conjectured. And so Petavius emended it in his notes on Epiphanius, p. 190, where he carefully expounds this passage of Anatolius. Aegidius Bucherius also did excellent work in expounding it. THE SAME.
(printed under page 118)
(21) ‹anchor: πρὸς αὐτῶν (Greek)› · call in col 211
Πρὸς αὐτῶν. Legeram πρός. Nunc vero in quibusdam schedis videtur esse πρό . . . . Ita in emendand. ad calcem edit. Cantabr.
"Πρὸς αὐτῶν": I had read πρός. But now in certain sheets it appears to be πρό ("before") . . . . So in the corrections at the end of the Cambridge edition.
(printed under page 118)
Ancient version (Latin) II. De novilunio […] Est ergo in primo anno initium primi mensis, quod est XIX annorum circuli principium; secundum Aegyptios quidem mensis Phamenoth XXVI die; juxta Macedones vero Dystri mensis XXII die; secundum Romanos vero Martii mensis XXIII, id est VIII Kalendas Aprilis. In qua die non solum invenitur sol conscendisse primam partem, verum etiam quadram lunam (lege quartam diem) jam in ea die habere, id est in prima ex duodecim partibus. Haec autem particula prima ex XII vernale est aequinoctium; et ipsa est initium mensium, et caput circuli, et absolutio cursus stellarum, quae planetae, id est vagae, dicuntur, ac finis XII particulae, et totius circuli terminus. Et ideo dicimus, non parum delinquere eos, qui ante hoc initium novi anni Pascha putant esse celebrandum. III. Antiquorum J[…] Sed nec a nobis primis exordium sumit haec ratio: antiquis Judaeis fuisse comprobata monstratur et ante adventum Christi observata. Sicut evidenter docet <!-- note: Bucherius's old Latin version, set untranslated as instructed. It begins in the left column of col 211 at the chapter II heading, after the close of ch. I ("… quid aliud", not set here), and runs to "Sicut evidenter docet", which continues in the next column (col 213/214); only what stands in this column is set. Both chapter headings are cut off at the right edge of the crop after "De novilunio p" and "Antiquorum J", and are marked […]. The capital C after "haec ratio :" is taken as the margin letter (like B beside "die;" above), not as text; check this against the full page. "(lege quartam diem)" is the editor's inline correction, kept as printed. Footnote calls (16) dropped. Below, H. Valesius's Latin translation (chs II–III) also stands in the column but is cut off at the right edge of the crop, so it is not set. The pointer line in n212 is not written: this pass was limited to writing this file. -->
NOTE: Greek in col 213, old Latin version in col 214, Valesius' Latin translation full-width beneath. Notes filed under the Latin column (214). (printed under page 119)
<!-- note: NOT SET (failed read). The old Latin version ("Philo et Josephus … hujusmodi de-") stands in col 214 of page 119, the right half of the page. The three col-213 images (c213_1–3) are cropped at the column gutter and show only the first one to three words of each Latin line ("Philo", "lus, et", "unus e", "fuerun", … "Aris", "solum", … "Scio", "babilia", …). The text cannot be transcribed without guessing, so it is not set. Needed: the col 214 images, or a full-width render of page 119. The n213 "other" line has not been changed, since this pass was limited to writing this file; update it once the text is set. -->
(22) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 214
Ἀμφοτέρων Ἀγαθοβούλων. Duos fuisse Agathobulos cognomento Doctores, scribit Anatolius. Sed quod eos Philone et Josepho vetustiores facit, vereor ne opinione sua falsus sit. Nam Agathobulus philosophus floruit temporibus Adriani, ut scribit Eusebius in Chronico, et ex illo Georgius Syncellus. VALES.
"Ἀμφοτέρων Ἀγαθοβούλων" ("of both the Agathobuli"): Anatolius writes that there were two Agathobuli surnamed the Teachers. But in making them older than Philo and Josephus, I fear he is deceived in his opinion. For Agathobulus the philosopher flourished in the times of Hadrian, as Eusebius writes in the Chronicle, and George Syncellus after him. VALESIUS.
(printed under page 119)
(23) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 214
Ἀριστοβούλου τοῦ πάνυ. Rufinus Aristobulum ex Paneade interpretatur, gravi errore. Sed Rufinum nihil moror, cujus versio innumeris mendis referta est. Miror Scaligerum, qui animadversionibus Eusebianis, pag. 130, Anatolii verba ex prava Rufini interpretatione corrigenda esse censuit. Beda quoque in lib. De ratione computi, pravam Rufini interpretationem secutus ita scribit: Sicut eorum antiquiores Agathobulus, et ab eo eruditus Aristobulus et Paniada, qui unus ex illis septuaginta senioribus fuit, qui missi fuerant a pontificibus, etc. Videtur Beda existimasse Paniadam nomen fuisse proprium scriptoris Judaei: quia scilicet in codice Rufini quo utebatur, scriptum erat Aristobulus et Paneada, quomodo etiam legitur in vetustissimo codice Parisiensis Ecclesiae qui penes me est, et in Corbeiensi non minoris vetustatis codice, qui nunc est in bibliotheca S. Germani. Caeterum quod hunc Aristobulum unum fuisse ex Septuaginta senioribus scribit Anatolius, id jam pridem refutavit Scaliger in eo loco quem citavi. Porro hic Aristobulus διδάσκαλος etiam cognominatus est, ut scribitur in lib. II Machabaeorum cap. I, eo quod Ptolemaei regis magister fuisset. Neque enim assentior Scaligero, qui hunc Aristobulum cujus mentio fit in historia Machabaeorum, distinguit ab illo Peripatetico philosopho, qui suos in legem Moysis commentarios Ptolemaeo Philometori nuncupavit. ID.
"Ἀριστοβούλου τοῦ πάνυ" ("of the eminent Aristobulus"): Rufinus renders "Aristobulus from Paneas", a grave error. But I take no account of Rufinus, whose version is crammed with countless mistakes. I am surprised at Scaliger, who in his notes on Eusebius, p. 130, judged that Anatolius' words should be corrected from Rufinus' faulty translation. Bede too, following Rufinus' faulty translation in his book On the Reckoning of Time, writes thus: "As the older of them, Agathobulus, and Aristobulus taught by him, and Paniada, who was one of those seventy elders who had been sent by the high priests," etc. Bede seems to have thought Paniada was the proper name of a Jewish writer, evidently because in the manuscript of Rufinus he used it was written "Aristobulus et Paneada", as it is also read in the very old manuscript of the Church of Paris which I have, and in the Corbie manuscript of no less age, now in the library of Saint-Germain. As for Anatolius' statement that this Aristobulus was one of the Seventy elders, Scaliger refuted it long ago in the passage I cited. Further, this Aristobulus was also surnamed διδάσκαλος ("teacher"), as is written in 2 Maccabees ch. 1, because he had been the teacher of King Ptolemy. For I do not agree with Scaliger, who distinguishes this Aristobulus mentioned in the history of the Maccabees from the Peripatetic philosopher who dedicated his commentaries on the law of Moses to Ptolemy Philometor. THE SAME.
(printed under page 119)
(24) ‹anchor: κυριακὰς ἀποδείξεις (Greek)› · call in col 214
Κυριακὰς ἀποδείξεις. Christophorsonus vertit ratas: sic κύριαι δόξαι dicuntur a Graecis. Rufinus validissimas assertiones vertit. ID.
"Κυριακὰς ἀποδείξεις" ("authoritative demonstrations"): Christophorson translates "ratified", as the Greeks speak of κύριαι δόξαι ("authoritative doctrines"). Rufinus translates "most powerful assertions". THE SAME.
(printed under page 119)
(25) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 215
Ὕλας ἀπ' αὐτῶν. Nostri quinque codices uno consensu scriptum habent ὕλας ἀπαιτῶν· sed in codice Regio eadem manu adnotatur, scribendum esse ἀπ' αὐτῶν. Certe ἀπ' αὐτῶν legendum esse, ex sequentibus apparet. Nisi enim ita legeris, quo referes ea, quae sequuntur verba, ὧν περιῄρηται, etc.? Sed nunc re attentius examinata, scribendum censeo ὕλας ἀπαιτῶν· ᾧ περιῄρηται, etc. Idque et sensus, et syntaxeos ratio postulat. VALES.
"Ὕλας ἀπ' αὐτῶν" ("materials from them"): our five manuscripts with one accord have ὕλας ἀπαιτῶν ("demanding materials"); but in the Royal manuscript it is noted in the same hand that ἀπ' αὐτῶν should be written. That ἀπ' αὐτῶν is certainly to be read appears from what follows: for unless you read so, to what will you refer the words that follow, ὧν περιῄρηται ("of which he has been deprived"), etc.? But now, having examined the matter more carefully, I judge that we should write ὕλας ἀπαιτῶν· ᾧ περιῄρηται, etc. Both the sense and the logic of the syntax require this. VALESIUS.
(printed under page 120)
Ancient version (Latin) monstrationum copiam exigere praetermittimus, quibus velamen Mosaicae legis ablatum est: et quibus revelata jam facie Christum, Christique doctrinam et passionem tanquam in speculo deinceps intueri licet. Caeterum primum mensem apud Hebraeos circa aequinoctium incipere manifeste convincitur, vel ex iis praeceptis quae in libro Enoch leguntur. <!-- note: the old Latin version, set untranslated as instructed. It opens col 215 mid-sentence, continuing from the previous column (not set here), and ends at "in libro Enoch leguntur." before the heading "VI. Pascha non nisi post transactum aequinoctium celebrandum." It faces the Greek of col 216 (τοιαῦτα … μάτα.). From ch. VI onward the old Latin is the running text of the column, so it is not set here. -->
NOTE: Col 216 opens with the Greek kept by Eusebius (to μαθήματα), then Latin. The scripture references (¹–³) are printed in one line across the page; the editor's notes (25)–(26) follow below. The calls of (25) (after ἀπαιτῶν) and (26) (after Ἐνὼχ) stand in col 216's Greek; each note is filed under the column at whose foot it stands ((25) under col 215, (26) here). ¹ ‹anchor: vestris› · call in col 216 Exod. XII, 18, 19.
Exodus 12:18–19.
² ‹anchor: comedetis azyma› · call in col 216 Ibid. 15; Levit. XXIII, 6.
Ibid. 15; Leviticus 23:6.
³ ‹anchor: discipuli ad Jesum› · call in col 216 Matth. XXVI, 17; Marc. XIV, 12; Luc. XXII, 7.
Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7.
(printed under page 120)
(26) ‹anchor: Ἐνὼχ› · call in col 216
Ἐν τῷ Ἐνώχ. Liber Enoch citatur a Juda in Epistola canonica. Erat liber apocryphus, nec inter canonicos Hebraeorum libros receptus. Sed tamen apostoli, eorumque exemplo antiqui Patres, testimonia ex apocryphis proferre non dubitarunt: ea scilicet, quae ad astruendam veritatem facerent, ex iis eligentes. Vide Georgium Syncellum in Chronico, ubi luculentum fragmentum affert ex libris Enoch. ID.
"Ἐν τῷ Ἐνώχ" ("in Enoch"): the book of Enoch is cited by Jude in his canonical Epistle. It was an apocryphal book, not received among the canonical books of the Hebrews. Yet the apostles, and the ancient Fathers after their example, did not hesitate to bring forward testimonies from apocryphal writings, choosing from them, that is, whatever served to establish the truth. See George Syncellus in the Chronicle, where he gives a substantial fragment from the books of Enoch. THE SAME.
(printed under page 120)
NOTE: Both columns Latin. Only scripture references, printed in one line across the page. Calls ⁴ and ⁵ are not visible in the lower part of the page; filed under col 217 by position. ⁴ ‹anchor: not visible (cf. "Tristis")› · call in col 217 Matth. XXVI, 38.
Matthew 26:38.
⁵ ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 217 Luc. XV, 6
Luke 15:6.
⁶ ‹anchor: non facietis in eo› · call in col 218 Levit. XXIII, 5-7.
Leviticus 23:5–7.
(printed under page 121)
NOTE: Both columns Latin. Both calls stand in the 19-year table set across the page, in its weekday column (left half, col 219); note (27) is printed at the foot of col 219, note (28) at the foot of col 220. (printed under page 122)
(27) ‹anchor: Sabbato› · call in col 219
Sabbato. Hic primum Anatolius bissextum admittit. BUCHER.
"Saturday": here Anatolius first admits the leap day. BUCHERIUS.
(printed under page 122)
(28) ‹anchor: IV. Feria› · call in col 219
IV Feria. Bissextum secundum hic agnoscit Anatolius. ID.
"Wednesday": here Anatolius recognizes the second leap day. THE SAME.
(printed under page 122)
(none) NOTE: The Canon ends at the top of this page and Bucherius' Commentarius begins; the "(32)" in col 221 ("cap. 26 (32)") is an alternative chapter number inside the commentary's text, not a footnote call. No footnotes are printed at the page foot. (printed under page 123)