booke. the fragments of heracleon. 1891

8/6/2019 Booke. The fragments of Heracleon. 1891.

1/130


2/130


3/130


4/130


5/130

TEXTS AND STUDIESCONTRIBUTIONS TO

BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE

EDITED BY

J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

VOL. I.

No. 4. THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

CAMBRIDGEAT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

1891


6/130

Ponton: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,CAMBBIDGE UNIVEESITY PKESS WAEEHOUSE,

AVE MAEIA LANE.

DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO,ILdpjifl: F. A. BROCKHAUS.

gork:

MACMILLAN ANDCO.


7/130

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON

NEWLY EDITED FROM THE MSS.WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES

BY

A. E. BROOKE M.A.FELLOW OP KING'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE


1891

[All Rights reserved]


8/130

(Eambrtoge :

PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

THE INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES10 EL?/: LEY

. TORCH rO G,

DEC 171831

5* ORt*T


9/130


10/130


11/130


12/130


13/130

THE MSS. OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN.

OF the extant manuscripts of the Commentaries on S. John,three only have been used by the editors. So far as I have been

able to discover, there are seven in existence. If we count Thorn-dike's transcription of the Bodleian Manuscript, there are eight.The existence of a ninth is doubtful, but this question will be

moreeasily

discussed later on.The

three which seem to have

been used by the editors are at Paris, Rome and Oxford. The

similarity of the text contained in them and the fact that they all

contained many common lacunae, pointed to their derivation froma near common ancestor. The following pages are an attempt toshew that this ancestor still exists, though unfortunately in a bad

state of preservation, in the Library at Munich.

The Manuscripts are as follows :I. Codex Monacensis. In the Munich State Library, Graec.

cxci; thus described in the Catalogue,

"Bombycinus charta obso-

leta et laesa atramento flavescente literis minutis et elegantibus

frequenti abbreviatione in folio, if. 305, saec. xni. foliorum ordine

turbato male conservatus et inscriptus v\. pifi', Origenis Comm.in Matt, et Jn."

Of the Commentaries on S. John it contains Bks. 1. 2. 6. 10.

13. 19. 20. 28. 32 (33 according to Hardt's Catalogue, but this is

an error). Thus the MS. follows the true division of the Books.

The Ferrarian division (that invented or adopted by Ambrosius

Ferrarius in his translation) into 32 books is added in the margin

by a later hand.

Minuscules are used, hangingfrom ruled

lines,there

beingone

column of 30 lines on each page, in the Commentaries on S. John.

B. 1


14/130

2 THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

The Commentaries on S. Matthew are in another hand and contain36 lines on a page. In both red semi-capitals are often used at

the beginning of sentences, but not uniformly. The MS. is stainedat the top and bottom, and worm-eaten in many places. The orderof the folios in S. Matthew is much confused, and one or two pagesare wanting.

The title-page of the MS. has the following description :

"Origenis in D. Matt. Ev. tomus 11 init. mut. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. et in evang. Johann. torn. 1. 2. 6. 9. 13. 19. 20. 32."

In the middle of the page are the arms, below which is written :

"Ex electorali Bibliotheca sereniss. utriusque Bavariae Ducum."This description is inaccurate. Most of Bk. x. of the Comm.

in Matt, is there, and also Bk. xvn. And with regard to theComm. in Joann. 9 is a mistake for 10, and 28 should have beeninserted.

Huet mentions a MS. of the Commentaries on S. Matthew inhis Origeniana in. iii. 12. "In Catalogo librorum ducis Bavariae

notatur Tomus Undecimus initio quoque mutilus cum proximesequentibus quinque." And as to the Commentaries on S. John hewas again misinformed. "Eosdem (i.e. 1. 2. 6. 10. 13. 19. 20. 28.

32) complectitur Tomos praeter decimum et vigesimum octavummemoratus liber in bibliothecae Bavaricae Catalogo" (ill. iii. 14).

The 10th and the 28th books are contained, as well as the rest, inthe Manuscript. The Catalogue which he used must have hadthe same mistakes which occur on the title-page of the MS.

The Commentaries on S. John are preceded by a short prefacestating that in the archetype of the MS. were several marginalnotes drawing attention to Origen's blasphemies, which, the scribe

says, he has copied as he found them.

II. Codex Venetus. In the Bibliotheca Marciana at Venice,Graec. 32. The title as given in the MS. itself is

et? TO Kara MarOaiov KOI KCUT laydvvrjv

/cap$r]va\. ratv Toi/.

The MS. is dated 1374. It is written in minuscules hangingfrom ruled lines, with one column of 36 lines on a page, and about

60 letters in each line. It consists of ff. 330 of which ff. 1 117

contain the Comm. in Matt. Bks. 10 17 (inclusive). F. 118 con-tains a preface on Origen's blasphemy, beginning TroXXtSu (JLCV and


15/130

THE MSS. OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN.

ending teal avOis a^rw^eOa. This preface has nothing to do with

the preface in the Munich Codex concerning the marginal notes in

its ancestor. The words TOV /3a9 at the head of this prefacepoint probably to some connexion with Constantinople. Ff. 112

(recto) 294 (verso) contain the Commentaries on S. John. So

far the folios are numbered. The remainder, to 330, are left blankand unnumbered.

This MS. was used by Ambrosius Ferrarius, who in A.D. 1551translated the Commentaries on S. John into Latin. They are

divided in the MS. into 32 books. "A callido librario in Tomostriginta duos distributus fuit, hac arte lacunas et hiatus celare, et

apud incautos dissimulare, et pro integro venditare volente," saysHuet. The fraud is sufficiently patent; if conviction were necessary,we have only to look at the fragments quoted as from the fourthand fifth books of the Commentaries in the Philocalia. The diver-

gences between the text of this MS. and Ferrarius's translation are

not more than can be accounted for by the loose and paraphrasticcharacter of translations of that time, or by the necessity of original

composition to which he was sometimes reduced in consequence of .

his inability to understand the Greek, which is in some places too

corrupt for conjecture.At the end of the MS. the following note has been added :

"Fuit copiatus per Georgium Triphonium

di

Maluasiae et finitto ad X Ottobr. 1555."

To this we shall have occasion to refer when we are dealingwith the seventh manuscript. The same scribe is known to havebeen working at Venice also in 1548 (see Gardthausen, Griechische

Palaeographie, p. 322).

III. Codex Regius. Graec. CDLV. in the Bibliotheque Natio-nale at Paris

;thus described in the manuscript itself:

"|* 'Qpiyevovs T&V et


16/130


In the early parts of the Commentaries on S. Matthew the

folios are inwrong

order and there arelarge

lacunae. The Codexis written in minuscules hanging from ruled lines. This was the

MS. on which Huet based his text, though his text is not identicalwith that of the MS., as Delarue seems often to have assumed. It

was used by Perionius in his translation of the Commentaries on

S. John.

IV. Codex Bodleianus. Misc. 58: used by Delarue. This

MS. is described in the Bodleian Catalogue as being of the 17thCentury. Its resemblance to II. is very close. It is now boundin three volumes of which the first contains ff. 183, the second

183, and the third 182. It contains only the Commentaries on

S. John. In the margin it has two sets of emendations. The first

are introduced by the word Ta%a and are for the most part based

on Ferrarius's Latin Version. The second, which are distinguished

by the word Ifo-w?, are later and inferior. In the copy of Huetbelonging to the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, Bentleyhas noted in the margin a great many readings from this MS.,

though apparently he did not make a full collation1

.

V. Codex Barberinus I. In the Barberini Library at Rome ;of the 15th or 16th Century, in the opinion of the Librarian,

M. 1' Abbs' Pieralisi. It contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew

(beginning at Book X. rore


17/130

THE MSS. OF ORIGEN 8 COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN. 5

about 40 letters in a line. It contains the preface which is found

in Codex Yenetus, headed by the words + rov /3a9 +,

beginning onthe

2ndrecto TroXXcT^ rov

wptyevrjv alperiKovvirdp-)(ew ^i]^>icra^ev(t)v, and ending on the 2nd verso KOI av6i


18/130


VIII. The transcription of Codex Bodleianus (IV.) made byHerbert Thorndike needs no further

description.It is now in the

Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (numbered B. 9. 11). It is

not without value however, as the writer has inserted several con-

jectural emendations in the margin, and there are also three pagesof critical notes at the beginning.

IX. The existence of a ninth MS. is doubtful. In Miller's

Catalogue of the Escurial Library, pp. 305 ff., is given a list, found in

one of the Escurial MSS. (x. i. 15), of the Greek Manuscripts whichbelonged to Cardinal Sirlet's Library, and passed into the posses-sion of Cardinal Ottoboni (Alexander VIII.). Subsequently Bene-

dict XIV. is said to have placed them in the Vatican. Amongthese is a MS. containing Origen's Commentaries on S. Matthew

and S. John, and Philo Hepl TOV fiiov TOV Mwo-ew?, Tlepl TOV ftlovTTO\ITIKOV (Joseph), and Tlepl VOIMWV wypdfytov (Abraham). In

the Catalogue of the Ottobonian part of the Vatican Library,which has not yet been published, but exists in manuscript in the

Vatican, I could find no trace of it. But the description answers

very nearly to the MS. now in the Barberini, which I have num-bered V. Is it possible that this MS. passed from the hands of

any of its former owners into the possession of the Barberini ? If

not, we must suppose that this MS. has been lost, unless indeedthe MS. Catalogue of the Ottobonian Manuscripts is incomplete.Delarue constantly refers to a

' Codex Barberinus/ and generallythe readings he quotes from it would seem to be taken from No. V ;but his citations are not always accurate. The existence of two

manuscripts in the Barberini does not seem to have been knownto any one.

Therelations of these

MSS.to

one another must now be con-sidered. For the sake of clearness I subjoin a diagram shewingwhat I conceive their relations to be. After this I propose to

consider the relations (1) of the Munich Codex to those MSS.which seem to be directly copied from it, (2) of the Venice Codex

to those which are, I believe, its descendants, and (3) of the

Venice to the Munich MS.

1. (a) Let us then consider first the relation of the ParisCodex to that at Munich. The contents of the two are practicallythe same, so far as concerns the subject of our present enquiry.


19/130

THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN.

(i) As pointed out above, the statement that the God. Monac.contains of the Comm. in Matt. Books xi. (mutilated) to XVI. isincorrect. It contains also most of Book X., and Book xvn. The

SAEC.

XIIIMonac. (I)

XIV

Yen. (II)

XV

7 \VIKeg. (Ill)

Barb. (V) Matrit. (VII)

XVII

Bodl. (IV)

mistake as to the latter point has arisen from the fact that Books

XVI. and xvii. are not divided as the other books are. But the

last words contained in this part of the MS. are eTricn-ptyat, TT/OO?avrov, the

endingof Book xvii. ; and a calculation of pages easily

shews that both Books xvi. and xvii. are contained in the MS., for

Book XV. begins on f. 62, Book xvi. on f. 77, and the Comm. inMatt, end on f. 110. Thus while Book XV. takes only ff, 15, what

is called Book xvi. takes 33, though in Lommatzsch's edition

Books XV. and xvi. cover very nearly the same number of pageseach. In the Comm. in Joann. there is no difference of contents,

(ii) The first words which occur in the Cod. Monac. are rivi Se\a^ov(nv ev rot? vTrobeecnepois which occur towards the end ofBook x. chap. 3 (Lomm. III. p. 15). In the Paris MS. the leaves

are not in right order, but the first words which occur (they are

on f. 255) are Trd\w bpoia e


20/130


More direct proofs of copying are not wanting.Lomm. I. p. 118, 1. 22. Cod. Monac. has 7rapafjLfj,v...


21/130

THE MSS. OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARIES ON s. JOHN. 9

I subjoin a list of their divergences (other than mere itacisms and cases ofthe addition or omission of v e(f>f\Kvo~TiK6v) which occur in the first 30 pagesof Tom. xin. of the Comm. in Joann. (Lommatzsch's edition).

Monacensis Begins

P. 1, Title TOV TO

2, 1. 10 TO


22/130


Monacensis Regius

26, 14 T

27, 6 eV

8


23/130


24/130


same century, and that Cod. Monac., wherever it was (I was unableto obtain any information as to its history at Munich), was neg-

lected during this period.

2. (a) The relation of the Bodleian MS. to that at Venice isnot hard to determine. Their divergences are very slight, beingfor the most part ordinary transcriptional blunders or corrections,and even of these there is only a very small number. The rest

may be explained by the fact that the scribe of the Bodleian MS.

knew Greek. Direct proofs of copying are afforded in someplaces.

Lomm. i. p. 117, 1. 12 (in the first fragment of Heracleon).After the word OvaXevrivov space is left for about nine letters.

The same lacuna occurs in Codex Venetus, but in it there has beenan erasure.

Lomrn. II. p. 7, 1. 2. After evKivrjTG) there has been an

erasure in Cod. Ven. A corresponding lacuna is left in Cod.Bodl.

7T 777775

Lomm. ii. p. 53, 1. 7. Codex Venetus reads /o%^? (sic). Cod.Bodl. has

(b) I was not able to notice any divergence of Codex Bar-

berinus I. (V) from the Venice MS. except that in the passagementioned above it leaves no space after OvaXevrlvov, from which

of course no conclusion can be drawn. The fact that the Com-mentaries on S. Matthew begin at the beginning of the 10th Book

(rore dfals TOI)? o^\oi/s), considered in connexion with the date

of the MS. (saec. xv. or xvi.), proves that it belongs to the Venice

as opposed to the Munich group, and the division into 32 books

points to the same conclusion. The following readings tend to

prove the identity of its text with that of Codex Venetus.

Lomm. I. p. 117, 1. 16 Siafyepovra yap (frrjcri Ven. Bar.II. p. 9, 1. 20 e'07? Ven. Bar.

p. 13, 1. 16 Trapa TO Ven. Bar.

(Codex Bodleianus has Trap a rov.)

p. 14, 1. 1 eV Svvarois Ven. Bar.

p. 122, 1. 1 el Ven. Bar.

p. 122, 1. 9 TOI)


25/130


p. 376, 1. 4 Tpiatc6rov Ven. Bar.

p. 376, 1. 6 rpia/cocrrw Sevrepq) Ven. Bar.

(Ven. has notes in the margin stating that itsexemplar

read

28th and 29th.)Lomm. II. p. 73, 1. 1, lacuna (room for 5 letters) before ovra

Ven. Bar., see above, p. 11.

(c) The correspondence of the cryptograph in the MS. atMadrid with the note at the end of Codex Venetus is sufficient

proof of the origin of the former. And with this the informationwhich I have received as to the text agrees. The lacunae in thetext (Lommatzsch i. pp. 11, 14, 18, 36, 41, 43), which occur in theCod. Venetus and which will be discussed more fully in the next

section, are also found here. And in the case of p. 41, the sug-gestion found in Cod. Ven. in the margin (ol^ai 7rapacrxf.iv ryv

vTrapfyv teal TTJV TrKacriv ical ra eiBrj) is put in the margin also in

the Madrid MS. See also I. 23, Lomm. p. 44, 1. 7 Oavpafav rrjvajBekTtiplav rcov TTO\\WV. The word a^e\TripLav is omitted inCodex Monacensis, and also in Codex Venetus, but in the latter it is

added in the margin. In Cod. Matritensis it is also added in the

margin.It can easily be shewn that O. 47 is copied from the 1st part of

the Venice MS. which contains the Commentaries on S. Matthew.Thus the colophons at Madrid exactly agree with the note in theVenice MS., except that the latter has October 10 instead of

October 2. As we can hardly imagine that the preface (TroXXcG^TOV 'Qpi


26/130


27/130


Bk. I. c. 22, Lomm. p. 41. rot? overt /cal 777 v\y \eyovra.This is all damaged in Cod. Monac., but the following facts are

discoverable.

(1) It omits olîat, and TTJV virapfyv.

(2) Between el KOI and elirelv there is room for about 23 more

letters.

(3) ea-rlv is, I think, not contained in it. The words are

illegible, but the ink has to some extent stayed on the oppositeleaf. Reading backwards, I thought I could trace somewhat as

follows :

el /cal ra? ov&las %a\e7rov [lev ovv ira^vrepov elirelv.

God. Ven. has rfj v\y (space 20) ; then /cal rd K.T.\. to el /calas in the texts

;after which (space 23), elirelv K.T.\.

In the margin it has olâi irapacrêlv rrjv virapfyv /cal Trjvir\d(Ttv /cal rd eiSrj.

Thus we get some valuable information by which to attempt a

restoration of the text, and very sure indications of the relationsof the two MSS.

Bk. I. c. 23, Lomm. p. 43. rt9 6 ev avrfj Xo


28/130


in their right order, and nothing is missing ; hence the displace-ment and the loss of leaves in Cod. Monac. is subsequent to

1374, the date of the Venice MS.The Munich MS. has lost its first leaf

;it now begins with the

words rivi Se \dfji\lrova-iv, Bk. x. c. 3, Lomm. p. 15. These occurin Cod. Ven. on the 2nd recto, line 5.

We may first notice two omissions, due to homoioteleuton, inCod. Ven. of words contained in Cod. Mon.\ as indications of

course, not as proofs.

Bk. XI. c. 18, Lomm. pp. 120, 121. o ^coXo? Kal rpav} earaco 2&>Xo9. Cod. Ven. omits /cal rpavrj o ^o>Xo?.

Bk. XII. c. 1, Lomm. p. 127. /cal (ftapiaaloL Trpecrfievovcri,yap ol JAW

r

le- TeXeaOai.

povcra\r}fjL, a7rw\eiav ava\o-

ytav %ov


29/130


guides for conjectural restoration. The Venice Codex is our best

authority for this group of the MSS. of the Comm. in Matt,in the

placeswhere Cod. Monacensis is now

defective,as the

other direct copies of this MS. have apparently been made sinceits mutilation. The alterations introduced by the scribe of

Cod. Yen. frequently deserve consideration, and are not seldom

obviously right.The marginal notes on blasphemy suggest the possibility

of the suppression of some passages on account of the doctrine

contained in them. But all the lacunae and there are several inCod. Monac. due to its original, besides those due to the damagedone to the MS. itself cannot be explained by this hypothesis : of

this Bk. XIIL c. 32 will serve as an example. But while muchmust be given up as no longer recoverable, a good deal of light

may be thrown on the text of many passages in the Commentaries

by the use of Cod. Monac. With a view to further work on themI made a collation in September 1889 of the Commentaries onS. John.

Huet knew of the Manuscript, but does not seem to haveused it. He occasionally agrees with it against the Paris MS.on which his text was based, but such readings are probablyemendations of his own, or were suggested by the versions.

Throughthe version of Ferrarius he became

acquaintedwith

a text like that of the Venice MS.Delarue's wider knowledge whether he had examined any

MSS. himself I cannot discover is marred by inaccuracy ofstatement as to the readings contained in MSS. In particularhe seems to have taken it for granted that any reading adopted

by Huet in his text was necessarily that contained in the

Paris Codex. The undue influence of this Codex, which it hasexercised owing to its relation to Huet's text, must be set aside.

But when all has been done that is possible by the ordinarymethods of textual criticism, a large sphere will remain in which

conjectural emendation alone can be of any avail.

The notes of Th. Mangey preserved in the British Museum

(MSS. Add. 6428) do not contain fresh material. Those on the

Commentaries on S. John appear to be a partial collation of

Huet's text with something of the type of Cod. Venetus, not the

B. 2


30/130


Bodleian MS. which is at times mentioned separately. Possiblyhe was working with the Codex Barberinus of that type. But

whatever his sourcewas,

it containsnothing helpful

which is not

otherwise known.

It may be worth while to bring together here some examplesfrom Cod. Monac. of important New Testament Readings ofan ancient type, which have been subsequently brought into

conformity with the ordinary Syrian text, either by its correctors

or in its descendants. These will be sufficient to shew that it

may throw some further light on the problem of the text ofthe New Testament used by Origen, while they will serve toillustrate the manner in which the text of quotations from theNew Testament has been handled in the MSS. of the Fathers.

In the following list of some pre-Syrian readings supported by Cod.Monac. I have added in a few cases interesting readings from the other MSS.

In these cases the MS. authority is added in brackets.

Lomm. i.

p. 177. Jn. i. 15. o flirw. See Tisch. (Or.4 ' 102

)

Jn. i. 18. novoyevr)? 6eos. (See above, p. 8.)o &v om. Heracleon (?)

210. Jn. i. 24. aTreoraX/xe'i/ot. See Tisch. (Or.4 ' 123

)

211. Mb. iii. 10. tffy dt K a\ (Ven.)214 f. Mk. i. 2. om. t^poo-Bev o-ov. See Tisch. (Or.

4 - 125)

222. Jn. i. 26. eo-Trjicev

Jn. i. 27. avTos COTIV 6 om.

(but in Or. vi. 23 Mon. ins. o). See Tisch. (Or. 4>13 )234. Jn. i. 26. o-nJKt (Heracleon)

etonjKct (Bodl. Ven. Cf. Eusebius)

[292. Mk. i. 27. Mapfydrjo-av. See Tisch. (Or.4 - 1

"

)]

[293. Luke iv. 40. eOfpanevev (Paris. Ven. Monac. )eucpaTTfvcrfv (Bodl.)]

Lomm. n.

p. 5. 1 Cor. iv. 11. yvfiviTvofj.v (Par. Bodl. Mon. Ven.)9. Jn. iv. 16. a-ov rov avbpa (Bodl. Veil.)

18. Jn. iv. 14. ou St^crei (Ven.)ov

fj.r) 8i\fsrjo~i (Bodl.)

ovfj,fi 8i\lsi]o-T] (Par. Mon.)

See Tisch. (Or.4 - 220

)

57. Jn. iv. 31. eV TO> ^ra^v 8t (Bodl. Ven.)68. Jn. xiv. 28. o irarrip 6 Tre/n^as- /nc

om. o Trarrip (Bodl. Ven.)


31/130


92. Mt. xii. 42. 2oAo/ixn

v KOIo-w^a (Monac. Ven.)

130. Mt. viii. 8. o TTOLS pov om. (Par. Mon.)248. Mt. v. 28. os av >/3Xe'\/^ (Mon.)264. Jn. viii. 44. ov< co-TrjKev (Par. Mon.)

N.B. It will be seen that in the above list I have given some examplesof readings not pre-Syrian. These are cases of attestation where further

examination of the Manuscripts of Origen has corrected or supplementedDelarue's

information,on which of course Tischendorf

depended. Thereferences to Tischendorf are to his critical digest in locc. His references

to Origen (e.g. Or4 ' 220

)refer to the volume and page in Delarue's edition.

It only remains to say a few words about Catenae on S. John.

At Munich there are two fragments attributed to Origen in aCatena of the xith century (Gr. 437). At Home there are severalin the Catenae Vat. 1423, Regin. 9. The larger fragment in theMunich Catena occurred also with considerable variations in

Regin. 9. I was unable at Rome to do more than glance at these

fragments. The fragments pointed to the same conclusions as

may be drawn from an examination of those published by Cor-derius from an Antwerp MS. Most of them at any rate mighthave come from Origen 's pen, so far as opinions are concerned.

But in the comparatively few instances where they cover commonground with the extant Commentaries, the text and even the

contents are either wholly different or widely divergent. Someof them have the appearance of being taken from Homilies, others

from eTrKTrjfjLeittHreis. The nearest agreement with the extant

Commentaries was in the case of two fragments in Regin. 9, where

the text of Orig. Comm. in Joann. XXXII. 11 a-Tj/jLeitocrr) Be rlva

rpoTTov a'rjfjLau'OfjLevti) and 13 evret ovv tye/crav (Lomm. p. 435and p. 449) occurred almost exactly, but in each case the rest of22


32/130


the fragment was different from the text of the Commentaries.

Nor was the result of a closer examination of two Catenae, xxvii

(saec. x.) and xxvm (saec. XL), at Venice different. Of thesethe former contains more matter, though occasionally the frag-ments in the latter have pieces omitted in Cod. xxvii. On the

whole, however, Cod. XXVIIT. is much more curtailed. The greaterpart of what is contained in Corderius is in Cod. xxvii. ; some-

times he gives the fullest text, and sometimes the Venice MS. is

fuller. There is also a good deal at Venice which is not found in

his edition. There is, I think, a close connexion between Ven.xxvii. and Regin. 9 at Rome, but I did not bring away enoughinformation from Rome to determine this. I was able at Veniceto copy all the fragments attributed to Origen in the Catena on

S. John in Cod. xxvii. Much more must be done elsewherebefore they can be made serviceable, but there is promise ofconsiderable addition to the published writings of Origen from

this Catena alone, though the critic's knife is not unneeded.

The textual results are the same as might be gathered from

the MSS. at Munich and Rome. The sense of lost parts of theCommentaries may be recovered, but not much of the actualtext. This of course was to be expected. I can only conclude

with the hope that I may be able to bring to light some of this

buried matterif I

am allowedto

continue working at the text ofOrigen's Commentaries on S. John.

As I intend to quote in the apparatus criticus readings fromthe Munich MS. only, I subjoin a full collation of the first 30

pages of Tom. xin. of the Commentaries on S. John, in the

edition of Lommatzsch, with Codd. Monacenis (M), Venetus (V),

Regius (P), and Bodleianus (B). The quotations of differences

of accent or breathing, of obvious itacistic blunders and v e


33/130

THE MSS. OF ORIGEN S COMMENTARIES ON S. JOHN. 21

P. 1, Title TO

1 av

ro V M

410

P. 2, 1. 1

9, 10 7Tt TO

10 TO~

10

11

11 a'XX'

15 eWt

18 ws avTos

P. 3, 1. 4 alrrjcraL9

CK TOV1

12

13

14 &15 TOV

1 6 eTTlXtTToVTOS

16 Kaff O

1 8 811^17 v

18 y

2 1 Stcyoyyv^c

P. 4, 1. 3

3

5

6

6

99

11

12

13

13

1313

aTTOKTetvai

Et7T

VfJUV

7TtV(OVTtOI/

yoyyvo*/xov eTrotow ot

Xoy ot

ante OT

e/3o'r;cr

M

MMom. VB^ -D

7Tt TOO .T

;V P

O

' ~DCTTCt Jr

om. MPa'XXd MYCOTtV M

MPM

f /3a0 os MYBbis V

M^v MP

eva MTOVTOV MP

7rtXet7rOI/TO9 MPKO.OZ VBSeu/r^v MP

f om. VB

MM Xevtrwv Pf ?7jU,0a B

f ins. Xeyoj/TS VB

MP-Ts MVB

V


34/130


35/130


7 d

10 eVl

11

1 3 aXXeTat

16 ad fin. cap. 3

P. 8, 1. 3post ^arl

5 OSt 7Tt

5

5

6 Tr)V

Orjvai eoTiv, t TIS

7 7ro

8

post Trtwrjv /cat

12 TO TTpoVcDTTOV13 -

P. 9, 1.

14 Xeyovra1 5

3 Tt

5* > *OVT av6 TTICW

6t \

otovei

8 cTrayyeXXero8 post Trapc

8 ^i/

9, 10 ToV avSpa1 1 C

15 TOV

15 Snj/rjv17

1 7 a

20 ow

Olii. MP67T t MStaXX^rat P

MPV in mg. opa o aP in mg. opa d dvayo...ft\aa-yj-

/JLLO.V TiKpio-

M in mg. opa o ai/ayti/wo-Kwi/ (3\a(r-

ins. o MPf ins. TO YB

MM

e TIS et MR2 : om. omnino P

om. MPV7TOir)TOV M

V TTins. TO V

t7TO/Jtl/ PTO 7rpOO"W7T(i) P

M7rpOO"W7T(U MVB

VBt M

om. PVBoMP

Cir MTraparrjprjTaLOV Motov ei MPeTrryyyeXXcTO VB

f ins. auTTj VByap MPo~ov TOV aVSpa VBeTTto'Tr/o'o/xev MPTWV P

PMVP: B mg. Ta

aXXo/xevov Mv VB


36/130


20

P. 10, 1. 1

1

3\/TOV

4 CTTTtt

5 post ypa'cti/7 rfv

9 "A

10 rjviv

11

12 f.

14 &rtlIK "1 côvtrt

16 TTCTTWKCKTl

1 8 7ra \

(TTl

f 1^ VBR^ B mg. Ta Xa ^cZaf 7^ B T? 3e V

ccrriv Mom. P

ins. o Vrj MP r^ #OLKOlHl) i

âAatTTtoTepa MPt TO MVPB

AeAaA7^Kao"tv M0^9 MCOTIV M

MPf $aVoi/Ta VBf 8t8aKTt/ca VBt ins. TOV MVB

aAAo/xcvov MTrrjyirjv

VBf om. VB

em9 MMms M

f aKaipeo-TCpot VBom. VB]a/x,apems Ml7TtVV MVBepôo/xat VB5a/xapetVts M

MITI aiTet B mg.


37/130


23 _

P. 13, 1. 1 avrfjs

1 ante vvv

3 a/

5 S^Xov OTI

6

9

11, 12 aXXo/xc'vov

13 aVo

15 VTTO16 TTCOt TOV

17 005

P. 14, 1. 1 evSeii/a rots

1, 2 e7 ante TOV

9 Xeyovros10 yivoxTKOu

P. 15, 1. 1 Etr ci^c't

2

5

10,12 aTre^ave

avSpi erepw14 7T(DS

1 9 2a/xaptrts

21 Ka^'ov

22

23

24

P. 16, 1. 2, 3 aXX* atSc'a)

5w6 a7re'

6

11

1 6 cSa>/J>, which might easily be

corrupted to wv. Possibly the original

reading may have been Trapd r^v r&v,which accounts more easily for the

corruption, if the construction thus

given to pcunv is possible. Either

of these readings will give the re-

quired contrast to Origen's positionstated just below, ?;/xets 5e aVoXoi5#ws

Tfl r)6et andnot tftrja-iv. We should also comparethe account of Irenaeus (i. v. i.),

especially the words ftaXXov de rov

Scoria 61 O.VTTJS ; and shortly before,

(of the Demiurge) XeXTjtfo'rws KIVOTL>-

fjievov VTTO T^J /uTprpos. Heracleon mayhave assumed some similar relationbetween AOYOS and So


65/130


66/130


67/130


68/130

56 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HEHACLEON.

Se TOV9 7roXXou9 r) $t,aopd rov 6 npoHTHC, o>9 5

KOI TOV (1ApaK\ewva, oar is avrals Xefe


69/130

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 57

avrov,

A'AAAAZON, o$r&>9 et

TTO;? dvaTre/jLircov

TAG rp^Ac, OTI

15 )(IN' KAI eK?NAl' GICIN Al

AN GMOI, nepi

nep)

8e Trdaa 7rpo(p7jrifcrj rat?. \e/creov Seon, SaTrep 'EAN A'AHAON cAAnifS a>Nh N Aa oi)8et9

10 CK6YAZGTAI GIC TTOAeMON, KOl 6 %0>/H9 AfATTHC %0)V fNOiCIN

rj npocbHTeiAN yeyove XAAKOC H)(OON H KYMBAAON

ecrriv erepov y ^%o? ^ TrpotfyrjrucrjeV avrr)v o Swr^p 'EpeyNAie,

AOK?re GN AYTA?C ZOOHN AIOONION*

/Cat El eniCT6Y6T

eMof eKe?NOC erpAye" ical

'HcAiAC, AepcoN '0 AAOC OYTOC TO?C

i' Me TIMA; OVK olSa yap el rov ao-rj/jbovfyov

TrapaSe'geTal

6^X070)9 VTTO rov Sa)T?7po9 eiraivela-Oai, rj evecm Trapa-10 (r/cevdo-aa-Oai, CLTTO TCOV rypafjxav, c9 CLTTO CJXJONHC CAAniproc

e^>' a9 dva7refjL7r6fj,60a, et9 TOV TTpb? r9 avTiK&i^kva^evepyeias TroKepov, AAH'AOY 4>ooNHC HXOY Tvy%avov


70/130


71/130


72/130


73/130


tov, ey? yu,r/Se^o9 ravrrf^ rrjs TI^T)? tj ^tcofjievov VTTO

6eov TGOV TrcoTTore Trpo^rjrevcrdvTWv. dXrjQoos 8' 009

rr} $ij;ai Tiva rwv TT/OO-

(frrjToov ^airri(TavTa. OVK diriOdvo)^ Se fyi^Gi Trvvddvea-Oai

10 TOV9 3>api


74/130


75/130


76/130


77/130


78/130

66 THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON.

/jbei>a'

e^eracreis revrd^ew Trepl TOV TOTTOV,

7T/305 ra evT6\d)


79/130


80/130


13. Ibid. x. 19 (R IV. 194; L. I. 338).

TOV

Se Kal ra 'H/oatfXetwz'o?, #9 fyyo-i, TT}I/ elsr

lepo-

ao\vfjia avoSov (rrj/jbalvetv TJJV diro T&V v\itcwv

tyv%iicbv TOTTOV, Tvy%dvovTa el/cova rfjsf

I epJo. ii. 14. dvdpa&iv TOV Kvpiov. TO oe EfpeN IN TO ieptu,

ov%i irpovdw, oieTai elpfjaQai VTrep rov (JLTJ TTJV /c\rjcn,v 5

/Jiovrjv vorjdrjvai, rrjv %a>pt9 Trvev/juaros ftorjOeladai

VTTO TOV/cvplov' ^yLTai


81/130


82/130


KOI 5

/car'

l/CeiVCDV

\eyeo~6ai, pr) Svvd/Jievos TOV elpfiov rrj?

erdpa^ev avrov TO KAreTAi' Me w? /^) Svvdftevov VTTO

dTrayyeXkeo-Oai, ov% op&VTa TO eOos TWV civ@pu>7ro- 10

Trepl deov KOI Xp/ TO* EN rpic/N

iTr), fir} epevvrjcra^, KO,ITOI ye eVt


83/130


84/130


85/130


86/130


87/130


88/130


89/130

THE EXTANT FKAGMENTS OF HERACLEON. 77

GV 6 $id/3o\o


90/130


2 Tim. i. rpMxx>N TTpotbHTiKoaN /cal THC eni4>ANeiAC TOY Kvptov HMOON

'|HCOY Xpicroy. opa &e el fJLrj IBio)^ /cal irapa rrjv atcoKovQlav

TO 'YiweTc avrl TOV Ol10

Rom. ii.29.

TWV pijTwv 6 *H/>a/cXeft>j/'Iov8alot, e0 vi /col, î^rjaaro. olov be ecrrt TT/JO? rrjv

%ajj,apeiTi,v \eyeo~0ai, vpels oi 'lou&uot, 77 TT/OO? Zââpetnv,

v/jiels ol edviKoi ; aXX' oiJ/e oiftaal ye ol erepoSoôL o irpocr-

Kwovcrw, on 7r\d


91/130


, Kal \arpevovTas uXot? Kal25 \l6ois, fiTjSe Kara 'lovSaiovs aeffeiv TO Oelov, eireiTrep

Kal avTol JJLOVOI olo/juevot, 7rl(TTacrdai Oebv, dyvoovcriv

avTov, \aTpevovTes dyye\oiTes. 25

26 PJOVOL oio/xevoi] JJLOVOIS lo^evoi.

22. Ibid. xiii. 19 (R. iv. 229 ; L. n. 33).

To fievTot, ye 'HMeTc npocKyNoyMGN o 'Hpa/cXeau/ olerat eZz>at Jo. iv. 22'O ev aloovi Kal ol CTVV avrq) e\66vre


92/130


Jo. i. 3. KTl'cTH, 09 6(7T4 X/Uvcra>9, ovSev

(TKOVTGS ij/jids 7Tpl T&V TTpO T^9 a7Tft)X6ta9 dltTY)? %pOVO)Vrj alwvcov' ov$e yap Tpavovv SvvavTai, eavT&v TOV \6yov. Sid

TOVTO avTOv? eicovTes frapanre^'ôêBa, TOQ-QVTOV eTTaTroprj- 15

4 d\-r]0i.vovs] a\T)9o$s roi)s. 9 viov] vloi. Cod. Bodleianus habet in

margine raxa viov, sed in txt. habet viov.

must refer to the same, the tertiarypredicate (contained in dXyQ. roi)s

irpoffK.) would be very awkward.

5.dTroXwXât]

There is of course

no necessary reference here to a

commentary of Heracleon's on S.

Luke, though we know from Clementthat he commented on some part ofit (see Frag. 50 ; Clem. Al. Strom, iv.

9. 73). Here however he only ap-pears to have explained Luke xix. 10in illustration of S. John's words.

20. Xpi


93/130


94/130


95/130


96/130


97/130


98/130


9 TO crvvaÔrjvai, els dTrodiJKqv, TOVTeaTi8m 7T/o-T6ft)9 6t9 dvaTTavcriv, ocrai ye eToi/juoi,, ov yapTrdaai' al fjuev yap 77877 GTOIÔL rja'%0'fjvai 5

T}^ dirodrjicirjv Sid Trjs TTiarea)^ et9 dv air av

elvai, Kal eTTirrjSelov^ 7rpo9 crwrr]plavTOV \oyov /card fjbev rovavrwv Kal rr]v v(7i,v' /card 8e TOP eKK\7)criao-Tt,Kov

TOV rfyejaoviKov, eroi/jLov irpos reêlwcriv,f

(va Kal 10

\eKTeov ovv ?r/309 TOU9 ovrcos e/c8ea//.ez>ou9, el /3ov-\owrai

7rapaSeâo-0at /mrfTrore

yeyovevai irpo rfjsrov

rj/jiwv eTTiBrj/jilas Bepia/juov 7rapa7r\tjcri,ov TW ouTt9 dvcrdevri a7ro TGOV %pova)v TOV evayye\iKov

32. 10. ai 5] The repetition of at 5e 33. 5. eTnT-rjdeiovs] Cf . Excerpta exoffended the ear of the scribe of Cod. Theodoto, 46, Kal rots crw/xacrt /card

Venetus, so that he substituted Kal Qvaw e7riT7;5ei6T?7ra eveTrot'âej', whichai ê/ for the second al 5. But the also illustrates did TTJVreading of his

exemplaris right. Kal

rrjv ij


99/130


TOV

34. Ibid. xiii. 46 (R. iv. 256 ; L. n. 87).f O 8e ( HpaK\6a)v TO '0 Gepi'zooN MICGON AAMBANGI

t OepicrTr)v eavTov \eyei, 5 dvaTraveo-Oat, avrov e?r' avrois' TO &e KA'I cyNArei KApnoN

rjcrlv elpr/arOai, rj on TO avvaôêvovalcoviov ecrTiv, rj ort, KOI avTo %&)rj alw-

. d\\d avToOevVOfil^to fiiaiov

elvcuTTJV Sirjyrjcriv CIVTOV,

(f)d(TKOVTO$ TOV ^(DTTJpa MIC00N AAMBANGIN, KCbl dVV^.OVTO^ TOV

10 MICGON Kal TT)V CYNAnJOfHN TOY KApnOY /9 V, aVTIKpVS

fj? Svo Trpdy/jiaTa Trap KIT deny?, cJ?

2 vo/j-lfct] vo/j-lfeLV. 7 TJ 6Vt] ov.

Jo. iv. 36.

eic ZGOHN AICONION

35. Ibid. xiii. 48 (R. IV. 260 ; L. n. 95).

'O Se(

HpaK\ea)v TO IN A 6 cnei'pcoN OMOY XAI 'p^ KAI Gepi'- Jo. iv. 36.

ZOON OVTQ) Sirjyrjo-aTo' Xaipei, pev yap, (frijcriv, 6 aireiptovOTL o~Treipet,, Kal OTI 77877 TLVOL TWV cnrepadTayv avTOv

GwdyeTai, eXTriBa 6%a)v Trjv avTrjv Kal Trepl TOOV5\OL7T(ov' 6 Se OepLâsv oyitota)? TL Kal OepLcret,. aXX* o

IJLGV 7T/5COTO9 rjpâTO (TTreiptov, o BevTepos OepL^wv.ov yap ev TO> avTw eSvvavTO d^ÔTepoL apâcrOai'eSet ydp TrpwTov (TTrapfjvai,, elff vo~Tepov OepiaOrjvai.Travaa/Aevov fjuevTOiye TOV cnreipovTos cnreipeiv,

34. 7. Delarue's emendation 77 ort

is by no means'

absque causa'

(see

Lommatzsch). Whence Huet derived

o I do not know. It is the readingof no MS. and suits neither grammarnor sense. We must assume that acorruption of or I to ON led to theomission of the 77.

35. 3. 77677] Cod. Venetus has altered

77677 to e?677, but the original reading

is preferable. Different kinds or

classes of seeds are not insistedupon,

nor do they, so far as we know, form

part of the Heracleonic doctrine.

The sowing of this vibs wdpuirov,whoever he was, must refer to the

sowing by a higher power of the

pneumatic seeds in the creatures of

the Demiurge, and the Trveu/xart/cot are

not divided into different classes, so

far as is known. The 77677 is also

forcible. He rejoices in that he is

already gathering in the earnest of

the rest. For a similar confusion

of 77 and ei in Cod. Venetus, cf. Frag.

20, ws Tj'det inffT-qv for u>s 77677


100/130


101/130


102/130


103/130

THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF HE11ACLEON. 91

39. Ibid. xiii. 52 (R. iv. 267 ; L. n. 108).

'Hpa/cXecov 8e a7r\ovcnepov e/c\a^cov TO OYKSTI AIA THN Jo. iv. 42.

CHN AAAI'AN nicieyoMeN cfrrjo-l Aeijreiv TO fiovrjv' ert jnev yap

TTpOS TO AYTOI fAp AKHKOAM6N, KA*I oTAAMGN OTI OYTO'c 6CTIN

ZooTHp TOY KO'CMOY ^ijaiv Olydp avdpwjroi TO /jue5 V7TO dvOpCUTTCOV oSiyyOV fJiCVOl TCiaTZVOVCri TU>

7rdv Se evTV^wcri rot? Xo^yot? avTOV, OVTOI OVKC

v av6pwTrivY]V /mapTVpiav, d\\d 8t' avTrjvid

40. Ibid. xiii. 59 (R. iv. 274 ; L. n. 123).

TOV ev r&>

Se BACIAIKON 6 '1rlpa/c\ea)v \eyeiv TOV

yov, eirel /cal O-UTO? e(Saai\eve TGOV VTC avTov Bid SeTO jjbiKpdv avTov /cal 7rp6


104/130


Jo. iv. 54. 'K THC 'loyAAiAC eic THN FAAIAAI'AN dvT\ TOV etc TTJS ovcodevJo. iv. 47. '\ovSa la$. OVK ol8a Se OTTCO? els TO "HiweAAeN AHOGNHCKGIN

KivrjOels oleTai dvaTpeTrecrdai Ta SoyfiaTa TWV VTCOTI-

OefJbevwv dOdvaTov elvai Tr)v ^v^v, et? TO avTo av/jL-Mt. x. 28. (Bd\\e(r6ai vTroXa^dvwv Kal TO Ty)(HN KA'I COOMA AnoAAyc0Ai 15

1 Cor. xv.

53, 54.

Cf. Is. xxv.8.

Jo. iv. 48.

eN reeNNH. /cal OVK dOdvcLTOV 76 elvai fyelrai TT}V6

f

Hyoa/cXea)i/, aXX* e7TtT?;Seta)5 e^ovcrav TT/DO? o-corrjplav,

avrrjv \eya)v elvai To eNAyoMGNON A'^GAPCI'AN (^GAproN,KA) AGANACI'AN GNHTON, oTaz^ KATATT00H d GANATOC avrfjs6IC ISMKOC.

7T/)05TOUTOt? KOL TO 'EAN MH CHM?A KAI

TpATA2O

TAHre oy MH nicreycHTe Xeyea-Oai, fao-lv oliceia>


105/130


106/130


107/130


108/130


109/130


110/130


(frvcriv avTwv, /cal 7rpoe\e


111/130


112/130


d yap ravra Kal dva\io~KQVTa ^a\\ov fJTrep CTVVL-

Eph. ii. 3. ardvTa, TTCO? o IlaOXo? tyycri TTOV TO "HiweGA 4>ycei TGKNA o'prfic

d)C KA'I oi Aoinoi' ; r) \eyeTWo~av rj/j,lv co? ov/c ecmv dvaXwrucbvteal /naXicrra KCUT avTov 6opo7roi,bv 77 opyrj, 779 TEKNIA HMG- 35

9


113/130


48. Ibid. xx. 30 (R. iv. 359 ; L. n. 290).

f O /jbevTOi, ye'HpanXewv

TO "EcTiN 6 ZHTOON KA'I KPINOON Jo. viii. 50.

OVK dvafyepei ejrl TOV Trarepa, roiavra \eycov' '0 ZHTOON KA)

KPI'NOON ecrrlv 6 e/cbi/cwv yite, 6 vTr^perTj^ 6 els TOVTO

TeTayfj,6vo$, 6 MH GIKH THN MA)(AipAN (f>opooN, 6 IKAIKOC Horn, xiii.

5 TOV /3acrfcXe&)9. Mo>cr?79 Se eariv OVTOS, /caOd irpoei-

prj/cev avrois \eV IIco? ovv ov \eyei, THN

10 Kpi'ciN TTACAN TrapaSeBo a Oca avTu>; KOL vofjil^cov \vet,v

rrjv dvOv7ro(j)opdv ravrd (^rjoT KaXcS? \e


114/130


50. CLEM. ALEX. Strom, iv. 9, p. 595 (ed. Potter).

Cf. Lc. xii.811. e^yov/juevo^ TOV TOTTOV ^pa/cXecov, 6 rrjs Ova\ev-TIVOV cr^oX,^? SoKL/jLcoTdTos, /card \e^iv (frrjcriv 'O /A0\oy Lav

elvai Trjv fiev ev Trj irLcnei ical TroXtreta, rrjv Be ev

a)vfj. 77 fjuev ovv ev a)vfj 6/JLO\oyia /cal eTrl TWV eov-criaiv yiveTai, rjv fjuovrjv, (frrjo-lv, 6fJLO\oyiav rjyovvTai, 5

elvai ol TroXXot, ov% vtyiws. Svvavrai Be TavTtjv TTJV6/jLo\oylav real ol vTrotcpiral ofji>o\o


115/130


116/130

ADDITIONAL NOTES.

A. HERACLEON AND VALENTINUS.

The extant Fragments of Valentinus offer some points of comparison with those

of Heracleon, especially with regard to language and terminology, which can be

most conveniently discussed in an Additional Note. I follow the order in which these

Fragments are given in Hilgenfeld's collection (Ketzergeschichte, p. 293), and have

adopted his text where I quote from them. I have also given references to the

pages of Potter's edition of Clement of Alexandria.

1. Clem. Alex. Strom, n. 8, p. 448. Valentinus is speaking of the terror

which came upon the Angels (of the Demiurge) at the utterances of the man whomthey had created (tKelvov rod TrXaV/^aros). These were due to Him who had placedin man the seed of the higher essence (5ta rbv dopdrws tv avry ffirtp[j.a 5e5w/c6ra rrjsavudev oua-i'as). Compare Heracleon's explanation of the 'forty and six years'

(Frag. 16), TT\V ti\r]i> rovrfori rb 7rXacr ) ua...T6 Iv r e/x^wT^ucm 0-rrtp/j.a. Heracleon

has retained the terminology of his master. With the Angels compare Frag. 36, oi

TTJS o'iKOvofjiias cfyyeXot, di


117/130


118/130

106 ADDITIONAL NOTES.

not noticed in his digest. But he has either adopted in his text or noticed prac-tically all the variants from Migne's text which are of any value.

Dindorf, vol. in. p. 425 1. 15 /j,era TTJV A rrjs ins. e/c intra lin.

426 1. 10429 1. 11

434 1. 3

436 1. 8

441 1. 19

445 1. 22

450 1. 30

452 1. 20

453 1. 13

453 1. 14

TOU

OuaXe'T4J'taj'o4

oparai

ecrri

6X4701;

rois

(sic)

OuaXevTiviavov

bpare

? corr.

x bpw


119/130


120/130

INDEX OF PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED, EX-PLAINED, OR REFERRED TO BY HERACLEON.

The figures refer to the number of the page. Square brackets have been used

where the reference is doubtful.

Gen. vi. 2 93

[Ps. xix. (xviii.) 5 79]Ps. Ixix. (Ixviii.) 10 69

Is. i. 2, 4 93

v. 1, 2 93

[xxv. 8 92]

[Jer. vii. 11 69]

[Ezek. xxxiv. 16 80]

[Mt. iii. 11 101]

Mt. viii. 12 93

ix. 37 86

x. 28 92

xi. 11 58

xxi. 13 69

xxiii. 15, 33 99

xxv. 1 84

[Lc. iii. 16 101]

Lc. vii. 26 65

28..... ,58xii. 8 11 102

xix. 10 80

Jo. i. 3 50, 80

4 53

18 55

20 56

21 56, 58

23 56

25 61

26 f. 62 f.

28 f 65

ii. 12 f. 66 f.

14f. 68 f.

17 69

19f 70f.

iv. 11 84

14 72 f.15. ..73

Jo. iv. 16 73f.

17 7418 f 75

20 f 76

22 78 f.

23 80

24 79,812527 822831 8332-34 8435 86

36 87 f.

37 88

38f 8940 90

42 91

46 91

4749 92

5053 9354 92v. 45 101

viii. 12 ff 95 f.

21 f 95 f.

37 f 97

43 97

44 97,98, 100

47 97

50 101

Eom. i. 25 79

[v. 15 72]vi. 21 , 92

xiii.4 101

1 Cor. x. 5 79

xv. 53 f 92

Gal. iii. 19 89

2Tim.ii. 13 103Heb. ix. 7.. ..68


121/130


122/130


123/130


124/130


125/130

TEXTS AND STUDIESCONTKIBUTIONS TO

BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE

EDITED BY

J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON B.D.FELLOW or CHRIST'S COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

VOL. I.

THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES

THE PASSION OF S. PERPETUATHE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH

THE FRAGMENTS OF HERACLEON


1891


126/130


127/130


128/130


129/130


130/130

booke. the fragments of heracleon. 1891

Documents