Julius Africanus, De historia Susannae epistola ad Origenem

(1) ‹anchor: τὸν Ἀγνώμονα› · call in col 41 (Greek only): the note is set under col 42 (n42), where it begins at the foot of page 25 and runs on under page 26.

- The editors' note on the variant readings, printed across the page in the title band (Varias Lectiones … Edit. Patr.), is editors' matter (not the work's); set in parts/c41_a.md after the Greek title (Q2a).

(¹) ‹anchor: tulerunt contra me› · call in col 42 Dan. XIII, 42, 43.

Dan. 13:42–43.

(printed under page 25)

(1) ‹anchor: τὸν Ἀγνώμονα› · call in col 41

Ἀγνώμονα. Sixtus Senensis videtur legisse Εὐγνώμονα: vertit enim lib. V Bibl., adnot. 205, « cum haberes disputationem cum amico illo tuo. » Fortassis autem non verbum e verbo reddidit, sed ad mentem Origenis, qui in responsione ad Africanum, eum quicum disputavit, vocat Bassum amicum suum: ἔφασκες ὅτι ἡνίκα διελεγόμην τῷ ἑταίρῳ ἡμῶν Βάσσῳ. Omnes mss. aperte habent non Εὐγνώμονα, sed Ἀγνώμονα. Tillemontius conjicit non esse Bassi alterum nomen, sed merum ἐπίθετον, quo vel stultus vel ingratus vocatur, quod non diu post habitam hancce disputationem a veritate et ab Origenis amicitia desciverit. Sed si a veritate et ab Origenis amicitia desciverat Bassus, ideoque ἀγνώμων dicitur ab Africano, cur illum Origenes in responsione vocat amicum suum? quam ob rem alii quibus non fit verisimile haereticum hominem amici nomine ab Origene vocari, responsionis ejus verba τῷ ἑταίρῳ ἡμῶν Βάσσῳ mutant in ista: τῷ ἑτερογνώμονι Βάσσῳ. Alii sive legatur Ἀγνώμονα, sive Εὐγνώμονα, Bassi nomen alterum esse arbitrantur. Quis vero Bassus iste fuerit, certo nequit affirmari. Origenes in epistola « ad quosdam charos suos in Alexandria » haec habet: « Quidam auctor haereseos, cum sub praesentia multorum habita inter nos fuisset disputatio, et descriptum accipiens ab his qui descripserant codicem, quae voluit, addidit, et quae noluit, abstulit, et quod ei visum est, permutavit: circumferens tanquam ex nomine nostro, insultans, et ostendens ea quae ipse conscripsit. Pro quibus indignantes fratres qui in Palaestina sunt, miserunt ad me Athenas hominem qui acciperet a me ipsum authenticum exemplar. » Atqui disputatio Origenis cum Basso habita etiam fuisse videtur in Palaestina ubi commorabatur Africanus qui ei interfuit. Conjici ergo potest Bassum esse illum haereseos auctorem de quo queritur Adamantius in supra memorata epistola, sed mera erit conjectura. Idem sentiendum de Caio Basso quem Philastrius De haeres., p. 19, inter haereticos Valentinianos numerat. Illum enim etsi Philastrius inter eos ponit qui Cerdonem praecesserunt, eodem tempore adjungit Heracleoni, Marco, et aliis Valentinianis qui Cerdone mortuo vixerunt. Quamobrem nihil obstat quominus idem habeatur ac ille Bassus quicum disputavit Origenes. Valentinianorum omnium communis error erat esse homines natura bonos aut malos. Hunc errorem passim confutat Adamantius et interdum utitur historiae Susannae versu 56. Sic tom. XX in Joan. non longe ab initio ait: Ὡς δὲ εἰσί τινες σπέρμα τοῦ Ἀβραάμ, οὕτως ἄλλοι, ὡς ὁ Δανιὴλ φησι, σπέρμα τοῦ Χαναὰν καὶ οὐχ Ἰούδα.

Agnomon. Sixtus of Siena seems to have read Eugnomon, for he translates in book V of his Bibliotheca, annotation 205, "when you were holding a disputation with that friend of yours." But perhaps he did not render word for word, but according to the mind of Origen, who in his reply to Africanus calls the man with whom he disputed his friend Bassus: "you said that when I was disputing with our companion Bassus." All the manuscripts plainly have not Eugnomon but Agnomon. Tillemont conjectures that it is not another name of Bassus but a mere epithet, by which he is called either foolish or ungrateful, because not long after this disputation was held he fell away from the truth and from Origen's friendship. But if Bassus had fallen away from the truth and from Origen's friendship, and is therefore called agnōmōn by Africanus, why does Origen in his reply call him his friend? For this reason others, to whom it does not seem likely that a heretic would be called a friend by Origen, change the words of his reply "to our companion Bassus" into these: "to Bassus, who thinks otherwise." Others think that, whether Agnomona or Eugnomona be read, it is another name of Bassus. Who this Bassus was cannot be affirmed with certainty. Origen, in the letter "to certain dear friends of his in Alexandria", has this: "A certain author of heresy, when a disputation had been held between us in the presence of many, took the copy from those who had written it out, added what he wished, took away what he did not wish, and changed what seemed good to him, carrying it about as though in our name, insulting us and displaying what he himself had written. Indignant at this, the brethren who are in Palestine sent a man to me at Athens to receive from me the authentic copy itself." Yet Origen's disputation with Bassus seems also to have been held in Palestine, where Africanus was living, who was present at it. It may therefore be conjectured that Bassus is the author of heresy of whom Adamantius complains in the letter mentioned above, but it will be mere conjecture. The same is to be thought of the Caius Bassus whom Philastrius, On Heresies, p. 19, counts among the Valentinian heretics. For although Philastrius places him among those who preceded Cerdo, he joins him in time to Heracleon, Mark and other Valentinians who lived after Cerdo's death. Therefore nothing prevents his being held to be the same as the Bassus with whom Origen disputed. The common error of all the Valentinians was that men are good or evil by nature. Adamantius refutes this error in many places, and at times uses verse 56 of the story of Susanna. Thus in tome XX on John, not far from the beginning, he says: "As some are the seed of Abraham, so others, as Daniel says, are the seed of Canaan and not of Judah."

(printed under pages 25–26; the part under page 26, from Εὐγνώμονα, sed Ἀγνώμονα, added by Q2a)

(2) ‹anchor: Ἄλλως σύγγραμμα› · call in col 44

Ἄλλως σύγγραμμα, etc. Sic recte codex Regius. Wetstenius vero: ἄλλως σύγγραμμα, ἀλλὰ σύγγραμμα νεωτερικὸν δὲ, etc., nec aliter legit Hoeschelius.

"Otherwise a writing," etc. So, rightly, the Royal codex. But Wetstein reads: "otherwise a writing, but a more recent writing," etc.; and Hoeschel reads no differently.

(printed under page 26)

(3) ‹anchor: Φιλιστίων ὁ μῖμος› · call in col 44

Φιλιστίων ὁ μῖμος, etc. Genuina certe est hujus loci lectio, quamvis Hoeschelius habeat, Φιλιστίωνος μῖμος. Nam vox μῖμος aut actorem fabulae, aut fabulam ipsam significat. Cum de actore Philistione agitur, ut hoc loco, necessario scribendum est Φιλιστίων ὁ μῖμος; cum autem de Philistionis fabula, ὁ Φιλιστίωνος μῖμος. Hoc posteriori sensu Hieronymus lib. II adversus Rufinum accipit « mimum Philistionis vel Lentuli, ac Marulli stropham, » nec aliter accipit infra Origenes cum duarum meretricum historiam ait pari jure ab Africano comparari potuisse τῷ Φιλιστίωνος μίμῳ. Verum priori sensu hoc loco sumit Africanus vocem μῖμος, et infra Origenes cum ait: ὡς οὐδὲ Φιλιστίων ὁ μῖμος ἐχρήσατο ἀναπλάσας τὸ συγγραμμάτιον; ubi procul dubio non de fabula Philistionis, sed de ipsomet Philistione mimo agitur. Scaliger ad Euseb. n. MMXXXII, quis fuerit hic Philistion, disquirit. « Duo, inquit, videntur fuisse Philistiones, prior scriptor mimorum, teste Suida. Ita enim interpretandum est κωμῳδίας βιολογικάς. Nam βιολόγοι sunt mimi, et actores ridicularum fabularum, quales Atellanae apud Romanos. Fuit autem Prusiensis, vel Nicenus, ut testatur epigramma in eum: Ὁ τὸν πολυστέναχτον ἀνθρώπων βίον / Γέλωτι κεράσας Νικαεὺς Φιλιστίων / Ἐνταῦθα κεῖμαι λείψανον παντὸς βίου, / Πολλάκις ἀποθανὼν, ὧδε δ' οὐδεπώποτε. Vixit tempore Isocratis, aut, ut alia exemplaria habent, Socratis, teste Suida. Alter fuit natione Magnesius, et ipse tam scriptor, quam actor mimorum, de quo hic sermo nunc est, cujus meminit Martialis: Mimos ridiculi Philistionis. Epiphanius in Ptolomaeum, haeres. 33: Οὔτε γὰρ τῶν παλαιῶν τραγῳδοποιῶν τις, οὔτε οἱ καθεξῆς μιμηλοὶ τὸν τρόπον, οἱ περὶ Φιλιστίωνα, λέγω, καὶ Διογένη τὸν τὰ ἄπιστα γράψαντα, etc. Meminit et alibi non semel. Marcellinus libro XXX: « Et judices patiuntur doctos ex Philistionis et Aesopi cavillationibus, quam ex Aristidis illius justi, et Catonis disciplina productos. » Hieronymus in Rufinum: « Et quasi mimum Philistionis, vel Lentuli ac Marulli stropham elegante sermone confictam. » Sidonius epistola 2, lib. II: « Absunt ridiculi vestitu, et vultibus histriones pigmentis multicoloribus, Philistionis supellectilem mentientes. » Cassiodorus epistola 51, lib IV: « Mimus etiam, qui tunc tantummodo derisui habetur, tanta Philistionis cautela repertus est, ut ejus actus poneretur in litteris. » Ego puto illum Νικαέα, in quem exstat epigramma supra a nobis productum, eumdem esse cum hoc, et Suidam falli, qui aevo Isocratis, aut Socratis illum vixisse scribat. Nam Nicaea condita est ab Antigono post mortem Alexandri, ab eoque Antigonia, deinde Nicaea vocata, multis annis post Isocratis et Socratis mortem. Quare non dubium est unum mimologum Philistionem, non duos, fuisse.

"Philistion the mime," etc. This is certainly the genuine reading of the passage, although Hoeschel has "Philistion's mime." For the word mimos means either the actor of a play or the play itself. When the actor Philistion is meant, as here, one must write "Philistion the mime"; when Philistion's play is meant, "the mime of Philistion." In this latter sense Jerome, Against Rufinus book II, takes "the mime of Philistion, or the trick of Lentulus and Marullus"; and Origen takes it no differently below, when he says that the story of the two harlots could with equal right have been compared by Africanus "to the mime of Philistion." But in this passage Africanus takes the word mimos in the former sense, and so does Origen below when he says: "as not even Philistion the mime would have used, in making up his little piece," where without doubt it is not Philistion's play but Philistion the mime himself that is meant. Scaliger, on Eusebius no. 2032, inquires who this Philistion was. "There seem," he says, "to have been two Philistions: the earlier a writer of mimes, according to Suidas. For so 'comedies of life' is to be interpreted, since biologoi are mimes and actors of farces, such as the Atellan plays among the Romans. He was of Prusa, or of Nicaea, as the epigram on him attests: 'I who mixed the much-lamenting life of men with laughter, Philistion of Nicaea, lie here, the remnant of all life; often having died, but here never yet.' He lived in the time of Isocrates, or, as other copies have it, of Socrates, according to Suidas. The other was by nation a Magnesian, himself both a writer and an actor of mimes, and he is the one now spoken of here, whom Martial mentions: 'the mimes of laughable Philistion.' Epiphanius, against Ptolemy, heresy 33: 'For neither any of the old tragic poets, nor those who after them were mimics in manner, I mean Philistion and his circle, and Diogenes who wrote the incredible things,' etc. He mentions him elsewhere too, more than once. Marcellinus, book XXX: 'And they suffer judges trained in the jests of Philistion and Aesop rather than formed in the discipline of the famous Aristides the Just and of Cato.' Jerome against Rufinus: 'And like a mime of Philistion, or a trick of Lentulus and Marullus, invented in elegant language.' Sidonius, letter 2, book II: 'Absent are the players, laughable in dress and in faces painted with many colours, counterfeiting the gear of Philistion.' Cassiodorus, letter 51, book IV: 'The mime too, which was then held only for derision, was devised with such care by Philistion that his performance was set down in writing.' I think that the Nicaean, on whom the epigram quoted above by us exists, is the same as this one, and that Suidas is mistaken in writing that he lived in the age of Isocrates or of Socrates. For Nicaea was founded by Antigonus after the death of Alexander, and called by him Antigonia, then Nicaea, many years after the death of Isocrates and of Socrates. Therefore there is no doubt that there was one mime-writer Philistion, not two."

(printed under page 26) (1, continued) the end of note (1) on Ἀγνώμονα (call in col 41), printed under page 26 from Εὐγνώμονα, sed Ἀγνώμονα to οὐχ Ἰούδα, is set with the note in n42.

(2) ‹anchor: σύγγραμμα› · call in col 44 (Greek only): the note is set under col 43 (n43), with the page-26 notes.

(3) ‹anchor: Φιλιστίων ὁ μῖμος› · call in col 44 (Greek only): the note is set under col 43 (n43), with the page-26 notes.

(4)–(11) and (a) ‹anchors: σχῖνον; συμβαίνει; διέστηκεν; φέρεται; ἠστραγαλωμένοι; ἱστόρηται; ἔκρινον; Ἰωακεὶμ; ἐμφέρεται› · calls in col 45 (Greek only): the notes are set under col 46 (n46), with the page-27 notes; n46 labels their calls "col 46" (Q2a: the calls stand in col 45).

(¹) ‹anchor: dictum erat› · call in col 46 Jerem. XIV, 3, 4; Isa. XXXIX, 7.

Jer. 14:3–4; Isa. 39:7.

(printed under page 27)

(4) ‹anchor: Σχῖνον› · call in col 46

Σχῖνον. Recte codex Regius; male autem Wetstenianus σχοῖνον.

Schinon ("mastic tree"). So, rightly, the Royal codex; but Wetstein's wrongly has schoinon ("rush").

(printed under page 27)

(5) ‹anchor: Συμβαίνει› · call in col 46

Συμβαίνει. Wetstenianus, συμβαίνειν, male. Corrupte item paulo post: Παρὰ τὴν σχῦνον· ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἑβραΐδι.

Symbainei ("it happens"). Wetstein's has symbainein, wrongly. Likewise corrupt a little after: "Para tēn schynon; en de tē Hebraidi."

(printed under page 27)

(6) ‹anchor: Ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἑβραΐδι› · call in col 46

Ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἑβραΐδι τῷ παντὶ διέστηκεν. Hieronymus tom. I novae edit. Praefat. in Danielem, pag. 990: « Audivi ego, inquit, quemdam de praeceptoribus Judaeorum, cum Susannae derideret historiam, et a Graeco nescio quo diceret esse confictam: illud opponere quod Origeni quoque Africanus opposuit, etymologias has ἀπὸ τοῦ σχίνου σχίσαι, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πρίνου πρίσαι, de Graeco sermone descendere. Cujus rei nos intelligentiam nostris hanc possumus dare: ut verbi gratia dicamus ab arbore ilice dixisse eum, illico pereas; et a lentisco, in lentem te comminuat angelus; vel non lente pereas; aut lentus, id est flexibilis ducaris ad mortem; sive aliud quid ad arboris nomen conveniens. » Idem objiciebat Porphyrius teste eodem Hieronymo praefatione ad explanationem in Danielem: « Sed et hoc nosse debemus inter caetera, Porphyrium de Danielis libro nobis objicere, idcirco illum apparere confictum, nec haberi apud Hebraeos, sed Graeci sermonis esse commentum, quia in Susannae fabula contineatur, dicente Daniele ad presbyteros, ἀπὸ τοῦ σχίνου σχίσαι, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πρίνου πρίσαι, quam etymologiam magis Graeco sermoni convenire quam Hebraeo. Cui et Eusebius et Apollinarius pari sententia responderunt, Susannae Belisque ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in Hebraico, sed partem esse prophetiae Habacuc filii Jesu de tribu Levi; sicut juxta LXX interpretes in titulo ejusdem Belis fabulae ponitur: « Homo quidam erat sacerdos nomine Daniel, filius Abda, conviva regis Babylonis; » cum Danielem et tres pueros de tribu Juda fuisse sancta Scriptura testetur. » An vero solida fuerit Eusebii et Apollinarii responsio infra disquiritur.

"But in the Hebrew it is wholly different." Jerome, tome I of the new edition, Preface to Daniel, p. 990: "I heard," he says, "one of the teachers of the Jews, when he was mocking the story of Susanna and saying it was invented by some Greek or other, raise the objection that Africanus also raised against Origen: that these etymologies, from schinos 'to split' and from prinos 'to saw', come from the Greek language. We can give our readers an understanding of this as follows: as if, for example, we were to say that he said from the tree ilex (holm-oak) 'may you perish illico (on the spot)', and from the lentisk 'may the angel crush you to a lentil', or 'may you perish not lente (slowly)', or 'may you be led lentus (pliant) to death', or something else matching the tree's name." Porphyry raised the same objection, as the same Jerome attests in the preface to his explanation of Daniel: "But among other things we must also know this, that Porphyry objects to us concerning the book of Daniel that it is plainly fabricated and not held among the Hebrews, but is an invention in the Greek language, because the fable of Susanna contains Daniel saying to the elders 'from the schinos to split' and 'from the prinos to saw', an etymology that suits the Greek language rather than the Hebrew. To him both Eusebius and Apollinarius answered alike, that the fables of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew, but are part of the prophecy of Habakkuk son of Jesus of the tribe of Levi; just as, according to the Seventy translators, it is set in the title of that same fable of Bel: 'There was a certain man, a priest named Daniel, son of Abda, a guest at the table of the king of Babylon'; whereas holy Scripture testifies that Daniel and the three youths were of the tribe of Judah." Whether the answer of Eusebius and Apollinarius was sound is examined below.

(printed under page 27)

(7) · call in col 46

Hoeschelius: φέρεται παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις. Εἶτα αἰχμάλωτοι ὄντες. At codex Regius et Wetstenianus ut in nostro textu. Paulo post Wetsten., ἀστραγαλώμενοι καὶ ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις ἄταφοι ῥιπτούμενοι. Hoeschelius omisit, ἄταφοι (a).

Hoeschel: "is current among the Jews. Then, being captives." But the Royal codex and Wetstein's read as in our text. A little after, Wetstein's: "astragalōmenoi, and thrown unburied in the streets." Hoeschel omitted "unburied" (a).

(printed under page 27)

(8) · call in col 46

Hoeschelius: Ἱστορεῖται, τῶν τε παίδων ἀποσπωμένων.

Hoeschel: "It is related, the children too being torn away."

(printed under page 27)

(9) ‹anchor: Οἶδε περὶ θανάτου ἔκρινον› · call in col 46

Οἶδε περὶ θανάτου ἔκρινον. Eodem argumento deterrebantur plerique Judaeorum ab hac recipienda historia, teste Hieronymo in Jerem. XXIX, 22: « Unde, inquit, et a plerisque ac pene omnibus Hebraeis ipsa quasi fabula non recipitur nec legitur in synagogis eorum. Qui enim, inquiunt, fieri poterat, ut captivi lapidandi principes et prophetas suos haberent potestatem? »

"These judged in matters of death." By the same argument most of the Jews were deterred from receiving this story, as Jerome attests on Jer. 29:22: "Hence," he says, "it is not received as anything but a fable by most and almost all of the Hebrews, nor read in their synagogues. For how, they say, could it come about that captives had power to stone their princes and prophets?"

(printed under page 27)

(10) ‹anchor: Ἰωακεὶμ› · call in col 46

Ἰωακείμ. Georgius Syncellus Chronograph. pag. 218: Ὁ ἱερὸς Ἱππόλυτος, ἐν τῷ κατὰ τὴν Σωσάνναν καὶ τὸν Δανιὴλ γράμματι, τρία ἔτη λέγει τὸν υἱὸν Ἰωακεὶμ, Ἰωαχεὶμ, τὸν καὶ Ἰεχονίαν, μετὰ τὸν πατέρα κρατήσαντα, μετακομισθῆναι εἰς Βαβυλῶνα, σὺν τοῖς λοιποῖς, ὡς πρόκειται· τὸν δὲ Δανιὴλ καὶ τοὺς τρεῖς παῖδας τῆς παρούσης αἰχμαλωσίας λέγει. Τοῦτον δὲ λέγει καὶ τῆς Σωσάννης ἄνδρα εἶναι· καὶ πιθανὸς ὁ λόγος. Τὴν δὲ Σωσάνναν Χελκίου τοῦ ἀρχιερέως θυγατέρα εἶναι βεβαιοῦνται τοῦ εὑρόντος ἐπὶ Ἰωσίου τὸ βιβλίον. Ταύτης ἀδελφὸς Ἱερεμίας, ὥς φασι, καὶ εἰκότως. Ἐκ τούτων λέγει γεννηθῆναι τὸν Ἰεχονίαν, οὗ μέμνηται ὁ θεῖος εὐαγγελιστὴς Ματθαῖος. « Sacer Hippolytus, edito de Susanna et Daniele opere, Joachim, alio nomine Jechoniam, tres annos, patre Joacim amoto, regnum moderantem, in Babylonem cum reliquis, ut praemissum est, translatum asseverat; Danielem vero ac tres pueros captivitatis hujus consortes, eumque Susannae conjugem scribit; nec aliena est a veritate sententia. Susannam quoque Chelciae pontificis, qui sub Josia legis reperit librum, filiam affirmant. Jeremiam Susannae fratrem asserunt, et merito. Ex eis porro Jechoniam, cujus divinus evangelista Matthaeus meminit, natum dicit. » Sed, ut docet Scaliger ad Euseb. num. MCCCCXV, errat Hippolytus dum ex mensibus tribus facit tres annos, et Danielem cum Joachim, non vero cum Joacim abductum putat contra sacrarum litterarum fidem. WETSTEN.

Joakim. George Syncellus, Chronography, p. 218: "The holy Hippolytus, in his writing on Susanna and Daniel, says that the son of Joakim, Joachim, also called Jechoniah, having reigned for three years after his father, was carried off to Babylon with the rest, as stated above; and he says Daniel and the three youths belonged to this captivity. He says too that this man was the husband of Susanna; and the account is plausible. And they affirm that Susanna was the daughter of Hilkiah the high priest, who found the book under Josiah. Her brother was Jeremiah, as they say, and reasonably. From these, he says, was born the Jechoniah whom the divine evangelist Matthew mentions." [Latin version:] "The holy Hippolytus, in the work he published on Susanna and Daniel, asserts that Joachim, by another name Jechoniah, who ruled the kingdom for three years after his father Joacim was removed, was carried to Babylon with the rest, as was said before; and he writes that Daniel and the three youths were sharers in this captivity, and that he was Susanna's husband; nor is the opinion foreign to the truth. They affirm also that Susanna was the daughter of the high priest Hilkiah, who under Josiah found the book of the law. They assert that Jeremiah was Susanna's brother, and rightly. From them, moreover, he says was born the Jechoniah whom the divine evangelist Matthew mentions." But, as Scaliger teaches on Eusebius no. 1415, Hippolytus errs in making three years out of three months, and in thinking that Daniel was carried off with Joachim and not with Joacim, against the witness of the sacred writings. WETSTEIN.

(printed under page 27)

(11) ‹anchor: οὐκ ἐμφέρεται› · call in col 46

Hoeschelius: Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἥδε ἡ περικοπὴ σὺν ἄλλοις δυσὶ ταῖς ἐπὶ τῷ τέλει τῷ παρὰ τῶν Ἰου- (continues)

Hoeschel: "Besides these, this section, with two others at the end, in the [Daniel] received from the Jews" (continues)

(printed under page 27)

(a) ‹anchor: ἄταφοι› · call in col 46

Ἐν τῇ Βαβυλῶνι, ἀστραγαλώμενοι, Wetsten., ἠστραγαλωμένοι alii; vertunt: talorum lusu distracti, aut qui talorum lusu vaeniebant. Quod qui omnes editores concoquere potuerint, non capio. Nemini non, qui Tob. II, 3, comparaverit, placebit emendatio mea scribentis: ἐν τῇ Βαβυλωνίᾳ στραγγαλώμενοι aut ἐστραγγαλωμένοι, id est strangulati. Eodem modo Origen. ep. ad African. cap. XIII init. emendabis. Priorem emendationem praefero. NOLTE.

"In Babylon, astragalōmenoi," Wetstein; others ēstragalōmenoi. They translate: "parted out by a game of knucklebones," or "who were sold off by a game of knucklebones." How all the editors could have swallowed this, I do not understand. Anyone who compares Tob. 2:3 will approve my emendation, writing: "in Babylonia strangalōmenoi" or "estrangalōmenoi," that is, "strangled." You will emend Origen's letter to Africanus, ch. 13, beginning, in the same way. I prefer the former emendation. NOLTE.

(printed under page 27)

(¹) · call in col 47 Exod. XXIII, 7.

Exod. 23:7.

(printed under page 28) (11, continued) · continued from the foot of page 27 (see n46) δαίων εἰλημμένῳ Δανιὴλ οὐκ ἐμφέρεται. Wetstenius: Πρὸς δὲ τούτων ἁπάντων ἥδε ἡ περικοπὴ σὺν ἄλλαις δύο ταῖς ἐπὶ τῷ τέλει τῶν παρὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἰλημμένων οὐκ ἐμφέρεται. Codex Regius ut in nostro textu. Porro Susannae historiam in Hebraeo non haberi, in responso concedit Origenes, et tractatu 31 in Matthaeum: « Usi sumus in hoc loco Danielis exemplo, non ignorantes quoniam in Hebraeo positum non est, sed quoniam in Ecclesiis tenetur. » Hieronymus saepius idem inculcat, et maxime praefat. Explanat. in Danielem: « Nos, inquit, ante annos plurimos, cum verteremus Danielem, has visiones obelo praenotavimus, significantes eas in Hebraico non haberi: et miror quosdam μεμψιμοίρους, indignari mihi, quasi ego decurtaverim librum, cum et Origenes, et Eusebius, et Apollinarius, aliique ecclesiastici viri et doctores Graeciae has, ut dixi, visiones non haberi apud Hebraeos fateantur; nec se debere respondere Porphyrio pro his quae nullam Scripturae sanctae auctoritatem praebeant. » Vide ejusdem praefationem in versionem suam Danielis. Denique ipse Origenes infra in fragmento libri decimi Stromatum ait: « Hebraei reprobant historiam Susannae, dicentes eam in Danielis volumine non haberi. » Hieronymus iterum praefat. in Danielem: « Apud Hebraeos nec Susannae habet historiam, nec hymnum trium puerorum, nec Belis Draconisque fabulas. » Vide ibidem paulo post quibus cavillationibus eas perfundat quidam de praeceptoribus Judaeorum.

(continued) "... from the Jews, is not contained." Wetstein: "Besides all these, this section, with two others at the end of the [writings] received from the Jews, is not contained." The Royal codex as in our text. Further, that the story of Susanna is not found in the Hebrew Origen concedes in his reply, and in Tract 31 on Matthew: "We have used the example of Daniel in this place, not unaware that it is not set down in the Hebrew, but because it is held in the Churches." Jerome often urges the same, and especially in the preface to his Explanation of Daniel: "Many years ago," he says, "when we translated Daniel, we marked these visions beforehand with an obelus, signifying that they are not found in the Hebrew; and I am surprised that certain fault-finders are indignant with me, as though I had cut the book short, when Origen and Eusebius and Apollinarius and other churchmen and teachers of Greece admit that, as I said, these visions are not found among the Hebrews, and that they need not answer Porphyry for things which carry no authority of holy Scripture." See his preface to his version of Daniel. Lastly Origen himself, below, in a fragment of the tenth book of the Stromata, says: "The Hebrews reject the story of Susanna, saying that it is not found in the volume of Daniel." Jerome again, in the preface to Daniel: "Among the Hebrews it has neither the story of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon." See there, a little after, with what cavils one of the teachers of the Jews besprinkles them.

(printed under page 28)

(12) ‹anchor: Ἑξῆς οὐδεὶς› · call in col 47

Ἑξῆς οὐδεὶς, etc. Origenes, in responso, Africani verba aliter refert: Τῶν τε ἑξῆς οὐδεὶς ἕτερος ἑτέρου κέχρηται ῥητῷ νοήματι.

"None in order," etc. Origen, in his reply, reports Africanus's words otherwise: "And of those that followed, none has used another's words as his meaning."

(printed under page 28)

(13) · call in col 47

Apud Hoeschelium deest τούτων; et paulo post legitur, σὺ δέ μοι καὶ ἤχησον.

In Hoeschel "of these" is missing; and a little after one reads, "and do you also sound out to me."

(printed under page 28)

(14) ‹anchor: Ἔκρουσα› · call in col 47

Ἔκρουσα. Observat Wetstenius ad hoc adagium allusisse Joannem Damascenum lib. IV De fide orthodoxa, cap. 17: Κρούσωμεν τοίνυν εἰς τὸν κάλλιστον παράδεισον τῶν Γραφῶν, τὸν εὐώδη, τὸν γλυκύτατον, τὸν ὡραιότατον, τὸν παντοίοις τῶν νοερῶν θεοφόρων ὀρνέων κελαδήμασι περιηχοῦντα ἡμῶν τὰ ὦτα. « Pulsemus igitur ad pulcherrimum illud pomarium Scripturarum, illud, inquam, mire fragrans, suave, elegantissimum, quod spiritualium divinarumque avium omnigenis garritibus aures nostras circumsonet. »

"I knocked." Wetstein observes that John Damascene alluded to this proverb in book IV of On the Orthodox Faith, ch. 17: "Let us knock, then, at the most beautiful paradise of the Scriptures, fragrant, most sweet, most lovely, that rings round our ears with every kind of song of spiritual, God-bearing birds." "Let us knock, therefore, at that most beautiful orchard of the Scriptures, that one, I say, wondrously fragrant, sweet, most elegant, which sounds about our ears with every kind of chatter of spiritual and divine birds."

(printed under page 28)

(15) ‹anchor: Συνοδίᾳ› · call in col 47

Συνοδίᾳ. Hoeschelius, συνουσίᾳ.

Synodia ("company on the road"). Hoeschel: synousia ("company, intercourse").

(printed under page 28)

(16) ‹anchor: παιδὸς αὐτοῦ› · call in col 47

Αὐτοῦ. Deest apud Hoeschelium [et Cant.].

"His." Missing in Hoeschel [and the Cambridge codex].

(printed under page 28)

(17) ‹anchor: συγγράμματος ἔχειν› · call in col 47

Wetstenius ἔχων, Hoeschelius vero et codex Regius ἔχειν, rectius. Infra Hoeschelius [cum Cant.], θεωρῶν ὅτι ἀπολείπομαι.

Wetstein has echōn ("having"); but Hoeschel and the Royal codex have echein ("to have"), more correctly. Below, Hoeschel [with the Cambridge codex] reads: "seeing that I fall short."

(printed under page 28)