Fragmentum acephalum incerti scriptoris de canone SS. Scripturarum (Fragmentum Muratorianum), cum admonitione et annotationibus

(94) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 175

Dissert. xii Cyprianica, de Martyr. Fortitud., § 45.

Cyprianic Dissertation XII, on the fortitude of the martyrs, § 45.

(printed under page 140)

Variae lectiones.

Variant readings.

¹ ‹anchor: secundo ¹ Lucam› · call in col 181 Fortasse. Liber secundum. Routh.

Perhaps: "Liber secundum" ("the book according to"). Routh.

² ‹anchor: eo ² Paulus› · call in col 182 Eum ut jam reposuit Freindaller.

"Eum" ("him"), as Freindaller has already restored.

³ ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 182 Fortasse et. Routh.

Perhaps "et" ("and"). Routh.

⁴ ‹anchor: set (4)› · call in col 182 Fortasse, secum assumpsisset, nomine suo ex ordine conscripsit. Routh.

Perhaps: "had taken him with him, wrote in his own name, in order." Routh.

Mart. Josephi Routh commentarius

Commentary of Martin Joseph Routh.

(printed under page 143)

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 181

Quibus tamen interfuit. Si Christi domini res gestae, non ipsi Apostoli, hic designentur, contradixerit fragmenti auctor verbis Papiae, qui, ut supra vidimus, veterem presbyterum secutus, hoc de Marco negabat, nempe eum aut ipsum Dominum audivisse, aut sectatum esse, quod quidem ex ore presbyteri a Papia acceptum, dein Hieronymum suffragio suo stabilientem habes in prooemio Commentarii super Matthaeum. Taceo de aliis Patribus. Tamen perquam nota est de Marco contraria illa traditio, an et certissima sit dubito, ab Epiphanio in Haeresi li, § 6, commemorata, qua is statuitur fuisse ex discipulis lxxii; quod idem de sancto quoque Luca ab eodem Epiphanio narratur ad § 11, prout de utroque evangelista prius positum erat ab eo in Haeresi xx, § 4, Hippolytum secuto, si testimoniis, quae collocata sunt a Millio ante Evangelia, credendum. Hoc autem cum initio Evangelii S. Lucae vix conciliari posse, multi viri doctissimi existimarunt, neque id miror; aut si fuerit unquam Domini dissipulus Lucas, certe unus τῶν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς αὐτοπτῶν, is non videtur fuisse qui ita scriberet καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ Λόγου. Consenti cum viris illis eruditis fragmenti auctor, ut mox videbis, Lucae discipulatu negato, consentit et Eusebius in lib. iii Hist. Eccl., cap. 4 et 24, qui et in lib. i, c. 12, ejusd. op. nullum ait exstare τῶν ο' discipulorum catalagum, et si unum exilis Barnabam fuisse traditum sit. Postquam haec annotaveram, vidi cl. Freindaller in nupera sua hujus fragmenti editione locum ita interpretandum esse censere, quasi interfuisset Marcus Petri concionibus; et si aiat postea, « fortasse cuipiam obrepere posse opinionem Marcum, cum Christo conversatum) ea quibus ipse interfuit, postea scriptis mandasse, idque esse quod fragmenti auctor, iis verbis innuerit. Verum id ipsum apud Papiam antiquissimus presbyter, Aristio, pernegat; neque fas est evangelistae Marci personam cum altera Joannis Marci confundere, cujus in Actibus apostolorum cap. xii mentio fit, de quo quidem posteriore simile quid opinandi locus esse videretur. » Haec ille. Verumtamen, quidquid de Marci discipulatu, ant de Joanne Marco, statuitur, nihilominus potest fieri ut hujusmodi quid auctor fragmenti revera scripsisset: Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri juxta quod Petrum referentem audierit (huc usque Hieronymi verba affero, de Viris Ill. c. 8), digessit res gestas a Domino, quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit. Idem illud de Petro et Marco habeant, praeter presbyterum Papianum Joannem, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origenes, Eusebius Epiphaniusque. Ait Tertullianus quoque lib. iv adv. Marcion. cap. 5: Marcus quod edidit. Petri affirmari, cujus interpres Marcus. Porro Evangelium hoc a Joanne apostolo comprobatum fuisse tradit Eusebius lib. iii Hist. cap. 24. Ad Eusebii verba quod attinet, in lib ii Hist. cap. 15, et lib. iv, cap. 14 de Marci Evangelio posita, quae utroque loco ex uno eodemque Clemente, si modo Clementis fuerint hypotyposes illae, quae multa, saltem frivola atque absurda continebant, desumpta sunt: mihi quidem ita illa concilianda atque interpretanda videntur, ut statuantur ibi Romani Marcum, qui Petri jamdiu fuisset sectator, rogasse, ut quae dicta ab eodem essent, conscriberet, et postea secum communicaret. Hoc vero rogatum ubi Petro innotuisset, nec prohibuisse eam rem fieri, neque ut fieret incitasse. Ea vero perfecta, cum Evangelium confectum fuisse novisset, Petrum librum illum auctoritate sua libenti animo comprobasse, ut deinceps in ecclesiis legeretur. Caeterum, quanti faciendum sit Papianum de Marci Evangelio testimonium ex ore Joannis presbyteri acceptum, supra ad Papiae Fragmenta admonui, vol. 1, pag. 36, qui et primus omnium nominatim de S. Matthaei Evangelio commemoravit.

At which, however, he was present. If what is meant here is the deeds of Christ the Lord and not the Apostles themselves, the author of the fragment would contradict the words of Papias, who, following the old presbyter, as we saw above, denied this of Mark: namely, that he had either heard the Lord Himself or followed Him. Papias received this from the presbyter's own mouth, and Jerome afterwards confirms it with his vote in the preface to his Commentary on Matthew. I say nothing of other Fathers. Yet there is a well-known contrary tradition about Mark, recorded by Epiphanius in Heresy 51, § 6, though I doubt whether it is quite certain, by which he is held to have been one of the seventy-two disciples. The same Epiphanius tells the same of Saint Luke too, at § 11, just as he had earlier set it down of both evangelists in Heresy 20, § 4, following Hippolytus, if the testimonies that Mill placed before the Gospels are to be believed. Many very learned men have judged that this can scarcely be reconciled with the opening of Saint Luke's Gospel, and I do not wonder at it: if Luke had ever been a disciple of the Lord, and so certainly one of "those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning," he does not seem to be the man who would write "just as they delivered them to us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word." The author of the fragment, as you will soon see, agrees with those learned men in denying that Luke was a disciple. So does Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History III, chapters 4 and 24; in Book I, chapter 12 of the same work he says that no catalogue of the seventy disciples exists, even if it is handed down that Barnabas was one of them. After I had made these notes, I saw that the distinguished Freindaller, in his recent edition of this fragment, holds that the passage should be read as if Mark had been present at Peter's preachings. He says afterwards that "the opinion may perhaps steal upon someone that Mark, having lived with Christ, later committed to writing the things at which he himself was present, and that this is what the author of the fragment hinted at in these words. But the very ancient presbyter Aristio, in Papias, flatly denies this; nor is it right to confuse the person of Mark the evangelist with that other, John Mark, who is mentioned in Acts of the Apostles chapter 12, about whom, the latter, there might seem to be room for some such opinion." So he. Nevertheless, whatever is decided about Mark's discipleship or about John Mark, it may still be that the author of the fragment actually wrote something like this: Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, according to what he had heard Peter relating (so far I quote the words of Jerome, On Illustrious Men ch. 8), set in order the things done by the Lord, at which, however, he was present, and so he set them down. Besides Papias' presbyter John, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius and Epiphanius all hold the same of Peter and Mark. Tertullian too says in Against Marcion IV, chapter 5: What Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was. Further, Eusebius reports, in History III, chapter 24, that this Gospel was approved by John the apostle. As for Eusebius' words about Mark's Gospel in History II, chapter 15, and IV, chapter 14: in both places they are drawn from one and the same Clement, if those Hypotyposes were really Clement's, since they contained much that was at least frivolous and absurd. To me they seem best reconciled and interpreted thus. The Romans asked Mark, who had long been a follower of Peter, to write down what Peter had said and afterwards share it with them. When this request became known to Peter, he neither forbade it nor urged it on. When it was finished and he learned that the Gospel had been completed, Peter willingly approved that book by his authority, so that it might thenceforth be read in the churches. For the rest, how much weight should be given to Papias' testimony about Mark's Gospel, received from the mouth of John the presbyter, I noted above on the Fragments of Papias, vol. 1, page 36; Papias was also the first of all to mention Saint Matthew's Gospel by name.

(printed under page 143)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 182

Et ita posuit. Hoc est litteris mandavit, sive composuit.

And so he set them down. That is, he committed them to writing, or composed them.

(printed under page 143)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 182

Librum secundo Lucam. Anne liber secundum Lucam? Reposuit et Freindaller secundum, qui recte monuit, antiquitatem hujus epigraphes seu tituli Evangeliorum ex hoc fragmento ostendi.

Librum secundo Lucam. Should it be liber secundum Lucam ("the book according to Luke")? Freindaller too restored secundum; he rightly pointed out that this fragment shows how old this heading, or title, of the Gospels is.

(printed under page 143)

(4) ‹anchor: set› · call in col 182

Cum eo Paulus quasi ut juris studiosum secundum assumpsisset, numeni suo ex opinione concriset. Lineolae separantes (lineae post voces secundum, assumpsisset, suo, canscrisset (concriset) a Freindaller additae) suspicionem meam hiatus omissarum vocum indicant. Sphalmata grammatica sunt, eo pro eum, numeni pro nomine, conscrisset pro conscripsisset. Propositio subsequa, qua periodus finiatur, penitus desideratur. Quae vero loci hujus explanatio? Irenaeus scribit apud Eusebium H. E. lib. ii, cap. 8, post mentionem de Marci Matthaeique Evangeliis: « Lucas quoque sectator Pauli, Evangelium (continues)

Cum eo Paulus quasi ut juris studiosum secundum assumpsisset, numeni suo ex opinione concriset. The little dividing strokes (strokes added by Freindaller after the words secundum, assumpsisset, suo, canscrisset (concriset)) point to my suspicion of a gap where words have dropped out. The grammatical slips are eo for eum, numeni for nomine, conscrisset for conscripsisset. The following clause, which would finish the sentence, is wholly missing. What, then, is the explanation of this passage? Irenaeus writes, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History book ii, chapter 8, after mentioning the Gospels of Mark and Matthew: "Luke too, the follower of Paul, [set down] the Gospel (continues)

(printed under page 143)

(5) ‹anchor: nec ipse vidit› · call in col 182

Dominum tamen nec ipse vidit, etc. Videsis quae paulo supra de hac re annotavi not. 1).

Yet he himself did not see the Lord, etc. See what I noted on this a little above, note 1).

(printed under page 143)

<!-- NOTE: the Variae lectiones ⁵ and ⁶ and the opening of the foot column (the continuation of note (4)) stand above the foot image's crop; they were set from the column images (Q3b 2026-10-25). The "Variae lectiones." heading is set once, in n184. --> (printed under page 144) ⁵ ‹anchor: incipet ⁵ dicere› · call in col 183 Incipit reposuit Freindaller.

"Incipit" ("he begins"), as Freindaller restored.

⁶ ‹anchor: (8) ⁶ Joannis› · call in col 183 Fort. Quarto, Evangelium. Routh.

Perhaps: "Quarto, Evangelium" ("Fourth, the Gospel"). Routh.

(printed under page 144)

(4) ‹anchor: set (4)› · call in col 182 · continued from page 143 (n182)

Evangelium a Paulo praedicatum litteris mandavit. » An forsitam fragmentario nostro dicere idem mens fuit, Lucam nimirum suo nomine praedicata a Paulo, acta Evangelica, secundum opinionem plerorumque, e. g. Irenaei, in formam hanc conscripsisse? Medicum Lucam antiqui passim prodidere, nonnulli quoque pictorem; Callistus demum Nicephorus, in Breviario Hist., lib. ii, cap. 45, narrat de illo quamplurima. Verum juris quoque studiosum eumque, ut talem a Paulo sibi comitem adjunctum, ut adducto fragmenti loco dicitur, haud ullibi locorum legisse me memini. Fecerit hoc forte Apostolus eo fine ut jurisconsulto socio faciliorem sibi sive ad doctos sive ad magistratus disponeret accessum. Maxime autem, quis vocis additae, secundum. genuinus sensus sit, divinatu arduum. Anne idem ac repetita vice? tum obtineret haec interpretatio: postquam eum Paulus, secundo, sibi ut jurisconsultum sociasset, illum hoc Evangelium scripsisse. An vero praecedens vel subsequens hanc voculam, altera quaedam desideratur? Id fore arbitror proximum veritati. Haec Freindaller. Inquinatissimus est locus, sed fortasse ita repurgandus: cum eum Paulus quasi et Juris (καὶ τοῦ δικαίου) studiosum secum assumpsisset, nomine suo ex ordine (καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι S. Luc. i, 3. ex ordine tibi scribere Vulgat. interp. Vid. et infra, ubi, de Joanne haec sunt, scriptorem se omnium mirabilium Domini per ordinem, profitetur) conscripsit, Evangelium quidem a Paulo praedicatum Lucam sectatorem ejus litteris mandasse, multi a veteribus tradiderunt, ut Irenaeus, lib. iii contra Haeres. cap. 1. Origenes Eusebius. Hieronymusque. Nam et Lucae digestum Paulo ascribere solent, ait Tertuillanus adv. Marcion 4, 5, hoc bene addito, magistrorum videri posse, quae discipuli promulgarint. Ad verba autem illa quod attinet, et juris studiosum, fieri potest ut quaedam hoc loco collatio habeatur jurisprudentiae, seu scientiae aequi bonique, cum arte medica, quam Lucas professus est. Certe ad integritatem verborum confirmandam facit principium Commentarii Rerum Lucae a Combefisio in Auctario suo Patrum primum editi. El καὶ δικαίῳ, ait ibi Metaphrastes, μνήμη μετ' ἐγκωμίων τελεῖσθαι θεῖος τις ἀνὴρ καὶ σόφος τὰ θεῖα νομοθετεῖ Prov., x, 7), πόσην ἄρα τῷ ἀποστόλῳ συνεισενεγκεῖν προσήκει τὴν εὐφημίαν. Τοῦτον γὰρ Ἡ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ καὶ τῆς ἀποστολῆς ἄξιον, καὶ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΑΠΗΤΟΝ ΟΦΘΗΝΑΙ ΤΩ ΠΑΥΛΩ διαφερόντος πεποίηκεν. Addas quod Vett. Gloss. habent, δίκαιον, jus justum. Quod vero emendaverim secum pro secundum, illud fortasse stabiliendum ex Act. Apost. xv, 37. Barnabas autem volebat secum assumere et Joannem qui cognominabatur Marcus. De nomine autem pro numen reposito, hoc notandum est scripsisse auctorem paulo intra, Joannes suo nomine cuncta describeret.

[… set down] the Gospel preached by Paul in writing." Or did our fragment-writer perhaps mean to say the same: that Luke, in his own name, set down in this form the things preached by Paul, the Gospel deeds, according to the opinion of most, for example Irenaeus? The ancients commonly reported that Luke was a physician, and some that he was also a painter; Nicephorus Callistus, lastly, in his Breviarium Hist., book II, chapter 45, relates a great deal about him. But I do not remember reading anywhere at all that he was also devoted to the law, and that Paul attached him to himself as a companion as such, as is said in the passage of the fragment cited. The Apostle may perhaps have done this so as to secure for himself, through a companion learned in the law, easier access to the learned or to the magistrates. Above all, though, what the true sense of the added word secundum may be is hard to guess. Is it the same as a second time? Then this interpretation would hold: after Paul had, a second time, made him his companion as a lawyer, he wrote this Gospel. Or is some other word wanting before or after this little word? I think that would come nearest the truth. So Freindaller. The passage is most corrupt, but it might perhaps be cleaned up thus: when Paul had taken him with him as one devoted also to law (καὶ τοῦ δικαίου, "and to what is just"), he wrote in his own name, in order (καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, "to write to you in order", Luke 1:3; ex ordine tibi scribere in the Vulgate translation. See also below, where it is said of John that he professes himself the writer of all the wonders of the Lord in order). That Luke his follower committed to writing the Gospel preached by Paul, many of the ancients have handed down, such as Irenaeus, Against Heresies III, chapter 1, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome. For they are accustomed to ascribe Luke's digest to Paul, says Tertullian, Against Marcion 4, 5, adding well that what disciples have published may be regarded as their masters'. As for those words, and devoted to law, it may be that a comparison is drawn here between jurisprudence, or the knowledge of the fair and the good, and the art of medicine, which Luke professed. Certainly the opening of the Commentary on the Acts of Luke, first edited by Combefis in his Auctarium Patrum, goes to confirm that the words are sound. "If," says Metaphrastes there, "a divine and wise man lays down in divine things that the memory even of the just man is to be celebrated with praises (Prov. 10:7), how great a praise is it fitting to bring to the apostle! For RIGHTEOUSNESS made him worthy both of the apostleship and of BEING SEEN AS BELOVED BY PAUL above others." Add that the Old Glossaries have δίκαιον, jus justum ("just right"). As for my emending secum for secundum, that might perhaps be supported from Acts 15:37: And Barnabas wished to take with him John also, who was surnamed Mark. As for nomine restored for numen, it should be noted that the author wrote a little further on, John should write everything down in his own name.

(printed under page 144)

(6) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 183

Potuit, For. hypostigme, prout feci, pro puncto poni debet, necue enim huic loco quaedam desse cum Freindallero existimandum est.

Potuit. Perhaps a comma, as I have put it, should be set in place of the full stop; for we should not suppose with Freindaller that something is missing at this point.

(printed under page 144)

(7) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 183

Ita et a nativitate Joannis incipet dicere. Error calami pro incipit. Freindaller. Hinc interea firmantur priora illa Evangelii Lucae capita quae ei abjudicare haeretici cum veteres tum recentiores gestierunt. Est quoque notatu dignum agnovisse eamdem hanc Evangelii partem non tantum omnes quos hic memorabo, scriptores, Justinum Martyrem, Irenaeum. Clementem Alexandrinum. Tertullianum, Julium Africanum, Origenem, Cyprianum, Novatianum, auctorem Computi de Pascha, Victorinum, Petrumque Alexandrinum in Canone v, sed etiam, regnante Hadriano, Celsum apud Origenem lib. ii, cap. 32, medioque saeculo tertio antitrinitarios auctore Novatiano in libro de Trin. cap. 24. Adde quod ex aliis scriptoribus retulit Eusebius, ipsum Lucae Evangelium una cum duobus alteris Evangeliis a Joanne apostolo fuisse comprobatum. Vid. lib. iii Hist. cap. 24.

Ita et a nativitate Joannis incipet dicere. A slip of the pen for incipit ("he begins"). Freindaller. Meanwhile, this confirms those first chapters of Luke's Gospel which heretics, old and recent alike, have been eager to deny him. It is also worth noting that this same part of the Gospel was acknowledged not only by all the writers I shall mention here, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, Origen, Cyprian, Novatian, the author of the Computus de Pascha, Victorinus, and Peter of Alexandria in Canon 5, but also, in Hadrian's reign, by Celsus (in Origen, book II, chapter 32), and, in the middle of the third century, by the anti-Trinitarians, on the authority of Novatian in his book On the Trinity, chapter 24. Add that Eusebius reported, from other writers, that Luke's Gospel itself, together with the two other Gospels, was approved by John the apostle. See History III, chapter 24.

(printed under page 144)

Variae lectiones.

Variant readings.

⁷ ‹anchor: Cohortantibus ⁷ condiscipulis› · call in col 184 Fort. Is cohortantibus. Routh.

Perhaps: "Is cohortantibus" ("he, when … urged"). Routh.

(printed under page 144)

(8) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 184

Evangeliorum. Legendum Evangelium, aut potius Evangelii librum, ait Freindaller, quod supra habes.

Evangeliorum. Read Evangelium, or rather Evangelii librum ("the book of the Gospel"), says Freindaller; you have this above.

(printed under page 144)

(9) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 184

Ex discipulis ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν; vid. et infra. Fortasse statim post legendum, Is Cohortantibus, cum vocula is voce antecedente absorpta fuisse videatur.

Ex discipulis, "from among the disciples"; see also below. Perhaps one should read just after, Is Cohortantibus, since the little word is seems to have been swallowed by the word before it.

(printed under page 144)

(10) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 184

Cohortantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis, etc. Confirmat Clemens Alex. Apud Eusebium H. E. vi, 14. Scripserat enim ille in Hypotyposibus suis, Joannem, omnium evangelistarum postremum, cum videret in aliorum Evangeliis ea quae ad corpus Christi pertinent, tradita esse, ipsum divino Spiritu afflatum spirituale Evangelium familiorum suorum rogatu conscripsisse. Narrat et ipse loco modo memorato Eusebius, lib. iii Hist. e. 24, Joannem, caeteris ab eo Evangeliis approbatis, res gestas a Christo ante incarceratum Baptistam, cum rogatus esset, in Evangelio tradidisse. Haec Clemens, Eusebiusque. Proxime accedat Victorinus, qui sub finem, saeculi tertii floruit; ita enim ille de Joanne apostolo in Commentario ei ascripto in Apocalypsim, p. 1253 in Biblioth. Parisinae PP. tomo 1: Nam et Evangelium postea scripsit. Cum essent Valentinus et Cerinthus et Ebion, et caeteri scholae Satanae, diffusi per orbem, convenerunt ad illum de finitimis provinciis omnes et compulerunt ut ipse testimonium conscriberet. Epiphanius quoque Haeres. li, num. 12, dum memorat propositum illud divinam Christi naturam astruendi, haec scribere pergit: Διὸ ὕστερον ἀναγκάζει τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα τὸν Ἰωάννην παραιτούμενον εὐαγγελίσασθαι δ' εὐλάβειαν καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ γεραλέᾳ αὐτοῦ ἡλικίᾳ. — Μετὰ ἱκανὰ ἔτη του διατρίψαι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ (for. ἐπὶ) τῆς Ἀσίας, ἀναγκάζεται ἐκθέσθαι τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον, p. 434, ed. Petavii. Ait praeterea Hieronymus, de Viris Ill. cap. 9: Joannem novissimum omnium scripsisse Evangelium, rogatum ab Asiae episcopis, adversus Cerinthum aliosque haereticos, et maxime tunc Ebionitarum dogma consurgens, qui asserunt Christum aute Mariam non fuisse. Eadem autem ac plura habet idem Hieronymus in prooemio Commentarii super Matth. quae brevi isthuic fragmento maxime affinia sunt. ibi enim additur ecclesiasticam narrare historiam cum a fratribus cogeretur ut scriberet, ita facturum se respondisse, si indicto jejunio in commune omnes Deum deprecarentur, qoo expleto, revelatione saturatum illud prooemium e coelo veniens eructavisse: In principio erat Verbum; et Verbum erat apud Deum: et Deus erat Verbum: Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Quod autem ad indictum jejunium attinet, quod nonnulli pro suspecto habuerunt, quia nemo ante Hieronymum jejunii meminisset, ejus nunc demum nobis testis est auctor iste Hieronymum duobus fere saeculis antecedens. Imo moris hujus apostolici in rebus magni momenti observati dabunt exemplum Actus Apost. capite (continues)

At the urging of his fellow disciples and bishops, etc. Clement of Alexandria confirms this, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6, 14. In his Hypotyposes he had written that John, last of all the evangelists, seeing that the things concerning Christ's body had been handed down in the Gospels of the others, was himself breathed upon by the divine Spirit and wrote a spiritual Gospel at the request of his close friends. Eusebius himself, in the place just mentioned, History III, chapter 24, also relates that John, having approved the other Gospels, set down in his Gospel, when asked, the deeds Christ did before the Baptist was imprisoned. So Clement and Eusebius. Victorinus, who flourished towards the end of the third century, comes very close; for he says this of John the apostle in the Commentary on the Apocalypse ascribed to him, p. 1253 in the Bibliotheca Patrum of Paris, volume 1: For afterwards he also wrote the Gospel. When Valentinus and Cerinthus and Ebion and the rest of Satan's school were spread across the world, all came to him from the neighbouring provinces and compelled him to write down his testimony himself. Epiphanius too, Heresy 51, no. 12, while recalling that purpose of establishing Christ's divine nature, goes on to write: "Therefore later the Holy Spirit compels John, who was declining to write a Gospel out of reverence and humility in his old age. … After he had spent many years away from (perhaps: in) Asia, he is compelled to set forth the Gospel," p. 434, Petau's edition. Jerome says further, On Illustrious Men chapter 9: that John wrote the Gospel last of all, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics, and above all against the doctrine of the Ebionites then rising, who assert that Christ did not exist before Mary. The same Jerome has the same and more in the preface to his Commentary on Matthew, and it is very close to this short fragment. For it adds there, to tell the Church's history, that when the brethren pressed him to write, he answered that he would do it if a fast were proclaimed and all prayed to God together; and when it was over, filled with revelation, he poured forth that prologue that comes from heaven: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; He was in the beginning with God. As for the proclaimed fast, which some have held suspect because no one before Jerome mentioned a fast, here at last is a witness to it for us: this author, who comes almost two centuries before Jerome. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles will give an example of this apostolic custom, kept in matters of great moment, in chapter (continues)

(printed under page 144)

<!-- NOTE: the foot image begins partway down the page's notes; the rest of the continuation of note 10 above it is not visible and is not set here. The first visible line of each column is cut through. The middle of note 14 (top of the commentary's right-hand column, under col 186) and variants 8–9 were read from the column images (Q4a 2026-10-25). The superscript calls at Joannis and fidei are faint: the variants number them 8 and 9. --> [Variae lectiones]

[Variant readings]

⁸ ‹anchor: Joannis ⁸ suo› · call in col 185 Joannes. Freindall.

"Joannes" ("John"). Freindaller.

⁹ ‹anchor: fidei (15) ⁹, cum› · call in col 185 Fides. Freindall

"Fides" ("faith"). Freindaller.

(printed under page 145)

(11) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 185

Alterutrum nobis enarremus. H. e. an fuerit Evangelium rogatu eorum conscribendum, necne.

Let us tell one another. That is, whether or not the Gospel should be written at their request.

(printed under page 145)

(12) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 185

Eadem nocte revelatum Andreae etc. Singulare narrationis argumentum. Refert quid simile de Joannis Evangelio S. Hieronymus: nec minus lectu dignus de hoc Eusebius, H. E. lib. iii, c. 24. Unicum vero nullibi allas repertum, participatio sancti Andreae est in hoc labore evangelico. Tandiune Andreas superstes? Testibus quippe Eusebio ac Hieronymo, Joannes sero admodum, redux nimirum ab exilio, Nerva Trajanove Augustis, Evangelium suum scripsit. Ea tamen temporis designatio non firmiter adeo contestata est, ut non alteri breviori a relegatione illius in Patmon insulam sub Domitiano, locus pateat. Potuisse porro attingere hos annos Andream, quis ibit inficias. cum ob multa vastissimaque Apostoli hujus itinera, quae in historiis antiquissimis commemorantur, autumandi suggeratur ratio pervenisse illum ad praegrande senium, donec ab Aegaea, Achaiae proconsule, crucis suspendio damnaretur, Freindaller. — In regionibus ab Asia non longe remotis Evangelium praedicasse Andream, fidem facit idoneus auctor Gregorius Nazianzenus, Orat. xxv, p. 438, edit. Paris, ubi Epirum huic apostolo provinciam fuisse ait. Porro narrat Hieronymus, c. 7, lib. de Viris ill. ossa S. Lucae cum reliquiis Andreae apostoli ad Constantinopolim vicesimo Constantii anno translata esse; ubi ex Philostorg. Hist Eccl. lib. iii, c. 2, notavit Fabricius, ex Achaia translatas esse; SS. Andreae et Lucae reliquias.

That same night it was revealed to Andrew etc. A remarkable detail of the narrative. Saint Jerome reports something similar about John's Gospel, and Eusebius on this is no less worth reading, Ecclesiastical History III, chapter 24. But unique, and found nowhere else, is Saint Andrew's share in this work of the Gospel. Was Andrew still living so long? For on the witness of Eusebius and Jerome, John wrote his Gospel very late, after his return from exile, under the emperors Nerva or Trajan. Yet that dating is not so firmly attested that there is no room for another, shorter interval after his banishment to the island of Patmos under Domitian. Further, who will deny that Andrew could have reached those years? Because of the many and very long journeys of this Apostle recorded in the most ancient histories, there is reason to suppose that he reached a great old age, until he was condemned to hang on a cross by Aegeas, proconsul of Achaia. Freindaller. — That Andrew preached the Gospel in regions not far from Asia is vouched for by a competent authority, Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 25, p. 438, Paris edition, where he says Epirus was this apostle's province. Further, Jerome relates, On Illustrious Men chapter 7, that the bones of Saint Luke were translated to Constantinople with the relics of Andrew the apostle in the twentieth year of Constantius; where Fabricius noted, from Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History III, chapter 2, that the relics of Saints Andrew and Luke were translated from Achaia.

(printed under page 145)

(13) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 185

Joannis suo nomine cuncta describeret. Manifeste Joannes. Freindaller De divino hoc Evangelio dignum notatu est verba ex eo adducta videri sub initium saeculi Ecclesiae secundi ab Ignatio in Epistola ad Philadelphenses, § 7, quod et a presbyteris factum esse, qui Apostolorum discipuli fuerunt, refert Papias, aut saltem ipse Irenaeus, lib. v, contra haeres., cap. ult. A. Celso itidem apud Origenem locis duobus. lib. ii, c. 37 et c. 54, Hadriano regnante Joannis Evangelium vel indicatum vel allatum est. Addas Justinum M. medio saeculo secundo idem adducentem in Apologia ad Antoninum Pium, Hadriano qui successit, § 61, p. 71, ed. Benedictin. Ut ulterius progrediamur in hac quidem re, nibil opus.

John should write everything down in his own name. Plainly John. Freindaller. Of this divine Gospel it is worth noting that words drawn from it appear about the beginning of the Church's second century in Ignatius, Letter to the Philadelphians, § 7. Papias reports that the presbyters who were disciples of the Apostles did the same, or at least Irenaeus himself does, Against Heresies V, last chapter. Celsus likewise, in Origen, in two places, Book II, chapters 37 and 54, either alluded to or quoted John's Gospel in the reign of Hadrian. Add Justin Martyr, in the middle of the second century, quoting the same in his Apology to Antoninus Pius, Hadrian's successor, § 61, p. 71, Benedictine edition. There is no need to go further in this matter.

(printed under page 145)

(14) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 185

Principia doceantur. Viderit, inquit Tertullianus, si narrationum dispositio variavit (sc. apud Evangelistas), dummodo de capite fidei conveniat, lib. iv, adv. Marcion., cap 2. Voce enim principia magis putem capita seu propositiones significari, quippe cum in ore omnibus sit doceri principia sive capita fidei, quam prooemia seu praefationes, et si contrarium quid suadere videatur capitulum tertium Responsionum a Victore Capuae episcopo S. Polycarpo adscriptarum, ubi haec sunt: Rationabiliter Evangelistae principiis diversis utuntur quamvis una eademque evangelizandi eorum probetur intentio. Matthaeus, ut Hebriaes scribens, genealogiae Christi ordinem texuit, ut ostenderet ab ea Christum descendisse progenie de qua eum nasciturum universi Prophetae cecinerunt. Joannes autem ad Ephesum constitutus, qui (sic) legem tanquam ex gentibus ignorabant, a causa nostrae redemptionis Evangelii sumpsit exordium, etc., etc., Nihil ergo contrarium reperitur, ubi licet diversis scriptis, ad camden tamen patriam pervenitur, pag. 32 Appendicis Ignatianae ab Usserio editae Londini anno 1647; primum vero Polycarpi isthaec ex vetustissima super quatuor Evangelia Catena a Feuardentio ad Notas Irenaeanas, lib. iii, cap. 3, translata fuerant. Annotat haec quoque Freindaller: Eximiun profecto posteris testimonium collatae evangelicis hisce scriptoribus inspirationis, quis, utut diversis in deductione historica usi exordiis, adeo tamen a communi impulsore suo, sancto nimirum, uno principalique Spiritu, concordanter directi sunt, ut acta fere praecipua, in horum libris singulorum, haud discongrue consignata reperiantur. Recenset ea auctor hoc ordine, ut ad historiam nativitatis Jesu Christi, passionis, resurrectionis, conversationis cum discipulis, nempe a resurrectione, geminique ejus adventus, veluti potissima capita, cuncta reducat. Haec ille. Interea vero convenienter, ut opinor, cum auctore Fragmenti hujus de Canone Novi Test. S. Hieronymus in Epistola ad Pammachium, quae est de optimo genere interpretandi, hoc posuit: Sermonum varietas spiritus unitate concordat, p. 373, ed. Frobenii,

Principia doceantur. "It matters little," says Tertullian, "if the arrangement of the narratives varied" (that is, among the Evangelists), "provided they agree on the head of faith," Against Marcion IV, chapter 2. For I would rather think the word principia means heads or propositions, since everyone speaks of the principles or heads of faith being taught, rather than of prologues or prefaces; even if the third chapter of the Responses ascribed to Saint Polycarp by Victor, bishop of Capua, seems to suggest the contrary, where we read: With reason the Evangelists use different beginnings, though one and the same purpose of their preaching the Gospel is shown. Matthew, as one writing for the Hebrews, wove together the order of Christ's genealogy, to show that Christ descended from that stock from which all the Prophets sang that He would be born. But John, settled at Ephesus, [writing for those] who did not know the law, being as it were from the Gentiles, took the beginning of his Gospel from the cause of our redemption, etc., etc. So nothing contrary is found where, though by different writings, one still arrives at the same homeland, page 32 of the Ignatian Appendix edited by Ussher, London, 1647. But these words of Polycarp had first been carried over by Feuardent into his Notes on Irenaeus, Book III, chapter 3, from a very ancient Catena on the four Gospels. Freindaller also notes this: a striking testimony for posterity to the inspiration given to these evangelical writers, who, though they used different beginnings in drawing out the history, were yet so harmoniously guided by their common prompter, namely the holy, one and principal Spirit, that nearly the chief acts are found recorded in the books of each of them without disagreement. The author lists them in this order, so as to bring everything back to the history of Jesus Christ's birth, passion, resurrection, His life with the disciples (that is, from the resurrection), and His twofold coming, as the chief heads. So he. Meanwhile Saint Jerome, fittingly, I think, agreeing with the author of this Fragment on the Canon of the New Testament, wrote this in his Letter to Pammachius, which is On the best kind of translating: The variety of the words agrees in the unity of the spirit, p. 373, Froben's edition.

(printed under page 145)

<!-- NOTE: variants 10–13 were read from the column images (Q4a 2026-10-25). Notes (15) and (16) are set here, but their calls stand in col 185. --> [Variae lectiones]

[Variant readings]

¹⁰ ‹anchor: conversatione (17) ¹⁰, cum› · call in col 186 Fortasse addend. Domini. Routh.

Perhaps add "Domini" ("of the Lord"). Routh.

¹¹ ‹anchor: ro (18)......... ¹¹, secundum› · call in col 186 Fort. quod prophetatum. Vide not. Routh.

Perhaps "quod prophetatum" ("which was prophesied"). See the note. Routh.

¹² ‹anchor: secundum ¹² potestate› · call in col 186 Fort. secundo. Routh.

Perhaps "secundo" ("the second"). Routh.

¹³ ‹anchor: praeclarum (19 ¹³, quod› · call in col 186 Fort. praeclaro. Routh.

Perhaps "praeclaro" ("glorious"). Routh.

(printed under page 145)

(15) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 185

Fidei. Cor. fide. Freindall.

Fidei. Correct to fide. Freindaller.

(printed under page 145)

(16) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 185

Principali. Forsan Graece scriptum fuerat. Philoxeni glossa est, ἡγεμονικόν, principale.

Principali. Perhaps it had been written in Greek. There is a gloss of Philoxenus: ἡγεμονικόν, principale ("ruling, principal").

(printed under page 145)

(17) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 186

De conversatione. Excidisse vox Domini videtur.

De conversatione. The word Domini ("of the Lord") seems to have dropped out.

(printed under page 145)

(18) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 186

Primo in humilitate despectus, quod ro... Ait Freindaller « hoc ne conjectura quidem restitui posse; » neque mihi locum supplendi ratio constat. Conjectura tamen legendum, sed fortasse a scopo aberrans, vel quod prophetatum, quod verbum interdum usurpatum est ab ecclesiasticis scriptoribus, vel quod completum est, ἐπληρώθη. Hanc vocem posteriorem habes infra, si quid id refert. Lege porro Tertullianum in Apologetico, cap. 21: Duobus enim, inquit, adventibus ejus significatis primo: qui jam expunctus est in humilitate conditionis humadae secundo, qui concludendo saeculo imminet in sublimitate divinitatis exertae; primum non intelligendo, secundum, quem manifestius praedicatum sperant (scil. Judae), unum existamaverunt. Quem quidem Tertulliani locum Cyprianus imitatus haud longe a fine opusculi de Idolorum Vanitate haec scribit: Sed significato duplici ejus adventu, uno qui exercitio et exemplo hominis fungeretur, altero qui Deum faleretur, non intelligendo primum adventum, qui in passione praecessit occultus unum tantum credunt, qui erit in potestate manifestus. Haec Cyprianus. Confera item quae posuit magister ejus Tertullianus capite ult. libri sui adversus Judaeos.

First despised in humility, which ro... Freindaller says "this cannot be restored even by conjecture," and I too see no way of filling the gap. Still, one may read by conjecture, though perhaps off the mark, either quod prophetatum ("which was prophesied"), a word ecclesiastical writers sometimes use, or quod completum est ("which was fulfilled"), ἐπληρώθη. You have this latter word below, if that counts for anything. Read further Tertullian in the Apology, chapter 21: "For two comings of His having been foretold," he says, "the first, which is already accomplished in the lowliness of a human condition, the second, which hangs over the close of the age in the sublimity of divinity revealed; not understanding the first, they (that is, the Jews) have thought the second, which they hope for as more plainly foretold, to be the only one." Cyprian imitated this passage of Tertullian not far from the end of his little work On the Vanity of Idols, where he writes: But though a twofold coming of His was foretold, one to carry out the exercise and example of a man, the other to declare Him God, not understanding the first coming, which went before hidden in the passion, they believe in only one, which will be manifest in power. So Cyprian. Compare likewise what his master Tertullian set down in the last chapter of his book Against the Jews.

(printed under page 145)

(19) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 186

Secundum potestate regali praeclarum Cor. secundo... praeclaro.

Secundum potestate regali praeclarum. Correct to secundo … praeclaro ("the second, glorious in royal power").

(printed under page 145)

<!-- NOTE: the foot image begins at the heading of Routh's commentary; variant 14, printed above it, was read from the column image (Q4a 2026-10-25). --> [Variae lectiones]

[Variant readings]

¹⁴ ‹anchor: sed ¹⁴ auditorem› · call in col 187 Fort. se et. Routh.

Perhaps "se et" ("himself also"). Routh.

(printed under page 146) Mart. Josephi Routh commentarius.

Commentary of Martin Joseph Routh.

(printed under page 146)

(20) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 187

Tam constanter, H. e. tam fidenter, et asseveranter. Gloss. vet. constanter, εὐσταθῶς θαῤῥούντως.

So steadfastly, that is, so confidently and emphatically. Old Glossary: constanter, "steadily, boldly."

(printed under page 146)

(21) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 187

Dicens in semetipso. Conjeceram ego, sicut Freindaller, reponendum esse de pro in; at verba fortasse sonant idem quod illa Tertulliani in lib. de Pudicitia, cap. 18: Nam hoc etiam in sua persona Apostolus statuit. Affirmans enim Christum ad hoc venisse, ut peccatores salvos faceret, quorum primus ipse fuisset, quid adjicit? « Et misericordiam sum consecutus, quoniam ignorans feci in incredulitate (I Tim. I). Conferas anoymum auctorem de Rebaptismate, — ac propterea discipuli ejus arbitrantur, quod nulla alia ratione vitam aeternam his praestiturus esset, nisi primum ipse vitam hanc temporalem cum illa aeterna in se ipso continuasset, ad pag. 359 ed. Benedictinae operum S. Cypriani

Saying in himself. Like Freindaller, I had guessed that de ("about") should be restored for in; but the words perhaps mean the same as Tertullian's in his book On Modesty, chapter 18: For the Apostle laid this down in his own person too. Affirming that Christ came to save sinners, of whom he himself had been the first, what does he add? "And I obtained mercy, because I acted ignorantly in unbelief" (1 Timothy 1). Compare the anonymous author On Rebaptism: — and therefore his disciples think that he would grant them eternal life in no other way than by first himself joining this temporal life with that eternal one in himself, at p. 359 of the Benedictine edition of Saint Cyprian's works.

(printed under page 146)

(22) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 187

Sed auditorem. Fort. legendum, se et auditorem.

Sed auditorem. Perhaps read se et auditorem ("himself also a hearer").

(printed under page 146)

(23) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 187

Per auditorem. H. e. ordine, quomodo melioribus auctoribus mos scribere. Sed pariter atque hic auctor formulam vix sanam adhibuit, ita fecit Tertullianus de Specta. cap. 5; Hieronymus, de Viris Ill. cap. 9; Optatus de Schismate Donatist. lib. iii, p. 62 et p. 64 ed. Dupin., aliique scriptores. Caeterum, ait Freindaller. « Haud destituimur indiciis posteriores esse epistolas Joannis Evangelio, auctoremque nostri fragmenti, antiqua forsitan instructum traditione, versibus 1-4 epistolae primae ad confirmandam dicti Evangelici auctoritatem, usum eatenus, quatenus apostolus ipse his verbis ad illud a se scriptum respexerit. Id quod profecto ita contigisse poterat; quanquam haec verba, ταῦτα ἀπαγγέλλομαι ὑμῖν, de praedicato Evangelio intelligi aeque possint. »

Per auditorem. That is, in order, as the better authors are accustomed to write. But just as this author used a scarcely sound formula, so did Tertullian, On the Shows chapter 5; Jerome, On Illustrious Men chapter 9; Optatus, On the Donatist Schism book III, p. 62 and p. 64 of Dupin's edition; and other writers. Further, says Freindaller: "We are not without signs that John's letters are later than his Gospel, and that the author of our fragment, perhaps informed by an ancient tradition, used verses 1–4 of the first letter to confirm the authority of the said Gospel, on the ground that the apostle himself was looking back in these words to what he had written. That may indeed have been so; although these words, 'these things we declare to you,' could equally be understood of the preached Gospel."

(printed under page 146)

(24) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 187

Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas optime Theophile comprehendit, quia, etc. Ait Freindaller: « Numerosas sensus corrupti lacunas quis hoc loco non videt? At quid subsidii huic malo? » Haec ille. Sed forsan, vel deleri oportet verbum sunt, vel interseri vocem ea post optime, item scribi Theophilo pro Theophile. Consimilia istis de Luca traditis Hieronymus de Viris Ill. c. 7, post Eusebium habet, Evangelium sicut audierat scripsit: Acta vero apostolarum sicut viderat composuit. Caeterum, cum librum hunc sacrum totidem verbis excitavit in Epistola sua Polycarpus, Joannis apostoli discipulus, § 1, confer et § 6, tum cum admiserunt Lucaeque ascripserunt, ante synodum Nicaenam, Irenaeus, Clemens Alex., Tertullianus, Origenesque; e quibus Irenaeus ex hoc libro solo, quae sit Apostolorum, qui Evangelia non scripserunt, doctrina, probationes suas collegit, lib. iii, c. 12, Tertullianusque ait: Hanc Scripturam qui non recipiunt, nec Spiritus sancti esse possunt, qui necdum Spiritum sanctum possint agnoscere discentibus missum: sed nec Ecclesiam defendere, qui quando, et quibus incunabulis institutum est hoc corpus, probare non habent. De Praesc. Paeret. cap. 22. Porro, affertur hic liber, auctore quidem ejus non nominato, ut sacer tamen ab ecclesiis Lugd, et Viennensi, atque Polycrate, et ab auctore adversus Cataphrygas, et Firmiliano, et Cypriano, Pontioque diacono ejus, sicut ab auctore Computi de Pascha, et Victorino, et Lactantio eumque ἐν τοῖς ὁμολογουμένοις posuit Eusebius.

But the acts of all the apostles are written in one book. Luke, most excellent Theophilus, comprehended, because, etc. Freindaller says: "Who does not see in this passage numerous gaps in a corrupted sense? But what remedy is there for this ill?" So he. But perhaps either the word sunt should be deleted, or the word ea inserted after optime, and Theophilo written for Theophile. Jerome, On Illustrious Men chapter 7, following Eusebius, has much the same as what is handed down here about Luke: He wrote the Gospel as he had heard it, but composed the Acts of the Apostles as he had seen them. Further, Polycarp, the disciple of John the apostle, quoted this sacred book in so many words in his Letter, § 1 (compare also § 6); and before the Council of Nicaea Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen accepted it and ascribed it to Luke. Of these, Irenaeus gathered from this book alone his proofs of what the teaching was of those Apostles who did not write Gospels (book III, chapter 12), and Tertullian says: Those who do not receive this Scripture cannot be of the Holy Spirit, since they cannot yet recognise the Holy Spirit sent to the disciples; nor can they defend the Church, since they cannot show when, and in what cradle, this body was established. On the Prescription of Heretics, chapter 22. Further, this book is cited, its author indeed not named but still as sacred, by the churches of Lyons and Vienne, by Polycrates, by the author against the Cataphrygians, by Firmilian, by Cyprian and his deacon Pontius, as also by the author of the Computus on the Pasch, by Victorinus and by Lactantius; and Eusebius placed it among the acknowledged books.

(printed under page 146)

<!-- NOTE: variants 15–20 were read from the column images of cols 187 and 188 (the lines run across the page) (Q4a 2026-10-25). --> [Variae lectiones]

[Variant readings]

¹⁵ ‹anchor: optime ¹⁵ Theophile› · call in col 188 Scripta sunt Lucas edd. Kirchnoser, forsan typog. vitio. Edd.

"Scripta sunt Lucas" in Kirchhofer's edition, perhaps by a printer's error. Editors.

¹⁶ ‹anchor: Theophile ¹⁶ (Act› · call in col 188 Fort optime ea Theophilo. Routh.

Perhaps "optime ea Theophilo" ("[wrote] them to most excellent Theophilus"). Routh.

¹⁷ ‹anchor: semote ¹⁷ (Joan.› · call in col 188 Fort. semota. Routh.

Perhaps "semota" ("things set apart"). Routh.

¹⁸ ‹anchor: declarat ¹⁸, sed› · call in col 188 Fort. declarant Routh.

Perhaps "declarant" ("they declare"). Routh.

¹⁹ ‹anchor: sed ¹⁹ (Rom.› · call in col 188 Sed et, reposuit Freindall.

"Sed et" ("but also"), restored by Freindaller.

²⁰ ‹anchor: Epistola ²⁰ autem› · call in col 188 Epistolae, Freindall.

"Epistolae" ("the letters"), Freindaller.

(printed under page 146)

(25) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 188

Sicut et semote passionem Patri evidenter declarat, sed perfectionem Pauli, etc. At vero quomodo, quae sequuntur e vestigio, explicanda sunt? Et semote passionem Petri evidenter declarat. Carcerem forsitan Petri, prodigiosamque liberationem (Act. XII), his verbis innuunt; poterant enim ista omnimodis, imminentis Petro martyrii quasi praeludia aestimari. — Sed (verosimilius, sed et) profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis. Altum quidem Acta in nostris Bibliis Pauli hoc iter Roma ad Hispanos reticent. Verum truncatus proculdubio locus scire nos impedit an hujus mentio ibidem injecta, ad Acta apostolorum, an potius ad alium librum pertineat. Attamen certi his reddimur, Paulum ab urbe Roma in Hispaniam commigrasse: indubie, postquam a Nerone absolutus est, a prima scilicet captivitate, de qua capite ultimo Actuum apostolorum historia legitur. Utrum forsan veluti eo facto finiri librum Actorum, quemadmodum ordiri verbis: Optime Theophile designandi fragmentario nostro intentio fuit? Freindaller. — Fortasse legendum, pro semote, semota, ut accipiatur verbum pro narrationibus seorsum et separatim positis, h. e. alibi quam in Actibus apostolorum; ac proinde locus ita restituatur, sicut et semota passionem Petri evidenter declarant (scil., S. Joan. cap. 21 comm. 18 et 19), sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis. De quod quidem itinere suo apostolus in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. xv, comm. 24, haec scribit: ὡς, ἐὰν πορεύωμαι εἰς τὴν Σπανίαν, ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς. iterumque ad comm. 28, τοῦτο οὖν ἐπιτελέσας, καὶ σφαγισάμενος αὐτοῖς τὸν καρπὸν τοῦτον, ἀπελεύσομαι δι' ὑμῶν εἰς τὴν Σπανίαν. Huc autem pertinet scholium quoddam a cl. Matthaei ad cap. ult. Act. Apost. edit. suae prolatum. Μετὰ τὴν διετίαν (comm. 30, commemoratum) εἰς Σπανίαν ἀπελθὼν ἐκήρυξε (Paulus) καὶ ὑποστρέψας εἰς Ῥώμην ἐμαρτύρησεν. Αὐτὸς Ῥωμαίοις ἔγραψεν· Εἰς Σπανίαν ἐπείγομαι, καὶ ἐλπίζω διαπορευόμενος θεάσασθαι ὑμᾶς· καὶ πρὸς Σιμόθεον· Ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ μου ἀπολογίᾳ οὐδείς μοι συμπαρεγένετο. Ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι μέχρι τούτου ἱστορεῖ Λουκᾶς τὰ περὶ τὸν μακάριον Παῦλον ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι τῶν ἀποστόλων, κατ' ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ τὸ βιβλίον συγγραψάμενος, καὶ καθεξῆς ἥκιστα γινώσκων· οὐδὲ τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦτο (Pauli) ἐγκατέθετο τῇ βίβλῳ· καταλιπόντες γὰρ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖσε Λουκᾶς τε καὶ Ἀρίσταρχος ἐξῆλθον p. 436, Posteriora vero verba, sive scholium alterum, Ἰστέον δὲ κ. τ. λ. exhiberi ab Oecumenio quoque in Comment ad pag. 497, idem vir doctus momuit. Verumtamen merentur conferri de S. Pauli in Hispaniam profectione Sam. Basnagii Exercitt. Historico-Criticae, ad pag. 511-516.

Just as he also plainly shows, apart, the passion of Peter, but the setting out of Paul, etc. But how is what follows straight after to be explained? And plainly shows, apart, the passion of Peter. Perhaps these words hint at Peter's imprisonment and his miraculous deliverance (Acts 12); for those events could well be reckoned a kind of prelude to the martyrdom that awaited Peter. — But (more likely, but also) the setting out of Paul as he left the City for Spain. The Acts in our Bibles are indeed wholly silent about this journey of Paul's from Rome to the Spaniards. But the passage, being without doubt mutilated, keeps us from knowing whether the mention of it inserted there belongs to the Acts of the Apostles or rather to another book. Still, we are made certain by these words that Paul moved from the city of Rome to Spain: undoubtedly after he had been acquitted by Nero, that is, after the first captivity, the story of which is read in the last chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Was it perhaps our fragment-writer's intention to indicate that the book of Acts ends, as it were, with that event, just as it begins with the words most excellent Theophilus? Freindaller. — Perhaps read semota for semote, so that the word is taken of narratives set down apart and separately, that is, elsewhere than in the Acts of the Apostles; and the passage might then be restored thus: just as the separate accounts also plainly show the passion of Peter (namely St John chapter 21, verses 18 and 19), and also the setting out of Paul as he left the City for Spain. Of this journey of his the apostle writes in the Letter to the Romans, chapter 15, verse 24: "whenever I go to Spain, I will come to you"; and again at verse 28: "So when I have completed this and have sealed to them this fruit, I will set out by way of you for Spain." Relevant here is a scholion brought out by the distinguished Matthaei on the last chapter of Acts of the Apostles in his edition: "After the two years (mentioned in verse 30) Paul went to Spain and preached, and returning to Rome he bore witness by martyrdom. He himself wrote to the Romans: 'I am hastening to Spain, and I hope to see you as I pass through'; and to Timothy: 'At my first defence no one stood by me.' But it should be known that Luke tells the story of blessed Paul in the Acts of the Apostles only up to this point, having written the book at that time and knowing nothing at all of what followed; nor did he put this martyrdom (of Paul) into the book, for Luke and Aristarchus had left him there and gone away," p. 436. The same learned man pointed out that the latter words, that is, the second scholion, "But it should be known," etc., are also given by Oecumenius in his Commentary, at p. 497. Still, on Saint Paul's journey to Spain, Samuel Basnage's Historico-Critical Exercises, at pp. 511–516, deserve comparison.

(printed under page 146)

<!-- NOTE: the foot image begins inside the variant readings; notes 21–23 were read from the column image (Q2 2026-10-25); the middle of note 23 is cut at the right edge of every image and is not set. --> [Variae lectiones]

[Variant readings]

²¹ ‹anchor: directe ²¹ sint› · call in col 189 Directae. Freindall.

"Directae" ("sent"). Freindaller.

²² ‹anchor: voluntatibus ²² intelligere› · call in col 189 Volentibus. Freindall.

"Volentibus" ("to those willing"). Freindaller.

²³ ‹anchor: intelligere ²³ ipse› · call in col 189 Intel[…] Edd.

Intel[…] Editors.

²⁴ ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 189 Fort. declarat. Routh.

Perhaps declarat ("shows"). Routh.

²⁵ ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 189 Galatis, Freindall.

Galatis ("to the Galatians"), Freindaller.

²⁶ ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 189 Fort primo, et in sequentibus, secundo, atque ita deinceps. Routh. — Epistola rectius subaudi. Edd.

Perhaps "primo" ("first"), and in what follows "secundo" ("second"), and so on. Routh. — Better to understand "Epistola" ("letter"). Editors.

²⁷ ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 190 Thessalonicens. hic et infra Freindall.

"Thessalonicenses" ("Thessalonians"), here and below, Freindaller.

²⁸ ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 190 Correctione Kirchoser.

"Correctione" ("correction"), Kirchhofer.

²⁹ ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 190 Dignoscitur. Freindall.

"Dignoscitur" ("is recognised"). Freindaller.

Mart, Josephi Routh commentarius.

Commentary of Martin Joseph Routh.

(printed under page 147)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 189

Epistola autem Pauli, quae; a quo loco, vel qua ex causa directe sint, voluntalibus intelligere. ipse declarant. Corrigit Freindaller. ut post vidi: epistolae directae volentibus, ipsae. Malim ego reponere declarat pro declarant, propter verbum interdicens in sequentibus.

But the letters of Paul, which; from what place or for what reason they were sent, to those wishing to understand, they themselves declare. Freindaller corrects, as I saw afterwards: the letters sent, to those who wish, themselves. I would rather restore declarat for declarant, because of the word interdicens in what follows.

(printed under page 147)

(27) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 189

Schisma haeresis. Formula verborum insolentior, Graece σχίσμα τῆς αἱρέσεως. Mox Galatis quod inferius quidem legitur, pro Callactis reposuit Freindaller.

Schisma haeresis ("the schism of heresy"). A rather unusual turn of phrase; in Greek, "the schism of heresy." Just after, Freindaller restored Galatis, which is indeed read further down, in place of Callactis.

(printed under page 147)

(28) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 189

Ordine Scripturarum. H. e., ni fallor, Scriptura Vet. Test. ordine adhibito, sive alias post alias, interpretatus. Atque ait Freindaller: « Verba ordine Scripturarum, non videntur quid innuere aliud quam Paulum hoc loco rationes suas, e Lege veteri pro stabilienda nova praetulisse, huicque illam ordine subjecisse. »

Ordine Scripturarum ("in the order of the Scriptures"). That is, unless I am mistaken, having interpreted the Scripture of the Old Testament in order, one passage after another. And Freindaller says: "The words in the order of the Scriptures do not seem to hint at anything other than that Paul, in this place, put forward his reasons from the old Law to establish the new, and set the one in order under the other."

(printed under page 147)

(39) ‹anchor: not visible; so printed, the call is (29)› · call in col 189

Principium. H. e. ἡ ἀρχή, initium, fundamentum.

Principium. That is, "the beginning": the start, the foundation.

(printed under page 147)

(30) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 189

Sequen praedecessoris suis Joannis ordinem. Imperite scriptum, modo hoc velit auctor, quod tamen haud constat, imitatum esse Paulum Apocalypsin; nam, ut verisimiliter statuit Stoschius in Comment. dc Canone Libb. Novi Test. cap. v, § 62, edita est Apocalypsis sub Domitiano, neque ad Claudii vel Neronis tempora retrahenda: quod quidem ut dixi, nonnulli statuerunt viri illustres. Ait porro Freindaller existimare se Joannem Pauli praedecessorem nominatum ab auctore, « quod hunc praecessit vocatione ad apostolatum; congruereque hanc vocem significatu voci alteri, Senior, quam Joannes ipse in suis epistolis usurpavit. Illa nimirum interpretatio veritati profecto haud dissona ordinem pericopes universum restituit; comparatione Paulinas inter et Apocalypticas epistolas jam non ad utrarumque aetatem, verum duntaxat ad septenarium numerum spectante. »

Following the order of his predecessor John. Clumsily written, if the author means by this (which is not certain, though) that Paul imitated the Apocalypse; for, as Stosch plausibly holds in his Commentary on the Canon of the Books of the New Testament, chapter 5, § 62, the Apocalypse was published under Domitian and should not be pulled back to the times of Claudius or Nero, as, I said, some distinguished men have held. Freindaller says further that he thinks John is called Paul's predecessor by the author "because he went before him in his call to the apostolate; and that this word agrees in meaning with that other word, Elder, which John himself used in his letters. That interpretation, which is surely in keeping with the truth, restores the whole order of the passage; the comparison between the Pauline and the Apocalyptic letters then looks not to the age of either but only to the number seven."

(printed under page 147)

(31) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 189

Prima.... secunda, etc., etc. Fort. legend. primo... secundo, atque ita deinceps.

Prima … secunda, etc., etc. Perhaps read primo … secundo ("first … second"), and so on.

(printed under page 147)

(32) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 189

Correctione. Sic antique pro correptione.

Correctione. So in the old manner, for correptione ("rebuke").

(printed under page 147)

(33) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 189

Una tamen per omnem orbem terrae Ecclesia esse denoscitur (dignoscitur). Tertullianus, de praescriptionibus Haereticorum cap. 20: Omne genus ad originem suam censeatur necesse est. Itaque tot ac tantae ecclesiae una est illa ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes primae, et omnes apostolicae, dum una: omnes probant unitatem.

Yet one Church is recognised to be spread through the whole world (dignoscitur). Tertullian, On the Prescriptions of Heretics, chapter 20: Every kind must be reckoned by its origin. So all these many great churches are that one first church from the apostles, from which all come. Thus all are first and all apostolic while they are one: all prove the unity.

(printed under page 147)

(34) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 189

Licet septem eclesiis scribat, etc. Stoschius, ubi paulo superius, § 59: « Aliud adhuc saeculi vel tertii ineuntis vestigium mihi in eo reperisse videor, quod auctor fragmenti, numerum ecclesiarum ad quas apostolus Paulus Epistolas scripsit, ad imitationem Epistolarum Joannis ad septem ecclesias Asiae, pariter ad septenarium reducat. Fuisse enim ineunte saeculo tertio, qui in eo mysterium aliquod quaesiverint, videre est apud Cyprianum libr. i Testim. adv. Jud. cap. 29 Item, scribit Cyprianus in Βασιλέων primo: Sterilis septem peperit et quae plurimos habebat filios, infirmata est. Filii autem septem, sunt ecclesiae septem. Unde et Paulus septem ecclesiis scripsit, et Apocalypsis ecclesias septem posuit, ut servetur septenarius numerus, ut dies septem, quibus Deus mundum fecit, ut Angeli « septem qui assistunt ante faciem Dei. Vide et ejusd. Cypriani Exhort. Martyrii. pag. 270, ed. Benedictin. « Neque forte inepta erat cogitatio, si dicamus rationem cur dubia contra Epistolam ad Hebraeos mota, apud quosdam veterum pondus acceperint, praetensum hoc numeri septenarii mysterium, quem circa ecclesias ad quas Paulus scripserit, omni modo integrum servare volebant, fuisse. Unde quoque atii, qui de Epistola ad Hebraeos non dubitabant, ne viderentur mysterium numeri septenarii negligere, dicere maluerunt Paulum bis septem, quam cum quatuordecim epistolas scripsisse. » Haec Stochius. Ait Freindaller « idcirco forte, ne excessus numerum istum offenderet, Epistolam ad Hebraeos omissam reperiri Poterat isthanc porro, etiamsi eam Paulo tribueret, hoc loco incommemoratam jure dimittere; eo quod Hebraei, sive Judaeo-Christiani, ad quos missa est, misti quidem singulis communitatibus essent, non tamen propriam constituerent. » Sic disseruit ille, idque probaliter. Sed de hac Epistola plus infra. Porro bene monuit Freindaller epistolas Apocalypticas saeculo secundo jam habitas fuisse catholicas, id est tales quae ad universam (ὅλην) Ecclesiam directae fuerint. Septiformis Ecclesia dicitur ab Optato in lib. ii de Schismate Donatist. cap. 3. pag. 93, ed. Dupin. Ut vero locos omittam aliorum veterum scriptorum, qui cum Augustino in libr. vii De civitate Dei, cap. 4. — statuunt, numero septenario universae Ecclesiae significatam esse perfectionem, hoc tantum notabo. Jesum Christum, qui in omnium procul dubio ecclesiarum medio perpetuo versatur, in medio septem candelabrorum, h. e. ecclesiarum, visum esse a Joanne in Apocalypsi, cap. i, comm. 13. Jam vero afferenda mihi sunt valde affinia huic nostri fragmenti loco Victorini verba, quae ex Commentario in Apocalypsim, ei ascripto desumpsi. In toto orbe septem ecclesias omnes esse, et septem nominatas, unam esse catholicam Paulus docuit. Et primum quidem, ut servaret et ipse typum septem ecclesiarum, non excessit numerum. Sed scripsit ad Romanos, ad Corinthios, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, ad Thessalonicenses, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses. Postea singularibus personis scripsit, ne excederet modum septem ecclesiarum. Et id brevi contrahens praedicationem suam ad Thimotheum sic ait: Ut scias, qualiter debeas (continues)

Although he writes to seven churches, etc. Stosch, a little above, § 59: "I think I have found in it yet another trace of the [second] century, or of the opening of the third: that the author of the fragment likewise brings the number of the churches to which the apostle Paul wrote Letters down to seven, in imitation of John's Letters to the seven churches of Asia. For that there were people at the opening of the third century who sought some mystery in this can be seen in Cyprian, Testimonies against the Jews, book I, chapter 29." Likewise, Cyprian writes in the first book of Kings: The barren has borne seven, and she who had many sons has grown weak. Now the seven sons are the seven churches. Hence Paul too wrote to seven churches, and the Apocalypse set down seven churches, so that the number seven might be kept, like the seven days in which God made the world, like the seven Angels "who stand before the face of God. See also the same Cyprian's Exhortation to Martyrdom, p. 270, Benedictine edition. "Nor perhaps would it be a foolish thought to say that the reason why the doubts raised against the Letter to the Hebrews carried weight with some of the ancients was this alleged mystery of the number seven, which they wished to keep wholly intact for the churches to which Paul wrote. Hence also others, who had no doubt about the Letter to the Hebrews, so as not to seem to neglect the mystery of the number seven, preferred to say that Paul wrote twice seven letters rather than fourteen." So Stosch. Freindaller says: "perhaps for this reason, lest an excess should spoil that number, the Letter to the Hebrews is found left out. Moreover, even if he attributed it to Paul, he could rightly have passed it over unmentioned here, because the Hebrews, or Jewish Christians, to whom it was sent were mingled with the several communities and did not form one of their own." So he argued, and plausibly. But more on this Letter below. Further, Freindaller rightly pointed out that the Apocalyptic letters were already held to be catholic in the second century, that is, such as were addressed to the universal (whole) Church. Optatus calls the Church sevenfold in On the Donatist Schism book II, chapter 3, p. 93, Dupin's edition. To pass over the passages of other ancient writers who, with Augustine in The City of God book VII, chapter 4, hold that the perfection of the universal Church is signified by the number seven, I will note only this: Jesus Christ, who without doubt dwells for ever in the midst of all the churches, was seen by John in the Apocalypse, chapter 1, verse 13, in the midst of seven lampstands, that is, churches. Now I must bring forward words of Victorinus very close to this passage of our fragment, which I have taken from the Commentary on the Apocalypse ascribed to him: Paul taught that in the whole world all the churches are seven, and that, named as seven, they are one catholic Church. And first, to keep the type of the seven churches himself, he did not exceed the number. But he wrote to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians. Afterwards he wrote to individual persons, so as not to exceed the measure of seven churches. And drawing his preaching briefly together, he says thus to Timothy: That you may know how you ought (continues)

(printed under page 147)

<!-- NOTE: the foot image begins partway down the page's notes; the variant readings 30-31, the continuation of note 34 and the top of col. 192's commentary (the middle of note 37) were read from the column images (Q4b 2026-10-25). The first visible line of each foot image is cut through. --> (printed under page 148) [Variae lectiones]

[Variant readings]

⁰ ‹anchor: duas ⁰ pro; so printed, the call is 30› · call in col 191 Duae Freindall.

"Duae" ("two"). Freindaller.

³¹ ‹anchor: alia ³¹ ad› · call in col 191 Fort. Daodicenses aliae. Routh.

Perhaps "Daodicenses [so printed, for Laodicenses] aliae" ("to the Laodiceans; others"). Routh.

(34) ‹continuation; the note begins under page 147 and is set in n189› · call in col 190

conversari in Ecclesia Dei vivi (I Tim. iii. 15). Haec Victorinus, cap. 1. Denique, dum numerus hic septenarius inter veteres Pythagoricos tam perfectus quam religioni aptissimus habebatur, unde Etymol Magn.: Ἑπτὰς, ἀπὸ τοῦ σέβω, σεπτάς τις οὖσα, ὡς θεία, καὶ ἀμήτωρ, καὶ πάρθενος, similia sectatus Glycas in Annalibus Spiritum S. vult coelo descendisse decimo post die quam resurrexisset Christus, propterea quod numerus quoque denarius sit perfectus; part. iii, pag. 225, ed. Labbaei.

to conduct yourself in the Church of the living God (1 Timothy 3:15). So Victorinus, chapter 1. Finally, since this number seven was held among the ancient Pythagoreans to be as perfect as it was most fitting for religion (whence the Etymologicum Magnum: "Heptas, from sebō, being a kind of 'septas', as divine, and motherless, and virgin"), Glycas, following like ideas in his Annals, holds that the Holy Spirit came down from heaven on the tenth day after Christ had risen, because the number ten too is perfect; part III, p. 225, Labbe's edition.

(printed under page 148)

(35) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 191

Duas. Duae cum Freindallero reponend. Ita similiter corrigendum est paulo infra.

Duas. Restore duae ("two") with Freindaller. The same correction is to be made a little below.

(printed under page 148)

(36) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 191

In ordinatioe ecclesiasticae disciplinae sanctificatae sunt. Ait Tertullianus fine libri ult. adv. Marcionem: Soli huic Epistolae (scil, ad Philippens.) brevitas sua profuit, ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet. Miror tamen, quod ad unum hominem (Philemonem) litteras factas receperit, quod ad Timotheum duas, et unam ad Titum, ecclesiastico statu compositas recusaverit. Sic ille. Nota ad plures missam esse unam saltem ex his epistolis. Caeterum, ut de universis Paulinis dicam, cum manu ipsius Pauli aut scriptae sint aut signatae, epistolae ejus omnes (vid. Gal. VI. 11 et II Thess. III, 18), et pleraeque earum ad ecclesias frequentissimas, et diu postea florentes, missae sint, in quibus ipsas recitari mos erat (conf. Coloss. IV, 16, cum Dionysii Corinthii Fragmentis, pag. 168, vol. I Reliquiar.), earumdemque ecclesiarum plerasque Paulus ipse postero tempore adiverit; haud dubitandum est quin nemini alii etiam recentiorum scriptorum, qui vita jam functus fuerit, ascribi possit gravioribus ac certioribus argumentis suum proprium opus. Adde quod ab apostolicis usque temporibus quotquot supersunt patres hasce tredecim epistolas, ut fidei religionisque testes regulam, protulerunt. De Pauli illa ad Hebraeos, quae ab auctore fragmenti omissa est, mox dicendum.

They have been made holy in the ordering of the Church's discipline. Tertullian says at the end of the last book Against Marcion: To this Letter alone (that is, to the Philippians) its brevity was of use, so that it escaped Marcion's forging hands. I wonder, though, that he accepted the letter written to one man (Philemon), yet rejected the two to Timothy and the one to Titus, composed on the order of the Church. So he. Note that at least one of these letters was sent to more than one person. For the rest, to speak of all the Pauline letters: all his letters were either written or signed by Paul's own hand (see Galatians 6:11 and 2 Thessalonians 3:18); most of them were sent to very populous churches that flourished long afterwards, where it was the custom to read them aloud (compare Colossians 4:16 with the Fragments of Dionysius of Corinth, p. 168, vol. I of the Reliquiae); and Paul himself afterwards visited most of those same churches. So there is no doubt that no other writer now dead, even among more recent ones, can have his own work ascribed to him on weightier and surer grounds. Add that all the Fathers who survive from apostolic times onward have brought forward these thirteen letters as a rule, witnesses of faith and religion. Of that letter of Paul to the Hebrews, which the author of the fragment left out, we must speak shortly.

(printed under page 148)

(37) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 191

Ad Laudecanses, alia ad Alcxandrinos. Fortasse scribendum, ad Laodicenses alia, alia ad Alexandrinos, Stoschius, de Canone Libb, N. T., haec scribit § 56: « Memoratur igitur primo epistola quaedam Pauli ad Laodicenos, quae ad haeresim Marcionis pertineat Jam vero ex Tertulliano adv. Marcion.. libr. v. cap. 11, 17, et Epiphanio, Haeresi xlii, constat Marcionem qui medio saeculo secundo, haeresin suam sparsit. epistolam aliquam ad Laodicenos in canone suo habuisse. Et quanquam Tertulliani verbis fere colligi debeat eam ab Epistola ad Ephesios nonnisi titulo discrepasse. tamen ex Epiphanii testimonio, et quod Marcionis perpetuus fere mos fuerit genuina Apostolorum scripta corrumpere, vix dubitari poterit Marcionis illam ad Laodicenos, a genuina Pauli ad Ephesios Epistola dissensisse, eamque ab auctore Fragmenti intendi. Jungitur huic Epistolae ad Laodicenos, alia Pauli ad Alexandrinos, cujus, inquit celeb. Muratorius, nescio an quisquam alius meminerit. Neque ego ullam, ejus apud veteres mentionem reperire potui. Igitur vel plane periit, vel forte sub alio titulo veteribus commemorata est, cum certum sit plures saepe uni eidemque libro apocrypho, datos fuisse titulos. Vid. celebr. Bausobrii Dissert. de libris Apocryphis N· T., § 10, vel adhuc alicubi inedita latet. Certe Kustenius testatur reperiri apud Arabes plures Pauli epistolas, nobis adhuc incognitas. Vid. Fabricius Cod. Apocr. Novi Testamenti, part. ii. pag. 920. » Haec Stoschius. Ait Hieronymus fine cap. 5 lib. de Viris ill.: Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur. Habet vero de hac epistola Philastrius quae digna sunt ut huc quidem afferantur in Haeresi sua lxxxix. — Alii autem Lucae evangelistae aiunt (Epistolam ad Hebraeos), Epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam. Et quia addiderunt in ea quaedam non bene sentientes, inde non legitur in ecclesia, etsi legitur a quibusdam, non tamen in ecclesia legitur populo nisi tredecim Epistolae ipsius (Pauli), et ad Hebraeos interdum, p. 169, ed. Fabricii, Interea singulare id est, quod nobis occurrit in Aelfrici abbatis de V. et N. Testamento tractatu, qui Edgari regis Angliae temporibus compositus est; cum enim idem Aelfricus omnes et singulos Novi Testamenti libros in canone Scripturae reposuerat, solam his addidit Pauli Epistolam ad Laodicenos. Vid. p. 28, edit. Lisle, 1623. Denique brevissima quaedam exstat Pauli epistola ad Laodicenos dicta, sed diversa a veteri scripto, et ex caeteris Paulimis contexta, quae a Fabricio in Cod. Apocrypho N. T., ad pag. 875, vol. II, recusa est.

To the Laudecanses, another to the Alexandrians. Perhaps one should write to the Laodiceans another, another to the Alexandrians. Stosch, On the Canon of the Books of the New Testament, writes this at § 56: "First, then, a certain letter of Paul to the Laodiceans is mentioned, belonging to Marcion's heresy. Now it is clear from Tertullian, Against Marcion book V, chapters 11 and 17, and from Epiphanius, Heresy 42, that Marcion, who spread his heresy in the middle of the second century, had some letter to the Laodiceans in his canon. And although one should gather from Tertullian's words that it differed from the Letter to the Ephesians only in its title, yet from Epiphanius' testimony, and because it was Marcion's almost constant habit to corrupt the genuine writings of the Apostles, it can scarcely be doubted that Marcion's letter to the Laodiceans differed from Paul's genuine Letter to the Ephesians, and that the author of the Fragment means it. Joined to this Letter to the Laodiceans is another of Paul to the Alexandrians, of which, says the celebrated Muratori, I do not know whether anyone else has made mention. Nor could I find any mention of it among the ancients. So either it has perished entirely, or perhaps it was mentioned by the ancients under another title, since it is certain that several titles were often given to one and the same apocryphal book (see the celebrated Beausobre's Dissertation On the Apocryphal Books of the New Testament, § 10), or it still lies unpublished somewhere. Certainly Kuster testifies that several letters of Paul still unknown to us are found among the Arabs. See Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, part II, p. 920." So Stosch. Jerome says at the end of chapter 5 of his book On Illustrious Men: Some read one to the Laodiceans as well, but it is rejected by all. Philastrius, moreover, has things about this letter that deserve to be brought in here, in his Heresy 89: Others say that (the Letter to the Hebrews) is Luke the evangelist's, and that a Letter was also written to the Laodiceans. And because people of unsound opinion added some things to it, it is therefore not read in church; and though it is read by some, still only thirteen Letters of his (Paul's) are read to the people in church, and sometimes the one to the Hebrews, p. 169, Fabricius' edition. Meanwhile, a singular thing meets us in Abbot Aelfric's Treatise on the Old and New Testament, composed in the time of Edgar, king of England: for when this Aelfric had placed each and every book of the New Testament in the canon of Scripture, he added to them only Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans. See p. 28, Lisle's edition, 1623. Finally, there survives a very short letter called Paul's to the Laodiceans, but different from the old writing and woven together from Paul's other letters, which Fabricius reprinted in his Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, at p. 875, vol. II.

(printed under page 148)

[Variae lectiones]

[Variant readings]

³² ‹anchor: haeresem ³² Marcionis› · call in col 192 Fort haeresim. Routh.

Perhaps "haeresim" ("heresy"). Routh.

(printed under page 148)

(38) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 192

Ad haeresim Marcionis, Graece, κατὰ τὴν αἵρεσιν τοῦ Μαρκίωνος.. Vett. Gloss. Secundnm, ad κατά. « Altera hic praeterea; » inquit Freindaller, « subreptitia cum inscriptione ad Alexandrinos, occurrit Pauli Epistola, de qua quidem quid statuendum, ipsi Muratorio exploratum non est, quin nec ego nemini de simili Epistola unquam aliquid mihi venisse ad manus. Litteras porro hasce tum ad Leodicenos, tum Alexandrinos, confirmandae haereseos Marcianitarum gratia conflatas fuisse auctor noster commemorat, quo fit ut origini earum certa epocha figi possit. Quid? quod Epiphanii quoque testimonium hisce consonet, Haeres. xlii diserte scribentis Marcionem roborandis suis erroribus ab epistola ad Laodicenos subsidia mutuasse. »

Ad haeresim Marcionis ("for the heresy of Marcion"): in Greek, "according to the heresy of Marcion." The Old Glossaries give secundum for κατά. "Besides," says Freindaller, "another, spurious Letter of Paul appears here, inscribed to the Alexandrians. What is to be decided about it was not clear even to Muratori; and indeed nothing about any similar Letter has ever come into my hands from anyone. Our author further records that these letters, to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians, were fabricated to support the heresy of the Marcionites, so that a definite date can be fixed for their origin. What is more, the testimony of Epiphanius agrees with this: in Heresy 42 he writes expressly that Marcion borrowed support for his errors from the letter to the Laodiceans."

(printed under page 148)

(59) ‹anchor: not visible; so printed, the call is (39)› · call in col 192

Recipi non potest. Ad formam Graeci sermonis παραλαμβάνεσθαι οὐ δυνατόν ἐστι. Sed possunt pro potest, reponere vult Freindaller.

It cannot be received. After the pattern of the Greek, "it is not possible for it to be received." But Freindaller wants to restore possunt for potest.

(printed under page 148)

(40) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 192

Vel enim cum melle misceri non congruit. Simili usus est metaphora senior ille apud Frenaeum ad pag. 42, vol. I Reliquiar.: In Dei lacte gypsum male miscetur.

For it is not fitting [for gall] to be mixed with honey. That elder in Irenaeus used a similar metaphor, at p. 42, vol. I of the Reliquiae: Gypsum is wickedly mixed with God's milk.

(printed under page 148)

(41) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 192

Et superscripti Joannis duas, L. duae, ut supra not. 35. Stoschius, de Canone Libb. N. T. § 53 haec scribit: « Auctorem hujus fragmenti ad ultima saeculi ii vel initia saeculi iii referendum esse ex eo colligo quod hand pauca in eo de libris Novi Testamenti occurrant, quae opinionibus quorumdam Christianorum illius aetatis plane conformia sunt. Scilicet i. Omittuntur in hocce librorum sacrorum canone Epistola ad Hebraeos, Epistola Jacobi, et Joannis apostoli non nisi duae commemorantur. Jam vero utramque, ad Hebraeos et Jacobi Epistolam, quin etiam tertiam Joannis, versus saeculi secundi finem. a quibusdam in canone non relatas fuisse, clarissimis testimoniis constat. Quod enim ad Epistolam ad Hebraeos attinet, eam ab Irenaeo et discipulo ejus Hippolyto, non genuinum Pauli opus habitam fuisse, testatur Stephanus Gobarus apud Photium, Bibl. Cod. 232; Ὅτι Ἱππόλυτος καὶ Εἰρηναῖος τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολὴν Παύλου, οὐκ ἐκείνου εἶναι φασίν. Hippolytus et Irenaeus Epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos (continues)

And two of the above-named John: read duae, as in note 35 above. Stosch, On the Canon of the Books of the New Testament, § 53, writes: "I gather that the author of this fragment is to be placed at the end of the second century or the beginning of the third from the fact that a good many things occur in it about the books of the New Testament that plainly agree with the opinions of certain Christians of that age. Namely: 1. In this canon of the sacred books the Letter to the Hebrews and the Letter of James are left out, and only two of John the apostle's are mentioned. Now it is established by the clearest testimonies that both the Letter to the Hebrews and that of James, and also the third of John, were not counted in the canon by some towards the end of the second century. As for the Letter to the Hebrews, Stephen Gobarus, in Photius, Bibliotheca codex 232, testifies that Irenaeus and his disciple Hippolytus did not hold it to be a genuine work of Paul: 'That Hippolytus and Irenaeus say the letter to the Hebrews is not Paul's.' Hippolytus and Irenaeus [say that] Paul's Letter to the Hebrews (continues)

(printed under page 148)

<!-- NOTE: Q5a 2026-10-25: the foot of this column (variant 33 and the continuation of Routh's note 41, begun in n192) is visible in the column images and is set below from them; the foot image p149_footL begins partway down, and the lines above it were read in c193_1. The continuation of note 41 under col 194 is set in n194, and its close under col 195 in n195 (catchword "[Interea"). The word qui-/dem split between the two foot columns is set whole here. --> [Variae lectiones]

[Variant readings]

³³ ‹anchor: duas ³³ in catholica› · call in col 193 Duae. Freindall.

"Duae" ("two," in the feminine). Freindaller.

(printed under page 149)

(41) (continued) ‹the note begins under page 148 (n192); call in col 192›

ejus esse negant. Ibid. Cod. 121 ex Hippolyti libro contra Haeres.: Λέγει δὲ ἄλλα τέ τινα τῆς ἀκριβείας λειπόμενα, καὶ ὅτι ἡ πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολὴ οὐκ ἔστι τοῦ ἀποστόλου Παύλου. Dicit et alia quaedam parum accurata, et quod Epistola ad Hebraeos non sit apostoli Pauli. De Caio presbytero Romano, uti id jam observavit Muratorius, Eusebius Hist. Eccl. lib. vi, cap 20, pariter refert eum in disputatione adversus Proclum, Cataphrygarum haeresis propugnatorem, tredecim solum divini Apostoli commemorare Epistolas, eam quae ad Hebraeos inscripta est, cum reliquis non annumerans. Quid Origenes de ea senserit, vide supra § 48, » (ubi de ista Epistola tanquam opusculo sententiam Pauli referente sensisse Origenem, Stoschius ostendit). « Epistolam vero Jacobi circa idem tempus non ab omnibus in canone relatam fuisse, testis est Eusebius Hist. Eccl. lib. ii, c. 22, in fine. Sane pauci admodum ex vetustioribus, tum hujus Epistolae, tum illius Judae, quae et ipsa in septem catholicarum numero recensetur, mentionem fecere. De tertia autem Joannis constat eam pariter a quibusdam dubiam habitam. Certe Irenaeus primam et secundam Joannis citat; tertiae autem mentionem non injicit. Vid. Lardnerus Fide Hist. Evang., part. ii, tom. I, c. 17, pag. 301, 302. » Haec Stroschius. — I. De Epistola vero ad Hebraeos hoc velim adjicere, Barnabae non Paulo eam ascripsisse Tertulianum in lib, de Pudicitia c. 20, quod et Hieronymus memorat de Tertulliano in libro de Viris. Ill. cap. 5, neque in canonem Latinorum receptam eamdem fuisse etiam Hieronymi temporibus. Videnda enim inter alios locos Epist ejus ad Dardanum p. 69, ed. Frobenii. Attamen haud constat Irenaeum Hippolytumve discipulum ejus, quos supra nominat Stoschius, hanc Epistolam e librorum sacrorum numero ejecisse, quippe cum, teste Eusebin lib. v Hist. cap. 26, ex ipsa sententias quasdam idem ille Irenaeus in opere suo Variarum Disputationum adduxisset. Origenes quoque in hanc Epistolam scripsit commentarios. Porro in loco modo excitato Dardano ostendit Hieronymus, suscipi eam quasi Pauli apostoli ab ecclesiis Orientis et ab omnibus Graeci sermonis scriptoribus. Certe ego inter legendum clare atque aperte factum illud ab auctoribus quos hic nominabo, vidi; quique omnes, exceptis S. Petro Alexandrino episcopo, atque Eusebio, ante saeculum tertium finitum vixerant; a Clemente nimirum. Alexandrino, et si a Romano quoque Clemente etiam existente saeculo primo epistola adducta est in capitubus ejus 17 et 36; a vetere insuper presbytero apud eumdem Clementem Alex, quem p. 472. vol. I Reliquiar. collocavi, ab Origene, cum alibi, tum in Epist. ad Africanum c. 9; a Dionysio Alexandrino, praesulibus Antiochenis in Epistola sua ad Paulum Samos. pp. 473 et 474 in vol. II posita, Petro Alexandrino in Canone suo nono, denique ab Eusebio ipso de Mart. Palaest. c. 11. Addendi Clementi Romano, qui haud ipsum Pauli nomen apposuit, Pinytus in Epistola ad Dionysium Corinthium, p. 132, vol. I Reliquiar.; Theognostus catecheticae in Alexandrina urbe scholae praefectus; S. Methodius, in Convivio Virg. pp. 90 et 96 ed. Combefis.; Manesque et Archelaus in Disputatione capp. 5, 34 et 41 et 53. — II. ad Jacobi quod attinet Epistolam, quam, sicut Judae illam, omisit saltem in recensione sua librorum sacrorum apud Eusebium, lib. vi, cap. 25, Origenes, mihi monendum est verba Eusebii quae commemoravit Stosehius, in graecis esse, οὐ πολλοὶ τῶν παλαιῶν αὐτῆς ἐμνημόνευσαν, quae vertit quidem (continues)

deny that it is his. Likewise codex 121, from Hippolytus' book against the Heresies: "He says some other things too that fall short of accuracy, and that the letter to the Hebrews is not the apostle Paul's." He says some other rather inaccurate things too, and that the Letter to the Hebrews is not the apostle Paul's. Of Gaius, the Roman presbyter, as Muratori has already observed, Eusebius, Church History Book VI, chapter 20, likewise reports that in his disputation against Proclus, the champion of the Cataphrygian heresy, he mentions only thirteen Letters of the divine Apostle, not counting the one inscribed to the Hebrews with the rest. For what Origen thought of it, see above, § 48" (where Stosch shows that Origen regarded this Letter as a little work reporting Paul's thought). "That the Letter of James was not counted in the canon by everyone at about the same time, Eusebius is witness, Church History Book II, chapter 22, at the end: Indeed very few of the older writers made mention either of this Letter or of that of Jude, which is itself also reckoned among the seven catholic Letters. As for the third of John, it is established that it too was held doubtful by some. Irenaeus certainly cites the first and second of John, but makes no mention of the third. See Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History, part II, vol. I, chapter 17, pp. 301, 302." So Stosch. — I. On the Letter to the Hebrews I would add this: that Tertullian, in his book On Modesty, chapter 20, ascribed it to Barnabas, not to Paul, as Jerome also records of Tertullian in his book On Illustrious Men, chapter 5; and that it was not received into the canon of the Latins even in Jerome's time. See, among other places, his Letter to Dardanus, p. 69, Froben edition. Yet it is not established that Irenaeus or his disciple Hippolytus, whom Stosch names above, cast this Letter out of the number of the sacred books, since, on the testimony of Eusebius, History Book V, chapter 26, that same Irenaeus had cited some sentences from it in his work of Various Discourses. Origen too wrote commentaries on this Letter. Further, in the place just cited, to Dardanus, Jerome shows that it was received as the apostle Paul's by the churches of the East and by all the writers of the Greek tongue. I myself, in the course of my reading, have certainly seen this done clearly and openly by the authors I shall name here; and all of them, except Saint Peter, bishop of Alexandria, and Eusebius, had lived before the end of the third century: namely by Clement of Alexandria (though the letter is also cited by Clement of Rome, who lived in the first century, in his chapters 17 and 36); by the old presbyter in the same Clement of Alexandria, whom I placed at p. 472, vol. I of the Reliquiae; by Origen, both elsewhere and in the Letter to Africanus, chapter 9; by Dionysius of Alexandria; by the bishops of Antioch in their Letter to Paul of Samosata, placed at pp. 473 and 474 in vol. II; by Peter of Alexandria in his ninth Canon; and finally by Eusebius himself, On the Martyrs of Palestine, chapter 11. To Clement of Rome, who did not set down Paul's name itself, must be added Pinytus, in his Letter to Dionysius of Corinth, p. 132, vol. I of the Reliquiae; Theognostus, head of the catechetical school in the city of Alexandria; Saint Methodius, in the Banquet of the Virgins, pp. 90 and 96, Combefis edition; and Mani and Archelaus in the Disputation, chapters 5, 34, 41 and 53. — II. As regards the Letter of James, which Origen, as with that of Jude, left out, at least in his list of the sacred books in Eusebius, Book VI, chapter 25, I must point out that the words of Eusebius quoted by Stosch are, in the Greek, "not many of the ancients mentioned it," which [Valesius] translated indeed (continues)

(printed under page 149)

(41) (continued) ‹the note begins under page 148 (n192) and runs on from n193; call in col 192›

Valesius, sed vix accurate, pauci admodum ex vetustioribus; et si forsan ita loqui etiam Eusebii temporibus licuisset; nam, si qui sunt praeter Irenaeum, lib. iv, c. 16 vel 30, pauci existunt e scriptoribus Eusebio vetustioribus, nunc superstitibus, qui hanc Epistolam aperte adduxerint; nonnulli tamen alii istorum superstitum ad ipsam, praecipue ubi Veteris Testamenti loci in ea adducuntur, possunt respicere. Certe mox ostensurus sum omnes Epistolas catholicas a Clemente Alexandrino in Hypotyposibus suis breviter enarratas fuisse. Tum vero a Syris Epistolam Jacobi receptam esse, refert Cosmas Indicopleustes, de Mundo lib. vii. pag. 292 edit. Montfaucon.; eademque epistola in versione semper exstitit Syriaca, sicut una alia praeterea ex septem Scripturis ἀντιλεγομέναις, Epistola ad Hebraeos. — III. Denique de Tertia Epistola S. Joannis haec addam, commentatum quidem fuisse in duas priores hujus apostoli Epistola eumdem, Clementem id testante in lib. primo Divin. Lectionum Cassiodoro, cap. 8, imo vero exstare adhuc quae ascribuntur Clementi Alex. Adumbrationes in has duas Epistolas, non in tertiam; sed tamen tradere Eusebium lib. vi, Hist. cap. 14, Clementem in libris, Ὑποτυπώσεων omnium utriusque Testamenti Scripturarum compendiosam instituisse enarrationem, ne illis quidem praetermissis Scipturis de quibus inter multos ambigitur, Judae Epistola, et Barnabae, ac reliquis catholis Epistolis. Scripserat ergo Clemens, si accuratus testis est Eusebius, commentarios in tertiam Epistolam Joannis, sicut in Jacobi Epistolam Utcunque res habet, Clemens in lib. ii Stromatum cap. 15, primam Joannis Epistolam adducens, quam omnes a Polpcarpi usque temporibus receperant, ἐν τῇ μείζονι ἐπιστολῇ posuit, tribuendam esse saltem illam secundam ex Clementis sententia Joanni apostolo, non presbytero, cui quidem multi antiquitus, teste Hieronymo c. 9, de Viris Ill. et Eusebio lib. iii Hist. c. 35, duas Epistolas posteriores asserere solebant; haud tamen consentiente Hieronymo ipso, qui, ex Epistolis ejus ad Paulinum p. 9 ed. Froben et ad Evagrium p 334, constat, utramque Joanni apostolo ascripsit. Interea quinam scriptores ante Cypriani tempora secundam amplexi fuerint Epistolam, supra ostendi ad Concil. Carthag. vii, pag. 166, vol. III Reliquiar., quibus nunc addam auctorem ante synoum Nicaenam qui scripsit Alexandrum Alex. in Epistolat sua apud Socratem, lib. i Hist. c. 6. Fatendum vero est in nullum me incidisse scriptorem antenicaenum, fortasse propter epistolae brevitatem, qui tertiam epistolam adduxerit, nisi qui post factam, mentionem ejus, vel sui ipsius, vel aliorum saltem, dubitationem de hujus atque secundae epistolae γνησιότητι simul addiderit. Sed haec hactenus. [Interea (continues)

Valesius, though hardly accurately, [as] very few of the older writers; even if perhaps it was permissible to speak so in Eusebius' time too. For if there are any besides Irenaeus, Book IV, chapter 16 or 30, few of the writers older than Eusebius who now survive openly cite this Letter; yet some others of these survivors may have it in view, especially where passages of the Old Testament are cited in it. I shall certainly show shortly that all the catholic Letters were briefly expounded by Clement of Alexandria in his Hypotyposes. Then Cosmas Indicopleustes, On the World, Book VII, p. 292 of Montfaucon's edition, reports that the Letter of James was received by the Syrians; and the same letter always stood in the Syriac version, as did one other of the seven disputed Scriptures besides, the Letter to the Hebrews. — III. Finally, on the Third Letter of Saint John I will add this: that the same [Clement] wrote commentaries on the first two Letters of this apostle, as Cassiodorus testifies in Book I of the Divine Readings, chapter 8; indeed the Adumbrations ascribed to Clement of Alexandria on these two Letters, not on the third, still survive; but that Eusebius, History Book VI, chapter 14, nevertheless relates that Clement, in the books of the Hypotyposes, made a concise exposition of all the Scriptures of both Testaments, not passing over even the Scriptures that are disputed by many, the Letter of Jude, and of Barnabas, and the other catholic Letters. So Clement, if Eusebius is an accurate witness, had written commentaries on the third Letter of John, as on the Letter of James. However that may be, Clement, in Book II of the Stromata, chapter 15, citing the first Letter of John, which all had received from the times of Polycarp onwards, put "in the greater letter," so that at least that second Letter, in Clement's judgement, is to be attributed to John the apostle, not to the presbyter, to whom many in antiquity, on the witness of Jerome, On Illustrious Men chapter 9, and of Eusebius, History Book III, chapter 35, used to assign the two later Letters; though Jerome himself did not agree, for, as is clear from his Letters to Paulinus, p. 9, Froben edition, and to Evagrius, p. 334, he ascribed both to John the apostle. Meanwhile, which writers before Cyprian's time embraced the second Letter I showed above, on the Seventh Council of Carthage, p. 166, vol. III of the Reliquiae; to whom I will now add an author before the Council of Nicaea, Alexander of Alexandria, who wrote in his Letter in Socrates, History Book I, chapter 6. But I must admit that I have come upon no ante-Nicene writer, perhaps because of the letter's brevity, who cited the third letter, except those who, after mentioning it, at the same time added a doubt, their own or at least others', about the genuineness of this and the second letter. But enough of this. [Meanwhile (continues)

(printed under page 149)

(42) ‹anchor: in catholica (42) ha-bentur› · call in col 193

In catholica. Graece τῇ καθολικῇ, et subaudita, ut interdum fit, voce ἐκκλησίᾳ. Exempla autem tum in Tertulliano libro de Praesc. Haereticorum, cap. 30, tum saepe alibi apud recentiores Tertulliano scriptores Optatum et Augustinum, occurrunt. Vid. et notas ad S. Cornelii Fragmenta p. 30, vol. III. In Codice quoque Theodosiano, lib. xvi, tom. II, de Episc., lege 4, Constantinus imp. habet, sanctissimum catholicae concilium. Itidem in Codice Canonum Afric. num. 109 haec existant: Itemque si fuerit episcopus ad catholicam ex Donati parte conversus, etc., ubi interpretatio Graeca. Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐὰν ἐπίσκοπος ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Δονάτου μερῶν πρὸς τὴν καθολικὴν ἐπιστρέψῃ, etc.

In catholica ("in the catholic"). In Greek, "in the catholic," with the word "church" understood, as sometimes happens. Examples occur in Tertullian's book On the Prescription of Heretics, chapter 30, and often elsewhere in writers later than Tertullian, Optatus and Augustine. See also the notes on the Fragments of Saint Cornelius, p. 30, vol. III. In the Theodosian Code too, Book XVI, vol. II, On Bishops, law 4, the emperor Constantine has the most holy council of the catholic [Church]. Likewise in the Code of African Canons, no. 109, we find: And likewise if a bishop from the party of Donatus has been converted to the catholic [Church], etc., where the Greek translation reads: "And likewise, if a bishop from the party of Donatus turns to the catholic [Church]," etc.

(printed under page 149)

<!-- NOTE: Q5a 2026-10-25: the note running at the top of this column's foot is the close of Routh's note 41 (catchword "[Interea" at the foot of col 194); its opening lines, above the foot image, were read in c195_1 and are set below. The close of the first note (45) (printed so; it answers the call (43)) and note (44) stand at the top of col 196's foot and are set in n196. The page prints two notes numbered (45); the second is set as printed in n196. --> [Variae lectiones]

[Variant readings]

³⁴ ‹anchor: Apocalypsis (44); the superior call is not legible in the image› · call in col 195 Fort. Apocalypses. Routh.

Perhaps "Apocalypses." Routh.

(printed under page 150)

(41) (continued) ‹the note begins under page 148 (n192) and runs under page 149 (n193, n194); call in col 192›

Interea qui fit, quod magis miremur, ut sileat hujus fragmenti auctor de Epistola priore S. Petri, quae, teste Eusebio, atque ipso apud Eusebium Origene, ἐν ταῖς ὁμολογουμέναις censetur Scripturis, sive, apud omnes, et semper, et ubique, recepta fuit; quamque tot Patres a Polycarpi et Papiae usque temporibus in operibus suis adduxerunt? Rem prorsus intactam et Stoschius et Muratorius silentio praetermittunt. Dictum fore a quo. quam vix putem, Ecclesiae, in qua vixerit hic anonymus de canone scriptor, nondum S. Petri Epistolam innotuisse, nam floruit idem medio saeculo secundo. Ait quidem, ut mihi jam constat, et, Freindaller: « Praetereuntur hoc loco duae Petri Epistolae, quarum prima eo aevo jam communiter recepta invenitur, non minus Epistola Jacobi, quae auctori Romae viventi nequibat esse incognita; tertia denique Joannis Epistola prorsus reticetur. Verum ex una parte pensandum est agi hic de fragmento, quod locis quamplurimis integritate sensus destituitur, et vel idcirco litem etiamnum pendere, an non in contextu vel praemisso, vel subsequo, et hae Bibliorum partes commemoratae fuerint, atque, solummodo mutilati operis vitio, hodie mentio earum desideretur; ex altera parte dissimulandum non est non omnes in omnibus ecclesiis libros divinos eodem tempore fuisse receptos, atque ab ipso Eusebio singillatim Epistolam Jacobi, secundam Petri et tertiam Joannis antilegomenis annumerari. » Haec ille, ubi hoc solum notabo, Eusebium, qui libros S. Scripturae praedictos τοὺς ἀντιλεγομένους plus semel nominat, addere, γνωρίμους δ' οὖν ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς. et ὅμως δὲ ἐν πλείσταις ἐκκλησίαις παρὰ πολλοῖς δεδημοσιευμένους. Utut res se habet, quacumque de causa S. Petri Epistola omissa est. Epistolam sane Judae auctor commemoravit, quam tamen norunt omnes inter τὰς ἀντιλεγομένας Scripturas Eusebium recensuisse, qui lib. quoque Hist. ii cap. 23, loco a Stoischio supra adducto, ait non multos ex vetustioribus hujus Epistolae mentionem fecisse. Ex his paucis vidi ego afferentes eam tanquam S. Scripturae librum Tertullianum, Clementem Alexandrinum, Origenemque, et fortasse Concilium Antiochenum contra Paulum Samosatenum habitum, auctoremque contra Novatianum, a quo quidem, quae saltem Judas ipse protulerat referuntur. Quibus scriptoribus nunc demum radendus est hujus fragmenti auctor, qui et alios praeterea duos ex iisdem septem libris S. Scripturae controversis suffragio suo, ut vidisti, confirmat, Apocalypsin, Epistolamque alteram Joannis. Adhaec, quod majus est, nullum, uti jam monui, ὑποβολιμαῖον opus canoni Novi Testamenti idem scriptor obtrusit praeter Petri Revelationem, simul tamen commemorata νοθείας nota, quae ab aliis libro infixa erat. Porro omnes τὰς ὁμολογουμένας Scripturas idem hic Noster enumeravit, una tantum omissa, quae est illa S. Petri Epistola.

Meanwhile, how does it come about, and this should surprise us more, that the author of this fragment is silent about the first Letter of Saint Peter, which, on the testimony of Eusebius, and of Origen himself in Eusebius, is reckoned among the acknowledged Scriptures, that is, was received by all, always and everywhere, and which so many Fathers from the times of Polycarp and Papias onwards cited in their works? Both Stosch and Muratori pass over this matter in silence, leaving it wholly untouched. "Dictum fore a quo." [so printed; the words seem corrupt.] I could hardly think that the Letter of Saint Peter was not yet known to the Church in which this anonymous writer on the canon lived, for he flourished in the middle of the second century. Indeed, as I now see, Freindaller too says: "Two Letters of Peter are passed over here, the first of which is found already commonly received in that age; no less the Letter of James, which could not have been unknown to an author living at Rome; and finally the third Letter of John is passed over in complete silence. But on the one hand we must weigh that we are dealing here with a fragment whose sense is incomplete in a great many places, and that for this very reason the question is still open whether these parts of the Bible too were mentioned in the context before or after, and their mention is missing today only through the fault of a mutilated work. On the other hand, it must not be hidden that not all the divine books were received in all the churches at the same time, and that Eusebius himself counts the Letter of James, the second of Peter and the third of John individually among the disputed books." So he. Here I will note only this: Eusebius, who more than once calls the said books of Holy Scripture "the disputed ones," adds "yet known to most," and "yet made public by many in very many churches." However that may be, Saint Peter's Letter was omitted for whatever reason. The author certainly mentioned the Letter of Jude, which everyone knows Eusebius counted among the disputed Scriptures; he also says, in History II, chapter 23, the passage Stosch quoted above, that not many of the older writers mentioned this Letter. Of those few I have seen Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen cite it as a book of Holy Scripture, and perhaps the Council of Antioch held against Paul of Samosata, and the author against Novatian, by whom at least the things Jude himself had put forward are reported. To these writers the author of this fragment must now at last be added, who, as you saw, also confirms by his vote two others of the same seven disputed books of Holy Scripture, the Apocalypse and John's second Letter. Moreover, and this is more, the same writer, as I have already pointed out, pressed no spurious work on the canon of the New Testament except Peter's Revelation, and even then he mentioned the mark of spuriousness that others had fixed on the book. Further, this author of ours listed all the acknowledged Scriptures, with only one left out, that Letter of Saint Peter.

(printed under page 150)

(45) ‹anchor: scripta (43); so printed, the note is numbered (45) though it answers the call (43)› · call in col 195

Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis..... scripta. Cum in Versiones τῶν Ο' hoc opus exstaret, quod non solum a Methodio adducto ad Melitonis Fragmenta p. 128 vol. 1 nomine Sapientiae insignitum est, sed etiam a Clemente Alex., aliisque Methodio vetustioribus; ita dictum fuit eumdem librum saltem ut ecclesiasticum atque utilem, quamvis incertae originis ac Judaico canoni ignotum, vetustiores Christiani, perinde atque auctor noster, adduxerunt. Parum autem verisimile est, certe novum atque inauditum, quod ait fragmenti auctor, conscriptum esse librum ab amicis Salomonis (continues)

Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon … Since this work stood in the version of the Seventy, and was given the title Wisdom not only by Methodius (quoted on the Fragments of Melito, p. 128, vol. 1) but also by Clement of Alexandria and others older than Methodius, it was so called; and the older Christians, just like our author, cited the same book at least as ecclesiastical and useful, though of uncertain origin and unknown to the Jewish canon. But what the author of the fragment says is hardly likely, and certainly new and unheard of: that the book was written by Solomon's friends (continues)

(printed under page 150)

(45) (continued) ‹so printed, numbered (45); it answers the call (43) in col 195; the note begins in n195›

qui quidem liber, testante Hieronymo in praefat. in Proverbia, apud Hebraes, nusquam est. p. 26. Hoc interrea monuit Freindaller: « Qua ratione liber Sapientiae, nisi forte de diverso sermo sit, locum inter Scripturas novi foederis hic nactus sit, critices aciem fugit. Verum Psalmorum quoque memoria, in hoc fragmento, paulo inferius, sed primoribus tantummodo labiis attingitur. »

a book which, as Jerome testifies in his preface to Proverbs, is nowhere found among the Hebrews. P. 26. Freindaller meanwhile pointed this out: "By what reasoning the book of Wisdom, unless perhaps a different book is meant, has found a place here among the Scriptures of the new covenant escapes the keenest criticism. But the Psalms too are touched on in this fragment, a little lower down, though only with the tip of the lips."

(printed under page 150)

(44) ‹anchor: Apocalypsis (44)› · call in col 195

Apocalypsis. For. Apocalypses, sed mavult rescribere Freindaller. Apocalypsim.

Apocalypsis ("Apocalypse"). Perhaps Apocalypses, but Freindaller prefers to rewrite it Apocalypsim.

(printed under page 150)

(45) ‹anchor: nolunt (45.)› · call in col 196

Et Petri tantum recipimus, quam quidam ex nostris legi in Ecclesia nolunt. « Recte haec, » ait Muratorius, ubi supra ad pag. 853, « in Caii tempora conveniunt. Eusebius enim lib. iii, cap. 25, Apocalypsim Petri inter dubios quidem libros recenset, non tamen abjicit veluti haereticorum foetum. Eodem quoque testante, lib. vi, cap. 14, Clemens Alexandrinus eadem Apocalypsi est usus, non secus ac Epistola Barnabae (Epistolisque catholicis), Sozomenus pariter nos monuit, lib. vii, c. 19, hanc Apocalysim in quibusdam Ecclesiis Palaestinae usque adhuc singulis annis semel legi. » Haec Muratorius. Ita video memoratos in Laterculo quodam SS. Scripturarum, quem primus edidit Cotelerius in Judicio de Epistola S. Barnabae, quatuor alios libros extra canonicos illos N. T. Barnabae Epistolam, Pastoris, Actus Pauli Revelationem Petri; quae ipsa opera, addito libro qui inscriptus est Apostolorum Doctrina, Eusebius, loco prius a Muratorio nominato, posuit post τὰς ὁμολογουμένας controversasque Scripturas, quasi libros quidem νόθου sed prorsus omissa immensa illa τῶν ψευδεπιγράφων farragine qui ab haereticis sunt confecti. Attamen nimis ludicra sunt brevia illa ex Petri Apocalypsi translata ad Eclogas Clementi Alex. attributas, quam ut miniman habeat liber venerationem. Vid. §§ 49 et 50, pag. 207, Combefisiani Auctarii Patrum Noviss. Fortasse interea nonulli putent relativum quas pro quam hoc loco reponi debere, ut simul comprehendatur Joannis Apocalypsis, in quem quidem librum iniquiores temporibus illis aliquot homines exstitisse notum est; etenim de receptione ab Ecclesia inter Scripturas divinas hic agi, non tantum de lectione in sacris conventibus, quemadmodum fit in canone ultimo concilii Laodiceni, ubi omissa est Apocalypsis, verba mihi suadent quae de Hermae Pastore statim post sequuntur. Confer omnino Filastrii locum quem supra adduxi. Quod vero scriptores Caio aetatis, librum Apocalypticum amplexi fuerint, dixi ante ad Caii Fragmenta. p. 16, vol. II, quorum et nomina nunc apponam; ii sunt Papias, Justinus M., fratres Viennenses et Lugdunenses, cum Irenaeo, Melito, Theophilus Antiochenus, Apollonius, Hippolytus Tertullianus, Clemensque Alexandrinus; quem postrenum Patrem Joanni apostolo Apocalypsim attribuisse, ostendere convenit ex Clementis opusculo quod inscriptum est. Quis dives salvetur. Cum enim in sectione ejus ultima refertur Joannem apostolum post tyranni obitum e Patmo insula Ephesum rediisse; hoc ipsam relegationem suam commemorat Apocalypsis auctor Joannes cap. i, comm. 9. Alios scriptores omitto ad Dionysium Alexandrinum usque, qui presbytero quidem Joanni, non apostolo, librum attribuebat ibidem tamen opus hoc divinum a sacris minime abjudicans; vid. lib. vi, Hist. Eusebii c. 22, imo vero in fragmento Epistolae suae ad Hermamonem, quae ab eodem Eusebio conservatur, lib. vii, cap. 20; verba inde adduxit Dionysius, tanquam ex (continues)

We also receive only [the apocalypse] of Peter, which some of our people do not want read in church. "This fits the times of Gaius well," says Muratori, in the place cited above, at p. 853. "For Eusebius, Book III, chapter 25, counts Peter's Apocalypse among the doubtful books, yet does not throw it out as a brood of heretics. On his testimony too, Book VI, chapter 14, Clement of Alexandria used this same Apocalypse, just as he used the Letter of Barnabas (and the catholic Letters). Sozomen likewise informs us, Book VII, chapter 19, that this Apocalypse was still read once every year in some Churches of Palestine." So Muratori. So I see that in a certain List of the Holy Scriptures, first published by Cotelier in his Judgement on the Letter of Saint Barnabas, four other books outside the canonical books of the New Testament are mentioned: the Letter of Barnabas, [the book] of the Shepherd, the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter. These very works, with the addition of the book entitled The Teaching of the Apostles, Eusebius, in the place Muratori named earlier, set after the acknowledged and the disputed Scriptures, as spurious books indeed, but leaving out entirely that vast mass of falsely titled writings fabricated by heretics. Yet the short pieces taken from Peter's Apocalypse into the Eclogues attributed to Clement of Alexandria are too absurd for the book to deserve the least veneration. See §§ 49 and 50, p. 207 of Combefis' Newest Auctarium Patrum. Meanwhile some may think the relative quas should be put here for quam, so as to include John's Apocalypse too, against which book, as is known, a few rather hostile people arose in those times. For the words that follow straight after about Hermas' Shepherd persuade me that the question here is of reception by the Church among the divine Scriptures, not merely of reading in the sacred assemblies, as in the last canon of the Council of Laodicea, where the Apocalypse is omitted. By all means compare the passage of Filastrius I quoted above. That the writers of Gaius' age embraced the book of the Apocalypse I said before, on the Fragments of Gaius, p. 16, vol. II; I will now set down their names too. They are Papias, Justin Martyr, the brethren of Vienne and Lyons with Irenaeus, Melito, Theophilus of Antioch, Apollonius, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. That this last Father attributed the Apocalypse to John the apostle may be shown from Clement's little work entitled Who is the rich man that is saved? For in its last section it is related that John the apostle returned from the island of Patmos to Ephesus after the tyrant's death; and John, the author of the Apocalypse, records this very banishment of his in chapter 1, verse 9. I pass over other writers down to Dionysius of Alexandria, who attributed the book to John the presbyter, not the apostle, yet even there by no means rejected this divine work from the sacred books; see Eusebius, History Book VI, chapter 22, and indeed in the fragment of his Letter to Hermammon, preserved by the same Eusebius, Book VII, chapter 20, Dionysius quoted words from it as from (continues)

(printed under page 150)

<!-- NOTE: Q5a 2026-10-25: the top of this column's foot (variants 35-36, the close of note (45), the opening of note (46)) is above the foot image and was read in c197_1; the top of col 198's foot (the middle of note 46, "quartodecimani nominantur" to "idem tradiderunt") was read in c198_1. Both are set below, so note 46 now stands whole. Note (a) is the 1864 editors' note, called inside Routh's note. Variant 37 and notes (47-48) and (49), called in col 198, are set in n198. --> [Variae lectiones]

[Variant readings]

³⁵ ‹anchor: Herma ³⁵ conscri-psit› · call in col 197 Fort. Hermas. Routh.

Perhaps "Hermas." Routh.

(printed under page 151) ³⁶ ‹anchor: cathedra ³⁶ urbis› · call in col 197 In cathedra. Freindall.

"In cathedra" ("in the chair"). Freindaller.

(printed under page 151)

(45) (continued) ‹the note begins in n196; call in col 196›

illo libro prophetico et θεοπνεύστῳ. Καί τοι Ἰωάννῃ, inquit ille ὁμοίως ἀποκαλύπτεται, etc.

that prophetic and divinely inspired book: "And to John," he says, "it is likewise revealed," etc.

(printed under page 151)

(46) ‹anchor: nostris (46)› · call in col 197

Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris etc. Contra eorum opinionem qui auctorem libri dicti Pastoris velint Hermam esse, cujus S. Paulus meminit Epistolae fine ad Romanos cap. xvi, comm. 14, aut saltem antiquissimum scriptorem qui ante Hierosolymam excisam vixerit, argumentum affert cel. Moshemius, in lib. de Rebus Christianorum ante Constant M.*Saec. 1, § 54, ex vetustissime scriptore *Carminis contra Marcionem, quod Tertulliano tribuitur; ubi sub fin. lib. iii haec sunt: Jamque loco nono cathedram suscepit Hyginus. / Post hunc deinde Pius, Hermas cui germine frater / Angelicus Pastor, quia tradita verba locutus. Quo versu ultimo Moshemius vult legere cui pro quia, dum alii fortasse melius posuerunt qui. Sed hac re missa, isthaec scribere vir cl. pergit: « Reliquos veterum de Herma, Pii fratre, locos, ut cum Tertulliano prorsus consentire et ei librum Pastoris tribuere, doceam, necesse non est. » (Librum Pontificalem et Martyrologia in animo habet Moshemius.) « Testem enim bona fortuna paucos ante annos nobis adduxit exceptione majorem et Hermae nostro aequalem, qui omnem extra controversiam ponit Pastorem, quem habemus, saeculo secundo a Pii, Romani episcopi, fratre, conscriptum esse.... » (Vid. supra, col. 177.) « In hoc igitur magni pretii fragmento haec de Herma scripta leguntur: Pastorem vero nupperime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Herma conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Romae Ecclesiae Pio episcopo, fratre ejus. Haec luculenta sunt, omnemque virorum doctorum de Hermae aetate, loco, conditione, disputationem terminant. Succedunt alia verba non minus commemorabilia, ex quibus, quo loco et numero Hermas in Ecclesia Latina olim haberetur constat.. Excluditur ille canone seu numero divinorum librorum, non quidem nimis eleganter et oratione concinna, verum perspicue tamen et evidenter: Et ideo legi eum quidem oportet, se publicare vero in Ecclesia populo, neque inter Prophetas completum numero, necque inter Apostolos in finem temporum potest Ait scriptor privatim quidem a piis hominibus legi posse Pastorem, negat vero eum in populi Christiani concione legi debere et neque Prophetarum neque Apostolorum libris adjici posse. Honorificus est hic locus ecclesiis Latinis, plusque in illis sapientiae et cautionis fuisse, quam in Graecis, quorum plerisque Prophetis et Apostolis non inferior Hermas visus fuit, demonstrat... Verbum addam de ratione qua se viri docti potissimum moveri dicunt, ut Herman Pastoris auctorem ab Herma Pii pontificis fratre distinguant. In libro Pontificali, nonnullisque aliis veterum scriptis, locus quidam ex Hermae, Pii fratris libro cui Pastoris titulum dederat, producitur de Paschate die Dominico celebrando, quem frustra in Pastore Hermae qui ad nos pervenit, quaerimus. Vid. Jo. Alb. Fabricii Codex Apocryphus Novi Testam. tom. III, pag. 761, Ex hoc colligunt Hermam Pii fratrem, librum reliquisse a nostro Pastore diversum. Graece Pastor Hermae hodie exstaret (a), si ad nos integrum delatum esse libellum hunc dubio careret, non spernenda esset haec ratio. At cum Latinam tantum habeamus interpretationem, eamdemqus fortassis mutilam, omnis expers virtutis haberi debet. Verisimile est Orientalium et Graecorum Christianorum illos qui quartodecimani nominantur, locum hunc de tempore Paschatis, quia sententiae eorum obsistebat, ex Pastore ejecisse. » P. 61. Haec vir praestantiss, contra pervulgatam illam de Herma Pastoris auctore sententiam; quae tamen vix et ne vix quidem recentiorum est scriptorum commentum; Hermae enim Paulino ascribendum esse Pastoris librum statuit Origenes lib. x Comm. in Epist. ad Rom., ad locum quo Hermas ab Apostolo commemoratur, aliique praeterea auctores, ut ex Eusebio Hieronymoque constat, idem tradiderunt. Porro nonnulli apud Germaniam viri docti hunc scriptorem primo saeculo vindicandum, adhuc opinantur; utrum autem novis quibusvis rationibus sententiam suam confirment, id nondum mihi videre contigit. Sed vero opera inter se vult distinguere, Hermae Paulini, et Hermae sive Hermetis Pii fratris, Gallandius in Prolegomenis de Caio presbytero, § iv, pag. xxxi tomi II Biblioth. Patrum, luculenterque idem ostendisse ait Justum Fontanium, Hist. Litt. Aquil. lib. ii, cap. 1. Porro haec ipse scribit Gallandius lectu haud indigna: « Quemadmodum viri apostolici opus antiquis Patribus Pastor seu liber Pastoris appellatus fuit, inde fortasse derivata denominatione hujusmodi, quod in toto ferme opere Pastor inducitur Hermam alloquens et informans: ita quoque contigerit, ut et Hermetis liber de Paschate fuerit nonnullis saltem Pastor nominatus; quia illius auctor de iis scripsit quae ei praecepit angelus, cum venit ad eum in habitu Pastoris ut habet Catalogus II Henschenianus, unde non solum scriptori, sed ejus etiam libro Pastoris nomen inhaeserit. » Librum autem injuria temporis deperditum fuisse, quem Hermes Pii frater ediderit, putant Gallandius et Fontaninus; et Fontaninus quidem hunc Hermetem nominari debere Hermam negat; quem tamen Herma non Hermes auctorem hujus fragmenti appellare videmus, sicut Hermas pseudo-Tertullianus habet, Imo, contra, Usuardus Paulinum illum Herman Hermetem vocat in Martyrologio suo, 9 maii fol. 70, ed. Lovan. Porro fragmenti auctor librum Pastorem dictum, qui Hermae exstat, in mente habere poterat, et si fingas illum per errorem Hermae, vel Hermeti, Pii papae fratri, opus ascripsisse, at vero, ut recte ait, sed alio loco, Freindaller: Fidenter hic scriptor de re ista loquitur, quemadmodum de rebus divulgatis quibuslibet atque recentibus sermocinari quis solet. » Interea adversus Gallandium, qui statuit non esse intelligenda verba fragmenti de libro Pastoris nobis cognito, verum de libro quodam recentiori nunc deperdito, in hunc modum acute respondet idem Freindaller: « An hic posterior liber Pastoris ad canonicos novi foederis libros pertineat, legique in Ecclesia debeat, uspiam fuisse questionem motam, per antiquitatem integram nullibi vestigium reperitur. Nullis itaque modis Caius Gallandianum hunc Hermam indicare sane poterat, cum universa quae de libro Pastoris in medium protulit, stent pro noto antiquiore altero, qui proinde vel ideo non a veteri Herma primi saeculit, sed in secundo a fratre Pii I, conscriptus est. »

But the Shepherd, very recently in our times, etc. Against the opinion of those who would have the author of the book called the Shepherd be the Hermas whom Saint Paul mentions at the end of his Letter to the Romans, chapter 16, verse 14, or at least a very ancient writer who lived before the destruction of Jerusalem, the celebrated Mosheim, in his book On the Affairs of the Christians before Constantine the Great, Century I, § 54, brings an argument from the very ancient writer of the Poem against Marcion, which is attributed to Tertullian; near the end of Book III it runs: "And now ninth in place Hyginus took the chair. / After him then Pius, whose brother by birth was Hermas, / the angelic Shepherd, because he spoke the words handed down." In this last line Mosheim wants to read cui for quia, while others have perhaps better put qui. But leaving this, the distinguished man goes on to write: "There is no need for me to show that the other passages of the ancients about Hermas, Pius' brother, fully agree with Tertullian and attribute the book of the Shepherd to him." (Mosheim has in mind the Liber Pontificalis and the Martyrologies.) "For good fortune a few years ago brought us a witness beyond exception and contemporary with our Hermas, who puts it beyond all dispute that the Shepherd we have was written in the second century by the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome …" (See above, col. 177.) "In this fragment of great value, then, we read this about Hermas: But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our own times, in the city of Rome, while his brother Pius the bishop sat in the chair of the Church of the city of Rome. This is clear, and ends all the learned men's dispute about Hermas' age, place and condition. Other words follow, no less memorable, from which it is established in what place and rank Hermas was once held in the Latin Church. He is excluded from the canon, or number of the divine books, not very elegantly or in polished language, but still plainly and evidently: And therefore it ought indeed to be read, but it cannot be made public to the people in the Church, either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, to the end of time. The writer says the Shepherd may be read privately by devout people, but denies that it should be read in the assembly of the Christian people, or can be added to the books of the Prophets or the Apostles. This passage does honour to the Latin churches, and shows there was more wisdom and caution in them than in the Greek, most of whom thought Hermas no lower than the Prophets and Apostles … I will add a word on the reason by which learned men say they are chiefly moved to distinguish Hermas, the author of the Shepherd, from Hermas the brother of Pope Pius. In the Liber Pontificalis and some other writings of the ancients, a passage is brought forward from the book of Hermas, Pius' brother, to which he had given the title Shepherd, about celebrating Easter on the Lord's Day; we look for it in vain in the Shepherd of Hermas that has come down to us. See Johann Albert Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, vol. III, p. 761. From this they conclude that Hermas, Pius' brother, left a book different from our Shepherd. If Hermas' Shepherd survived today in Greek (a), and there were no doubt that this little book had come down to us whole, this reason would not be contemptible. But since we have only the Latin translation, and that perhaps mutilated, it must be held to have no force at all. It is likely that those of the Eastern and Greek Christians who are called Quartodecimans threw this passage about the time of Easter out of the Shepherd, because it stood against their opinion." P. 61. So far that most excellent man, against the widespread view of Hermas as the author of the Shepherd; a view which, however, is hardly, indeed not even hardly, an invention of more recent writers: for Origen, in Book X of his Commentary on the Letter to the Romans, on the place where Hermas is mentioned by the Apostle, held that the book of the Shepherd is to be ascribed to Paul's Hermas, and other authors besides, as is clear from Eusebius and Jerome, handed down the same. Further, some learned men in Germany still hold that this writer is to be claimed for the first century; but whether they confirm their view by any new arguments, I have not yet had occasion to see. Gallandi, however, in his Prolegomena on Gaius the presbyter, § 4, p. xxxi of vol. II of the Bibliotheca Patrum, wants to distinguish the works of Paul's Hermas and of Hermas or Hermes, Pius' brother, and says that Giusto Fontanini showed the same clearly in his Literary History of Aquileia, Book II, chapter 1. Gallandi himself writes the following, well worth reading: "Just as the work of the apostolic man was called by the ancient Fathers the Shepherd or the book of the Shepherd, a name perhaps derived from the fact that throughout almost the whole work the Shepherd is brought in speaking to Hermas and instructing him, so too it may have happened that Hermes' book On the Pasch was called the Shepherd, at least by some, because its author wrote of the things the angel commanded him when he came to him in the guise of a Shepherd, as the second Henschenian Catalogue has it; whence the name Shepherd stuck not only to the writer but also to his book." Gallandi and Fontanini think that the book Hermes, Pius' brother, published was lost through the ravages of time; and Fontanini denies that this Hermes should be called Hermas. Yet we see the author of this fragment call him Herma, not Hermes, just as pseudo-Tertullian has Hermas; indeed, on the contrary, Usuard calls Paul's Hermas Hermes in his Martyrology, 9 May, fol. 70, Louvain edition. Further, the author of the fragment could have had in mind the book called the Shepherd that survives as Hermas', even if you imagine that he ascribed the work by mistake to Hermas, or Hermes, brother of Pope Pius. But, as Freindaller rightly says (though in another place): "This writer speaks of the matter confidently, as one is accustomed to talk of any well-known and recent things." Meanwhile, against Gallandi, who holds that the words of the fragment are not to be understood of the book of the Shepherd known to us but of some later book now lost, the same Freindaller replies sharply thus: "Whether this later book of the Shepherd belonged to the canonical books of the new covenant and should be read in the Church, there is no trace anywhere, in the whole of antiquity, that the question was ever raised. So Gaius could in no way have meant Gallandi's Hermas, since everything he brought forward about the book of the Shepherd stands for the other, older, known book, which for that very reason was written not by the old Hermas of the first century but in the second, by the brother of Pius I."

(printed under page 151)

(a) ‹anchor: hodie exstaret› · call in col 197

Graece prodiit novissime apud Germanos. Edit. 1864.

It has very recently been published in Greek in Germany. Editors, 1864.

Variae lectiones.

Variant readings.

³⁷ ‹anchor: se publicare ³⁷ vero› · call in col 198 Fort. sed publicari. Routh.

Perhaps "sed publicari" ("but to be made public"). Routh.

(printed under page 151) (47-48) ‹anchor: Pio episcopo (47-48)› · call in col 198 Sedente cathedra urbis Romae Ecclesiae Pio episcopo. Particulam in post sedere addendam esse mecum sentit Freindaller. Caeterum id monendum est, cathedram urbis Romae per decennium tenuisse Pium post annum Christi cxl.

While Pius the bishop was sitting on the chair of the Church of the city of Rome. Freindaller agrees with me that the particle in should be added after sedere. For the rest, it should be noted that Pius held the chair of the city of Rome for ten years after the year of Christ 140.

(printed under page 151)

(49) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 198

Se publicarae vero. For. sed publicari vero. Graece δημοσιεύσθαι δέ. Sed pro se posuit et Frein- (continues)

Se publicarae vero. Perhaps sed publicari vero ("but to be made public"). In Greek, "but to be published." Frein[daller] too put sed for se (continues)

(printed under page 151)

<!-- NOTE: Q5b 2026-10-25: the top of this page's foot (variant 38, the heading of Routh's Commentarius, the close of note (49) and the middle of note (52) at the top of col 200) is above the foot images and was read in c199_1 and c200_1; it is set below, so the "[lines not visible]" gap in note (52) is filled with the printed text. In note 51 the participle after δὲ καὶ is set as ἐξευλαβούμενος; the scan's letters are not clear at this resolution. --> Variae lectiones.

Variant readings.

³⁸ ‹anchor: completum ³⁸ numero› · call in col 199 Fort. Completos, Routh.

Perhaps "completos" ("complete," agreeing with the Prophets). Routh.

(printed under page 152) Mart. Josephi Routh commentarius.

Commentary of Martin Joseph Routh.

(printed under page 152)

(49) (continued) ‹the note begins in n198; call in col 198›

daller. Interea opponuntur τοῖς ἀποκρύφοις libri publicati; Eusebius lib. iii Hist. cap. 3, de suis ipsius temporibus ac regione agens, hoc ipsum Hermae opus etiam in ecclesiis δημοσιεύεσθαι publicari seu publice legi, consuevisse ait et si ἐν ὁμολογουμένοις non reponendum. « Liber autem hic Pastoris, » ait Freindaller, « majori in honore inter Graecos fuit quam Latinos; forte quod lingua Graeca sit operis hujus vernacula, unde postmodum latinitate donatum est.» Porro postea idem monnit faciliorem inter Graecos quam Latinos reperire potuisse locum sententiam illorum qui librum Pastoris antiquioris Hermae, a Paulo nimirum salutati, fuisse existimabant, eo quod Latinis scriptor cognitus fuerit; indeque patere causam cur volumen hoc majori apud Graecos quam Latinos in honore sit habitum: dicere enim de eodem S. Hieronymum, lib. de Viris Ill. cap. 10: Apud Latinos ferme ignotus liber. Confer Moshem. supra ad pag. 32.

Meanwhile the published books are set against the apocryphal ones: Eusebius, Book III of the History, chapter 3, speaking of his own times and region, says that this very work of Hermas was customarily made public in the churches too, that is, published or read publicly, even if it was not to be placed among the acknowledged books. "This book of the Shepherd," says Freindaller, "was held in greater honour among the Greeks than among the Latins; perhaps because Greek is the native language of this work, from which it was afterwards given a Latin dress." Further, the same writer later pointed out that the opinion of those who thought the book of the Shepherd belonged to the older Hermas, the one greeted by Paul, could more easily find a place among the Greeks than among the Latins, because the writer was known to the Latins; and that this makes clear the reason why this volume was held in greater honour among the Greeks than among the Latins: for Saint Jerome says of it, in On Illustrious Men, chapter 10: Among the Latins the book is almost unknown. Compare Mosheim, above, at p. 32.

(printed under page 152)

(50) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 199

Complctum, lege completos.

Completum: read completos ("complete").

(printed under page 152)

(51) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 199

Potest. Graece, δυνατόν ἐστι. Ait auctor contra Cataphrygas, apud Eusebium: Δεδιὼς δὲ καὶ ἐξευλαβούμενος, μή πη δόξω τισὶν ἐπισυγγράφειν ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεσθαι τῷ τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καινῆς διαθήκης λόγῳ· ὧν μήτε προσθεῖναι μήτ' ἀφελεῖν δυνατόν, τῷ κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον αὐτὸ πολιτεύεσθαι προῃρημένῳ, pag. 75, vol. II harum Reliquiar.

Potest ("it can"). In Greek, "it is possible." The author against the Cataphrygians says, in Eusebius: "Fearing and taking great care lest I seem to some to be adding writings or new provisions to the word of the new covenant of the Gospel, to which no one who has chosen to live by the Gospel itself can add and from which he can take nothing away," p. 75, vol. II of these Reliquiae.

(printed under page 152)

(52) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 199

Arsinoi autem, seu Valentini, etc. De Arsinoo nulla alibi quod sciam, exstat mentio, sed is gente videtur Aegyptius fuisse, secta gnosticus. Valentinum autem Psalmorum librum confinxisse referunt ex Tertulliani libro de Carne Christi cum Muratorius, tum Stoschius. Porro in Catena ms. in Jobum, quae in bibliotheca Bodleiana asservatur, ad cap. 21, vers. 5, uti nos certiores facit Grabius tom. II Spicilegii PP. pag. 38, ab Origene memorantur Psalmi Valentini atque Odae Basilidis. In Catena quoque in Jobum a Paulo Comitolo Latine versa Venetiisque edita anno 1387, ad pag. 345, opuscula eadem Origenes adducit. Ad Marcionem autem, vel Marcionitas, aliquod opus hujusmodi pertinuisse, nemo, quod sciam, praeter hunc scriptorem, narravit. Solum habet Epiphanius, postquam evangelium atque apostolicum Marcionis memoravit, ἀλλὰ δὲ συντάγματα ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ συνέταξε (Marcion) τοῖς αὐτοῦ πλανωμένοις. Haeres. xlii, cap. 9, pag. 309, ed. Petavii. Ex quibus operibus unum Antitheses dictum Tertullianus saepius adduxit. Sed notabilis est locus Origenis Oratt. in Lucam pag. 981 ed. Delaruan. Op. Origenis: Ταῦτα δὲ εἴρηται πρὸς τοὺς ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου, καὶ Βασιλίδου, (sic) καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος. ἔχουσι γὰρ καὶ αὐτοὶ τὰς λέξεις ἐν τῷ καθ' ἑαυτοὺς εὐαγγελίῳ. Hunc colligendum mihi quidem videtur commune aliquod exstitisse evangelium apud haeresiarcharum istorum discipulos, sicut ante ad Agrippam Castorem notavi, pag. 85, vol. 1 Reliquiar. Valentino evangelium fuisse auctores sunt, Irenaeus lib. iii adv. Haeres. cap. 11, et scriptor Appendicis Tertulliani de Praescript.. Haeret. cap. 49, prout Basilidi fuisse ipse tradit Origenes in Homilia sua in Luc. pag. 932, ut de Hieronymo atque Ambrosio initio Comm. in idem Evang. taceam. Marcionis autem evangelium, ex opere S. Lucae confectum, celebratius est, quam ut teste egeat. Quid ergo prohibet quin Psalmorum liber quisptam tribus illis sectis communes sibi opiniones habentibus communis fuisse videatur? Neque tantum in loco superius allato, verum etiam alibi Origenes Valentinum, Basilidem, Marcionem, memorando simul conjunxit. Vide Catenam illam in Jobum a Comitolo Latine editam ad pag. 237. Neque diversum quid fecerunt alii auctores; ut exempli gratia Clemens Alex. in celebri loco Strom. lib. vii, cap. 17. Imo vero ita scribere Hieronymus videtur de Priscilliano in cap. 121 lib. de Viris Ill., ut unam eamdemque, aut consimilem, noveris esse istorum haeresim: Hic usque hodie a nonnullis gnosticae, id est Basilidis et Marcionis, de quibus Irenaeus scripsit, haereseos accusatur, defendentibus aliis, non ita eum sensisse, ut arguitur. Sic ille. Superest de Miltiade, homine ignoto, qui hoc loco memoratur, dicere, nulla cognatione eum junctum videri Miltiadi Cataphrygum, sive Montani discipulo, quem auctor anonymus contra Cataphrygas oppugnabat. Vid. pag. 73, vol ii Reliquiar. Porro ita Freindaller: « Oborietur dubitatio, qua ratione vir ille in favorem Marcionis, quemadmodum Arsinous ac Valentinus, librum psalmodicum condiderit. Miltiades utique, sive Alcibiades » (nam ita legendum opinabantur Langus ad Nicephorum, Valesiusque ad Eusebium) » Montani sectae adhaeserat, quem haereticus Marcion quadraginta, nisi quinquaginta aunis, computo aetatis praevenit Quid, inquam, ille ad promovendos sive Marcionis, sive ejus sectatorum errores, quibuscum Montanisticae haeresi aut nulla, aut pene nulla causae communio intercesserat, negotiorum susciperet? » Denique, quod attinet ad illud in hoc fragmento portentum, Basilidem Asianorum Cataphrygum constitutorem, qui Basilidem Alexandrinum, celebrem illum haeresis gnosticae doctorem. Cataphrygum seu Montanistarum, sectae notissimae et aetate posterioris, statorem fuisse vel conditorem, unquam audivit? Nullam porro similitudinem aut cognationem habebant Montanistae cum Gnosticis, vel Marcionitis quas quidem haereses tot libris confutavit Montani sectator Tertullianus. Locus unus tantum mihi occurrit, ubi hujusmodi quid possit innui; in quo nimirum exstat error ille Epiphanii de causa abstinentiae a cibis apud Montanistas, quem supra ad vol. 1, pag. 331 indicavi; praeterquam quod hic quidem memorandum est, cum severius erga poenitentes se gerere solerent Montanistae, de Basilide haec scripsisse in Strom. vi, cap 24, Clementem Alexandrinum: Πλὴν οὐδὲ πάσας (ἁμαρτίας) ὁ Βασιλείδης φησὶ, μόνας δὲ τὰς ἀκουσίας καὶ κατ' ἄγνοιαν ἀφίεσθαι. Anne ergo, nihil enim hac de re affirmaverim, si minus nostri auctoris ignorantia, at fortasse malevolentia quorumdam, dicebantur constitutorem suum habere Montanistae, seu Cataphryges, Basilidem gnosticum haereticum? Neque vero congesta a me istaec abs re aliena essent, si verba, Asianorum Cataphrygum constitutore, de Psalmorum illo libro, non de Basilile ipso, exponi possent. Qua quidem interpretatione famam auctoris nostri vel facilius tuebimur. At vero his verbis allatis, Asianorum Cataphrygum constitutorem, pro quibus posuit, Asiono Cataprygum constitutore ait Freindaller hujus personam in Miltiade, vel Alcibiade, latere posse; « verumtamen hanc ultimam pericopen arbitratur sensus defectu laborare, et restitutionem ejus desperari » Caeterum de Basilidis Valentinique aetate, qui paulo post mortuos omnes Apostolos exorti esse videntur, dixi ante ad pag. 135, vol. primi Reliquiar. Atque eosdem haereticos auctor est Clemens Alexandrinus circa tempora vixisse Hadriani imperatoris, quod de iis tradidit in loco Stromatis vii, (continues)

But of Arsinous, or Valentinus, etc. Of Arsinous there is, as far as I know, no mention anywhere else; but he seems to have been an Egyptian by race and a Gnostic by sect. Both Muratori and Stosch report, from Tertullian's book On the Flesh of Christ, that Valentinus composed a book of Psalms. Further, in a manuscript Catena on Job kept in the Bodleian Library, at chapter 21, verse 5, as Grabe informs us in vol. II of the Spicilegium Patrum, p. 38, Origen mentions the Psalms of Valentinus and the Odes of Basilides. In the Catena on Job translated into Latin by Paolo Comitoli and published at Venice in the year 1387 [sic], at p. 345, Origen also cites the same little works. But that any work of this kind belonged to Marcion, or the Marcionites, no one, as far as I know, has related except this writer. Epiphanius only says, after mentioning Marcion's gospel and apostolicon, "but he (Marcion) composed other treatises of his own for those led astray by him," Heresy 42, chapter 9, p. 309, Petau's edition. Of these works Tertullian often cited one called the Antitheses. But there is a notable passage of Origen, Homilies on Luke, p. 981 of de la Rue's edition of Origen's Works: "These things are said against the followers of Valentinus and Basilides (sic), and the followers of Marcion; for they too have the words in the gospel they use." From this it seems to me we should gather that some common gospel existed among the disciples of these heresiarchs, as I noted before on Agrippa Castor, p. 85, vol. 1 of the Reliquiae. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book III, chapter 11, and the writer of the Appendix to Tertullian's On the Prescription of Heretics, chapter 49, are authorities that Valentinus had a gospel, just as Origen himself, in his Homily on Luke, p. 932, reports that Basilides had one, to say nothing of Jerome and Ambrose at the beginning of their Commentaries on the same Gospel. Marcion's gospel, made from Saint Luke's work, is too well known to need a witness. What then prevents some book of Psalms from seeming to have been common to those three sects, which held opinions in common? Nor only in the passage quoted above, but elsewhere too, Origen joined Valentinus, Basilides and Marcion together in mentioning them. See that Catena on Job published in Latin by Comitoli, at p. 237. Nor have other authors done anything different; for example Clement of Alexandria in a famous passage, Stromata Book VII, chapter 17. Indeed Jerome seems to write thus of Priscillian in chapter 121 of the book On Illustrious Men, so that you may know the heresy of these men to be one and the same, or very similar: He is accused by some to this day of the Gnostic heresy, that is, of Basilides and Marcion, of whom Irenaeus wrote, while others defend him, saying he did not think as he is charged. So he. It remains to say of Miltiades, an unknown man mentioned in this place, that he seems not to be connected with Miltiades of the Cataphrygians, or disciple of Montanus, whom the anonymous author against the Cataphrygians attacked. See p. 73, vol. II of the Reliquiae. Further, Freindaller writes thus: "Doubt will arise as to why that man should have composed a book of psalms in favour of Marcion, as Arsinous and Valentinus did. Miltiades, or Alcibiades" (for so Lange, on Nicephorus, and Valois, on Eusebius, thought it should be read), "had certainly joined the sect of Montanus, whom the heretic Marcion preceded in age by forty, if not fifty, years. Why, I ask, would he take on the business of promoting the errors either of Marcion or of his followers, with whom the Montanist heresy had no, or almost no, common cause?" Finally, as for that monstrosity in this fragment, Basilides, founder of the Asian Cataphrygians: who ever heard that Basilides of Alexandria, that famous teacher of the Gnostic heresy, was the establisher or founder of the Cataphrygians or Montanists, a very well-known sect and later in date? Further, the Montanists had no likeness or kinship with the Gnostics or with the Marcionites, heresies which Tertullian, a follower of Montanus, refuted in so many books. Only one passage occurs to me where something of the kind might be hinted at: namely where there is that error of Epiphanius about the reason for abstaining from foods among the Montanists, which I pointed out above, at vol. 1, p. 331; except that it should be recorded here that, since the Montanists were accustomed to deal more severely with penitents, Clement of Alexandria wrote this of Basilides in Stromata VI, chapter 24: "Yet Basilides says that not all (sins) are forgiven, but only those involuntary and done in ignorance." Was it then, I would affirm nothing about this, if not through our author's ignorance, then perhaps through the malice of some, that the Montanists, or Cataphrygians, were said to have the Gnostic heretic Basilides as their founder? Nor would these things I have gathered be beside the point if the words founder of the Asian Cataphrygians could be explained of that book of Psalms and not of Basilides himself. By that interpretation we would more easily protect our author's reputation. But on these quoted words, founder of the Asian Cataphrygians, in place of which he put Asiono Cataprygum constitutore, Freindaller says that this person may lie hidden in Miltiades, or Alcibiades; "yet he judges that this last passage suffers from a defect of sense, and that its restoration is to be despaired of." For the rest, on the age of Basilides and Valentinus, who seem to have arisen shortly after the death of all the Apostles, I spoke before at p. 135 of the first volume of the Reliquiae. And Clement of Alexandria is the authority that these same heretics lived about the time of the emperor Hadrian, which he reports of them in the passage of Stromata VII (continues)

(printed under page 152)

<!-- NOTE (Q2 2026-10-25): the upper part of this page, above the band, carries the Fragmentum's own foot apparatus: the end of Variae lectiones (note 39) and of Routh's Commentarius (the close of note 52, called in an earlier column, and note 53). The right half of these lines is cut at the image edge in every image of this page; only what is visible is set, and the cut is marked […]. The page foot below the band carries the footnotes of the next work, Lumper's Prolegomena on Minucius Felix, set after them as printed. --> Variae lectiones.

Variant readings.

³⁹ ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 201 (the text moved from col 202 above the band) Fort. Asianorum Cataphrygum constitutore, vel constitutor[…]

Perhaps "Asianorum Cataphrygum constitutore" ("with the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians"), or "constitutor[…]"

(printed under page 153, above the band) Mart. Josephi Routh commentarius.

Commentary of Martin Joseph Routh.

(printed under page 153, above the band)

(53) ‹anchor: conscripserunt (53)› · call in col 201

Qui etiam novum Psalmorum librum Marcioni conscripserunt. Eodem sensu Epiphanius in loco supra (col. 184) descripto, ἄλλα δὲ συντάγματα ἀφ' […] (continues in the right half, cut at the image edge)

Who also composed a new book of Psalms for Marcion. In the same sense Epiphanius, in the passage copied out above (col. 184): "but other treatises from […]" (continues in the right half, cut at the image edge)

(printed under page 153, above the band)

(1) ‹anchor: O. S. B› · call in col 201 (heading)

Hist. Theolog. critica de Vita, scriptis atque doctrina SS. PP., pars vii.

Historia theologico-critica de vita, scriptis atque doctrina SS. Patrum (A Theological and Critical History of the Life, Writings and Teaching of the Holy Fathers), part VII.

(printed under page 153)

(2) ‹anchor: eum verbis compellavit› · call in col 201

Minut. in Dialogo, cap. 2 et 5.

Minucius, in the Dialogue, chapters 2 and 5.

(printed under page 153)

(3) ‹anchor: illius patria› · call in col 201

Galland, tom. II, in Prolegom., Ceillier, Hist. des Auteurs, tom. II, pag. 122.

Gallandi, vol. II, in the Prolegomena; Ceillier, Histoire des auteurs, vol. II, p. 122.

(printed under page 153)

(4) ‹anchor: Africa natum suspicantur› · call in col 201

Tillemont, Mémoires, tom. III, H. E. pag. 71; Basnage, ad ann. 210, 3 Dupinius post Rigaltium ita ratiocinatur: « Hieronymus in Catalogo, in quo temporum servat ordinem, Tertullianum inter et Cyprianum eum numerat. » Minucium a Tertulliano non pauca sumpsisse liquet, et a Cypriano in libro de Vanitate Idolorum Minucii verba non uno in loco exscripta fuisse. Inde praesumitur eum Africanum fuisse; et ejus scriptio ad Africanum stylum accedit.

Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. III, Ecclesiastical History, p. 71; Basnage, at the year 210, 3. Dupin, following Rigault, reasons thus: "Jerome in his Catalogue, in which he keeps the order of the times, counts him between Tertullian and Cyprian." It is clear that Minucius took a good deal from Tertullian, and that Cyprian, in his book On the Vanity of Idols, copied Minucius' words in more than one place. From this it is presumed that he was an African; and his writing comes close to the African style.

(printed under page 153)

(53) (continued) ‹the note begins in n201; call in col 201›

ἑαυτοῦ συνέταξε (Marcion) τοῖς ἀπ' αὐτοῦ πλανωμένοις. Ita et Cornelius Nepos, in Lysandro, cap. 3: Hanc (orationem) ei scripsisse Cleon Halicarnasseus dicitur. Supra posuerat auctor de Pauli epistolis pseudepigraphis, fictae ad haeresim Marcionis.

himself he composed (Marcion) for those led astray by him." So too Cornelius Nepos, in the Lysander, chapter 3: This (speech) Cleon of Halicarnassus is said to have written for him. Above, the author had put, of the pseudepigraphal letters of Paul, forged for the heresy of Marcion.

(printed under page 153, above the band)

(5) ‹anchor: quemadmodum Lactantius› · call in col 202

Lactant. lib. v Institut., cap. 1.

Lactantius, Institutes book V, chapter 1.

(printed under page 153)

(6) ‹anchor: atque Hieronymus› · call in col 202

Hieronym. in Catalog., cap. 58, et Epist. 83 ad Magnum.

Jerome, in the Catalogue, chapter 58, and Letter 83, to Magnus.

(printed under page 153)

(7) ‹anchor: initio sui libri› · call in col 202

Minuc. in Dialog., cap. 2.

Minucius, in the Dialogue, chapter 2.

(printed under page 153)

(8) ‹anchor: in totum putabamus› · call in col 202

Idem, cap. 28.

The same, chapter 28.

(printed under page 153)