Origenes, Epistola ad Africanum de historia Susannae

(*) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 48 Exod. XXIII, 7.

Exod. 23:7.

(printed under page 28)

(11) (continued) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 48

δαίων εἰλημμένῳ Δανιὴλ οὐχ ἐμφέρεται. Wetstenius: Πρὸς δὲ τούτων ἀπάντων ἥδε ἡ περικοπὴ σὺν ἄλλαις δύο ταῖς ἐπὶ τῷ τέλει τῶν παρὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἰλημμένων οὐχ 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.

…[the Daniel] received by the Jews does not contain it. Wetstein reads: "But besides all these, this section, together with two others at the end, is not contained in the [Daniel] received from the Jews." The Codex Regius reads as in our text. Further, that the story of Susanna is not in the Hebrew Origen concedes in his reply, and in Tractate 31 on Matthew: "We have used the example of Daniel in this place, not ignorant that it is not set 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 were translating Daniel, we marked these visions beforehand with an obelus, signifying that they are not found in the Hebrew; and I wonder 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 have said, these visions are not found among the Hebrews, and that they need not answer Porphyry on behalf of things that carry no authority of holy Scripture." See his preface to his version of Daniel. Finally Origen himself, below in the 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 his preface to Daniel: "Among the Hebrews [Daniel] has neither the story of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three young men, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon." See in the same place, a little further on, with what cavils one of the Jewish teachers bespatters them.

(printed under page 28)

(12) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 48

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

"Next, none," etc. Origen, in his reply, reports Africanus's words differently: "And of those that follow, none has used the expressed thought of another."

(printed under page 28)

(13) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 48

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

In Hoeschel τούτων ("these") is missing; and a little after it reads σὺ δέ μοι καὶ ἤχησον ("and do you sound back to me").

(printed under page 28)

(14) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 48

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 of Damascus alluded to this saying in book IV of On the Orthodox Faith, chapter 17: "Let us knock, then, at the most beautiful garden 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, then, at that most beautiful orchard of the Scriptures, that one, I say, wondrously fragrant, sweet, most elegant, which sounds round our ears with the manifold chatter of spiritual and divine birds."

(printed under page 28)

(15) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 48

Συνοδίᾳ. Hoeschelius, συνουσίᾳ.

"In company" (συνοδίᾳ): Hoeschel reads συνουσίᾳ ("in converse").

(printed under page 28)

(16) ‹anchor: παιδὸς αὐτοῦ› · call in col 48

Αὐτοῦ. Deest apud Hoeschelium [et Cant.].

"His": missing in Hoeschel [and in the Cambridge manuscript].

(printed under page 28)

(17) ‹anchor: συγγράμματος ἔχειν› · call in col 48

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

Wetstein reads ἔχων ("having"), but Hoeschel and the Codex Regius read ἔχειν ("to have"), more correctly. Below, Hoeschel [with the Cambridge manuscript] reads θεωρῶν ὅτι ἀπολείπομαι ("seeing that I fall short").

(printed under page 28)

ΩΡΙΓΕΝΟΥΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ΠΡΟΣ ΑΦΡΙΚΑΝΟΝ. <!-- note: Full-width title block across cols 47/48, begins below the rule that closes Africanus's letter (the full-width last line of that letter, ending "κατὰ νοῦν εὔχομαι.", is the previous unit's; pointer only) and ends at the short dash below ΠΡΟΣ ΑΦΡΙΚΑΝΟΝ. Below that dash the page prints the Latin title "ORIGENIS EPISTOLA AD AFRICANUM." full width, followed by another dash; that is the facing Latin title, recorded here untranslated and not set as text. The two columns then begin (Latin §1 left; Greek salutation Ὠριγένης Ἀφρικανῷ right, at marginal B). The block does not continue past the page. UNSURE: (none) -->

(*) ‹anchor: compedibus vincti› · call in col 50 Dan. III, 23.

Dan. 3:23.

(printed under page 29)

(18) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 50

Hoeschelius: Πρόσεχε τῇ ἐπιστολῇ μετὰ πάσης ἐννοίας.

Hoeschel reads: "Attend to the letter with all your mind."

(printed under page 29)

(19) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 50

Τῷ ἑταίρῳ ἡμῶν Βάσσῳ. Sunt qui hoc loco legendum putant τῷ ἑτερογνώμονι Βάσσῳ. Vide quae supra adnotavimus in epistolam Africani. Mox Hoeschelius, καὶ συνετυχόμην τῇ τοῦ Δανιήλ. Paulo infra idem, ὡς λανθάνοντός μου τοῦ μέρους, male. Paulo post codex Regius, κεκιβδηλευμένου ὄντος. Ab antea editis [ut a Cant.] abest ὄντος.

"To our friend Bassus." Some think that in this place one should read "to Bassus, who was of another opinion." See what we noted above on the letter of Africanus. Next, Hoeschel reads καὶ συνετυχόμην τῇ τοῦ Δανιήλ ("and I happened upon the [section] of Daniel"). A little below, the same reads ὡς λανθάνοντός μου τοῦ μέρους ("as though the part escaped me"), wrongly. A little after, the Codex Regius reads κεκιβδηλευμένου ὄντος ("being adulterated"). From the earlier editions [as from the Cambridge manuscript] ὄντος is missing.

(printed under page 29)

(20) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 50

Wetstenius: Ἀλλ' ὡς οὖσαν σύγγραμμα νεωτερικὸν πεπλασμένον· ἔφασκες δὲ ψέγων, ὅτι ὡς οὐδὲ Φιλιστίων ὁ μῖμος ἐχρήσατο ἀναπλάσασθαι, sicque Hoeschelius, nisi quod pro ψέγων habet λέγων; pro Φιλιστίων ὁ μῖμος, legit Φιλιστίωνος μῖμος, et ἀναπλάσας pro ἀναπλάσασθαι· sed praestantior est codicis Regii lectio quam sequimur in textu, ubi νεωτερικόν inter et πεπλασμένον addidimus conjunctionem καί, quam habet Africanus [et margo Cantab.]. Expungatur item post ὅτι particula ὡς ut superflua, et perperam ex epistola Africani huc adducta. — Quod quominus facias impedit Barthius ad Greg. Corinth., p. 52. Nolte.

Wetstein reads: "But as being a modern writing, a fabrication; and you said in censure that not even Philistion the mime would have used [such a thing] to fabricate"; and so Hoeschel, except that for ψέγων ("censuring") he has λέγων ("saying"); for "Philistion the mime" he reads "a mime of Philistion", and ἀναπλάσας for ἀναπλάσασθαι. But better is the reading of the Codex Regius, which we follow in the text, where between νεωτερικόν and πεπλασμένον we have added the conjunction καί, which Africanus has [and the margin of the Cambridge manuscript]. Let the particle ὡς after ὅτι likewise be struck out as superfluous and wrongly brought in here from Africanus's letter. — Barthius on Gregory of Corinth, p. 52, prevents you from doing so. Nolte.

(printed under page 29)

(21) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 50

Δοκεῖ. Optime codex Regius restituit hanc vocem quae in codd. Hoeschelii et Wetstenii omissa est.

"Seems": the Codex Regius has very rightly restored this word, which is omitted in the manuscripts of Hoeschel and Wetstein.

(printed under page 29)

(22) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 50

Οὐ περὶ τῶν κατὰ Σωσάνναν μόνον, etc. Certe ipsemet Hieronymus qui passim tum in praefatione in Danielem, tum in prooemio explanationis in eumdem prophetam, Judaeorum Porphyriique argumenta et cavillationes contra Susannae, Belis draconisque historiam, nec non hymnum trium puerorum, quasi de industria et ex animo colligit, cum legisset a Rufino Invectiv. lib. ii, sibi ea quae dixerat, crimini verti his verbis: « Quis ergo in ista eruditorum virorum copia ausus est instrumentum divinum quod apostoli Ecclesiis tradiderunt, et depositum S. Spiritus compilare? annon est compilare, cum quaedam quidem immutantur, et error dicitur corrigi? Nam omnis illa historia de Susanna quae castitatis exemplum praebebat Ecclesiis Dei, ab isto abscissa est et abjecta atque posthabita. Trium puerorum hymnus qui maxime diebus solemnibus in Ecclesia Dei canitur, ab isto e loco suo penitus erasus est; » cum, inquam, haec Rufini verba aegre ferret, palinodiam veluti recantat libro secundo adversus eumdem Rufinum. « Quod autem, inquit, refero quid adversum Susannae historiam et hymnum trium puerorum, et Belis draconisque fabulas, quae in volumine Hebraico non habentur, Hebraei soleant dicere, qui me criminatur, stultum se sycophantam probat. Non enim quid ipse sentirem, sed quid illi contra nos dicere soleant, explicavi. Quorum opinioni, si non respondi in Prologo brevitati studens, ne non praefationem, sed librum viderer scribere, puto quod statim subjecerim. Dixi enim, de quo non est hujus temporis quaerere. »

"Not only about the things concerning Susanna," etc. Certainly Jerome himself, who here and there, both in his preface to Daniel and in the proem of his explanation of the same prophet, collects, as if on purpose and with a will, the arguments and cavils of the Jews and of Porphyry against the story of Susanna, of Bel and the Dragon, and also the hymn of the three young men — when he had read in Rufinus, Invectives book II, that what he had said was turned into a charge against him in these words: "Who then, in all that abundance of learned men, has dared to plunder the divine instrument which the apostles handed down to the Churches, and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? Is it not plundering, when some things are changed and an error is said to be corrected? For that whole story of Susanna, which gave the Churches of God an example of chastity, has been cut away by him, cast aside and set at naught. The hymn of the three young men, which is sung in the Church of God above all on feast days, has been utterly erased by him from its place" — when, I say, he took these words of Rufinus ill, he as it were sings a recantation in the second book against the same Rufinus: "As for my reporting," he says, "what the Hebrews are wont to say against the story of Susanna and the hymn of the three young men and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, the man who accuses me proves himself a foolish slanderer. For I set out not what I myself thought, but what they are wont to say against us. If I did not answer their opinion in the Prologue, studying brevity lest I seem to be writing not a preface but a book, I think I added at once: for I said, 'which is not a question for this time.'"

(printed under page 29)

(23) ‹anchor: τὰ ἡμέτερα› · call in col 50

Τοῖς Ἑβραϊκοῖς συγκρίναντες ἀντιγράφοις τὰ ἡμέτερα. Loquitur de immenso veterumque praeconiis mirabiliter decantato labore quem in conficiendis Hexaplis exantlavit. Accuratissime omnium de hoc opere disseruit vir clarissimus dominus Bernardus de Montfaucon in Praeliminaribus suis ad Hexapla Origenis de quibus nihil fere est scitu dignum quod lectori suo desiderandum reliquerit. Ipsum vide, si vacat; neque enim nobis propositum est actum agere.

"Comparing our copies with the Hebrew." He speaks of the immense labour, wonderfully celebrated in the praises of the ancients, which he endured in composing the Hexapla. Most accurately of all has that most distinguished man, Dom Bernard de Montfaucon, discoursed on this work in his Preliminaries to Origen's Hexapla, leaving his reader to want almost nothing worth knowing about them. See him, if you have leisure; for it is not our purpose to do what has been done.

(printed under page 29)

(24) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 51

Οὕτω γὰρ Ἀκύλας. Consule ejusdem Praeliminaria in Hexapla Origenis capite quinto, ubi de Aquila et ejus editionibus docte pro more suo disserit. Vide ibidem caput septimum de Theodotionis editione quam paulo infra Origenes commemorat. — Quod infra sequitur, πεπεδημένοι· τό τε· ὁ Β., etc., corruptum est; emendo πεπεδημένοι· τό· Τότε (אחרין) ὁ Βασιλεύς, etc. Nolte.

"For so Aquila." Consult the same man's Preliminaries to Origen's Hexapla, chapter five, where he discourses learnedly, as is his way, on Aquila and his editions. See in the same place chapter seven on the edition of Theodotion, which Origen mentions a little below. — What follows below, πεπεδημένοι· τό τε· ὁ Β., etc., is corrupt; I emend πεπεδημένοι· τό· Τότε (אחרין) ὁ Βασιλεύς ("bound; the [phrase] 'Then' (Aramaic 'after') the king"), etc. Nolte.

(printed under page 30)

(25) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 51

Παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις. Recte codex Regius [cum Cant.]; male autem Wetstenius, παρὰ Ἰουδαίους.

"Among the Jews" (dative): so rightly the Codex Regius [with the Cambridge manuscript]; but Wetstein wrongly has παρὰ Ἰουδαίους (accusative).

(printed under page 30)

(26) ‹anchor: ἀμφοτέροις ἔκειτο› · call in col 51

Παρ' ἀμφοτέροις ἔκειτο. Hieronymus praefatione in Danielem: « Danielem, inquit, prophetam juxta Septuaginta Interpretes Domini Salvatoris Ecclesiae non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione: et hoc cur acciderit, nescio. Sive enim quia sermo Chaldaicus est, et quibusdam proprietatibus a nostro eloquio discrepat, noluerunt Septuaginta Interpretes easdem linguae lineas in translatione servare: sive sub nomine eorum ab alio nescio quo non satis Chaldaeam linguam sciente, editus liber est; sive aliud quid causae exstiterit, ignorans, hoc unum affirmare possum, quod multum a veritate discordet, et recto judicio repudiatus sit. » Porro, teste eodem Hieronymo praefatione ad explanationem in Danielem, in hac vitiosa Septuaginta, seu alius nescio cujus qui nomen eorum mentiebatur, editione, Susannae, Belis et draconis historiae exstabant, nec ex Theodotionis editione illuc adductae putandae sunt, siquidem, ut ibidem monet Hieronymus, « 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 Septuaginta 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. » Sed nihil simile in Theodotionis editione erat: exstabat ergo in LXX editione. Huc adde quod inepte admodum responderet Origenes apud LXX et apud Theodotionem se reperisse Susannae, Belis ac draconis historias, si ejusmodi historiae e Theodotione in LXX editionem transierant, et idem utrobique textus erat, ut falso asserit Wetsthenius. Quis autem sibi in animum inducat id Origenem potuisse latere? Praeterea auctor interpolatae Ignatii ad Magnesianos epistolae dodecennem refert fuisse Danielem, cum Susannae historia contigit: Δανιὴλ ὁ σοφὸς δωδεκαετὴς γέγονε κάτοχος τῷ Θεοῦ πνεύματι, καὶ τοὺς μάτην τὴν πολιὰν φέροντας πρεσβύτας συκοφάντας καὶ ἐπιθυμητὰς ἀλλοτρίου κάλλους ἀπήλεγξε. « Daniel ille sapiens, cum duodecim esset annorum Spiritu Dei afflatus erat, et senes frustra canos ferentes, calumniatores et alienae formae appetentes redarguit. » Idem habet Sulpitius Severus Historia sacra, ii, et versio Syriaca altera quam exhibet Waltonus tom. IV Polyglot. Atqui Theodotionis editio nullibi indicat Danielem tunc duodecim fuisse annorum: haec ergo dodecennis aetas e veteri LXX aut alius cujuspiam qui nomen eorum mentiebatur, editione ab Ecclesiis postea repudiata desumpta est.

"It lay before both." Jerome, in his preface to Daniel: "The Churches of the Lord and Saviour," he says, "do not read the prophet Daniel according to the Seventy Translators, but use the edition of Theodotion; and why this has happened I do not know. Whether because the language is Chaldee and differs from our speech in certain idioms, the Seventy Translators were unwilling to keep the same lines of the language in translation; or whether the book was published under their name by someone or other who did not know the Chaldee language well enough; or whether some other cause arose — not knowing, this one thing I can affirm: that it disagrees much with the truth and has been rejected by right judgement." Further, on the witness of the same Jerome in the preface to his explanation of Daniel, the stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon stood in this faulty edition of the Seventy, or of someone or other who falsely used their name, and they are not to be thought brought in there from Theodotion's edition, since, as Jerome warns in the same place, "Eusebius and Apollinarius answered with one mind 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; as is set, according to the Seventy Translators, in the title of the same fable of Bel: 'There was a certain man, a priest, named Daniel, son of Abda, a companion at table of the king of Babylon' — whereas holy Scripture testifies that Daniel and the three young men were of the tribe of Judah." But there was nothing like this in Theodotion's edition: it stood, then, in the edition of the Seventy. Add to this that Origen would have answered very foolishly that he had found the stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon in the Seventy and in Theodotion, if stories of this kind had passed from Theodotion into the edition of the Seventy and the text was the same in both, as Wetstein falsely asserts. And who could persuade himself that this could have been hidden from Origen? Moreover, the author of the interpolated letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians reports that Daniel was twelve years old when the affair of Susanna happened: "Daniel the wise, at twelve years old, was possessed by the Spirit of God, and convicted the elders who bore grey hair in vain, slanderers and lusters after another's beauty." "That wise Daniel, when he was twelve years old, was inspired by the Spirit of God, and refuted the elders who bore grey hairs in vain, slanderers and coveters of another's beauty." Sulpicius Severus has the same in his Sacred History, II, and the second Syriac version which Walton presents in volume IV of the Polyglot. Yet Theodotion's edition nowhere indicates that Daniel was then twelve years old: this age of twelve, therefore, was taken from the old edition of the Seventy, or of someone who falsely used their name, an edition afterwards rejected by the Churches.

(printed under page 30)

(27) ‹anchor: τῷ Δανιὴλ περικοπαί› · call in col 51

Codex Wetstenii mendose, περικόπομεν.

Wetstein's manuscript faultily reads περικόπομεν.

(printed under page 30)

(28) ‹anchor: τέ ἐστι περιλαβεῖν› · call in col 51 · (continues)

Patricius Junius, παραλαβεῖν. Infra Wetstenii codex, οἰκοδομῆσαι δυνάμενα. Paulo post Pa-

Patrick Young reads παραλαβεῖν ("to take in"). Below, Wetstein's manuscript reads οἰκοδομῆσαι δυνάμενα ("able to edify"). A little after, Pa-

(printed under page 30)

(24) ‹anchor: Ἀκύλας δουλεύων› · call in col 52

Οὕτω γὰρ Ἀκύλας. Consule ejusdem Praeliminaria in Hexapla Origenis capite quinto, ubi de Aquila et ejus editionibus docte pro more suo disserit. Vide ibidem caput septimum de Theodotionis editione quam paulo infra Origenes commemorat. — Quod infra sequitur, πεπεδημένοι· τό τε· ὁ Β., etc., corruptum est; emendo πεπεδημένοι· τό· Τότε (אדין) ὁ Βασιλεύς, etc. Nolte.

"For so Aquila." Consult the same author's Preliminaries to Origen's Hexapla, chapter five, where he discusses Aquila and his editions learnedly, as is his way. See there also chapter seven, on the edition of Theodotion, which Origen mentions a little below. — What follows below, πεπεδημένοι· τό τε· ὁ Β., etc., is corrupt; I emend πεπεδημένοι· τό· Τότε (Aramaic "then") ὁ Βασιλεύς ("bound: this: Then the king"), etc. Nolte.

(printed under page 30)

(25) ‹anchor: παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις› · call in col 52

Παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις. Recte codex Regius [cum Cant.]; male autem Wetstenius, παρὰ Ἰουδαίους.

"Among the Jews" (παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις): so the Codex Regius rightly [with the Cambridge manuscript]; but Wetstein wrongly reads παρὰ Ἰουδαίους.

(printed under page 30)

(26) ‹anchor: ἀμφοτέροις ἔκειτο› · call in col 52

Παρ' ἀμφοτέροις ἔκειτο. Hieronymus praefatione in Danielem: « Danielem, inquit, prophetam juxta Septuaginta Interpretes Domini Salvatoris Ecclesiae non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione: et hoc cur acciderit, nescio. Sive enim quia sermo Chaldaicus est, et quibusdam proprietatibus a nostro eloquio discrepat, noluerunt Septuaginta Interpretes easdem linguae lineas in translatione servare: sive sub nomine eorum ab alio nescio quo non satis Chaldaeam linguam sciente, editus liber est; sive aliud quid causae exstiterit, ignorans, hoc unum affirmare possum, quod multum a veritate discordet, et recto judicio repudiatus sit. » Porro, teste eodem Hieronymo praefatione ad explanationem in Danielem, in hac vitiosa Septuaginta, seu alius nescio cujus qui nomen eorum mentiebatur, editione, Susannae, Belis et draconis historiae exstabant, nec ex Theodotionis editione illuc adductae putandae sunt, siquidem, ut ibidem monet Hieronymus, « 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 Septuaginta 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. » Sed nihil simile in Theodotionis editione erat: exstabat ergo in LXX editione. Huc adde quod inepte admodum responderet Origenes apud LXX et apud Theodotionem se reperisse Susannae, Belis ac draconis historias, si ejusmodi historiae e Theodotione in LXX editionem transierant, et idem utrobique textus erat, ut falso asserit Wetsthenius. Quis autem sibi in animum inducat id Origenem potuisse latere? Praeterea auctor interpolatae Ignatii ad Magnesianos epistolae dodecennem refert fuisse Danielem, cum Susannae historia contigit: Δανιὴλ ὁ σοφὸς δωδεκαετὴς γέγονε κάτοχος τῷ Θεοῦ πνεύματι, καὶ τοὺς μάτην τὴν πολιὰν φέροντας πρεσβύτας συκοφάντας καὶ ἐπιθυμητὰς ἀλλοτρίου κάλλους ἀπήλεγξε. « Daniel ille sapiens, cum duodecim esset annorum Spiritu Dei afflatus erat, et senes frustra canos ferentes, calumniatores et alienae formae appetentes redarguit. » Idem habet Sulpitius Severus Historia sacra, II, et versio Syriaca altera quam exhibet Valtonus tom. IV Polyglot. Atqui Theodotionis editio nullibi indicat Danielem tunc duodecim fuisse annorum: haec ergo dodecennis aetas e veteri LXX aut alius cujuspiam qui nomen eorum mentiebatur, editione ab Ecclesiis postea repudiata desumpta est.

"In both it stood." Jerome, in the preface to Daniel: "The Churches of the Lord and Saviour," he says, "do not read the prophet Daniel according to the Seventy Interpreters, but use the edition of Theodotion; and why this has happened I do not know. For whether it is because the language is Chaldaic and differs from our speech in certain peculiarities, and the Seventy Interpreters were unwilling to keep the same lines of the language in translation; or whether the book was published under their name by someone else, I know not who, who did not know the Chaldaean language well enough; or whether some other cause arose, I do not know; this one thing I can affirm, that it disagrees much from the truth and has been rejected by right judgement." Further, on the witness of the same Jerome in the preface to his Explanation of Daniel, the stories of Susanna, of Bel and of the dragon stood in this faulty edition of the Seventy, or of some other, I know not whom, who falsely used their name; and they are not to be thought to have been brought into it from the edition of Theodotion, since, as Jerome notes in the same place, "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; as is set, according to the Seventy Interpreters, in the title of that same fable of Bel: 'There was a certain man, a priest, named Daniel, son of Abda, a companion at table of the king of Babylon'; whereas holy Scripture testifies that Daniel and the three young men were of the tribe of Judah." But there was nothing like this in the edition of Theodotion: it stood, therefore, in the edition of the Seventy. Add to this that Origen would have answered quite ineptly that he had found the stories of Susanna, Bel and the dragon in the Seventy and in Theodotion, if such stories had passed from Theodotion into the edition of the Seventy and the text was the same in both, as Wetstein falsely asserts. And who would persuade himself that this could have escaped Origen? Moreover the author of the interpolated letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians reports that Daniel was twelve years old when the story of Susanna took place: "Daniel the wise, at twelve years of age, was possessed by the Spirit of God, and convicted the elders who bore their grey hairs in vain as false accusers and lusters after another's beauty." "That wise Daniel, when he was twelve years old, was inspired by the Spirit of God, and refuted the elders who bore their grey hairs in vain, slanderers and covetous of another's beauty." Sulpicius Severus has the same in the Sacred History, II, and the second Syriac version which Walton gives in volume IV of the Polyglot. But the edition of Theodotion nowhere indicates that Daniel was then twelve years old; this age of twelve, therefore, was taken from the old Seventy, or from the edition of some other who falsely used their name, which the Churches afterwards rejected.

(printed under page 30)

(27) ‹anchor: περικοπαί (full-width line)› · call in col 52

Codex Wetstenii mendose, περικόπομεν.

Wetstein's manuscript wrongly reads περικόπομεν.

(printed under page 30)

(28) ‹anchor: περιλαβεῖν› · call in col 52

Patricius Junius, παραλαβεῖν. Infra Wetstenii codex, οἰκοδομῆσαι δυνάμενα. Paulo post Pa- (continues under page 31)

Patrick Young reads παραλαβεῖν ("to take in"). Below, Wetstein's manuscript reads οἰκοδομῆσαι δυνάμενα ("able to build up"). A little after, Pa- (continues under page 31)

(printed under page 30) <!-- note: Q2a: footnotes (24)–(28) added from the page foot (the file had none). The Hebrew/Aramaic word in (24) is small and blurred on the scan; set as אדין (Aramaic "then"), UNSURE letter by letter. -->

(29) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 54

Οὔτε ἡ τοῦ Μαρδοχαίου εὐχὴ οὔτε ἡ τῆς Ἐσθήρ, etc. Hieronymus praefatione in librum Esther ait: « Quem librum editio vulgata laciniosis hinc inde verborum sinibus trahit: addens ea quae ex tempore dici poterant et audiri; sicut solitum est scholaribus disciplinis sumpto themate excogitare, quibus verbis uti potuit qui injuriam passus est, vel ille qui injuriam fecit. » His verbis Wetsthenius perstringi putat additamenta quae a versu quarto capitis decimi usque ad finem capitis decimi sexti in Bibliis vulgatis reperiuntur, et apud Hebraeos non exstant; verum aliud suadet ms. noster Sangermanensis n. 7, qui editionem vulgatam usu receptam ante Hieronymum complectitur. Tot enim, ut observavit Martianaeus tom. I novae editionis Operum Hieronymi, tantaque ibi addita leguntur, quae ex tempore dici poterant et audiri, ut vix ea conjecturis assequi potuissemus, nisi adhuc scripta nobis superessent in praedicto antiquo monumento Sangermanensi. Quis namque credidisset pro unico versiculo quinto capitis decimi quarti, ista ab auctore ejus editionis veteris Latinae fuisse subjecta? « Ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam Noe in aquis diluvii conservasti; ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam tu Abrahae in trecentis et decem octo viris novem reges tradidisti; ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam tu Jonam de ventre ceti liberasti; ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam tu Ananiam, Azariam, Misael de camino ignis liberasti; ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam tu Daniel de lacu leonum eruisti; ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam tu Ezechiae regi Judaeorum morte damnato et orante pro vita misertus es, et donasti ei vitae annos quindecim; ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam tu Annae petenti in desiderio animae filii generationem donasti; ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam tu complacentes tibi liberas, Domine, usque in finem, » etc. Multa alia occurrunt in hoc manuscripto nostro Sangermanensi codice, ex quibus liquet quam laciniosis sinibus traheretur liber Esther in exemplaribus veteris vulgatae Latinae quae ad editionem Graecam κοινήν, non ad puram Hexaplarem LXX Interpretum elaborata erat. — Emenda supra ἐν τῇ Ἐσθήρ. Porro scribendum, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ αἱ ἐπιστολαί, οὔτε ἡ.... οὔτε ἡ, etc. Nolte.

"Neither the prayer of Mordecai nor that of Esther," etc. Jerome, in his preface to the book of Esther, says: "This book the common edition drags out here and there with ragged folds of words, adding what could have been said and heard on the spur of the moment — as is customary in the schools, taking a theme, to devise what words could have been used by one who suffered a wrong, or by one who did it." Wetstein thinks these words censure the additions found in the common Bibles from the fourth verse of chapter ten to the end of chapter sixteen, which do not exist among the Hebrews. But our Saint-Germain manuscript no. 7, which contains the common edition received in use before Jerome, suggests otherwise. For, as Martianay observed in volume I of his new edition of Jerome's Works, so many and such great additions are read there, "which could have been said and heard on the spur of the moment," that we could scarcely have reached them by conjecture had they not survived in writing for us in that ancient Saint-Germain monument. For who would have believed that in place of the single fifth verse of chapter fourteen these words had been put in by the author of that old Latin edition? "I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that you preserved Noah in the waters of the flood; I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that you delivered nine kings to Abraham with three hundred and eighteen men; I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that you freed Jonah from the belly of the whale; I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that you freed Ananias, Azarias and Misael from the furnace of fire; I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that you rescued Daniel from the lions' den; I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that you had mercy on Hezekiah king of the Jews when he was condemned to death and prayed for his life, and gave him fifteen years of life; I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that you granted Anna, who asked in the longing of her soul, the begetting of a son; I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that you free those who please you, Lord, to the end," etc. Many other things occur in this Saint-Germain manuscript of ours, from which it is clear with what ragged folds the book of Esther was dragged out in the copies of the old common Latin, which had been worked up from the common (koine) Greek edition, not from the pure Hexaplaric text of the Seventy Translators. — Emend above to ἐν τῇ Ἐσθήρ ("in Esther"). Further, one should write ἀλλ' οὐδὲ αἱ ἐπιστολαί, οὔτε ἡ.... οὔτε ἡ ("but neither the letters, nor the …, nor the …"), etc. Nolte.

(printed under page 31)

(30) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 54

Γέγραπται δὲ αὐτὸν πάλιν ἀναστήσεσθαι, etc. Additamentum hoc antiquissimum esse consentiunt eruditi omnes, quippe cujus mentionem faciunt Aristeas, Philo et Polyhistor, teste Spanhemio in Hist. Job, c. 4. Quantae vero fuerit auctoritatis apud Graecos, discere licet ex Catena Graecorum Patrum in Job, ubi Chrysostomus, Evagrius, Olympiodorus, Severus, Julianus suis commentariis illud explicant. Deerat apud Aquilam et Symmachum; ut praeter Origenem nos docet Olympiodorus pag. 611, Caten. in Job: Ἰστέον δὲ, ὅτι μέχρι τοῦ πρεσβύτερος καὶ πλήρης ἡμερῶν, Ἀκύλας καὶ Σύμμαχος ἐλθόντες, συνεπέραναν τὸ βιβλίον, ὡς δὴ τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ ἀκολουθοῦντες· ὁ δὲ Θεοδοτίων συμπεραίνει τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα. « Sciendum est Aquilam et Symmachum, textum Hebraicum secutos, finem libro imposuisse, cum ad haec pervenissent: « senior « et plenus dierum; » Theodotionem autem ibi desinere ubi Septuaginta Interpretes desinunt. » E veteribus non paucos de illo dubitasse, ac si e margine in textum ab ignaris amanuensibus translatum eique assutum fuisset, testatur Polychronius in prooemio Caten. in Job.: Παραγράφονται τὴν ἐν τῷ τέλει γενεαλογίαν, ὡς μὴ ἐμφερομένην ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ. Καὶ μεθ' ἕτερα· Ἀπάτης γενομένης ἀπὸ τῆς ὁμωνυμίας τῆς ἐν γενέσει φερομένης εἰς τὴν κατὰ τὸν Ἡσαῦ γενεαλογίαν, ἔνθα μέμνηται Ἰωβάβ, τὸ τοιοῦτόν τινες ἐσχολιογράφησαν· καὶ λοιπὸν ἕτεροι τῷ χρόνῳ ὡς ὑφὴν τοῦ παντὸς βιβλίου εἰργάσαντο τὰ παραγεγραμμένα. « Genealogiam, quae in fine est, quidam rejiciunt, quia in Hebraeo non reperitur. » Et paulo post: « Nominis similitudinem in genealogia Esau, quae in libro Geneseos exstat, ubi Jobab mentio fit, ansam erroris, et ejusmodi scholii quibusdam praebuisse, tractuque temporis postea, quae margini ascripta erant, in libri contextum ab aliis assumpta esse asserunt. » Inde omnem ei abrogavit fidem Hieronymus in libro Quaestionum Hebraicarum: « Hunc (Jobab) quidam suspicantur esse Job, ut in fine voluminis ipsius additum est. Contra Hebraei asserunt de Nachor cum stirpe generatum. » Et antea: « Primogenitus Nachor fratris Abraham de Melcha uxore ejus filia Aran, natus est Us; de cujus stirpe Job descendit, sicut scriptum est in exordio voluminis ejus: « Vir fuit « in terra Us, nomine Job. » Male igitur quidam aestimant Job de genere esse Esau: siquidem illud quod in fine libri ipsius habetur, « eo quod de Syro « sermone translatus est, et quartus sit ab Esau, » et reliqua quae ibi continentur, in Hebraeis voluminibus non habentur. » Wetstenius.

"And it is written that he will rise again," etc. All the learned agree that this addition is very ancient, since Aristeas, Philo and Polyhistor mention it, on the witness of Spanheim in his History of Job, ch. 4. How great its authority was among the Greeks may be learnt from the Catena of the Greek Fathers on Job, where Chrysostom, Evagrius, Olympiodorus, Severus and Julian explain it in their commentaries. It was lacking in Aquila and Symmachus, as, besides Origen, Olympiodorus teaches us, p. 611 of the Catena on Job: "Note that Aquila and Symmachus, on reaching 'old and full of days', finished the book, following, that is, the Hebrew; but Theodotion ends together with the Seventy." "It should be known that Aquila and Symmachus, following the Hebrew text, put an end to the book when they reached these words, 'old and full of days'; but that Theodotion stops where the Seventy Translators stop." That not a few of the ancients doubted it, as though it had been carried from the margin into the text by ignorant copyists and sewn onto it, Polychronius testifies in the proem of the Catena on Job: "They mark off the genealogy at the end as not contained in the Hebrew." And after other things: "A deception having arisen from the likeness of name in the genealogy of Esau given in Genesis, where Jobab is mentioned, some wrote a scholium of this kind; and then others in time worked what had been written alongside into the fabric of the whole book." "Some reject the genealogy which is at the end, because it is not found in the Hebrew." And a little after: "They assert that the likeness of the name in the genealogy of Esau found in the book of Genesis, where mention is made of Jobab, gave some an occasion of error and of a scholium of this kind, and that in course of time what had been written in the margin was afterwards taken by others into the text of the book." Hence Jerome denied it all credit in his book of Hebrew Questions: "Some suspect that this man (Jobab) is Job, as is added at the end of his volume. The Hebrews, on the contrary, assert that he was begotten of Nahor's stock." And before: "Of Melcha, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, daughter of Haran, was born the firstborn Uz, from whose stock Job descended, as is written at the beginning of his volume: 'There was a man in the land of Uz named Job.' Wrongly, then, do some judge that Job is of the race of Esau; for what is found at the end of his book, 'since it was translated from the Syriac language, and he is fourth from Esau,' and the rest contained there, are not found in the Hebrew volumes." Wetstein.

(printed under page 31)

(31) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 54

Ἄχρι τέλους. Patricius Junius, μέχρι τέλους.

"Until the end": Patrick Young reads μέχρι τέλους (same sense).

(printed under page 31)

(32) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 54

Codex Regius, ἢ ἐν τοῖς παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις. Wetstenius, παρὰ τὰ Ἰουδαίοις. Paulo post Patricius Junius, περὶ αὐτὸ θυσίας. — Male Wetst.; saltem π. τὰ Ἰουδαίων scribere debuerat. Nolte.

The Codex Regius reads ἢ ἐν τοῖς παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις ("than in those among the Jews"). Wetstein reads παρὰ τὰ Ἰουδαίοις. A little after, Patrick Young reads περὶ αὐτὸ θυσίας ("sacrifices about it"). — Wetstein is wrong; at least he should have written π. τὰ Ἰουδαίων. Nolte.

(printed under page 31)

ᵃ Job I, 5.

ᵃ Job 1:5.

tricius Jun., ἀλλ' οὐδὲ αἱ ἐπιστολαί, οὐδὲ ἡ τοῦ Ἀμμάν.

[Pa]tricius Junius [reads], 'but neither the letters, nor that of Haman.'

(29) Οὔτε ἡ τοῦ Μαρδοχαίου εὐχὴ οὔτε ἡ τῆς Ἐσθήρ, etc. Hieronymus præfatione in librum Esther ait: « Quem librum editio vulgata laciniosis hinc inde verborum sinibus trahit: addens ea quæ ex tempore dici poterant et audiri; sicut solitum est scholaribus disciplinis sumpto themate excogitare, quibus verbis uti potuit qui injuriam passus est, vel ille qui injuriam fecit. » His verbis Wetsthenius perstringi putat additamenta quæ a versu quarto capitis decimi usque ad finem capitis decimi sexti in Bibliis vulgatis reperiuntur, et apud Hebræos non exstant; verum aliud suadet ms. noster Sangermanensis n. 7, qui editionem vulgatam usu receptam ante Hieronymum complectitur. Tot enim, ut observavit Martianæus tom. I novæ editionis Operum Hieronymi, tantaque ibi addita leguntur, quæ ex tempore dici poterant et audiri, ut vix ea conjecturis assequi potuissemus, nisi adhuc scripta nobis superessent in prædicto antiquo monumento Sangermanensi. Quis namque credidisset pro unico versiculo quinto capitis decimi quarti, ista ab auctore ejus editionis veteris Latinæ fuisse subjecta? « Ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam Noe in aquis diluvii conservasti; ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam tu Abrahæ in trecentis et decem octo viris novem reges tradidisti; ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam tu Jonam de ventre ceti liberasti; ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam tu Ananiam, Azariam, Misael de camino ignis liberasti; ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam tu Daniel de lacu leonum eruisti; ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam tu Ezechiæ regi Judæorum morte damnato et orante pro vita misertus es, et donasti ei vitæ annos quindecim; ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam tu Annæ petenti in desiderio animæ filii generationem donasti; ego audivi in libris paternis meis, Domine, quoniam tu complacentes tibi liberas, Domine, usque in finem, » etc. Multa alia occurrunt in hoc manuscripto nostro Sangermanensi codice, ex quibus liquet quam laciniosis sinibus traheretur liber Esther in exemplaribus veteris vulgatæ Latinæ quæ ad editionem Græcam κοινήν, non ad puram Hexaplarem LXX Interpretum elaborata erat. — Emenda supra ἐν τῇ Ἐσθήρ. Porro scribendum, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ αἱ ἐπιστολαί, οὔτε ἡ.... οὔτε ἡ, etc. NOLTE.

(29) 'Neither the prayer of Mordecai nor that of Esther', etc. Jerome, in his preface to the book of Esther, says: 'This book the common edition drags out hither and thither with ragged trailing folds of words, adding such things as could have been said and heard on the occasion, as it is customary in school exercises, a theme having been set, to devise what words he who suffered the injury might have used, or he who did the injury.' By these words Wetstein thinks those additions are censured which are found in the common Bibles from the fourth verse of the tenth chapter to the end of the sixteenth chapter, and which do not exist among the Hebrews; but our manuscript of Saint-Germain, no. 7, which contains the common edition in received use before Jerome, suggests otherwise. For, as Martianay observed in volume I of the new edition of Jerome's Works, so many and so great additions are read there, such as could have been said and heard on the occasion, that we could scarcely have attained them by conjecture, had they not still survived for us in writing in the aforesaid ancient monument of Saint-Germain. For who would have believed that, for the single little fifth verse of the fourteenth chapter, these words had been put in by the author of that old Latin edition? 'I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that Thou didst preserve Noah in the waters of the flood; I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that Thou didst deliver nine kings to Abraham with three hundred and eighteen men; I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that Thou didst set Jonah free from the belly of the whale; I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that Thou didst set Ananias, Azarias and Misael free from the furnace of fire; I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that Thou didst rescue Daniel from the den of lions; I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that Thou hadst mercy on Hezekiah, king of the Jews, when he was condemned to death and prayed for life, and didst give him fifteen years of life; I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that Thou didst give to Anna, when she asked in the desire of her soul, the begetting of a son; I have heard in the books of my fathers, Lord, that Thou dost set free those who are pleasing to Thee, Lord, even to the end,' etc. Many other things occur in this our manuscript codex of Saint-Germain, from which it is plain with what ragged trailing folds the book of Esther was dragged out in the copies of the old common Latin, which had been worked up from the common Greek edition, not from the pure Hexaplaric text of the Seventy Interpreters. — Correct ἐν τῇ Ἐσθήρ above. Further, one should write 'but neither the letters, neither the…. nor the', etc. NOLTE.

(30) Γέγραπται δὲ αὐτὸν πάλιν ἀναστήσεσθαι, etc. Additamentum hoc antiquissimum esse consentiunt eruditi omnes, quippe cujus mentionem faciunt Aristeas, Philo et Polyhistor, teste Spanhemio in Hist. Job, c. 4. Quantæ vero fuerit auctoritatis apud Græcos, discere licet ex Catena Græcorum Patrum in Job, ubi Chrysostomus, Evagrius, Olympiodorus, Severus, Julianus suis commentariis illud explicant. Deerat apud Aquilam et Symmachum; ut præter Origenem nos docet Olympiodorus pag. 611, Caten. in Job: Ἰστέον δὲ, ὅτι μέχρι τοῦ πρεσβύτερος καὶ πλήρης ἡμερῶν, Ἀκύλας καὶ Σύμμαχος ἐλθόντες, συνεπέραναν τὸ βιβλίον, ὡς δὴ τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ ἀκολουθοῦντες· ὁ δὲ Θεοδοτίων συμπεραίνει τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα. « Sciendum est Aquilam et Symmachum, textum Hebraicum secutos, finem libro imposuisse, cum ad hæc pervenissent: « senior « et plenus dierum; » Theodotionem autem ibi desinere ubi Septuaginta Interpretes desinunt. » E veteribus non paucos de illo dubitasse, ac si e margine in textum ab ignaris amanuensibus translatum eique assutum fuisset, testatur Polychronius in prooemio Caten. in Job.: Παραγράφονται τὴν ἐν τῷ τέλει γενεαλογίαν, ὡς μὴ ἐμφερομένην ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ. Καὶ μεθ' ἕτερα· Ἀπάτης γενομένης ἀπὸ τῆς ὁμωνυμίας τῆς ἐν γενέσει φερομένης εἰς τὴν κατὰ τὸν Ἡσαῦ γενεαλογίαν, ἔνθα μέμνηται Ἰωβάβ, τὸ τοιοῦτόν τινες ἐσχολιογράφησαν· καὶ λοιπὸν ἕτεροι τῷ χρόνῳ ὡς ὑφὴν τοῦ παντὸς βιβλίου εἰργάσαντο τὰ παραγεγραμμένα. « Genealogiam, quæ in fine est, quidam rejiciunt, quia in Hebræo non reperitur. » Et paulo post: « Nominis similitudinem in genealogia Esau, quæ in libro Geneseos exstat, ubi Jobab mentio fit, ansam erroris, et ejusmodi scholii quibusdam præbuisse, tractuque temporis postea, quæ margini ascripta erant, in libri contextum ab aliis assumpta esse asserunt. » Inde omnem ei abrogavit fidem Hieronymus in libro Quæstionum Hebraicarum: « Hunc (Jobab) quidam suspicantur esse Job, ut in fine voluminis ipsius additum est. Contra Hebræi asserunt de Nachor cum stirpe generatum. » Et antea: « Primogenitus Nachor fratris Abraham de Melcha uxore ejus filia Aran, natus est Us; de cujus stirpe Job descendit, sicut scriptum est in exordio voluminis ejus: « Vir fuit « in terra Us, nomine Job. » Male igitur quidam æstimant Job de genere esse Esau: siquidem illud quod in fine libri ipsius habetur, « eo quod de Syro « sermone translatus est, et quartus sit ab Esau, » et reliqua quæ ibi continentur, in Hebræis voluminibus non habentur. » WETSTENIUS.

(30) 'And it is written that he will rise again', etc. All the learned agree that this addition is very ancient, since Aristeas, Philo and Polyhistor make mention of it, as Spanheim attests in his History of Job, ch. 4. How great its authority was among the Greeks may be learnt from the Catena of the Greek Fathers on Job, where Chrysostom, Evagrius, Olympiodorus, Severus and Julian explain it in their commentaries. It was lacking in Aquila and Symmachus, as, besides Origen, Olympiodorus teaches us, p. 611 of the Catena on Job: 'Be it known that Aquila and Symmachus, on coming as far as "old and full of days", brought the book to a close, as following the Hebrew; but Theodotion ends with the Seventy.' 'It is to be known that Aquila and Symmachus, following the Hebrew text, put an end to the book when they had come to these words, "old and full of days"; but that Theodotion ends there where the Seventy Interpreters end.' That not a few of the ancients doubted of it, as though it had been carried over from the margin into the text by ignorant copyists and stitched on to it, Polychronius attests in the preface to the Catena on Job: 'They mark off the genealogy at the end, as not being found in the Hebrew.' And after other things: 'An error having arisen from the sameness of name in the genealogy of Esau given in Genesis, where Jobab is mentioned, some wrote this as a scholion; and then others in time worked what had been written alongside into the fabric of the whole book.' 'The genealogy which is at the end some reject, because it is not found in the Hebrew.' And a little after: 'They assert that the likeness of the name in the genealogy of Esau which stands in the book of Genesis, where mention is made of Jobab, gave occasion of error and of a scholion of this kind to certain persons, and that in course of time afterwards what had been written in the margin was taken up by others into the body of the book.' Hence Jerome denied it all credit in the book of Hebrew Questions: 'This man (Jobab) some suspect to be Job, as is added at the end of his volume. On the contrary, the Hebrews assert that he was begotten of the stock of Nahor.' And before: 'To Nahor, the brother of Abraham, was born as firstborn, of Milcah his wife, the daughter of Haran, Uz, of whose stock Job descended, as it is written at the beginning of his volume: "There was a man in the land of Uz, named Job." Wrongly therefore do some judge Job to be of the race of Esau; for that which is found at the end of his book, "in that it was translated from the Syriac tongue, and that he is fourth from Esau", and the rest of what is contained there, are not found in the Hebrew volumes.' WETSTEIN.

(31) Ἄχρι τέλους. Patricius Junius, μέχρι τέλους.

(31) 'Until the end' (ἄχρι). Patrick Young [reads] μέχρι τέλους.

(32) Codex Regius, ἢ ἐν τοῖς παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις. Wetstenius, παρὰ τὰ Ἰουδαίοις. Paulo post Patricius Junius, περὶ αὐτὸ θυσίας. — Male Wetst.; saltem π. τὰ Ἰουδαίων scribere debuerat. NOLTE.

(32) The Codex Regius [reads] 'than in those among the Jews'. Wetstein, παρὰ τὰ Ἰουδαίοις. A little after, Patrick Young [reads] περὶ αὐτὸ θυσίας. — Wetstein is wrong; he ought at least to have written π[αρὰ] τὰ Ἰουδαίων. NOLTE.

<!-- note: This column holds no editors' prose in the body; per the column brief, the foot apparatus of the page (cols 53–54, set across both columns under the rule) is set here in full. It opens with the scripture reference "Job I, 5" belonging to col 53, then the tail of a note run over from col 52's page ("[Pa]tricius Jun., ..."), then notes 29 and 30 (note 30 starts at the foot of the left column and continues at the top of the right with "Spanhemio in Hist. Job, c. 4", which fills the gap), then notes 31 and 32, which end the apparatus on this page. Printed "pc-stea" read as "postea"; "procemio" set "prooemio" (œ); "omnem ci" read "ei"; "uDi" read "ubi". -->

(6) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 55

Job i, 21.

Job 1:21.

(printed under page 32)

(7) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 55

Job ii, 9.

Job 2:9.

(printed under page 32)

(8) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 55

Ibid. 10.

Ibid., [verse] 10.

(printed under page 32)

(9) ‹anchor: esset bonum› · call in col 55

Gen. [i], ,10.

Gen. 1:10. (The chapter numeral is not legible in the print; "Gen." prints like "Cen.".)

(printed under page 32)

(33) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 55

Patricius Junius, Κυρίου. Infra idem, καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἀφείλετο.

Patrick Young reads Κυρίου ("of the Lord"). Below, the same reads καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἀφείλετο ("and the Lord has taken away").

(printed under page 32)

(34) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 55

Ἰώβ. Wetstenii codex corrupte habet υἱῷ.

"Job": Wetstein's manuscript corruptly has υἱῷ ("to the son").

(printed under page 32)

(35) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 55

Ἔπη. Recte codex Regius; mendose autem Wetsthenius, ἐπὶ [in textu, nam margo veram praebet lectionem], qui etiam mox habet, καὶ δεκαεννέα καὶ ἕξ. Patricius Junius omittit καὶ δεκαεννέα, legit vero καὶ δεκαέξ. Codex Regius ut in nostro textu. Quod autem ait Origenes plurima per medium librum Job apud Hebraeos haberi quae apud nos non exstant, id confirmat Hieronymus praefatione sua in Job: « Cui, inquit, si ea quae sub asteriscis addita sunt, subtraxeris, pars maxima voluminis detruncabitur; et hoc duntaxat apud Graecos. Caeterum apud Latinos, ante eam translationem quam sub asteriscis et obelis nuper edidimus, septingenti ferme aut octingenti versus desunt, ut decurtatus et laceratus corrosusque liber, foeditatem sui publice legentibus praebeat. »

"Verses": so rightly the Codex Regius; but Wetstein wrongly has ἐπί [in the text, for the margin gives the true reading], and he also has just after καὶ δεκαεννέα καὶ ἕξ ("and nineteen and six"). Patrick Young omits καὶ δεκαεννέα, but reads καὶ δεκαέξ ("and sixteen"). The Codex Regius reads as in our text. That Origen says many things are found throughout the middle of the book of Job among the Hebrews which do not exist among us, Jerome confirms in his preface to Job: "If you take away from it," he says, "what has been added under asterisks, the greatest part of the volume will be cut off — and this only among the Greeks. But among the Latins, before the translation we lately published under asterisks and obeli, some seven or eight hundred verses are missing, so that the book, cut short, mangled and gnawed, displays its ugliness to those who read it publicly."

(printed under page 32)

(36) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 55

Patricius Junius, διαλανθάνειν.

Patrick Young reads διαλανθάνειν ("to escape notice").

(printed under page 32)

(37) ‹anchor: μετάθεσιν καὶ ἐναλλαγήν› · call in col 55

Πολλὴν μετάθεσιν καὶ ἐναλλαγήν, etc. Hieronymus praefatione in Jeremiam: « Ordinem, inquit, visionum qui apud Graecos et Latinos omnino confusus est, ad pristinam fidem correximus. » Correxit quoque Ludovicus Capellus Crit. S. lib. iv, c. 14, p. 297. Ipsum vide.

"Much transposition and change," etc. Jerome, in his preface to Jeremiah: "The order of the visions," he says, "which among the Greeks and Latins is entirely confused, we have corrected to its original fidelity." Louis Cappel also corrected it, Critica Sacra, book IV, ch. 14, p. 297. See him.

(printed under page 32)

(38) ‹anchor: παρ' Ἑβραίοις οὐχ εὑρίσκεται› · call in col 55 · (continues)

Παρ' Ἑβραίοις οὐχ εὑρίσκεται. Hieronymus Commentario in Aggaei cap. 1: « In Genesi, inquit, cum in primo die dictum sit, et in tertio, et in quarto, et in quinto, et in sexto, post consummationem operum singulorum: « Et vidit Deus quia bonum « est, » in secundo juxta Hebraicum, et Aquilam, et Symmachum, et Theodotionem non habetur: neque enim poterat secundus dies, qui numerum facit qui ab unione dividit, quod bonus esset, Dei sententia comprobari. » Venerabilis Beda in Hexameron pag. 6, tom. IV: « Notandum, inquit, quod hujus verbi adjectio hoc in loco in Hebraica veritate non habetur. Et mirum quare inter omnia quae creasse Deus legitur, hic solummodo, id est, in secundi diei operibus probatio divinae visionis minime addatur, quae tamen ipsa cum caeteris quae fecit, Deo bona esse demonstrantur, cum in sequentibus dicitur, « viditque Deus cuncta quae fecit, et erant valde bona. » Nisi forte sicut quidam Patrum exponunt, intelligere nos in hoc Scriptura voluit, non esse bonum duplicem numerum qui ab unitate dividat et praefigurat foedera nuptiarum. » Nec levis est ea de re apud Judaeos ipsos quaestio. De veteribus testatur hoc loco Origenes; de recentioribus nonnulla observatu digna affert Wetsthenius quae hic apponere visum est non abs re fore. Legitur in Bereschit Rabba, Parascha 4: « Quare non scriptum est in secundo (die) quod bonum? Rabbi Jochanan tradidit in nomine rabbi Josi filii Chalephta, quia in illo creata est gehenna: quia dictum est (Isa. xxx, 33): Nam aperta Tophta, sive gehenna a pridie, dies ex quo possum dicere pridie, et non melius tertius. » Postea sic pergit: « Rabbi Chanina dixit, quia in illo creata est divisio, secundum illud: et « dividat « inter aquas et aquas. » Dicit rabbi Tebiomi: « Si divisio quae facit ad ordinandum componendumque mundum non meretur illud, « quod bonum; » quanto minus illa, quae mundum confundit? Rabbi Samuel dixit, quia illo die necdum absolutum erat opus aquarum: ideoque tertia die duplicatur illa formula, ut operum secundi et tertii diei consummatio denotetur. » Matrona quaedam quaesivit ex rabbi Josi, « quamobrem illud, « quia bonum, »

"Is not found among the Hebrews." Jerome, in his Commentary on Haggai, chapter 1: "In Genesis," he says, "though it is said on the first day, and the third, and the fourth, and the fifth, and the sixth, after each work is finished, 'And God saw that it was good,' on the second, according to the Hebrew and Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion, it is not found; for the second day, which makes the number that divides from unity, could not be approved by God's judgement as good." The Venerable Bede on the Hexameron, p. 6, vol. IV: "Note," he says, "that the addition of this phrase in this place is not found in the Hebrew verity. And one wonders why, among all the things God is read to have created, only here, that is, in the works of the second day, the approval of the divine seeing is not added — though these too, with the rest he made, are shown to be good to God, when it is said in what follows, 'And God saw all that he had made, and they were very good.' Unless perhaps, as some of the Fathers expound, Scripture wished us to understand by this that the number two, which divides from unity and prefigures the covenants of marriage, is not good." Nor is the question on this matter a light one among the Jews themselves. Of the ancients Origen testifies in this place; of the more recent Wetstein brings some things worth noting, which it seemed not beside the point to add here. One reads in Bereshit Rabba, Parasha 4: "Why is it not written on the second (day) 'that it was good'? Rabbi Johanan taught in the name of Rabbi Jose son of Halafta: because on it Gehenna was created, since it is said (Isa. 30:33): 'For Tophet, or Gehenna, is opened from the day before' — a day of which I can say 'the day before', and not better the third." Afterwards it goes on thus: "Rabbi Hanina said: because on it division was created, according to the words, 'and let it divide between the waters and the waters.' Rabbi Tebiomi says: If the division that serves to order and compose the world does not merit that 'that it was good,' how much less that which confounds the world? Rabbi Samuel said: because on that day the work of the waters was not yet finished; and therefore on the third day that formula is doubled, so that the completion of the works of the second and third day is marked." A certain matron asked Rabbi Jose "why that 'that it was good'…

(printed under page 32)

(33) ‹anchor: ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ› · call in col 56

Patricius Junius, Κυρίου. Infra idem, καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἀφείλετο.

Patrick Young reads Κυρίου ("of the Lord"). Below, the same reads καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἀφείλετο ("and the Lord took away").

(printed under page 32)

(34) ‹anchor: τῷ Ἰὼβ› · call in col 56

Ἰώβ. Wetstenii codex corrupte habet υἱῷ.

"Job": Wetstein's manuscript corruptly has υἱῷ ("to the son").

(printed under page 32)

(35) ‹anchor: μὲν ἔπη› · call in col 56

Ἔπη. Recte codex Regius; mendose autem Wetsthenius, ἐπὶ [in textu, nam margo veram praebet lectionem], qui etiam mox habet, καὶ δεκαεννέα καὶ ἕξ. Patricius Junius omittit καὶ δεκαεννέα, legit vero καὶ δεκαέξ. Codex Regius ut in nostro textu. Quod autem ait Origenes plurima per medium librum Job apud Hebraeos haberi quae apud nos non exstant, id confirmat Hieronymus praefatione sua in Job: « Cui, inquit, si ea quae sub asteriscis addita sunt, subtraxeris, pars maxima voluminis detruncabitur; et hoc duntaxat apud Graecos. Caeterum apud Latinos, ante eam translationem quam sub asteriscis et obelis nuper edidimus, septingenti ferme aut octingenti versus desunt, ut decurtatus et laceratus corrosusque liber, foeditatem sui publice legentibus praebeat. »

"Verses" (ἔπη): so the Codex Regius rightly; but Wetstein wrongly reads ἐπὶ [in the text, for the margin gives the true reading], and he also has, a little after, καὶ δεκαεννέα καὶ ἕξ ("and nineteen and six"). Patrick Young omits καὶ δεκαεννέα ("and nineteen") but reads καὶ δεκαέξ ("and sixteen"). The Codex Regius reads as in our text. That Origen says very many things stand among the Hebrews throughout the middle of the book of Job which are not found with us, Jerome confirms in his preface to Job: "If you take away from it," he says, "what has been added under asterisks, the greatest part of the volume will be cut off; and that among the Greeks only. Among the Latins, moreover, before the translation which we lately published under asterisks and obeli, about seven or eight hundred lines are missing, so that the book, cut short, torn and gnawed, displays its own ugliness to those who read it in public."

(printed under page 32)

(36) ‹anchor: μὴ λανθάνειν› · call in col 56

Patricius Junius, διαλανθάνειν.

Patrick Young reads διαλανθάνειν ("to escape notice entirely").

(printed under page 32)

(37) ‹anchor: μετάθεσιν καὶ ἐναλλαγὴν› · call in col 56

Πολλὴν μετάθεσιν καὶ ἐναλλαγήν, etc. Hieronymus praefatione in Jeremiam: « Ordinem, inquit, visionum qui apud Graecos et Latinos omnino confusus est, ad pristinam fidem correximus. » Correxit quoque Ludovicus Capellus Crit. S. lib. iv, c. 14, p. 297. Ipsum vide.

"Much transposition and variation," etc. Jerome, in the preface to Jeremiah: "The order of the visions," he says, "which among the Greeks and Latins is entirely confused, we have corrected to its original faithfulness." Louis Cappel also corrected it, Critica sacra, book IV, chapter 14, p. 297. See him.

(printed under page 32)

(38) ‹anchor: οὐχ εὑρίσκεται› · call in col 56

Παρ' Ἑβραίοις οὐχ εὑρίσκεται. Hieronymus Commentario in Aggaei cap. 1: « In Genesi, inquit, cum in primo die dictum sit, et in tertio, et in quarto, et in quinto, et in sexto, post consummationem operum singulorum: « Et vidit Deus quia bonum est, » in secundo juxta Hebraicum, et Aquilam, et Symmachum, et Theodotionem non habetur: neque enim poterat secundus dies, qui numerum facit qui ab unione dividit, quod bonus esset, Dei sententia comprobari. » Venerabilis Beda in Hexameron pag. 6, tom. IV: « Notandum, inquit, quod hujus verbi adjectio hoc in loco in Hebraica veritate non habetur. Et mirum quare inter omnia quae creasse Deus legitur, hic solummodo, id est, in secundi diei operibus probatio divinae visionis minime addatur, quae tamen ipsa cum caeteris quae fecit, Deo bona esse demonstrantur, cum in sequentibus dicitur, « viditque Deus cuncta quae fecit, et erant valde bona. » Nisi forte sicut quidam Patrum exponunt, intelligere nos in hoc Scriptura voluit, non esse bonum duplicem numerum qui ab unitate dividat et praefigurat foedera nuptiarum. » Nec levis est ea de re apud Judaeos ipsos quaestio. De veteribus testatur hoc loco Origenes; de recentioribus nonnulla observatu digna affert Wetsthenius quae hic apponere visum est non abs re fore. Legitur in Bereschit Rabba, Parascha 4: « Quare non scriptum est in secundo (die) quod bonum? Rabbi Jochanan tradidit in nomine rabbi Josi filii Chalephta, quia in illo creata est gehenna: quia dictum est (Isa. xxx, 33): Nam aperta Tophta, sive gehenna a pridie, dies ex quo possum dicere pridie, et non nudius tertius. » Postea sic pergit: « Rabbi Chanina dixit, quia in illo creata est divisio, secundum illud: et « dividat inter aquas et aquas. » Dicit rabbi Tebiomi: « Si divisio quae facit ad ordinandum componendumque mundum non meretur illud, « quod bonum; » quanto minus illa, quae mundum confundit? Rabbi Samuel dixit, quia illo die necdum absolutum erat opus aquarum: ideoque tertia die duplicatur illa formula, ut operum secundi et tertii diei consummatio denotetur. » Matrona quaedam quaesivit ex rabbi Josi, « quamobrem illud, « quia bonum, » (continues under page 33)

"Is not found among the Hebrews." Jerome, Commentary on Haggai, chapter 1: "In Genesis," he says, "though it is said on the first day, and on the third, and on the fourth, and on the fifth, and on the sixth, after the completion of each of the works, 'And God saw that it was good,' on the second, according to the Hebrew, and Aquila, and Symmachus, and Theodotion, it is not found: for the second day, which makes the number that divides from unity, could not be approved by God's verdict as good." The Venerable Bede, on the Hexameron, p. 6, vol. IV: "It is to be noted," he says, "that the addition of this phrase in this place is not found in the Hebrew verity. And it is a wonder why, among all the things which God is read to have created, here alone, that is, in the works of the second day, the approval of the divine sight is not added; yet these too, with the rest that He made, are shown to be good to God, since in what follows it is said, 'And God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good.' Unless perhaps, as some of the Fathers explain, Scripture meant us to understand by this that the number two, which divides from unity and prefigures the bonds of marriage, is not good." Nor is the question on this matter a light one among the Jews themselves. Of the older ones Origen testifies in this place; of the more recent, Wetstein brings forward some things worth noting, which it seemed not out of place to set down here. One reads in Bereshit Rabbah, Parashah 4: "Why is it not written on the second (day) 'that it was good'? Rabbi Johanan handed down in the name of Rabbi Jose son of Halafta: because on it Gehenna was created; for it is said (Isa. 30:33): For Tophet, that is, Gehenna, is open from yesterday, a day of which I can say 'yesterday', and not 'the day before yesterday'." Afterwards it goes on thus: "Rabbi Hanina said: because on it division was created, according to the words: and 'let it divide between waters and waters.' Rabbi Tebiomi says: 'If the division that serves to order and compose the world does not deserve that "that it was good", how much less that which confounds the world?' Rabbi Samuel said: because on that day the work of the waters was not yet finished; and therefore on the third day that formula is doubled, so that the completion of the works of the second and third day may be signified." A certain matron asked Rabbi Jose, "why that 'that it was good'… (continues under page 33)

(printed under page 32) <!-- note: Q2a: footnotes (33)–(38) added from the page foot (the file had none). The reference notes ⁶–⁹ (Job 1:21; Job 2:9; ibid. 10; Gen. 1:10) are called in the facing Latin (col. 55) and are not set here. -->

(38) (continued; the crop begins mid-line, the first words on this page are not in the image) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 58

[…] bi) et verbo revocato dixit, ut ante dixerat rabbi Schemuel, nimirum aquarum opus nondum fuisse confectum. (Hoc ipsum rabbi Salomo Jarchi in hunc locum adducit.) Rabbi Levi in nomine rabbi Tanchum filii Chunilai dixit: Scriptum est (Isa. xlvi, 10): « Annuntias a principio finem. » Nimirum a principio mundum creavit. Vidit benedictus ille, quod Moyses qui dictus est bonus (Exod. II), et quod suum est per aquas habiturus esset; ideoque illis non additum est, « quod bonum. » Rabbi Symeon dixit parabolam regi, cui fuit dura quaedam legio. Dixit rex, quia ista legio nimis dura, ideoque nomen meum non prae se ferat. Sic dixit benedictus ille; quia per istas aquas homines, qui vixerint tempore diluvii, tempore Enochi, et divisionis (linguarum) puniendi sunt, ideo non ascribet illis, quod bonum. » Haec illi: eadem habentur in Jalkut in Bereschit. Aben Ezra in commentario in legem dicit: « Illud, quod bonum (Gen. I, 10), cohaeret cum creatione diei secundae; » absurdumque putat benedictionem bis repeti die tertio: hinc paulo post subdit ad versum 11: « Germinet terra: Principium diei tertii. » Refert itaque terrae exsiccationem ad opera secundi diei, quod approbat etiam Joannes Mercerus Praelect. in Genes., pag. 20, etc. Abarbenel in suo פירוש התור ubi quae superius ex Bereschit Rabba producta sunt, recitavit, putat ea huic dubio neutiquam satisfacere. Quare sic solvit ipse: « Quia illo die facti sunt orbes absque luminibus et stellis; insuper quia separatio omnium elementorum a sese invicem nonnisi tertio demum die perfecta est, aquis tum in unum congregatis, aridaque apparente. »

[…] and, the word being recalled, he said, as Rabbi Samuel had said before, that the work of the waters had not yet been finished. (Rabbi Solomon Yarchi [Rashi] adduces this very thing on this passage.) Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Tanhum son of Hanilai: It is written (Isa. 46:10): "You declare the end from the beginning." That is, from the beginning he created the world. The Blessed One saw that Moses, who was called good (Exod. 2), and what was his, would be had through the waters; and therefore "that it was good" was not added to them. Rabbi Simeon told a parable of a king who had a certain harsh legion. The king said: because this legion is too harsh, let it not bear my name. So the Blessed One said: because through these waters men who lived in the time of the flood, in the time of Enoch and of the division (of tongues), were to be punished, he will not ascribe "that it was good" to them." So they: the same is found in the Yalkut on Bereshit. Ibn Ezra in his commentary on the Law says: "That 'that it was good' (Gen. 1:10) belongs with the creation of the second day"; and he thinks it absurd for the blessing to be repeated twice on the third day; hence a little after he adds on verse 11: "'Let the earth bring forth': the beginning of the third day." He therefore refers the drying of the earth to the works of the second day, which Jean Mercier also approves, Lectures on Genesis, p. 20, etc. Abarbanel, in his commentary on the Torah, where he recited what was produced above from Bereshit Rabba, thinks it by no means satisfies this doubt. So he himself resolves it thus: "Because on that day the spheres were made without lights and stars; and moreover because the separation of all the elements from one another was completed only on the third day, when the waters were gathered into one and the dry land appeared."

(printed under page 33)

(39) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 58

Τοὺς καλουμένους παρ' Ἕλλησιν ὀβελούς, etc. De asteriscorum et obelorum usu vide doctissimum Montefalconium nostrum praeliminar. in Hexapla Origenis, cap. 4, num. 3. De his insuper juvat hic apponere insignem Origenis locum qui habetur tomo decimo quinto in Matthaeum: Καὶ εἰ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ἀντιγράφων, ὥστε πάντα τὰ κατὰ Ματθαῖον μὴ συνᾴδειν ἀλλήλοις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ Εὐαγγέλια, κἂν ἀσεβής τις ἔδοξεν εἶναι ὁ ὑπονοῶν ἐνταῦθα ποοσεῤῥίφθαι οὐκ εἰρημένην ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος πρὸς τὸν πλούσιον τήν, « Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν, » ἐντολήν. Νυνὶ δὲ δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥαθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων· τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς Διαθήκης διαφωνίαν, Θεοῦ διδόντος, εὕρομεν ἰάσασθαι, κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσι. Τῶν γὰρ ἀμφιβαλλομένων παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφωνίαν, τὴν κρίσιν ποιησάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων, τὸ συνᾷδον ἐκείναις ἐφυλάξαμεν, καὶ τινὰ μὲν ὠβελίσαμεν ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ μὴ κείμενα, οὐ τολμήσαντες αὐτὰ πάντη περιελεῖν· τινὰ δὲ μετ' ἀστερίσκων προσεθήκαμεν, ἵνα δῆλον ᾖ ὅτι μὴ κείμενα παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα, ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων συμφώνως τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ προσεθήκαμεν. « Et sane nisi in aliis exemplaribus quamplurimis discrimina occurrerent, adeo ut non universa quae exstant apud Matthaeum, ac reliqua itidem Evangelia sibi invicem congruant, impius profecto videretur qui mandatum illud: « Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum, » a Servatore erga divitem minime allegatum, hic fuisse insertum suspicaretur. Nunc autem sive propter scriptorum quorumdam indiligentiam, sive propter nefariam aliquorum Scripturas emendantium audaciam, seu propter eos qui dum emendant, pro arbitrio addunt vel detrahunt, magna exemplarium exsistit differentia. Profecto discrepantiae quae in Veteris Testamenti exemplaribus occurrit, Deo annuente, remedium adhibere potuimus; reliquis editionibus usi, ut ex iis judicium faceremus: nam quae apud Interpretes Septuaginta propter exemplarium varietatem dubia erant, e reliquis editionibus aestimatione facta, perpetuum cum illis consensum retinuimus; et nonnulla quidem in Hebraeo non exstantia obelo confiximus, cum ea penitus rejicere minime fuerimus ausi; aliqua vero cum asteriscis addidimus, ut perspicuum sit ea nos e reliquis editionibus Hebraeo consonantibus addidisse, cum in Septuaginta Interpretibus minime reperirentur. »

"Those called obeli among the Greeks," etc. On the use of asterisks and obeli see our most learned Montfaucon, Preliminaries to Origen's Hexapla, ch. 4, no. 3. On them it is pleasant besides to add here a notable passage of Origen found in the fifteenth tome on Matthew: [Greek: "And if there were not disagreement among the copies on many other points as well, so that not everything in Matthew agrees from copy to copy, and likewise the other Gospels, one would have seemed impious who suspected that the commandment 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself' had been thrown in here, not spoken by the Saviour to the rich man. But now plainly the difference among the copies has become great, whether from the carelessness of some scribes, or from the wicked boldness of some in correcting what is written, or also from those who in correcting add or take away what seems good to themselves. The disagreement, then, in the copies of the Old Testament we have found, God granting, how to heal, using the other editions as a standard. For of the things doubtful among the Seventy because of the disagreement of the copies, having made our judgement from the other editions, we kept what accords with them; and some things we marked with an obelus as not present in the Hebrew, not daring to remove them altogether; and some we added with asterisks, so that it may be clear that, not being present in the Seventy, we added them from the other editions in agreement with the Hebrew."] "And indeed, unless differences occurred in very many other copies, so that not everything extant in Matthew, and likewise the other Gospels, agree with one another, he would surely seem impious who suspected that the commandment 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself,' not cited by the Saviour to the rich man, had been inserted here. But now, whether through the carelessness of certain scribes, or through the wicked boldness of some who emend the Scriptures, or through those who, while emending, add or take away at their own pleasure, there is a great difference among the copies. Indeed, for the discrepancy that occurs in the copies of the Old Testament we have been able, God willing, to apply a remedy, using the other editions to judge from them: for what was doubtful in the Seventy Translators because of the variety of copies, we judged from the other editions and kept what consistently agreed with them; and some things not found in the Hebrew we marked with an obelus, since we did not dare to reject them altogether; while some we added with asterisks, so that it might be plain that we had added them from the other editions that agree with the Hebrew, since they were not found in the Seventy Translators."

(printed under page 33)

(40) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 58 · (continues)

Ὥρα τοίνυν, etc. Sic recte habet codex Regius [cum Cantabr.]; Wetstenianus vero: Ὅρα τοίνυν, εἰ μὴ λανθάνει ἡμᾶς, τὰ τοιαυτα ἀθετεῖν τὰ παρὰ ταῖς Ἐκκλησίαις. Hoc argumento abutitur Rufinus libro ii Invectivarum in Hieronymum: « Quomodo ergo, inquit, isti, qui praecipiebant discipulis ut attenderent lectioni, emendatas eis et veras non dabant lectiones? et qui praecipiunt, ne attendamus Judaicis fabulis et genealogiis, quae quaestiones magis praestant quam aedificationem, et iterum cavere nos jubent et observare maxime eos qui ex circumcisione sunt, quomodo non praevidebant per spiritum quod futurum esset tempus post quadringentos fere annos, quando Ecclesia, cognito eo quod ab apostolis non sibi esset tradita veritas Veteris Testamenti, legatos mitteret ad istos quos illi tunc circumcisionem vocabant, obsecrans et exorans ut sibi de veritate, quae apud ipsos est, aliquid largirentur. » Dixi Origeniano argumento abuti Rufinum

"It is time, then," etc. So rightly the Codex Regius [with the Cambridge manuscript]; but Wetstein's reads: "See then, if it does not escape us, [whether we should] set aside such things as are in the Churches." Rufinus misuses this argument in book II of his Invectives against Jerome: "How then," he says, "did those who bade their disciples attend to reading not give them corrected and true readings? And those who bid us not attend to Jewish fables and genealogies, which furnish questions rather than edification, and again bid us beware and watch above all those of the circumcision — how did they not foresee by the Spirit that a time would come, after nearly four hundred years, when the Church, having learned that the truth of the Old Testament had not been handed down to her by the apostles, would send envoys to those whom they then called the circumcision, begging and beseeching them to bestow on her something of the truth that is with them?" I have said that Rufinus misuses Origen's argument

(printed under page 33)

non ascriptum est diei secundo? Respondit illi: Ut ut hoc factum non sit, repetit tamen (Deus) et comprehendit omnes (dies) in fine dicens: « et vidit « Deus omne quod fecit, bonum esse. » Regessit ipsi per similitudinem: Sex homines venerunt ad te: omnibus et singulis, excepto uno, minam largiris, et de novo alteram donas omnibus; nonne in cujuslibet manu mina et sexta pars reperitur; apud unum vero sexta pars tantum? Admiratus est (rabbi) et verbo revocato dixit, ut ante dixerat rabbi Schemuel, nimirum aquarum opus nondum fuisse confectum. (Hoc ipsum rabbi Salomo Jarchi in hunc locum adducit.) Rabbi Levi in nomine rabbi Tanchum filii Chunilai dixit: Scriptum est (Isa. XLVI, 10): « Annuntias a principio finem. » Nimirum a principio mundum creavit. Vidit benedictus ille, quod Moyses qui dictus est bonus (Exod. II), et quod suum est per aquas habiturus esset; ideoque illis non additum est, « quod bonum. » Rabbi Symeon dixit parabolam regi, cui fuit dura quaedam legio. Dixit rex, quia ista legio nimis dura, ideoque nomen meum non prae se ferat. Sic dixit benedictus ille; quia per istas aquas homines, qui vixerint tempore diluvii, tempore Enochi, et divisionis (linguarum) puniendi sunt, ideo non ascribet illis, quod bonum. » Haec illi: eadem habentur in Jalkut in Bereschit. Aben Ezra in commentario in legem dicit: « Illud, quod bonum (Gen. I, 10), cohaeret cum creatione diei secundae; » absurdumque putat benedictionem bis repeti die tertio: hinc paulo post subdit ad versum 11: « Germinet terra: Principium diei tertii. » Refert itaque terrae exsiccationem ad opera secundi diei, quod approbat etiam Joannes Mercerus Praelect. in Genes., pag. 20, etc. Abarbenel in suo פירוש התור ubi quae superius ex Bereschit Rabba producta sunt, recitavit, putat ea huic dubio neutiquam satisfacere. Quare sic solvit ipse: « Quia illo die facti sunt orbes absque luminibus et stellis; insuper quia separatio omnium elementorum a sese invicem nonnisi tertio demum die perfecta est, aquis tum in unum congregatis, aridaque apparente. »

…not ascribed to the second day? He answered him: Although this was not done, yet (God) repeats it and comprehends all (the days) at the end, saying: 'And God saw everything that He had made, that it was good.' The other retorted upon him with a similitude: Six men have come to you; to each and every one, save one, you give a mina, and afresh you give another to all; is not a mina and a sixth part found in the hand of each, but with one a sixth part only? (The rabbi) marvelled, and, taking back his word, said, as rabbi Schemuel had said before, that the work of the waters had plainly not yet been finished. (Rabbi Salomo Jarchi adduces this very thing on this passage.) Rabbi Levi said in the name of rabbi Tanchum son of Chunilai: It is written (Isa. 46:10): 'Thou declarest the end from the beginning.' That is, from the beginning He created the world. That Blessed One saw that Moses, who was called good (Exod. 2), would also have what was his through waters; and therefore 'that it was good' was not added to them. Rabbi Symeon told the parable of a king who had a certain harsh legion. The king said: Because this legion is too harsh, therefore let it not bear my name. So said that Blessed One: because through these waters the men who should live in the time of the flood, in the time of Enoch, and of the division (of tongues) are to be punished, therefore He will not ascribe to them 'that it was good.'" So they; the same things are found in the Jalkut on Bereschit. Aben Ezra in his commentary on the Law says: 'That phrase "that it was good" (Gen. 1:10) belongs with the creation of the second day'; and he thinks it absurd that the blessing should be repeated twice on the third day: hence a little after he adds at verse 11: 'Let the earth bring forth: the beginning of the third day.' He therefore refers the drying of the earth to the works of the second day, which Joannes Mercerus also approves, Praelect. in Genes., p. 20, etc. Abarbenel in his פירוש התור, where he has recited what was adduced above from Bereschit Rabba, thinks that it in no way satisfies this difficulty. He therefore solves it thus himself: 'Because on that day the orbs were made without lights and stars; and moreover because the separation of all the elements from one another was completed only on the third day, when the waters were gathered into one and the dry land appeared.'

(39) Τοὺς καλουμένους παρ' Ἕλλησιν ὀβελούς, etc. De asteriscorum et obelorum usu vide doctissimum Montefalconium nostrum praeliminar. in Hexapla Origenis, cap. 4, num. 3. De his insuper juvat hic apponere insignem Origenis locum qui habetur tomo decimo quinto in Matthaeum: Καὶ εἰ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ἀντιγράφων, ὥστε πάντα τὰ κατὰ Ματθαῖον μὴ συνᾴδειν ἀλλήλοις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ Εὐαγγέλια, κἂν ἀσεβής τις ἔδοξεν εἶναι ὁ ὑπονοῶν ἐνταῦθα ποοσεῤῥίφθαι οὐκ εἰρημένην ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος πρὸς τὸν πλούσιον τήν, « Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν, » ἐντολήν. Νυνὶ δὲ δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥᾳθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων· τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς Διαθήκης διαφωνίαν, Θεοῦ διδόντος, εὕρομεν ἰάσασθαι, κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσι. Τῶν γὰρ ἀμφιβαλλομένων παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφωνίαν, τὴν κρίσιν ποιησάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων, τὸ συνᾷδον ἐκείναις ἐφυλάξαμεν, καὶ τινὰ μὲν ὠβελίσαμεν ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ μὴ κείμενα, οὐ τολμήσαντες αὐτὰ πάντη περιελεῖν· τινὰ δὲ μετ' ἀστερίσκων προσεθήκαμεν, ἵνα δῆλον ᾖ ὅτι μὴ κείμενα παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα, ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων συμφώνως τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ προσεθήκαμεν.

(39) 'Those called among the Greeks obeli', etc. On the use of asterisks and obeli see our most learned Montfaucon, Praeliminaria to Origen's Hexapla, ch. 4, no. 3. On these matters it is good, moreover, to set down here a notable passage of Origen which stands in the fifteenth tome on Matthew: 'And if there were not disagreement among the copies with one another on many other points as well, so that not everything according to Matthew agrees with itself, and likewise the other Gospels too, a man might have seemed impious who suspected that the commandment "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" had been thrown in here, not having been spoken by the Saviour to the rich man. But now plainly great has become the difference among the copies, whether from the carelessness of certain scribes, or from the wicked daring of certain persons in correcting what is written, or also from those who in correcting add or take away what seems good to themselves. The disagreement, then, in the copies of the Old Testament we have found, God granting, how to heal, using the other editions as a standard. For of the things doubtful among the Seventy because of the disagreement of the copies, having made our judgement from the other editions, we kept what accords with them; and some things not found in the Hebrew we marked with an obelus, not daring to remove them altogether; and some we added with asterisks, so that it may be plain that, not being found among the Seventy, we added them from the other editions in agreement with the Hebrew.'

« Et sane nisi in aliis exemplaribus quamplurimis discrimina occurrerent, adeo ut non universa quae exstant apud Matthaeum, ac reliqua itidem Evangelia sibi invicem congruant, impius profecto videretur qui mandatum illud: « Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum, » a Servatore erga divitem minime allegatum, hic fuisse insertum suspicaretur. Nunc autem sive propter scriptorum quorumdam indiligentiam, sive propter nefariam aliquorum Scripturas emendantium audaciam, seu propter eos qui dum emendant, pro arbitrio addunt vel detrahunt, magna exemplarium exsistit differentia. Profecto discrepantiae quae in Veteris Testamenti exemplaribus occurrit, Deo annuente, remedium adhibere potuimus; reliquis editionibus usi, ut ex iis judicium faceremus: nam quae apud Interpretes Septuaginta propter exemplarium varietatem dubia erant, e reliquis editionibus aestimatione facta, perpetuum cum illis consensum retinuimus; et nonnulla quidem in Hebraeo non exstantia obelo confiximus, cum ea penitus rejicere minime fuerimus ausi; aliqua vero cum asteriscis addidimus, ut perspicuum sit ea nos e reliquis editionibus Hebraeo consonantibus addidisse, cum in Septuaginta Interpretibus minime reperirentur. »

'And truly, unless differences occurred in very many other copies, so that not all that stands in Matthew, and likewise the other Gospels, agrees together, he would surely seem impious who suspected that the commandment "You shall love your neighbour as yourself", not cited by the Saviour to the rich man, had been inserted here. But now, whether through the carelessness of certain copyists, or through the wicked boldness of some who emend the Scriptures, or through those who in emending add or take away at their pleasure, there is a great difference among the copies. Indeed, for the discrepancy that occurs in the copies of the Old Testament we have been able, God assenting, to apply a remedy, using the other editions so as to form a judgement from them: for what was doubtful among the Septuagint Interpreters through the variety of the copies, we weighed from the other editions and kept what consistently agreed with them; and some things not extant in the Hebrew we transfixed with an obelus, since we by no means dared to reject them entirely; and others we added with asterisks, that it might be clear that we had added them from the other editions agreeing with the Hebrew, since they were not found in the Septuagint Interpreters.'

(40) Ὥρα τοίνυν, etc. Sic recte habet codex Regius [cum Cantabr.]; Wetstenianus vero: Ὅρα τοίνυν, εἰ μὴ λανθάνει ἡμᾶς, τὰ τοιαυτα ἀθετεῖν τὰ παρὰ ταῖς Ἐκκλησίαις. Hoc argumento abutitur Rufinus libro II Invectivarum in Hieronymum: « Quomodo ergo, inquit, isti, qui praecipiebant discipulis ut attenderent lectioni, emendatas eis et veras non dabant lectiones? et qui praecipiunt, ne attendamus Judaicis fabulis et genealogiis, quae quaestiones magis praestant quam aedificationem, et iterum cavere nos jubent et observare maxime eos qui ex circumcisione sunt, quomodo non praevidebant per spiritum quod futurum esset tempus post quadringentos fere annos, quando Ecclesia, cognito eo quod ab apostolis non sibi esset tradita veritas Veteris Testamenti, legatos mitteret ad istos quos illi tunc circumcisionem vocabant, obsecrans et exorans ut sibi de veritate, quae apud ipsos est, aliquid largirentur. » Dixi Origeniano argumento abuti Rufinum

(40) 'It is time, then', etc. So the Royal codex rightly reads [with the Cambridge]; but Wetstein's: 'See, then, if it does not escape us, whether such things as are in the Churches are to be set aside.' Rufinus misuses this argument in the second book of his Invectives against Jerome: 'How then,' he says, 'did these men, who charged their disciples to attend to reading, not give them corrected and true readings? And they who charge us not to give heed to Jewish fables and genealogies, which minister questions rather than edification, and again bid us beware of and watch above all those who are of the circumcision, how did they not foresee by the Spirit that a time would come, after about four hundred years, when the Church, having learned that the truth of the Old Testament had not been handed down to her by the apostles, would send envoys to those whom they then called the circumcision, beseeching and entreating them to bestow on her something of the truth which is with them?' I have said that Rufinus misuses Origen's argument

<!-- note: This is the whole foot apparatus of the page (cols 57–58), set because note 39 runs across both columns; the page has no editors' prose in the body. The col. 57 foot opens mid-note with "non ascriptum est diei secundo?", the end of a note carried over from the previous page (its number and opening stand there), and it runs to "aridaque apparente. »". Note 39 begins at the foot of col. 57 ("(39) Τοὺς καλουμένους", through "μοχθηρᾶς τῆς") and continues at the head of the col. 58 foot ("διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων" … "minime reperirentur. »"). This fills F01's [...] gap. Note 40 starts at mark D of col. 58 and runs on to the next page after "abuti Rufinum". As printed: "ποοσεῤῥίφθαι" (a misprint for προσεῤῥίφθαι), "τοιαυτα" without an accent, the Hebrew title "פירוש התור" (truncated), and the lemma of note 40 printed in italic as "Ὥρα τοlνυν" (set here as τοίνυν). -->

(10) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 59

I Cor. VI, 20; Rom. XIV, 15.

1 Cor. 6:20; Rom. 14:15.

(printed under page 34)

(11) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 59

Rom. VIII, 32.

Rom. 8:32.

(printed under page 34)

(12) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 59

Prov. XXII, 28.

Prov. 22:28.

(printed under page 34)

(41) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 59

Πάσαις ταῖς, etc. Ita codex Regius [cum Cant.]; Wetstenianus autem, πᾶσα ἐν ταῖς, etc.

"To all the," etc. So the Codex Regius [with the Cambridge manuscript]; but Wetstein's reads πᾶσα ἐν ταῖς ("every … in the"), etc.

(printed under page 34)

(42) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 59

Wetstenius, κατὰ Ἰουδαίων, et paulo post, τὰς ἐν αὐτοῖς διαφοράς.

Wetstein reads κατὰ Ἰουδαίων ("against the Jews"), and a little after, τὰς ἐν αὐτοῖς διαφοράς ("the differences in them").

(printed under page 34)

(43) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 59

Idem, αὐτῆς.

The same reads αὐτῆς ("of it", feminine).

(printed under page 34)

(44) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 59

Ἵνα μή τι παραχαράττειν δοκοίημεν, etc. Augustinus, lib. xviii De civitate Dei, cap. 43, ait: « Nonnulli codices Graecos interpretationis LXX ex Hebraeis codicibus emendandos putarunt, nec tamen ausi sunt detrahere, quod Hebraei non habebant, et LXX posuerunt, sed tantummodo addiderunt, quae in Hebraeis inventa, apud LXX non erant, eaque signis quibusdam in stellarum modum factis, ad capita eorumdem versuum notaverunt, quae signa asteriscos vocant. Illa vero quae non habent Hebraei, habent autem Septuaginta, similiter ad capita versuum jacentibus virgulis sicut scribuntur unciae, signaverunt. » Prudenter sane admodum Origenes, et alii post eum, e versione LXX detrahere non ausi sunt quod Hebraei non habebant. Tanta enim plebis Christianae in LXX editionem et veterem vulgatam Latinam veneratio erat, ut, teste Augustino epist. ad Hieronymum, seditionem alicubi excitarit, cum in Hieronymi versione apud Jonam « hederam » pro « cucurbita » poni audivisset. Hinc Hieronymus praefatione in Danielem de additionibus Susannae, Belis et draconis, ait: « Quas nos quia in toto orbe dispersae sunt, veru anteposito easque jugulante subjecimus, ne videremur apud imperitos magnam partem voluminis detruncasse. »

"So that we may not seem to falsify anything," etc. Augustine, City of God XVIII, ch. 43, says: "Some thought the Greek copies of the Seventy's translation should be corrected from the Hebrew copies; yet they did not dare to remove what the Hebrews did not have and the Seventy set down, but only added what was found in the Hebrew and was not in the Seventy, and marked these at the heads of those verses with certain signs made like stars, which signs they call asterisks. But what the Hebrews do not have and the Seventy do, they likewise marked at the heads of the verses with lying strokes, as ounces are written." Very prudently indeed did Origen, and others after him, not dare to remove from the Seventy's version what the Hebrews did not have. For so great was the Christian people's reverence for the Seventy's edition and the old common Latin that, as Augustine testifies in a letter to Jerome, it stirred up a riot somewhere when they heard "ivy" set for "gourd" in Jerome's version of Jonah. Hence Jerome, in the preface to Daniel, says of the additions of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon: "Because they are spread through the whole world, we have appended them with a spit set before them and, as it were, cutting their throats, lest we seem among the unlearned to have cut off a great part of the volume."

(printed under page 34)

(45) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 59 · (continues)

Ἵνα πρὸς Ἰουδαίους διαλεγόμενοι, etc. Epiphanius libro De Ponderibus et Mensuris, n. 2: Ὠριγένης δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐλθὼν ἀποκατέστησε τῷ ἑκάστῳ τόπῳ τὸν ἐλλείποντα λόγον. Παρέθετο δὲ αὐτῷ ἀστερίσκον· οὐχ ὡς χρείας οὔσης τοῦ πάντως ζητηθῆναι τὸν λόγον· περιττὸς γάρ ἐστιν· ἀλλ' ἵνα μὴ παραλείψῃ Ἰουδαίοις καὶ Σαμαρείταις ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἁγίαις Ἐκκλησίαις θείων Γραφῶν, μηδενὸς ἐπιληψίμου πράγματος ὑπάρχοντος κατὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τοῖς ἀπεστερημένοις λόγοις. « Successit his Origenes, qui unicuique loco quod deerat adjunxit, eique asterisci notam appinxit: non quod addita illa vocabula admodum necessaria sint, cum supervacua videantur; sed ne Judaeis ac Samaritanis ullam calumniandi sacras Litteras, quibus in Ecclesiis utimur, occasionem relinqueret; cum nihil in subtractis illis vocibus contra fidem esset, quod reprehendi merito posset. » Rufinus lib. ii Invect. adversus Hieronymum: « Apostatae quidem et Judaei interpretati sunt ea, quorum lectione Judaei maxime utuntur. Et quia frequenter, si disputatio incidisset, vel immutata esse aliquanta, vel deesse, vel abundare in nostris Scripturis mentiebantur, voluit Origenes nostris ostendere, qualis apud Judaeos Scripturarum lectio teneretur, et in propriis paginis vel columellis editiones earum singulas quasque descripsit; et ea quae apud illos sunt addita vel decerpta, certis quibusque signis additis, ad versiculorum capita designavit, et in alieno, non suo opere, suas tantummodo notas fixit, ut sciremus non quid nobis sed quid Judaeis adversum nos certantibus, aut deesse aut abundare videtur. » Idem Hieronymi consilium fuit cum ex Hebraeo sacras Scripturas Latine vertit. Nam praefatione in librum Psalmorum ait: « Nec hoc dico, quo praedecessores meos mordeam, aut quidquam de his arbitrer detrahendum, quorum translationem diligentissime emendatam, olim meae linguae hominibus dederim; sed quod aliud sit in Ecclesiis Christo credentium Psalmos legere, aliud Judaeis singula verba calumniantibus respondere. » Idem lib. ii Apologiae adversus Rufinum: « Egone, inquit, contra Septuaginta Interpretes aliquid sum locutus, quos ante annos plurimos diligentissime emendatos, meae linguae studiosis dedi, quos quotidie in conventu fratrum edissero, quorum Psalmos jugi meditatione decanto? Tam stultus eram ut quod in pueritia didici, senex oblivisci vellem? Universi tractatus mei horum testimoniis texti sunt, commentarii in duodecim prophetas et meam et Sep-

"So that in debating with the Jews," etc. Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures, no. 2: [Greek: "Origen, coming after these, restored to each place the missing word. And he set an asterisk beside it — not as though there were any need for the word to be sought out at all, for it is superfluous, but so as not to leave Jews and Samaritans an occasion to lay hold of the divine Scriptures in the holy Churches, though there is nothing reprehensible against the faith in the words left out."] "Origen succeeded these, who added to each place what was missing and attached to it the mark of an asterisk: not because those added words are very necessary, since they seem superfluous, but so as not to leave the Jews and Samaritans any occasion to slander the sacred Letters which we use in the Churches; since there was nothing against the faith in those words taken away that could rightly be censured." Rufinus, Invectives against Jerome, book II: "Apostates and Jews translated those [versions] whose reading the Jews chiefly use. And because, whenever a dispute arose, they would often falsely claim that some things had been changed in our Scriptures, or were missing, or were in excess, Origen wished to show our people what reading of the Scriptures was held among the Jews; and he wrote out each of their editions on its own pages or little columns; and what among them is added or taken away he marked at the heads of the verses with certain signs added; and in another's work, not his own, he fixed only his own marks, so that we might know not what seems to us, but what seems to the Jews who contend against us, to be lacking or in excess." Jerome's purpose was the same when he translated the sacred Scriptures from the Hebrew into Latin. For in his preface to the book of Psalms he says: "Nor do I say this to bite my predecessors, or because I think anything should be taken from those whose translation, most carefully corrected, I once gave to the men of my own tongue; but because it is one thing to read the Psalms in the Churches of those who believe in Christ, another to answer the Jews who cavil at every word." The same, in book II of the Apology against Rufinus: "Have I," he says, "said anything against the Seventy Translators, whom many years ago I most carefully corrected and gave to the students of my tongue, whom I expound daily in the assembly of the brethren, whose Psalms I sing in constant meditation? Was I so foolish as to wish to forget in old age what I learned in boyhood? All my treatises are woven with their testimonies; my commentaries on the twelve prophets [set out] both my own and the Sep-

(printed under page 34)

(41) ‹anchor: πάσαις ταῖς› · call in col 60

Πάσαις ταῖς, etc. Ita codex Regius [cum Cant.]; Wetstenianus autem, πᾶσα ἐν ταῖς, etc.

"To all the," etc.: so the Codex Regius [with the Cambridge manuscript]; but Wetstein's reads πᾶσα ἐν ταῖς ("all … in the"), etc.

(printed under page 34)

(42) ‹anchor: κατὰ Ἰουδαίους› · call in col 60

Wetstenius, κατὰ Ἰουδαίων, et paulo post, τὰς ἐν αὐτοῖς διαφοράς.

Wetstein reads κατὰ Ἰουδαίων, and a little after, τὰς ἐν αὐτοῖς διαφοράς (masculine "in them").

(printed under page 34)

(43) ‹anchor: διαφοραῖς αὐτῶν› · call in col 60

Idem, αὐτῆς.

The same reads αὐτῆς ("of it").

(printed under page 34)

(44) ‹anchor: παραχαράττειν δοκοίημεν› · call in col 60

Ἵνα μή τι παραχαράττειν δοκοίημεν, etc. Augustinus, lib. xviii De civitate Dei, cap. 43, ait: « Nonnulli codices Graecos interpretationis LXX ex Hebraeis codicibus emendandos putarunt, nec tamen ausi sunt detrahere, quod Hebraei non habebant, et LXX posuerunt, sed tantummodo addiderunt, quae in Hebraeis inventa, apud LXX non erant, eaque signis quibusdam in stellarum modum factis, ad capita eorumdem versuum notaverunt, quae signa asteriscos vocant. Illa vero quae non habent Hebraei, habent autem Septuaginta, similiter ad capita versuum jacentibus virgulis sicut scribuntur unciae, signaverunt. » Prudenter sane admodum Origenes, et alii post eum, e versione LXX detrahere non ausi sunt quod Hebraei non habebant. Tanta enim plebis Christianae in LXX editionem et veterem vulgatam Latinam veneratio erat, ut, teste Augustino epist. ad Hieronymum, seditionem alicubi excitarit, cum in Hieronymi versione apud Jonam « hederam » pro « cucurbita » poni audivisset. Hinc Hieronymus praefatione in Danielem de additionibus Susannae, Belis et draconis, ait: « Quas nos quia in toto orbe dispersae sunt, veru anteposito easque jugulante subjecimus, ne videremur apud imperitos magnam partem voluminis detruncasse. »

"Lest we should seem to be falsifying anything," etc. Augustine, City of God, book XVIII, chapter 43, says: "Some have thought that the Greek manuscripts of the Seventy's translation should be corrected from the Hebrew manuscripts; yet they did not dare to take away what the Hebrews did not have and the Seventy set down, but only added what was found in the Hebrew and was not in the Seventy, and marked these at the heads of the same verses with certain signs made like stars, which signs they call asterisks. What the Hebrews do not have, but the Seventy do, they marked likewise at the heads of the verses with lying strokes, as ounces are written." Very prudently indeed did Origen, and others after him, not dare to take away from the Seventy's version what the Hebrews did not have. For so great was the Christian people's reverence for the Seventy's edition and the old common Latin that, on Augustine's witness in his letter to Jerome, it stirred up a riot in one place when it heard "ivy" set for "gourd" in Jerome's version of Jonah. Hence Jerome, in the preface to Daniel, says of the additions of Susanna, of Bel and of the dragon: "Because they are spread through the whole world, we have appended them, setting before them a spit that cuts their throats, lest we should seem among the unlearned to have cut off a great part of the volume."

(printed under page 34)

(45) ‹anchor: Ἰουδαίους διαλεγόμενοι› · call in col 60

Ἵνα πρὸς Ἰουδαίους διαλεγόμενοι, etc. Epiphanius libro De Ponderibus et Mensuris, n. 2: Ὠριγένης δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐλθὼν ἀποκατέστησε τῷ ἑκάστῳ τόπῳ τὸν ἐλλείποντα λόγον. Παρέθετο δὲ αὐτῷ ἀστερίσκον· οὐχ ὡς χρείας οὔσης τοῦ πάντως ζητηθῆναι τὸν λόγον· περιττὸς γάρ ἐστιν· ἀλλ' ἵνα μὴ παραλείψῃ Ἰουδαίοις καὶ Σαμαρείταις ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἁγίαις Ἐκκλησίαις θείων Γραφῶν, μηδενὸς ἐπιληψίμου πράγματος ὑπάρχοντος κατὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τοῖς ἀπεστερημένοις λόγοις. « Successit his Origenes, qui unicuique loco quod deerat adjunxit, eique asterisci notam appinxit: non quod addita illa vocabula admodum necessaria sint, cum supervacua videantur; sed ne Judaeis ac Samaritanis ullam calumniandi sacras Litteras, quibus in Ecclesiis utimur, occasionem relinqueret; cum nihil in subtractis illis vocibus contra fidem esset, quod reprehendi merito posset. » Rufinus lib. ii Invect. adversus Hieronymum: « Apostatae quidem et Judaei interpretati sunt ea, quorum lectione Judaei maxime utuntur. Et quia frequenter, si disputatio incidisset, vel immutata esse aliquanta, vel deesse, vel abundare in nostris Scripturis mentiebantur, voluit Origenes nostris ostendere, qualis apud Judaeos Scripturarum lectio teneretur, et in propriis paginis vel columellis editiones earum singulas quasque descripsit; et ea quae apud illos sunt addita vel decerpta, certis quibusque signis additis, ad versiculorum capita designavit, et in alieno, non suo opere, suas tantummodo notas fixit, ut sciremus non quid nobis sed quid Judaeis adversum nos certantibus, aut deesse aut abundare videtur. » Idem Hieronymi consilium fuit cum ex Hebraeo sacras Scripturas Latine vertit. Nam praefatione in librum Psalmorum ait: « Nec hoc dico, quo praedecessores meos mordeam, aut quidquam de his arbitrer detrahendum, quorum translationem diligentissime emendatam, olim meae linguae hominibus dederim; sed quod aliud sit in Ecclesiis Christo credentium Psalmos legere, aliud Judaeis singula verba calumniantibus respondere. » Idem lib. ii Apologiae adversus Rufinum: « Egone, inquit, contra Septuaginta Interpretes aliquid sum locutus, quos ante annos plurimos diligentissime emendatos, meae linguae studiosis dedi, quos quotidie in conventu fratrum edissero, quorum Psalmos jugi meditatione decanto? Tam stultus eram ut quod in pueritia didici, senex oblivisci vellem? Universi tractatus mei horum testimoniis texti sunt, commentarii in duodecim prophetas et meam et Sep- (continues under page 35)

"That, when disputing with Jews," etc. Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures, no. 2: "Origen, coming after these, restored to each place the missing word. And he set an asterisk beside it; not as though there were any need at all to seek out the word, for it is superfluous; but so as not to leave Jews and Samaritans any hold against the divine Scriptures in the holy Churches, since there is nothing blameworthy against the faith in the words that had been left out." "Origen succeeded these, who added to each place what was missing and attached to it the mark of an asterisk: not because those added words are altogether necessary, since they seem superfluous; but so as to leave the Jews and Samaritans no occasion for slandering the sacred Writings that we use in the Churches; since there was nothing against the faith in those words taken away that could rightly be blamed." Rufinus, Invective against Jerome, book II: "Apostates and Jews translated those books whose reading the Jews chiefly use. And because often, if a dispute arose, they would falsely claim that some things had been altered in our Scriptures, or were missing, or were in excess, Origen wished to show our people what reading of the Scriptures was held among the Jews, and he wrote out each of their editions on its own pages or small columns; and what among them is added or taken away he marked at the heads of the verses with certain signs added, and in another's work, not his own, he fixed only his marks, so that we might know not what seems to us, but what seems to the Jews contending against us, to be missing or in excess." The same was Jerome's purpose when he turned the holy Scriptures into Latin from the Hebrew. For in the preface to the book of Psalms he says: "I do not say this to bite my predecessors, or because I think anything should be taken away from those whose translation, most carefully corrected, I gave long ago to the men of my own tongue; but because it is one thing to read the Psalms in the Churches of those who believe in Christ, another to answer the Jews who cavil at single words." The same, in book II of the Apology against Rufinus: "Have I," he says, "said anything against the Seventy Interpreters, whom many years ago I gave, most carefully corrected, to the students of my tongue, whom I expound daily in the assembly of the brethren, whose Psalms I sing in constant meditation? Was I so foolish as to wish to forget in old age what I learned in boyhood? All my treatises are woven with their testimonies; my commentaries on the twelve prophets [expound] both my [version] and the Sep- (continues under page 35)

(printed under page 34) <!-- note: Q2a: footnotes (41)–(45) added from the page foot (the file had none). The lines at the head of the foot (… contra Hieronymum … Nolte.) close note (40), called in an earlier column; reference notes ¹⁰–¹² are called in the facing Latin (col. 59). -->

(45) (continued) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 62

tuaginta editionem edisserunt. » Et libro iii Apologiae adversus eumdem Rufinum: « Tu Latinas, inquit, Scripturas de Graeco emendabis, et aliud Ecclesiis trades legendum, quam quod semel ab apostolis susceperunt; mihi non licebit post Septuaginta editionem, quam diligentissime emendatam meae linguae hominibus dedi, ad confutandos Judaeos, etiam ipsa exemplaria vertere, quae ipsi verissima confitentur; ut si quando adversum eos Christianis disputatio est, non habeant subterfugiendi diverticula, sed suomet potissimum mucrone feriantur? » — Mox mecum emendabis τὰ μὴ προκείμενα. Nolte.

-tuagint's edition." And in book III of the Apology against the same Rufinus: "You," he says, "will correct the Latin Scriptures from the Greek, and hand the Churches something to read other than what they once received from the apostles; shall I not be allowed, after the edition of the Seventy, which I gave most carefully corrected to the men of my tongue, to translate also, for confuting the Jews, the very copies which they themselves confess to be most true — so that whenever Christians dispute with them, they may have no byways of escape, but be struck chiefly with their own sword?" — Just after, you will emend with me to τὰ μὴ προκείμενα ("the things not set before [us]"). Nolte.

(printed under page 35)

(46) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 62

Γελάσονται, etc. Hieronymus quoque praefatione in librum Josue testatur « dolere Judaeos quod calumniandi eis et irridendi Christianos sit ablata occasio. » Et praefatione in librum Isaiae: « Ipse mihi mercedem restituat in futuro, qui scit me ob hoc in peregrinae linguae eruditione sudasse ne Judaei de falsitate Scripturarum Ecclesiis ejus diutius insultarent. » Huc refer quae de Judaeis illudentibus et calumniantibus Scripturas Christianorum dicuntur ab eodem Hieronymo praefationibus in Paralipomena et in Psalterium ex Hebraeo Latine redditum rogatu Sophronii.

"They will laugh," etc. Jerome too, in his preface to the book of Joshua, testifies "that the Jews grieve because the occasion of slandering and mocking Christians has been taken from them." And in his preface to the book of Isaiah: "May he repay me in the future, who knows that I have sweated over learning a foreign tongue for this, that the Jews might no longer insult his Churches about the falsity of their Scriptures." Refer here what the same Jerome says of the Jews mocking and slandering the Christians' Scriptures in his prefaces to Chronicles and to the Psalter rendered from Hebrew into Latin at Sophronius's request.

(printed under page 35)

(47) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 62

Wetstenius, δυσωπεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸ μὴ παραδέξασθαι τὴν προφητείαν.

Wetstein reads δυσωπεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸ μὴ παραδέξασθαι τὴν προφητείαν ("to be ashamed so as not to accept the prophecy").

(printed under page 35)

(48) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 62

Idem, τὸ πάντη.

The same reads τὸ πάντη ("the [thing] altogether").

(printed under page 35)

(49) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 62

Idem, παραλαμβάνουσι.

The same reads παραλαμβάνουσι ("they receive").

(printed under page 35)

(50) ‹anchor: ἐπὶ τούτων αὐτοί› · call in col 62

Idem, αὐτοῖς, male.

The same reads αὐτοῖς ("to them"), wrongly.

(printed under page 35)

(51) ‹anchor: ἀντὶ τῆς Ἑβραΐδος› · call in col 62

Codex Basileensis [cum Cant.] τῆς Ἑβραϊκῆς.

The Basel manuscript [with the Cambridge manuscript] reads τῆς Ἑβραϊκῆς ("the Hebrew [tongue]", another form of the adjective).

(printed under page 35)

(52) ‹anchor: καὶ χρηματίζοντι› · call in col 62

Χρηματίζοντι. Legendum puto χρηματίζοντος. Neque enim filius vocabatur sapiens, sed filius erat patris vocati sapientis. Paulo post Wetstenius, ἐπὶ τῷ διαδέξασθαι.

"Called" (dative, agreeing with the Hebrew): I think one should read χρηματίζοντος (genitive). For the son was not called wise, but was the son of a father called wise. A little after, Wetstein reads ἐπὶ τῷ διαδέξασθαι ("for succeeding").

(printed under page 35)

(13) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 63

Jerem. xxix, 22.

Jer. 29:22.

(printed under page 36)

(14) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 63

Matth. XXIV, 48.

Matt. 24:48.

(printed under page 36)

(15) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 63

Luc. XII, 45.

Luke 12:45.

(printed under page 36)

(16) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 63

Dan. XIII, 52, 53.

Dan. 13:52–53 (Susanna).

(printed under page 36)

(17) ‹anchor: perverti cor ejus› · call in col 63

Ibid. 56.

Ibid., [verse] 56.

(printed under page 36)

(53) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 63

Σεδεκίαν ἐποίησε καὶ ὡς Ἀχιάβ. Idem ex Hebraeo refert Origenes in fragmento libri decimi Stromatum infra a nobis edendo.

"He made Zedekiah and as Ahab": Origen reports the same from a Hebrew in the fragment of the tenth book of the Stromata, which we shall publish below.

(printed under page 36)

(54) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 63

Wetstenius, τῷ μοχθηρῷ οἰκονόμῳ· ἄγγελοι γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν κολάσεων διατεταγμένοι ταῦτα τούτους διαθήσουσι. Sed codd. Regius et Basileensis ut in nostro textu.

Wetstein reads: "to the wicked steward; for the angels appointed over punishments will deal thus with them." But the Regius and Basel manuscripts read as in our text.

(printed under page 36)

(55) ‹anchor: παραδόσεις φέροντα› · call in col 63

Τοιαύτας παραδόσεις φέροντα. Hieronymus lib. v Commentariorum in Jeremiam sub finem, ad haec verba prophetae: « Faciat te Dominus sicut Sedeciam et sicut Achab, » etc., haec habet: « Aiunt Hebraei hos esse presbyteros qui fecerint stultitiam in Israel, et moechati sunt uxores civium suorum, quorum uni loquitur Daniel: « Inveterate dierum « malorum, » et alteri: « Semen Chanaan et non « Juda, species decepit te, et concupiscentia subvertit cor tuum; sic faciebatis filiabus Israel; et « illae metuentes loquebantur vobiscum; sed non « filia Juda sustinuit iniquitatem vestram. » Quodque propheta nunc loquitur: « Et locuti sunt in « nomine meo mendaciter, quod non mandavi eis, » illud significari putant, quod miseras mulierculas quae circumferuntur omni vento doctrinae, sic deceperint, quo dicerent eis: quia de tribu erant Juda, Christum de suo semine esse generandum, quae illectae cupidine praebebant corpora sua, quasi matres futurae Christi. Sed illud quod in praesentiarum dicitur, « quos frixit rex Babylonis in « igne, » videtur Danielis historiae contraire. Ille enim asserit eos ad sententiam Danielis a populo esse lapidatos: hic vero scriptum est quod frixerit eos rex Babylonis in igne. Unde 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? Et magis hoc esse verum affirmant, quod scribit Jeremias, convictos quidem esse presbyteros a Daniele; sed latam in eos sententiam a rege Babylonis, qui in captivos ut victor et dominus habebat imperium. » Huic Judaeorum objectioni respondet Origenes in fragmento libri decimi Stromat. infra a nobis edendo: « Nisi forte, inquit, hoc quod scriptum est, « interfecerunt eos, » sic interpretemur pro eo quod est, regi Babylonis occidendos tradiderunt. Sicut et nos dicimus, quod Judaei interfecerint Salvatorem; non quo ipsi percusserint, sed quo tradiderint occidendum, et succlamantes dixerint: « Crucifige, crucifige eum. »

"Bearing such traditions." Jerome, Commentaries on Jeremiah book V, near the end, on these words of the prophet, "May the Lord make you like Zedekiah and like Ahab," etc., has this: "The Hebrews say these are the elders who did folly in Israel and committed adultery with the wives of their fellow citizens, to one of whom Daniel says, 'You grown old in evil days,' and to the other, 'You seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust has perverted your heart; so you used to do to the daughters of Israel, and they in fear spoke with you; but a daughter of Judah would not endure your wickedness.' And what the prophet now says, 'And they spoke falsely in my name, which I did not command them,' they think signifies that they so deceived wretched little women, carried about by every wind of doctrine, as to tell them that, since they were of the tribe of Judah, Christ was to be begotten of their seed; and the women, enticed by the desire, offered their bodies as though to be mothers of the coming Christ. But what is said at present, 'whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire,' seems to contradict the story of Daniel. For that says they were stoned by the people at Daniel's sentence; but here it is written that the king of Babylon roasted them in the fire. Hence by most, indeed nearly all, of the Hebrews the story itself is not received, being as it were a fable, nor is it read in their synagogues. For how, they say, could it be that captives had power to stone their princes and prophets? And they affirm that what Jeremiah writes is rather the truth: that the elders were indeed convicted by Daniel, but that sentence was passed on them by the king of Babylon, who as victor and lord had authority over the captives." Origen answers this objection of the Jews in the fragment of the tenth book of the Stromata, which we shall publish below: "Unless perhaps," he says, "we interpret what is written, 'they killed them,' to mean that they handed them over to the king of Babylon to be killed. Just as we too say that the Jews killed the Saviour — not that they themselves struck him, but that they handed him over to be killed and shouted, saying, 'Crucify, crucify him.'"

(printed under page 36)

(56) ‹anchor: εἶτ' ἀπατωμένη› · call in col 63

Codex Basil., ἀπατωμένη, et ita forte legendum, licet alii codices habeant, ἀπαντωμένη. — Rescribe quantocius id quod praebent codd. Cantabr. et Basil.; pessima est aliorum codicum lectio. Nolte.

The Basel manuscript reads ἀπατωμένη ("deceived"), and so perhaps one should read, though other manuscripts have ἀπαντωμένη ("met"). — Restore at once what the Cambridge and Basel manuscripts offer; the reading of the other manuscripts is very bad. Nolte.

(printed under page 36)

(53) ‹anchor: καὶ ὡς Ἀχιὰβ› · call in col 64

Σεδεκίαν ἐποίησε καὶ ὡς Ἀχιάβ. Idem ex Hebraeo refert Origenes in fragmento libri decimi Stromatum infra a nobis edendo.

"As He made Sedecias, and as Achiab." Origen reports the same from a Hebrew in the fragment of the tenth book of the Stromata, to be published by us below.

(printed under page 36)

(54) ‹anchor: ταῦτα διαθήσουσι› · call in col 64

Wetstenius, τῷ μοχθηρῷ οἰκονόμῳ· ἄγγελοι γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν κολάσεων διατεταγμένοι ταῦτα τούτους διαθήσουσι. Sed codd. Regius et Basileensis ut in nostro textu.

Wetstein reads τῷ μοχθηρῷ οἰκονόμῳ· ἄγγελοι γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν κολάσεων διατεταγμένοι ταῦτα τούτους διαθήσουσι ("to the wicked steward; for angels appointed over the punishments will do these things to these men"). But the Regius and Basle manuscripts read as in our text.

(printed under page 36)

(55) ‹anchor: παραδόσεις φέροντα› · call in col 64

Τοιαύτας παραδόσεις φέροντα. Hieronymus lib. v Commentariorum in Jeremiam sub finem, ad haec verba prophetae: « Faciat te Dominus sicut Sedeciam et sicut Achab, » etc., haec habet: « Aiunt Hebraei hos esse presbyteros qui fecerint stultitiam in Israel, et moechati sunt uxores civium suorum, quorum uni loquitur Daniel: « Inveterate dierum malorum, » et alteri: « Semen Chanaan et non Juda, species decepit te, et concupiscentia subvertit cor tuum; sic faciebatis filiabus Israel; et illae metuentes loquebantur vobiscum; sed non filia Juda sustinuit iniquitatem vestram. » Quodque propheta nunc loquitur: « Et locuti sunt in nomine meo mendaciter, quod non mandavi eis, » illud significari putant, quod miseras mulierculas quae circumferuntur omni vento doctrinae, sic deceperint, quo dicerent eis: quia de tribu erant Juda, Christum de suo semine esse generandum, quae illectae cupidine praebebant corpora sua, quasi matres futurae Christi. Sed illud quod in praesentiarum dicitur, « quos frixit rex Babylonis in igne, » videtur Danielis historiae contraire. Ille enim asserit eos ad sententiam Danielis a populo esse lapidatos: hic vero scriptum est quod frixerit eos rex Babylonis in igne. Unde 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? Et magis hoc esse verum affirmant, quod scribit Jeremias, convictos quidem esse presbyteros a Daniele; sed latam in eos sententiam a rege Babylonis, qui in captivos ut victor et dominus habebat imperium. » Huic Judaeorum objectioni respondet Origenes in fragmento libri decimi Stromat. infra a nobis edendo: « Nisi forte, inquit, hoc quod scriptum est, « interfecerunt eos, » sic interpretemur pro eo quod est, regi Babylonis occidendos tradiderunt. Sicut et nos dicimus, quod Judaei interfecerint Salvatorem; non quo ipsi percusserint, sed quo tradiderint occidendum, et succlamantes dixerint: « Crucifige, crucifige eum. »

"Handing down such traditions." Jerome, Commentaries on Jeremiah, book V, near the end, on these words of the prophet, "The Lord make you as Sedecias and as Achab," etc., has this: "The Hebrews say that these are the elders who wrought folly in Israel and committed adultery with the wives of their fellow citizens; to one of whom Daniel says, 'You who have grown old in evil days,' and to the other, 'Seed of Chanaan and not of Juda, beauty has deceived you, and lust has perverted your heart; thus you used to do to the daughters of Israel, and they in fear spoke with you; but a daughter of Juda did not endure your wickedness.' And what the prophet now says, 'And they spoke lies in My name, which I did not command them,' they think signifies that they so deceived wretched silly women, who are carried about by every wind of doctrine, by telling them that, since they were of the tribe of Juda, the Christ was to be begotten of their seed; and these, enticed by desire, offered their bodies as if they were to be mothers of the Christ. But what is said here, 'whom the king of Babylon fried in the fire,' seems to contradict the history of Daniel. For he asserts that they were stoned by the people at Daniel's sentence; but here it is written that the king of Babylon fried them in the fire. Hence by most, indeed almost all, of the Hebrews the story itself is not received, as if it were a fable, nor is it read in their synagogues. For how, they say, could it be that captives had power to stone their princes and prophets? And they affirm that this is rather the truth, which Jeremiah writes: that the elders were indeed convicted by Daniel, but that sentence was passed on them by the king of Babylon, who as victor and lord held authority over the captives." Origen answers this objection of the Jews in the fragment of the tenth book of the Stromata, to be published by us below: "Unless perhaps," he says, "we interpret what is written, 'they killed them,' as meaning that they handed them over to the king of Babylon to be killed. Just as we too say that the Jews killed the Saviour; not that they struck Him themselves, but that they handed Him over to be killed, and cried out, saying: 'Crucify, crucify Him.'"

(printed under page 36)

(56) ‹anchor: εἶτ' ἀπατωμένη› · call in col 64

Codex Basil., ἀπατωμένη, et ita forte legendum, licet alii codices habeant, ἀπαντωμένη. — Rescribe quantocius id quod praebent codd. Cantabr. et Basil.; pessima est aliorum codicum lectio. Nolte.

The Basle manuscript reads ἀπατωμένη ("deceived"), and so perhaps it should be read, though other manuscripts have ἀπαντωμένη. — Restore at once what the Cambridge and Basle manuscripts give; the reading of the other manuscripts is very bad. Nolte.

(printed under page 36) <!-- note: Q2a: footnotes (53)–(56) added from the page foot (the file had none). Reference notes ¹³–¹⁷ are called in the facing Latin (col. 63). -->

(18) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 66

Dan. XIII, 57.

Dan. 13:57 (Susanna).

(printed under page 37)

(19) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 66

Heb. XI, 37.

Heb. 11:37.

(printed under page 37)

(57) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 66

Mss. nostri, ζητήσειν. Wetstenius, ζητῆσαι.

Our manuscripts read ζητήσειν ("will seek"); Wetstein reads ζητῆσαι ("to seek").

(printed under page 37)

(58) ‹anchor: Πευσόμεθα› · call in col 66

Codex Regius, πευσώμεθα.

The Codex Regius reads πευσώμεθα ("let us inquire").

(printed under page 37)

(59) ‹anchor: Σαφὲς δ' ὅτι› · call in col 66

Wetstenius, περὶ ἑνὸς σαφές· διότι.

Wetstein reads περὶ ἑνὸς σαφές· διότι ("of one. It is clear, because").

(printed under page 37)

(60) ‹anchor: πεπρίσθαι Ἡσαΐαν› · call in col 66

Πεπρίσθαι Ἡσαΐαν. Eadem docet Origenes tomo undecimo in Matthaeum: Καὶ Ἡσαΐας δὲ πεπρίσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ ἱστόρηται. Εἰ δέ τις οὐ προσίεται τὴν ἱστορίαν διὰ τὸ ἐν τῷ ἀποκρύφῳ Ἡσαΐᾳ αὐτὴν φέρεσθαι, πιστευσάτω τοῖς ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἑβραίους οὕτω γεγραμμένοις· Ἐλιθάσθησαν, ἐπρίσθησαν, ἐπειράσθησαν. Τὸ γὰρ, ἐπρίσθησαν, ἐπὶ τὸν Ἡσαΐαν ἀναφέρεται, etc. « Isaiam quoque serra dissectum fuisse traditum est. Si quis vero historiam hanc non admittat, quod ea in apocrypho Isaia referatur, iis credat quae in Epistola ad Hebraeos ita scripta sunt: « Lapidati sunt, secti sunt, tentati sunt. » Illud enim, « secti sunt, » ad Isaiam refertur, » etc. Idem de Isaiae dissectione tradunt Hieronymus in Isaiae cap. xx et lvii; Justinus martyr in Dialogo cum Tryphone Judaeo, p. 273; Epiphanius De vitis prophetarum, pag. 421; Theodoretus in hypothesi ad Isaiam ab Hoeschelio edita, pag. 74; Dorotheus in Synopsi, pag. 669; Oecumenius in Comment. ad Hebr. II; Prudentius hymno 5 Περὶ Στεφάνων; Sulpicius Severus epist. 2; Tertullianus lib. De patientia, c. 14, et lib. iii Carmin. adversus Marcion., epitome temp. Euseb. adjecta, p. 244; Suidas in voce Μανασσῆς; Cedrenus in Comp. hist., p. 91; Abulpharajus Histor. dynast. iii, p. 43; Primasius in Comm. ad Hebr. II. Causam martyrii ex Judaeorum traditione affert Origenes homil. 1 in Isaiam: « Aiunt ideo Isaiam esse sectum a populo, quasi legem praevaricantem et extra Scripturas annuntiantem. Scriptura enim dicit: « Nemo videbit fa- « ciem meam, et vivet. » Iste vero ait: « Vidi Domi- « num sabaoth. » Moyses, aiebant, non vidit, et tu vidisti? et propter hoc eum secuerunt. » Apocryphus ille liber, quo martyrium ejus describi ait Origenes, est, ut conjicit Huetius, ἀναβατικὸν Ἡσαΐου, cujus mentionem facit Epiphanius in haeresi Archonticorum, pag. 130, et Hieracis pag. 304, et pseudo-Clemens Constitut. apostolic. l. vi, cap. 16, libros apocryphos enarrans his verbis: Ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς δέ τινες συνέγραψαν βιβλία ἀπόκρυφα Μωϋσέως, καὶ Ἐνώχ, καὶ Ἀδάμ, Ἡσαΐου τε καὶ Δαυΐδ, καὶ Ἠλία, καὶ τῶν τριῶν πατριαρχῶν, φθοροποιὰ καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθρά. « Priscis temporibus quidam libros apocryphos scripserunt, Moysis, Enoch, Adam, Isaiae, David, Eliae, et trium patriarcharum; libros, dico, pestiferos et veritatis inimicos. » Wetstenius.

"That Isaiah was sawn asunder." Origen teaches the same in the eleventh tome on Matthew: [Greek: "And Isaiah is recorded to have been sawn asunder by the people. If anyone does not accept the story because it is found in the apocryphal Isaiah, let him believe what is so written in the Letter to the Hebrews: 'They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted.' For 'they were sawn asunder' refers to Isaiah," etc.] "It has also been handed down that Isaiah was cut in two with a saw. If anyone does not admit this story because it is reported in the apocryphal Isaiah, let him believe what is so written in the Letter to the Hebrews: 'They were stoned, they were cut in two, they were tempted.' For 'they were cut in two' refers to Isaiah," etc. The same about Isaiah's being cut in two is handed down by Jerome on Isaiah chapters 20 and 57; Justin Martyr in the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, p. 273; Epiphanius, On the Lives of the Prophets, p. 421; Theodoret in the argument to Isaiah published by Hoeschel, p. 74; Dorotheus in the Synopsis, p. 669; Oecumenius in his Commentary on Hebrews 2; Prudentius, hymn 5 of the Peristephanon; Sulpicius Severus, letter 2; Tertullian, On Patience, ch. 14, and book III of the Poem against Marcion, the epitome of the times added to Eusebius, p. 244; the Suda under Manasses; Cedrenus in the Compendium of History, p. 91; Abulpharagius, History of the Dynasties III, p. 43; Primasius in his Commentary on Hebrews 2. The cause of the martyrdom, from the tradition of the Jews, is given by Origen in homily 1 on Isaiah: "They say that Isaiah was cut in two by the people as one who transgressed the law and proclaimed things outside the Scriptures. For Scripture says, 'No one shall see my face and live'; but he says, 'I saw the Lord of hosts.' Moses, they said, did not see, and you have seen? And for this they cut him in two." That apocryphal book in which, Origen says, his martyrdom is described is, as Huet conjectures, the Ascension of Isaiah, which Epiphanius mentions in the heresy of the Archontics, p. 130, and of Hieracas, p. 304, and pseudo-Clement, Apostolic Constitutions VI, ch. 16, listing apocryphal books in these words: [Greek, rendered next:] "In ancient times some wrote apocryphal books of Moses, Enoch, Adam, Isaiah, David, Elijah and the three patriarchs — books, I say, pestilent and enemies of the truth." Wetstein.

(printed under page 37)

(61) ‹anchor: ἡ ὅλη ἀπιστηθῇ› · call in col 66

Wetstenius, προσηκούσας .... ἵν' ὅλη ἀπιστηθῇ· — Verba ὅπερ... ἀπιστηθῇ non nemini e margine in textum irrepsisse videri poterunt. Nolte.

Wetstein reads προσηκούσας .... ἵν' ὅλη ἀπιστηθῇ ("fitting … so that the whole may be disbelieved"). — The words ὅπερ … ἀπιστηθῇ might seem to someone to have crept into the text from the margin. Nolte.

(printed under page 37)

(62) ‹anchor: συγχρήσασθαι τῷ βουλήματι› · call in col 66 · (continues)

Συγχρήσασθαι τῷ βουλήματι, etc. Lego: συγχρήσεσθαι. Eusebius lib. vi Hist. eccl., c. 25, ex Origenis homiliis in Epistolam ad Hebraeos haec refert: Ὅτι ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιγεγραμμένης ἐπιστολῆς, οὐκ ἔχει τὸ ἐν λόγῳ ἰδιωτικὸν τοῦ Ἀποστόλου, ὁμολογήσαντος ἑαυτὸν ἰδιώτην εἶναι τῷ

"To fall in with the wish," etc. I read συγχρήσεσθαι ("will fall in with"). Eusebius, Church History VI, ch. 25, reports this from Origen's homilies on the Letter to the Hebrews: "That the character of the letter entitled To the Hebrews does not have the Apostle's plainness of speech, who confessed himself plain in

(printed under page 37)

(20) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 67

Matth. XXIII, 29-36.

Matt. 23:29–36.

(printed under page 38)

(62) (continued from n66) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 66

λόγῳ, τουτέστι τῇ φράσει· ἀλλ' ἔστιν ἐπιστολὴ συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως Ἑλληνικωτέρα, πᾶς ὁ ἐπιστάμενος κρίνειν φράσεων διαφορὰς ὁμολογήσαι ἄν. Πάλιν τε αὖ ὅτι τὰ νοήματα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς θαυμάσιά ἐστι, καὶ οὐ δεύτερα τῶν ἀποστολικῶν ὁμολογουμένων γραμμάτων, καὶ τοῦτο ἂν συμφῆσαι εἶναι ἀληθὲς πᾶς ὁ προσέχων τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῇ ἀποστολικῇ. « Stylum epistolae quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos, carere illa sermonis rusticitate quae propria est Apostoli; quippe rudem atque imperitum sese confitetur in sermone, id est in forma ac ratione dicendi. Verum epistola illa et in verborum compositione majorem praefert Graeci sermonis elegantiam, ut fatebitur quisquis de styli differentia perite judicare potest. Et praeterea sententias continet admirabiles, nec scriptis apostolicis inferiores. Atque id verissimum esse assentientur, quicunque apostolorum scripta attente perlegerint. » Paucis deinde interjectis, haec subjungit: Ἐγὼ δὲ ἀποφαινόμενος εἴποιμ' ἄν, ὅτι τὰ μὲν νοήματα τοῦ Ἀποστόλου ἐστὶν, ἡ δὲ φράσις καὶ ἡ σύνθεσις ἀπομνημονεύσαντός τινος τὰ ἀποστολικὰ, καὶ ὡσπερεὶ σχολιογραφήσαντος τὰ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ διδασκάλου. Εἴ τις οὖν ἐκκλησία ἔχει ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὡς Παύλου, αὕτη εὐδοκιμείτω καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ· οὐ γὰρ εἰκῇ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες ὡς Παύλου αὐτὴν παραδεδώκασι. Τίς δὲ ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς Θεὸς οἶδεν· ἡ δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς φθάσασα ἱστορία ὑπό τινων μὲν λεγόντων, ὅτι Κλήμης ὁ γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος Ῥωμαίων ἔγραψε τὴν ἐπιστολήν· ὑπό τινων δὲ ὅτι Λουκᾶς ὁ γράψας τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὰς Πράξεις. « Ego vero ita censeo, sententias quidem ipsas Apostoli esse; dictionem autem et compositionem verborum esse alterius cujusdam, qui dicta Apostoli commemorare, et quasi in commentarios redigere voluerit ea quae a magistro audiverat. Proinde si qua Ecclesia hanc epistolam pro Paulina habet, eo nomine laudetur; neque enim temere majores eam Pauli esse tradiderunt. Quis autem revera illam scripserit, soli Deo notum esse opinor. Sed scriptores quorum monumenta ad nos usque pervenerunt, partim Clementi Romanae urbis episcopo eam ascribunt, partim Lucae qui Evangelium et Actus apostolorum litteris prodidit. » Lib. III et VII contra Celsum, item lib. I Περὶ ἀρχῶν, et alibi passim Origenes eam Paulo ascribit.

speech, that is, in expression; but the letter is more Greek in the composition of its diction, as everyone able to judge differences of style would agree. And again, that the thoughts of the letter are wonderful, and not second to the acknowledged apostolic writings, this too everyone who attends to the reading of the Apostle would agree to be true." "The style of the letter entitled To the Hebrews lacks that rusticity of speech which is proper to the Apostle; for he confesses himself rude and unskilled in speech, that is, in the form and manner of speaking. But that letter, in the composition of its words too, shows a greater elegance of Greek speech, as anyone able to judge skilfully of difference of style will admit. And besides, it contains admirable thoughts, not inferior to the apostolic writings. And that this is most true all will agree who read the writings of the apostles attentively." Then, after a few words, he adds: "But if I were to give my opinion, I would say that the thoughts are the Apostle's, but the expression and the composition are those of someone who remembered the apostolic teaching and, as it were, wrote notes on what had been said by the teacher. If any church, then, holds this letter as Paul's, let it be commended for this too; for not without reason did the men of old hand it down as Paul's. But who wrote the letter, God knows the truth; the account that has reached us is, from some, that Clement, who became bishop of the Romans, wrote the letter, and from others that it was Luke, who wrote the Gospel and the Acts." "I for my part judge thus: that the thoughts themselves are the Apostle's, but the diction and the composition of the words are someone else's, who wished to recall the Apostle's sayings and, as it were, to set down in notes what he had heard from his master. So if any Church holds this letter as Paul's, let it be praised on that account; for not without reason did our forebears hand it down as Paul's. But who in truth wrote it, I think is known to God alone. Yet the writers whose works have come down to us ascribe it partly to Clement, bishop of the city of Rome, partly to Luke, who put in writing the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles." In books III and VII Against Celsus, and in book I On First Principles, and elsewhere often, Origen ascribes it to Paul.

(printed under page 38; the image crops a letter or two at the right edge of several lines of the right-hand foot, and those line-end letters are read whole from the surviving word)

(63) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 67

Wetstenius et codex Basileensis, μνήματα . . . εἰ ἤμεθα . . . . . οὐκ ἂν ἤμεθα. Infra Wetstenius, ὡς μαρτυρεῖτε.

Wetstein and the Basel manuscript read μνήματα ("tombs") … εἰ ἤμεθα ("if we had been") … οὐκ ἂν ἤμεθα ("we would not have been"). Below, Wetstein reads ὡς μαρτυρεῖτε ("as you bear witness").

(printed under page 38)

²⁰ Matth. XXIII, 29-36.

²⁰ Matt. 23:29–36.

λόγῳ, τουτέστι τῇ φράσει· ἀλλ' ἔστιν ἐπιστολὴ συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως Ἑλληνικωτέρα, πᾶς ὁ ἐπιστάμενος κρίνειν φράσεων διαφορὰς ὁμολογῆσαι ἄν. Πάλιν τε αὖ ὅτι τὰ νοήματα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς θαυμάσιά ἐστι, καὶ οὐ δεύτερα τῶν ἀποστολικῶν ὁμολογουμένων γραμμάτων, καὶ τοῦτο ἂν συμφῆσαι εἶναι ἀληθὲς πᾶς ὁ προσέχων τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῇ ἀποστολικῇ. « Stylum epistolae quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos, carere illa sermonis rusticitate quae propria est Apostoli; quippe rudem atque imperitum sese confitetur in sermone, id est in forma ac ratione dicendi. Verum epistola illa et in verborum compositione majorem praefert Graeci sermonis elegantiam, ut fatebitur quisquis de styli differentia perite judicare potest. Et praeterea sententias continet admirabiles, nec scriptis apostolicis inferiores. Atque id verissimum esse assentientur, quicunque apostolorum scripta attente perlegerint. » Paucis deinde interjectis, haec subjungit: Ἐγὼ δὲ ἀποφαινόμενος εἴποιμ' ἄν, ὅτι τὰ μὲν νοήματα τοῦ Ἀποστόλου ἐστὶν, ἡ δὲ φράσις καὶ ἡ σύνθεσις ἀπομνημονεύσαντός τινος τὰ ἀποστολικὰ, καὶ ὡσπερεὶ σχολιογραφήσαντος τὰ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ διδασκάλου. Εἴ τις οὖν ἐκκλησία ἔχει ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὡς Παύλου, αὕτη εὐδοκιμείτω καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ· οὐ γὰρ εἰκῇ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες ὡς Παύλου αὐτὴν παραδεδώκασι. Τίς δὲ ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς Θεὸς οἶδεν· ἡ δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς φθάσασα ἱστορία ὑπό τινων μὲν λεγόντων, ὅτι Κλήμης ὁ γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος Ῥωμαίων ἔγραψε τὴν ἐπιστολήν· ὑπό τινων δὲ ὅτι Λουκᾶς ὁ γράψας τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὰς Πράξεις. « Ego vero ita censeo, sententias quidem ipsas Apostoli esse; dictionem autem et compositionem verborum esse alterius cujusdam, qui dicta Apostoli commemorare, et quasi in commentarios redigere voluerit ea quae a magistro audiverat. Proinde si qua Ecclesia hanc epistolam pro Paulina habet, eo nomine laudetur; neque enim temere majores eam Pauli esse tradiderunt. Quis autem revera illam scripserit, soli Deo notum esse opinor. Sed scriptores quorum monumenta ad nos usque pervenerunt, partim Clementi Romanae urbis episcopo eam ascribunt, partim Lucae qui Evangelium et Actus apostolorum litteris prodidit. » Lib. iii et vii contra Celsum, item lib. i Περὶ ἀρχῶν, et alibi passim Origenes eam Paulo ascribit.

… in speech, that is, in diction; but that the epistle is more Greek in the composition of its style, everyone who knows how to judge differences of diction would admit. And again, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not second to the acknowledged apostolic writings, this too everyone who attends to the reading of the Apostle would agree to be true. « [That] the style of the epistle which is entitled To the Hebrews lacks that rusticity of speech which is proper to the Apostle; for he confesses himself rude and unskilled in speech, that is, in the form and manner of speaking. But that epistle, in the composition of its words also, displays a greater elegance of Greek speech, as anyone will acknowledge who is able to judge skilfully of difference of style. And moreover it contains admirable thoughts, not inferior to the apostolic writings. And that this is most true will be agreed by all who have read the writings of the apostles attentively. » Then, after a few words interposed, he adds this: But I, giving my opinion, would say that the thoughts are the Apostle's, but the diction and the composition are those of someone who recalled the Apostle's teachings and, as it were, wrote notes on what had been said by his teacher. If, then, any church holds this epistle as Paul's, let it be commended for this too; for not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul's. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows; the account that has reached us is, from some who say that Clement, who became bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and from some that it was Luke, who wrote the Gospel and the Acts. « But I for my part judge thus: that the thoughts themselves are the Apostle's, but that the diction and the composition of the words are those of some other person, who wished to recall the sayings of the Apostle and, as it were, to set down in notes what he had heard from his master. Therefore, if any Church holds this epistle as Pauline, let it be praised on that account; for not rashly did our forebears hand it down as Paul's. But who in truth wrote it, I think is known to God alone. Yet the writers whose records have come down to us ascribe it partly to Clement, bishop of the city of Rome, partly to Luke, who committed to writing the Gospel and the Acts of the apostles. » In Books III and VII Against Celsus, likewise in Book I On First Principles, and passim elsewhere, Origen ascribes it to Paul.

(63) Wetstenius et codex Basileensis, μνήματα . . . εἰ ἤμεθα . . . . . οὐκ ἂν ἤμεθα. Infra Wetstenius, ὡς μαρτυρεῖτε.

(63) Wetstein and the Basle manuscript [read] μνήματα . . . εἰ ἤμεθα . . . . . οὐκ ἂν ἤμεθα. Below, Wetstein [reads] ὡς μαρτυρεῖτε.

<!-- note: Column 67 itself holds no editors' prose; the text is Origen's Latin (Greek facing in col. 68), with the scripture footnote ²⁰ under it. The page-foot apparatus runs the full width under cols 67–68. It opens mid-note, continuing a note from the previous page whose number and opening do not stand on this page (it quotes Eusebius HE VI.25 on Hebrews, Greek interleaved with a Latin rendering), and closes with note (63). Notes 64–66 are NOT on this page, so the brief's note-numbering (64?/65?/66) does not match: no [...] gap in a note 66 could be filled from here. The right edge of the scan is cropped: the last letters of the right-hand lines (e.g. ἐπίσκοπος, Ego, Apostoli, verborum, commemorare, voluerit, quae, nomine, eam, illam, scriptores, pervenerunt, Actus, contra, passim, μνήματα, Wetstenius) are supplied where the letters were cut off. The printed text reads ἔστιν ἐπιστολὴ without the article (Eusebius has ἡ ἐπιστολή), set as printed. -->

- (63) Wetstenius et codex Basileensis, μνήματα . . . εἰ ἤμεθα . . . . . οὐκ ἂν ἤμεθα. Infra Wetstenius, ὡς μαρτυρεῖτε.

(63) Wetstein and the Basel codex: μνήματα . . . εἰ ἤμεθα . . . . . οὐκ ἂν ἤμεθα. Below, Wetstein: ὡς μαρτυρεῖτε.

(64?/65?) (the crop begins mid-note; its call number and opening lines are not in the image) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 70 […] Origenem; quasi vero nihil in Scripturis Veteris Testamenti legeretur de occisione prophetarum et eorum persecutionibus ipsa morte acerbioribus. Non enim verba Salvatoris presse sunt sumenda; alias sequeretur a solis Jerosolymitanis occisos omnes prophetas, ac (si quidem ulterius torquere verba lubeat), uno mortis genere, lapidatione. Hinc Stephanus in Actis persecutionem et occisionem conjungit: Paulus vero, I Thess. II, 15, tantum de persecutionibus loquitur. Persecutionem Moysis vide Exod. XVII, 4; Num. XIV, 10; Davidis cum occisione sacerdotum a Saulo perpetrata I Reg. XXII, prophetae ex Juda III Reg. XIII, 4; occisionem prophetarum a Jesabele commissam III Reg. XVIII, 4 et xix, 10; persecutiones Eliae III Reg. XIX, 2, et IV Reg. I, 19; Micheae III Reg. XXII, 24, 26; Elisei IV Reg. VI, 31, 32; Hanani II Paralip. xvi, 10; alterius prophetae in Juda II Paralip. xxv, 16; prophetarum sub postremis regibus Judae II Paralip. xxxvi, 16; Isaiae, Isa. lvii, 4; Jeremiae, Jerem. xv, 10; xx, 2; xxxviii, 6; xliii, 2; Ezechielis, Ezech. III, 25; Danielis, Dan. VI, 16; Amos, Am. vii, 11, etc.; occisionem prophetarum per Manassem IV Reg. XXI, 10, 16; Zachariae filii Joiadae, II Paralip. xxiv, 21. Sed cum bona Wetstenii venia dixerim ego nihil haec loca nocere Origenis argumento quo tantum contendit genus mortis duodecim prophetarum nullibi in Scripturis canonicis Veteris Testamenti commemorari, licet verisimile ei videretur de his duodecim praecipue loqui Christum, cum Judaeos haec inducit dicentes: « Si fuissemus in diebus patrum nostrorum, non essemus socii eorum in sanguine prophetarum. »

[…] Origen; as though nothing were read in the Scriptures of the Old Testament about the killing of the prophets and their persecutions, harsher than death itself. For the Saviour's words are not to be taken strictly; otherwise it would follow that all the prophets were killed by the people of Jerusalem alone, and (if one chose to twist the words further) by a single kind of death, stoning. Hence Stephen in Acts joins persecution and killing, while Paul, 1 Thess. 2:15, speaks only of persecutions. For the persecution of Moses see Exod. 17:4; Num. 14:10; of David, with the killing of the priests done by Saul, 1 Sam. 22; of the prophet from Judah, 1 Kings 13:4; the killing of the prophets committed by Jezebel, 1 Kings 18:4 and 19:10; the persecutions of Elijah, 1 Kings 19:2 and 2 Kings 1:19; of Micaiah, 1 Kings 22:24, 26; of Elisha, 2 Kings 6:31, 32; of Hanani, 2 Chron. 16:10; of another prophet in Judah, 2 Chron. 25:16; of the prophets under the last kings of Judah, 2 Chron. 36:16; of Isaiah, Isa. 57:4; of Jeremiah, Jer. 15:10; 20:2; 38:6; 43:2; of Ezekiel, Ezek. 3:25; of Daniel, Dan. 6:16; of Amos, Amos 7:11, etc.; the killing of the prophets by Manasseh, 2 Kings 21:10, 16; of Zechariah son of Jehoiada, 2 Chron. 24:21. But, with Wetstein's kind leave, I would say that these passages in no way harm Origen's argument, in which he contends only that the manner of death of the twelve prophets is nowhere recorded in the canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, though it seemed likely to him that Christ was speaking chiefly of these twelve when He brings in the Jews saying: "If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been their partners in the blood of the prophets."

(printed under page 39)

(66) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 70

Περὶ τοῦ Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου. Tom. xi in Matthaeum explicans illud Hebr. II, 37: « Lapidati sunt, secti sunt, tentati sunt, » ait: Τὸ « ἐπρίσθησαν, » ἐπὶ τὸν Ἡσαΐαν ἀναφέρεται· ὥσπερ τὸ, « ἐν φόνῳ μαχαίρας ἀπέθανον, » ἐπὶ τὸν Ζαχαρίαν φονευθέντα μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, ὡς ὁ Σωτὴρ ἐδίδαξε μαρτυρῶν, ὡς οἶμαι, Γραφῇ, μὴ φερομένῃ μὲν ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς καὶ δεδημευμένοις βιβλίοις, εἰκὸς δ' ὅτι ἐν ἀποκρύφοις φερομένῃ. Illud: « secti sunt, » ad Isaiam refertur: quemadmodum illud: « in occisione gladii mortui sunt, » ad Zachariam occisum inter templum et altare, sicut Salvator docuit; testimonio suo, opinor, confirmans Scripturam in communibus quidem et publicis libris non divulgatam; in apocryphis autem libris, ut verisimile est, exstantem. » Tom. xvii in eumdem Matth. hunc Zachariam distinguit ab Azaria filio Joiadae de quo II Paral. xxiv, 20, 21, 22. Ὃν δὲ ἀπέκτειναν, ὡς Ζαχαρίαν μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου· ὃν δὲ ἐλιθοβόλησαν, ὡς τὸν Ἀζαρίαν υἱὸν τοῦ Ἰωδαὲ τὸν ἱερέα, καθάπερ γέγραπται ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ τῶν Παραλειπομένων. « Alium autem, quemadmodum inter templum et altare Zachariam, occiderunt; illum vero lapidibus obtriverunt, ut Azariam filium Joiadae sacerdotem, quemadmodum in altero Paralipomenon libro traditum est. » Azariam filium Joiadae hoc loco nominat, secutus LXX editionem quae in majori exemplarium parte habebat Azariam, non Zachariam. Tractatu 26 in caput xxiii Matthaei, filium Joiadae non Azariam, sed Zachariam diserte vocat, secutus nimirum Hebraicam veritatem. Ibidem Zachariam filium Barachiae de quo loquitur Salvator, negat « unum fuisse ex prophetis duodecim, quorum scripta habemus in manibus; sed Zachariam, inquit, dicit patrem Joannis: de quo per Scripturas quidem canonicas ostendere non possumus nec quoniam filius fuit Barachiae, nec quia Scribae et Pharisaei interfecerunt eum inter templum et altare. Sed venit ad nos quaedam traditio talis, quasi sit aliquis locus in templo ubi virginibus quidem consistere licet, et orare Deum; expertae autem torum virilem, non permittebantur in eo consistere. Maria autem postquam genuit Salvatorem, ingrediens adorare, stetit in illo virginum loco: prohibentibus autem eis qui noverant eam jam filium genuisse, Zacharias stetit, atque dixit prohibentibus eam, quoniam digna est virginum loco cum sit adhuc virgo. Ergo quasi manifestissime Zachariam adversus legem agentem, et in loco virginum permittentem stare mulierem, occiderunt inter templum et altare viri generationis illius. » Perplacet Huetio sententia Hieronymi, qui Zachariam Barachiae filium, de quo Matth. XXIII, 35, eumdem esse sciscit, qui Zacharias, Joiadae filius; ad id Hebraico Nazaraeorum codice adductus, in quo pro Barachiae nomine, Joiadae nomen reperiebatur. Mihi vero satis arridet Hugonis Grotii opinio qui censet ita hic Christum alludere ad veterem historiam, ut simul insit ejus verbis futuri praesagium. Nam virorum bonorum atque insignium ultimus ab Hierosolymitis trucidatus, et quidem in ipso templo, dictus fuit Zacharias, et quidem filius Baruch, sive Barachiae, is de quo Josephus lib. v De bello, seu lib. iv, c. 19, in Graeco, p. 883.

"Concerning Zechariah son of Barachiah." In the eleventh tome on Matthew, explaining the words of Heb. 2 [sic; = 11]:37, "They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted," he says: [Greek: "'They were sawn asunder' refers to Isaiah; just as 'they died by the slaughter of the sword' refers to Zechariah, slain between the temple and the altar, as the Saviour taught, bearing witness, I think, to a Scripture not found in the common and published books, but likely found in apocryphal ones."] "'They were cut in two' refers to Isaiah; as 'they died by the slaughter of the sword' refers to Zechariah, killed between the temple and the altar, as the Saviour taught; confirming by His testimony, I think, a Scripture not made known in the common and public books, but extant, as is likely, in the apocryphal books." In Tome XVII on the same Matthew he distinguishes this Zechariah from Azariah son of Jehoiada, of whom 2 Chron. 24:20, 21, 22. [Greek:] "One they killed, as Zechariah between the temple and the altar; and one they stoned, as Azariah son of Jehoiada the priest, as is written in the second book of Chronicles." "Another they killed, as Zechariah between the temple and the altar; but him they crushed with stones, as Azariah son of Jehoiada the priest, as is handed down in the second book of Chronicles." In this place he names Azariah son of Jehoiada, following the edition of the Seventy, which in the greater part of the copies had Azariah, not Zechariah. In Tractate 26 on Matthew chapter 23 he plainly calls the son of Jehoiada not Azariah but Zechariah, following, that is, the Hebrew verity. In the same place he denies that the Zechariah son of Barachiah of whom the Saviour speaks "was one of the twelve prophets whose writings we have in our hands; but he speaks," he says, "of Zechariah the father of John: of whom we cannot show from the canonical Scriptures either that he was son of Barachiah or that the scribes and Pharisees killed him between the temple and the altar. But a tradition of this kind has come down to us: that there was a certain place in the temple where virgins were allowed to stand and pray to God, while women who had known a husband's bed were not permitted to stand in it. Now Mary, after she had borne the Saviour, coming in to worship, stood in that place of the virgins; and when those who knew she had already borne a son tried to stop her, Zechariah stood and said to those stopping her that she was worthy of the virgins' place, since she was still a virgin. So, as though Zechariah were most manifestly acting against the law and allowing a woman to stand in the place of virgins, the men of that generation killed him between the temple and the altar." Huet is well pleased with the opinion of Jerome, who holds that Zechariah son of Barachiah, of Matt. 23:35, is the same as Zechariah son of Jehoiada, led to it by the Hebrew manuscript of the Nazarenes, in which the name of Jehoiada was found in place of Barachiah. But I am quite taken with the opinion of Hugo Grotius, who thinks that Christ here so alludes to the old history that at the same time a presage of the future lies in His words. For the last of the good and notable men slain by the people of Jerusalem, and in the temple itself, was called Zechariah, son of Baruch or Barachiah — the man of whom Josephus speaks in book V of the War, or book IV, ch. 19, in the Greek, p. 883.

(printed under page 39)

(64) Wetstenius et codex Basileensis ἤμεθα .... οὐκ ἂν ἤμεθα.

(64) Wetstein and the Basle codex [read] ἤμεθα .... οὐκ ἂν ἤμεθα.

<!-- note (QA Q4): a second, complete copy of note (66) stood here; it was removed after the copy under Footnotes was completed from the page (the two crops' gap filled), so the note is set once. The page prints "Hebr. II, 37" (misprint for XI), kept as printed. --> <!-- note: col 70 (page 69/70) holds no editors' prose in the column itself (Greek text, Origen's text in the Latin version, and the foot apparatus only). Per the brief, this file sets the foot apparatus's first note, (64), complete on this page with its call number and opening lines, and note (66) in full, which begins at the foot of the left half ("(66) Περὶ τοῦ Ζαχαρίου…" through "…in communibus quidem et publicis libris") and runs on in the right half from "non divulgatam" to "p. 883."; the [...] gap between the crops is filled from the page. These two replace the partial copies in n70. Note (65) lies between them and is untouched. Note (66) ends on this page. -->

(25, 26) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 71 · (call numerals faint in the print; read as 25·26) Act. VII, 52.

Acts 7:52.

(printed under page 40)

(27) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 71

I Thess. II, 14.

1 Thess. 2:14.

(printed under page 40)

(28) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 71

Isa. i, 10.

Isa. 1:10.

(printed under page 40)

(29) ‹anchor: locutum esse in prophetis› · call in col 71

Heb. I, 1.

Heb. 1:1.

(printed under page 40)

(30) ‹anchor: terram generationis tuae› · call in col 71

Gen. XXXI, 10 seqq.

Gen. 31:10 ff.

(printed under page 40)

(67) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 71

Wetstenius, μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα λέγει ἐπὶ πολλοῖς. [Ita et Cant., qui tamen καί ante ταῦτα addit.] Sed codex Regius ut in nostro textu.

Wetstein reads μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα λέγει ἐπὶ πολλοῖς ("bearing witness, he says these things against many"). [So also the Cambridge manuscript, which however adds καί before ταῦτα.] But the Codex Regius reads as in our text.

(printed under page 40)

(68) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 71

Καινῆς. Omnino legendum ἐκείνης. Neque enim verisimile est Origenem, qui Stephani verba laudavit, eodem temporis puncto negare haec in Novo Testamento reperiri. Non ergo ex Novo, sed ex illo de quo supra, nempe Veteri Testamento negat demonstrari posse quaecunque martyr Stephanus Judaeis exprobrat. Paulo post codex Regius, τῆς πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς Ἐπιστολῆς. Apud Wetstenium deest Ἐπιστολῆς.

"New": one should certainly read ἐκείνης ("that"). For it is not likely that Origen, who has quoted Stephen's words, should at the same moment deny that these things are found in the New Testament. It is not, then, from the New, but from that one spoken of above, namely the Old Testament, that he denies it can be shown whatever the martyr Stephen reproaches the Jews with. A little after, the Codex Regius reads τῆς πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς Ἐπιστολῆς ("of the Letter to the Thessalonians"). In Wetstein Ἐπιστολῆς is missing.

(printed under page 40)

(69) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 71

Wetstenius, ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων

Wetstein reads ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ("from their own").

(printed under page 40)

(70) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 71

Idem, διωξάντων.

The same reads διωξάντων ("of those who persecuted").

(printed under page 40)

(71) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 71

Idem, σήστοπον, corrupte, et paulo post, τετολμῆται τοῖς τότε. — Wetsten. scribere debebat σύστοπον. Nolte.

The same reads σήστοπον, corruptly, and a little after, τετολμῆται τοῖς τότε ("was dared by those of that time"). — Wetstein should have written σύστοπον. Nolte.

(printed under page 40)

(72) ‹anchor: ἡ ἀπόφασις ἔχοι› · call in col 71

Codex Basileensis, ἔχη.

The Basel manuscript reads ἔχῃ (subjunctive for optative, "has").

(printed under page 40)

(73) ‹anchor: περὶ τοῦ Ἰακώβ› · call in col 71

Codex Wetstenianus, Ἰωακέμ, male.

Wetstein's manuscript reads Ἰωακέμ ("Joakim"), wrongly.

(printed under page 40)

(74) ‹anchor: ἐνεκίσσων τὰ πρόβατα› · call in col 71

Idem, πράγματα, perperam.

The same reads πράγματα ("things") for πρόβατα ("sheep"), wrongly.

(printed under page 40)

- (67) Wetstenius, μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα λέγει ἐπὶ πολλοῖς. [Ita et Cant., qui tamen καί ante ταῦτα addit.] Sed codex Regius ut in nostro textu.

(67) Wetstein: μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα λέγει ἐπὶ πολλοῖς. [So too Cant., which however adds καί before ταῦτα.] But the Royal codex reads as in our text.

- (68) Καινῆς. Omnino legendum ἐκείνης. Neque enim verisimile est Origenem, qui Stephani verba laudavit, eodem temporis puncto negare haec in Novo Testamento reperiri. Non ergo ex Novo, sed ex illo de quo supra, nempe Veteri Testamento negat demonstrari posse quaecunque martyr Stephanus Judaeis exprobrat. Paulo post codex Regius, τῆς πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς Ἐπιστολῆς. Apud Wetstenium deest Ἐπιστολῆς.

(68) Καινῆς. We should certainly read ἐκείνης. For it is not likely that Origen, who has quoted Stephen's words, should at the same moment deny that they are found in the New Testament. It is therefore not from the New, but from the one spoken of above, namely the Old Testament, that he denies it can be shown whatever the martyr Stephen reproaches the Jews with. A little after, the Royal codex has τῆς πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς Ἐπιστολῆς. In Wetstein Ἐπιστολῆς is missing.

- (69) Wetstenius, ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων

(69) Wetstein: ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων

- (70) Idem, διωξάντων.

(70) The same: διωξάντων.

- (71) Idem, σήστοπον, corrupte, et paulo post, τετολμῆται τοῖς τότε. — Wetsten. scribere debebat σύστοπον. NOLTE.

(71) The same: σήστοπον, corruptly, and a little after, τετολμῆται τοῖς τότε. — Wetstein ought to have written σύστοπον. NOLTE.

- (72) Codex Basileensis, ἔχῃ.

(72) The Basel codex: ἔχῃ.

- (73) Codex Wetstenianus, Ἰωαχέμ, male.

(73) Wetstein's codex: Ἰωαχέμ, wrongly.

- (74) Idem, πράγματα, perperam.

(74) The same: πράγματα, wrongly.

- (75) Wetsthenius, λελαληκέναι ὡς τόν, sed in mss. deest ὡς.

(75) Wetstein: λελαληκέναι ὡς τόν; but in the manuscripts ὡς is missing.

- (76) Μετά, deest apud Wetstenium, sed reperitur in codice regio. Infra Wetstenius, οὐδ' ὡς Φιλιστίωνος μῖμος, sed codex Reg. ut in nostro textu.

(76) Μετά is missing in Wetstein, but is found in the Royal codex. Below, Wetstein: οὐδ' ὡς Φιλιστίωνος μῖμος; but the Royal codex reads as in our text.

(31) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 74

Gen. XXXII, 23.

Gen. 32:23 [as printed; the passage quoted is Gen. 31:11–13].

(printed under page 41)

(32) ‹anchor: quod ascendisti› · call in col 74

Gen. XLIX, 1, seqq.

Gen. 49:1 ff.

(printed under page 41)

(75) ‹anchor: ἐξ ἐπιπνοίας λελαληκέναι› · call in col 74

Wetsthenius, λελαληκέναι ὡς τόν, sed in mss. deest ὡς.

Wetstein reads λελαληκέναι ὡς τόν ("to have spoken as the"), but in the manuscripts ὡς is missing.

(printed under page 41)

(76) ‹anchor: Ἔπειτα μετά› · call in col 74

Μετά, deest apud Wetstenium, sed reperitur in codice regio. Infra Wetstenius, οὐδ' ὡς Φιλιστίωνος μῖμος, sed codex Reg. ut in nostro textu.

"After" is missing in Wetstein, but is found in the royal manuscript. Below, Wetstein reads οὐδ' ὡς Φιλιστίωνος μῖμος ("not even as a mime of Philistion"), but the Codex Regius reads as in our text.

(printed under page 41)

(33) ‹anchor: ad faciendum judicium› · call in col 75

III Reg. III, 16 et seqq.

1 Kings (III Kingdoms) 3:16 ff.

(printed under page 42)

(77) ‹anchor: ἔφασκες ἐξ ἐπιπνοίας› · call in col 76

Wetstenius in textu ἐπινοίας, sed alii codd. mss. ἐπιπνοίας.

Wetstein has ἐπινοίας ("by reflection") in the text, but other manuscripts read ἐπιπνοίας ("by inspiration").

(printed under page 42)

(78) ‹anchor: τοῦ ποιεῖν› · call in col 76 (full-width line)

Wetstenius in textu τῷ ποιεῖν. Paulo post, μικροῦ δεῖν, ἔλαθέ με.

Wetstein has τῷ ποιεῖν (dative) in the text. A little after, μικροῦ δεῖν, ἔλαθέ με ("it all but escaped me").

(printed under page 42)

(79) ‹anchor: οἱονεὶ ἐτυμολογίαι› · call in col 76

Idem, πρίνου πρίσιν, καὶ σχῖνον σχίσιν· ὅτι ἐν ταῖς ἡμετέραις Γραφαῖς κεῖνταί τινες οἱονεὶ ἐπιμελετίαι, sed alii codd. mss. rectius.

The same reads πρίνου πρίσιν, καὶ σχῖνον σχίσιν· ὅτι ἐν ταῖς ἡμετέραις Γραφαῖς κεῖνταί τινες οἱονεὶ ἐπιμελετίαι ("holm-oak, a sawing, and mastic, a splitting: that in our Scriptures there are, as it were, certain studied plays"), but the other manuscripts read more correctly.

(printed under page 42)

- (77) ‹anchor: ἐξ ἐπιπνοίας›, (78) ‹anchor: τοῦ ποιεῖν› in the full-width line, (79) ‹anchor: οἱονεὶ ἐτυμολογίαι›: called in this column's Greek; set once under col 75 (see n75). (79) is printed at the foot of col 76, (77) and (78) at the foot of col 75.

(34) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 78

Gen. II, 23.

Gen. 2:23.

(printed under page 43)

(35) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 78

Psal. CXV, 13.

Ps. 115:13 (Vulgate numbering; Heb. 116:13).

(printed under page 43)

(36) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 78

Psal. I, 1.

Ps. 1:1.

(printed under page 43)

(80) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 78

Ὠκονομηκέναι. Similem oeconomiam tribuit LXX Interpretibus homil. 16 in Jerem. ad locum Jerem. xvi, 18: Ἀνταποδώσω, φησί, πρῶτον διπλᾶς τὰς ἀδικίας αὐτῶν, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Τὸ πρῶτον εἴτε μὴ νοήσαντες ἐξεῖλόν τινες τὸ γεγραμμένον, εἴτε καὶ οἰκονομήσαντες ἐξελεῖν οἱ Ἑβδομήκοντα, Θεὸς ἂν εἰδείη· ἡμεῖς μέντοιγε συγκρίνοντες ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσιν εὕρομεν κείμενον, καὶ ἀνταποδώσω πρῶτον διπλᾶς τὰς ἀδικίας. Retribuam, inquit, primum duplices iniquitates eorum, etc. Illud, primum, an imperiti id expunxerint e Scriptura, an vero LXX oeconomia usi exstinxerint, Deus novit. Nos equidem collatis reliquis editionibus invenimus in contextu: et reddam primum duplices iniquitates. Vide alias quas infra profert Origenes interpretum oeconomias.

"To have managed [it]." He attributes a similar management to the Seventy Translators in Homily 16 on Jeremiah, on Jer. 16:18: [Greek: "'I will repay,' he says, 'first their double iniquities,' and the rest. Whether some, not understanding what was written, removed 'first', or the Seventy removed it by management, God would know; but we, comparing with the other editions, found it standing: 'and I will repay first their double iniquities.'"] "I will repay," he says, "first their double iniquities," etc. Whether the unskilled struck out that "first" from the Scripture, or the Seventy, using management, did away with it, God knows. We, for our part, on comparing the other editions, found in the text: "and I will render first their double iniquities." See the other managements of the translators which Origen brings forward below.

(printed under page 43)

(81) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 78

Wetsthenius in textu habet, Οὐ γὰρ πείθομαι ἀνάλογον εἶναι τῷ συμφωνοῦντι τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ ὀνόματι παρώνυμον, sed praeterquam quod altera lectio quam sequimur, reperitur in aliis mss., confirmatur insuper infra ab Origene dum ait historiae Susannae interpretes ἤτοι κυρίως ἐκδεδωκέναι τὰ τῆς λέξεως, ἢ εὑρηκέναι τὸ ἀνάλογον τοῖς κατὰ τὸ Ἑβραϊκὸν παρωνύμοις.

Wetstein has in the text: "For I am not persuaded that there is a derivative corresponding to the one that agrees with the Hebrew name"; but besides the fact that the other reading, which we follow, is found in other manuscripts, it is confirmed further below by Origen when he says that the translators of the story of Susanna "either rendered the diction properly, or found the equivalent to the derivatives in the Hebrew."

(printed under page 43)

(82) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 78

Γυνή. Videtur legendum λῆμμα vel λῆψις, id est, « assumptio. »

"Woman": it seems one should read λῆμμα or λῆψις, that is, "a taking."

(printed under page 43)

(83) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 78

Ἑσσὰ μὲν καλεῖσθαι τὴν γυναῖκα, etc. Hieronymus in cap. II Osee, « Hebraeorum lingua vocatur vir is; unde et uxor quae de viro sumpta est, issa, quasi a viro, virago. » Idem in Quaest. Hebr. in Genesim: « Haec vocabitur mulier quoniam ex viro sumpta est. Non videtur in Graeco et in Latino sonare, cur mulier appelletur, quia ex viro sumpta sit; sed etymologia in Hebraeo sermone servatur. Vir quippe vocatur is איש, et mulier essa אשה, recte igitur ab is appellatur mulier issa. Unde et Symmachus pulchre etymologiam etiam in Graeco voluit custodire dicens, αὕτη κληθήσεται ἀνδρίς, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήφθη αὕτη. Quod nos Latine possumus dicere: « Haec vocabitur virago, quia ex viro sumpta est. » Porro Theodotio aliam etymologiam suspicatus est, dicens: « Haec vocabitur assumptio, quia ex viro sumpta est. » Potest quippe issa, secundum varietatem accentus, et assumptio intelligi. » Jam vero cum Origenes mulieris nomen Essa, perinde atque Theodotio deducat a radice נשא λαμβάνω, ut sua ipsi ratiocinatio constet, et aliqua etymologia in verbis Graecis servetur, locum Geneseos ii, 23, quem paulo antea laudavit, sic debuit legere, αὕτη κληθήσεται Λῆμμα, vel Λῆψις, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήφθη. Ut ut est, quod ait Hieronymus posse Issa secundum varietatem accentus, et assumptionem intelligi, id verissimum est, si אשה deducatur ex נשה vel נשא « sumpsit, assumpsit; » nam per « varietatem accentus » nihil aliud intelligit sanctus doctor, quam variam litterae ש pronuntiationem. Quamobrem dicendum est Theodotionem, si παρωνυμίαν Hebraicam proprie reddere voluit, tam τὸ, λῆμμα, quam τὸ, ἐλήφθη, ex unica radice נשה vel נשא deduxisse, prorsus neglecto praeterito passivo sequenti לקחה. Verum longe mihi verisimilius est illum παρωνυμίαν, quae in textu Hebraico est, non proprie reddere voluisse, sed oeconomice aliam longe diversam excogitasse, Issa λῆμμα assumptionem interpretando, ut luderet cum τῷ, ἐλήφθη, « sumpta est, » quo verbo exprimitur לקחה

"That the woman is called Essa," etc. Jerome on Hosea chapter 2: "In the Hebrew tongue a man is called is; hence also the wife, who was taken from the man, is called issa — as it were, from vir, virago." The same, in the Hebrew Questions on Genesis: "'She shall be called woman, because she was taken from the man.' It does not appear in Greek or in Latin why she is called woman because she was taken from the man; but the etymology is preserved in the Hebrew speech. For a man is called is (איש), and a woman essa (אשה); rightly, then, from is the woman is called issa. Hence Symmachus too finely wished to keep the etymology in Greek as well, saying: 'She shall be called andris (manness), because she was taken from her man.' Which we can say in Latin: 'She shall be called virago, because she was taken from vir.' Theodotion, further, suspected another etymology, saying: 'She shall be called taking, because she was taken from the man.' For issa, according to the variety of accent, can also be understood as taking." Now since Origen, just like Theodotion, derives the woman's name Essa from the root נשא, λαμβάνω ("I take"), then for his reasoning to hold and some etymology to be kept in the Greek words, he ought to have read the passage of Gen. 2:23 which he quoted a little before thus: "She shall be called Lemma (a taking), or Lepsis, because she was taken from her man." However that may be, what Jerome says, that Issa according to the variety of accent can also be understood as "taking," is perfectly true if אשה is derived from נשה or נשא, "he took, took up"; for by "variety of accent" the holy doctor means nothing other than the varying pronunciation of the letter ש. Therefore one must say that Theodotion, if he wished to render the Hebrew wordplay properly, derived both λῆμμα and ἐλήφθη from the single root נשה or נשא, entirely neglecting the following passive preterite לקחה. But it is far more likely to me that he did not wish to render properly the wordplay that is in the Hebrew text, but by management devised another, quite different one, interpreting Issa as λῆμμα, "a taking," to play on ἐλήφθη, "she was taken," the word by which לקחה is expressed.

(printed under page 43)

(84) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 78

Ἰσουώθ. Sic omnes habent codd. mss. Male autem Wetsthenii codex, Ἰσουάθ.

"Isuoth": so all the manuscripts have it. But Wetstein's manuscript wrongly has Ἰσουάθ.

(printed under page 43)

(85) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 78

Ἴς καὶ ἐσσὰ ἀνδρός. Forte legendum, uti conjicit Wetsthenius, ἴς ἀνήρ, καὶ ἐσσὰ ἀνδρίς, ut servetur verborum lusus a Symmacho excogitatus. [Emendo εἰς aut ἒς איש, aish. Idem legimus apud Eusebium, Praep. evang. xi, 6, p. 517 B, ubi Stephan., contra omnes codd., ἴς edidit. Nolte.] Paulo post codex Wetsthenii perperam habet: οὐδὲν οὖν θαυμαστὸν ἑρμηνεῦσαι τὰς τινὰς τό, recte autem alii mss. ut in nostro textu.

"Is and essa of the man." Perhaps one should read, as Wetstein conjectures, ἴς ἀνήρ, καὶ ἐσσὰ ἀνδρίς ("is, man; and essa, man-ness"), so as to keep the play on words devised by Symmachus. [I emend to εἰς or ἒς, איש, aish. We read the same in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel XI, 6, p. 517 B, where Estienne, against all the manuscripts, printed ἴς. Nolte.] A little after, Wetstein's manuscript wrongly has οὐδὲν οὖν θαυμαστὸν ἑρμηνεῦσαι τὰς τινὰς τό; but the other manuscripts rightly read as in our text.

(printed under page 43)

(86) ‹anchor: οἰκονομικῶς τινα› · call in col 78

Nostri mss., τινά, Wetsthenii codex τά.

Our manuscripts read τινά ("certain things"), Wetstein's manuscript τά ("the things").

(printed under page 43)

(37) ‹anchor: argenti talenta decem› · call in col 79

Tob. I, 12, 13, 14 sec. LXX.

Tob. 1:12–14, according to the Septuagint.

(37*) ‹anchor: in ira sua› · call in col 79 Ibid. 16, 17, 18.

Ibid., [verses] 16–18.

(37**) ‹anchor: omnia mea bona› · call in col 79 Ibid. 19, 20.

Ibid., [verses] 19–20.

(printed under page 44)

(87) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 79

Ἠστραγαλωμένοι. Wetstenii codex, ἀστραγαλώμενοι. Notum est ἀστράγαλον et ἀστραγαλίζω, « talos, et lusum talorum » significare. Notum etiam, tempore captivitatis, Judaeos tanquam abjectissima mancipia habitos, modo « sortibus jactis, » modo « pro vino » distractos fuisse. Vide Joel iii, 3, et Abdiam ii. Ergo participium istud ἠστραγαλωμένοι non male videtur verti posse: « Talorum lusu distracti. » Verumtamen licet τό, ἠστραγαλωμένοι, constanter legatur tum apud Africanum, tum apud Origenem, dubitandi locus est, ut monet Wetsthenius, an potius legendum sit ἐστραγγαλωμένοι. Africani enim verba Origenes paulo infra diserte refert ad Tobiam, at Tobiae cap. ii, 3, tam in Aldi quam in aliis editis libris legitur: εἷς ἐκ τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν ἐστραγγαλωμένος ἔρριπται ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ. « Quidam de genere nostro » Vet. interp. Latin. « jugulatus, » Vulgat. « praefocatus, » Xantes Pagninus « strangulatus projectus est in foro. » Vox tamen, ἠστραγαλωμένοι, nobis videtur retinenda, tum quia altera ἐστραγγαλωμένος semel tantum occurrit in Tobia, nec alibi legitur in Bibliis, tum quia sortis abjectissimae argumentum est « lusu talorum » distrahi et post mortem « insepultum in foro jacere. » — Vide quae ad ep. Africani ad Orig., cap. 2, initio dicta sunt. Nolte.

"Diced away." Wetstein's manuscript reads ἀστραγαλώμενοι. It is well known that ἀστράγαλος and ἀστραγαλίζω mean "knucklebones, and the game of knucklebones." It is known too that in the time of the captivity the Jews were treated as the most abject slaves, sold off now "by casting lots," now "for wine." See Joel 3:3 and Obadiah 2 [sic]. So this participle ἠστραγαλωμένοι seems rightly translatable as "sold off in a game of dice." Yet although ἠστραγαλωμένοι is read consistently both in Africanus and in Origen, there is room to doubt, as Wetstein warns, whether one should rather read ἐστραγγαλωμένοι ("strangled"). For Origen a little below expressly refers Africanus's words to Tobit; and in Tobit 2:3, both in Aldus and in the other printed books, one reads: "one of our race has been strangled and thrown in the market-place." "One of our race": the old Latin translator has "with his throat cut," the Vulgate "choked," Santes Pagnino "has been strangled and thrown out in the market-place." Still, the word ἠστραγαλωμένοι seems to us to be kept, both because the other, ἐστραγγαλωμένος, occurs only once in Tobit and is read nowhere else in the Bible, and because to be sold off "in a game of dice" and after death "to lie unburied in the market-place" is a mark of the most abject lot. — See what was said at the beginning of ch. 2 of Africanus's letter to Origen. Nolte.

(printed under page 44)

(88) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 79

Wetstenius, ὥσπερ προπεφήτευτο, quod in margine conjicit legendum ὥσπερ πεπροφήτευται.

Wetstein reads ὥσπερ προπεφήτευτο ("as had been foretold"), which in the margin he conjectures should be read ὥσπερ πεπροφήτευται ("as has been prophesied").

(printed under page 44)

(89) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 79

Wetstenii codex, οὕτως, male.

Wetstein's manuscript reads οὕτως ("thus"), wrongly.

(printed under page 44)

(90) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 79

Idem ἔλεγε τό, ἀστραγαλώμενοι. Emendo στραγγαλώμενοι. Nolte.

The same reads ἔλεγε τό, ἀστραγαλώμενοι ("he said the [word] 'diced'"). I emend to στραγγαλώμενοι ("strangled"). Nolte.

(printed under page 44)

(91) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 79

Ἑβραῖοι τῷ Τωβίᾳ οὐ χρῶνται, οὐδὲ τῇ Ἰουδήθ· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔχουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ ἐν ἀποκρύφοις ἑβραϊστί. Hieronymus Praefat. in Tobiam: « Librum Tobiae Hebraei de catalogo divinarum Scripturarum secantes, his quae hagiographa memorant, manciparunt. Arguunt nos Hebraeorum studia, et imputant nobis contra suum canonem Latinis auribus ista transferri, sed melius esse judicans Pharisaeorum displicere judicio, et episcoporum jussionibus deservire, institi ut potui. » Idem Praefat. in Judith: « Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter apocrypha legitur, cujus auctoritas ad roboranda illa quae in contentionem veniunt, minus idonea judicatur. »

"The Hebrews do not use Tobit, nor Judith; for they do not have them even among the apocrypha in Hebrew." Jerome, Preface to Tobit: "The Hebrews, cutting the book of Tobit off from the catalogue of the divine Scriptures, have consigned it to those they call Hagiographa. The zealous among the Hebrews blame us and charge us with translating these things for Latin ears against their canon; but judging it better to displease the judgement of the Pharisees and to serve the commands of the bishops, I pressed on as best I could." The same, Preface to Judith: "Among the Hebrews the book of Judith is read among the apocrypha; its authority is judged less fit for confirming matters that come into dispute."

(printed under page 44)

(92) ‹anchor: ἐνώπιον Νεμεσσάρου› · call in col 79

Aldus Ἐνεμεσσάρου, et sic infra.

Aldus reads Ἐνεμεσσάρου ("Enemessar"), and so below.

(printed under page 44)

(93) ‹anchor: ἐν Ῥάγοις› · call in col 79

Idem, Ἄργοις.

The same reads Ἄργοις ("Argos").

(printed under page 44)

(94) ‹anchor: πολλὰς ἐποίησα› · call in col 79

Idem, ἐποίησα.

The same reads ἐποίησα ("I did" — the printed form appears to repeat the text's reading).

(printed under page 44)

(95) ‹anchor: τοῦ γένους ἑώρων› · call in col 79

Idem, ἐθεώρουν.

The same reads ἐθεώρουν ("I beheld").

(printed under page 44)

(96) ‹anchor: πολλοὺς γὰρ ἐπέκτεινεν› · call in col 79

Idem, ἀπώλεσεν.

The same reads ἀπώλεσεν ("he destroyed").

(printed under page 44)

(97) ‹anchor: εἴ γε μή› · call in col 79

Wetstenii codex, εἴ γε μήν, male.

Wetstein's manuscript reads εἴ γε μήν, wrongly.

(printed under page 44)

- (98) ‹anchor: Δαχιάχαρος›, (99) ‹anchor: εὐνοῦχος αὐτοῦ›, (99*) ‹anchor: πολυτελὴς› in the full-width lines, (1) ‹anchor: νόμοις χρῆσθαι›: called in this column's Greek and printed at the foot of col 81 (the (1) note runs on under col 82); set once under col 82 (see n82), with the scripture notes (38)–(40), which are called in the Latin.

(38) ‹anchor: rationibus præfectus› · call in col 82

Tob. I, 22.

Tob. 1:22.

(printed under page 45)

(39) ‹anchor: factores Artaxerxis› · call in col 82

Esth. II, 19, 23.

Esth. 2:19, 23.

(printed under page 45)

(40) ‹anchor: templum instaurare› · call in col 82

II Esdr. I.

2 Esdras (Nehemiah) 1.

(printed under page 45)

(98) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 82

Aldus, Ἀχιάχαρος, et pro Ἀνανιὴλ habet Ἀναήλ. Ibidem in codice Wetstenii desideratur vox υἱός quae in codice Regio et Cant. et in aliis reperitur. Paulo post Aldus, τὴν ἐκλογιστίαν, et pro Ἀχερδόνος, legit Σαρχεδόνος.

Aldus reads Ἀχιάχαρος ("Achiacharus"), and for Ἀνανιήλ has Ἀναήλ. In the same place the word υἱός ("son") is missing in Wetstein's manuscript, though it is found in the Codex Regius and the Cambridge manuscript and in others. A little after, Aldus reads τὴν ἐκλογιστίαν ("the accountancy"), and for Ἀχερδόνος reads Σαρχεδόνος ("Sarchedon").

(printed under page 45)

(99) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 82

Νεεμίας οἰνοχόος τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ εὐνοῦχος αὐτοῦ. Origenes tom. xiv in Matth.: Εἰσί τινες εὐνοῦχοι, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, διὰ τοῦτο εὐνοῦχοι ἵν' οἰκοδομήσωσι πεσοῦσαν τὴν Ἱερουσαλήμ. Τῶν δὲ παράδειγμα ὁ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ Ἔσδρα γεγραμμένος, ὅς φησι· Καὶ ἐγὼ ἤμην εὐνοῦχος τῷ βασιλεῖ. « Sunt quidam eunuchi, Dei homines, qui propterea eunuchi facti sunt ut collapsam aedificent Jerusalem. Horum exemplum est is de quo scribitur in II Esdrae libro, qui inquit: Et ego eram eunuchus regi. » Observat hunc locum doctissimus Huetius lib. ii Origenianorum, cap. 1, num. 2, putatque imperitia linguae Hebraeae lapsum esse Origenem, ut εὐνοῦχον pro οἰνοχόῳ substituerit. Forte tamen ex collatione praesentium verborum deprehendi potest, Origenem memoria lapsum fuisse: diserte namque οἰνοχόον eum vocat, quod respondet Hebraeo משקה. Utrum vero Origenes, ex traditione Judaeorum, vel ex consuetudine regum orientalium quorum famuli et οἰνοχόοι (vide Genes. xl, 1, 2) eunuchi plerumque fuerunt, collegerit ipsum etiam Nehemiam eunuchum fuisse, incertum est. Quomodo autem factum sit, ut Nehemias a poculis regis Persarum fuerit, ex Athenaei lib. i, pag. 14, viri docti eleganter monstrarunt. Sic ille: Ὅτι ὁ Περσῶν βασιλεὺς τὸν Χαλυβώνιον μόνον οἶνον ἔπινεν, ὅν φησι Ποσειδώνιος κἂν Δαμασκῷ τῆς Συρίας γίνεσθαι, Περσῶν αὐτόθι καταφυτευσάντων τὰς ἀμπέλους. « Persarum rex vinum Chalybonium solum bibere consueverat, quod Posidonius etiam in Damasco Syriae nasci confirmat, quia vineas ibi Persae plantarunt. » Syria autem Judaeae finitima est, adeoque Nehemiae poterat vini illius administratio magis esse nota quam aliis. Unde et regi aptior et prae aliis idoneus pincerna visus. Wetstenius.

"Nehemiah, the king's cupbearer and his eunuch." Origen, tome XIV on Matthew: [Greek, rendered next.] "There are certain eunuchs, men of God, who became eunuchs for this reason, that they might build up fallen Jerusalem. An example of these is the one written of in the second book of Esdras, who says: 'And I was a eunuch to the king.'" The most learned Huet notes this passage in book II of the Origeniana, ch. 1, no. 2, and thinks Origen slipped through ignorance of the Hebrew language, so as to put "eunuch" for "cupbearer." Yet perhaps, from a comparison with the present words, it can be seen that Origen slipped in memory: for here he expressly calls him a cupbearer, which answers to the Hebrew משקה. But whether Origen, from Jewish tradition, or from the custom of eastern kings whose servants and cupbearers (see Gen. 40:1, 2) were for the most part eunuchs, inferred that Nehemiah himself was a eunuch too, is uncertain. How it came about that Nehemiah was cupbearer to the king of Persia, learned men have elegantly shown from Athenaeus, book I, p. 14. He says: [Greek, rendered next.] "The king of the Persians was accustomed to drink only Chalybonian wine, which Posidonius confirms grows also at Damascus in Syria, because the Persians planted vineyards there." Now Syria borders on Judaea, and so the handling of that wine could be better known to Nehemiah than to others. Hence he seemed to the king a fitter cupbearer and more suitable than others. Wetstein.

(99*) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 82 Forte leg. πολυτελῆ. Edit. Patrol.

Perhaps read πολυτελῆ ("costly"). Editor of the Patrologia.

(printed under page 45)

(1) ‹anchor: νόμοις χρῆσθαι› · call in col 81

Συγκεχωρῆσθαι τοῖς οἰκείοις νόμοις χρῆσθαι. Id diserte testatur Strabo Cappadox teste Josepho libr. xiv Antiq. Judaic., cap. 12, qui ejus verba sic refert: Τέτταρες δ' ἦσαν ἐν τῇ πόλει τῶν Κυρηναίων, ἥ τε τῶν πολιτῶν, καὶ ἡ τῶν γεωργῶν, τρίτη δ' ἡ τῶν μετοίκων, καὶ τετάρτη ἡ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Αὕτη δ' εἰς πᾶσαν πόλιν ἤδη παρελήλυθε, καὶ τόπον οὐκ ἔστι ῥᾳδίως εὑρεῖν τῆς οἰκουμένης, ὃς οὐ παραδέδεκται τοῦτο τὸ φῦλον, μηδ' ἐπικρατεῖται ὑπ' αὐτοῦ. Τήν τε Αἴγυπτον καὶ τὴν Κυρηναίαν, ἅτε τῶν αὐτῶν ἡγεμόνων τυχοῦσαν, τῶν τε ἄλλων συχνά, ζηλῶσαι συνέβη· καὶ δὴ τὰ συντάγματα τῶν Ἰουδαίων θρέψαι διαφερόντως, καὶ συναυξῆσαι χρώμενα τοῖς πατρίοις τῶν Ἰουδαίων νόμοις. Ἐν γοῦν Αἰγύπτῳ κατοικία τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστὶν ἀποδεδειγμένη, χωρὶς δὲ καὶ τῆς τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων πόλεως ἀφώριστο μέγα μέρος τῷ ἔθνει τούτῳ. Καθίσταται δὲ καὶ ἐθνάρχης αὐτῶν, ὃς διοικεῖ τε τὸ ἔθνος, καὶ διαιτᾷ κρίσεις, καὶ συμβολαίων ἐπιμελεῖται καὶ προσταγμάτων, ὡσὰν πολιτείας ἄρχων αὐτοτελοῦς. « Quatuor erant genera in Cyrenensium urbe, cives, agricolae, inquilini, et quarti Judaei. Hoc jam in omnes urbes subrepsit, nec est facile invenire locum in orbe habitabili, quem recepta semel haec gens non obtineat. Nam et Aegyptus et Cyrene, utpote eisdem solitae parere dominis, aliaeque multae regiones horum ritus admiserunt, aluntque congregationes Judaeorum maximas, tempore coalitas et utentes institutis domesticis. Per Aegyptum sane etiam coloniae sunt ejus gentis. Absque eo quod Alexandrinae urbis magna pars eis assignata est. Habet etiam ethnarcham qui suae gentis res administret, et controversias ex jure dirimat, et contractus atque pacta rata habeat, non aliter quam fit in absoluta republica. » Vide insuper Josephum lib. xix Antiquit. Judaic., cap. 4, ubi duplex refert Claudii imperatoris edictum jubentis ut Judaeis tum Alexandrinis, tum aliis sub imperio Romano viventibus, suo jure et suis legibus uti liceat. Vide eumdem Joseph. lib. vii De bello Judaico, cap. 9, Graec. vel c. 21 Latin., ubi de Judaeis apud Antiochiam degentibus agitur.

"That they were permitted to use their own laws." Strabo of Cappadocia testifies to this expressly, on the witness of Josephus, Jewish Antiquities XIV, ch. 12, who reports his words thus: [Greek, rendered next.] "There were four classes in the city of the Cyrenians: citizens, farmers, resident aliens, and fourth the Jews. This people has already made its way into every city, and it is not easy to find a place in the inhabited world which, once it has received this race, it does not hold. For both Egypt and Cyrene, as being used to obey the same masters, and many other regions, have admitted their rites and maintain very large congregations of Jews, grown together over time and using their native institutions. Throughout Egypt there are indeed colonies of that nation as well; besides which, a large part of the city of Alexandria has been assigned to them. It also has an ethnarch, who administers the affairs of his nation, settles disputes by law, and ratifies contracts and agreements, just as is done in a sovereign state." See besides Josephus, Antiquities XIX, ch. 4, where he reports a twofold edict of the emperor Claudius ordering that the Jews, both of Alexandria and others living under Roman rule, be allowed to use their own rights and their own laws. See the same Josephus, Jewish War VII, ch. 9 in the Greek, or ch. 21 in the Latin, where the Jews living at Antioch are treated.

(printed under page 45)

(41) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 83

Exod. XXIII, 7.

Exod. 23:7.

(printed under page 46)

(42) ‹anchor: discent amplius bellare› · call in col 83

Isa. ii, 2 seqq.

Isa. 2:2 ff.

(printed under page 46)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 83

Ὁ ἐθνάρχης. Hunc magistratum modo Josephus vocat ἄρχοντα, Graecorum more, ut De bello Judaico lib. vii, cap. 9, Graec., modo etiam ἐθνάρχην, hoc est ἄρχοντα τοῦ ἔθνους lib. xix Antiq. Judaic., cap. 4. Alias vocatur πατριάρχης ab Origene lib. iv De principiis, cap. 1, et ab Epiphanio haeres. 30, pag. 60.

"The ethnarch." Josephus sometimes calls this magistrate archon ("ruler"), after the Greek manner, as in the Jewish War VII, ch. 9 in the Greek, and sometimes also ethnarch, that is, "ruler of the nation," Jewish Antiquities XIX, ch. 4. Elsewhere he is called patriarch, by Origen in On First Principles IV, ch. 1, and by Epiphanius, heresy 30, p. 60.

(printed under page 46)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 83

Τὴν ἐπὶ τῷ θανάτῳ. Quanta auctoritate et licentia fruerentur Judaei praesertim in Phrygia, liquet ex responsis orthodoxi cujuspiam ad Montanistas apud Eusebium Historiae ecclesiasticae libro quinto, cap. 16: Ἀποκρινάσθωσαν ἡμῖν πρὸς Θεοῦ· ἐστί τις, ὦ βέλτιστοι, τούτων τῶν ἀπὸ Μοντανοῦ καὶ γυναικῶν λαλεῖν ἀρξαμένων, ὅστις ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἐδιώχθη, ἢ ὑπὸ παρανόμων ἀπεκτάνθη; Οὐδείς. Οὐδέ γέ τις αὐτῶν κρατηθεὶς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἀνεσταυρώθη; Οὐ γὰρ οὖν. Οὐδὲ μὴν οὐδὲ ἐν συναγωγαῖς Ἰουδαίων τῶν γυναικῶν τις ἐμαστιγώθη ποτέ, ἢ ἐλιθοβολήθη; Οὐδαμόσε οὐδαμῶς. Ἄλλῳ δὲ θανάτῳ τελευτῆσαι λέγονται Μοντανός τε καὶ Μαξιμίλλα, etc. « Respondeant nobis, quaeso per Deum: estne aliquis eorum qui jam inde a Montano et mulierculis primum garrire coeperunt, qui a Judaeis persecutionem passus sit, aut ab impiis trucidatus? nemo certe. Nec vero ullus eorum pro Christi nomine prehensus, in crucem actus est. Sed neque ulla mulier in Judaeorum synagogis aut flagris caesa aut lapidibus impetita est. Nusquam profecto, nec unquam. Imo longe alio mortis genere interiisse dicuntur Montanus et Maximilla. »

"The [power] over death." How much authority and licence the Jews enjoyed, especially in Phrygia, is clear from the answers of a certain orthodox writer to the Montanists in Eusebius, Church History V, ch. 16: [Greek, rendered next.] "Let them answer us, I beg, before God: is there any of those who began to babble from Montanus and the little women onward who suffered persecution from the Jews or was slain by the wicked? Certainly none. Nor was any of them seized for the name of Christ and put on a cross. Nor was any woman ever scourged or stoned in the synagogues of the Jews. Nowhere at all, and never. Rather, Montanus and Maximilla are said to have perished by a very different kind of death."

(printed under page 46)

(4) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 83

Ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίοις. Leo Castrius legendum putat, ὑπὸ Βαβυλωνίοις, « sub Babyloniis. » Videtur tamen recte dictum sub Romanis fuisse duas tribus, ut argumentum sit « a minori ad majus: » nimirum, si duae tribus sub Romanis tantam habuerint potestatem, multo magis decem tribus sub Assyriis, eamdem aut majorem habuisse credendum est. Wetstenius.

"Under the Romans." León de Castro thinks one should read "under the Babylonians." Yet it seems rightly said that two tribes were under the Romans, so that the argument is "from the lesser to the greater": namely, if two tribes under the Romans had so much power, much more must the ten tribes under the Assyrians be believed to have had the same or greater. Wetstein.

(printed under page 46)

(5) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 83

Ὁ δέ. Wetstenius omisit particulam δέ.

"But he": Wetstein omitted the particle δέ.

(printed under page 46)

(6) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 83

Wetstenius, ῥητῶν, et paulo post, ὁ λόγος αὐτῆς ἀληθὴς ὤν· οὑτωσὶ δέ, male.

Wetstein reads ῥητῶν ("of the sayings"), and a little after, ὁ λόγος αὐτῆς ἀληθὴς ὤν· οὑτωσὶ δέ ("its account being true; but thus"), wrongly.

(printed under page 46)

(7) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 83

Ὑπομιμνήσκει σε. In epistola Africani deest, σε, et abesse quoque hoc loco potest sine sensus dispendio.

"Reminds you": in Africanus's letter σε ("you") is missing, and it can be absent in this place too without loss to the sense.

(printed under page 46)

(8) ‹anchor: οἶκος τοῦ Θεοῦ› · call in col 83

Θεοῦ. Unus codex ms. Κυρίου. Mox Aldus ἐπ' ἄκρου, et paulo post, ἥξουσιν ἐν αὐτῇ πάντα.

"Of God": one manuscript reads Κυρίου ("of the Lord"). Just after, Aldus reads ἐπ' ἄκρου ("on the top"), and a little after, ἥξουσιν ἐν αὐτῇ πάντα ("all shall come in it").

(printed under page 46)

(9) ‹anchor: λόγος Κυρίου ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ› · call in col 83

Aldus, ἐξ Ἱερουσαλήμ. Idem paulo post, ἐξελέγξει λαὸν πολύν. Codex Basileensis, ἐλέγξει λαὸν πολύν.

Aldus reads ἐξ Ἱερουσαλήμ ("from Jerusalem"). The same a little after reads ἐξελέγξει λαὸν πολύν ("he will refute many people"). The Basel manuscript reads ἐλέγξει λαὸν πολύν ("he will reprove many people").

(printed under page 46)

- (10) ‹anchor: εἰς τὸ ὄρος›, (11) ‹anchor: ἐπὶ ἔθνη›, (12) ‹anchor: Ἀμβρόσιος›, (13) ‹anchor: Ἀνίκητος›, (14) ‹anchor: Ἀπολλινάριον›: called in this column's Greek and printed at the foot of col 85 ((14) runs on under col 86); set once under col 86 (see n86), with the scripture notes (43)–(47), which are called in the Latin.

(43) ‹anchor: discent bellare› · call in col 86

Mich. IV, 1 seqq.

Mic. 4:1 ff.

(printed under page 47)

(44) ‹anchor: in nomine ejus› · call in col 86

I Paral. XVI, 8, 22.

1 Chron. 16:8, 22.

(printed under page 47)

(45) ‹anchor: nolite malignari› · call in col 86

Psal. CIV, 1, 15.

Ps. 104:1, 15 (Vulgate numbering; Heb. 105).

(printed under page 47)

(46) ‹anchor: judicare terram› · call in col 86

Psal. XCV, 1-13.

Ps. 95:1–13 (Vulgate numbering; Heb. 96).

(printed under page 47)

(47) ‹anchor: extremis Ezechielis capitibus› · call in col 86

Exod. XXXV, 2; Num. XV, 32; Jerem. xvii, 21, 24; in Levit. passim; Ezech. XLIII, xliv, xlv, xlvi.

Exod. 35:2; Num. 15:32; Jer. 17:21, 24; Leviticus, passim; Ezek. 43, 44, 45, 46.

(printed under page 47)

(10) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 85 (Greek; set here under the Latin column)

Aldus, εἰς τὸν οἶκον.

Aldus reads εἰς τὸν οἶκον ("into the house").

(printed under page 47)

(11) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 85 (Greek; set here under the Latin column)

Aldus, ἐξελέγξει ἔθνη. Idem paulo post, ἕως μακράν. Idem infra, τὰ δόρατα αὐτῶν εἰς δρέπανα, et mox, ἔθνος πρὸς ἔθνος ῥομφαίαν.

Aldus reads ἐξελέγξει ἔθνη ("he will refute nations"). The same a little after, ἕως μακράν ("as far as far off"). The same below, τὰ δόρατα αὐτῶν εἰς δρέπανα ("their spears into sickles"), and just after, ἔθνος πρὸς ἔθνος ῥομφαίαν ("nation [shall not take up] the sword against nation").

(printed under page 47)

(12) ‹anchor: ἀδελφὸς ἱερὸς Ἀμβρόσιος› · call in col 85 (Greek; set here under the Latin column)

Ἀμβρόσιος. Vide notas ad primum fragment. epist. Origenis.

"Ambrose": see the notes on the first fragment of Origen's letters.

(printed under page 47)

(13) ‹anchor: καὶ Ἀνίκητος› · call in col 85 (Greek; set here under the Latin column)

Ἀνίκητος. Quis fuerit hic Anicetus a doctiore edoceri malim, quam incertas scribere conjecturas. Wetstenius.

"Anicetus": who this Anicetus was I would rather be taught by someone more learned than write uncertain conjectures. Wetstein.

(printed under page 47)

(14) ‹anchor: πάπαν Ἀπολλινάριον› · call in col 85 (Greek; set here under the Latin column) · (continues)

Ἀπολλινάριον. Duo fuere Apollinarii cumprimis celebres: alter Laodicenus schismatis auctor, a quo Apollinaristae appellati sunt. Vixit is diu post Origenem; obiit enim, monente Hieronymo in Catalogo, sub Theodosio imperatore. Alter in Asia Hierapolitanus episcopus, ἀνὴρ ἀξιέπαινος, καὶ πρὸς τῇ γνώσει τῶν θείων καὶ τὴν ἔξωθεν παι-

"Apollinarius": there were two Apollinarii especially famous. One, of Laodicea, was the author of the schism from which the Apollinarists are named. He lived long after Origen; for he died, as Jerome notes in the Catalogue, under the emperor Theodosius. The other was bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, "a man worthy of praise, who besides the knowledge of divine things [had acquired] the outside learn-

(printed under page 47)