Sunteți pe pagina 1din 368
II at
II at

II at

^RV OF PRINCf^

^OtOGICAL St»»^^

135

a6 IS"

.(5 g'g

V.

I

THE COMMENTARY OF ORIGEN

ON S. JOHN'S GOSPEL

SonDon: c. J. CLAY and SONS,

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,

AVE MARIA LANE.

(Slasgofaj: 263, ARGYLE STREET.

ILtipjig: F, A. BROCKHAUS.

tagorft: MACMILLAN AND CO.

THE COMMENTARY OF

6rigen

ON S. JOHN'S GOSPEL

THE TEXT REVISED

WITH A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION AND INDICES

BY

A. E. BROOKE

FELLOW AND DEAN OF KING'S COLLEGE

VOL. I.

CAMBRIDGE

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

1896

[A/i Rights reserved]

:

C^ambriogc

PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

IN MEMORIAM

GVILLELMI GEORGII SELWYN

QVI IN CHRISTO OBDORMIVIT

B.

A.D. Ill NON. OCT.

A.S. MDCCCXCIII

CONTENTS.

FIRST VOLUME.

PAGE

Introduction

 

ix xxviii

1.

The Extant MSS .

ix

2.

Relations of the MSS

.

xiii

3.

Codex Monacensis

xxi

4.

Bentley's Emendations

xxi

5. Fragments from Catenae

6. On the Text of this Edition

The Text of the Commentary

Tom. I

Tom. II

Tom. VI

Tom. X

Tom. XIII

.

.

.

xxiii

xxvi

I

.56

108

181

247

INTRODUCTION.

The Extant Manuscripts.

The Extant Manuscripts of Origen's Commentaries on S.

John are the following'.

I. Codex Menacens is.

Munich.

Stadt-Bibl.

Gr. cxci.

Cent. XIII. Chart. Bombyc.

ff. I no.

Origen. Comm. in S. Matt, books lo17 (inc.

rivL Se XafXApovcTiv iv tois VTroSeccTTcpois k.t.A.).

ff. 112 sqq.

Origen. Comm. in S. Joann., books i, 2, 6, 10,

13, 19, 20, 28, 32.

In the first part of the MS leaves have been misplaced by the binder;

one or two, including the first, are missing. As a copy of this MS, made in the 14th century, before the first leaf was lost, begins with Book 10, it is

unlikely that the MS ever contained any of the earlier Books.

Minuscules are used, hanging from ruled lines. The Comm. in Matt, have one column of 36 lines on each page ; the Comm. in Joann., written

The MS is stained at top and

bottom, so that some lines, or parts of them, are difficult to read. Occasion-

by another scribe, one column of 30 lines.

ally the bottom line is illegible.

The Comm. in Joann. are preceded by a short preface (inc. hriov ojs iv

/xeTuiirioLS

expl. awapaWdKTws, ihs etxo'') in which the scribe states that he

found in his exemplar several marginal notes drawing attention to Origen's

blasphemies, and copied them as he found them.

1 Fuller information with regard to these MSS (except VI) may be found in Texts and Studies (Cambridge, 1891), I. 4, Fragments of Heraclcon, Introduction. Since the publication of that book I have received informa-

tion about one MS (of the existence of which I did not then know), through

the kindness of Dr J. Rendel Harris, who visited Mt Athos in 1892.

It

X

INTRODUCTION.

II.

Codex Venetus.

Venice.

A.D. 1374. Vellum.

Bibl. Marciana, Gr. 43'.

ff. I117.

Origen.

Comm.

in

S. Matt., books

1017

(inc. TOTC d<^€lS ToilS O^^kov^ K.T.X.).

f. 118.

A preface on Origen's blasphemies (inc. ttoWoji/

ixkv /C.T.A., expl. KoX avOi^ aif/tSfjieOay.

ff. 119294.

as in I.

Origen. Comm. in S. Joann.

Same books

This MS was used by Ambrosius Ferrarius, who in A.D. 1551 translated the Comm. in Joann. into [,atin. The Commentaries are divided into 32

Books, to give the work the appearance of being a complete whole. A note at the end of the MS states that it was copied in A.D. 1555 by Georgius

Trypho^ (vid. infra p. xii).

III.

Codex Regius.

Cent. XVI. Origen. Comm. in S.

K.T.X.) book XVII.

Paris.

Bibl. Nationale, Gr. cdlv.

Matt., book x. c. 4 (inc. -koXiv bixoia

Origen. Comm. in S. Joann.

Same books as in I.

Apparently the only MS used by Huet, though he knew of others. It

was also used by Perionius for his translation of the Comm. in Joann. into

Latin*.

proves to be a copy of Cod. Venetus (11). Subsequent visits to Munich, Venice and Rome, have enabled me to correct a few mistakes, and in some few instances to strengthen the arguments by which I supported the classifi- cation of MSS there adopted. I have seen no reason to modify that classifi-

cation, and the present edition is based upon it.

^ I am indebted to Herr Preuschen for pointing out a mistake which I

had made as to the number of this MS

(see Harnack, Altchristliche

Litteratwgeschkhte, p. 391). I have verified the accuracy of his correc-

tion.

2 This Preface is quite different from the Preface in Cod. Monac. con-

cerning the marginal notes in its ancestor.

Its presence in Cod.

Ven.

cannot determine the question of the derivation of this MS from Cod.

Monac.

^ For what is known of this scribe see Gardhausen, Griechische Palaeo- graphies p. 322.

* This translation was made 'about 1554.' iv. 140 (Origen),

Diet. Christian Biography,

52-

IV.

INTRODUCTION.

Xl

Codex Barberinus I.

Rome. Bibl. Barberina, Gr. v.

Cent. XV, XVI.

f. I.

Origen. Comm. in S. Matt., book x. (inc. tot^ d^eis

Tovs o^A-Ous K.T.X.)book XVII. (expl. i-n-LaTpeij/at Trpos avrdv).

f. 117.

Preface on Origen's blasphemies (inc. ttoWwv /acv

K.T.X., expl. axpwfxSa) as in II.

f. 118.

Origen. Comm. in S. Joann.

Divided into 32 Books (cf. II).

Same books as in I.

f. 281.

f. 326.

f. 345.

Philo Trept toO fiiov tov Mo)ucr€w9.

Philo TTcpi TOV ^iov ttoXltlkov (Joseph).

Philo Trepl vofxwv dypdcfiwv (Abraham).

For the probable history of this MS see p. xii.

V. Codex Barberinus II. Rome. Bibl. Barberina, Gr. vi.

14.

Cent. XV, XVI.

f. I.

Origen.

Comm.

in S.

Matt., book x.

(inc.

rtVi

Se

Xdfjuj/ova-iv K.T.X.) book XVII. (€7rtcrrpei//ai irpos avTOv).

f. 140 (verso).

Preface on Origen's blasphemies, as in I.

f. 141.

Origen. Comm. in S. Joann.

Same books as in I.

VI. Codex Batopediamcs.

Mt Athos.

In the Library of

the Monastery at Vatopedi. Cod. 611.

Cent. XV.

Origen. Comm. in S. Joann.

Same books as in I.

The text is divided into 32 Books (cf. II).

VII. Codex Matritensis. Madrid. Bibl. Nacional. O. 32.

A.D. 1555.

f.

2.

f. 3.

Preface on Origen's blasphemies, as in II.

Origen. Comm. in S. Joann.

Same books as in I.

xii

INTRODUCTION.

:

end, ,a<pi'e' iv fxrjvl AvyovffTov k, after which there is a colophon, giving in

cryptograph the name of the scribe, Georgius Trypho^ Cf. II.

VIII.

Misc. 58.

Codex Bodleiantis.

Oxford.

Bodleian Library.

Cent. XVII. Now bound in three volumes.

Origen. Comm. in Joann.

Same books as in I.

Two sets of conjectural emendations have been added in the margin

(i) introduced by the word rdxa, and generally based on the Latin Transla-

tion of Ferrarius, (ii) introduced by ?o-w5, later and of less value.

collation of this MS in Bentley's hand is preserved in a copy of Huet's

edition of the Commentaries, which belongs to the Library- of Trinity College, Cambridge. Bentley has made a few emendations of his own, of

which a list is given below.

A partial

IX. A transcript of VIII, made by Herbert Thorndike,

Trinity College, Cambridge.

B. 9. 11.

Most of the suggestions contained in the margin are copied from the

margin of VIII.

I have not compared the two sufficiently to be able to

state to what extent the transcriber has added conjectures of his own.

X. The existence of a tenth MS is doubtful.

Miller in his Catalogue of the Escurial Library, pp. 305 ff., gives a list,

found in one of the Escurial MSS (x. i. 15), of the Greek Manuscripts

which belonged to Cardinal Sirlet s Library, and passed into the possession

of Cardinal Ottoboni (Alexander VIII). It is said that Benedict XIV sub-

sequently placed them in the Vatican.

containing Origen's Commentaries on S. Matthew and S. John, and Philo

In this list a MS is mentioned,

I can

find no trace of it in the Catalogue of the Ottobonian part of the Vatican

Library. But the exact correspondence of this description with that of the

Barberini MS (Gr. v. 52), which I have numbered IV, suggests the proba-

bility that this MS was acquired by the Barberini from one of its former

owners. It is known that during the time when Cardinal Sirlet's Library

Trept Tov ^iov Mwcr^cjs, Trepi rod ^iov ttoXitikov, vepl vdfidiv aypd^wv.

was in the possession

of the

Altemps, before

it was bought by Alex-

1 Cod. Malrit. O. 47, containing the Comm. in S. Matt., is a copy of the first part of Ven. 43, and has a similar colophon.

INTRODUCTION.

Xlll

ander VIII, the collection was ill kept, and several volumes passed into the

hands of the Chigi and Barberini^.

The following diagram shews the probable relations of these

Manuscripts.

XIII

IMonac. (I)

Relation of II to I.

Bodl.(VIII)

The justification of this genealogical scheme has been given

elsewhere". But as the correctness of its classification has been

disputed^ in regard to one important pointthe derivation of

the text of Cod.

Venetiis from Cod. Alofiacetisis, without any

secondary sourceI shall restate the evidence, with some ad-

As lacunae similar to those found in

Cod. Venetus, or omissions without any gap, occur in the same passages in all the other extant manuscripts, their derivation

ditions and alterations.

^

Cf. Batiffol, La Vaticaiie de Paid III a Paul V.

Paris, 1890, p. 59.

" Cf. Fragmeiits of Heracleon, Introd. pp. 7 ff.

^ By Herr Preuschen. Cf. Y1.2,xx\z.q^C% Altchristliche Litterahirgeschichte,

P- 39'-

xiv

INTRODUCTION.

from Cod. Monacensis is merely a corollary of the proof of the relation in which Cod. Venetus stands to that manuscript.

(i) I. 4 (p. 5, Lomni. vol. i. p. ii).

M. utt' ai)roO 'ypa<pivTa (6)' i^ovalav (9) a.iro(rTo\iK7)v oi firjv to elXiKpivet

K.T.X. The words between ypatpivra and elKiKpives are much damaged, and

very hard to read, but I am almost certain of the words here given.

V. vir avTov ypa<pivTa Kal kut {^ov<rlav (25) ov /j.t]v to eiXiKpivis k.t.X.

In this and all the following instances the space has been left blank.

MS has suffered no damage.

(2)

I. 6 (p. 6, Lomm. p. 14).

The

M. wapa to; 'Iwdwy (14) iv dpxv ^^yov deov Xdyof, aXXa Kal AovKas

eipTjKu^ (90) didd<TK€Lv.

At

the end of the first gap I thought that I could

read rbv.

The second gap is almost, if not quite, illegible; but it was cer-

tainly filled with Acts i. i rbv fikv irpQirov k.t.X. V leaves space for 15 letters between 'ludvvrj and iv. And in the second

place it omits the words of Acts i. i, leaving a space of one line, all but three

letters, blank.

(3)

I. 8 (p. 9, Lomm. p. 18).

M. T(^ irapaddy/xaTi tou /xiKpa ^int) UXov Tb (p^pafia ^vfioi (f line) viovs

tQv dvdpwTTcjv K.T.X. The words after fiiKpd are very nearly gone, and it

was not till a third attempt that I made out what they were.

that I could trace ore after fuyttot, but was not certain.

I thought

V. T(^ irapadfiy/jLaTi tou /xiKpd Kal on oXov (11) oTav yap (J line) viovs

K.T.X.

(4)

I. 9 (p. 1 1, Lomm. p. 20).

M. iv (pavepi^ '\ov5al6% tLs e(m Kal irepi (28) Kal &XXos iv KpvirT'f ovtu

Xpia-Tiavbs k.t.X. All the words between i(7Ti and oUtw are much damaged.

Most of them are illegible, but I am almost certain of Kal irepi at the begin-

ning,' and /cat dXXos iv KpvirTti at the end.

V,

iv 4>av€p(^^lovdaT6s tis idTi Kal irepiTeTfj.7]iJLivos (f line) outoj XpiCTia-

vbs K.T.X.

(5)

I- 17 (P- 2'. Lomm. p. 36).

M. 'iva p-dTaia to, KaTo. o-w/xara ij xal Tb iroLeiv to. aufiaTiKa, oirep dvay-

Koiov (4) T^J iv <rufJ.aTi

(1

line)

virapxTJ. I think that the MS reads /xdrata

TO. KaTOL, but the whole passage is very much damaged.

In the text of this

edition I have filled up the space, of one line, by conjecture.

^ The numbers enclosed in brackets give the approximate number of letters which the blank, or illegible, spaces could contain.

INTRODUCTION.

XV

V. iva iv /jLaratoTriTi. to. fftbfxaTa -rj Kai to ttouiv to, ffUfxariKa oirep avay-

Koiov (4) T(^ iv C(JoixaTi (space) inrapx^i- k.t.\.

(6)

I. 21 (p. 24, Lomm. p. 40).

M. rots ovcL Kai ttj vXt] wapaaxeiv koL (?) ttjv irXdcriv Kal to, ddr], iylo Si

(pi(TTripii fl Kai Tas ovffias.

ov x^^f'dj' fiiv ovv iraxvrepov tlweiv apxriv tQ)v

ovTuv elvai. k.t.X. The whole passage is very much damaged, and the words

raj oialas oil xa^f""^'' M^" ovv iraxuTepov can only be recovered by reading

backwards the blot on the opposite page.

V. Tois ovji Kai TTj vXri (10) Kai ra, eidrj eyio 5^ €<pi(TTT]p.i. ei Kai (23) el-

Trelv dpxv^ k.t.X. In the margin a note is added ol/j-ai irapacrxe^v ttjv virap^iv

Kai TTJV wXaaiv Kai to. etdr],

(7)

I. 23 (p. 25, Lomm. p. 43),

M. "ISwfxev 5i iiriixeXicTepov rt's 6 iv a^Trj X670S. davfia^eiv p.01 ttoXXolkis

i-TripxiTaL (tkottouvti k.t.X.

The words from tIs to iiripxeTai are damaged,

and the blot from the opposite page gives the appearance of there having

been another line of text after iiripxfTai, the last word of the last line on

the page in this MS ; but if the number of lines on the page is counted, it is

clear that this was not the case.

V reads as M, but between iwipx^Tai and aKOTrovvTi leaves space for

I line.

(8)

M. Kal t6.xo. iTrei weivrjaai, Kal dL^I/rjaat di tis ei ttjv SiKaioavvriv irpb toO

XIII. 4 (p. 250, Lomm. vol. ii. p. 8).

XopTaaOrjvai, v-rrkp tov Kopeadrjvai i/XTroirjTiov to Trei,vrjv Kai diipTJv.

V. Kai TCixa iirel ireivrjaai Kai Siiprjcrai. ttjv SiKaLoavv tjv xopTaa dijvai

iffTLv ei' Tts TT}v diKatoavvTjv irpb tov xopTacrdijvaL Trotrjaeiev, VTrep tov Kope-

(xdrjvai ip-woiriTiov k.t.X.

A cursory glance might suggest that words belonging to the true text and preserved in V have been omitted in M owing to the recurrence of ttjv

5t.Kaio(T}jvT]v, in which case we should have to assume a second source for

But though the text of V can be construed, it

the text of V besides M.

does not make sense. If we replace the impossible 5^ ris el of M by derjffei

(TI for H), all becomes plain. "And perchance, since it will be necessary to have hungered and thirsted for righteousness before being filled, the

hungering and thirsting must be produced for the sake of the satisfaction."

The scribe of V has attempted a lengthier, but less satisfactory emendation,

by inserting ttjv diKaLoaiivTjv xopTaadrjval iariv, omitting 5^, transposing rts

and ei, and adding Trot-^iretev,

Here again, therefore, the text of V presup-

poses a corruption already existing in M.

C2

xvi

INTRODUCTION.

(9)

XIII. 39 (p. 289, Lomm. p. 73).

M. rbp Ka\oij/M€vov Trap' avroh d yap /cot oiirws.

Here the true 'lap has

been corrupted by the scribe of M or one of its ancestors into el yap. V. Tov KaXovfjLei'ov vap' avrols (space) /cat yap /cat ovtws. The most natural explanation of this is that the scribe of V discovering that the name

suggested by KaXo^/xevov was missing, left a space for it, and substituted Kat

yb.p for et yap, connecting the words with what follows.

A little further on

M reads tjtol

a/c(3 or ^)ouTa rj iyyvs irov rod Xriyeiv

ovTa.

The true reading is certainly aKfid^ovra, but the letters /xaf must

have been illegible or wanting in the ancestor of M, as the lacuna is left by

the scribe and is not due to subsequent damage.

V reads ifrot (6) ovra rj k.t.X. The scribe apparently preferred to omit the letters a/c which were unintelligible to him, and did not hazard a conjec- ture. This seems to be the most natural explanation, though the phenomena

do not exclude the possibility that the scribe of V had access to an ancestor

of M.

(10)

XIII. 21 (p. 267, Lomm. p. 35).

In this passage we should certainly read Kalroi rh npovooOv rrjs aiiTrjs

ovalas XiyovTf^ etvai. rots trpovoovp-ivoLS yeviKip \6yui, r^Xeiop dXX olov to irpo-

voovfxevov.

written dXXoLov (sic). We are

not surprised therefore to find that in V the following t6 irpovoovfiivov has been altered to the genitive, while o/iiws has been inserted between reXelov

and dXXoiov. The scribe has again yielded to the temptation of inserting

words which form a grammatical sentence, but destroy the sense of the

passage.

This is the reading of M, but dXX' olov is

(11)

XIII. 23 (p. 269, Lomm. p. 38).

V reads dvayKT] avrbv vorjTbv Tvyx^vovTa /cat dbparov /cat dadi/xaTov toi;-

Tov -rj^as avTbv vTroXap-^dvuv (pQ^ (10) ry fx-qwore /cat Ttvp KaravaXicTKOv (13)

(T(i}p,aTlKbv [ttOp cuifxaTOiv] dvaXwriKOV elvai SoKeT, olov ^ijXuv Kal x^P'''°^ 'f

[The brackets are

mine.] M has the same text and lacunae (in this case not due to damage), except

KaXd/XTjs' el Sk [^v rjplv ^cttlv tSetc] ^vXa Kal x^Rto" k.t.X.

that it has lacunae instead of the words enclosed in square brackets.

Here, it would seem, the scribe of V left two of the lacunae which he

found in his exemplar, and filled up two of them with the words which I

have bracketed.

attempted in this edition (p. 269) from the data afforded by M will, I think,

shew that the supplements of V have no special claim to be regarded as

part of the true text.

A comparison of these conjectures with the restoration

INTRODUCTION.

(12)

XX. 2 (vol. ii. p. 35, Lomm. p. 196).

XVll

M. ^Tret Tapd^ai dv TLva to. TOiavra, avvOivra fih ravra, fXT] aKpi^ovvra

di, KivS^vip Trapa^aXovfiey k.t.X.

difficult to read.

The words uvvOivra fiev are damaged and

V has replaced them by the words Kal yap irapadivTa.

(13)

XX. 23 (p. 80, Lomm. p. 267 f.).

M. ivddde /Mev yb.p Trepl rod dvdpdnrov X^yerai t6' "On \j/e6<jTrjs ecrri Kal

6 Trarrip avTov' iu d^ i/'aX/xots t6' '£70; de etirov iv rrj ^Kardaei fjLov Has dvdpoj-

In the preceding sentence Origen calls attention to the fact that the term xj/eiiar-qs is applied in Holy Scripture both to the Devil and to Man. He justifies this statement by the sentence quoted above. "For here (in

S. John) we read that the man (who

father (the Devil), and in the Psalms we find 'every man is a ^ei5o-r?jy'."

tells a lie) is a \}/ei<rT-qs, and so is his

This is in perfect agreement with the interpretation of the passage in

S. John, which Origen has given a few chapters earlier.

He says there

that the subject of XaX?) {orav XaXrj to xpevdos) is either Antichrist, the son

of the Devil, or anyone who tells a lie. Whenever such

he speaks of his own, for he is a liar, and so is his father

an one tells a lie,

But

(the Devil).

unless this earlier chapter is kept in mind, we should naturally expect the

first quotation in the passage under consideration to justify more especially

the statement that the term xpeixTTtis is applied to the Devil, and not to man

So thought the scribe

of V, who accordingly inserts the words irepl rod dia^dXov Xiyoiv after the first quotation (i.e. after avTov), and the words iirl dvdpwTrov jxbvov ws before

only, as the true text seems at first

sight to imply.

the second (i.e. between xpaXfiols and to).

He has again been tampering

with his text, and as usual he has failed to improve it.

(14)

V.

XXVIII. 18 (p.

141, Lomm. p. 365).

ov KaT^axVTo fxh av, ofxws 5i ovk iir^^aXep ovdeh ttjp x^'^P'^-

The

words 6/xws X"/"* interrupt the argument; the point of the sentence is

that Christ would not have been taken if He had remained, not that, as a matter of fact, no one laid hands on Him.

M reads 01; KaT^axV''' M^'' S" Vf^^^^i without the words 5/iws X^V"-

The reading of M is probably a corniption of ovk av KaT^a-xv'o (kan having

disappeared before kat) fiefjLevrjKws. Here again we have to credit the

scribe of V with a bad conjecture, founded on the already corrupt text of M.

(15)

XXXII. 10 (p. 168, Lomm. p. 410).

M. Tovs dXXovs Kvpiovs, ixr) §ovXop.ivovs 'iva yevTjTai ws 6 SiSdcr/caXos ws 6

Kvpios avTov.

The words ws 6 diddcKaXos after yivrjTat. are probably due to

xviii

INTRODUCTION.

the words {y4v7)rai (hs 6 5i5d(7/caXos) which occur two or three lines earlier.

The true text may probably be restored by substituting for them the words

6 SouXos.

V gives a more extensive change, tVa yivr]Tai. ws 6 ^iSacKoXos 6 ixadrjTrjs

But as the sentence has to do with Kvpioi

T] ths 6 Kvpios 6 dovXos avTov.

exclusively, the insertion of diddaKaXos and fiadrjTTji is only cumbrous. The

corruption in M requires simpler treatment.

It may be admitted that most, if not all, the readings of V

which have been discussed, except those taken from Book I,

could be explained by the hypothesis that its scribe had access

to a second source in some MS whose text (or marginal glosses) was based on an ancestor of M. But, when considered in con- nexion with the evidence derived from Book I, such a theory

would present so complex an array of improbabilities that we are certainly justified in adopting the simpler explanation. The scribe knew Greek, and was fond of trying to improve his text,

His division of the extant

but his zeal outran his discretion.

Books into 32, if indeed he is to be credited with this device,

points to a less commendable form of sagacity.

All the variants of V from M of which I have any know-

The only

ledge may be readily explained on this hypothesis.

tangible evidence for a second source is the fact that V con-

tains a preface on Origen's heresies which is not found in M. But there is no difificulty in supposing that the scribe found elsewhere a preface on this subject which he preferred to the

shorter statement contained in M.

second textual source.

proof of a

It offers

no

Relation of V to M in the Comm. in S. Matt.

The proof may be strengthened by the following evidence

of the derivation of the text of V from M in certain passages

I see no reason to doubt that the

of the Comm. in Matt.

whole of the text of V in these Commentaries is derived from

INTRODUCTION.

XIX

M, though I have not examined enough of the texts of the two

MSS in this part to oflfer a complete proof.

(i) Comm. in Matt. xii. 20 (Lomm. p.

165).

'ETrei 5^ ovk ev^Mx^To [irpo(p7]Tr)v air6]Ki(jdai i^oi ''lepovaaXrjfj.