Home

Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume 9: The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Vision of Paul, the Apocalypse of the Virgin and Sedrach, the Testament of Abraham, the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, the Narrative of Zosimus, the Apology of Aristides, the Epistles of Clement (complete text), Origen’s Commentary of John, Books 1-10, and Commentary on Matthew, Books 1, 2, and 10-14, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Revised and Chronologically arranged with brief prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland Coxe (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896-97).

Editor: A. Cleveland Coxe
Editor: Allan Menzies
Author: Origen

Part of: Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, 10 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.

Copyright information:

The text is in the public domain.

Fair use statement:

This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.

BOOK XIV.

1.

THE POWER OF HARMONY IN RELATION TO PRAYER.

“Again I say unto you that if two of you shall agree2on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them.”3 The word symphony is strictly applied to the harmonies of sounds in music. And there are indeed among musical sounds some accordant and others discordant. But the Evangelic Scripture is familiar with the name as applied to musical matters in the passage, “He heard a symphony and dancing.”4 For it was fitting that when the son who had been lost and found came by penitence into concord with his father a symphony should be heard on the occasion of the joyous mirth of the house. But the wicked Laban was not acquainted with the word symphony in his saying to Jacob, “And if thou hadst told me I would have sent thee away with mirth and with music and with drums and a harp.”5 But akin to the symphony of this nature is that which is written in the second Book of Kings when “the brethren of Aminadab went before the ark, and David and his son played before the Lord on instruments artistically fitted with might and with songs;”6 for the instruments thus fitted with might and with songs, had in themselves the musical symphony which is so powerful that when two only, bring along with the symphony which has relation to the music that is divine and spiritual, a request to the Father in heaven about anything whatsoever, the Father grants the request to those who ask along with the symphony on earth,—which is most miraculous,—those things which those who have made the symphony spoken of may have asked. So also I understand the apostolic saying “Defraud ye not one the other except it be by agreement for a season that ye may give yourselves unto prayer.”2 For since the word harmony is applied to those who marry according to God in the passage from Proverbs which is as follows: “Fathers will divide their house and substance to their sons, but from God the woman is married to the man,”3 it is a logical consequence of the harmony being from God, that the name and the deed should enjoy the agreement with a view to prayer, as is indicated in the word, “unless it be by agreement.”4 Then the Word repeating that the agreeing of two on the earth is the same thing as the agreeing with Christ, adds, “For where two or three are gathered together in My name.”5 Therefore the two or three who are gathered together in the name of Christ are those who are in agreement on earth, not two only 8 but sometimes also three. But he who has the power will consider whether this agreement and a congregation of this sort in the midst of which Christ is, can be found in more, since “narrow and straightened is the way that leadeth unto life, and few be they that find it.”1 But perhaps also not even few but two or three make a symphony as Peter and James and John, to whom as making a symphony the Word of God showed His own glory. But two made a symphony, Paul and Sosthenes, when writing the first Epistle to the Corinthians;2 and after this Paul and Timothy when sending the second Epistle to the same.3 And even three made a symphony when Paul and Silvanus and Timothy gave instruction by letter to the Thessalonians.4 But if it be necessary also from the ancient Scriptures to bring forward the three who made a symphony on earth, so that the Word was in the midst of them making them one, attend to the superscription of the Psalms, as for example to that of the forty-first, which is as follows: “Unto the end, unto understanding, for the sons of Korah.”5 For though there were three sons of Korah whose names we find in the Book of Exodus,6 Aser, which is, by interpretation, “instruction,” and the second Elkana, which is translated, “possession of God,” and the third Abiasaph, which in the Greek tongue might be rendered, “congregation of the father,” yet the prophecies were not divided but were both spoken and written by one spirit, and one voice, and one soul, which wrought with true harmony, and the three speak as one, “As the heart panteth after the springs of the water, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.”7 But also they say in the plural in the forty-fourth Psalm, “O God, we have heard with our ears.” But if you wish still further to see those who are making symphony on earth look to those who heard the exhortation, “that ye may be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment,”9 and who strove after the goal, “the soul and the heart of all the believers were one,”10 who have become such, if it be possible for such a condition to be found in more than two or three, that there is no discord between them, just as there is no discord between the strings of the tenstringed psaltery with each other. But they were not in symphony in earth who said, “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ,”1 but there were schisms among them, upon the dissolution of which they were gathered together in company with the spirit in Paul, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ,2 that they might no longer “bite and devour one another so that they were consumed by one another;”3 for discord consumes, as concord brings together, and admits4 the Son of God who comes in the midst of those who have become at concord. And strictly, indeed, concord takes place in two things generic, through the perfecting together, as the Apostle has called it, of the same mind by an intellectual grasp of the same opinions, and through the perfecting together of the same judgment, by a like way of living. But if whenever two of us agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of the Father of Jesus who is in heaven,5 plainly when this is not done for them of the Father in heaven as touching anything that they shall ask, there the two have not been in agreement on earth; and this is the cause why we are not heard when we pray, that we do not agree with one another on earth, neither in opinions nor in life. But further also if we are the body of Christ and God hath set the members each one of them in the body that the members may have the same care one for another, and may agree with one another, and when one member suffers, all the members suffer with it, and if one be glorified, they rejoice with it,6 we ought to practise the symphony which springs from the divine music, that when we are gathered together in the name of Christ, He may be in the midst of us, the Word of God, and the Wisdom of God, and His Power.7

2.

THE HARMONY OF HUSBAND AND WIFE.

So much then for the more common understanding of the two or three whom the Word exhorts to be in agreement. But now let us also touch upon another interpretation which was uttered by some one of our predecessors, exhorting those who were married to sanctity and purity; for by the two, he says, whom the Word desires to agree on earth, we must understand the husband and wife, who by agreement defraud each other of bodily intercourse that they may give themselves unto prayer;8 when if they pray for anything whatever that they shall ask, they shall receive it, the request being granted to them by the Father in heaven of Jesus Christ on the ground of such agreement. And this interpretation does not appear to me to cause dissolution of marriage, but to be an incitement to agreement, so that if the one wished to be pure, but the other did not desire it, and on this account he who willed and was able to fulfil the better part, condescended to the one who had not the power or the will, they would not both have the accomplishment from the Father in heaven of Jesus Christ, of anything whatever that they might ask.

3.

THE HARMONY OF BODY, SOUL, AND SPIRIT.

And next to this about the married, I am familiar also with another interpretation of the agreement between the two which is as follows. In the wicked, sin reigns over the soul, being settled as on its own throne in this mortal body, so that the soul obeys the lusts thereof;1 but in the case of those, who have stirred up the sin which formerly reigned over the body as from a throne and who are in conflict with it, “the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh;”2 but in the case of those who have now become perfected, the spirit has gained the mastery and put to death the deeds of the body, and imparts to the body of its own life, so that already this is fulfilled, “He shall quicken also your mortal bodies because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you;”3 and there arises a concord of the two, body and spirit, on the earth, on the successful accomplishment of which there is sent up a harmonious prayer also of him who “with the heart believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth maketh confession unto salvation,”4 so that the heart is no longer far from God, and along with this the righteous man draws nigh to God with his own lips and mouth. But still more blessed is it if the three be gathered together in the name of Jesus that this may be fulfilled, “May God sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”5 But some one may inquire with regard to the concord of spirit and body spoken of, if it is possible for these to be at concord without the third being so,—I mean the soul,—and whether it does not follow from the concord of these on the earth after the two have been gathered together in the name of Christ, that the three also are already gathered together in His name, in the midst of whom comes the Son of God as all are dedicated to Him,—I mean the three,—and no one is opposed to Him, there being no antagonism not only on the part of the spirit, but not even of the soul, nor further of the body.

4.

HARMONY OF THE OLD AND NEW COVENANTS.

And likewise it is a pleasant thing to endeavour to understand and exhibit the fact of the concord of the two covenants,—of the one before the bodily advent of the Saviour and of the new covenant; for among those things in which the two covenants are at concord so that there is no discord between them would be found prayers, to the effect that about anything whatever they shall ask it shall be done to them from the Father in heaven. And if also you desire the third that unites the two, do not hesitate to say that it is the Holy Spirit, since “the words of the wise,” whether they be of those before the advent, or at the time of the advent, or after it, “are as goads, and as nails firmly fixed, which were given by agreement from one shepherd.”1 And do not let this also pass unobserved, that He did not say, where two or three are gathered together in My name, there “shall I be” in the midst of them, but “there am I,”2 not going to be, not delaying, but at the very moment of the concord being Himself found, and being in the midst of them.

5.

THE LIMIT OF FORGIVENESS.

“Then came Peter and said unto Him, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?”3 The conception that these things were said in a simple sense by Peter, as if he were inquiring whether he was to forgive his brother when he sinned against him seven times, but no longer if he sinned an eighth time, and by the Saviour, as if He thought that one should sit still and reckon up the sins of his neighbours against him in order that he might forgive seventy times and seven, but that from the seventy-eighth he should not forgive the man who wronged him, seems to me altogether silly and unworthy alike of the progress which Peter had made in the company of Jesus and of the divine magnanimity of Jesus. Perhaps, then, these things also border on an obscurity akin to the words, “Hear My voice, ye wives of Lamech,”1 etc. If any one has already become a friend of Jesus so as to be taught by His spirit which illumines the reason of him who has advanced so far according to his desert, he might know the true meaning, therefore, in regard to these things, and such as Jesus Himself would have clearly expounded it; but we who fall short of the greatness of the friendship of Jesus must be content if we can babble a little about the passage. The number six, then, appears to be working and toilsome, but the number seven to contain the idea of repose. And consider if you can say that he, who loves the world and works the things of the world, and does those things which are material, sins six times, and that the number seven is the end of sin in his case, so that Peter with some such thought in his mind wished to pardon seven sins of those which his brother had committed against him. But since as units the tens and the hundreds have a certain common measure of proportion to the number which is in units, and Jesus knew that the number might be exceeded, on this account, I think, that He added to the number seven also the seventy,2 and said that there ought to be forgiveness to brethren here, and to them who have sinned in respect to things here. But if any one going beyond the things about the world and this age were to commit sin. even if it were trifling, he could not longer reasonably have forgiveness of sins; for forgiveness extends to the things here, and in relation to the sins committed here, whether the forgiveness comes late or soon; but there is no forgiveness, not even to a brother, who has sinned beyond the seven and seventy times. But you might say that he who has sinned in such wise, whether as against Peter his brother, or as against Peter, against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail, is by sins of this kind in the smaller number of the sin, but according to sins still worse is in the number which has no forgiveness of sins.

6.

CONCERNING THE KING WHO MADE A RECKONING WITH HIS OWN SERVANTS, TO WHOM WAS BROUGHT A MAN WHO OWED TEN THOUSAND TALENTS.

“Therefore I say unto you the kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, wko wished to make a reckoning with his own servants.”3 The general conception of the parable is to teach us that we should be inclined to forgive the sins committed against us by those who have wronged us, and especially if after the wrongdoing he who has done it supplicates him who has been wronged, asking forgiveness for the sins which he has committed against him. And this the parable wishes to teach us by representing that even when forgiveness has been granted by God to us of the sins in respect of which we have received remission, exaction will be demanded even after the remission, unless we forgive the sins of those who have wronged us, so that there is no longer left in us the least remembrance of the wrong that was done, but the whole heart, assisted by the spirit of forgetfulness of wrongs, which is no common virtue, forgives him who has wronged us those things whieh have been wickedly done against any of us by him, even treacherously. But next to the general conception of the parable, it is right to examine the whole of it more simply according to the letter, so that he who advances with care to the right investigation of each detail of the things previously written may derive profit from the examination of what is said. Now there is, as is probable, an interpretation, transcendental and hard to trace, as it is somewhat mystical, according to which, after the analogy of the parables which are interpreted by the Evangelists, one would investigate each of the details in this; as, for example, who the king was, and who the servants were, and what was the beginning of his making a reckoning, and who was the one debtor who owed many talents, and who was his wife and who his children, and what were the “all things” spoken of besides those which the king ordered to be sold in order that the debt might be paid out of his belongings, and what was meant by the going out of the man who had been forgiven the many talents, and who was the one of the servants who was found and was a debtor not to the householder, but to the man who had been forgiven, and what is meant by the number of the hundred pence, and what by the word, “He took him by the throat saying, Pay what thou owest,” and what is the prison into which he who had been forgiven all the talents went out and cast his fellow-servant, and who were the fellow-servants who were grieved and told the lord all that had been done, and who were the tormentors to whom he who had cast his fellow-servant into prison was delivered, and how he who was delivered to the tormentors paid all that was due, so that he no longer owed anything.1 But it is probable also that some other things could be added to the number by a more competent investigator, the exposition and interpretation of which I think to be beyond the power of man, and requiring the Spirit of Christ who spoke them in order that Christ may be understood as He spoke; for as “no one among men knows the things of the man, save the spirit which is in him,” and “no one knows the things of God, save the Spirit of God,”2 so no one knows after God the things spoken by Christ in proverbs and parables save the Spirit of Christ, in which he who participates in Christ not only so far as He is Spirit, but in Christ as He is Wisdom, as He is Word, would behold the things which were revealed to him in this passage. But with regard to the interpretation of the loftiest type, we make no profession; nor on the other hand with the assistance of Christ who is the Wisdom of God do we despair of apprehending the things signified in the parable; but whether it shall be the case that such things shall be dictated to us in connection with this Scripture or not, may God in Christ suggest the doing of that which is pleasing to Him, if only there be granted to us also concerning these things, the word of wisdom which is given from God through the Spirit, and the word of knowledge which is supplied according to the Spirit.3

7.

EXPOSITION CONTINUED: THE KING AND THE SERVANTS.

“The kingdom of heaven,” He says, “is likened,”4 etc. But if it be likened to such a king, and one who has done such things, who must we say that it is but the Son of God? For He is the King of the heavens, and as He is absolute Wisdom and absolute Righteousness and absolute Truth, is He not so also absolute Kingdom? But it is not a kingdom of any of those below, nor of a part of those above, but of all the things above, which were called heavens. But if you enquire into the meaning of the words, “Theirs is the kingdom of heaven,”5 you may say that Christ is theirs in so far as He is absolute Kingdom, reigning in every thought of the man who is no longer under the reign of sin which reigns in the mortal body of those who have subjected themselves to it.6 And if I say, reigning in every thought, I mean something like this, reigning as Righteousness and Wisdom and Truth and the rest of the virtues in him who has become a heaven, because of bearing the image of the heavenly, and in every power, whether angelic, or the rest that are named saints, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come, and who are worthy of a kingdom of such a kind. Accordingly this kingdom of heaven (when it was made “in the likeness of sinful flesh,”1 that for sin it might condemn sin, when God made “Him who knew no sin to be sin on behalf of us,”2 who bear the body of our sin), is likened to a certain king who is understood in relation to Jesus being united to Him, if we may dare so to speak, having more capacity towards being united and becoming entirely one with the “First-born of all creation,”3 than he, who, being joined to the Lord, becomes one spirit with Him.4 Now of this kingdom of the heavens which is likened unto a certain king, according to the conception of Jesus, and is united to Him, it is said by anticipation that he wished to make a reckoning with his servants. But he is about to make a reckoning with them in order that it may be manifested how each has employed the tried money of the householder and his rational coins. And the image in the parables was indeed taken from masters who made a reckoning with their own servants; but we shall understand more accurately what is signified by this part of the parable, if we fix our thought on the things done by the slaves who had administered their master’s goods, and who were asked to give a reckoning concerning them. For each of them, receiving in different measure from his master’s goods, has used them either for that which was right so as to increase the goods of his master, or consumed it riotously on things which he ought not, and spent profusely without judgment and without discretion that which had been put into his hands. But there are those who have wisely administered these goods and goods so great, but have lost others, and whenever they give the reckoning when the master makes a reckoning with them, there is gathered together how much loss each has incurred, and there is reckoned up how much gain each has brought, and according to the worthiness of the way in which he has administered it, he is either honoured or punished, or in some cases the debt is forgiven, but in others the talents are taken away. Well, then, from what has been said, let us first look at the rational coins and the tried money of the householder, of which one receives more and another less, for according to the ability of each, to one are given five talents as he has the ability to administer so many, but to another two as not being able to receive the amount of the man before him, and to another one as being also inferior to the second.1 Are these, then, the only differences, or are we to recognize these differences in the case of certain persons of whom the Gospel goes on to speak while there are also others besides these: In other parables also are found certain persons, as the two debtors, the one who owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty;2 but whether these had been entrusted with them and had administered them badly as being inferior in ability to him who had been entrusted with a talent, or had received them, we have not learned; but that they owed so much, we seem to be taught from the parable. And there are found other ten servants who were each entrusted with a pound separately.3 And if any one understood the varied character of the human soul and the wide differences from each other in respect of natural aptitude, or want of aptitude for more or fewer of the virtues, and for these virtues or for those, perhaps he would comprehend how each soul has come with certain coins of the householder which come to light with the full attainment of reason, and with the attention which follows the full attainment of reason, and with exercise in things that are right, or with diligence and exercise in other things, whether they be useful as pursuits, or in part useful and in part not useful, such as the opinions which are not wholly true nor wholly false.

8.

THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RECKONING.

But you will here inquire whether all men can be called servants of the king, or some are servants whom he foreknew and foreordained, while there are others who transact business with the servants, and are called bankers.4 And in like manner you will inquire if there are those outside the number of the slaves from whom the householder declares that he will exact his own with usury, not only men alien from piety, but also some of the believers. Now the servants alone are the stewards of the Word, but the king, making a reckoning with the servants, demands from those who have borrowed from the servants, whether a hundred measures of wheat or a hundred measures of oil,1 or whatever in point of fact those who are outside of the household of the king have received; for he who owed the hundred measures of wheat or the hundred measures of oil is not found to be, according to the parable, a fellow-servant of the unjust steward, as is evident from the question—how much owest thou to my lord?2 But mark with me that each deed which is good or seemly is like a gain and an increment, but a wicked deed is like a loss; and as there is a certain gain when the money is greater and another when it is less, and as there are differences of more or less, so according to the good deeds, there is as it were a valuing of gains more or less. To reckon what work is a great gain, and what a less gain, and what a least, is the prerogative of him who alone knows to investigate such things, looking at them in the light of the disposition, and the word, and the deed, and from consideration of the things which are not in our power co-operating with those that are; and so also in the case of things opposite, it is his to say what sin, when a reckoning is made with the servants, is found to be a great loss, and what is less, and what, if we may so call it, is the loss of the very last mite,3 or the last farthing.4 The account, therefore, of the entire and whole life is exacted by that which is called the kingdom of heaven which is likened to a king, when “we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ that each one may receive the things done in the body according to what he hath done, whether good or bad;”5 and then when the reckoning is being made, shall there be brought into the reckoning that is made also every idle word that men shall speak,6 and any cup of cold water only which one has given to drink in the name of a disciple.7

9.

THE TIME OCCUPIED BY THE RECKONING.

And these things will take place whenever that happens which is written in Daniel, “The books were opened and the judgment was set;”8 for a record, as it were, is made of all things that have been spoken and done and thought, and by divine power every hidden thing of ours shall be manifested, and everything that is covered shall be revealed,9 in order that when any one is found who has not “given diligence to be freed from the adversary,” he may go in succession through the hands of the magistrate, and the judge, and the attendant into the prison, until he pays the very last mite;1 but when one has given diligence to be freed from him and owes nothing to any one, and already has made the pound ten pounds or five pounds, or doubled the five talents, or made the two four, he may obtain the due recompense, entering into the joy of his Lord, either being set over all His possessions,2 or hearing the word, “Have thou authority over ten cities,”3 or “Have thou authority over five cities.”4 But we think that these things are spoken of as if they required a long period of time, in order that an account may be made by us of the whole times of the earthly life, so that we might suppose that when the king makes a reckoning with each one of his many servants the matter would require so vast a period of time, until these things come to an end which have existed from the beginning of the world down to the consummation of the age, not of one age, but of many ages. But the truth is not so; for when God wished all at once to rekindle in the memories of all everything that had been done by each one throughout the whole time, in order that each might become conscious of his own doings whether good or bad, He would do it by His ineffable power. For it is not with God as with us; for if we wish to call some things to remembrance, we require sufficient time for the detailed account of what has been said by us, and to bring to our remembrance the things which we wish to remember; but if He wished to call to our memory the things which have been done in this life, in order that becoming conscious of what we have done we may apprehend for what we are punished or honoured, He could do so. But if any one disbelieves the swiftness of the power of God in regard to these matters, he has not yet had a true conception of the God who made the universe, who did not require times to make the vast creation of heaven and earth and the things in them; for, though He may seem to have made these things in six days, there is need of understanding to comprehend in what sense the words “in six days” are said, on account of this, “This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth,”5 etc. Therefore it may be boldly affirmed that the season of the expected judgment does not require times, but as the resurrection is said to take place “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,”1 so I think will the judgment also be.

10.

THE MAN WHO OWED MANY TALENTS.

Next we must speak in regard to this, “And when he had begun to reckon, there was brought unto him one which owed many talents.”2 The sense of this appears to me to be as follows: The season of beginning the judgment is with the house of God, who says, as also it is written in Ezekiel, to those who are appointed to attend to punishments, “Begin ye with My saints;”3 and it is like “the twinkling of an eye;” but, the time of making a reckoning includes the same “twinkling,” ideally apprehended, for we are not forgetful of what has been previously said of those who owe more. Wherefore it is not written, when he was making reckoning, but it is said, “When he began to reckon,” there was brought, at the beginning of his making a reckoning, one who owed many talents; he had lost tens of thousands of talents, having been entrusted with great things, and having had many things committed to his care, but he had brought no gain to his master, but had lost tens of thousands so that he owed many talents; and, perhaps on this account, he owed many talents, seeing that he followed often the woman, who was sitting upon the talent of lead, whose name is wickedness.4 But observe here that every great sin is a loss of the talents of the master of the house, and such sins are committed by fornicators, adulterers, abusers of themselves with men, effeminate, idolaters, murderers. Perhaps then the one who is brought to the king owing many talents has committed no small sin but all that are great and heinous; and if you were to seek for him among men, perhaps you would find him to be “the man of sin, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against every God or object of worship;”5 but if you seek him outside the number of men, who can this be but the devil who has ruined so many who received him, who wrought sin in them. For “man is a great thing, and a pitiful man is precious,”6 precious so as to be worthy of a talent, whether of gold like as the lamp which was equal to a talent of gold.1 or of silver or of any kind of material whatsoever understood intellectually, the symbols of which are recorded in the Words of the Days,2 when David became enriched with many talents of which the number is mentioned, so many talents of gold, and so many of silver, and of the rest of the material there named, from which the temple of God was built.

11.

THE SERVANT WHO OWED A HUNDRED PENCE.

Only, though he cannot pay the talents, for he has lost them, he has a wife and children and other things, of which it is written, “All that he has.”3 And it was possible that when he had been sold along with his own, he would have prospered if some one had bought him, and, by his worth and the things that were his, have paid the whole debt in full; and it was possible that he might no longer be the servant of the king, but become that of his purchaser. And he makes a request that he be not sold along with his own, but may continue to abide in the house of the king; wherefore he fell down and worshipped him, knowing that the king was God, and said, “Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all;”4 for he was, as is probable, an active man, who knew that he could by a second course of action fill up the whole deficiency of the former loss of many talents. And this truly good king was moved with compassion for the man who owed him many talents and then released him, having bestowed upon him a favour greater than the request which had been made; for the debtor promised to the long-suffering master to pay all his debts, but the Lord moved with compassion for him did not merely forgive him with the idea of receiving his own back as a result of his patience, but even entirely released him and forgave him the whole debt. But this wicked servant, who had besought his master to have patience for his many talents, acted without mercy, for, having found one of his fellow-servants which owed him a hundred pence, he laid hold on him and took him by the throat, saying, “Pay if thou owest.”5 And did he not exhibit the very excess of wickedness who laid hold of his fellow-servant for a hundred pence, and took him by the throat and deprived him of freedom to breathe, when he himself, for the many talents, had neither been laid hold of, nor seized by the throat, but at first was ordered to be sold along with his wife and children and all that was his own; but afterwards, when he had worshipped him, the master was moved with compassion for him, and he was released and forgiven in regard to the whole of the debt. But it were indeed a hard task to tell according to the conception of Jesus who is the one fellow-servant who was found to be owing a hundred pence, not to his own lord, but to him who owed many talents, and who are the fellow-servants who saw the one taking by the throat, and the other taken, and were exceedingly sorry, and represented clearly unto their own lord all that had been done. But what the truth in these matters is, I declare that no one can interpret unless Jesus, who explained all things to His own disciples privately, takes up His abode in his reason, and opens up all the treasures in the parable which are dark, hidden, unseen, and confirms by clear demonstrations the man whom He desires to illumine with the light of the knowledge of the things that are in this parable, that he may at once represent who is brought to the king as the debtor of many talents, and who is the other one who owes to him a hundred pence, etc.; whether he can be the man of sin previously mentioned,1 or the devil, or neither of these, but some other, whether a man, or some one of those under the sway of the devil; for it is a work of the wisdom of God to exhibit the things have have been prophesied concerning those who are in themselves of a certain nature, or have been made according to such and such qualities, whether among visible powers or also among some men, in whatever way they may have been written by the Holy Spirit. But as we have not yet received the competent mind which is able to be blended with the mind of Christ, and which is capable of attaining to things so great, and which is able with the Spirit to “search all things, even the deep things of God,”2 we, forming an impression still indefinitely with regard to the matters in this passage, are of opinion that the wicked servant indicated by the parable who is here represented in regard to the debt of many talents, refers to some definite one.

12.

THE TIME OF THE RECKONING.

But it is fitting to examine at what time the man—the king—in the parable wished to make a reckoning with his own servants, and to what period we ought to refer the things that are said. For if it be after the consummation, or at it at the time of the expected judgment, how are we to maintain the things about him who owed a hundred pence, and was taken by the throat by the man who had been forgiven the many talents? But if, before the judgment, how can we explain the reckoning that was made before this by the king, with his own servants? But we ought to think in a general way about every parable, the interpretation of which has not been recorded by the evangelists, even though Jesus explained all things to His own disciples privately;1 and for this reason the writers of the Gospels have concealed the clear exposition of the parables, because the things signified by them were Beyond the power of the nature of words to express, and every solution and exposition of such parables was of such a kind that not even the whole world itself could contain the books that should be written2 in relation to such parables. But it may happen that a fitting heart be found, and, because of its purity, able to receive the letters of the exposition of the parable, so that they could be written in it by the Spirit of the living God. But some one will say that, perhaps, we act with impiety, who, because of the secret and mystical import of some of the Scriptures which are of heavenly origin, wish them to be symbolic, and endeavour to expound them, even though it might seem ex hypothesi that we had an accurate knowledge of their meaning. But to this we must say that, if there be those who have obtained the gift of accurate apprehension of these things, they know what they ought to do; but as for us, who acknowledge that we fall short of the ability to see into the depth of the things here signified, even though we obtain a somewhat crass perception of the things in the passage, we will say, that some of the things which we seem to find after much examination and inquiry, whether by the grace of God, or by the power of our own mind, we do not venture to commit to writing; but some things, for the sake of our own intellectual discipline, and that of those who may chance to read them, we will to some extent set forth. But let these things, then, be said by way of apology, because of the depth of the parable; but, with regard to the question at what time the man—the king—in the parable wished to make a reckoning with his own servants, we will say that it seems that this takes place about the time of the judgment which had been proclaimed. And this is confirmed by two parables, one at the close of the Gospel before us,1 and one from the Gospel according to Luke.2 And not to prolong the discussion by quoting the very letter, as any one who wishes can take it from the Scripture himself, we will say that the parable according to Matthew declares, “For it is as when a man going into another country called his own servants, and delivered unto them his own goods, and to one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one talent;”3 then they took action with regard to that which had been entrusted to them, and, after a long time, the lord of those servants cometh, and it is written in the very words, that he also makes a reckoning with them.4 And compare the words, “And when he began to make a reckoning,”5 and consider that he called the going of the householder into another country the time at which “we are at home in the body but absent from the Lord;”6 but his advent, when, “after a long time the lord of those servants cometh,”7 the time at the consummation in the judgment; for after a long time the lord of those servants cometh and makes a reckoning with them, and those things which follow take place. But the parable in Luke represents with more clearness, that “a certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return,” and when going, “he called ten servants, and gave to them ten pounds, and said unto them, Trade ye till I come.”8 But the nobleman, being hated by his own citizens, who sent an ambassage after him, as they did not wish him to reign over them, came back again, having received the kingdom, and told the servants to whom he had given the money to be called to himself that he might know what they had gained by trading. And, seeing what they had done, to him who had made the one pound ten pounds, rendering praise in the words, “Well done, thou good servant, because thou wast found faithful in a very little,”9 he gives to him authority over ten cities, to-wit, those which were under his kingdom. And to another, who had multiplied the pound fivefold, he did not render the praise which he assigned to the first, nor did he specify the word “authority,” as in the case of the first, but said to him, “Be thou also over five cities.”1 But to him who had tied up the pound in a napkin, he said, “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant;”2 and he said to them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it unto him that hath the ten pounds.3 Who, then, in regard to this parable, will not say that the nobleman, who goes into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return, is Christ, going, as it were, into another country to receive the kingdoms of this world, and the things in it? And those who have received the ten talents are those who have been entrusted with the dispensation of the Word which has been committed unto them. And His citizens who did not wish Him to reign over them when He was a citizen in the world in respect of His incarnation,4 are perhaps Israel who disbelieved Him, and perhaps also the Gentiles who disbelieved Him.

13.

NO FORGIVENESS TO THE UNFORGIVING.

Only, I have said these things with the view of referring his return when he comes with his kingdom to the consummation, when he commanded the servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him that he might know what they had gained by trading, and from a desire to demonstrate from this, and from the parable of the Talents, that the passage “he who wished to make a reckoning with his own servants”5 is to be referred to the consummation when now he is king, receiving the kingdom, on account of which, according to another parable,6 he went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. Therefore, when he returned after receiving the kingdom, he wished to make a reckoning with his own servants. And “when he had begun to reckon, there was brought unto him one who owed many talents,”7 and he was brought as to a king by those who had been appointed his ministers—I think, the angels. And perhaps he was one of those under the kingdom who had been entrusted with a great administration and had not dispensed it well, but had wasted what had been entrusted to him, so that he came to owe the many talents which he had lost. This very man, perhaps not having the means to pay, is ordered by the king to be sold along with his wife, by intercourse with whom he became the father of certain children.1 But it is no easy task to see what is intellectually meant by father and mother and children. What this means in point of truth God may know, and whether He Himself has given insight to us or not, he who can may judge. Only this is our conception of the passage; that, as “the Jerusalem which is above” is “the mother”2 of Paul and of those like unto him, so there may be a mother of others after the analogy of Jerusalem, the mother, for example, of Syene in Egypt, or Sidon, or as many cities as are named in the Scriptures. Then, as Jerusalem is “a bride adorned for her husband,” Christ, so there may be those mothers of certain powers who have been allotted to them as wives or brides. And as there are certain children of Jerusalem, as mother, and of Christ, as father, so there would be certain children of Syene, or Memphis, or Tyre, or Sidon, and the rulers set over them. Perhaps then, too, this one, the debtor of many talents who was brought to the king, has, as we have said, a wife and children, whom at first the king ordered to be sold, and also all that he had to be sold; but afterwards, being moved with compassion, he released him and forgave him all the debt; not, as if he were ignorant of the future, but, in order that we might understand what happened, it was written that he did so. Each one then of those who have, as we have said, a wife and children will render an account whenever the king comes to make a reckoning, having received the kingdom and having returned; and each of them as a ruler of any Syene or Memphis, or Tyre or Sidon, or any like unto them, has also debtors. This one, then, having been released, and having been forgiven all the debt, “went out from the king and found one of his fellow-servants,”3 etc.; and, on this account, I suppose that he took him by the throat, when he had gone out from the king, for unless he had gone out he would not have taken his own fellow-servant by the throat. Then observe the accuracy of the Scripture, how that the one fell down and “worshipped,” but the other fell down and did not worship but “besought;”4 and the king being moved with compassion released him and forgave him all the debt, but the servant did not wish even to pity his own fellow-servant; and the king before his release ordered him to be sold and what was his, while he who had been forgiven cast him into prison. And observe that his fellow-servants did not bring any accusation or “said,” but “told,”1 and that he did not use the epithet “wicked” at the beginning in regard to the money lost, but reserved it afterwards for his action towards the fellow-servant. But mark also the moderation of the king; he does not say, You worshipped me, but You besought me; and no longer did he order him and his to be sold, but, what was worse, he delivered him to the tormentors, because of his wickedness.2 But who may these be but those who have been appointed in the matter of punishments? But at the same time observe, because of the use made of this parable by adherents of heresies, that if they accuse the Creator3 of being passionate, because of words that declare the wrath of God, they ought also to accuse this king, because that “being wroth,” he delivered the debtor to the tormentors. But it must further be said to those whose view it is that no one is delivered by Jesus to the tormentors,—pray, explain to us, good sirs, who is the king who delivered the wicked servant to the tormentors? And let them also attend to this, “So therefore also shall My heavenly Father do unto you;”4 and to the same persons also might rather be said the things in the parable of the Ten Pounds that the Son of the good God said, “Howbeit these mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them,”5 etc. The conclusion of the parable, however, is adapted also to the simpler; for all of us who have obtained the forgiveness of our own sins, and have not forgiven our brethren, are taught at once that we shall suffer the lot of him who was forgiven but did not forgive his fellow-servant.

14.

HOW JESUS FINISHED HIS WORDS.

“And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words.”6 He who gives a detailed and complete account of each of the questions before him so that nothing is left out, finishes his own words. But he will give a declaration on this point with more confidence who devotes himself with great diligence to the entire reading of the Old and New Testament; for if the expression, “he finished these words,” may be applied to no other, neither to Moses, nor to any of the prophets, but only to Jesus, then one would dare to say that Jesus alone finished His words, He who came to put an end to things, and to fulfil what was defective in the law, by saying, “It was said to them of old time,”1 etc., and, again, “That the things spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled.”2 But if it is written somewhere also in them, then you may compare and contrast the discourses finished by them with those finished by the Saviour, that you may find the difference between them. And yet at this point, also, investigation might be made whether in the case of the things spoken by way of oracle the expression, “he finished,” is applied either to the things spoken by Moses, or any of the prophets, or of both together; for careful observation would suggest very weighty thoughts to those who know how “to compare spiritual things with spiritual,” and on this account “speak not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth.”3 But perhaps some other one, attending with over-curious spirit to the word “finished,” which is assigned to things of a more mystical order, just as we say that some one delivered to those who were under his control mysteries and rites of “perfecting”4 not in a praiseworthy fashion, and another delivered the mysteries of God to those who are worthy, and rites of “perfecting” proportionate to such mysteries, might say that having initiated them, he made a rite of “perfecting,” by which “perfecting” the words were shown to be powerful, so that the gospel of Jesus was preached in the whole world, and by virtue of the divine “perfecting” gained the mastery of every soul which the Father draws to the Son, according to what is said by the Saviour, “No one comes to Me except the Father which has sent Me draw him.”5 Wherefore also “the word” of those who by the grace of God are ambassadors of the gospel, “and their preaching, is not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit of power,”6 to those for whom the words of the doctrine of Jesus were finished. You will therefore observe how often it is said, “He finished,” and of what things it is said, and you will take as an illustration that which is said in regard to the beatitudes, and the whole of the discourse to which is subjoined, “And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, all the multitudes were astonished at His teaching.”1 But now the saying, “Jesus finished these words,” is referred also immediately to the very mystical parable according to which the kingdom of heaven is likened unto a king, but also beyond this parable to the sections which were written before it.

15.

HOW MEN FOLLOWED JESUS.

Only, when Jesus had finished these words, having spoken them in Galilee about Capernaum, then “He departed thence, and came into the borders of Judæa,”2 which were different from Galilee. But He came to the borders of Judæa, and not to the middle of it, but, as it were, to the outermost parts, where great multitudes followed Him,3 whom He healed at “the borders of Judæa beyond Jordan,”—where baptism had been given.4 But you will observe the difference between the crowds who simply followed, and Peter and the others who gave up everything and followed, and Matthew, who arose and followed him;5 he did not simply follow, but “having arisen;” for “having arisen” is an important addition. There are always those, then, who follow like the great multitudes, who have not arisen that they may follow, nor have given up all that was theirs formerly, but few are they who have arisen and followed, who also, in the regeneration, shall sit on twelve thrones.6 Only, if one wishes to be healed, let him follow Jesus.

16.

CONCERNING THE PHARISEES AND SCRIBES TEMPTING JESUS (BY ASKING) WHETHER IT WAS LAWFUL FOR A MAN TO PUT AWAY HIS WIFE FOR EVERY CAUSE.

After this it is written that “there came unto Him the Pharisees tempting Him and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”7 Mark, also, has written to the like effect.8 Accordingly, of those who came to Jesus and inquired of Him, there were some who put questions to tempt Him; and if our Saviour so transcendent was tempted, which of His disciples who is ordained to teach need be vexed, when he is tempted by some who inquire, not from the love of learning, but from the wish to tempt? And you might find many passages, if you brought them together, in which the Pharisees tempted our Jesus, and others, different from them, as a certain lawyer,1 and perhaps also a scribe,2 that by bringing together what is said about those who tempted Him, you might find by investigation what is useful for this kind of inquiries. Only, the Saviour, in response to those who tempted Him, laid down dogmas; for they said, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his own wife for every cause?” and He answered and said, “Have ye not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female?”3 etc. And I think that the Pharisees put forward this word for this reason, that they might attack Him whatever He might say; as, for example, if He had said, “It is lawful,” they would have accused Him of dissolving marriages for trifles; but, if He had said, “It is not lawful,” they would have accused Him of permitting a man to dwell with a woman, even with sins; so, likewise, in the case of the tribute-money,4 if He had told them to give, they would have accused Him of making the people subject to the Romans, and not to the law of God, but if He had told them not to give, they would have accused Him of creating war and sedition, and of stirring up those who were not able to stand against so powerful an army. But they did not perceive in what way He answered blamelessly and wisely, in the first place, rejecting the opinion that a wife was to be put away for every cause, and, in the second place, giving answer to the question about the bill of divorcement; for He saw that not every cause is a reasonable ground for the dissolution of marriage, and that the husband must dwell with the wife as the weaker vessel, giving honour,5 and bearing her burdens in sins;6 and by what is written in Genesis, He puts to shame the Pharisees who boasted in the Scriptures of Moses, by saying, “Have ye not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,” etc., and, subjoining to these words, because of the saying, “And the twain shall become one flesh,” teaching in harmony with one flesh, namely, “So that they are no more twain, but one flesh.”7 And, as tending to convince them that they should not put away their wife for every cause, is it said, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”8 It is to be observed, however, in the exposition of the words quoted from Genesis in the Gospel, that they were not spoken consecutively as they are written in the Gospel; and I think that it is not even said about the same persons, namely, of those who were formed after the image of God, and of those who were formed from the dust of the ground and from one of the ribs of Adam. For where it is said, “Male and female made He them,”1 the reference is to those formed “after the image,” but where He also said, “For this cause shall a man leave his own father and mother,”2 etc., the reference is not to those formed after the image; for some time after the Lord God formed the man, taking dust from the ground, and from his side the helpmate. And mark, at the same time, that in the case of those who are formed “after the image,” the words were not “husband and wife” but “male and female.” But we have also observed this in the Hebrew, for man is indicated by the word “is,” but male by the word “zachar,” and again woman by the word “essa,” but female by the word “agkeba.” For at no time is it “woman” or “man” “after the image,” but the superior class, the male, and the second, the female. But also if a man leave his mother and his father, he cleaves not to the female, but to his own wife, and “they become,” since man and woman are one in flesh, “one flesh.” Then, describing what ought to be in the case of those who are joined together by God, so that they may be joined together in a manner worthy of God, the Saviour adds, “So that they are no more twain;”3 and, wherever there is indeed concord, and unison, and harmony, between husband and wife, when he is as ruler and she is obedient to the word, “He shall rule over thee,”4 then of such persons we may truly say, “They are no more twain.” Then since it was necessary that for “him who was joined to the Lord,” it should be reserved “that he should become one spirit with Him.”5 in the case of those who are joined together by God, after the words, “So that they are no more twain,” it is said, “but one flesh.” And it is God who has joined together the two in one so that they are no more twain, from the time that6 the woman is married to the man. And, since God has joined them together, on this account in the case of those who are joined together by God, there is a “gift”; and Paul knowing this, that marriage according to the Word of God was a “gift,” like as holy celibacy was a gift, says, “But I would that all men were like myself; howbeit, each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.”1 And those who are joined together by God both mind and keep the precept, “Husbands love your wives, as Christ also the church.”2 The Saviour then commanded, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,”3 but man wishes to put asunder what God hath joined together, when, “falling away from the sound faith, giving heeds to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron, forbidding,” not only to commit fornication, but “to marry,”4 he dissolves even those who had been before joined together by the providence of God. Let these things then be said, keeping in view what is expressly said concerning the male and the female, and the man and the woman, as the Saviour taught in the answer to the Pharisees.

17.

UNION OF CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.

But since the Apostle understands the words, “And they twain shall be one flesh,”5 of Christ and the church,6 we must say that Christ keeping the saying, “What God hath joined together let not man put asunder,”7 did not put away His former wife, so to speak—that is, the former synagogue—for any other cause than that that wife committed fornication, being made an adulteress by the evil one, and along with him plotted against her husband and slew Him, saying, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, crucify Him, crucify Him.”8 It was she therefore who herself revolted, rather than her husband who put her away and dismissed her; wherefore, reproaching her for falling away from him, it says in Isaiah, “Of what kind is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, with which I sent her away?”9 And He who at the beginning created Him “who is in the form of God” after the image, made Him male, and the church female, granting to both oneness after the image. And, for the sake of the church, the Lord—the husband—left the Father whom He saw when He was “in the form of God,”10 left also His mother, as He was the very son of the Jerusalem which is above, and was joined to His wife who had fallen down here, and these two here became one flesh. For because of her, He Himself also became flesh, when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,”1 and they are no more two, but now they are one flesh, since it is said to the wife, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members each in his part;”2 for the body of Christ is not something apart different from the church, which is His body, and from the members each in his part. And God has joined together these who are not two, but have become one flesh, commanding that men should not separate the church from the Lord. And he who takes heed for himself so as not to be separated, is confident as one who will not possibly be separated and says, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?”3 Here, therefore, the saying, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,”4 was written with relation to the Pharisees, but to those who are superior to the Pharisees, it could be said, “What then God hath joined together, let nothing put asunder,” neither principality nor power; for God, who has joined together is stronger than all those which any one could conceive and name.

18.

THE BILL OF DIVORCEMENT.

After this we will discuss the saying of the Pharisees which they said to Jesus, “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement and put her away?”5 And with good reason we will bring forward for this purpose the passage from Deuteronomy concerning the bill of divorcement, which is as follows: “But if a man taketh a wife and cohabit with her, and it shall be, if she do not find favour in his sight because he hath found in her a thing unseemly,” etc., down to the words, “and ye shall not pollute the land which the Lord your God giveth you for an inheritance.”6 Now I inquire whether in these things according to this law, we are to seek nothing in it beyond the letter seeing that God has not given it, or whether to the Pharisees who quoted the saying, “Moses commanded to give a bill of divorcement and put her away,” it was of necessity said, “Moses, for your hardness of heart, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it hath not been so.”7 But if any one ascends to the Gospel of Christ Jesus which teaches that the law is spiritual, he will seek also the spiritual understanding of this law. And he who wishes to interpret these things figuratively will say that, just as it was said by Paul confident in the grace which he had, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth, but if the husband be dead she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord; but she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment, and I think that I also have the Spirit of God”1 (for here to the words, “after my judgment,” lest it should be despised as being without the Spirit of God, he well added, “and I think that I also have the Spirit of God),” so also it would be possible for Moses, by reason of the power given to him to make laws, to the effect that he suffered for the hardness of heart of the people certain things, among which was the putting away of wives, to be persuaded in regard to the laws which he promulgated according to his own judgment, that in these also the legislation took place with the Spirit of God. And he will say that, unless one law is spiritual and another is not such, this is a law, and this is spiritual, and its spiritual significance ought to be investigated.

19.

THE DIVORCE OF ISRAEL.

Now, keeping in mind what we said above in regard to the passage from Isaiah about the bill of divorcement, we will say that the mother of the people separated herself from Christ, her husband, without having received the bill of divorcement, but afterwards when there was found in her an unseemly thing, and she did not find favour in his sight, the bill of divorcement was written out for her; for when the new covenant called those of the Gentiles to the house of Him who had cast away his former wife, it virtually gave the bill of divorcement to her who formerly separated from her husband—the law, and the Word. Therefore he, also, having separated from her, married, so to speak, another, having given into the hands of the former the bill of divorcement; wherefore they can no longer do the things enjoined on them by the law, because of the bill of divorcement. And a sign that she has received the bill of divorcement is this, that Jerusalem was destroyed along with what they called the sanctuary of the things in it which were believed to be holy, and with the altar of burnt offerings, and all the worship associated with it. And a further sign of the bill of divorcement is this, that they cannot keep their feasts, even though according to the letter of the law designedly commanded them, in the place which the Lord God appointed to them for keeping feasts; but there is this also, that the whole synagogue has become unable to stone those who have committed this or that sin; and thousands of things commanded are a sign of the bill of divorcement; and the fact that “there is no more a prophet,” and that they say, “We no longer see signs;”1 for the Lord says, “He hath taken away from Judæa and from Jerusalem,” according to the word of Isaiah, “Him that is mighty, and her that is mighty, a powerful giant,” etc., down to the words, “a prudent hearer.”2 Now, He who is the Christ may have taken the synagogue to wife and cohabited with her, but it may be that afterwards she found not favour in His sight; and the reason of her not having found favour in His sight was, that there was found in her an unseemly thing; for what was more unseemly than the circumstance that, when it was proposed to them to release one at the feast, they asked for the release of Barabbas the robber, and the condemnation of Jesus?3 And what was more unseemly than the fact, that they all said in His case, “Crucify Him, crucify Him,” and “Away with such a fellow from the earth”?4 And can this be freed from the charge of unseemliness, “His blood be upon us, and upon our children”?5 Wherefore, when He was avenged, Jerusalem was compassed with armies, and its desolation was near,6 and their house was taken away from it, and “the daughter of Zion was left as a booth in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, and as a besieged city.”7 And, about the same time, I think, the husband wrote out a bill of divorcement to his former wife, and gave it into her hands, and sent her away from his own house, and the bond of her who came from the Gentiles has been cancelled about which the Apostle says, “Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances, which was contrary to us, and He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;”8 for Paul also and others became proselytes of Israel for her who came from the Gentiles.9 The first wife, accordingly, not having found favour before her husband, because in her had been found an unseemly thing, went out from the dwelling of her husband, and, going away, has become joined to another man, to whom she has subjected herself, whether we should call the husband Barabbas the robber, who is figuratively the devil, or some evil power. And in the case of some of that synagogue there has happened the former thing which was written in the law, but in the case of others, that which was second. For the last husband1 hated his wife and will write out for her some day at the consummation of things a bill of divorcement, when God so orders it, and will give it into her hands and will send her away from his dwelling; for as the good God will put enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between his seed and her seed,2 so will He order it that the last husband shall hate her.

20.

CHRIST AND THE GENTILES.

Now there are those in whose case it has happened that the man dwells with them without having hated them, because they abide in the house of the last husband, who took to himself their synagogue as wife. But also in their case the latter husband dies, perhaps whenever the last enemy of Christ, death, is destroyed. But whichever of these things may happen, whether the former or the latter to the wife, the former husband, it says, who sent her away, will not be able to turn back and take her to be a wife to himself after she has been defiled, since “it is abomination,” it says, “before the Lord thy God.”3 But these things will not seem to be consistent with this, “If the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, all Israel shall be saved.”4 But consider if it can be said to this, that, if she shall be saved by her former husband returning and taking her to himself as wife, she will in any case be saved after she has been polluted. A priest, then, will not take to himself as a wife one who has been a harlot and an outcast,5 but no other, as being inferior to the priest, is hindered from doing so. But if you seek for the harlot in regard to the calling of the Gentiles, you may use the passage, “Take to yourself a wife of fornication, and children of fornication,”6 etc.; for, as “the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless,”7 so he who, casting out his former wife, takes in due season “a wife of fornication,” having done it according to the command of Him who says, when it is necessary, and so long as it was necessary, “He shall not take a harlot to wife,” and, when it was reasonable, He says, “Take to yourself a wife of fornication.” For as the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath,1 and not the slave of the sabbath as the people are, so He who gives the law has power to give it “until a time of reformation,”2 and to change the law, and, when the time of the reformation is at hand, also to give after the former way and after the former heart another way and another heart, “in an acceptable time, and in a day of salvation.”3 And let these things be said according to our interpretation of the law in regard to the bill of divorcement.

21.

UNION OF ANGELS AND THE SOULS OF MEN.

But some one may inquire whether the human soul can be figuratively called a wife, and the angel who is set over her and is her ruler, with whom as her sovereign she holds conversation, can be called her husband; so that according to this each lawfully dwells along with the soul which is worthy of the guardianship of a divine angel; but sometimes after long sojourning and intercourse a cause may arise in the soul why she does not find favour in the eyes of the angel who is her lord and ruler, because that in it there is found an unseemly thing; and bonds may be written out, as such are written, and a bill of divorcement be written and put into the hands of her who is cast out, so that she may no longer be familiar with her former guardian, when she is cast out from his dwelling. And even she who has gone away from her former dwelling may be joined to another husband, and be unfortunate with him, not only, as in the case of the former, not finding favour in his sight because an unseemly thing was found in her, but even being hated by him.4 Yea, and even there might be written out from the second husband a bill of divorcement and it might be put into her hands from the last husband who sends her away from his dwelling. But whether there can be such a change of the life of angels with men, as to amount, so far as concerns their relation to us, to their death, one may put the question rash though it be; but be that as it may, she also who has once fallen away from the former husband will not return again to him, for the former husband who sent her away will not be able to turn back and take her as wife to himself, after she was defiled.5 And if one should dare, using a Scripture which is in circulation in the church, but not acknowledged by all to be divine, to soften down a precept of this kind, the passage might be taken from The Shepherd, concerning some who as soon as they believe are put in subjection to Michael,1 but falling away from him from love of pleasure, are put in subjection to the angel of luxury,2 then to the angel of punishment,3 and after this to the angel of repentance; for you observe that the wife or soul who has once been given to luxury no longer returns to the first ruler, but also besides suffering punishment, is put in subjection to one inferior to Michael; for the angel of penitence is inferior to him. We must therefore take heed lest there be found in us any unseemly thing, and we should not find favour in the eyes of our husband Christ, or of the angel who has been set over us. For if we do not take heed, perhaps we also shall receive the bill of divorcement, and either be bereft of our guardian, or go to another man. But I consider that it is not of good omen to receive, as it were, the marriage of an angel with our own soul.4

22.

THE MARRIAGE OF CHURCH DIGNITARIES.

But, while dealing with the passage, I would say that we will be able perhaps now to understand and clearly set forth a question which is hard to grasp and see into, with regard to the legislation of the Apostle concerning ecclesiastical matters; for Paul wishes no one of those of the church, who has attained to any eminence beyond the many, as is attained in the administration of the sacraments, to make trial of a second marriage. For laying down the law in regard to bishops in the first Epistle to Timothy, he says, “If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. The bishop, therefore, must be without reproach, the husbands of one wife, temperate, sober-minded,”5 etc.; and, in regard to deacons, “Let the deacons,” he says, “be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well,”6 etc. Yea, and also when appointing widows, he says, “Let there be no one as a widow under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man;”7 and after this he says the things superadded, as being second or third in importance to this. And, in the Epistle to Titus, “For this cause,” he says, “I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city as I gave thee charge. If any one is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children, that believe”1 —of course—and so on. Now, when we saw that some who have been married twice may be much better than those who have been married once, we were perplexed why Paul does not at all permit those who have been twice married to be appointed to ecclesiastical dignities; for also it seemed to me that such a thing was worthy of examination, as it was possible that a man, who had been unfortunate in two marriages, and had lost his second wife while he was yet young, might have lived for the rest of his years up to old age in the greatest self-control and chastity. Who, then, would not naturally be perplexed why at all, when a ruler of the church is being sought for, we do not appoint such a man, though he has been twice married, because of the expressions about marriage, but lay hold of the man who has been once married as our ruler, even if he chance to have lived to old age with his wife, and sometimes may not have been disciplined in chastity and temperance? But, from what is said in the law about the bill of divorcement, I reflect whether, seeing that the bishop and the presbyter and the deacon are a symbol of things that truly exist in accordance with these names, he wished to appoint those who were figuratively once married, in order that he who is able to give attention to the matter, may find out from the spiritual law the one who was unworthy of ecclesiastical rule, whose soul did not find favour in the eyes of her husband because there had been found in her an unseemly thing, and she had become worthy of the bill of divorcement; for such a soul, having dwelt along with a second husband, and having been hated by such an one, can no longer, after the second bill of divorcement, return to her former husband.2 It is likely, therefore, also, that other arguments will be found by those who are wiser than we, and have more ability to see into such things, whether in the law about the bill of divorcement, or in the apostolic writings which prohibit those who have been twice married from ruling over the church or being preferred to preside over it. But, until something shall be found that is better and able by the excessive brilliancy of the light of knowledge to cast into the shade what we have uttered, we have said the things which have occurred to us in regard to the passages.

23.

SOME LAWS GIVEN BY CONCESSION TO HUMAN WEAKNESS.

But, even if we have seemed to touch on things too deep for our capacity in the passages, nevertheless, because of the literal expression these things must further be said, that some of the laws were written not as excellent, but as by way of accommodation to the weakness of those to whom the law was given; for something of this kind is indicated in the words, “Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives;”1 but that which is pre-eminent and superior to the law, which was written for their hardness of heart, is indicated in this, “But from the beginning it hath not been so.” But in the new covenant also there are some legal injunctions of the same order as, “Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives;” for example, because of our hardness of heart, it has been written on account of our weakness, “But because of fornications, let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband;”2 and this, “Let the husband render unto the wife her due, and likewise also the wife unto the husband.”3 To these sayings it is accordingly subjoined, “But this I say by way of permission, not of commandment.”4 But this also, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth but if her husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord,”5 was said by Paul in view of our hardness of heart and weakness, to those who do not wish to desire earnestly the greater gifts6 and become more blessed. But now contrary to what was written, some even of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry, even when her husband was living, doing contrary to what was written, where it is said, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth,” and “So then if while her husband liveth, she shall be joined to another man she shall be called an adulteress,”7 not indeed altogether without reason, for it is probable this concession was permitted in comparison with worse things, contrary to what was from the beginning ordained by law, and written.

24.

JEWISH CRITICISM OF THE LAW OF CHRIST.

But perhaps some Jewish man of those who dare to oppose the teaching of our Saviour will say, that when Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress,”1 He also gave permission to put away a wife like as well as Moses did, who was said by Him to have given laws for the hardness of heart of the people, and will hold that the saying, “Because he found in her an unseemly thing,”2 is to be reckoned as the same as fornification on account of which with good cause a wife could be cast away from her husband. But to him it must be said that, if she who committed adultery was according to the law to be stoned, clearly it is not in this sense that the unseemly thing is to be understood. For it is not necessary for adultery or any such great indecency to write a bill of divorcement and give it into the hands of the wife; but indeed perhaps Moses called every sin an unseemly thing, on the discovery of which by the husband in the wife, as not finding favour in the eyes of her husband, the bill of divorcement is written, and the wife is sent away from the house of her husband; “but from the beginning it hath not been so.”3 After this our Saviour says, not at all permitting the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than fornication alone, when detected in the wife, “Whosoever shall but away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress.”4 But it might be a subject for inquiry if on this account He hinders any one putting away a wife, unless she be caught in fornication, for any other reason, as for example for poisoning, or for the destruction during the absence of her husband from home of an infant born to them, or for any form of murder whatsoever. And further, if she were found despoiling and pillaging the house of her husband, though she was not guilty of fornication, one might ask if he would with reason cast away such an one, seeing that the Saviour forbids any one to put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication. In either case there appears to be something monstrous, whether it be really monstrous, I do not know; for to endure sins of such heinousness which seem to be worse than adultery or fornication, will appear to be irrational; but again on the other hand to act contrary to the design of the teaching of the Saviour, every one would acknowledge to be impious. I wonder therefore why He did not say, Let no one put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication, but says, “Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress.”1 For confessedly he who puts away his wife when she is not a fornicator, makes her an adulteress, so far as it lies with him, for if, “when the husband is living she shall be called an adulteress if she be joined to another man;”2 and when by putting her away, he gives to her the excuse of a second marriage, very plainly in this way he makes her an adulteress. But as to whether her being caught in the act of poisoning or committing murder, furnishes any defence of his dismissal of her, you can inquire yourselves; for the husband can also in other ways than by putting her away cause his own wife to commit adultery; as, for example, allowing her to do what she wishes beyond what is fitting, and stooping to friendship with what men she wishes, for often from the simplicity of husbands such false steps happen to wives; but whether there is a ground of defence or not for such husbands in the case of such false steps, you will inquire carefully, and deliver your opinion also in regard to the difficult questions raised by us on the passage. And even he who withholds himself from his wife makes her oftentimes to be an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires, even though he does so under the appearance of greater gravity and self-control. And perhaps this man is more culpable who, so far as it rests with him, makes her an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires than he who, for other reason than fornication, has sent her away,—for poisoning or murder or any of the most grievous sins. But as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while the former husband is still living, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her according to the declaration of our Saviour.

25.

CHASTITY AND PRAYER.

Now after these things, having considered how many possible accidents may arise in marriages, which it was necessary for the man to endure and in this way suffer very great hardships, or if he did not endure, to transgress the word of Christ, the disciples say to him, taking refuge in celibacy as easier, and more expedient than marriage, though the latter appears to be expedient, “If the case of the man is so with hiswife, it is not expedient to marry.”1 And to this the Saviour said, teaching us that absolute chastity is a gift given by God, and not merely the fruit of training, but given by God with prayer, “All men cannot receive the saying, but they to whom it is given.”2 Then seeing that some make a sophistical attack on the saying, “To whom it is given,” as if those who wished to remain pure in celibacy, but were mastered by their desires, had an excuse, we must say that, if we believe the Scriptures, why at all do we lay hold of the saying, “But they to whom it is given,” but no longer attend to this, “Ask and it shall be given you,”3 and to that which is added to it, “For every one that asketh receiveth”?4 For if they “to whom it is given” can receive this saying about absolute purity, let him who wills ask, obeying and believing Him who said, “Ask and it shall be given you,” and not doubting about the saying, “Every one that asketh receiveth.” But when there you will inquire who it is that asketh, for no one of those who do not receive has asked, even though he seems to have done so, since it is not lawful to say that the saying, “Every one that asketh receiveth,” is a lie. Who then is he that asketh, but he who has obeyed Jesus when He says, “If ye stand praying, believe that ye receive, and ye shall receive”?1 But he that asketh must do everything in his power that he may pray “with the spirit” and pray also “with the understanding,”2 and pray “without ceasing,”3 keeping in mind also the saying, “And He spake a parable unto them to the end that they ought always to pray, and not to faint, saying, There was in a city a judge,”4 etc. And it is useful to know what it is to ask, and what it is to receive, and what is meant by “Every one that asketh, receiveth,”5 and by “I say unto you though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity, he will arise and give him as many as he needeth.”6 It is therefore added, “And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you,” and so on. Further, let the saying, “All men cannot receive the saying but they to whom it is given,”7 be a stimulus to us to ask worthily of receiving; and this, “What son is there of you who shall ask his father for a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent,”8 etc. God therefore will give the good gift, perfect purity in celibacy and chastity, to those who ask Him with the whole soul, and with faith, and in prayers without ceasing.

[1 ] Παρέχειν μικροψυχίαν, perhaps “causes you ill-feeling.” The translation of Serapion’s letter with this note is taken from Mr. Armitage Robinson’s edition of the gospel.

[1 ] Παρ[αλημ]ϕθη̑ναι is perhaps supported by παραλαβόντες, Mt. xxiv. 27.

[2 ] I know no other instance of σταυρίσκειν.

[3 ]cf. Jo. xix. 31, where Syr. Pesch. reads: “They say, These bodies shall not remain on the cross, because the sabbath dawneth.”

[4 ] The text here is corrupt: for ἐπέσαντο I have provisionally read ἔπεσάν τε.

[5 ] For αὐτὸς ὥρας we must read αὐτη̑ς ὥρας (cf. Clem., Hom., xx., 16); αὐτὴ is the equivalent in later Greek literature of ἐκείνη, as in the modern tongue (cf. Lc. x. 7, 21, and xii. 12; ∥ ἐκείνῃ, Mt., Mc.)

[1 ] I have ventured to substitute μετὰ, “together with” (cf. Mt. xxvii. 66), for κατὰ, “down upon.” Dr. Swete, however, keeps κατὰ, and interprets it as “against,” i.e., to guard the sepulchre against.

[2 ] The form of the question in the Greek suggests a negative answer.

[1 ] For further explanation of the method followed see 20.

[2 ] See notes to § 7, 47, and § 52, 36, of the present translation.

[3 ] See below, 12, (2).

[4 ] See also below, 6, and 20.

[5 ]Bibl. Or., i., 619.

[6 ] Mai, Vet. script. nova. collect., iv., 14.

[7 ]cf. Zahn, Forschungen, i., 294 ff.

[1 ] See below, § 7, 47, note, and § 52, 36, note.

[2 ] See below, § 28, 43, note.

[3 ] See below, foot-notes, passim.

[4 ] The first leaf bears a more pretentious Latin inscription, quoted by Ciasca, p. vi.

[5 ] Can this be a misprint for 95?

[6 ] See below, 13.

[7 ] He does not state, in so many words, that the list is absolutely exhaustive.

[8 ] See, e.g., below, § 13, 42, note, and § 14, 43, note.

[9 ] See the valuable article of Guidi, “Le traduzioni degli Evangelii in arabo e in etiopico” (Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei; Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e filologiche. Serie Quarta, 1888, Parte Prima—Memorie, pp. 5-38). Some of his results are briefly stated in Scrivener, A Plain Introd. to the Crit. of the N. T., 4th ed., ii., 162.

[10 ]cf. the foot-notes passim, e.g., § 13, 14, § 14, 24.

[11 ] See below, note to Subscription.

[12 ] See a glaring case in § 52, 11.

[13 ] The references to the readings of the Diatessaron in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s own commentary on the gospels (see next note) are remarkably impersonal for one who had made or was to make a translation of it.

[1 ] A specially important part of the general question is this, What are the mutual relations of the following: (1) a supposed version of at least Matthew and John made from the Syriac by Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib, mentioned by Ibn-al-‘Assâl in the Preface to his scholarly recension of the gospels (MS. numbered Or. 3382 in Brit. Mus., folio 384b) and used by him in determining his text; (2) the gospel text interwoven with the commentary of Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib on the gospels, a commentary which De Slane says the author wrote in Syriac and then translated into Arabic; (3) our present work. Of MSS. testifying to No. 1 we have some dating from the time of Ibn-al-‘Assâl himself, of No. 2 we have, in addition to others, an eleventh-century MS. in Paris, described by De Slane (catalogue No. 85) as being “un volume dépareillé du MS. original de l’ouvrage”; of No. 3 we have of course the Vatican and Borgian MSS. What is the mutual relation of these texts; were any two of them identical? The Brit Mus MS. of the second has many points of contact with the third, but is dated 1805 ad Does the older Paris MS. stand more or less closely related? Did Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib himself really translate any or all of these texts, or did he simply select or edit them? Space does not permit us to point out, far less to discuss, the various possibilities.

[2 ] The text is given below in full at its proper place.

[3 ] Prof. Gottheil, indeed, announced in 1892 in the Journal of Biblical Literature (vol. xi., pt. i., p. 71) that he had been privately informed of the existence of a complete copy of the Syriac Diatessaron. Unfortunately, however, as he has kindly informed me, he has reluctantly come to the conclusion that the MS. in question, which is not yet accessible, is “nothing more than the commentary of Isho‘dad” mentioned in the text. A similar rumor lately circulated probably originated simply in the pamphlet of Goussen mentioned in the next note. S. Bäumer, on the other hand, in his article, “Tatians Diatessaron, seine bisher. Lit. u. die Reconstruction des Textes nach einer neuentdeckten Handschrift” (Literarischer Handweiser, 1890, 153-169) which the present writer has not been able to see, perhaps refers simply to the Borgian MS.

[4 ] Attention was called to these by Profs. Isaac H. Hall and R. J. H. Gottheil (Journ. of Bibl. Lit., x., 153 ff.; xi., 68 ff.); then by Prof. J. R. Harris (Contemp. Rev., Aug., 1895, p. 271 ff., and, more fully, Fragments of the Com. of Ephr. Syr. on the Diatess., London, 1895) and by Goussen (Studia Theologica, fasc. i., Lips., 1895).

[5 ] Prof. Harris promises an edition of this commentary.

[6 ] Harris, Fragments, p. 14, where the Syriac text is quoted.

[7 ]Bib. Or., ii., 159 f. Most of them are repeated again by Bar Hebræus (d. 1286), although some confusion is produced by his interweaving some phrases from Eusebius of Cæsarea. (Bib. Or., i., 57 f., and a longer quotation in English in Contemp. Rev., Aug., 1895, p. 274 f.)

[8 ] Lagarde’s statement (Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellsch. der Wiss., etc., zu Göttingen, 1891, No. 4. p. 153) that a MS. had been discovered, appears to have been unfounded. Prof. Rahlfs of Göttingen kindly tells me that he believes this is so.

[1 ] Migne, Patrol. græc., tom. lxxxiii., col. 369, 372.

[2 ] Published at Venice in 1836.

[3 ] The two Armenian MSS. are dated ad 1195.

[4 ]Evangelii Concordantis Expositio, facta a S. Ephraemo (Ven., 1876).

[5 ]Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, I. Theil.

[6 ] Edited by Ernestus Ranke, Marb. and Lips., 1868.

[7 ] For other forms of the Diatessaron, of no critical importance, see S. Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian (London, 1888), Appendix D and the refs. there.

[8 ] Further references, chiefly repetitions in one form or another of the statements we have quoted, may be found in a convenient form in Harnack, Gesch. d. altchrist. Lit. bis Euseb., 493-496; cf. also the works mentioned by Hill (op. cit.) p. 378 f.

[9 ]cf. the words of Aphraates, senior contemporary of Ephraem: “As it is written in the beginning of the Gospel of our Vivifier: In the beginning was the Word.” (Patrol. Syr., pars i., tom. i., 21, lines 17-19).

[10 ]Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellsch. der Wiss., etc., March 17, 1886, No. 4, p. 151 ff.

[11 ] See notes to § 1, 81, and § 4, 29.

[12 ] See note to § 55, 17.

[1 ] The Armenian version of Ephraem is supposed to date from the fifth century.

[2 ] Mai, Script. vet. nov. Coll., x., 191.

[3 ] Overbeck, S. Ephraemi, etc., Opera Selecta, p. 220, lines 3-5.

[4 ] Phillips, Doct. Add., p. 36, 15-17 [E. Tr. p. 34].

[5 ] Moesinger, Evang. Concord., etc., p. xi.

[6 ] The latest discussion of the question whether this really was Tatian is Mr. Rendel Harris’s article in the Contemp. Rev., Aug., 1895.

[7 ] Best ed. by Eduard Schwartz, in Texte und Untersuchungen, IV. Band, Heft 1.

[8 ] “Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch,” Journ. of Bibl. Lit., vol. ix., 1890, pt. ii., 201-215.

[1 ] The refs., except where the foot-notes indicate otherwise, are to the verses of the English or Greek Bible. The numbers of the Arabic verse refs. (which follow the Vulgate and therefore in one or two passages differ from the English numbers by one) may, however, have been occasionally retained through oversight. It is only the name of the gospel that can possibly be ancient.

[2 ] It may be mentioned that it has been found very convenient to mark these figures on the margin of the Arabic text. An English index (that given here, or that in Hill’s volume) can then be used for the Arabic text also.

[3 ] e.g., § 8, 10. For a list of suggested emendations see at end of Index.

[4 ] e.g., § 52, 11.

[5 ] e.g., § 45, 33.

[1 ] The MS. here has Ṭabīb, but the name is correctly given in the Subscription (q.v.).

[2 ] i.e., simply He began with.

[3 ] The vowel signs as printed by Ciasca imply some such construction as And he said as a beginning: The Gospel, etc. But the vocalisation is of course not authoritative, and a comparison with the preface in the Vatican MS. suggests the rendering given above. The word translated Beginning in the two Introductory Notes is the very word (whichever spelling be adopted) used by Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib himself in his comments on Mk. i. (at least according to the Brit. Mus. MS.), although not in the gospel text prefixed to the Comments as it now stands, or indeed in any MS. Arabic gospel in the Brit. Mus. This would seem to militate against our theory of the original form of this much-debated passage in the Introductory Notes, as indicated by the use of small type for the later inserted phrases; and the difficulty appears at first to be increased by the following words in Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s comments on Mk. i. (Brit. Mus. MS., fol. 190a), “and some say that the Greek citation and in the Diatessaron, which Tatianus the pupil of Justianus the philosopher wrote, the quotation is not written, “Isaiah,” but, “as it is written in the prophet.” This is a remarkable statement about the Diatessaron. But the sentence is hardly grammatical. Perhaps the words printed in italics originally formed a complete sentence by themselves, possibly on the margin. If this conjecture be correct we might emend, e.g., by restoring them to the margin, and repeating the last three words or some equivalent phrase in the text. It would be interesting to know how the Paris MS. reads. See below, p. 138 (Suggested Emendations).

[4 ] Ciasca does not state whether the word John occurs here in the Borgian MS. or not.

[2 ] This word is constantly recurring in the sense of fear.

[3 ] Everywhere, except in the introductory notes, the Arabic is the Spirit of Holiness, as in the Arabic versions.

[4 ] See § 28, 17, note.

[5 ] The Vat. MS. has over this verse, The second section, from the Gospel of Luke, i.e, as divided in the Syriac and Arabic versions.

[6 ] The Borgian MS. omits to Galilee.

[1 ] Vat. MS., like that described by Gildemeister (see Introduction, 20) has into Galilee (cf. § 8, 10, note).

[2 ] Lit. the, a form due to Syriac influence (cf. § 2, 12, and passim).

[3 ] The Syriac versions (like the Greek) have the same word here as in Lk. i. 41.

[4 ] The Arabic word ordinarily means tribe or nation, but in this work it regularly represents the Syriac word used in the N. T. for generation.

[5 ] The Arabic would naturally be rendered, the blessing on me, That; but a number of passages in this work seem to justify the rendering given in the text (cf., e.g., § 46, 54, and especially § 15, 40).

[6 ] The text is indistinct in the Vat. MS. The reading seems to be conflate, the doublets being when it was, which is the reading of Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary, and on.

[7 ] Lit. described (cf. § 2, 46).

[1 ] Or, should.

[2 ] Here and elsewhere the Arabic translator uses life and live and give life, as in Syriac, for salvation, etc.

[3 ] Borg. MS. has and for of.

[4 ] The word used in the Peshitta means visit, either in the sense of caring for or in that of frequenting. See § 24, 29.

[5 ] So Borg. MS. The Vat. MS. is very indistinct. Lagarde (see Introduction, 13, note), quoting Guidi, prints Whereby there visiteth us the manifestation from on high. The difference in Arabic is in a single stroke.

[6 ] This is preceded in Vat. MS. by the genealogy, Mt. i., 1-17 (see Introduction, 13), with the marginal note The Beginning of the Gospel of Matthew. (Lagarde, op. cit., 1886, p. 154.) The text presents nothing worthy of note in this place except that verse 16, construed on the same principle as the preceding verses, to which, except in the words printed in italics, it is strictly parallel in construction, reads thus: “Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, who of her begat Jesus, the Messiah” (cf. the remarkable reading of Sin. Syriac). As it stands, this is the only possible interpretation of the words, for who is masculine. But a mistake in the gender of a relative pronoun is very common in Arabic among illiterate people, while in Syriac there is, to begin with, no distinction. If then we correct the relative, who of her will become of whom (fem.), and begat will of course be construed as passive. We thus get the text followed in Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary, the ordinary reading of the Peshitta, of whom was born Jesus.

[7 ] The Arabic might even more naturally be rendered born, thus giving us the reading that Isho‘dad tells us was that of the Diatessaron (Harris, Fragments, p. 16 f.), but throughout the whole genealogy (see § 1, 81, note) this word has been used by the Vat. MS. in the sense of begat. Here the Borg. MS. has of her for in her; but Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib in his Commentary discusses why Matthew wrote in and not of.

[8 ]cf. § 1, 78.

[1 ] The Arabic expression is clearly meant to represent that used in the Peshitta.

[2 ] This is the most natural meaning of the Arabic sentence; which, however, is simply a word-for-word reproduction of the Peshitta.

[3 ] The Arab. represents Syr. idiom.

[4 ]cf. § 1, 66, note.

[5 ] Borg. MS. inserts all above the line, after these. The meaning ought then to be, these things, namely, all the sayings.

[6 ] The Arab. might mean set them apart; but the Syriac is against this.

[7 ] Or, anointed.

[8 ] For order cf. (in part) Sin. Syriac.

[9 ] i.e., becoming manifest.

[10 ] So also in Syriac versions and the quotation of Isho‘dad from Ephraem (Harris, Fragments, p. 34), but not the Armenian version.

[11 ] The Arabic sides with the Peshitta and Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, against the remarkable reading of Sin. supported by Isho‘dad, as in last note (Syriac text), and the Armenian in Hill, p. 336. See now also The Guardian, Dec. 18, 1895.

[1 ] On the substitution of this general phrase for Mt. 2, 1a, see the remarks of Harris in Fragments, etc., p. 37 ff.

[2 ] This periphrasis for where is very characteristic of this work.

[3 ] So in later Arabic and some Arabic versions. According to classical usage the word means sleep.

[4 ] Or, is weeping, and so in next line is not willing.

[1 ] A general word (cf. Syr. versions).

[2 ] Or, knew.

[3 ] There is a very rare use of this Arabic word in the Hebrew sense of saying.

[4 ] So Vat. MS. The Borg. MS. has with.

[5 ] See note on § 1, 78.

[6 ] Or, authority.

[7 ] In Syr. this word also means truth.

[8 ] Or, earlier than I.

[9 ] i. e., came to be.

[1 ]cf. Peshitta, etc. (not Cur.), cf. also Gildemeister, op. cit., p. 29, on Lk. 9, 20.

[2 ] Lit. from the side of.

[3 ] Or, in.

[4 ] On the original Diatessaron reading, honey and milk of the mountains, or, milk and honey of the mountains, which latter Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib cites in his Commentary (folio 44b, 45a) as a reading, but without any allusion to the Diatessaron, see, e.g., now Harris, Fragments of the Com. of Ephr. Syr. upon the Diat. (London, 1895), p. 17 f.

[5 ] The translator uses invariably an Arabic word (name of a sect) meaning Separatists.

[6 ] Lit. Zindiks, a name given to Persian dualists and others.

[7 ] Grammar requires this rendering, but solecisms in this kind of word are very common, and in this work (e.g., § 48, 21) the jussive particle is sometimes omitted. We should therefore probably render let him give, let him do, etc.

[8 ]cf. Peshitta, where the word has its special meaning, soldiers.

[9 ] Our translator constantly uses this Arabic word (which we render haply, or, can it be? or, perhaps, etc.) to represent the Syriac word used in this place. The latter is used in various ways, and need not be interrogative, as our translator renders it (cf. especially § 17, 6).

[10 ] Or, shall.

[11 ] The Vat. MS. here gives the genealogy (Lk. 3, 23-38), of which we shall quote only the last words: the son of Adam; who (was) from God. If this were not the reading of the Peshitta (against Sin.) and Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary, one might explain from as a corruption of the Arabic son of, the words being very similar. On the Borg. MS. see § 55, 17, note.

[1 ]cf. § 3, 54, note.

[2 ] For the statement of Isho‘dad (see above, Introduction, 10), “And straightway, as the Diatessaron testifieth, light shone forth,” etc., see Harris, Fragments, etc., p. 43 f.

[3 ] Lit. calumniator.

[4 ] Borg. MS. omits and.

[5 ] Lit. backbiter, a different word from that used above in § 4, 43, 47.

[6 ] Or, speaking.

[7 ]cf. Peshitta.

[8 ] The Arabic word used throughout this work means Stones.

[1 ] Lit. the (cf. note to § 1, 40).

[2 ] Arabic Qaṭna; at § 5, 32, Qâtĭna, following the Syriac form.

[3 ] The reading of Cur. and Sin. is not known; but cf. Moesinger, p. 53, and Isho‘dad quoted in Harris, Fragments, etc., p. 46.

[4 ] Perhaps a comma should be inserted after sign.

[5 ] If the text does not contain a misprint the word for by is wanting in both MSS. It should doubtless be restored as in § 7, 3.

[6 ]Evil-doers could easily be an Arabic copyist’s corruption of captives; but the word used here for forgiveness could hardly spring from an Arabic release (in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, where the thing seems to have happened, a different word is used). In Syriac, however, they are the same; while the first pair contain the same consonants.

[7 ] See preceding note.

[1 ] Or, but.

[2 ] Borg. MS. has but. The Arabic expressions are very similar.

[3 ] Borg. MS. has he did this, he enclosed, on which see § 38, 43, note (end). Either reading could spring from the other, within the Arabic.

[4 ] The verb may be active as well as passive, but does not agree in gender with amasement. Mistakes in gender are, however, very common transcriptional errors.

[5 ] Dual.

[6 ] Plural. In the Peshitta it is two individuals in verse 25. In Sin, the first is an individual and the second is ambiguous. In Cur both are plural.

[7 ] Or, he be given it.

[8 ] The ordinary word for apostle.

[9 ] See § 9, 21, note.

[10 ] So Ciasca’s printed text. The Vat. MS., however, probably represents a past tense.

[11 ]cf. Peshitta.

[12 ]cf. consonants of Syriac text.

[13 ] Borg. MS., that God is truiy, or, assuming a very common grammatical inaccuracy, that God is true or truth, the reading in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary.

[14 ] Lit. saying.

[15 ] Lit. the life of eternity; here and everywhere except § 21, 40.

[16 ] i.e., alighteth-and-stayeth.

[17 ] Or, knew.

[1 ] Or, will.

[2 ] Or, good news, and.

[3 ] See § 5, 32, note.

[4 ] Perhaps we might here render learning; but see § 28, 17, note.

[5 ] So in the Arabic. It is, however, simply a misinterpretation of the expression in the Syriac versions for at the place of toll (cf. Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary).

[6 ]cf. § 1, 40, note 2.

[7 ] Or, each.

[1 ] This may represent a Syriac as.

[2 ] See above, note to § 6, 46, which applies, although the Arabic words are different.

[3 ] Lit. son-of-the-roofs, a Syriac expression (cf. § 24, 31, note).

[4 ] This is the end of verse 1 in the Greek.

[5 ] This word may be either a singular or a plural.

[6 ] This word ordinarily means to forge lies against; but our translator uses it regularly as here.

[7 ] Peshitta has casier.

[8 ] See above, note to § 6, 46.

[9 ] A Syriacism.

[10 ] The Arabic word, which occurs here in many of the Arabic versions, could also be read bridegroom. The Syriac word for marriage chamber is also used in the sense of marriage feast.

[1 ] Syr. In Arab. it means what?

[2 ] This may be simply a ministerpretation of the ordinary Syriac reading, which in all probability agrees with the masculine reading found in the Text. Rec. of the Greek.

[3 ] Is it possible that the Arabic word after known is not meant simply to introduce the quotation, but is to be taken in the adverbial sense, how representing the Syriac what that is?

[4 ] See § 10, 13, note.

[5 ] Lit. other. The definite article is a mistake of the translator.

[6 ] Here, at the end of leaf 17 of Vat. MS., is a note by a later hand: “Here a leaf is missing.” This first lacuna extends from § 7, 47, to § 8, 17.

[7 ] An easy clerical error for And so he regarded (cf. Peshitta).

[8 ] Lit. lead to him.

[9 ] The Arabic word strictly means youngman.

[10 ] Or, rested.

[11] Or, wick.

[1 ] The Arab. might also mean, And he shall preach (the good tidings) to the peoples in his name (cf. § 22, 47, note).

[2 ] This phrase, in this case adopted from the Syriac, really means, in Arab., morning found him.

[3 ] It must be remembered that we have here only one MS. The Arabic words for Galilee and for mountain are very similar. The words that he might pray have therefore probably made their way here by some error from § 8, 9, above.

[4 ] So (with the Peshitta) by transposing two letters. The Arabic textas it stands can hardly be translated. Almost may be simply a corruption of the Arabic word were.

[5 ] The syntax of the Arabic is ambiguous. The alternative followed above, which seems the most natural, is that which agrees most nearly with the Peshitta.

[6 ] Or, troubled with.

[7 ] This is the meaning of the Arabic word, as it is the primary meaning of the Syriac; but in this work a number of words meaning approach are used (and generally translated) in the sense of touch. The commonest word so used is that in § 12, 13 (cf. also § 12, 35).

[8 ] So Vat. MS., followed by Ciasca (cf. Sin.). Borg. MS. has he that was betraying or was a traitor (cf. Peshitta).

[9 ] This word, the ordinary meaning of which is expel, is freely used by our translator in the sense of persecute.

[1 ] Or, let. (cf. § 4, 20, note).

[2 ] Lit. this (man) shall.

[3 ] See § 10, 13, note.

[4 ] The text is rather uncertain.

[5 ] The text is probably corrupt. Vat. MS. has on margin, i.e., caused her.

[6 ] The adj. is in the superlative.

[7 ] A literal reproduction of the Greek, like that in Syr. versions.

[8 ] Lit. jaw.

[9 ] Or, punish.

[1 ] Or, return.

[2 ] Or, to be given back as much by.

[3 ] Our translator is continually using this word (cf. § 9, 23) where the context and the originals require then or therefore. We shall only occasionally reproduce the peculiarity.

[4 ] A clumsy phrase.

[5 ] The Arabic text makes Matthew begin here.

[6 ] The text as printed reads, That thy will may be (dons); but it is to be explained as a (very common grammatical) transcriptional error. The Cur., however, has and.

[7 ] Lit. unto the age of the ages.

[8 ] Or, folly; and so in following verse.

[9 ] Or, shew to.

[10 ] Or, for if.

[11 ] Or, will be.

[1 ] Or, your souls; or, your lives.

[2 ] Lit falleth (cf. Syriac).

[3 ] The word means to contend successfully, but is used throughout by our translator in the sense of condemn.

[4 ] This is the reading adopted by Ciasca in his Latin version. The diacritical points in the Arabic text, as he has printed it (perhaps a misprint), give second person plural passive instead of third plural active.

[5 ]cf. Lk. 8, 18b. Our translator uses the same word in § 50, 5=Lk. 23, 8b; and in both cases it represents the same word in the Syriac versions.

[6 ] Or, Do.

[7 ] The Arabic might also be rendered, What father of you, whom his son asketh for bread, will (think you) give him a stone? But as the Peshitta preserves the confused construction of the Greek, it is probably better to render as above.

[1 ] There is nothing about striving. The verb is walaga, which means enter (cf. § 11, 48).

[2 ] Or, lambs’.

[3 ] The verbs might be singular active, but not plural as in Syriac versions (cf., however, § 38, 43, note, end). In the Borg. MS. the nouns are in the accusative.

[4 ] i.e., so as to be unable to walk.

[5 ] Or, bodies of soldiers.

[6 ] Or, it.

[1 ] Lit. company.

[2 ] Lit. plough of the yoke.

[3 ]cf., e.g., at § 17, 19, § 23, 16, where the same Arabic and Syriac word is used; cf. also the ambiguity of the Greek. (R. V. has left).

[4 ] Lit. commotion.

[5 ] Or, abundance.

[6 ] The last clause belongs in the Greek to verse 41.

[7 ] Imperfect tense.

[8 ] Lit. and it was for him.

[1 ]cf. Syriac versions.

[2 ] Lit. the ten cities.

[3 ] See § 8, 17, note.

[1 ] Lit. went forward to (cf. § 8, 17, note).

[2 ] Lit. cast away (cf. meanings of Syriac word).

[3 ] § 34, 40, shows that this Arabic form may be so translated.

[4 ] The word is occasionally used in this sense, but ordinarily means sound, unhurt.

[5 ] From this point down to Mt. 10, 27a, is assigned by Vat. MS. to Mark.

[6 ] Borg. MS. reads, but what ye are granted ye shall speak, and ye shall be given in, etc., and there seems to be a trace of this reading in Ciasca’s text.

[7 ] See note to § 1, 78.

[1 ] See note to § 9, 21.

[2 ] Perhaps this Arabic word is a copyist’s error for that used a few lines further down in Lk. 12, 5, the Arabic words being very similar; but see note on § 1, 14.

[3 ] Syriac.

[4 ] The Vat. MS., like the Brit. Mus. text of Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary, omits for a farthing, retaining in a bond. The two phrases are simply different explanations of the same Syriac consonants. These are really the naturalised Greek word rendered farthing in Eng. version; but they also form a Syriac word meaning bond.

[5 ] Or, soul.

[6 ] Or, receive.

[7 ] Or, agitated.

[8 ] Lit. And his disciples told John, as in the Greek, etc.

[9 ] A different word from that used in the preceding verse. It is either an Arabic copyist’s error for the word for deaf used in Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary, or a careless blunder.

[1 ] Syriac. In Arabic the word ordinarily means believed.

[2 ] See below, § 20, 28, note.

[3 ] See § 1, 49, note.

[5 ] The word used in the Syriac versions (Pesh. and Cur.) means garments as well as utensils, and the Arabic translator has chosen the wrong meaning (cf. § 42, 44).

[6 ] Certain derivatives from the same root signify bind, but hardly this word.

[7 ] The two Arab. MSS. differ in this word, but the meaning is about the same. Perhaps both are corrupt.

[1 ] Or, a tree good.

[2 ] Or, a tree evil.

[4 ]Wrought may have arisen from taught by a transcriptional error (transposition of l and m) within the Arabic text. As it appears to occur in both MSS., they would seem to have a common origin, which, however, can hardly have been the autograph of the translator.

[5 ] A comparison with the Syriac text recommends this rendering.

[6 ] Lit. sunk, a word the choice of which is explained by the Syriac.

[7 ] Or, I.

[8 ] Same word in Arabic.

[1 ] The meaning is not apparent.

[2 ]cf. Syriac versions.

[3 ] The first letter of the word has been lost.

[4 ] Lit. that, as often in this work.

[5 ] Lit. powers.

[6 ] The word as printed by Ciasca perhaps means gifts, but by dropping a point from the second letter we get the post-classical word given in the text above.

[7 ] See below, § 20, 28, note.

[8 ] The word translated devil in preceding verse.

[9 ] This is an Arabic clerical error for forces. The Syriac word for power means also military forces, which was apparently rendered in Arabic army, a word that differs from race only in diacritical points.

[10 ]cf. Pesh. and A. V. margin.

[11 ] Lit. that (cf. above, § 1, 50, note).

[12 ] Or, his life; or, his soul.

[1 ] This rendering assumes that tower is treated as feminine.

[2 ] Or, it.

[3 ] Or, a king like him.

[4 ] Or, let.

[5 ] See § 1, 49, note.

[6 ] See note to § 10, 13.

[7 ] The Arabic printed text gives no sense. A simple change in the diacritical points of one letter gives the reading of the Syriac versions, which is adopted here.

[1 ]cf. Peshitta (against Cur. and Sin.).

[4 ] See above, § 1, 40, note 2.

[5 ] Or, is seduced (cf. § 25, 17, note).

[6 ] Or, while.

[7 ] Lit. faiteneth, as in Peshitta.

[1 ] See above, § 4, 24, note.

[3 ] The word (if not a corruption of that used in the Brit. Mus. text of Ibn-at-Ṭayyib’s Commentary, and in § 43, 46, where, however, according to Ciasca’s foot-note, it was not the word first written by the scribe) is Syriac. Perhaps it means the ends of the earth (see P. Smith, Thes. Syr.). Still a third word is used in § 47, 42.

[4 ]cf. § [Editor: illegible character] [Editor: illegible character]

[5 ] [Editor: illegible character] [Editor: illegible character]

[6 ]cf. [Editor: illegible character] to § 10, 8.

[1 ] Lit. powers.

[2 ]cf. above, § 4, 24, note.

[3 ] Of the Syriac versions Cur. and Sin. are wanting. Pesh. has Aramæan.

[4 ] Lit. powers.

[5 ] There can be little doubt that this is the meaning of the Arabic. There is nothing like it in the Peshitta; the Curetonian is of course lacking; but the phrase in the Sinaitic is very similar.

[6 ] Here begins verse 8a in Greek.

[7 ] Perhaps appointment (cf. Moesinger, p. 165; but Isho‘dad [Harris, Fragments, p. 65] and the Brit. Mus. text of Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary have the ordinary reading).

[8 ] Or simply ask.

[1 ] Or, to tell.

[2 ] A misunderstanding or slavish reproduction of the Syriac. The Brit. Mus. text of Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary has of Galilee, Tiberias.

[3 ]cf. Syriac versions and margin of R. V.

[4 ] Or, came.

[5 ]cf. the addition in the Sinaitic Syriac.

[6 ] Probably a mistaken rendering of the ordinary Syriac reading.

[9 ]cf. Syriac versions.

[10 ] Lit. travelled.

[1 ] Lit. from.

[2 ] Strictly used of severe chronic disease.

[3 ]cf. § 12, 13, and note to § 8, 17.

[4 ] The word used at § 12, 35.

[5 ] Or, revived, i.e., made to live.

[6 ] Lit. on the border of.

[7 ] Or, for the sake of.

[8] Sic.

[9 ] Lit. this.

[10 ] Represents a mistaken vocalisation of the Peshitta.

[11 ] Lit. equity; see above, § 3, 53, note.

[1 ] i.e., therefore (see note, § 9, 21).

[3 ] Or, eaten.

[4 ] Or, drunk.

[5 ] Lit. speech.

[6 ] Or, did.

[7 ] Or, was to.

[8 ] Or, him.

[9 ]cf. Peshitta.

[10 ] i.e., were holding.

[11 ] Or, custom, tradition; and so wherever the word occurs.

[12] Sic.

[1 ] The printed Arabic text has he receiveth and they, resulting from a misplacement of diacritical points by an Arabic copyist.

[2 ] Here begins verse 9 in Greek.

[3 ] The Syriac word for injure also means reject, deny.

[4] Sic.

[5 ] The Arabic word is here used with a Syriac meaning.

[6 ] This clause in the Peshitta is not very clear, and the Arabic version fails to get from it the meaning of the Greek.

[7 ] Or, From within, from.

[8 ] Or, about him.

[9 ] Or, the devi.

[1 ] Lit. six hours (cf. Syr.).

[2 ] For the form cf. below, § 34, 40.

[3 ] Or, was speaking.

[4 ] But see note to § 7, 38.

[5 ] The text is uncertain.

[1 ] Or, come beforehand.

[2 ] So in the Arabic, contrary to the usual practice of this writer (cf. § 6, 19).

[3 ] Lit. to cleanse.

[4 ] This phrase does not occur in the Syriac versions (Cur. wanting), but is obviously a Syriac construction.

[5 ] Or, baptism. The phrase almost exactly reproduces the Syriac versions.

[6 ] Or, learned.

[7 ] Vat. MS. has he.

[1 ] Borg. MS. reads his person.

[2 ] Lit. that, or, Verily.

[3 ] So Ciasca’s Arabic text. Borg. MS. has If I, and instead of and so, etc., simply a witness which is not true, etc.; but its text of the next sentence is quite corrupt.

[4 ] Or, be saved.

[5 ] Or, that (man).

[6 ] Were it not also in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary (Brit. Mus. text) we should assume now to be a corruption of an original Arabic reading, for a season (cf. Syr.).

[7 ] This word (often used by our translator) means in Syriac (transposed) believe, think, hope (cf. § 8, 8, note).

[1 ] Arabic Magadu, as in Peshitta.

[2 ]cf. § 11, 32, note.

[3 ] The change of a single letter in the Arabic would turn not even into except; but Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary (Brit. Mus. text) also has not even.

[4 ] Lit. What. See note to § 7, 38.

[5 ] Or, ye took.

[6 ] Or, concerning.

[7 ] Lit. one, probably representing Syriac idiom (cf. Sinaitic?).

[8 ] The Peshitta also omits on him.

[9 ] An intransitive word.

[10 ] Or, his disciples being alone. There is no such clause in the Syriac versions (Pesh., Sin.).

[11 ] The Arabic, which reappears in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary (Brit. Mus. text), and seems to represent the consonantal text of the Peshitta, is awkward. § 23, 34 (Arabic), shows, however, that the rendering given in the textis the meaning intended by the translator.

[1 ] Same Arabic word in both places. See note to § 5, 11.

[2 ] The word is freely used in this work in the post-classical sense of about to.

[3 ] The Arabic might perhaps be construed and to speak, depending on began in § 23, 40; but the clause agrees with the Sinaitic of Mark, as does the following.

[4 ] Or, lose.

[5 ] Or, self; or, soul.

[6 ] See § 23, 40, note.

[7 ] i.e., already come.

[8 ] Or, become white. In the Pesh. the verb is transitive. In Sin. the clause is omitted.

[1 ] This rendering assumes that the diacritical point is due to a clerical error. The text as printed can hardly be translated without forcing.

[2 ] This Arabic word repeatedly represents a Syriac ran (cf. § 53, 11). A different word is so used in § 26, 21.

[3 ] The Syriac word used in the Peshitta is here translated just as it was translated in § 1, 79 (see note); but the Greek shows that in the present passage the Syriac word means go about (cf. Cur.).

[4 ] Lit. The son-of-the-roof, a Syriac phrase meaning a demon of lunacy.

[5 ] A word used in Arabic of the devil producing insanity; but here it reproduces the Peshitta.

[6 ] Lit. becometh light; but a comparison with the Peshitta suggests that we should change one diacritical point and read withereth, as in Ibn-at-Ṭayyib’s Commentary. An equally easy emendation would be wasteth.

[7 ] In Syriac, but not in Arabic, the word means deaf or dumb, according to the context.

[8 ] Ciasca’s Arabic follows Vat. MS. in inserting a that (pronoun) after thee.

[9 ] Doubtless alternative renderings of the same Syriac word (demon).

[10 ] Lit. between themselves and him.

[11 ] Or, about him.

[1 ] Borg. MS. omits among them.

[2 ] Lit. one (Syriac idiom).

[3 ] In the present work this word frequently means synagogue.

[4 ] Lit. millstone of an ass.

[5 ] i.e., experiences that test one; or, seductions. The word is variously used.

[6 ] Or, is kindled.

[7 ] See note to § 25, 17.

[1 ] So the Arabic; but the Syriac versions follow the Greek, and consent is doubtless a (very easy, and, in view of the succeeding context, natural) clerical error for an original Arabic charge.

[2 ] Or, leaveth.

[3 ] Lit. blame, a mistranslation (found also in the Brit. Mus. text of Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary) of the Syriac word, which is ambiguous (cf. even the Greek). For a somewhat similar case see § 50, 11, note.

[4 ] Lit. wombs.

[5 ] Strictly, preferreth, but used also as in the text.

[1 ] This word is regularly used throughout this work in this sense.

[2 ] See above, § 24, 26, note.

[3 ] Did not Ibu-at-Ṭayyib’s Commentary (Brit. Mus. text) also read breast, we might assume it to be a clerical error for a very similar (less common) word (same as the Syriac) for neck.

[4 ] A different word.

[5 ]cf. Peshitta.

[6 ] One word.

[7 ] Vat. MS. (followed by Ciasca’s text) has and if I beg, by a common confusion of grammatical forms.

[8 ] Or (otherwise vocalised), farks, a measure variously estimated.

[9 ]cf. Peshitta.

[10 ] Lit. steward of sin.

[11 ] Lit. injustice.

[12 ] Or, instrusted with.

[13 ] Or, true (wealth); but cf. Syriac.

[1 ] Lit. badras, an amount variously estimated.

[2 ] Lit. dinars.

[3 ] The interrogative particle is lacking in the Arabic.

[4 ] Or, folly.

[5 ] A very close reproduction of the Syriac.

[6 ] Or, for.

[7 ] This word usually means synagogue in this work.

[8 ] Or, heathen.

[9 ] Or, to ask everything, it shall.

[10 ] So Vat. MS., following the Syriac versions; Borg. MS. has only one seven.

[11 ] Lit. beforehand; and so often.

[12 ] Or, repeating a letter, See that ye despise not.

[13 ] Borg. MS. omits now.

[14 ] See note, § 10, 13.

[1 ] Lit. great (man).

[2 ] Lit. calumniator.

[3 ]cf. Syriac versions.

[4 ] On margin of Vat. MS., in another hand: “This is the beginning of the second part of Diatessaron, which means The Four.” See p. 467 of Ciasca’s Essay, mentioned above (Introduction, 5).

[5 ] Or, the scripture.

[6 ] This word ordinarily means knowledge, but is used in this work in the sense of doctrine. The commoner form occurs perhaps only in § 50, 2.

[7 ]cf. § 14, 12.

[1 ] Or, will be.

[2 ] From Matthew.

[3 ] From Luke.

[4 ] The scribe who wrote the Vat. MS. wrote first God, the one, and then reversed the order by writing the Coptic letters for B and A over the words. (See above, Introduction, 5.)

[5 ] Different words.

[6 ] The same word as in Mk. 10, 19a.

[7 ] From Mark.

[8 ]cf. note, § 1, 14. Borg. MS. omits being agitated.

[1 ] Lit. meet with; or, be recompensed with.

[2 ] The Arabic words are not so strong.

[3 ] Or, so that.

[4 ] Or, and.

[5 ] The Syriac and Arabic versions here agree with the Greek. For a plausible suggestion as to the origin of the strange reading in the text, see Harris, The Diatessaron of Tatian, p. 21, who cites a parallel from Aphraates.

[6 ] This may be simply a corruption of the Peshitta.

[7 ] Or, Surely. The word is omitted by Borg. MS.

[8 ] i.e., probably the eleventh hour (cf. § 21, 10).

[1 ] Lit. my thing.

[2 ] Lit. at thy rising and taking.

[3 ] Practically synonymous words.

[4 ] Borg. MS., is like.

[5 ] Used specially of a marriage feast.

[6 ] Lit. bread, the Syriac word for which (not that in the versions) means also feast.

[7 ] Or, omit.

[1 ] Or, that my house may be.

[2 ] Or, saved thee.

[3 ] Lit. between himself and them.

[4 ] i.e., Gentiles.

[5 ] An obscure expression; perhaps it was originally a repetition of the preceding clause. It might be emended into point at him (the finger of scorn).

[6 ] Lit. of course the two of them, and so all through the conversation.

[1 ] Lit. advanced.

[2 ] Lit. find, like the Syriac.

[3 ] This rendering requires the omission of the diacritical point over the middle radical. The text as printed means perish.

[4 ]cf. the extract from Isho’dad (Harris, Fragments, p. 19).

[5 ] A diacritical point must be restored to the second letter of this word. As it stands it gives no sense.

[6 ] Lit. the.

[8 ]cf. Mt. 20, 33, and Lk. 18, 41, both in Curetonian.

[9 ] Lit. saw.

[10 ] Or, near.

[1 ] Doubtless a misinterpretation of the Syriac.

[2 ] Or, if.

[3 ] Lit. house of the offering of God, as in the MS. described by Gildemeister (at Lk. 21, 4); but it is simply a reproduction of the phrase used in the Peshitta at Lk. 21, 3. The parallel passages are a good deal fused together.

[4 ] Lit. between him and himself.

[1 ] Or, guins.

[2 ] Lit. one (Syriac).

[3 ] Lit. and it.

[4 ] Or the teacher of.

[5 ] The Arabic particle means in order that. Perhaps it is a clerical error for so that: or it may be meant to represent the Syriac.

[6 ] The translator has followed too closely the order of words in his Syriac original, which agrees with the Text. Rec.

[1 ] Syr.

[2 ] The Syriac word.

[3 ] Lit. Increase us in.

[4 ] Or, But.

[5 ] Verse 26 begins here in the Greek.

[6 ] From Mark.

[7 ]cf. Syriac.

[8 ] The difference between singular and plural is very slight in Arabic.

[1 ] Lit. property.

[2 ] A word used specially of wounding the head.

[3 ]cf. Syriac versions.

[4 ] Vat. MS. omits the power. We should then translate (with Pesh. and Sin.) unto judgement.

[5 ] See note, § 3, 53.

[6 ] Possibly this is the meaning of the Arabic phrase, which occurs also in Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary (Brit. Mus. text).

[7 ]cf. the Syriac versions.

[8 ]cf. the Syriac versions.

[9 ] Or, shall.

[1 ] Or, shall.

[2 ] Borg. MS., all of them instead of but they.

[3 ] Or, Moreover, regarding.

[5 ] This simply represents first in Syriac.

[6 ] Vat. MS. has a corruption of Excellent! Rabbi, better preserved by Borg. MS., which, however, adds our translator’s ordinary rendering of Rabbi—my Master. This explanation is confirmed by Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary. Ciasca’s emended text cannot be right.

[7 ] The diacritical point over the third radical must be removed.

[8 ]cf. Pesbitta.

[9 ] Ciasca’s Arabic text (apparently following Borg. MS.) has till he before came. This is unsupported by any of the three Syriac texts, although they differ from one another. Perhaps till and came should be transposed. The translation would then be as given in the text above; but this rendering may also be obtained according to § 54, 1, note.

[10 ] The Syriac word used means both wounds and strokes.

[11 ] The Arabic word is a favourite of the translator’s, and may therefore be original. One cannot help thinking, however, that it is a clerical error for mounted (cf. Cur. and Sin.).

[12 ] In Syriac could and found are represented by the same word. The Arabic translator has chosen the wrong one.

[13 ] See note, § 11, 11.

[1 ] See note above, on § 34, 46.

[2 ] i.e., Gentiles.

[1 ] Lit. speaketh, according to Arabic idiom.

[2 ] Borg. MS. omits with you.

[3 ] Borg. MS. has an adulteress, mistaking the less common Arabic word for a clerical error.

[4 ] Different words are used in the Arabic; so in the Greek, but not in the Peshitta. Sin. and Cur. are wanting.

[5 ] Lit. backbiter.

[6 ] This is probably simply a clerical error for the ordinary reading, why have ye not believed me? The Arabic words why and not having the same consonants, one of them was purposely or accidentally omitted by a copyist.

[7 ]cf. Peshitta. The Sinaitic omits our.

[8 ] The Vat. MS. has took him, probably omitting stones, though Ciasca does not say so. Take is probably a copyist’s error (change in diacritical points) for took.

[1 ] A different word in Arabic from that used in verses 1 and 6.

[2 ] The Vat. MS. has that we may see the works of God in him. By the addition of a diacritical point this would give the same sense as in the text above, and more grammatically.

[3 ] The Arabic word properly means baptism. The Syriac has both meanings.

[4 ] Lit. Shil[Editor: illegible character]ha as in Syriac.

[5 ] Lit. saw.

[6 ] An easy clerical error for Some.

[7 ] Lit. them, whether this be.

[8 ] Or, why (cf. note, § 7, 38).

[9 ]Disciples is probably simply a misprint in Ciasca’s text.

[1 ] Or, is permanent.

[2 ] Or, to him.

[3 ] A different word (lit. rams) from that used in the other verses; so in Peshitta (cf. Sin., which, however, differs somewhat); cf. also § 54, 40 f., note.

[4 ] Or, best thing. Vat. MS. omits from but I came.

[5 ] Or, his life.

[6 ]cf. note to § 37, 6.

[7 ] Or, to snatch . . . and scatter.

[8 ] Or, my life.

[9 ] Lit. epilepsy.

[10 ]cf. § 37, 6.

[11 ] Or, hand; but probably dual (cf. Syr.).

[12 ] So Peshitta; but Sin. the. Borg. MS. omits the hand of.

[13 ] Lit. which deed.

[1 ]cf. Peshitta.

[2 ] This in could more easily arise as a clerical error (repetition) in the Syriac text.

[3 ] So Ciasca’s text, following Vat. MS. But this is probably a clerical error for the reading of Borg. MS., which omits ye.

[4 ]cf. Peshitta.

[5 ] The Syriac word for Twin.

[6 ] Arabic mil, a somewhat indefinite distance.

[1 ] This is the Syriac word (cf. the versions, and below, § 44, 44; see also Ibn-at-Ṭayyib’s Commentary, ad loc).

[2 ] So in Syriac versions.

[3 ] Borg. MS. omits some time: he hath been.

[4 ] So both MSS.; but the Vat. MS. had originally a reading equivalent to the text above with of omitted.

[5 ] The Arabic word as printed (following Vat. MS.) means a place for monks to live in, but we should certainly restore a diacritical point over the last letter, and thus obtain another Syriac loan-word (that used here in the Peshitta), meaning town. See also Ibn-at-Ṭayyib’s Commentary, ad loc.

[6 ] The present Arabic reading in going could pretty easily arise from that assumed in the translation above.

[7 ] This and the following verb are singular in the printed Arabic (against the versions), although Ciasca renders them plural. A copyist using a carelessly written Arabic exemplar might conceivably overlook the plural terminations. Besides, they are often omitted in Syriac MSS.

[8 ]cf. note, § 1, 40.

[9 ] Lit. his body.

[1 ]cf. the Greek phrase.

[2 ] Lit. he made (cf. first note to § 38, 43, last sentence).

[3 ] Lit. fell (cf. § 25, 18).

[4 ] Or, spake angrily to.

[5 ] Lit. cast, as in Greek.

[6] Sic.

[7 ] Dual in Arabic.

[8 ] The Syriac versions have the.

[10 ] Or, and, Blessed.

[11 ] The Arabic has to, but it probably represents the Syriac text with the meaning given above.

[1 ] Lit. the heart (or, pith) of the palm. The word pith, which occurs also in the Æthiopic version (Ezek. 27, 25; Jubilees, ch. 16) and in Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s exposition, though not in the Brit. Mus. gospel text, is perhaps used here of the inner branches from its resemblance to the post-biblical Hebrew word employed in accounts of the Feast of Tabernacles.

[2 ] Lit. are found, a rendering due to the Syriac.

[3 ] So Ciasca’s text, following Vat. MS. The other MS. has drag, which by restoring a diacritical point to the third radical would give destroy, the reading of the Syriac versions. Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary has hide.

[4 ] Or, soul; or, self.

[1 ] i.e., used to come.

[2 ] Or, touch.

[3 ] The Syriac word means on the pretext of as well as because of (cf. § 50, 11, note).

[4 ] This word is not spelled in the ordinary way. Doubtless we should supply two diacritical points and read, with the Syriac versions, My master.

[5 ]cf. Peshitta.

[6 ] Syriac, same as in § 40, 35; Arabic different.

[7 ] Adopting the reading of Borg. MS. (cf. next verse).

[8 ] Perhaps this reading is due to the easy confusion of d and r in Syriac; but it might also conceivably be a corruption of the Arabic word in the next clause. It occurs also in the text of Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary.

[9 ] Doubtless the Arabic word should be read as a monosyllable, as in Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary.

[10 ] See § 10, 13.

[11 ] The Arabic word as printed gives no suitable sense. Either the last radical has been omitted, or the last two radicals have exchanged places.

[1 ] Lit. are seen.

[2 ] Or, touch.

[3 ] Lit. boundary or limit.

[4 ]cf. § 8, 34.

[5 ] Or, earth.

[6 ] Or, sanctuary.

[7 ] See § 1, 49, note.

[8 ] Lit. become.

[9 ] The text as it stands ought to mean I am a light. I am come; but it is a word-for-word reproduction of the Peshitta, and should therefore doubtless be rendered as above.

[10 ] Or, to save the world (cf. § 1, 78, note).

[11 ] See § 20, 28, note.

[12 ] Not the same word.

[13 ] So Ciasca, following Vat. MS. The true reading, however, is probably that underlying the Borg. MS. If we restore diacritical points to the radical letters we get deceiving (cf. § 41, 31), an alternative meaning for the word laying wait for, used in the Peshitta. The Arabic follows the Peshitta very closely in this and the following verse.

[1 ] Or, and shewed.

[3 ] Lit. before two days would be (cf. Sin. and above, § 39, 1, note).

[4 ]cf. § 41, 16, note.

[5 ] Or, that ye be, if we suppose the present text to have resulted from the loss of the second of two alifs.

[6 ] Or, omit that.

[7 ] The Arabic text lacks a letter.

[8 ] Borg. MS. reads you the fruits of wisdom.

[9 ] See § 25, 17, note.

[10 ] Or, possess.

[11 ] So the Arabic text; but it doubtless simply represents the Syriac, which here agrees with the Greek.

[1 ] So the Arabic text; but it doubtless simply represents the Syriac, which here agrees with the Greek.

[2 ] So Vat. MS., following the Peshitta. Ciasca follows Borg. MS., which by a change of diacritical points has the hardly grammatical reading, see that it is the desolation, the unclean thing spoken of. Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary supports Vat. MS.

[3 ] This word has a Syriac meaning given to it. In Arabic it means war.

[4 ]cf. § 16, 2.

[5 ] Same Arabic (and Syriac) word as in § 41, 50.

[6 ] So the Borg. MS. The Vat. MS., followed by Ciasca, has grief.

[7 ] Lit. the end of heaven unto its end.

[8 ] Or, deliverance.

[9 ]cf. Peshitta, which text the translator seems to have misread.

[10 ]cf. Peshitta.

[1 ]cf. § 9, 21.

[2 ] Or, appeareth.

[3 ]cf. § 14, 24, note.

[5 ] i.e., the steward.

[6 ] Borg. MS. has trusted and faithful. Doubtless we should supply diacritical points to the reading of Vat. MS., and translate trusted and wise. Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary, however, has both and wise and the word translated with control, used in a different sense.

[7 ] See § 10, 17, and § 4, 24, note.

[1 ]cf. § 27, 2, note.

[2 ] A Persian word. The Vat. MS. omits it.

[3 ] Lit. table (cf. Peshitta).

[4 ]cf. Peshitta (and Greek).

[5 ] Or, and setteth: but the Peshitta confirms the rendering given above.

[6 ]cf. § 17, 17, note.

[7 ] Perfect tenses, as in Peshitta.

[1 ] Borg. MS., the Lord Jesus.

[2 ] Probably the letter that stands for and should be repeated, and the phrase rendered and appointed.

[3 ] So Vat. MS. (following Peshitta) and Ibn-at-Ṭayyib’s Commentary. Borg. MS., followed by Ciasca, has dirhams of money.

[4 ] Lit. became responsible unto. Syriac versions as in text above (cf. § 44, 33).

[5 ] The Arabic (lit. a stumbling or a cause of stumbling) doubtless represents the Syriac.

[6 ] The Arabic word means swimmeth. The Syriac versions have is bathed, which Borg. MS. misreads bathed, and Vat. MS. (followed by Ciasca) corrupts into batheth, rendering it swimmeth.

[7 ] Or, This my saying.

[1 ]cf. § 44, 9, note.

[2 ] Vat. MS. has the word day on the margin, added by a late hand.

[3 ] The misprint in the Arabic text has been overlooked in the list of Corrigenda.

[4 ] Or, kill.

[5 ] The Syriac word is retained. In Arabic it properly means become strong or proud (cf. § 38, 17).

[6 ] The Syriac versions have reclining.

[7 ] Lit. fell.

[8 ] A simple change of diacritical points would give the reading of the Greek and of the Syriac versions.

[1 ] Peshitta adds it. The reading of the Sinaitic is doubtful.

[2 ] Past tense in Syriac versions.

[3 ] We may translate, with the Syriac versions, that thy faith fail not, only if we assign a somewhat Syriac meaning to the verb, and assume either an error in diacritical points (t for y) or an unusual (Syriac) gender for faith.

[4 ]cf. Syriac versions.

[5 ] The Arabic word is not unlike the word for stumble, and Borg. MS. omits me.

[6 ] Vat. MS. omits this night.

[7 ] Or, went on saying.

[8 ] Lit. end in. Or, if I come to (the point of).

[9 ] The diacritical points in both Vat. (followed by Ciasca) and Borg. MSS. appear to demand a rendering inquire for be troubled. In Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s comments (not the text), however (with other points), we have the meaning wail (root nḥb). Every Syriac version uses a different word.

[10 ] Or, ranks.

[11 ] Or, should tell.

[12 ] Probably the Arabic represents a Syriac For I.

[13 ] Different words.

[14 ]cf. Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary(f. 352a) and order of words in Peshitta (not Sin.).

[15 ] Lit. have known.

[16 ] Different forms, as in Peshitta.

[17 ] More exactly, hast thou not come to know.

[18 ] The Borg. MS. has me clearly (cf. Peshitta). The Vat. MS. is ambiguous.

[19 ] Probably a misreading of the Peshitta (not Sin. or Cur.), since the next clause also agrees with it.

[1 ] Lit. the (cf. Syriac versions).

[2 ] This word is quite unlike that used in § 45, 29.

[3 ] The Syriac form of the introductory particle is wrongly used, for in Arabic it has interrogative force.

[4 ] The first letter of the Arabic word has lost its diacritical point.

[5 ] A possible rendering of the Syriac he was reckoned.

[6 ] The verbs may be active or passive, but are singular (cf. § 38, 43, note).

[7 ] Two words from the same root.

[1 ] Different words.

[2 ] Or, shall and will, respectively.

[3 ] Or, have commanded.

[4 ]cf. § 8, 34, note.

[5 ] The Arabic text (Vat.) is grammatically inaccurate, and the Borg. MS. has know not.

[6 ] Lit. sway (as one does in dozing).

[7 ] Or, the, as in Borg. MS.

[9 ] Or, best.

[10 ] Lit. that (cf. Peshitta).

[11 ] Or perhaps receive (them). Possibly a Syriac d has been read r. But Ibn-at-Tayyib in the text of his Commentary (f. 357a) has a word which perhaps might be rendered accommodate yourselves (to them) (same letters, but last two transposed), while his comment (f. 357b) gives ye cannot bear it.

[12 ] Or, And.

[13 ] The Syriac words for remind and lead differ only in the length of a single stroke. Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib (ibid. f. 357b) almost seems to have read illumine you with, although he calls attention to the “Greek” reading.

[14 ] Same tense.

[15 ] Not quite the usual formula, there being here no article.

[16 ] The Arabic might also be rendered be turned, but the Syriac is intransitive.

[1 ] Not quite the usual formula, there being here no article (cf. also § 47, 5).

[2 ] Not the usual word for proverb or parable (cf. Syriac versions).

[3 ] So Vat. MS. and Peshitta. The Borg. MS., followed by Ciasca, has and a time when.

[4 ]cf. Peshitta.

[5 ] Lit. it or him.

[6 ] In the Borg. MS. the sentence begins with that they might, the preceding clause being omitted.

[7 ] The above is perhaps the most natural rendering of the Arabic; but the latter is really only an awkward word-for-word reproduction of the Peshitta, which means know thee, who alone art the God of truth, and him whom thou didst send, (even) Jesus the Messiah.

[8 ] So Ciasca’s text. The Vat. MS. has I, with the Peshitta and probably Sinaitic.

[9 ] So in Sinaitic. The Peshitta omits My.

[10 ] Singular in both Arabic MSS., as in the Peshitta. Ciasca prints the plural form. The Sin. passes directly from name to When.

[1 ] Vat. MS. has as.

[2 ]cf. Peshitta, as pointed in the editions.

[3 ]cf. § 17, 17, note.

[4 ] The Arabic as it stands should mean My Father is righteous; but it is simply the ordinary Syriac reading, and is so rendered above.

[5 ] Or perhaps may.

[6 ] Mt. 26, 36.

[7 ] Vat. MS. has and on.

[8 ] The word rendered plain (cf. Dozy, Supplément, sub voc.), which occurs also in the text of Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib (loc. cit., f. 362b), properly means lake. The word in the Jerusalem Lectionary means valley as well as stream. For the whole clause cf. the text of Jo. 18, in Die vier Evangelien, arabisch, aus der Wiener Handschrift, edited by P. de Lagarde, 1864.

[9 ]cf. Sinaitic Syriac and Lk. 22, 39.

[10 ] Lit. fell on his knees.

[11 ] Lit. let this hour pass. The Borg. MS. omits him.

[12 ] Lit. diseased. The Arabic word is rare in the sense required by the context (cf. Pesh.).

[13 ] This reading would perhaps more easily arise out of the Sinaitic than out of the Peshitta.

[14 ]cf. Peshitta. Or, And although he was afraid.

[15 ] The Peshitta (hardly Cur.) is capable of this interpretation.

[16 ]cf. Syr., especially Peshitta.

[17 ]cf. § 4, 20, note.

[18 ] Jo. 18, 3.

[19 ]cf. Jo. 18, 3 (Jerusalem Lectionary). In Syriac Romans means soldiers. The Arabic footsoldiers might be man (singular).

[20 ]cf. Syriac versions. Obviously we must supply a diacritical point over the last radical, or read the middle one as dhal.

[21 ] Lit. him to—. Borg. MS. probably means bear him away.

[1 ]With is doubtless an accidental repetition of by (the same Arabic particle) inthe next clause.

[2 ] The introductory interrogative particle may represent an original Or.

[3 ] Vat. MS. omits than, and has more only in the margin by another hand.

[4 ] The phrase is awkward. The rendering is different in the text (f. 292a; cf. Lagarde, Die vier Evv.), and yet again in the comment (f. 293a) of Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary.

[5 ]cf. § 11, 11.

[6 ] Lit. one.

[7 ]cf. § 6, 40, note.

[8 ] Peshitta, spake; Sin. omits the verse: Cur. lacking.

[9 ] See § 9, 7, note.

[1 ] Borg. MS. has the evil.

[2 ] This is an alternative meaning of the Syriac word affirmed, used in the Peshitta.

[3 ]cf. Sinaitic (Curetonian wanting). Vat. MS., which Ciasca follows, adds him or it.

[4 ] Borg. MS., by adding diacritical points, gets asserted.

[5 ] Syriac order, but not in agreement with the versions.

[6 ] Vat. MS. has anything, when these.

[7 ] The word usually means synagogue in this work.

[8 ] The foreign word used in the Peshitta is preserved. The Sinaitic uses a Syriac word meaning garment.

[9 ] See § 9, 7, note.

[10 ] See § 7, 17, note.

[11 ]cf. Lk. 23, 1a.

[12 ]cf. Mt. 27,2; Mk. 15, 1.

[13 ] Arabic, diwān.

[14 ] Lit. plea.

[1 ] See § 4, 24, note.

[2 ] The Syriac word.

[3 ] Or, led astray (cf. § 25, 17, note).

[4 ]cf. Syriac versions.

[5 ] Same word as in § 10, 16 (see note there).

[6 ] Lit. and there was.

[7 ] The Arabic word may also, like the Syriac, mean thing, but hardly, as that does here, fault or crime. The Vat. MS., pointing differently, reads thing. The same confusion occurs at § 40, 35 (cf. a converse case in § 25, 40).

[8 ] So Ciasca’s text, following the Borg. MS. The Vat. MS. has plotted, which is nearer the Syriac accuse.

[9 ] See § 3, 12, note.

[10 ] Ciasca’s text, following the Vat. MS., has disorder. Borg. MS. has division (cf. heresies, Curetonian of § 50, 37), which by addition of a diacritical point gives sedition; cf. § 50, 37 (Ciasca, following Vat. MS.), and Peshitta (both places).

[1 ] Our translator has retained the Syriac word, which in this context means fault (see § 50, 11, note).

[2 ] The word used in Vat. MS. means a repeated charge or attach. That in Borg. MS. is probably used in the post-classical sense of importuning him. Either word might be written by a copyist for the other. The same double reading probably occurs again at § 53, 55.

[3 ]cf. Syriac versions.

[4 ] This may be a mere clerical error (very natural in Arabic) for scoffed at, the reading of the Syriac versions. This being so, it is worthy of remark that the reading is apparently common to the two MSS. The Syriac words are, however, also somewhat similar. The Jerusalem Lectionary has a word agreeing with the text above.

[5 ] Lit. Peace.

[6 ] This reading may be a corruption of a very literal rendering of the Peshitta.

[7 ]cf. § 50, 11.

[8 ]cf. § 11, 11, note.

[9 ] See § 50, 35, note.

[10 ] Borg. MS., Why speakest; a reading that might be a corruption of the Peshitta.

[11 ] Lit. even one (Pesh.).

[12 ] Lit. six hours.

[13 ] Or, that.

[1 ]cf. Peshitta. Or, Ye know (cf. Sinaitic).

[2 ] Borg. MS. omits and he went away.

[3 ] Lit. strangled.

[4 ]cf. § 32, 15, note.

[5 ] Or, at that (time).

[6 ] Lit. being burned. The text is probably corrupt.

[7 ] Lit. wood (cf. Syr. and Greek).

[8 ] Or, others, malefactors.

[9 ] Mt. 27, 37.

[10 ] A different word from that in the preceding verse: in each case, the word used in the Peshitta (Cur. and Sin. lacking).

[11 ] The Syriac words, retained in Ibn-aṭ-Tayyib’s Commentary (f. 366a), seem to have been transposed. Vat. MS. omits he, probably meaning but that he said.

[12 ] In a carelessly written Arabic MS. there is almost no difference between hath been written and I have written, as it is in Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib (loc. cit., f. 366a).

[1 ]cf. § 7, 17, note. Borg. MS. has jesting at.

[2 ] The Arabic text has deriding (cf. § 51, 37). Either with is accidentally omitted, or, more probably, we should correct the speiling to shaking (cf. Syriac versions).

[3 ] Verse 37 or Mt.

[4 ] Borg. MS. has boys (an easy clerical error).

[5 ]Our deed might be read we have done, and perhaps our translator’s style would justify our writing as for to.

[6 ] Borg. MS. has Verily, verily.

[7 ] A single word in Arabic.

[8 ] Vat. MS. has and Mary.

[9 ] Lit. six hours and nine hours respectively.

[10 ] In Vat. MS. the second word is like the first. The syllable Ya doubtless is the Arabic interjection Of.

[11 ] The Borg. MS. omits from which to me.

[12 ] Borg. MS. omits when they, and has and said.

[13 ]cf. § 12, 13, note.

[14 ] Or, Let us.

[15 ] Lit. lay down.

[16 ]cf. Syriac versions and Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Commentary. Vat. MS. omits the face of.

[17 ] This sentence is a good example of word-for-word translation of the Peshitta.

[1 ] The word is probably plural.

[2 ] Lit. ripped.

[3 ] Mt. 27, 57.

[4 ] Borg. MS. omits.

[5 ] Lk. 23, 51b.

[6 ] Syriac versions.

[7 ] Lit. the.

[8 ] The preparation used in embalming.

[9 ] Mk. 15, 46. Lit. a stone.

[10 ] On the plural, which is to be found also in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s Commentary, see § 38, 43, note (end). The word chosen might be simply a clerical error for an original Arabic rolled.

[11 ] Lit. cast (cf. Sinaitic).

[12 ] Dual. The clause (from came) is found verbatim in Sin. and Cur. at Lk. 23, 55. Here, after the word Luke of the reference, at the end of leaf 117 of Vat. MS., is a note by a later hand: “Here a leaf is wanting.” This second and last lacuna extends from § 52, 37, to § 53, 4.

[13 ] Mt. 27, 61b.

[14 ]cf. Sinaitic.

[15 ] The two Arabic words are practically synonymous (cf. Lk. 23, 56, Pcsh.).

[16 ] Lk. 23, 56.

[17 ] The MS. omits the tomb.

[18 ] Lit. three days.

[19 ] The word might be taken as a collective noun, singular. But cf. Peshitta and § 52, 51.

[20 ]cf. Peshitta. The Arabic word is variously explained.

[1 ] The diacritical points of the first letter must be corrected.

[2 ] The Borg MS. indicates the beginning of the sections, not by titles, but by “vittas ampliusculas auroque oblinitas” (Ciasca, Introduction). Ciasca indicates in the Corrigenda, opposite p. 210 of the Arabic text, where this section should begin.

[3 ] Possibly the translator’s style would warrant the translation as.

[4 ] Lit. hastened and preceded.

[5 ] Probably an Arabic copyist’s emendation (addition of alif) for stood.

[6 ]cf. § 10, 16.

[7 ]cf. § 12, 13.

[1 ] The Vat. MS. has a form that is distinctively plural. The Borg. MS. uses, with a plural adjective, the form found in § 52, 43. In the next verse the relation of the MSS. is reversed.

[2 ] The word first is less correctly spelled in Borg. MS.

[3 ] The Vat. MS. omits women and to inform his disciples.

[4 ]Inform is dual and masc. in the MS., while the other verbs and pronouns are plural and feminine.

[5 ] Lit. mils.

[6 ] Borg. MS., to judgement and.

[7 ] Borg. MS. omits all.

[8 ] Masc. plural.

[9 ]cf. § 50, 36, note.

[10 ] Vat. MS. omits this clause.

[1 ] The Arabic word after together looks as if it might be due to a misreading of the Syriac, but it is probably a usage cited by Doxy. Supplément, etc., i., 247.

[2 ] Lit. on (cf. Pesh.).

[3 ] Borg. MS. has sides.

[4 ] Borg. MS. omits and of honey.

[5 ] Vat. MS., for.

[6 ] Borg. MS. omits it is necessary.

[7 ]cf. Peshitta.

[8 ] Apparently the Vat. MS. means to translate the word. The Borg. MS. retains Tāmā, as both MSS. did in § 37, 61.

[9 ] So Peshitta. Vat. MS. has a form that might possibly be a corruption of take.

[10 ] Or, were taken.

[1 ] Vat. MS. adds unto Jesus.

[2 ] Lit. rams.

[3 ] Lit. ewes. For the three words cf. Peshitta and Sinaitic.

[4 ]cf. § 45, 3, note.

[5 ] Lit. of him.

[6 ] Vat. MS. omits to the mountain.

[7 ] This seems to be the meaning of the text of the MSS. Ciasca conjecturally emends it by printing in his Arabic text because they after hearts; but this is of no use unless one also ignores the and before believed.

[8 ] Or, make disciples of.

[9 ] Not the usual word, although that is used in the Peshitta.

[1 ] The Arabic translator renders it the poison of death.

[2 ]cf. Peshitta.

[3 ] In the Borg. MS. the text ends on folio 353a. On folios 354a-355a are found the genealogies, with the title, Book of the Generation of Jesus, that of Luke following that of Matthew without any break. Ciasca has told us nothing of the nature of the text. The Subscription follows on folio 355b.

[1 ] See note 1 to Introductory Note in Borg. MS. (above, p. 42).

[2 ] MS., by misplacing the diacritical signs, has Ghobasi.

[3 ] The MS. has Moṭṭayyib; but Ciasca, in an additional note inserted after the volume was printed, gives the correct form.

[4 ] The Arabic text of this Subscription is given by Ciasca in his essay, De Tatiani Diatessaron arabica Versione, in I. B. Pitra’s Analecta Sacra, tom. iv., p. 466.

[1 ] Cf.

“. . . the island valley of Avilion;Where falls not rain or hail or any snow,Nor ever wind blows loudly; but it liesDeep-meadowed, happy, fair with orchard lawnsAnd bowery hollows crowned with summer seas.”Tennyson,Passing of Arthur.

[1 ] False prophets. Cf. Matt. vii. 15; xxiv. 5, 11. Cf. Pastor of Hermas, Mand. xi.

[2 ] Sons of perdition. Cf. 2 Peter ii. 1-3; iii. 7, 16; 2 Thess. ii. 3, and Ep. of Lyons and Vienne. Euseb. H. E. v. 1.

[3 ] Purify their souls. Cf. 2 Peter i. 18. Sons of lawlessness. Cf. Pastor Herm. Vis. iii. 6.

[4 ] Mountain. Cf. 2 Peter i. 18.

[5 ] The righteons. Cf. 2 Peter i. 1; iii. 19. What manner of. Cf. 2 Peter iii. 11. Encourage. Cf. Pastor Herm. Vis. iii. 3.

[6 ] Not able to look. Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 7 ff.

[7 ] Eye of man, etc. Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 9.

[8 ] Snow and rose. Cf. Bk. of Enoch cvi. 2.

[9 ] Wreath. Cf. Ep. of Lyons and Vienne, ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 1, 36.

[10 ] Apparently all the disciples are supposed to have had the vision of heaven, but Peter alone that of hell. Unfading. Cf. 1 Peter i. 4.

[11 ] Odour. Cf. Ep. of Lyons and Vienne, l. c., and Passion of S. Perpetua, ch. xiii.

[12 ] High-priests Cf. Didache 13, 3.

[13 ] Squalid. Cf. 2 Peter i. 19. Punishment. Cf. 2 Peter ii. 9. Punishing angels. Cf. Pastor Herm. Sim. vi. 3. Dark. Cf. Jude, vv. 6 and 13.

[14 ] Blasphemers. Cf. 2 Peter ii. 12; Pastor Herm. Sim. viii. 6; ix. 18. Fire. Cf. 2 Peter iii. 7.

[1 ] Mire. Cf. 2 Peter ii. 22. Pervert righteousness. Cf. Pastor Herm. Sim. viii. 6. Cf. Titus i. 14.

[2 ] Cf. Jude 7. Defilement. Cf. 2 Peter ii. 10, 14, 17, 20, and Jude 8. Cf. Pastor Herm. Sim. vi. 5.

[3 ] Darkness. Cf. 2 Peter ii. 17. Worms. Cf. Isaiah lxvi. 24 and Mark ix. 48.

[4 ] Restless worms. Cf. Isaiah lxvi. 24 and Mark ix. 48. Cf. Esdras, Ante-Nicene Lib., vol. xvi., p. 472; Pastor Herm. Sim. ix. 19; viii. 6.

[5 ] Slandered. Cf. 2 Peter ii. 2 and Jude, vv. 8, 10.

[6 ] False witnesses. Cf. Hermas. Mand. viii. 5.

[7 ] The rich. etc. Cf. 2 Peter ii. 14. Cf. Pastor Herm. Vis. iii. 9; Sim. ix. 20; Sim. i. 8, and Mand. viii. 5. Commandment. Cf. 2 Peter ii. 21; iii. 2.

[8 ] Defiled. 2 Peter ii. 10. Cf. Rom. i. 26 ff.; Jude 8.

[9 ] Way of God. 2 Peter ii. 2. Pastor Herm. Vis. iii. 7; viii. 6; ix. 19, 22.

[* ] The part of the quotation between square brackets is assigned by Harnack to Clement himself and not to the Apocalypse.

[1 ] Cf. Esdras, Ante-Nicene Lib., vol. xvi., p. 478.

[1 ] Theodosius the Younger and Cynegius, Consuls, 388 ad

[2 ] The waters (not in Greek version); rivers in Syriac.

[1 ] The earth (not in Greek version, but in Syriac).

[2 ] Cf. Test. of Abraham, Rec. B, iv.

[3 ] Cf. Test. of Abraham, Rec. B, § 4.

[4 ] Cf. Test. of Abraham, Rec. A, § 12.

[1 ] Cf. Ascension of Isaiah ix. 9.

[2 ] And the sun. Not in Greek: Elias in Syriac.

[3 ] (Not in Syriac.)

[4 ] Cf. Rev. of Peter, 15.

[5 ] Cf. Enoch.

[6 ] Cf. Papias. ap. Iren. Haer. v. 33. 3, 4.

[1 ] (In Syriac, but not in Greek version.)

[2 ] The Greek has not the golden ship, the angels or the walls. They are given in the Syriac.

[3 ] Not in the Greek, but given in the Syriac. Cf. Genesis ii. 11 ff.

[1 ] Names not in the Greek. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Moses and all the Prophets in the Syriac.

[2 ] Names not in the Greek or Syriac.

[3 ] Not in Greek, which here has the altar in the city and David. The Syriac is the same as the Latin.

[4 ] Not in the Greek. Cf. Ascension of Isaiah viii. 36.

[1 ] These letters are unintelligible. In the Greek version, the interpretation of Alleluia is given as thebel marematha, which is also unintelligible. In the Syriac the interpretation of Alleluia is correctly given.

[2 ] Not in Greek or Syriac.

[3 ] Not in the Greek or Syriac.

[4 ] The Greek has here thieves and slanderers.

[1 ] Passage probably corrupt.

[2 ] Not in the Greek but in the Syriac.

[3 ] Not in the Greek. The Syriac has simply those who trusted in their riches.

[4 ] Cf. Rev. of Peter, 27.

[5 ] Cf. Rev. of Peter, 31.

[6 ] Cf. Rev. of Peter, 29.

[1 ] Cf. Rev. of Peter, 24. Not in the Greek. The Syriac has darkness the torment of patriarchs, bishops, etc.

[2 ] Cf. Rev. of Peter xxi. 30. Not in Syriac.

[3 ] Cf. Rev. of Peter, 30. Not in the Greek.

[4 ] Not in the Greek.

[5 ] Not in the Greek.

[6 ] Cf. Rev. of Peter, 24.

[7 ] Cf. Rev. of Peter, 32. Not in the Greek.

[8 ] Not in the Greek. Whole section omitted in the Syriac.

[9 ] Cf. Rev. of Peter xxi. 28.

[10 ] Cf. Rev. of Peter, 26.

[11 ] Cf. Rev. of Peter. Fragments 4, 5.

[12 ] Not in the Greek.

[1 ] Not in the Greek.

[2 ] Cf. Rev. of Peter, 27.

[3 ] Not in the Greek.

[4 ] Cf. Esdras, Ante-Nicene Lib., vol. xvi., p. 469.

[5 ]Gabriel in the Greek version.

[1 ] Lot and Job, in the Syriac but not in the Greek.

[2 ] For adproprians read adpropinquans.

[1 ] Elias and Eliseus. Latin and Syriac. The Greek has Enoch and Elijah.

[2 ] The Latin version here breaks off abruptly, as does also the Greek. In the Syriac as translated by the Rev. J. Perkins, D.D. (cf. Journal of Sacred Literature, N. S., vi., 1865, p. 399), the narrative runs as follows: “And often the angels asked that he would give them rain, and he gave not, until I called upon him again; then he gave unto them. But blessed art thou, O Paul, that thy generation, and those thou teachest, are the sons of the kingdom. And know thou, O Paul, that every man who believes through thee hath a great blessing, and a blessing is reserved for him.” Then he departed from me.

And the angel who was with me led me forth, and said unto me: “Lo, unto thee is given this mystery and revelation; as thou pleasest, make it known unto the sons of men.” And I, Paul, returned unto myself, and I knew all that I had seen; and in life I had not rest that I might reveal this mystery, but I wrote it and deposited it under the ground and the foundation of a certain faithful man with whom I used to be, in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia. And when I was released from this life of time and stood before my Lord, thus said He unto me: “Paul, have we shown all these things unto thee, that thou shouldst deposit them under the foundation of a house? Then send, and disclose, concerning this Revelation that men may read it, and turn to the way of truth, that they also may not come to these bitter torments.”

Then follows the story of the discovery of the Revelation at Tarsus in the reign of Theodosius as given at the beginning of the Greek and Latin versions.

[1 ] In this Apocalypse and that of Sedrach which follows, the text is in many places so obviously corrupt that the translator cannot be confident that he has given the correct meaning of the original in all cases.—A. R.

[1 ] Cf. Vision of Paul, 31.

[2 ] Rev. of Peter, 21. Paul, 37.

[1 ] Cf. Paul, 41.

[2 ] Cf. Paul, 31.

[3 ] Cf. Peter, Frag.; Paul, 40; Peter, 27.

[4 ] Cf. Peter, 24.

[5 ] Cf. Peter, 31; Paul, 37.

[6 ] Cf. Peter, Frag. 2.

[1 ] Cf. Peter, 25.

[2 ] Cf. Peter, 22.

[3 ] Cf. Peter, 29.

[4 ] Cf. Lev. x. 12ff; Num. xviii. 7ff.

[5 ] Cf. Peter, 27.

[1 ] Cf. Peter fr. ap. Clem. Alex.

[2 ] Cf. Peter, 31.

[3 ] Cf. Paul, 31.

[4 ] Cf. Peter, 23.

[1 ] Cf. Paul, 41.

[2 ] Cf. Esdras. Ante-Nicene Lib., vol. xvi., p. 473.

[3 ] Cf. Paul, 43.

[4 ] Cf. Esdras, l. e., pp. 469, 470.

[1 ] Cf. Paul, 44; Esdras, l. c., p. 470.

[2 ] Cf. Paul, 44.

[1 ] Cf. Esdras. Ante-Nicene Lib., xvi. 469.

[2 ] Cf. 4 Esdras viii. 15ff.

[3 ] Cf. Esdras, Ante-Nicene Lib., xvi. 471.

[4 ] Cf. Esdras, Ante-Nicene Lib., vol. xvi., p. 469.

[5 ] Undefiled hands. Cf. Esdras, p. 469.

[6 ] Angels. Cf. Esdras, p. 470.

[7 ] Compassion. Cf. Esdras, p. 469.

[1 ] Passage corrupt; the above appears to be the best sense it admits of as it stands.

[2 ] Cf. iv. Esdras v. 23ff.

[3 ] Cf. iv. Esdras iv. 4-11, v. 36.

[4 ] Cf. Esdras, p. 470.

[5 ] Cf. Apoc. of Esdras, in Ante-Nicene Lib., vol. xvi., p. 474, and Testament of Abraham, Rec. A., Chaps. vii. and xvi.

[1 ] Cf. Test of Abraham, Rec.A. §§ xiv., xviii.

[2 ] Rom. ii. 4.

[1 ] Cf. Esdras, p. 476.

[1 ] Literally Commander-in-chief, or Chief-General.

[1 ] Two mss. read, “Of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

[1 ] “Eyes of the fountain of light” is apparently what the text has.

[1 ] So the text; perhaps “prayer” ought to be read.

[1 ] Psalm 142, 4.

[1 ] Text corrupt; “bind” is conjectural.

[1 ] The name is corrupt.

[1 ] According to I, the title is “Clement’s (Epistle) to the Corinthians.” A includes in a Table of Contents of the New Testament after the Apocalypse:

“Clement’s Epistle I.” “Clement’s Epistle II.”

The space for the title for the 1st Epistle is mutilated, and we find only “. . . . Corinthians I.;” the 2d Epistle has no title.

On the authority of Eusebius, Jerome, Georgius, Syncellus, the earlier editions give the titles, “First Epistle of Saint Clement, Bishop of Rome, to the Corinthians, written in name of the Church of Rome,” “Second Epistle of Saint Clement, Bishop of Rome, to the Corinthians.”

[2 ] I. περιστάσεις (critical experiences).

[3 ] Literally “is greatly blasphemed.”

[4 ] Literally, “did not prove your all-virtuous and firm faith.”

[5 ] Eph. v. 21; 1 Pet. v. 5.

[6 ] Acts xx. 35.

[7 ] I. Χρι̑στου̑ (Christ). In the monophysite controversy, the theologians of Alexandria preferred to call the Lord “God” rather than “Christ.”

[8 ] Literally, “ye embraced it in your bowels.”

[9 ] 1 Pet. ii. 17.

[10 ] I. δέους (fear).

[11 ] So in the ms., but many have suspected that the text is here corrupt. Perhaps the best emendation is that which substitutes συναισθήσεως “compassion,” for συνειδήσεως “conscience.”

[1 ] Tit. iii. 1.

[2 ] Prov. vii. 3.

[3 ] Literally, “enlargement.”

[4 ] Deut. xxxii. 15.

[5 ] It seems necessary to refer αὐτοω̑ to God, in opposition to the translation given by Abp. Wake and others.

[6 ] Literally, “Christ;” comp. 2 Cor. i. 21; Eph. iv. 20.

[7 ] Wisd. ii. 24.

[8 ] Gen. iv. 3-8. The writer here, as always, follows the reading of the Septuagint, which in this passage both alters and adds to the Hebrew text. We have given the rendering approved by the best critics; but some prefer to translate, as in our English version. “unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” See, for an ancient explanation of the passage, Irenæus, Adv. Hær., iv. 18, 3.

[9 ] Gen. xxvii. 41, etc.

[10 ] Gen. xxxvii.

[11 ] Ex. ii. 14.

[12 ] Num. xii. 14, 15.

[13 ] Num. xvi. 33.

[14 ] 1 Kings xviii. 8, etc.

[15 ] Literally, “those who have been athletes.”

[16 ] I. ἔριν (strife).

[17 ] I. ἔως θανάτου ἤθλησαν (contended unto death).

[18 ] Literally “good.”

[19 ] I. ἔδειξεν (displayed).

[20 ]Seven imprisonments of St. Paul are not referred to in Scripture.

[21 ] I. ϕυγαδευθείς (having become a fugitive). Archbishop Wake here reads “scourged.” We have followed the most recent critics in filling up the numerous lacunæ in this chapter.

[1 ] I. punctuates ἕλαβε δικαιοσύνην, διδάξας (received righteousness, having taught).

[2 ] Some think Rome, others Spain, and others even Britain, to be here referred to.

[3 ] That is, under Tigellinus and Sabinus, in the last year of the Emperor Nero; but some think Helius and Polycletus referred to; and others, both here and in the preceding sentence, regard the words as denoting simply the witness borne by Peter and Paul to the truth of the gospel before the rulers of the earth.

[4 ] Some suppose these to have been the names of two eminent female martyrs under Nero; others regard the clause as an interpolation.

[5 ] Literally, “have reached to the stedfast course of faith.”

[6 ] Gen. ii. 23.

[7 ] I. κατέσκαψεν (razed to the ground).

[8 ] I. τη̑ς παραδόσεως ἡμω̑ν (of our tradition).

[9 ] I. τῳ̑ πατρὶ αὐτου̑ τῳ̑ θεῳ̑ (to His Father God).

[10 ] I. ἐπήνεγκεν (conferred).

[11 ] I. διέλθωμεν (traverse, trace).

[12 ] Gen. vii.; 1 Pet. iii. 20; 2 Pet. ii. 5.

[13 ] Jonah iii.

[14 ] Ezek. xxxiii. 11.

[15 ] Ezek. xviii. 30.

[16 ] Comp. Isa. i. 18.

[17 ] These words are not found in Scripture, though they are quoted again by Clem. Alex. (Pædag. i. 10) as from Ezekiel.

[18 ] Isa. i. 16-20.

[19 ] Some read ματαιολογίαν, vain talk.

[1 ] Gen. v. 24; Heb. xi. 5. Literally, “and his death was not found.”

[2 ] Isa. xii. 8; 2 Chron. xx. 7; Judith viii. 19; James ii. 23.

[3 ] Gen. xii. 1-3.

[4 ] Gen. xiii. 14-16.

[5 ] Gen. xv. 5, 6; Rom. iv. 3.

[6 ] Gen. xii. 22; Heb. xi. 17.

[7 ] Gen. xix.; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 6-9.

[8 ] So Joseph., Antiq., i. 11, 4; Irenæus, Adv. Hær., iv. 31.

[9 ] Literally, “become a judgment and sign.”

[10 ] Josh. ii.; Heb. xi. 31.

[11 ] Others of the fathers adopt the same allegorical interpretation, e. g., Justin Mar., Dial. c. Tryph., n. 111; Irenæus, Adv. Hær., iv. 20.

[1 ] Jer. ix. 23, 24; 1 Cor. i. 31; 2 Cor. x. 17.

[2 ] Comp. Matt. vi. 12-15, vii. 2; Luke vi. 86-88.

[3 ] Isa. lxvi. 2.

[4 ] I. εἰς αἱρέσεις (sects).

[5 ] Prov. ii. 21, 22.

[6 ] Ps. xxxvii. 35-37. “Remnant” probably refers either to the memory or posterity of the righteous.

[7 ] Isa. xxix. 13; Matt. xv. 8; Mark vii. 6.

[8 ] Ps. lxii. 4.

[9 ] I. ἔψεξαν (blamed).

[10 ] Ps. lxxviii. 36, 37.

[11 ] Ps. xxxi. 18.

[12 ] These words within brackets are not found in the MS., but have been inserted from the Septuagint by most editors.

[13 ] Ps. xii. 3-5.

[1 ] The Latin of Cotelerius, adopted by Hefele and Dressel, translates this clause as follows: “I will set free the wicked on account of His sepulchre, and the rich on account of His death.”

[2 ] The reading of the ms., is τη̑ς πληγη̑ς, “purify, or free Him, from stripes.” We have adopted the emendation of Junius.

[3 ] Wotton reads, “If He make.”

[4 ] Or, “fill Him with understanding,” if πλη̑σαιshould be read instead of πλάσαι, as Grabe suggests.

[5 ] Isa. iiii. The reader will observe how often the text of the Septuagint, here quoted, differs from the Hebrew as represented by our authorised English version.

[6 ] Ps. xxii. 6-8.

[7 ] Heb. xi. 37.

[8 ] Gen. xviii. 27.

[9 ] Job i. 1.

[10 ] Job xiv. 4, 5.

[11 ] Num. xii. 7; Heb. iii. 2.

[12 ] I ὑπηρεσίας (service).

[13 ] Ex. iii. 11, iv. 10.

[14 ] This is not found in Scripture.

[15 ] Or, as some render “to whom.”

[16 ] Ps. lxxxix. 21.

[17 ] “Wash me . . .” and following verses omitted in I.

[18 ] Or, “when Thou judgest.”

[1 ] Literally, “in my inwards.”

[2 ] Literally, “bloods.”

[3 ] Ps. li. 1-17.

[4 ] Literally, “Becoming partakers of many great and glorious deeds, let us return to the aim of peace delivered to us from the beginning.” Comp. Heb. xii. 1.

[5 ] Or, “collections.”

[6 ] Job xxxviii. 11.

[7 ] I. μεταπροδιδόασι (transfer from one to another).

[8 ] Or “stations.”

[9 ] Prov. xx. 27.

[10 ] I. omits “Christ.”

[11 ] Comp. Heb. xiii. 17; 1 Thess. v. 12, 13.

[12 ] Or, “the presbyters.”

[1 ] I. σιγη̑ς (silence).

[2 ] I. προσκλήσεις (summonses). Comp. 1 Tim. v. 21.

[3 ] Some translate, “who turn to Him.”

[4 ] I. omits.

[5 ] Ps. xxxiv. 11-17.

[6 ] Ps. xxxii. 10.

[7 ] Or, as some render, “neither let us have any doubt of.”

[8 ] Some regard these words as taken from an apocryphal book, others as derived from a fusion of James i. 8 and 2 Pet. iii. 3, 4.

[9 ] I. omits.

[10 ] Hab. ii. 3; Heb. x. 37.

[11 ] Mal. iii. 1.

[12 ] I. omits “Christ.”

[13 ] Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 20; Col. i. 18.

[14 ] I. κατἁ καιρόν (in due season).

[15 ] I. λάβιομεν (let us take).

[16 ] Comp. Luke viii. 5.

[17 ] I. adds ἔκαστον τω̑ν σπερμάτων (the seeds severally.)

[1 ] I. διανύει (accomplishes its journey).

[2 ] I. omits ἐπιπτὰς (on the wing, flying).

[3 ] This fable respecting the phœnix is mentioned by Herodotus (ii. 73), and by Pliny (Nat. Hist., x. 2), and is used as above by Tertullian (De Resurr., § 13), and by others of the fathers.

[4 ] Literally, “the mightiness of His promise.”

[5 ] Ps. xxviii. 7, or from some apocryphal book.

[6 ] Comp. Ps. iii. 6.

[7 ] Job xix. 25, 26.

[8 ] Comp. Tit. i. 2; Heb. vi. 18.

[9 ] Or “majesty.”

[10 ] Wisd. xii. 12, xi. 21.

[11 ] Comp. Matt. xxiv. 35.

[12 ] Literally, “if the heavens,” etc.

[13 ] I. omits.

[14 ] Ps. xix. 1-3. I omits Ps. xix. 2-4, with the exception of the concluding words, ἀκούονται αἱ ϕωναὶ αὐτω̑ν (their voices are heard), which are connected with the opening words of the following chapter.

[15 ] I. βλαβεράς (hurtful).

[16 ] Literally, “abominable lusts of evil deeds.”

[17 ] I. σὺ ἐκει̑ [Editor: illegible character] (Thou art there).

[18 ] Ps. cxxxix. 7-10.

[19 ] Literally, “has made us to Himself a part of election.”

[20 ] Literally, “sowed abroad.”

[21 ] Deut. xxxii. 8, 9.

[1 ] Formed apparently from Num. xviii. 27 and 2 Chron. xxxi. 14. Literally, the closing words are, “the holy of holies.”

[2 ] I. ἅγια μέρη (holy parts.)

[3 ] Some translate, “youthful lusts.”

[4 ] Prov. iii. 34; James iv. 6; 1 Pet. v. 5.

[5 ] I. omits.

[6 ] Job xi. 2, 3. The translation is doubtful.

[7 ] I. omits.

[8 ] I. ἐδόθη (was given).

[9 ] Literally, “what are the ways of His blessing.”

[10 ] Literally, “unroll.”

[11 ] Comp. James ii. 21.

[12 ] Some translate, “knowing what was to come.”

[13 ] Gen. xxii., 6-10.

[14 ] So Jacobson: Wotton reads, “fleeing from his brother.”

[15 ] The meaning here is very doubtful. Some translate, “the gifts which were given to Jacob by Him.” i.e. God.

[16 ] MS. αὐτω̑ν, referring to the gifts: we have followed the emendation αὐτοὔ, adopted by most editors. Some refer the word to God, and not Jacob.

[17 ] Comp. Rom. ix. 5.

[18 ] I. τάξει (rank).

[19 ] Gen. xxii. 17, xxviii. 4.

[20 ] I. omits.

[21 ] I. ἐρου̑μιν (shall we say).

[1 ] Or, “commandment.”

[2 ] I. προετοιμάσας (having previously prepared).

[3 ] Or, “in addition to all.”

[4 ] Gen. i. 26, 27.

[5 ] Gen. i. 28.

[6 ] Or, “let us consider.”

[7 ] Or, “labourer.”

[8 ] Isa. xl. 10, lxii. 11; Rev. xxii. 12.

[9 ] I. πιστεύοντας (believing).

[10 ] The text here seems to be corrupt. Some translate, “He warns us with all His heart to this end, that,” etc.

[11 ] Dan. vii. 10.

[12 ] I. γη̑ (earth).

[13 ] Isa. vi. 3.

[14 ] I. ἀγαπω̑σιν (love).

[15 ] 1 Cor. ii. 9.

[16 ] Some translate, “in liberty.”

[17 ] Or, “of the ages.”

[18 ] I. ὀ δημιου̑ργος τω̑ν αἰώνων καὶ ποτὴρ πανάγιος (the Creator Eternal and Father All-Holy.)

[19 ] I. τὰ ἀγαθά (good things) added.

[20 ] I. πονηρίαν (wickedness).

[21 ] I. omits πλεονεξια (covetousness).

[22 ] The reading is doubtful: some have ἀϕιλοξενίαν, “want of a hospitable spirit.”

[23 ] Rom. i. 32.

[24 ] Literally, “didst run with.”

[1 ] Literally, “did weave.”

[2 ] Or, “layest a snare for.”

[3 ] I. omit “σὺ δὲ ἐμίσησας . . . ὁ ῥυόμενος Ps. l., 17-22. and connects by ἐν τῳ̑ τέλει (in the end).

[4 ] Ps. l. 16-23. The reader will observe how the Septuagint followed by Clement differs from the Hebrew.

[5 ] Literally, “that which saves us.”

[6 ] Or, “rejoices to behold.”

[7 ] Or, “knowledge of immortality.”

[8 ] Heb. i. 3, 4.

[9 ] Ps. civ. 4; Heb. i. 7.

[10 ] Some render, “to the Son.”

[11 ] Ps. ii. 7, 8; Heb. i. 5.

[12 ] Ps. cx. 1; Heb. i. 13.

[13 ] Some read, “who oppose their own will to that of God.”

[14 ] I. ἑκτικω̑ς (habitually).

[15 ] Literally, “in these there is use.”

[16 ] 1 Cor., xii. 12, etc.

[17 ] Literally, “all breathe together.”

[18 ] Literally, “use one subjection.”

[19 ] I. omits “Jesus.”

[20 ] Literally, “according as he has been placed in his charism.”

[21 ] I. τημελείτω (attend to).

[22 ] Comp. Prov. xxvii. 2.

[23 ] The ms. is here slightly torn, and we are left to conjecture.

[24 ] Comp. Ps. cxxxix. 15.

[1 ] I. omits καὶ ἀσύνετοι (and without understanding).

[2 ] Literally, “and silly and uninstructed.”

[3 ] Literally, “a breath.”

[4 ] Or, “has perceived.”

[5 ] Some render, “they perished at the gates.”

[6 ] Job iv. 16-18, 19-21, v. 1-5, xv. 15.

[7 ] Some join κατὰ καιροὺς τεταγμένους, “at stated times,” to the next sentence.

[8 ] Literally, “to His will.”

[9 ] I. εὐαρεστείτω (be well-pleasing).

[10 ] Or, “consider.”

[11 ] Or, “by the command of.”

[12 ] A. “the Christ,” I. “Christ.”

[13 ] I. omits.

[14 ] Literally, “both things were done.”

[15 ] Or, “confirmed by.”

[16 ] Or, “having tested them in spirit.”

[1 ] Or, “overseers.”

[2 ] Or, “servants.”

[3 ] Isa. lx. 17, Sept.; but the text is here altered by Clement. The LXX. have, “I will give thy rulers in peace, and thy overseers in righteousness.”

[4 ] Num. xii. 10; Heb. iii. 5.

[5 ] Literally, “every tribe being written according to its name.”

[6 ] See Num. xvii.

[7 ] Literally, “on account of the title of the oversight.” Some understand this to mean, “in regard to the dignity of the episcopate;” and others simply, “on account of the oversight.” I. for ἐπινομή gives ἐπιδομή. Bryennius conjectures ἐπιδοχή, which, perhaps, may be rendered “Succession” (διαδοχή).

[8 ] The meaning of this passage is much controverted. Some render, “left a list of other approved persons;” while others translate the unusual word ἑπινομὴ, which causes the difficulty, by “testamentary direction,” and many others deem the text corrupt. We have given what seems the simplest version of the text as it stands.

[9 ]i.e. the apostles.

[10 ] Or, “oversight.”

[11 ] Literally, “presented the offerings.”

[12 ] Or, “Ye perceive.”

[13 ] Or, “For.”

[14 ] Dan. vi. 16.

[1 ] Dan. iii. 20.

[2 ] Literally, “worshipped.”

[3 ] Literally, “serve.”

[4 ] Or, “lifted up.” I. ἔγγραϕοι (inscribed).

[5 ] Literally, “to such examples it is right that we should cleave.”

[6 ] Not found in Scripture.

[7 ] Literally, “be.”

[8 ] Or, “thou wilt overthrow.”

[9 ] Ps. xviii. 25, 26.

[10 ] Or, “war.” Comp. James iv. 1.

[11 ] Comp. Eph. iv. 4-6.

[12 ] Rom. xii. 5.

[13 ] This clause is wanting in the text.

[14 ] Comp. Matt. xviii. 6, xxvi. 24; Mark ix. 42; Luke xvii. 2.

[15 ] Literally, “in the beginning of the gospel.”

[16 ] Or, “spiritually.”

[17 ] 1 Cor. iii. 13, etc.

[18 ] Or, “inclinations for one above another.” I. προσκλήσεις (summonses) throughout for προσκλίσεις.

[19 ] Literally, “of conduct in Christ.” I. ἀγάπη (love).

[20 ] Or, “aliens from us,” i.e. the Gentiles.

[21 ] Literally, “remove.”

[22 ] Literally, “becoming merciful.”

[1 ] Ps. cxviii. 19, 20.

[2 ] James v. 20; 1 Pet. iv. 8.

[3 ] Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 4, etc.

[4 ] I. gives indicative mood.

[5 ] I. εὺρεθω̑μεν (may be found).

[6 ] Literally, “visitation.”

[7 ] I. θεου̑ (God).

[8 ] Or, “good.”

[9 ] Isa. xxvi. 20.

[10 ] Ps. xxxii. 1, 2.

[11 ] Or, “look to.”

[12 ] Or, “righteously.”

[13 ] I. ἄνθρωπον (man).

[14 ] Num. xvi. I. θάνατος ποιμανει̑ αὐτούς—“Death shall feed on them,” Ps. xlix., 14 A. V.—should be, “Death shall tend them.”

[15 ] Ex. xiv.

[1 ] I. omits from Ps. lxix., 31, 32 the words following “bullock.”

[2 ] Ps. lxix. 31, 32.

[3 ] Or, “sacrifice.”

[4 ] Ps. l. 14, 15. I. omits Ps. l., 15.

[5 ] Ps. li. 17.

[6 ] Ex. xxxii. 7, etc.; Deut. ix. 12, etc.

[7 ] Ex. xxxii. 9, etc.

[8 ] Ex. xxxii. 32.

[9 ] Or, “mighty.”

[10 ] I. δεσπότης (master).

[11 ] Literally, “be wiped out.”

[12 ] Literally, “the multitude.”

[13 ] I. ἐν Χριστῳ̑ (in Christ).

[14 ] Or, “receive.”

[15 ] Ps. xxiv. 1; 1 Cor. x. 26, 28.

[16 ] I. ὑπομνήματα (memorials).

[17 ] Literally, “and having received their prices, fed others.”

[18 ] Judith viii. 30.

[19 ] I. omits δεσπότην (Lord).

[20 ] Esther vii. viii.

[1 ] Literally, “there shall be to them a fruitful and perfect remembrance, with compassions both towards God and the saints.”

[2 ] Or, “they unite.”

[3 ] Ps. cxviii. 18.

[4 ] Prov. iii. 12; Heb. xii. 6.

[5 ] I. κύριος (Lord).

[6 ] Ps. cxli. 5.

[7 ] Literally, “hand.”

[8 ] Literally, “err.” or “sin.”

[9 ] Job v. 17-26.

[10 ] I. βλἑπετε πόσος (ye see how great).

[11 ] I. (δεσπότου) πατὴρ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς ὤν (being a good father).

[12 ] I. ἐλεηθη̑ναι (be pitled).

[13 ] Literally, “to be found small and esteemed.”

[14 ] Literally, “His hope.”

[15 ] I. adds στενοχωρία (straits).

[16 ] Here begins the lacuna in the old text referred to in the Introduction. The newly discovered portion of the Epistle extends from this point to the end of Chap. lxiii.

[17 ] Prov. i. 22-33.

[1 ] Is. lvii. 15.

[2 ] Is. xiii. 11.

[3 ] Ps. xxxiii. 10.

[4 ] Job v. 11; Ezek. xvii. 24.

[5 ] Sam. ii. 7.

[6 ] Deut. xxxii. 39.

[7 ] Numb. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16; Jer. xxxii. 27.

[8 ] I. gives ἀσεβει̑ς (ungodly) where ἀσθενει̑ς (sick) is substituted.

[9 ] σωζομένοις is the emendation of Harnack for ὁρωμένοις (seen).

[1 ] εὐαριστει̑ν is emendation for εὐχαριστει̑ν (give thanks).

[2 ] Comp. Tit. ii. 14.

[3 ] Literally, “an eternal throne.”

[4 ] Literally, “from the ages to the ages of ages.”

[1 ] No title, not even a letter, is preserved in A. I. inserts “Clement’s (Epistle) to the Corinthians II.”

[2 ] Literally, “holy things.”

[3 ] Comp. Ps. cxvi. 12.

[4 ] Literally, “lame.” I. πονηροί (wicked).

[5 ] Literally, “of men.”

[6 ] Literally, “being full of such darkness in our sight.”

[7 ] Literally, “having beheld in us much error and destruction.”

[8 ] Comp. Hos. ii. 23; Rom. iv. 17, ix. 25.

[9 ] Literally, “willed us from not being to be.”

[10 ] Isa. liv. 1; Gal. iv. 27.

[11 ] Some render, “should not cry out, like women in travail.” The text is doubtful. I. ἐκκακω̑μεν (faint).

[12 ] It has been remarked that the writer here implies he was a Gentile.

[13 ] Matt. ix. 13; Luke v. 32.

[14 ] I. Κύριος (Lord).

[15 ] Comp. Matt. xviii. 11.

[16 ] Literally, “already perishing.”

[17 ] I. omits.

[1 ] I. τη̑ς ἀληθείας (of truth).

[2 ] Literally, “what is the knowledge which is towards Him.”

[3 ] Matt. x. 32.

[4 ] Comp. Matt. xxii. 37.

[5 ] Isa. xxix. 13.

[6 ] Matt. vii. 21, loosely quoted.

[7 ] Some read, “God.”

[8 ] Or, “with me.”

[9 ] The first part of this sentence is not found in Scripture; for the second comp., Matt. vii. 23; Luke xiii. 27.

[10 ] Matt. x. 16.

[11 ] No such conversation is recorded in Scripture.

[12 ] Or, “Let not the lambs fear.”

[13 ] Matt. x. 28; Luke xii. 4, 5.

[14 ] Or, “know.”

[15 ] The text and translation are here doubtful.

[16 ] Matt. vi. 24; Luke xvi. 13.

[17 ] Matt. xvi. 26. I. omits ὅλον (whole).

[18 ] Literally, “speaks of.”

[19 ] Or, “enjoy.”

[20 ] The ms. has, “we reckon.”

[21 ] Ezek. xiv. 14, 20.

[22 ] Literally, “with what confidence shall we.”

[23 ] Wake translates “kingdom,” as if the reading had been βασιλείαν; but the ms. has βασίλειον, “palace.”

[1 ] Literally, “that many set sail for corruptible contests,” referring probably to the concourse at the Isthmian games.

[2 ] Or, “Let us place before us.”

[3 ] Or, “set sail.”

[4 ] Literally, “know.”

[5 ] Literally, “if he be found corrupting.”

[6 ] Baptism is probably meant.

[7 ] Isa. lxvi. 24.

[8 ] Comp. Luke xvi. 10-12.

[9 ] MS. has “we,” which is corrected by all editors as above. I. ἀπολάβητε.

[10 ] Some have thought this a quotation from an unknown apocryphal book, but it seems rather an explanation of the preceding words.

[11 ] Literally, “looked up.”

[12 ] The ms. has εἰς, “one,” which Wake follows, but it seems clearly a mistake for ὡς.

[13 ] I. λόγος (word).

[14 ] Matt. xii. 50.

[15 ] Literally, “rather.”

[16 ] Literally, “malice, as it were, the precursor of our sins.” Some deem the text corrupt.

[17 ] Literally, according to the ms., “it is not possible that a man should find it who are”—the passage being evidently corrupt.

[1 ] I. ἀνάπαυσιν (rest).

[2 ] I. πάλαι (long ago).

[3 ] The same words occur in Clement’s first epistle, chap. xxiii.

[4 ] 1 Cor. ii. 9.

[5 ] These words are quoted (Clem. Alex., Strom., iii. 9, 1.) from the Gospel according to the Egyptians, no longer extant.

[6 ] Here the piece formerly broke off. From this point to the end the text of Gebhardt, Harnack, Zahn has been followed.

[7 ] Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 29.

[8 ] Is. iii. 5.

[9 ] Luke vi. 32 sqq.

[10 ] Jer. vii. 11.

[1 ] Comp. 1 Pet. ii. iv. sqq.

[2 ] Gen. i. 27; comp. Eph. v. 22-23.

[3 ] i. e., The Old Testament.

[4 ] 1 Pet. i. 20.

[5 ] 1 Cor. ii. 9.

[6 ] 1 Tim. iv. 16.

[7 ] Jas. v. 19-25.

[8 ] Is. lviii. 9.

[9 ] 2 Pet. ii. 9, iii. 5-10.

[10 ] 1 Pet. iv. 4.

[11 ] i. e., Presbyters.

[12 ] This passage proves this so-called Epistle to be a homily.

[13 ] Is. lxvi. 18.

[1 ] Is. lxvi. 24.

[2 ] Indicative of the approaching close.

[3 ] Brycnnius interprets this to refer to the Scripture-lesson.

[4 ] Either the Scripture-lesson or the homily.

[1 ]Texts and Studies. Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature. Edited by J. A. Robinson, B.D. Vol. i., No. 1, the Apology of Aristides, edited and translated by J. Rendel Harris, M.A., with an Appendix by J. A. Robinson, B.D. (Cambridge University Press.)

[1 ]Die Apologie des Aristides. Recension und Rekonstruktion des Textes, von Lic. Edgar Hennecke. (Die Grischischen Apologeten: Heft. 3.)

[2 ] The Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol. i., No. 1.

[1 ]Texte und Untersuchungen sur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litteratur, Gebhardt und Harnack, IX. Band, Heft 1.

[2 ] The Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol. i., No. 1.

[1 ] The Greek might be rendered, “so far as there was room for me to speak of Him,” i.e., the attributes of the Deity are not further relevant to the discussion—as the translator into Syriac takes it. The Armenian adopts the other meaning, viz., the theme is beyond man’s power to discuss. Astranslated by F. C. Conybeare, the Armenian is in these words: “Now by the grace of God it was given me to speak wisely concerning Him. So far as I have received the faculty I will speak, yet not according to the measure of the inscrutability of His greatness shall I be able to do so, but by faith alone do I glorify and adore Him.”

[2 ] The “King” in the Greek is Abenner, the father of Josaphat; in the Syriac, as in the Greek originally, he is the Roman Emperor, Hadrian.

[3 ] The Armenian and Syriac agree in giving four races, which was probably the original division. To a Greek, men were either Greeks or Barbarians: to a Greek Christian it would seem necessary to addtwo new peoples, Jews and Christians. The Greek calls the Barbarians “Chaldæaus.” This change of classification is probably the cause of the omission in the Greek of the preliminary accounts of the four classes. The Greek blends the summaries with the fuller accounts.

[1 ] “I do not think it out of place here to mention Antinous of our day [a slave of the Emperor Hadrian], whom all, notwithstanding they knew who and whence he was, yet affected to worship as a god.”—Justin Martyr quoted in Eusebius Hist. Bk. IV., c. 8.

[1 ] The passage in brackets occurs earlier in “Barlaam and Josaphat,” and is restored to its place by J. A. Robinson.

[1 ] This, the “Christological” passage, occurs earlier in the Syriac. Chap. II.

[1 ] The Armenian agrees with the Greek against the Syriac. “Uná cum Spiritu Sancto” Arm.

[1 ] The reference is to Josaphat, son of Abenner, who was taught to be a Christian by the monk Barlaam.

[2 ] Nachor, the fictitious monk who represented Barlaam, intended to make a weak defence of Christianity, but, according to the story, he was constrained to speak what he had not intended. It is evidently the author’s intention to make it an instance of “suggestio verborum” or plenary inspiration, in the case of the fictitious monk.

[1 ] The superscription seems to be duplicate in the Syriac. It is absent from the Greek as we have it; the Armenian has “To the Emperor Cæsar Hadrian from Aristides.” Various explanations are offered (a) Both emperors, as colleagues, may be meant. In support of this the Syriac adjectives for “venerable and merciful” are marked plural; the phrase “Your majesty” occurring later has a plural suffix; and two Imperatives, “Take and read,” are plural. On the other hand “O King” occurs constantly in the singular; and the emperors were colleagues only for a few months in the year ad 138.

(b) The longer heading is the true one—the shorter being due perhaps to a scribe who had a collection of works to copy. In that case the word “Hadrian” has been selected from the full title of Antonine, and the two adjectives “venerable and merciful” are proper names, Augustus Plus. (Harris.)

(c) The shorter heading has the support of Eusebius and the Armenian version; and the translator into Syriac may have amplified.

([Editor: illegible word] [Editor: illegible word]) Almighty is separated from the word for “God” by a pause, and is not an attribute which a Christian would care to apply to a Roman emperor. παντοκράτωρ may have been confounded with αὐ τοκράτωρ. Raabe supplies [Editor: illegible word] [Editor: illegible word] giving the sense “qui imperium (postatem) habet,” as an epithet of Cæsar. If . . . [Editor: illegible word] [Editor: illegible word] = “Renewed, or dedicated again to. . . Antoninus Plus,” could be read, both headings might be retained.

[4 ] The Armenian adds, “For that which is subject to this distinction is moved by passions.”

[1 ] Literally: “a certain dispensation of his.” The Greek term οἰκονομία, “dispensation,” suggests to the translator into Syriac the idea of the Incarnation, familiar, as it seems, by his time. Professor Sachau reads the equivalent of θαυμαστή instead of [Editor: illegible word] (τις). In the translation given [Editor: illegible word] is taken adverbially=aliquamdiu.

[2 ] This irrelevant sentence is found in the Armenian version also, and therefore was probably in the original Greek. It seems to be an obiter dictum. Men fall into four groups, and, by the way, so do the elements, air, fire, earth, and water; and the powers that govern them. One quaternion suggests others.

[3 ] Cf. Rom. i. 25 and Col. ii. 8.

[2 ] Or “and hence the world also gets its name κόσμος.” The Syriac is the equivalent of the Greek “διὸ καὶ κόσμος καλει̑ται,” which occurs (Chap. IV.) in discussing the supposed divinity of the sky or heaven.

[2 ] Professor Nöldeke’s emendation, [Editor: illegible word] in place of [Editor: illegible word] = “they were reviled,” is adopted in the translation given.

[3 ] Cf. Amos v. 26, “Chiun, your star god,” and Acts vii. 43.

[1 ] Pasiphae’s unnatural passion for Taurus is not in the Greek mythology charged to Zeus.

[2 ] The visit of Zeus to Semele (not Selene) is evidently referred to. Σελήνη Luna would give the Syriac [Editor: illegible word]

[3 ] Professor Rendel Harris pronounces “Paludus” a vox nihili, and explains its presence as due to a corrupt repetition of the preceding Polydeuces. The Syriac word in the text suggests Pollux—the Latin equivalent of Polydeuces. Clytemnestra is the name required.

[4 ] Adopting Professor Harris’s emendation [Editor: illegible word] = κλέπτης instead of [Editor: illegible word] = vir.

[1 ] “Tyrant,” [Editor: illegible word] seems out of place when connected with Herakles. Perhaps [Editor: illegible word] =ebrius, which occurs at the close of the paragraph, should be read here. Cf. also the Greek.

[2 ] The same two words are used of Isis. The Christians are unlike her in finding what they sought.

[2 ] Cf.Pliny’s letter to the Emperor Trajan, ad 112, “The Christians are wont to meet at dawn on an appointed day, and to sing a hymn to Christ as God.”

[1 ] The Christian Scriptures are previously referred to as a source of information, not as containing difficulties. cf. 2 Peter iii. 16.

[1 ] 1 Tim. vi. 16.

[2 ] Cf. Rom. xiii. 7.

[1 ] Mr. Brooke’s revised text of the Commentary of Origen on St. John’s Gospel (2 vols., Cambridge University Warehouse) appeared unfortunately too late to be used in the preparation of this volume.

[1 ]Jahrbucher fur Prot. Theol. 1881, 1.

[2 ] See ante, Nicene Christian Library, vol. xx. (Clark).

[3 ] ix. 2.

[1 ] Reading with Dräseke, ραϕιδεόυτω̑ν, συρραπτόντων τω̑ν ραϕιδευτω̑ν.

[2 ] Exod. xxxi. 3, 6; xxxvi. 1, 2, 8.

[1 ] 1 Kings xi. 14 (Hadad). Origen confuses him with Jeroboam.

[1 ] John x. 3.

[2 ] Matt. vii. 7.

[3 ] Heb. iii. 14.

[1 ] Rom. ii. 29.

[2 ] Apoc. vii. 2-5.

[3 ] Apoc. xiv. 1-5.

[1 ] Apoc. vii. 3, 4.

[1 ] 1 Cor. ii. 14.

[1 ] Reading with Neander and Lommatzsch (note), διαϕέρον τι for διαϕεροντες.

[2 ] Heb. iv. 14.

[3 ] Ps. cx. 4; Heb. v. 6. Cf. vii. 11.

[4 ] ἀπαρχή, Exod. xxii. 29.

[5 ] πρωτογέννημα, Exod. xxiii. 16.

[1 ] This passage is difficult and disputed.

[2 ] 2 Cor. vi. 18.

[3 ] 2 Tim. iii. 16.

[4 ] 1 Cor. vii. 12.

[5 ] 1 Cor. vii. 17.

[6 ] 2 Tim. iii. 11.

[7 ] John i. 29.

[8 ] Ephes. iv. 11.

[9 ] John ix. 1.

[10 ] John xl. 39.

[1 ] Matt. xxiii. 8, 9.

[2 ] διδάσκαλοι, Ephes. iv. 11.

[3 ] 2 Cor. v. 19.

[4 ] John i. 29.

[5 ] Ambrosius.

[6 ] Matt. i. 1.

[1 ] John xix. 26.

[2 ] Gal. ii. 20.

[3 ] 1 Cor. ii. 12, 16.

[4 ] Rom. ii. 16.

[1 ] Col. i. 15.

[2 ] Matt. xi. 3.

[3 ] John iv. 25.

[4 ] Luke xxiv. 18-21.

[5 ] Ναζαρηνου̑.

[1 ] John i. 42.

[2 ] John i. 46.

[3 ] Text defective here. The words as they stand would yield the sense, “the formula, little and yet all.”

[4 ] 1 Cor. x. 11.

[1 ] γυω̑σις.

[1 ] John xi. 25.

[1 ] Ps. lxviii. 11, 12.

[2 ] 1 Cor. iv. 19, 20 (with a peculiar reading).

[3 ] 1 Cor. ii. 4.

[4 ] Luke xxiv. 32.

[5 ] Isa. lii. 7; Rom. x. 15.

[1 ] John xiv. 6.

[2 ] John xi. 25.

[3 ] John x. 9.

[4 ] Prov. viii. 22.

[5 ] Rom. vi. 10.

[6 ] Cor. i. 30.

[7 ] Coloss. i. 19; ii. 9.

[1 ] John xxi. 25.

[2 ] Isa. lii. 6.

[3 ] Isa. xl. 9.

[4 ] Matt. v. 45.

[5 ] Luke iv. 18 sq.

[1 ] Matt. xxvi. 6-13, combined with Luke vii. 36-50.

[2 ] Matt. xxv. 40.

[3 ] John xix. 6, 15.

[4 ] Acts ix. 4, 5.

[5 ] Luke viii. 14.

[1 ] Ps. civ. 4.

[2 ] Luke ii. 10, 11.

[3 ] Origen, however, appears also to have read ἐυδοκιας: “among men of good will.”

[4 ] Mark i. 1.

[5 ] Rom. ii. 16.

[6 ] i. 2, 3.

[1 ] ἑτερόδοξοι.

[2 ] Apoc. xiv. 6, 7.

[3 ] Acts viii. 26, sqq.

[1 ] Ephes. i. 21.

[2 ] John i. 1.

[3 ] Prov. xvi. 5.

[4 ] 1 Cor. xv. 25, 26.

[1 ] Gen. i. 1.

[2 ] Job xl. 19.

[3 ] Job iii. 8.

[1 ] Rom. viii. 22, 20.

[2 ] The text is defective here.

[3 ] Phil. i. 23.

[4 ] viii. 22.

[1 ] 2 Macc. vii. 28.

[2 ] Herm. Sim. viii.

[3 ] We must here reproduce the Greek word, as Origen passes to meanings of it which the English “beginning” does not cover.

[4 ] Coloss. i. 15.

[5 ] Heb. v. 12.

[6 ] 1 Cor. xv. 45.

[1 ] Ps. cxlviii. 5.

[2 ] Prov. viii. 22.

[3 ] John i. 3, 4.

[4 ] John xiv. 6.

[1 ] Opp. to embodied.

[2 ] Mr. Brooke, T. & S. I. iv. p. 15, discusses this corrupt passage and suggests an improved text which would yield the sense, that wisdom was to give to things and matter, “it might be rash to say bluntly their essences, but their moulding and their forms.”

[3 ] Apoc. xxii. 13.

[4 ] Rom. iii. 25.

[5 ] Passage obscure and probably corrupt.

[1 ] John xiii. 13.

[2 ] John x. 36.

[3 ] John xvii. 1.

[4 ] John xviii. 33, 36.

[5 ] John xv. 1, 5.

[6 ] John vi. 35, 41, 33.

[7 ] Apoc. i. 18.

[8 ] Apoc. xxii. 13.

[9 ] Isa. xlix. 2.

[10 ] Isa. xlii. 1, etc.

[11 ] Isa. xlix. 6.

[12 ] Isa. xlix. 1, 2, 3.

[1 ] Jerem. xi. 19.

[2 ] John i. 29.

[3 ] John i. 30, 31.

[4 ] 1 John ii. 1, ἰλασμός.

[5 ] Rom. iii. 25, 26, ἱλαστήριον.

[6 ] 1 Cor. i. 24, 30.

[7 ] Heb. iv. 14.

[8 ] Gen. xlix. 10.

[1 ] Isa. xlii. 1-4.

[2 ] Matt. xii. 17, 19.

[3 ] Ezek. xxxiv. 23.

[4 ] Isa. xi. 1-3.

[5 ] Ps. cxviii. 22, 23.

[6 ] Matt. xxi. 42, 44.

[7 ] Acts iv. 11.

[1 ] Ps. xlv. 1.

[1 ] John i. 3-5.

[2 ] John i. 9.

[3 ] Isa. xlix. 6.

[4 ] John ix. 4, 5.

[5 ] Matt. v. 14, 16.

[1 ] 1 Cor. iv. 9.

[2 ] Rom. viii. 24, 19.

[1 ] John xvii. 21.

[2 ] John xii. 26.

[3 ] Rom. v. 3-5.

[4 ] Rom. viii. 20.

[1 ] Text corrupt. The above seems to be the meaning. Cf. chap. 23 init. p. 306.

[2 ] Rom. vi. 4.

[3 ] 2 Cor. iv. 10.

[4 ] Matt. x. 10.

[5 ] Prov. xxx. 19.

[1 ] Ps. xxxvi. 6.

[2 ] Jer. xxxi. 27.

[3 ] Ps. xlv. 8.

[4 ] Ps. lxxii. 1, 2.

[5 ] Ephes. ii. 14.

[1 ] Rom. viii. 15.

[2 ] John xv. 15; θέλει for ποτει̑.

[3 ] John xiii. 13.

[4 ] John xv. 15.

[5 ] Luke xxii. 28.

[6 ] i. 6.

[1 ] Mark i. 11; Ps. ii. 7; Heb. i. 5.

[2 ] Ps. civ. 15.

[3 ] Gen. xliii. 34.

[1 ] Ps. cxxxvi. 2.

[2 ] Ps. l. 1.

[3 ] Matt. xx. 2.

[4 ] 1 Cor. viii. 5.

[5 ] Ephes. i. 21.

[6 ] Exod. iii. 2, 6.

[1 ] Isa. ix. 6.

[2 ] Ps. lxxxviii. 4, 5.

[1 ] Apoc. i. 17, 18.

[2 ] 2 Cor. iv. 10.

[3 ] Isa. xlix. 2, 3.

[4 ] Heb. iv. 12.

[1 ] Song ii. 5.

[2 ] Isa. xlix. 3, 6.

[3 ] Philipp. ii. 6, 8.

[4 ] Isa. xlix. 5, 6.

[1 ] John i. 29.

[2 ] 1 Cor. xv. 28.

[1 ] 1 John ii. 1, 2.

[2 ] ἱλασμὁς.

[3 ] ἱλαστήριον, Rom. iii. 25.

[4 ] Philipp. iv. 13.

[5 ] Prov. viii. 22.

[6 ] Ps. civ. 24.

[1 ] Heb. ii. 11.

[1 ] John vii. 18.

[2 ] Apoc. xvi. 5, 7.

[3 ] John v. 27.

[4 ] Heb. ii. 9.

[5 ] χωρις for χαριτι, a widely diffused early variant.

[1 ] Job xxv. 5.

[2 ] Rom. ii. 29.

[3 ] Isa. xi. 1.

[4 ] Ps. lxxxix. 32, 33.

[1 ] Ps. cxviii. 22.

[2 ] It is impossible to render by any one English word the Greek λόγος as used by Origen in the following discussion. We shall therefore in many passages leave it untranslated.

[1 ] Rom. x. 6-8.

[2 ] John xv. 22.

[1 ] John x. 8.

[2 ] Matt. xi. 27.

[3 ] Isa. ix. 5, 6.

[4 ] xix. 11.

[5 ] Ps. xxxiii. 17.

[6 ] Ps. xx. 7.

[7 ] Ps. xiv. 1.

[1 ] Ps. xxxiii. 6.

[2 ] Reading τυγχάνομτας.

[3 ] στερεός, of which the στερἑωμα, firmament, is made.

[1 ] Hos. i. 1.

[2 ] Isa. ii. 1.

[3 ] Jer. xiv. 1.

[1 ] Matt. xi. 19.

[2 ] Rom. xi. 33.

[3 ] Omitting τὸ, with Jacobi.

[1 ] John xvii. 3.

[2 ] Ps. l. 1.

[1 ] Deut. iv. 19, quoted apparently from memory.

[1 ] Apoc. xix. 11-16.

[2 ] In the Greek the article is here omitted.

[3 ] Reading παρεκδέξασθαι, with Huet.

[1 ] Philipp. iii. 20.

[2 ] Deut. xxxii. 4.

[1 ] Lam. iv. 20.

[2 ] Ps. cxliii. 2.

[3 ] Omitting λεγεσθαι, with Jacobi.

[4 ] 2 Thess. ii. 8.

[1 ] 1 Cor. iii. 19.

[1 ] See R. V. margin, John i. 3.

[2 ] Rom. i. 1-5.

[1 ] i. 1, 2.

[2 ] Matt. xii. 32.

[3 ] Reading πρὸ πάυτων, with Jacobi.

[1 ] 1 Cor. xii. 4-6.

[2 ] Isa. xlviii. 16.

[3 ] ii. 9.

[1 ] John i. 32.

[2 ] Matt. xii. 50.

[1 ] Ps. civ. 24.

[1 ] Rom. iv. 17.

[2 ] Esth. iv. 22.

[3 ] Exod. iii. 14, 15.

[4 ] Mark x. 18.

[1 ] On the fragments of Heracleon in this work of Origen, see Texts and Studies, vol. i. part iv. by A. E. Brooke, M.A.

[2 ] Prov. xxx. 6.

[1 ] Accepting Jacobi’s and Brook’s correction παρα τὴν.

[2 ] Ps. cxlviii. 5.

[3 ] Coloss. i. 15, 16.

[1 ] Rom. vii. 8, 9.

[2 ] Rom. v. 13.

[3 ] John xv. 22.

[4 ] John xii. 48.

[1 ] Rom. x. 6-8.

[1 ] Mark xii. 26.

[2 ] Ps. cxliii. 2.

[3 ] Numb. xiv. 28.

[4 ] Heb. xi. 16.

[5 ] Ps. cxvi. 9.

[1 ] Matt. v. 16.

[2 ] 1 Tim. iv. 16.

[1 ] John xvi. 14, 15.

[1 ] Ps. vi. 6.

[2 ] Ephes. v. 8.

[1 ] The demiurge.

[2 ] 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15.

[3 ] Matt. xxii. 30.

[1 ] 2 Kings ii. 14.

[2 ] Judith ix. 2.

[3 ] Gen. i. 26.

[4 ] Zechar. i.; Hagg. i. 13.

[5 ] Mal. iii. 1; Mark i. 2.

[1 ] v. 13, 14.

[2 ] i. 5.

[3 ] Ps. xxxvi. 10.

[4 ] viii. 12.

[1 ] Isa. xlii. 6.

[2 ] Ps. xxvii. 1.

[1 ] i. 5.

[2 ] xxvi. 9.

[3 ] xix. 9.

[4 ] Hosea x. 12.

[1 ] 1 John i. 6; ii. 9, 11.

[2 ] Ps. lxxxii. 5.

[3 ] 1 John i. 5.

[4 ] οὐδεμία, not one.

[5 ] 2 Cor. v. 21.

[6 ] Rom. viii. 3.

[1 ] Matt. viii. 17.

[2 ] Matt. xxvi. 38.

[3 ] Zech. iii. 4.

[4 ] Ps. xxii. 1.

[5 ] Ps. lxix. 5.

[6 ] ix. 2.

[1 ] Rom. viii. 31.

[2 ] xix. 9, 16.

[3 ] Ps. xviii. 11.

[1 ] Prov. i. 6.

[2 ] John i. 6.

[3 ] Gen. iii. 23.

[4 ] vi. 1, 9.

[1 ] Luke i. 17.

[2 ] John i. 33.

[3 ] Luke i. 13, 15.

[4 ] Matt. xi. 14.

[1 ] 2 Thess. ii. 11, 12.

[2 ] Jer. i. 7.

[3 ] Ezek. ii. 3.

[1 ] Rom. ix. 11-14.

[1 ] Isa. xl. 3.

[1 ] Origen appears to be pointing to the fact that the Christian rest which is connected in its origin with the resurrection of Christ is not held as the Jewish Sabbath rest on the seventh but on the first day of the week. John marking the end of the old period is the son of Elisabeth the oath, or seventh, of God, and is thus connected with the seventh day; but not so Jesus.

[2 ] John i. 7.

[3 ] The Old Testament belongs to the Creator, the Demiurge.

[1 ] 1 John ii. 23.

[2 ] John viii. 56.

[3 ] Isa. xliii. 10.

[4 ] Acts i. 8.

[5 ] Matt. viii. 4.

[1 ] i. 7, 15-18.

[2 ] i. 23.

[3 ] i. 26.

[4 ] Reading κατὰ for κα[Editor: illegible word].

[5 ] i. 29-31.

[1 ] i. 32-34.

[2 ] i. 35-38.

[1 ] Matt. xi. 14, 15.

[1 ] Coloss. iii. 3, 4.

[1 ] From the Philocalia.

[2 ] 2 Cor. xi. 6.

[3 ] 2 Cor. iv. 7.

[1 ] 1 Cor. i. 26, 27.

[2 ] Rom. i. 14.

[3 ] 2 Cor. iii. 6.

[1 ] From the Philocalia.

[2 ] This is addressed to Ambrose, who was at the time absent from Alexandria. Cf. book i. chap. 6, p. 299.

[3 ] xii. 12.

[1 ] From Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 25.

[2 ] Rom. xv. 19.

[3 ] Matt. xvi. 18.

[4 ] John i. 20, 25.

[5 ] Apoc. x. 4.

[1 ] The following fragments is found in Philocalia, pp. 27-30.

[2 ] x. 19.

[3 ] 1 Kings iv. 32.

[4 ] Prov. i. 24.

[5 ] Acts xx. 7-9.

[1 ] John v. 39.

[2 ] xl. 7.

[1 ] Apoc. v. 1-5.

[2 ] Apoc. iii. 7.

[3 ] Ps. lxix. 28.

[4 ] Dan. vii. 10.

[5 ] Exod. xxxii. 32.

[6 ] xxix. 11, 12.

[7 ] Isa. xxii. 22.

[8 ] ii. 10.

[1 ] Apoc. x. 9, 10.

[2 ] Rom. ii. 16.

[1 ] John xiv. 27.

[2 ] 1 Chron. xxii. 8, 9.

[1 ] 3 Esdras iv. 37, 41, 47.

[2 ] Luke xiv. 28.

[3 ] 1 Cor. i. 5.

[1 ] John i. 19.

[1 ] Matt. xiii. 17.

[1 ] Mark xii. 20.

[2 ] Rom. iv. 11.

[3 ] Ps. cv. 3.

[4 ] Coloss. i. 15; John xiv. 19.

[5 ] John viii. 39.

[6 ] Prov. xvi. 23.

[1 ] xvi. 25.

[2 ] Ephes. iii. 5.

[1 ] 2 Cor. xii. 4.

[2 ] Lommatzsch omits οὐ before ἠκριβωκότα, but it is necessary to the sense.

[1 ] ἐγένετο.

[2 ] Ps. xxxi. 24.

[3 ] Ps. xi. 7.

[1 ] John xiv. 6.

[2 ] Coloss. iii. 4.

[3 ] Ps. lxiii. 3.

[4 ] 2 Cor. xiii. 3.

[5 ] Ps. cv. 15.

[6 ] John i. 19-21.

[7 ] Deut. xviii. 15.

[1 ] John i. 25.

[2 ] John i. 25 sqq.

[3 ] Ver. 24.

[1 ] John i. 19, 20.

[2 ] Matt. xi. 3.

[1 ] Acts v. 36, 37.

[2 ] John i. 21.

[3 ] Matt. xi. 14.

[4 ] Mal. iv. 5, 6.

[5 ] Luke i. 13.

[6 ] Luke i. 17.

[1 ] vii. 4.

[2 ] Luke i. 35.

[3 ] 1 Cor. xiv. 32.

[4 ] 2 Kings ii. 15.

[1 ] Gen. iv. 25.

[2 ] Luke i. 65.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 13, 14.

[1 ] Mark vi. 16.

[2 ] Matt. xiii. 55.

[3 ] 2 Kings i. 8.

[4 ] Jud. xx. 28.

[5 ] Numb. xxv. 12.

[1 ] John i. 21.

[2 ] Luke xvi. 16.

[3 ] Luke i. 76.

[4 ] Matt. xi. 9.

[1 ] P. 321.

[2 ] xviii. 15 sq.

[3 ] Luke iii. 15.

[1 ] John vii. 37.

[2 ] Luke iii. 4.

[3 ] vii. 1.

[4 ] Luke i. 18.

[1 ] Matt. xi. 10.

[2 ] John i. 15.

[3 ] Exod. xiv. 15.

[4 ] Ps. lxxvii. 7.

[5 ] Acts xiii. 10.

[1 ] iv. 27.

[2 ] Ps. xi. 7.

[3 ] Ps. iv. 7.

[4 ] Jer. iv. 16.

[5 ] τεθλιμμένη, the word translated “narrow” in Matt. vii. 14.

[6 ] Matt. xi. 12.

[7 ] Exod. iii. 5.

[1 ] 1 Cor. xiv. 8.

[2 ] 1 Cor. xiii. 1.

[3 ] John v. 39.

[4 ] John v. 46.

[5 ] Matt. xv. 7; Isa. xxix. 13.

[1 ] iv. 5, 6.

[2 ] 1 Kings xiii. 2.

[3 ] Gen. xlix. 16.

[4 ] John i. 24, 25.

[1 ] Matt. iii. 7, 8.

[2 ] Luke xviii. 10, 11.

[1 ] Ps. xiv. 3.

[2 ] 1 Kings xviii. 33 sq.

[3 ] By not noticing the difference between “a prophet” and “the prophet” Vide supra, p. 356.

[1 ] Isa. xl. 3.

[2 ] iii. 1.

[1 ] John i. 24.

[2 ] Matt. iii. 7.

[1 ] Luke iii. 2.

[1 ] Matt. iii. 10.

[2 ] Hos. x. 13.

[3 ] Luke iii. 9.

[4 ] Deut. xix. 23.

[1 ] Matt. xi. 13.

[1 ] Matt. xxi. 23.

[2 ] John i. 26.

[1 ] Matt. iii. 11.

[1 ] Mark i. 6, 7.

[2 ] Luke iii. 16.

[1 ] Acts xix. 2.

[1 ] 1 Pet. iii. 18-20.

[2 ] Rom. xiv. 9.

[1 ] xviii. 7.

[1 ] Reading αὐτοὺς.

[1 ] John vii. 37.

[2 ] Isa. lxi. 1.

[3 ] Isa. lxv. 1.

[4 ] Ps. ii. 6.

[1 ] Matt. v. 34, 35.

[2 ] Jer. xxiii. 24.

[1 ] John i. 28.

[2 ] John xi. 1, 18.

[1 ] Luke x. 41, 43.

[2 ] Matt. viii. 28, 32; Mark v. 1, 13; Luke viii. 26-37.

[3 ] Gen. xlvi. 11; Ex. vi. 16.

[4 ] Ex. ii. 22.

[1 ] Gen. xxxviii. 4.

[2 ] xxxiii. 6.

[3 ] The name “Saul” or “David” should probably stand here. 1 Chron. x., where the genealogies give place to narrative.

[4 ] xlvi. 4.

[1 ] John vi. 53.

[2 ] Luke xii. 50.

[3 ] 1 John v. 8.

[1 ] x. 1-4.

[2 ] Exod. xiv. 11.

[1 ] Josh. iii. 5.

[2 ] Philipp. ii. 9-11.

[3 ] iii. 7.

[4 ] Josh. iii. 9, 10.

[5 ] Josh. v. 9.

[1 ] vi. 49.

[2 ] 2 Kings ii. 8, 11.

[1 ] 2 Kings v. 9, 10.

[2 ] Matt. viii. 2, 3.

[3 ] Matt. xix. 17; Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19.

[1 ] ii. 18.

[2 ] xxix. 3-5.

[1 ] John. i. 29.

[2 ] Luke iii. 14.

[3 ] Matt. xiv. 2.

[4 ] Luke i. 41, 42.

[1 ] iii. 13.

[2 ] i. 9.

[3 ] John i. 29.

[1 ] Heb. viii. 5; ix. 23.

[2 ] Heb. v. 14.

[3 ] 1 Cor. ii. 6.

[4 ] Exod. xxix. 38-44.

[1 ] Isa. liii. 7.

[2 ] Jer. xi. 19.

[3 ] v. 6.

[4 ] John x. 18.

[1 ] Hosea xiv. 10.

[2 ] Judges xi. 35.

[3 ] Wisdom xvii. 1.

[4 ] 1 Clement, 55.

[5 ] Philipp. iv. 3.

[1 ] 1 Cor. iv. 13.

[2 ] 1 John ii. 1, 2.

[1 ] 1 Tim. iv. 10.

[2 ] Coloss. ii. 14, 15.

[3 ] Ps. lxxii. 12.

[4 ] Ps. xxiv. 8.

[5 ] John xx. 17.

[6 ] Isa. lxiii. 1.

[7 ] Ps. xxiv. 7, 9.

[8 ] Gen. xlix. 2.

[1 ] Luke xii. 50.

[2 ] Ps. cx. 1.

[1 ] 1 Cor. xv. 26.

[2 ] xxvi. 9.

[1 ] κοσμος means both “ornament” and “world.”

[2 ] Matt. v. 14.

[1 ] Matt. xxiv. 12.

[2 ] Luke xviii. 8.

[3 ] 1 Tim. iv. 10.

[1 ] John ii. 12-25.

[2 ] The text is doubtful here, but the above seems to be the meaning.

[1 ] Nazara is with Origen a neuter plural.

[2 ] iv. 11-15, 17.

[3 ] i. 13, 14, 21.

[4 ] iv. 13-16.

[1 ] iv. 21 sqq.

[2 ] John iii. 23-26.

[1 ] iii. 24.

[1 ] Gen. xxvii.

[2 ] Rom. i. 3.

[1 ] Philipp. ii. 8.

[2 ] Rom. vii. 14.

[1 ] 2 Cor. xii. 3, 4, 5.

[2 ] 1 Cor. ix. 20-22.

[3 ] 1 Cor. vii. 6.

[4 ] 2 Cor. xi. 29.

[5 ] Acts xxi. 24, 26.

[6 ] Acts xvi. 3.

[7 ] Acts xvii. 23.

[8 ] Aratus phenom. 5.

[9 ] John i. 41.

[10 ] Matt. iv. 18. Cf. Mark i. 16.

[1 ] iv. 1, 2.

[1 ] xxviii. 20.

[1 ] Gal. ii. 20.

[2 ] 2 Cor. xiii. 3.

[1 ] i. 14-27.

[2 ] iv. 31-41.

[1 ] viii. 5 sqq.

[1 ] John ii. 13.

[2 ] Exod. xii. 1-3.

[3 ] Ver. 11.

[4 ] Ver. 26.

[1 ] Ver. 43-48.

[2 ] Ver. 48.

[3 ] Isa. i. 13.

[4 ] xvi. 23.

[5 ] xxviii. 1.

[6 ] Exod. viii. 21-23.

[1 ] Exod. xxxii. 7.

[2 ] Levit. xxiii. 2.

[3 ] 1 Cor. v. 7.

[4 ] Hosea ix. 5.

[5 ] xii. 22, 23.

[6 ] ii. 16.

[1 ] 1 Cor. v. 8.

[1 ] Exod. xii. 8.

[2 ] xix. 32.

[1 ] Exod. xii. 5.

[2 ] John vi. 53.

[3 ] John vi. 48-50.

[4 ] ix. 9.

[1 ] 2 Tim. iv. 3, 4.

[2 ] Jer. v. 14.

[3 ] Luke xxiv. 32.

[4 ] xx. 9.

[1 ] iv. 11 sqq.

[2 ] Matt. viii.

[3 ] viii. 23.

[4 ] xxvi. 2.

[1 ] John ii. 13-17.

[2 ] Matt. xxi. 10-13.

[1 ] Luke xix. 41, 42.

[2 ] Matt. xxi. 1.

[1 ] Mark xi. 1-12.

[2 ] Luke xix. 29.

[1 ] John xii. 12-15.

[1 ] John ii. 13.

[2 ] Matt. v. 35.

[3 ] Ps. cxxv. 2.

[4 ] Ps. cxxii. 2, 3, 4.

[5 ] Tim. iii. 15.

[1 ] Matt. xxi. 43.

[1 ] Ps. xxxiii. 10.

[2 ] xxi. 10.

[1 ] Zech. ix. 9.

[2 ] Zech. ix. 9.

[1 ] Luke xix. 40.

[1 ] 1 Cor. ii. 16.

[2 ] Song of Sol. i. 15.

[1 ] Ephes. vi. 12.

[2 ] Isa. i. 7.

[3 ] 2 Cor. iii. 14.

[4 ] Heb. i. 11.

[1 ] Ephes. ii. 12.

[1 ] Mark xi. 15.

[2 ] Luke xix. 41.

[1 ] Zech. ix. 10.

[2 ] Ps. xxxiii. 17.

[3 ] Zech. ix. 9, 10.

[4 ] Ps. lxxiv. 13.

[5 ] xi. 2.

[6 ] Isa. xxx. 6.

[1 ] ἐν τω̑ ἱερῳ̑, not τῳ̑ ναῳ̑. The latter is Neander’s correction for τω̑ν ἄνω, “the things above.” Heracleon’s point is that the ἰερόν, the Holy of Holies, represents the spiritual realm; and that Jesus entered it as being, as well as the ναος, in need of His saving work.

[2 ] Acts v. 20.

[1 ] Acts v. 29, 30.

[1 ] John ii. 18, 19.

[2 ] 1 Pet. ii. 5.

[3 ] Ephes. ii. 20.

[4 ] 1 Cor. xii. 27.

[5 ] Ver. 14.

[6 ] 2 Peter iii. 3, 10, 13.

[7 ] Ezek. xxxvii. 11.

[1 ] Gal. vi. 14.

[2 ] Rom. vi. 4.

[3 ] These words do not occur in Rom. vi. 4.

[4 ] xxxvii. 1-4.

[5 ] Ps. xxii. 13.

[1 ] Ephes. iv. 13.

[2 ] 1 Cor. xii. 12 sq.

[3 ] John xv. 3.

[1 ] 1 Cor. xv. 22-24.

[2 ] Luke xxiii. 43.

[3 ] John xx. 17.

[4 ] 1 Cor. xv. 15.

[5 ] John v. 19.

[1 ] Matt. xxvi. 61; Mark xiv. 58.

[2 ] John ii. 20.

[3 ] 1 Kings v. 18.

[4 ] 1 Kings vi. 1.

[1 ] 2 Sam. vii. 2.

[2 ] 1 Chron. xxii. 8; xxvii. 3.

[3 ] 1 Chron. xxix. 1-5.

[4 ] LXX reads “besides what;” neither reading yields a good sense.

[5 ] 1 Kings ii. 11.

[6 ] Ezra vi. 1.

[1 ] Reading ἠγωνισμένοις. Another suggested reading is γεγωνιωμένοις, which might give the sense “at the corners.” Neither is satisfactory.

[2 ] John ii. 21.

[3 ] 1 Cor. xii. 27.

[1 ] 1 Pet. ii. 5.

[2 ] 1 Kings v. 3-5.

[3 ] 1 Cor. xv. 25.

[4 ] 1 Chron. xxii. 9.

[5 ] Ps. cxx. 7.

[6 ] 1 Kings v. 15-18.

[1 ] 1 Kings vi. 8.

[2 ] 1 Kings vi. 10.

[3 ] 1 Kings vi. 16, 19, the “oracle.”

[4 ] 1 Kings vi. 21.

[1 ] 1 Kings vii. 13.

[2 ] Coloss. i. 15.

[3 ] 1 Kings vi. 4.

[1 ] Isa. liv. 11-14.

[2 ] Isa. lx. 13-20.

[1 ] Matt. xv. 24.

[2 ] Isa. liv. 15.

[3 ] Apoc. iii. 12.

[4 ] John ii. 22.

[1 ] xx. 29.

[2 ] Matt. xiii. 16.

[3 ] John xx. 29.

[4 ] Luke ii. 29, 30.

[1 ] 1 Cor. xiii. 12.

[2 ] ii. 23-25.

[3 ] John iii. 18.

[4 ] Matt. vii. 21-23.

[5 ] Philipp. iv. 13.

[1 ] John ii. 13.

[2 ] Matt. vii. 14.

[1 ] John xiii. 2-27.

[2 ] Ps. lxxxiv. 5.

[1 ] This fragment is found in Eusebius, H. E. vi. 25.

[2 ] 1 Pet. v. 13.

[3 ]Or, who is commended by Paul.

[1 ] This fragment, which is preserved in the Philocalia, c. vi., is all that is extant of Book II.

[2 ] Matt. v. 9.

[3 ] Prov. viii. 8, 9.

[4 ] Ps. lxxii. 7.

[5 ] Ecc. xii. 11.

[1 ]Or, fitted,

[2 ] 1 Sam. xvi. 14.

[1 ] Matt. xiii. 36.

[2 ] John i. 35.

[3 ] John i. 40.

[1 ]Or, by a dispensation.

[2 ] Matt. xiii. 37.

[3 ] John i. 2.

[4 ] Matt. xxvi. 41.

[5 ] Matt. xiii. 39. Or, reading ὅς καλει̑ται for ὁ, and at the end of things, there will of necessity be a harvest, which is called the consummation of the age.

[1 ] Matt. xiii. 42.

[2 ] Ps. xxxv. 16.

[3 ] Matt. xiii. 43.

[4 ] Matt. xiii. 43.

[5 ]Or, in little details.

[6 ] Dan. xii. 3.

[7 ] 1 Cor. xv. 41, 42.

[1 ] Matt. v. 16.

[2 ] Prov. vii. 3. Or, on the breadth of the heart.

[3 ] Eph. iv. 13.

[4 ] Matt. xiii. 44.

[5 ] 1 Tim. iv. 13.

[6 ] Matt. xiii. 34.

[7 ] Matt. xiii. 11.

[1 ] Mark iv. 30.

[2 ] ὁρμή; also, inclination.

[3 ] ἀϕορμή.

[4 ] Col. ii. 3.

[1 ] Rom. iii. 2.

[2 ] Matt. xxi. 43.

[3 ] Matt. xiii. 45.

[1 ] Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. ix. 54, etc.

[1 ] Matt. xiii. 45.

[1 ] Matt. vii. 6.

[2 ] Matt. v. 1.

[3 ] Matt. vii. 6.

[4 ] Matt. vii. 7.

[5 ] Matt. vii. 8.

[6 ] Phil. iii. 8.

[1 ] Matt. iii. 17.

[2 ] 2 Cor. iii. 10.

[3 ] 1 Cor. xiii. 9, 10.

[4 ] Cf. Gal. iv. 1, 2.

[5 ] Phil. iii. 8.

[6 ]Or, absolutely.

[7 ] Luke xiii. 8.

[8 ] Eccles. iii. 1.

[1 ] Matt. xiii. 47.

[2 ] Valentinus and his followers.

[3 ] Gen. i. 20.

[1 ] Gen. i. 21.

[2 ] Ezek. xviii. 20-23.

[3 ] Ezek. xviii. 24.

[1 ] Matt. xiii. 47.

[1 ] Matt. v. 17.

[2 ] Matt. iv. 11.

[3 ] Matt. xiii. 49, 50.

[4 ] Matt. xiii. 42.

[1 ] 1 Pot. i. 12.

[2 ] 1 Cor. vi. 3.

[3 ] Ezek. xviii. 17-22.

[1 ] Matt. xiii. 51.

[2 ] John ii. 25.

[3 ] Gen. iii. 9.

[4 ] Gen. iv. 9.

[5 ] Matt. xiii. 52.

[6 ] Acts iv. 13.

[7 ]Or, anagogical.

[1 ] Matt. xxiii. 13.

[2 ] Gal. iv. 24.

[3 ] Eph. vi. 12.

[4 ]Or, in an exalted sense.

[5 ] Matt. iii. 2.

[6 ] John i. 1, 2.

[7 ]Or, substance.

[8 ] Luke xvii. 21.

[1 ] 2 Cor. iii. 16, 17.

[2 ] Matt. vi. 20.

[3 ] Prov. xxv. 20.

[4 ] Matt. vi. 21.

[5 ] Ps. xxvii. 3.

[6 ] John. x. 8.

[7 ] Eph. ii. 6.

[8 ] Phil. iii. 20.

[9 ] Matt. xiii. 52.

[10 ] 1 Tim. iv. 13.

[11 ] Ps. i, 2.

[1 ] Heb. x. 1.

[2 ] Matt. xviii. 16.

[3 ] Marcion and his school.

[4 ] 2 Cor. iv. 16.

[5 ] 2 Cor. iii. 7.

[6 ] 1 Cor. xi. 1.

[1 ] Lev. xxvi. 10, 11.

[2 ] Lev. xxvi. 12; 2 Cor. vi. 16.

[3 ] Matt. xiii. 53, 54.

[4 ] Matt. xiii. 11.

[1 ] Mark vi. i.

[2 ] Matt. ii. 23.

[3 ] Matt. xiii. 57.

[4 ] 1 Cor. i. 23.

[5 ] Eph. ii. 12.

[6 ] Matt. xiii. 54.

[7 ] Matt. xii. 42.

[8 ] Matt. xiii. 55.

[9 ] Matt. xiii. 55, 56.

[1 ] The Gospel of Peter, of which a fragment was recovered in 1886 and published in 1892.

[2 ] Protevangelium Jacobi, c. 9.

[3 ] Luke i. 35.

[4 ] Gal. i. 19.

[5 ] Jos. Ant. xviii. 4.

[6 ] Jude 1.

[7 ] Matt. xiii. 56.

[1 ] John vii. 15.

[2 ] Matt. xiii. 57.

[3 ] Acts vii. 52.

[4 ] 1 Thess. ii. 14, 15.

[1 ] John v. 46.

[2 ] Jer. xx. 9.

[3 ] Jer. xx. 7.

[4 ] Probably the Ascensio Isaiæ. Cf. Orig. Ep. ad Afric. c. 9.

[5 ] Heb. xi. 37.

[6 ] Matt. xxiii. 35. Cf. Orig. Ep. ad Afric. c. 9.

[7 ] Heb. xi. 37.

[8 ] 2 Tim. iii. 12.

[1 ] Matt. xxviii. 19.

[2 ] Acts i. 8.

[3 ] Joel ii. 28.

[4 ] Luke vi. 23.

[5 ] Matt. xiii. 58.

[6 ] Matt. xiii. 12.

[7 ] Matt. xvii. 19, 20.

[1 ] Matt. xiv. 31.

[2 ] Luke viii. 45, 46.

[3 ] Matt. xvii. 20.

[4 ] Matt. xiii. 58.

[5 ] Mark vi. 5.

[6 ] Mark vi. 5.

[1 ] Gen. i. 11.

[2 ] Wisdom of Solomon ix. 6.

[3 ] Jer. ix. 23.

[4 ] Matt. xiv. 1.

[5 ] Mark vi. 14.

[6 ] Luke ix. 7.

[1 ]Or, none other than.

[2 ] Matt. xxi. 25.

[3 ] Matt. xi. 14.

[4 ] John x. 41.

[5 ] Luke ix. 8.

[6 ] Mark vi. 15.

[1 ] Luke i. 17.

[2 ] Matt. xi. 2, 3.

[3 ] Matt. xiv. 2.

[4 ] The question of John’s relation to Jesus and of the supposed transcorporation, is more fully discussed by Origen in his Commentary on John, book vi. 7, p. 353, sqq.

[5 ] Matt. xiv. 3.

[6 ] Luke xvi. 16.

[7 ] Gen. xlix. 10.

[1 ] Matt. xiv. 3.

[2 ] Matt. xiv. 3, 4.

[3 ] Matt. xi. 17; Luke vii. 32.

[1 ] Gen. xl. 20.

[2 ] Matt. xi. 11.

[3 ] Luke vii. 26.

[4 ] Ps. lxxxviii. 6.

[5 ] 2 Cor. xiii. 4.

[6 ] John v. 46.

[1 ] Ex. xii. 46; John xix. 36.

[2 ] Matt. xiv. 12.

[3 ] Matt. xiv. 13.

[4 ] Matt. x. 23.

[5 ] Matt. xxi. 43.

[1 ] Isa. liv. 1; Gal. iv. 27.

[1 ] Matt. xiv. 14.

[2 ] 1 Cor. xi. 30.

[3 ] Jude 8.

[4 ] Isa. xxix. 8 (LXX., which has “against mount Zion,” where Origen has “in Jerusalem”).

[5 ] Matt. xiv. 14.

[1 ] Matt. xiv. 15.

[1 ] 1 Cor. xi. 28.

[2 ] Matt. xiv. 15.

[3 ] 1 John ii. 18.

[4 ] Matt. xiv. 15.

[5 ] Matt. xiv. 15.

[6 ] Luke xvi. 16.

[7 ] Matt. xiv. 15.

[2 ] Matt. xiv. 15.

[3 ] Matt. xiv. 16.

[4 ] Matt. xiv. 17.

[5 ] λόγος προϕορικός.

[6 ] λόγος ἐνδιάθετος.

[1 ] Luke xxiv. 42, 43.

[2 ] Matt. xiv. 17; Mark vi. 38, Luke ix. 13.

[3 ] John vi. 9.

[4 ] John vi. 9.

[5 ] Ps. lxxxi. 7.

[1 ] 1 Cor. xiii. 11.

[2 ] Matt. xiv. 21.

[3 ] Num. i. 3.

[4 ] 1 Cor. iii. 1.

[5 ] 2 Cor. xi. 2.

[6 ] 1 Cor. xiii. 11.

[1 ] Matt. xiv. 19, 20.

[2 ] Isa. xl. 6.

[3 ] Rom. viii. 6.

[4 ] Mark vi. 39, 40.

[5 ] Luke ix. 14.

[6 ] Matt. xix. 28.

[1 ] Matt. xiv. 22.

[2 ] Matt. v. 1-3.

[3 ] Matt. xii. 15.

[4 ] Matt. xiv. 46-49.

[5 ] Matt. xiv. 50.

[6 ] Matt. xiii. 2, 3.

[7 ] Matt. xiii. 10.

[8 ] Matt. xiii. 11.

[1 ] Matt. xiii. 11.

[2 ] Matt. xiii. 36.

[3 ] Matt. xiii. 36.

[4 ] Matt. xiv. 13, 14.

[5 ] Matt. xiv. 15.

[6 ] Matt. xiv. 19.

[7 ] Matt. xiv. 22.

[1 ] Matt. xiv. 23.

[2 ] Matt. xiv. 24.

[3 ] Matt. xiv. 25.

[1 ] Mark vi. 45.

[2 ] Matt. xiv. 25.

[3 ] Matt. xiv. 29.

[1 ] Matt. xiv. 34.

[2 ] Cf. 1 Cor. x. 13.

[3 ] Matt. xiv. 22, 23.

[1 ] 2 Thess. ii. 4.

[2 ] The conception of Origen seems to be that opposed to the Divine Trinity there is an evil trinity. Cf. book xii. 20.

[3 ] Rom. xiii. 12.

[4 ] Matt. xiv. 27.

[5 ] Matt. xiv. 30.

[6 ] Matt. xiv. 31.

[1 ] Matt. xiv. 33.

[2 ] Matt. xiv. 35.

[3 ] Matt. xiv. 36.

[4 ] Matt. ix. 20, 21.

[5 ] Matt. xiv. 36.

[6 ] διεσώθησαν.

[7 ] σωθη̑ναι.

[8 ] Matt. ix. 22.

[1 ] Matt. xv. 1, 2.

[2 ] Matt. xiv. 35, 36.

[3 ] Gal. iii. 13.

[4 ] 1 Cor. ix. 20.

[1 ] Gal. ii. 3.

[2 ] Acts xxi. 26; xviii. 18.

[3 ] Cf. Luke xi. 5.

[4 ] Ex. xx. 12.

[5 ] Lev. xx. 9.

[6 ] Matt. xv. 4.

[1 ] Exod. xxi. 15; Lev. xx. 9.

[2 ] Exod. xx. 12.

[3 ] [Editor: illegible word]

[4 ] Matt. xv. 4.

[1 ] Luke xvi. 14.

[2 ] 1 Tim. vi. 5.

[3 ] Mark xiv. 5; John xii. 5.

[4 ] John xii. 6.

[1 ] Eph. vi. 16.

[2 ] 1 Tim. vi. 10.

[3 ] Matt. xv. 4.

[4 ] Matt. xv. 5.

[5 ]Or, you, if we read ὑμα̑ς.

[6 ] Cf. Luke i. 6.

[1 ] Isa. xxix. 13.

[2 ] Isa. xxix. 9-15.

[1 ] Matt. xv. 9.

[2 ] Isa. xxix. 14.

[3 ] Isa. xxix. 15.

[1 ] Mark vii. 3, 4.

[2 ] Matt. xv. 10.

[3 ] Matt. xv. 11.

[4 ] Mark vii. 19.

[5 ] Ecclus. xxviii. 25.

[1 ] Rom. ii. 25, 26.

[2 ] Tit. i. 15.

[3 ] 1 Cor. x. 31.

[4 ] Rom. xiv. 23.

[5 ] Cf. Acts xv. 20.

[1 ] 1 Cor. viii. 8.

[2 ] The text is uncertain.

[3 ] Col. ii. 16.

[4 ] Heb. x. 1.

[5 ] Matt. xv. 10.

[6 ] Matt. xv. 13.

[7 ] John xv. 1.

[8 ] Col. ii. 21, 22.

[9 ] Col. iii. 2.

[1 ] Matt. xv. 14.

[2 ] Ps. vii. 15.

[3 ] Matt. v. 1.

[4 ] Matt. xv. 10, 11.

[5 ] Marcion and his followers.

[6 ] Matt. xv. 13.

[7 ] Exod. xv. 17.

[1 ] 2 Thess. ii. 12.

[2 ] 2 Cor. iv. 4.

[3 ] Phil. iii. 19.

[4 ] John xvi. 11.

[5 ] Cf. Luke xx. 36.

[6 ] Matt. xv. 14.

[7 ] 2 Cor. iv. 4.

[8 ] Matt. xv. 11.

[9 ] Matt. xv. 16.

[1 ] Matt. xv. 17.

[2 ] Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 7.

[3 ] Rom. vii. 14.

[4 ] Rom. vii. 12.

[5 ] 2 Cor. iii. 16, 17.

[6 ] Matt. xv. 11.

[7 ] Rom. xiv. 23.

[8 ] Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 5.

[9 ] 1 Cor. xi. 30.

[1 ] 1 Cor. viii. 8.

[2 ] Matt. xv. 17.

[3 ] John i. 14.

[4 ] John vi. 51.

[5 ] Matt. xv. 18, 19.

[1 ] Prov. iv. 23.

[2 ] 1 Cor. iv. 5.

[3 ] Rom. ii. 15.

[4 ] Hos. vii. 2.

[5 ] Matt. vi. 1, 2.

[6 ] 1 Cor. xii. 28.

[7 ] 1 Tim. iii. 1.

[1 ] Matt. xv. 21, 22.

[2 ] Matt. xiv. 34.

[3 ] Matt. xv. 11.

[4 ] Matt. iv. 12.

[5 ] Mark vii. 24.

[1 ] Mark vii. 24.

[2 ] Matt. xv. 22.

[3 ] Deut. xxxii. 8.

[4 ] Exod. viii. 2.

[5 ] Matt. xv. 22.

[6 ] Cf. Matt. xxv. 34.

[1 ] Matt. xx. 30.

[2 ] Matt. viii. 29.

[3 ] Matt. xiv. 33.

[4 ] Rom. i. 3.

[5 ] Rom. i. 4.

[6 ] Luke vii. 12.

[7 ] Matt. ix. 18.

[8 ] John iv. 46.

[9 ] John iv. 48.

[1 ] Matt. xv. 24.

[2 ] Matt. xv. 28.

[3 ] Gal. iv. 26.

[4 ] Gen. xv. 15.

[5 ] Matt. xv. 22.

[6 ] Matt. xv. 24.

[7 ] 2 Cor. v. 16.

[8 ] Rom. xi. 5.

[1 ] 1 Cor. i. 27.

[2 ] 1 Cor. i. 28.

[3 ] 1 Cor. i. 21.

[4 ] Ps. viii. 2.

[5 ] Matt. xv. 25, 26.

[6 ] Phil. ii. 7.

[7 ] Luke viii. 46.

[1 ] Exod. xxii. 31.

[2 ] 2 Sam. xvi. 9.

[3 ] Matt. xv. 27.

[4 ] Matt. xv. 28.

[5 ] Matt. xv. 29.

[1 ] Matt. xv. 30.

[2 ] Isa. xxxv. 6.

[1 ] Isa. xlii. 18.

[2 ] Rom. i. 20.

[3 ] Matt. xv. 31.

[4 ] Rom. iii. 29.

[5 ] Matt. xv. 3.2.

[6 ] Matt. xv. 30.

[1 ] Matt. xv. 32.

[2 ] Matt. xiv. 15.

[3 ] Matt. xiv. 15.

[4 ] Matt. xv. 32.

[5 ] Luke ix. 14.

[6 ] Mark vi. 39.

[7 ] ὀυ κελεύει ἁλλὰ παραγγέλλει.

[8 ] Matt. xiv. 19; Mark vi. 41; Luke ix. 16.

[9 ] Matt. xv. 36; Mark viii. 6.

[1 ] John vi. 10.

[2 ]Or, did not mention the occasion of this.

[3 ] John vi. 13.

[4 ] Matt. xiv. 14.

[5 ] Matt. xv. 31.

[1 ] Isa. xl. 6.

[2 ] Luke xiii. 12, Literally ‘thou art sent away.’

[3 ] Matt. xv. 23.

[4 ] Matt. xv. 28.

[6 ] Matt. xvi. 1.

[5 ] Luke xxiii. 12.

[6 ] Luke xxiii. 21.

[1 ] 2 Kings xxiv. 7.

[2 ] 2 Kings xix. 9.

[3 ] Ps. ii. 2.

[4 ] Matt. ix. 24; xii. 24.

[5 ] The familiar saying so frequently quoted as Scripture in the Fathers, sometimes ascribed to Jesus by them, sometimes to Paul. See Suicer.

[1 ] Job i. 1 6.

[2 ] 2 Thess. ii. 9.

[3 ] Isa. vii. 11.

[4 ] 2 Thess. ii. 9, 10.

[1 ] John xi. 39.

[2 ] Gen. i. 26.

[3 ] Matt. xi. 4, 5.

[4 ] Matt. xvi. 4.

[5 ] Ps. lxxxviii. 6.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 4.

[2 ] Phil. iii. 3.

[3 ] Rom. vii. 23.

[4 ] Prov. xix. 14.

[1 ] Rom. vii. 1, 2. Ἡ γὰρ ὔπανδρος γυνὴ τῳ̑ ζω̑ντι ἀνδρὶ δέδεται νόμῳ. The reader must note that Origen takes νόμῳ in apposition to ἀνδρὶ.

[2 ] 1 Cor. ix. 10.

[3 ]Or, who was God.

[4 ] Rom. vi. 9.

[5 ] Rom. vii. 2, 3.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 4.

[2 ] Rom. vii. 23.

[3 ] Hos. i. 2.

[4 ] Isa. i. 21.

[5 ] Josh. vi. 25.

[6 ] Luke vii. 37-50. Cf. Matt. xxvi. 6.

[7 ] Matt. xvi. 5.

[8 ] Cf. Gal. iii. 3.

[9 ] Matt. xvi. 6.

[1 ] John vi. 33, 51.

[2 ] 1 Cor. v. 8.

[3 ] Heb. x. 1.

[4 ] Col. ii. 17.

[5 ] Matt. xvi. 7.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 6.

[2 ] Matt. xvi. 11.

[3 ] Matt. xxviii. 20.

[4 ] Matt. xv. 32.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 8.

[2 ] 1 Kings viii. 39.

[3 ] Matt. xvi. 6.

[4 ] 1 Cor. xiii. 10.

[1 ] Deut. xxii. 25.

[2 ]Or, violence in the licentious person.

[3 ] Matt. xvi. 7, 8.

[4 ] John xiv. 13, 14.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 13.

[2 ]Or, Him.

[3 ] Matt. xiv. 2.

[4 ] Jer. i. 10.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 14.

[2 ] Matt. xvi. 17.

[3 ] Matt. xvi. 16.

[4 ] Jer. xxii. 24.

[5 ] Jer. ii. 13.

[6 ] John xiv. 6.

[7 ] Matt. xvi. 16.

[8 ] Matt. xi. 14.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 16.

[2 ] Phil. iii. 20.

[3 ] Eph. i. 17.

[4 ] Matt. xvi. 18.

[5 ]Or, a Peter.

[6 ] 1 Cor. x. 4.

[7 ] Matt. xvi. 18.

[8 ] Matt. xvi. 18.

[9 ] Matt. xvi. 19.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 19.

[2 ] John. xx. 22.

[3 ] 2 Cor. iii. 18.

[4 ] Matt. xvi. 16.

[5 ] 1 Cor. x. 4.

[6 ] 1 Cor. i. 30.

[7 ] Prov. xxx. 19.

[1 ] Matt. vii. 24.

[2 ] Or, each of the sins on account of which Christ was about to go to Hades (Erasmus.)

[3 ] Eph. v. 27.

[4 ]Or, you.

[5 ] Matt. xxii. 14.

[6 ] Luke xiii. 24.

[7 ] Matt. vii. 14.

[8 ] Phil. iv. 13.

[1 ] John x. 9.

[2 ] 1 Tim. vi. 20.

[3 ] Ps. ix. 13, 14.

[4 ] Ps. cxviii. 20.

[1 ] Eph. vi. 12.

[2 ] Eph. vi. 12.

[3 ] Heb. i. 14.

[4 ] Ps. cxviii. 19, 20.

[5 ] That is, the Minor Prophets.

[6 ] Amos v. 10.

[7 ] Matt. xvi. 19.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 18.

[2 ] Matt. iii. 2; iv. 17.

[3 ] Luke xvii. 21.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 18.

[2 ] Prov. v. 22.

[3 ] Isa. v. 18.

[4 ] 1 Tim. iii. 10.

[5 ] Matt. xvi. 20.

[6 ] Matt. x. 5.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 20.

[2 ] Mark viii. 30.

[3 ] Luke ix. 21.

[4 ] Matt. xvi. 15, 16.

[5 ] Matt. xvi. 20.

[6 ]Or, which he may regard as mediocre.

[7 ] John viii. 31, 32.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 16.

[2 ] Matt. xvi. 18.

[3 ] Matt. x. 18.

[1 ] Matt. x. 21.

[2 ] Matt. x. 32.

[3 ] Matt. x. 27.

[4 ] Matt. xvi. 21.

[1 ] John vi. 68.

[5 ] Gal. vi. 14.

[2 ] 1 Cor. ii. 2.

[3 ] Matt. xvi. 21.

[4 ] Col. ii. 15.

[1 ] John xvi. 11.

[2 ] John xii. 31, 32.

[3 ] Matt. xvi. 21.

[4 ] Matt. xvi. 21.

[1 ] Luke xiii. 33.

[2 ] Matt. x. 39.

[3 ] 1 Cor. xv. 20.

[4 ] 2 Cor. iii. 3.

[5 ] Heb. xii. 22.

[6 ]Or (putting a comma after Jerusalem), but that on the third day He might rise.

[7 ] See xi. c. 6, p. 434, note 2.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 22.

[2 ] Matt. xvi. 23.

[3 ] These three sentences are supplied from the old Latin version, as at this point there is a hiatus in the MSS.

[4 ] Rom. iii. 25.

[5 ] Matt. xvi. 22.

[6 ] Matt. xvi. 23.

[1 ] Matt. iv. 19.

[2 ] Matt. xvi. 23.

[3 ] Matt. iv. 9.

[4 ] Matt. iv. 10.

[5 ] Matt. x. 38.

[6 ] Ecclus xviii. 30.

[7 ] 1 Kings xviii. 21.

[8 ] John i. 38.

[9 ] Matt. xvi. 23.

[10 ] Ps. cxix. 165.

[1 ] 1 Cor. xiii. 7, 8.

[2 ] Ps. cxlv. 14.

[3 ] 2 Cor. xi. 29.

[4 ] Matt. xvi. 22.

[5 ] 2 Cor. iv. 18.

[6 ] Matt. xxv. 42.

[7 ] Matt. xvi. 24.

[1 ] Rom. x. 10.

[2 ] Matt. x. 32.

[3 ] Matt. x. 33.

[4 ] John xix. 17; 18.

[5 ] Matt. xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 21; Luke xxiii. 26.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 24.

[2 ] Gal. ii. 20.

[3 ] 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. ii. 14.

[4 ] Gal. ii. 20; vi. 14.

[5 ] Col. ii. 15.

[6 ] Matt. xvi. 25.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 25.

[2 ] Gal. vi. 14.

[3 ] Matt. xvi. 26.

[4 ] 1 Pet. i. 19.

[1 ] 1 Cor. vi. 20.

[2 ] 1 Pet. i. 18, 19.

[3 ] Isa. xliii. 3, 4.

[4 ] Ps. cxxx. 8.

[5 ] Matt. xvi. 27.

[6 ] Isa. liii. 2, 3.

[7 ] Isa. liii. 4.

[8 ] Reading προευτρεπισός, as the Vetus Inter.

[9 ] Rom. viii. 29.

[10 ] Phil. iii. 21.

[11 ] Phil. ii. 7.

[1 ] 1 Cor. i. 21.

[2 ] Isa. liii. 2.

[3 ] Matt. xvi. 27.

[4 ] John i. 14.

[5 ] 2 Cor. v. 10.

[1 ] Ezek. xviii. 21-24.

[2 ] 2 Cor. v. 10.

[3 ] Matt. xvi. 28.

[4 ] Luke ix. 28.

[5 ] Mark ix. 1.

[6 ] Matt. xx. 23.

[7 ] 1 Pet. ii. 2.

[8 ] 1 Cor. iii. 2.

[1 ] Gen. xxi. 8.

[2 ] Rom. xiv. 2.

[3 ] 1 Sam. i. 23, 24.

[4 ] Deut. x. 10.

[5 ] Deut. v. 31.

[6 ] Isa. liii. 2, 3.

[1 ] Mark iii. 17.

[2 ] John xiv. 6.

[3 ] Col. iii. 3, 4.

[4 ] 1 Cor. xv. 26.

[5 ] Deut. xxx. 15.

[6 ] Deut. xxviii. 66, 67.

[7 ] John vi. 33, 51.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 28.

[2 ] Matt. xxviii. 20.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27.

[1 ] Ps. lxxxix. 48.

[2 ] Ps. lv. 18.

[3 ] Isa. xxv. 8.

[4 ] Rev. vi. 10.

[1 ] Rom. vi. 12.

[2 ] Luke xvii. 21.

[3 ] Matt. xvii. 1, Mark ix. 2.

[4 ] 1 John ii. 15.

[1 ] Matt. xvii. 2; Mark ix. 2.

[2 ] Rom. xiii. 12.

[3 ] Rom. xiii. 13; 1 Thess. v. 5.

[1 ] Matt. xvii. 2.

[2 ] Matt. xvii. 3.

[3 ] Luke ix. 30, 31.

[4 ] 1 Cor. ii. 7.

[5 ] Luke (ix. 28, 29) alone mentions the praying.

[6 ] Mark ix. 3.

[1 ] Luke ix. 29.

[2 ] Matt. xvii. 4; Mark ix. 5; Luke ix. 33.

[3 ] Mark ix. 6.

[4 ] Luke ix. 33.

[5 ] John vii. 39.

[6 ] Col. ii. 15.

[7 ] Matt. xvi. 23.

[1 ] Luke ix. 32.

[2 ] Matt. xvii. 4.

[1 ] John viii. 44.

[2 ] John xiv. 6.

[3 ] Matt. xvi. 16.

[4 ] Matt. xvi. 20.

[5 ] Matt. xvii. 4.

[6 ] Luke ix. 33.

[7 ] Mark ix. 6.

[1 ] Luke ix. 31.

[2 ] Matt. xvii. 4.

[3 ] 1 Cor. xiii. 5.

[4 ] 1 Cor. xiii. 5.

[5 ] 1 Cor. ix. 19.

[6 ] Luke ix. 33.

[7 ] 1 Tim. i. 7.

[8 ] Prov. xvi. 23.

[9 ] Matt. xvii. 5.

[1 ] The text is mutilated.

[2 ] Matt. xvii. 6.

[1 ] Exod. xxx. 20.

[2 ] 1 Pet. v. 6.

[3 ] Matt. xvii. 8.

[4 ] Matt. xxvii. 52, 53.

[5 ] Matt. xvii. 9.

[6 ] Matt. xvi. 20.

[1 ] Matt. xvii. 10.

[2 ] Matt. xvii. 12.

[3 ] Matt. xvii. 12.

[4 ] Matt. xvii. 13.

[5 ] 2 Cor. iv. 18.

[6 ] Matt. xxiv. 35.

[1 ] 1 Cor. vii. 31.

[2 ] Ps. cii. 26.

[3 ] Matt. xxiv. 35.

[4 ] Luke xviii. 8.

[5 ] Matt. xxiv. 37-39.

[1 ] Luke i. 13.

[1 ] Luke i. 63.

[2 ] Luke i. 16, 17.

[3 ] 1 Thess. v. 23.

[4 ] Dan. iii. 86. (Song of the Three Children v. 64.)

[5 ] 1 Cor. xiv. 32.

[6 ] 2 Kings ii. 15.

[7 ] Rom. viii. 16.

[1 ] 1 Cor. ii. 11.

[2 ] 2 Kings ii. 11.

[3 ] Luke i. 15, 17.

[4 ] Ps. li. 12.

[5 ] Ps. li. 10.

[6 ] Isa. xi. 2.

[7 ] Luke 1. 17.

[8 ] Matt. xvii. 12.

[9 ] Matt. xvii. 13.

[10 ] Cf. Luke i. 17.

[11 ] Mal. iv. 5, 6.

[1 ] Matt. xvii. 11.

[2 ] John i. 1.

[3 ] Matt. xvii. 12.

[4 ] Cf. Matt. xxv. 35.

[5 ] Rom. viii. 8, 9.

[6 ] Matt. xvii. 12.

[7 ] Matt. xvii. 10.

[1 ] Matt. xvii. 12.

[2 ] The text is uncertain.

[3 ] Matt. xvii. 14, 15.

[4 ] 1 Cor. ii. 7.

[1 ] Eph. vi. 12.

[2 ] Hos. vii. 4.

[3 ] Ecclus xxvii. 11.

[1 ] 1 Cor. xiii. 2.

[2 ] Matt. xvii. 20.

[3 ] Cf. Matt. xiii. 31, 32.

[4 ] Gen. i. 16.

[1 ] Ps. lxxiii. 8, 9.

[2 ] Lam. iii. 38. Origen reads τὰ καλὰ instead of τὰ κακὰ.

[1 ] Ps. xxxi. 18.

[2 ] Exod. iv. 11.

[3 ] Matt. xvii. 17.

[4 ] Matt. xvii. 20.

[1 ] 1 Cor. xiii. 2.

[2 ] Matt. xvii. 20.

[3 ] Matt. xvii. 21.

[4 ] Matt. xvii. 22.

[5 ] Matt. xvi. 21.

[6 ] Matt. xvii. 22.

[7 ] Rom. viii. 32.

[1 ] John i. 29.

[2 ] Job i. 12.

[3 ] Job i. 15-19.

[4 ] Eph. ii. 2.

[5 ] Job i. 16.

[6 ] John xiii. 27.

[1 ] 1 Cor. ii. 7, 8.

[2 ] 1 Cor. xv. 22.

[3 ] Heb. ii. 14, 15.

[4 ] John xiv. 6.

[5 ] Ezek. xviii. 4.

[6 ] John xviii. 36.

[7 ] Matt. iv. 9.

[8 ] Ps. ii. 2.

[1 ] Ps. ii. 3.

[2 ] Rm. viii. 32.

[3 ] Rom. vi. 4.

[4 ] Matt. iv. 16.

[5 ] Matt. xvii. 22, 23.

[6 ] Heb. ii. 14.

[7 ] Matt. xvii. 24.

[8 ] Exod. 1, 13, 14.

[1 ] Phil. ii. 7.

[2 ] Mark xii. 17; Luke xx. 25.

[3 ] Col. i. 15.

[4 ] John xiv. 31.

[5 ] Matt. xvii. 25.

[1 ] Matt. xvii. 26.

[2 ] John viii. 34.

[3 ] Matt. xvii. 27.

[1 ] Matt. xvii. 24.

[2 ] Num. iii. 47.

[3 ] Matt. xviii. 1.

[1 ] Matt. xvii. 27; xviii. 1.

[2 ] Matt. xvi. 16, 17.

[3 ] Matt. xvi. 23.

[4 ] Matt. xviii. 1.

[5 ] Matt. xviii. 20.

[1 ] Matt. v. 19.

[2 ] Gen. xxvi. 13.

[3 ] Matt. xi. 11.

[1 ] Matt. xviii. 2.

[2 ] 2 Cor. iv. 10.

[1 ]Or, the Word.

[2 ] Matt. xviii. 5.

[1 ] Matt. xviii. 6.

[2 ] Ps. civ. 26.

[3 ]Or, free from. The Vetus Inter has “extra dolores.” It has had ἔξω instead of ἑξη̑ς.

[4 ] Matt. xxiv. 41.

[1 ] Ps. civ. 26.

[2 ] Psa. viii. 18.

[1 ] Matt. xviii. 4.

[2 ] Isa. xlviii. 16.

[3 ] Matt. xviii. 6.

[4 ] Mark ix. 33, 34.

[1 ] Mark ix. 35.

[2 ] Mark ix. 36, 37.

[3 ] Luke ix. 46.

[4 ] Luke ix. 47, 48.

[5 ] Luke ix. 48.

[1 ] Luke xviii. 17.

[2 ] Matt. xviii. 7.

[3 ] John i. 10.

[4 ] Deut. iv. 19.

[5 ] Lomm., following Huet. refers to Esther (The addition to Esther, xiv. 2). But the word κόσμος does not occur in this passage. See Judith x. 4; 1 Macc. ii. 11.

[6 ] John i. 10.

[1 ] John xvii. 5.

[2 ] John xvii. 11.

[3 ] John xvii. 13.

[4 ] John xvii. 14.

[5 ] 2 Cor. iv. 18.

[6 ] John xvii. 21.

[7 ] John xvii. 21, 23.

[8 ] Rom. i. 8.

[1 ] Ps. cxix. 165.

[2 ] John xvii. 16.

[3 ] Gal. vi. 14.

[4 ] 2 Cor. v. 4.

[5 ] Phil. iii. 21.

[6 ] Matt. xviii. 7.

[1 ] Matt. xi. 22.

[2 ] Matt. xviii. 6.

[3 ] 1 Cor. viii. 11, 12.

[4 ] Matt. xviii. 7.

[5 ] Luke xviii. 1.

[1 ] Cor. xii. 21.

[2 ] Matt. xviii. 8.

[1 ] Cf. Matt. xviii. 9.

[2 ] Luke xiv. 26.

[1 ] Matt. xviii. 10.

[2 ] Luke ii. 52.

[3 ] Eph. iv. 13.

[4 ] Cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 11.

[5 ] Luke i. 32.

[6 ] 1 Pet. ii. 2.

[1 ] Isa. xlix. 22, 23.

[2 ] Matt. xviii. 10.

[3 ] Exod. xxxii. 34.

[4 ] Exod. xxxiii. 15.

[5 ] Gal. iv. 1.

[6 ] Rom. viii. 15.

[7 ] 1 John iv. 18.

[8 ] Ps. xxxiv. 7.

[9 ] Ps. xci. 15.

[10 ] Gen. xlviii. 16.

[11 ] Gal. iv. 4.

[1 ] Tit. iii. 5.

[2 ] 1 Pet. ii. 2.

[3 ] Rom. viii. 29.

[4 ] Gal. i. 15.

[5 ] Ps. lxxi. 6.

[6 ] Ps. cxxxix. 13.

[7 ] Ps. xxii. 10.

[8 ] Jude 1.

[9 ] Cf. Tit. iii. 5. 1 Pet. ii. 2.

[10 ] The text is perhaps corrupt.

[1 ] Matt. xviii. 10.

[2 ] Acts xii. 13-15.

[3 ] Matt. xviii. 10.

[1 ] Luke ix. 48.

[2 ] 1 Thess. ii. 7.

[3 ] Luke ix. 48.

[4 ] Eph. iii. 8.

[5 ] Matt. xviii. 6.

[6 ] Matt. xviii. 14.

[7 ] Ps. cxix. 165.

[8 ] Rom. viii. 35.

[9 ] Ezek. xxxiii. 12.

[10 ] Matt. xviii. 12-14.

[11 ] Matt. xviii. 15.

[1 ] 1 Cor. v. 11.

[2 ] 1 John v. 16.

[3 ] Num. xviii. 22.

[4 ] Matt. xviii. 15.

[1 ] Matt. xviii. 15, 16.

[2 ] Matt. xviii. 17.

[3 ] Matt. xviii. 17.

[4 ] Matt. vii. 1.

[5 ] 1 Cor. iv. 5.

[6 ] Matt. xviii. 14.

[7 ] 2 Cor. v. 10.

[1 ] Matt. vii. 2.

[2 ] Isa. iii. 11.

[3 ] Isa. xl. 2.

[4 ] Ps. lxxix. 12.

[5 ] Ezek. xxxiii.

[6 ] Matt. xviii. 18.

[7 ] Prov. v. 22.

[1 ] Matt. xvi. 19.

[2 ] συμϕωνήσωσιν.

[3 ] Matt. xviii. 19.

[4 ] Luke xv. 25.

[5 ] Gen. xxxi. 27.

[6 ] 2 Sam. vi. 4, 5.

[2 ] 1 Cor. vii. 5.

[3 ] Prov. xix. 14, ἀρμόζεται·.

[4 ] 1 Cor. vii. 5.

[5 ] Matt. xviii. 20.

[8 ] Ps. xliv. 1.

[1 ] Matt. vii. 14.

[2 ] 1 Cor. i. 1.

[3 ] 2 Cor. i. 1.

[4 ] 1 Thess. i. 1.

[5 ] Ps. xlii.

[6 ] Exod. vi. 24.

[7 ] Ps. xlii. 1.

[9 ] 1 Cor. i. 10.

[10 ] Acts iv. 32.

[1 ] 1 Cor. i. 12.

[2 ] 1 Cor. v. 4.

[3 ] Gal. v. 15.

[4 ]Or reading χωριζει, following the Vetus Inter, keeps apart.

[5 ] Matt. xviii. 19.

[6 ] 1 Cor. xii. 25, 18, 25, 26.

[7 ] 1 Cor. i. 2.4.

[8 ] 1 Cor. vii. 5.

[1 ] Rom. vi. 12.

[2 ] Gal. v. 17.

[3 ] Rom. viii. 11.

[4 ] Rom. x. 10.

[5 ] 1 Thess. v. 23.

[1 ] Eccl. xii. 11.

[2 ] Matt. xviii. 20.

[3 ] Matt. xviii. 21.

[1 ] Gen. iv. 23.

[2 ] Matt. xviii. 22.

[3 ] Matt. xviii. 23.

[1 ] Matt. xviii. 23, 34.

[2 ] 1 Cor. ii. 11.

[3 ] 1 Cor. xii. 8.

[4 ] Matt. xviii. 23.

[5 ] Matt. v. 3.

[6 ] Rom. vi. 12.

[1 ] Rom. viii. 3.

[2 ] 2 Cor. v. 21.

[3 ] Col. i. 15.

[4 ] 1 Cor. vi. 17.

[1 ] Matt. xxv. 15.

[2 ] Luke vii. 41.

[3 ] Luke xix. 13.

[4 ] Matt. xxv. 27.

[1 ] Luke xvi. 6, 7.

[2 ] Luke xvi. 5.

[3 ] Luke xii. 50.

[4 ] Matt. v. 26.

[5 ] 2 Cor. v. 10.

[6 ] Matt. xii. 36.

[7 ] Matt. x. 42.

[8 ] Dan. vii. 10.

[9 ] Matt. x. 26; Luke xii. 2.

[1 ] Luke xii. 58, 59.

[2 ] Matt. xxiv. 47.

[3 ] Luke xix. 17.

[4 ] Luke xix. 19. In chap. 12 Origen reads: Be thou also over five cities—as W. & H., and comments on the difference of the reward. The MSS. are therefore in error here.

[5 ] Gal. ii. 4.

[1 ] 1 Cor. xv. 52.

[2 ] Matt. xviii. 24.

[3 ] Ezek. ix. 6.

[4 ] Zech. v. 7, 8.

[5 ] 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.

[6 ] Prov. xx. 6.

[1 ] Exod. xxv. 39.

[2 ] Chron. xxii. 14.

[3 ] Matt. xviii. 25.

[4 ] Matt. xviii. 26.

[5 ] Matt. xviii. 28.

[1 ] 2 Thess. ii. 3.

[2 ] 1 Cor. ii. 10.

[1 ] Mark iv. 34.

[2 ] John xxi. 25.

[1 ] Matt. xxv. 14-30.

[2 ] Luke xix. 12-27.

[3 ] Matt. xxv. 14, 15.

[4 ] Matt. xxv. 19.

[5 ] Matt. xviii. 24.

[6 ] 2 Cor. v. 6.

[7 ] Matt. xxv. 19.

[8 ] Luke xix. 12, 13.

[9 ] Luke xix. 17.

[1 ] Luke xix. 19. See note 4, p. 500.

[2 ] Luke xix. 22.

[3 ] Luke xix. 24.

[4 ] Luke xix. 14.

[5 ] Matt. xviii. 23.

[6 ] Luke xix. 12.

[7 ] Matt. xviii. 24.

[1 ] Gal. iv. 26.

[2 ] Rev. xxi. 2.

[3 ] Matt. xviii. 28.

[4 ] Matt. xvii. 26, 29.

[1 ] Matt. xviii. 31.

[2 ] Matt. xviii. 34.

[3 ] That is, the God of the Old Testament—according to Marcion.

[4 ] Matt. xviii. 35.

[5 ] Luke xix. 27.

[6 ] Matt. xix. 1.

[1 ] Matt. v. 33.

[2 ] Mark xiv. 49; Matt. xxvi. 56.

[3 ] 1 Cor. ii. 13.

[4 ] τελετὰς. Origen’s play on the words ἐτέλεσεν and τελετή cannot be fully reproduced in English. The word τελετή, in reference to the mysteries, meant the rite, or participation in the rite, by which one became perfect; and in later Christian usage it was applied to the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper See Suicer.

[5 ] John vi. 44.

[6 ] 1 Cor. ii. 4. πνεύματος δυνάμεως. The omission of the καὶ is strange; for in the Contra Celsum (i. 2) Origen characterises the argument from prophecy as “the demonstration of the Spirit” and the argument from miracles as “the demonstration of power.”

[1 ] Matt. vii. 28.

[2 ] Matt. xix. 1.

[3 ] Matt. xix. 2.

[4 ] John i. 28.

[5 ] Matt. ix. 9.

[6 ] Matt. xix. 28.

[7 ] Matt. xix. 3.

[8 ] Mark x. 2.

[1 ] Matt. xxii. 35.

[2 ] Mark xii. 28.

[3 ] Matt. xix. 4.

[4 ] Matt. xxii. 17.

[5 ] 1 Pet. iii. 7.

[6 ] Gal. vi. 2.

[7 ] Matt. xix. 4-6.

[8 ] Matt. xix. 6.

[1 ] Gen. i. 27.

[2 ] Gen. ii. 24.

[3 ] Matt. xix. 6.

[4 ] Gen. iii. 16.

[5 ] 1 Cor. vi. 17.

[6 ]Or, by God the woman is married to the man.

[1 ] 1 Cor. vii. 7.

[2 ] Eph. v. 25.

[3 ] Matt. xix. 6.

[4 ] 1 Tim. iv. 1-3.

[5 ] Matt. xix. 5.

[6 ] Eph. v. 31, 32.

[7 ] Matt. xix. 6.

[8 ] John xix. 6, 15; Luke xxiii. 18.

[9 ] Isa. l. 1.

[10 ] Phil. ii. 6.

[1 ] John i. 14.

[2 ] 1 Cor. xii. 27.

[3 ] Rom. viii. 35.

[4 ] Matt. xix. 6.

[5 ] Matt. xix. 7.

[6 ] Deut. xxiv. 1-4.

[7 ] Matt. xix. 8.

[1 ] 1 Cor. vii. 39, 40.

[1 ] Ps. lxxiv. 9.

[2 ] Isa. iii. 1-3.

[3 ] Matt. xxvii. 21.

[4 ] John xix. 15.

[5 ] Matt. xxvi. 25.

[6 ] Luke xxi. 20.

[7 ] Isa. i. 8.

[8 ] Col. ii. 14.

[9 ] The text is corrupt.

[1 ] Deut. xxiv. 3.

[2 ] Gen. iii. 15.

[3 ] Deut. xxiv. 4.

[4 ] Rom. xi. 25, 26.

[5 ] Lev. xxi. 14.

[6 ] Hos. i. 2.

[7 ] Matt. xii. 5.

[1 ] Matt. xii. 8.

[2 ] Heb. ix. 10.

[3 ] 2 Cor. vi. 2.

[4 ] Cf. Deut. xxiv. 1-3.

[5 ] Deut. xxiv. 4.

[1 ] Cf. Her. Sim. viii. 3.

[2 ] Cf. Her. Sim. vi. 2.

[3 ] Cf. Her. Sim. vi. 3.

[4 ] The text is probably corrupt. Perhaps it means the marriage of a second angel with our soul.

[5 ] 1 Tim. iii. 1, 2.

[6 ] 1 Tim. iii. 12.

[7 ] 1 Tim. v. 9.

[1 ] Tit. i. 5, 6.

[2 ] Cf. Deut. xxiv. 4.

[1 ] Matt. xix. 8.

[2 ] 1 Cor. vii. 2.

[3 ] 1 Cor. viii. 3.

[4 ] 1 Cor. vii. 6.

[5 ] 1 Cor. vii. 39.

[6 ] 1 Cor. xii. 31.

[7 ] Rom. vii. 3.

[1 ] Matt. v. 32.

[2 ] Deut. xxiv. 1.

[3 ] Matt. xix. 8.

[4 ] Matt. v. 32.

[1 ] Matt. v. 32.

[2 ] Rom. vii. 3.

[1 ] Matt. xix. 10.

[2 ] Matt. xix. 11.

[3 ] Matt. vii. 7.

[4 ] Matt. vii. 8.

[1 ] Mark xi. 24, 25.

[2 ] 1 Cor. xiv. 15.

[3 ] 1 Thess. v. 17.

[4 ] Luke xviii. 1, 2.

[5 ] Matt. vii. 8.

[6 ] Luke xi. 8.

[7 ] Matt. xix. 11.

[8 ] Luke xi. 11.

[1 ] On the margin of the Vatican MS., fol. 1a, are written by a later hand these words, The first of his Gospel. The first of the Evangel (is) the Gospel of Luke; followed by the text of the first four verses of Luke, and that in turn by the words, Four complete Gospels, Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John. See Ciasca’s Essay, cited above (Introduction, 5), p. 468.

[4 ] And verse 19b.

[3 ] This is reckoned to verse 3 in the Greek.

[2 ] With additions from Mt. 13, 10, and Lk. 8, 9.

[3 ] And Mt. 13, 11.

[2 ] Or rather Mt. 13, 33a.

[7 ] Considerably changed.

[8 ] And Lk. 9, 14b, 15a.

[2 ] In Ciasca’s text Jo. 6, 51b-71 are cited as 6, 52-72. (See Introduction, 20, note.)

[7 ] Rather, Mt. 20, 29a+Mk. 10, 46a.

[4 ] Rather, Mk. 12, 30b.

[9 ] Reckoned to verse 59 in the Greek.

[9 ] Or better Lk. 19, 38a.

[2 ] Or rather Mt. 24, 2b, or Mk. 13, 2b.

[4 ] Borg. MS. omits Lk. 12, 42a.

[8 ] In the Greek and English verse 5 begins at But.

Home

The Forum

Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

The Library

Return to Title Page for Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume 9: The Gospel of Peter, Apocalypses and Romances, Commentaries of Origen

The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

BOOK XIV. - A. Cleveland Coxe, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume 9: The Gospel of Peter, Apocalypses and Romances, Commentaries of Origen [1896]

Edition used:

Part of: Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, 10 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Copyright information:

Fair use statement:

BOOK XIV.

1.

THE POWER OF HARMONY IN RELATION TO PRAYER.

2.

THE HARMONY OF HUSBAND AND WIFE.

3.

THE HARMONY OF BODY, SOUL, AND SPIRIT.

4.

HARMONY OF THE OLD AND NEW COVENANTS.

5.

THE LIMIT OF FORGIVENESS.

6.

CONCERNING THE KING WHO MADE A RECKONING WITH HIS OWN SERVANTS, TO WHOM WAS BROUGHT A MAN WHO OWED TEN THOUSAND TALENTS.

7.

EXPOSITION CONTINUED: THE KING AND THE SERVANTS.

8.

THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RECKONING.

9.

THE TIME OCCUPIED BY THE RECKONING.

10.

THE MAN WHO OWED MANY TALENTS.

11.

THE SERVANT WHO OWED A HUNDRED PENCE.

12.

THE TIME OF THE RECKONING.

13.

NO FORGIVENESS TO THE UNFORGIVING.

14.

HOW JESUS FINISHED HIS WORDS.

15.

HOW MEN FOLLOWED JESUS.

16.

CONCERNING THE PHARISEES AND SCRIBES TEMPTING JESUS (BY ASKING) WHETHER IT WAS LAWFUL FOR A MAN TO PUT AWAY HIS WIFE FOR EVERY CAUSE.

17.

UNION OF CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.

18.

THE BILL OF DIVORCEMENT.

19.

THE DIVORCE OF ISRAEL.

20.

CHRIST AND THE GENTILES.

21.

UNION OF ANGELS AND THE SOULS OF MEN.

22.

THE MARRIAGE OF CHURCH DIGNITARIES.

23.

SOME LAWS GIVEN BY CONCESSION TO HUMAN WEAKNESS.

24.

JEWISH CRITICISM OF THE LAW OF CHRIST.

25.

CHASTITY AND PRAYER.