^^^"^^X lUc ®ltw%fa/^

PRINCETON, N. J.'X£

Presented b^^a\ '^o r\y<~^ e. ^J\^ \Vr ^"^ :x

,

DUfisiou

Sctliou

>\\\ N*>,

4

'- V\

m i.

p^

m'^^^%M^^-'^'

:4;i?^^^<'i(*.i'

C '^Ci^ i^t^ZZcAZ?'s'i^

OCc<£Z^^:^l^ _

DIALOGUEBETWEEN

A CHRISTIAN AND A JEWENTITLED

ANTIBOAH nAni^EKOT KAl mAnNO:^ lOTAAinN

nP02 MONAXON TINA

THE GREEK TEXT

EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES, TOGETHER WITH A

DISCUSSION OF

CHRISTIAN POLEMICS AGAINST THE JEWS

INAUGURAL DISSERTATION FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF

PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MARBURG

PRESENTED BY y"

ARTHUR CUSHMAN McGIFFERT

NEW YORK

THE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE COMPANY

I88y

COPTRIOHT, 1HH9, BY

ARTHUR CUSIIMAN McGIFFERT.

Prriw of J. J. Little A Oo.

A»lor Place. New York.

PREFACE

In- the fall of 1887, while engaged in collating manuscripts

in the National Library at Paris, I found an entry in the catalogue

which at once aroused my curiosity. Codex Graec. 1111 was said to

contain, among other works, Papisci et Jasonis Judmorum cum

monacho quodam de cliristiana reliyione et Mosa'ica lege colloquium.

Upon examining the manuscript, I discovered that the title was

incorrect (the name Jasonis being substituted for Philonis), and

that the work mentioned, although itself in the form of a dialogue,

unfortunately had no connection with the lost second-century Dia-

logue of Papiscus and Jason. It proved, liowever, to possess con-

siderable intrinsic merit, and to be an excellent example of Christian

polemics against the Jews ; and, being particularly interested in the

latter subject, I took the pains to transcribe the whole dialogue.

Afterward my attention was called by Professor Harnack to a

note in his Texte und Untersuchungeny Bd. I., Heft 3, p. 12G, which

contained the information that Professor Zahn had discovered, in a

MS. in St. Mark's Library, at Venice, a dialogue with a title similar

to the one found by myself. He had concluded that there was no

relationship between it and the lost Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason,

and had not transcribed it. Upon examination it proved to be an

older and shorter recension of the Paris dialogue, and is therefore

laid at the base of the text given in the following pages.

Still later I learned from a communication made to Professor

Harnack by Dr. Oscar von Gebhardt, that tlie same dialogue is

extant in a third MS. in the library of the Most Holy Synod at

Moscow. This MS. I have not seen, but my thanks are due to the

librarian, who kindly furnished me with its variant readings for _a_

part of the dialogue.

Shortly before completing my work, I discovered that a large

part of the material of the dialogue is incorporated in a series of

tracts (published by Mai), bearing the common title Adversus

Jtidmos Disimtatio, and ascribed to Anastasius (see p. 17). The

IV

(iisc'overv caiiscMJ nic to doiiltt. lor ;i tmic. the ;iflvisnl>ilit v of jmh-

lisliing tlio text of lire (liiilo;,ni( ; Imt fiirtlicr cxMiniiiMrioii of the

work of Antjslasfus revealed such exieusive and important difTer-

eiices l>et\veen the two writings, that I was contirnied in my original

inlention. Anastasius' tructs throw new lighi upon the composi-

tion of the dialogue, and the relationship between the two furnishes

an interesting chapter in tiie history of ('iiristian literature. Theititerest which the latter jKJSsessed for me was due in a great part to

its representative character as one of a large and important class

of works which historians have greatly neglected. A thorough

discussion of that class of writings is n(>t attempted in this brief dis-

sertation, but the effort has been made lo give, m the first chapter

of the Introduction, something of an idea of its nature and extent.

The sui)stance of the first and last paragraphs of the Introduc-

tion ai)peared as a separate article, under the title, ''Christian

Polemics against the Jews," in the I'rrshiifrrian Rrririr for ,]u\\\

1888.

Arri'lUK CISIIMAX Mr(;iFFERT.

CONTENTS

PAGE

PREFACE iii

INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER I.—CHRISTIAN POLEMICS AGAINST THE JEWS. 1

^ 1. The Nature of the Polemics 1

g 2. List of Anti-Jewish Works 12

CHAPTER IL—DIALOGUE OF PAPISCUS AND PHILO 28

i^ 8. Manuscripts 28

>^ 4. Relation between the two forms of the Dialogue. ... 31

ij 5. Relation of the Dialogue to other Anti-Jewish Works. 32

§ 6, Sources and Title 37

§ 7. Time and Place of Composition. Authorship 41

^ 8. Analysis of the Dialogue 44

THE TEXT 49

NOTES B5

SCRIPTURE REFERENCES 93

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I.

CHRISTIAN POLEMICS AGAINST THE JEWS.

§ 1. The Nature of the Polemics.

It lies in the very nature of tlie case that Clu-istian polemics

against the Jews should begin at an early date. The first problem f

which confronted the church when it began to come to self-cou-

scionsness and to reflect upon its own position Avas to determine

its relation to Judaism. Its founder was held to be tlie Jewish

Messiah, and yet he was rejected with scorn by the Jewish nation.

His followers claimed for him all the rights and honors of that

Messiah, but those rights and honors were denied him by his ownpeople. There remained but one possibility open : the Jewish

people were mistaken. The first problem of the Christian church

was to prove thip. All the circumstances of the age emphasized

this need. Religion was at that time practically a national institu-

tion. Each nation had its own religion, and was left by the Romanpower in undisturbed possession of it so long as it remained within

its national limits. But Christianity, Jewish in its origin, was

repudiated by the nation in whose bosom it had been born, and

tbus, as a religion severed from national life, it contradicted all the

princijiles of the age. Again, the worth of a religion then was

measured to a great extent by its antiquity. But Christianity, if \

the standpoint of the Jews were admitted, was nothing better

than a novel superstition—without national approval, without the

honor of antiquity. In this dilemma, felt very early by the church

and felt with ever increasing force, there remained but the one

course : to show to the world, first, that Christianity was the true

Judaism, the true national faith, and secondly, that the Judaism ^

of the day was in consequence a perversion of it and a departure|

1

from it. To i)rove tlic former it was necessary to show tliat Christwas the promised .Messiah, wliom the Jews tliemselves admittedwould found a new order of tilings when he should come, to showthat Christianity was the higher Judaism of the Messianic king-dom. Tiiere was but one way to proceed in the demonstration

;

the Jews' accepted book must be shown to prophesy of Christ andof his ci)urch. The search for Messianic propiiecies began then atthe very start. We see the results of it in the Xew' Testamentitself. Had the life of Christ corresponded so exactly with theexpectations of the age, with the prevalent idea of the Messiah,that no doubt con Id exist in any one's mind that he was thepromised Messiah, the effort to prove him such would of coursehave been superfluous. But this w^as not the case. The life ofChrist contained so many elements apparently quite at variancewith the Messianic prophecies that the disciples felt at the verystart the need of justifying their belief in him, and that to them-selves as well as to the Jews. They would have felt the need hadthere been no hostile Jews to impress it upon them. They mighthave accepted Christ as the founder of a new religion entirelyindependent of and severed from all connection with Judaism, asMurcion did

;I)ut this could never have occurred to them as Jews

trained in the expectation of a Messiah. A deliverer was to come—the Messiah. Christ came to deliver; he could be to his dis-ciples no one else than the Messiah, however much his life seemedto contradict the accepted Messianic ideas. The only alternativeleft them was to find themselves mistaken in their earlier inter-pivtjition of the Old Te-tament, and to find in it, with the key ofChrist's actual life, predictions corresponding with that life.

P>ut if tiie disciples were right in tiieir views of Christ, the Jewsmust he wrong, and thus was felt the pressure to ])rove directly thefalsity of their position, to prove, that is, that non-Christian Judaismwas a perversion of true, divinely ordained Judaism. This secondstage api)ears early. The Ej.istle of Barnabas is its classic nnmu-Mient. The necessity whieh lay up(m the early church was a matterwhieh concerned its very existence, and ihat entirely independent ofall personal connection with the Jews, independent of any i)urpose«>f i>ropagandism am(mg them. JIad no Jew attacked the\daims ofChrist as the Messiah, tiiere would still have lain upon theehurehthe necessity of self-justification. The substanee of ant i-Jewishimlemies would have remained ; it would simply have lost its pole-

mic tone. This fact explains a remarkable feature of the polemics

which characterizes it throughout. It shows itself, in fact, almost

entirely regardless of the Jews themselves, and though cast in the

form of polemics against them, seems to be aimed far less at them

than at an entirely different public. The persuasion of the Jews,

their refutation for the purjoose of winning them, seems to be the

last consideration with the author. Of all the anti-Jewish dialogues

of which we know, but three (the dialogue of Simon and Theophilus

being counted as a reproduction of that of Pa^^iscus and Jason)

result in the conversion of the Jew. In the remainder, whether the

Jew plays his role throughout, as in Justin's dialogue with Trypho,

or whether he drops entirely from the scene before the completion

of tlie work, as in our present dialogue, he is at best but a lay

figure, a" sort of artistic setting. The artificial character runs in

fact through all these dialogues. The real opponent of the Chris-

tian is not the Jew but the unbeliever in general, as the Christian

imagines him, that is, his apology is directed not toward the Jewish

nation merely, but toward the whole non-Christian world. This

characteristic emphasizes itself more and more as time advances.

From the speech of Peter on the day of Pentecost, when the Jews

were addressed and the apology for Christianity was directed to

them alone, to the dialogues and treatises of subsequent centuries is

a great step. As the Jewish nation would not accept Christianity, /

Christianity must break with it, and that it did right early. And lu

it extended itself in the heathen world the Jews became a factor of

ever decreasing importance. The artificial character of wiiich we

have spoken is excellently illustrated by a passage in our dialogue

which states the author's purpose in composing it—or rather that of

the latest editor in revising it : ''We have quoted these few things

from many contained in the Holy Prophets for the saJce of confirm-

iufj Hie faith of iis Christians, and as a rebuke, to the Jews' pride

[ind hardness of heart." With this passage are to be compared the

words of Isidore, in the introduction to his work Contra JudiBos,

in which, while the refutation of the Jews is to be sure mentioned,

it is looked upon as a matter 6f secondary importance. But in these

two passages it is not the defense of Christianity over against the

heathen world that is emphasized, but rather the confirmation of

the faith of the believers themselves. In that age it could not, of

course, be otherwise. That which had begun in the time of the

first disciples as actual polemics was continued as a confirmation for

I)t'licvcrs after tlie urgent necessity for ])(>leniics liad ceased. 'I'his

is Ijiit tl)(' history of Cliristian a})ologetics in general. Arguments

which have been forged in the heat of battle to be used as weajions

against assailants are one by one beaten into plowshares for the culti-

vation of the conquered territory. The fact which has been em))ha-

sized assists us in estimating i)ro})erly the historical importanceof the

whole class of works witli whicli we are concerned. Is the Jew but

a lay figure, we realize at once that we can learn little from these

works as to the actual relations between Jews and Christians.

Polemics which would be continued, even if the personal object of

attack vanished, will miiTor very imperfectly the real position of

tiiat antagonist. In fact, if we wish to learn the actual attitude of

the Jews toward Christianity we must seek elsewhere than in the

Christian works which have been directed against them. 'J'his fact,

wliich lies in the nature of the case, is well illustrated by the actual

procedure of the Jewish figure in all of our dialogues. For the most

])art, his role is simply to assist the Christian in his demonstration

by suggesting just such points, and asking just such questions, as

furnish the needed steps in the discussion of the latter. He rarely

impedes the demonstration in the slightest degree. This irrelevancy

is particularly noticeable in the opening paragraph of our dialogue,

in which the Jew is made to object to the Christian's worsliip of

inuiges, as if it could be of any possible consequence to the Cliris-

tian cliurch of that age, what tiie Jews might think of their i)rac-

tiee. This section, of course, is intende<l as a defense of the prac-

tice over against the attacks of iconoclastic Christians, with whomtiie strife was then raging. The historical value of this clas^ of

works is greatly diminished by this general consideration. AVe can

seek at most only for oecasional notices of the contem])orary exter-

nal (•(•luliiioii of the Jews, such as the references in the present work

t«j the Christian occuj)ation of the Jews' sacred i)laees, etc' Of the

real attitude of the Jews toward the Christians, of the nature of

thi'ir ])olemics against Ciiristianity, if they still troubled themselves

with such ])olemics, these works tell us nothing.

During the early years of Christianity the Old Testament was

I lie only book of oracles for Christians as well as for .few.^. To it

and it alone could they aj)peal for a written warrant for their

teaching. They must find in it then, not sim})ly i)rophecies of the

' The work of Tha<l(la»u.s Pelusiottt (see next paraprnph) funiishes a few

ruriousnnd interesting' historic details; of which at s<»nie future time.

exfcerual life of the individual Jesus, but also the whole plan of sal-

vation as understood by them. It must, in fact, be their Gospel,'

and what Christ and his apostles taught must be found taught

there too. The part which the Old Testament played in the early

church was thus prodigious. Had Christ come with a written Gos-

jiel in his hand, as Mohammed came with the Koran, all would

have been different. As it was, Jews and Christians had but one

book, in which the Jews read one thing, the Christians quite another.

But as in course of time Christianity came into possession of its own

independent book, as the writings of the disciples began to circu-

late and to be looked upon as possessing divine authority, the state

of affairs was changed. The church was no longer confined to the

Old Testament. And yet, though the church had by this time

broken completely its Jewish bonds and had become universal in

spirit and in principle, though it was composed largely of Gentiles, to

whom Judaism was far from sacred, still the Old Testament had dur-

ing the earlier years gained, under the necessities of the case, so com-

pletely the stamp of a Christian book, and under Christian interpre-

tation had lost so completely its Jewish character, that it was pre-

served as a most necessary part of the Scripture canon of the

church. It is to the necessity laid upon the early church to make

of it a Christian book, that we owe its existence to-day in the canon.

Later centuries, with, their apostolic works and with their independ-

ence over against Judaism, would never have felt the need of so trans-

forming it. But the process thus begun under necessity was most

naturally continued after the necessity was past. Once given the

Old Testament as a Christian book no generation of the church could

be foolish enough to throw aside such a treasure. Once established

the practice of reading it in a spiritual sense, its inexhaustibleness

assured its permanent use.

Christian apologetics is of three kinds : that which appeals to

prophecy, that which appeals to reason, and that which appeals to

history—not to imply, of course, that these three kinds are always

kept distinct in practice. The original relation of Christianity to

Judaism necessarily gave to the earliest Christian apologetics the

form of an appeal to prophecy. But as the church began to face

more and more the heathen world, which had neither the oppor-

tunity nor the inclination to examine the Jewish Scriptures arul to

test the proofs of the Christians drawn from this source, as in fact

'Cf. Harnack, Texte und XIntersiiehungen, Vol. I. Heft 3, p. 57.

it faced a world with wliom this common ground was wanting, it

had recourse necessarily to the second form of apologetics. Chris-

tianity must Ije shown to be ratioiuil, not sim]>ly ordained hy the Godof the Jewish Scrij)ture8. This second form l)egins with the works

of tlie Greek a})()logists of tlie second century. But even Jiere it

was not only external ])ressure, but also interual intellectual need,

wliicli gave rise to this kind of tliinking and writing. Christians

souglit confirniation in their faith, justification for their belief.

Jewish Christians had sought it in the sanction of the national God,

wliose word, recorded in their national Scriptures, was law to them.

Greek Christians, trained in the atmosphere of philosophy, sought

it in the sanction of their reason. But the second kind of ai)olo-

getic:? by no means drove out the first. Tlie use of the Hebrew];ro])hets for the confirmation of the Christian faith was not con-

fined to Jewish Christians. Begun b}- them, it was taken up and

pursued eagerly by the lieatlion converts. But to them the Old

Testament played a different role. To Jewish Cliristians it was in

and of itself the word of God. Its prophecies had a worth, there-

fore, independtnt of the life of Christ. To heathen Christians it

was the wor<l of (}od onIi/ because it pro})lu'sie<l of Christ. To the

latter, therefore, it was at first valuable only in so far as it contained

j)redictions and types of the ^fessiah jind his church. By them was

felt, therefore, far moi-e keenly than by Jewisl> Christians, the need

of finding for every part of the Old Testament a correspondence in

tlio life of Christ, and it is to them, more than to Jewish Christians,

tijat we owe its transformation from a historical book to a thesau-

rus of divine oracles. Jewish Christians would have remained

satisfied to find in the historical books national history, in the

l)rophetical books, to a certain extent, national j)roi»hecies. It was

not necessary for the life of Christ to exhaust the whole mass of

Old Testament ])redictions. liut to the heathen the Old Testament

as a national book could have no meaning. It must not only

include Christianity, it must be v^holly Christian.

An argument from prophecy has always had great weight with

the human mind. There enters int(> it so i)rominent an element of

supernaluralness as to give it a i)eculiar force. The gentile Chris-

tian church found itself in jmjisession of books written centuries

before the advent of their Christ, whicli, as the Jewish Christians

had already })()intedout to them, foretold a Mt-ssiah and a Messianic

kinirdom identical with their Messiah and his kingdom. Tiiev

did not need to ask as to the divinity of these books ; the}' did not

need to accept them first as Jewish Scriptures. They accepted

them at once as divine and as Christian books because they prophe-

sied of Christ. To them they were at first that and notliing more.

Before them then lay the task, undertaken with a very different

motive from that of the Jewish Christians, of making the two

elements, prophecy and fulfillment, fit not simply in part but

completely, of co-ordinating them throughout. With the Jewish

Christians it was enough to prove from the Scriptures that Christ

was the promised Messiah of the Jews. To the heathen Christians

that could of itself have no meaning. To them Christ was not the

Jewish Messiah but the Saviour of the world and would have

remained such had there been no Old Testament. They gladly

adopted the latter because, spiritualized as they spiritualized it, it

proved to them the antiquity of their religion and furnished them

in its prophecies, so w^onderfully fulfilled, welcome testimony to

the divine origin of their religion.

These two kinds of apologetics then ran alongside one another

—each playing an important part in the literary activity of the

early church. It is noticeable, however, that they are usually in

the earlier centuries kept quite distinct. We have apologies of the

first class and apologies of the second class, but not combinations

of the two kinds. As an example of the first, for instance, nuiy be

cnted Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, of the second, his

ajwlogies ; so Tertullian's Adversics JndcBOs on the one hand, and

his apology on the other. This must of necessity have been the

mode of procedure in the earliest generations, when the two classes

of assailants, the Jews and the heathen, were so sharply distinct.

To represent to the Jews the rationality of Christianity was useless.

To them only the Scriptures had weight. To appeal to tlie heathen

from the Scriptures, when they knew nothing of the Old Testa-

ment, would have been absurd. In the first generations of Chris-

tianity, Judaism played an important role in the ranks of its antag-

onists. In spite, therefore, of what has been said as to the necessary

inward impulse toward apologetics, it is certain that at first there

was felt very forcibly the external need also. The Jews were a real

and formidable enemy then, and they were besides a people amongwhom tlie church hoped to propagate Christianity. The continued

independent use of the first class of apologetics, even after the

second had begun, is therefore not to be wondered at. It is further

quite natural that tliis class of apologetics should continue to bear

lie name Ailversus Judceos long after the Jews had ceased to play

a })art of any consequence among the enemies of the church. Thetwo classes began as Adv. Jtidccos and Adv. Nationes, the one bibli-

cal, the other rational. It was most uatural that all works in

which Old Testament prophecies were exhibited as proofs of the

truth of Christianity should continue to be thrown into that form,

even after they had ceased to Ije directed against the Jews them-

selves. In order to give force and vividness—still more in order to

give, so to si)cak, an excuse for a coui])osition of this kind, there

must be sui)i)osed an opponent contradicting the truth of the Chris-

tian's conclusions, and Avho else could this 1)0 than the Jew ? Andthis must have been true also of works not cast in the form of a

dialogue. Whenever Old Testament prophecies are a])pealed to,

there the Jew is naturally thought of as the one who disputes the

Christian's conclusions. To justify any ajmlogy there must be an

op])onent real or imagined. If there is no actual one, and the work

is written simply to confirm the faith of believers, then an opponent

must be imagined to exist—in the present case of course a Jew.

We know that before many centuries had passed the Jews had

(lro})ped entirely out of consideration among the Christians in most

parts of the empire, that the church no longer feared them and no

longer came into actual conflict with them. And yet the nominal

aj)ologies addressed to the Jews continue even down to the end of

the middle ages, their artificial character of course strongly marked.

Another point must be noticed in connection with this class of

apologetics. Prophecy is the correlate of history. "What prophecy

foretells, history fulfills. A work devoted, therefore, to the demon-

stration of the truth of Christianity upon the basis of prophecy must('<)nfine itself to the realm of history. Dogmatics can ])roperly })lay

no part in such a work, for it is absurd to s])eak of a dogma as being

lii<i|)lir>i('d, when the dogma is itself ostensibly drawn from the very

book which ])ro|)lK'si('s. If the dogma embodies the assertion of a

fact which has occurred or is supposed to have occurred in history,

the j>redictions which may be cited in pivxtf of its truth are cited of

course for the fact as such, not for the dognui al)<)Ui the fact. Andsuch dogmas as have to do with eternal truths can of course have

no relation to })rophecy. Dogmas vary from age to age. Hut in

apologetics based ujion ])rophecy we have two unchangeable factors :

Old Testament predictions, New Testament fulfillment. In the

generations before the formation of tlie New Testament canon the

second factor was, to be sure, variable. The traditions as to the life

of Christ were not yet absolutely fixed, and opportunity was given

to alter and add to them at will, a process of which we can detect

many traces in the writings of the second century. But after the

New Testament canon was established this process ceased. The

factors were fixed, and there remained only the discovery on the

part of sharp-sighted and keen-witted men of new coincidences be-

tween the two. The framework within which all such search must

proceed was unalterably settled. This is the natural cause of the

stereotyped character of this class of apologetics, which is very

marked throughout. It is not surprising that in a work of the mid-

dle ages devoted to prophecy and its fulfillment we should find the

same general matter as in a work of the earliest centuries. It could

not be otherwise. The contents of the life of Christ had long been

fixed, and with that prophecy had chiefly to do. (The fulfillment

of prophecy in the later history of the church is for the present left

out of consideration.) The ordinary marks of the doctrinal views of

the author, from which we are accustomed to judge as to the age of

his work, we have no right to expect. If they occur, they are mis-

nomers and inconsistencies in the work. At the same time they do

occur, illogically, very frequentl3\' In fact, the works in which an

indication of date cannot be gathered from their doctrinal tone are

largely in the minority. But in spite of this the natural character

of these works is archaic. The theological passages do not form

their chief characteristic.

We have spoken of two classes of apologetics. To these is to be

added the third, already enumerated : apologetics based upon his-

tory ; that is, apologetics in which the history of the church and of

its enemies is appealed to as a proof of its divine origin. This class

is, of course, of later growth. Only when Christianity had a his-

tory behind it, could it make use of that history as an argument.

Strictly speaking, this is of course an appeal to reason. The pre-

servation of the church in the midst of persecution, its continued

prosperity, its benefits to the human race— tliese were so many

' Much oftoner than one might feather from Hai-nack's remarks. Besides

the Pseudo-Gregorian Testimonui which he mentions, the dialogue of Gregen-

tius with Herbano the Jew is permeated with the theological atmosphere of the

sixth century, and the same general fact is true of many later works, especially

of the scholastics.

10

appeals to tlio reason of man for the divine origin of Christianity.

But in tlie ))resent instance the liistory of the church served a

double i)ur])ose in the realm of n})olof^etics. Not only did it furnish

of itself a direct arfjuinent, hut in fulfilling Scripture predictions it

increased the sum of proofs from })r<)i)hecy. The Old Testament

Av;is found to contain not only prophecies of Christ, but also of his

church, and indeed of sul)sc(]uent world history in large propor-

tions. In this way the argument from history by itself, and the

argument from prophecy fulfilled in it became closely joined and

were continually used togetlier. This was more aiul more the case

as time advanced. The numerical lu'cdictions of Daniel play a role

of constantly increasing prominence. And at the same time, partly

in connection with these predictions and partly independent of

them, the contrasts were drawn with ever more minuteness of

detail between the prosperity of the Christians and the ill-fortune

of their Jewish adversaries. The dark lot of the latter formed an

excellent background against which to display the brilliant history

of the former. Works in which this style of argument is prominent

gain a degree of vividness and life-likeness, which makes it seem

that they must be directed against real Jewish opponents and be

sprung from the actual heat of conflict, and yet we are not safe in

drawing this conclusion upon this ground alone. But these histori-

cal sections will at the same time usually be found to give us wel-

come data for fixing the age of the works in whicli they occur.

The subject can scarcely be developed without contemporaneous

events leaving their impress, and at this point we must look for

most light as to the composition of the various works, and also for

the most matter of interest, because matter least stereotyped.

The lilei-arv form of the works Atirersns Judwos is threefold.

We have dialogues between Christians and Jews; we have regular

treatises in the form of apologies, or of attacks, or of both ; and we

have Testimonid, which are but a massing together of Old Testa-

ment ])redictions, arranged according to the events which they fore-

tell. The first is a favorite form. A glance at the list given in g 2

will show that quite a pro})ortion of all anti-Jewish works are

dialogues. It was a form suggested by the very miture of the

material. In no way could the force of the Old Testament i)re-

dictious be better brought out than by supi)osing their proper

interpretation disputed by the Jew, who is then obliged to yield his

view to that of the Christian. The nature of the subject ueces-

11

sitated a constant change from one topic to another which was

l^eculiarly fitted to dialogistic discourse.' For the exphmation of

the prevalence of this form in anti-Jewish works it is, therefore,

unnecessary to assume the influence of the dialogues of Justin and

Trypho, or of Papiscus and Jason. It is plain, of course, that we

cannot conclude tlie actual existence of the parties named in the

dialogue. They ma}^ be, as they probably most often are, fictitious

characters.

The second form mentioned treats the subject in essentially the

same manner as the first. The formal introduction of the two

contending parties is merely an externality which hardly affects the

disposition of the material. Many of the regular treatises could be

transformed into dialogues by the mere insertion of names. Thesimilarity between the two classes is so great that the one form maypass quite easily into the other, even within the same work ; as, for

instance, in the w^ork we are to consider, in which the form of the

dialogue disapi^ears entirely long before its conclusion.

The third form mentioned is quite different from the other two.

Its representatives are the Testimonia of Cyprian and of Pseudo-

Gregory. It is an illustration of what has been said of the natural

tendency to tlirow all works which deal with prophecy into the form

of anti-Jewish polemics, that even these Testimonia, which in form

are the farthest possible from polemical works, still bear the title

Adv. Judceos. But it must be remarked that the distinguishing char-

acteristic of all the three classes v/hich we have been considering is

not the fact that they are formally directed against the Jews—this,

though so universal, is but an accident, not an essential property upon

which the classification depends. The essential characteristic is the

use of Old Testament prophecies. And thus, though the lost Eclogce

of Melito, for instance, were not, so far as we know, brought formally

into any connection with the Jews, they nevertheless belong to the

general class of works under consideration, just as much as the

Testimonia of Cyprian and of Pseudo-Gregory, Avhose titles expressly

name the Jews. They will therefore be included in our list of

anti-Jewish works. At the same time there are, on the other hand,

works against the Jews which are purely polemical, being devoted

solely to an exhibition of the wickedness of the Jews, and contain-

ing no element of apology for Christianity, no attempt to prove its

- Cf. the preface to the Dialogus Gualteri et Balduini{M[gne, ccix. 42G), and

the passage quoted from Richard's work De EmmanueU lihri duo (infra p. 26).

12

trutli in any respect. Such writinfjs have no connection with the

chiss of works iukUt consideration, although the word ** Jews " ap-

pears in their titk's. They will, therefore, he omitted in our list.*

§2. List of A/tfi-Jcicish Woi^l's.

The foll()win;j: list is designed to contain all ancient and

meditwal Greek and Latin works of the cla.'S under consideration

witli whose titles the writer is acquainted, whether extant or non-

extant. He has en.leavored to make it as exliaustive as possible,

but by no means i)retends to claim for it absolute completeness, for

he is well aware tliat some works may have escaped his notice.*

Tiie list is, of course, not intended to include writings upon other

subjects which deal with the Jews only indirectly or in j)assing.

Such works are legion. Anti-Jewish polemics are scattered through

innumerable dogmatic treatises, homilies, and especially commen-

taries. For Latin works the writer has been aided in his search by

the subject index of Migne's PatrnJogia Latina. For the Greek

Patrology unfortunately no sucli index as yet exists.''

L Greek works.

1. Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason.

This dialogue is no longer extant, but we can obtain an excel-

lent idea of its general character from the Dialogue of Simon and

Theoi)hilus which llarnack {Texte uud Vnfersuchungeiiy I>d. L,

Heft 3, pp. 1-3G) has proved almost beyond the shadow of a doubt

to be a free reproduction of it. For a summary of what we know

in regard to the original work see ibid. p. IH! IT., and for a com-

parison of it with our dialogue see § 5 l)elow.

2. Justin Martyr : Dialogue with Trypho.

3. >relito : KrlngiP.

This work, which is no loiigi-r extant, was nt)t directed against

the Jews, but it may be miMitioncd in this coinu'ctittn because it

' The wriUT has in mind particularly cortr.in works by Aijobard : dc insohniia

Judaurum (Mignc, civ. CS)-70). d< hapfitiino JiuUvurnm (ib. 101-100). de cav?ndo

couvictu et Societate Judnica (107-114). The epistle 6Vrer» Epiacopi Majori-

censis dr. Judii-is (Miijnr. xx. 7;U-74n) has nothinj? to do either with polemics

or u|X)l()grtics. but ia simply an account of the conversion of a multitude of

Jews in the island of >hijorca.^ The list ;,'iven in Fabricius-Harles. VI. 74H (T. is very itU(tiiii>Kte. but has

been of es|>ecial use in dire*ting the writer's attention to works us Vot unjmb-

lished.

13

contained '^ extracts from the law and the prophets concerning the

Saviour and onr entire faith," and thus seems to have been a work

of the same nature as the Testimonia of Cyprian and Pseudo-Greg-

ory. The following passage from a fragment of a work of ^' ^leliton

the Bishop On Faith " (given by Cureton, Spic. Syriac, p. 52 ff.)>

whether it has reference to the Eclogce or not, at least points to a

work of the same kind, and to one which was highly developed in

the details of Christ's life :'^ We have made collections from the

Law and the Prophets relative to those things which have been

declared resi)ecting our Lord Jesus Christ, that we may prove to

your love that he is perfect Eeason, the AVord of God ; who was

begotten before the light ; who was creator together with tlie

Father ; who was the fashioner of man ; who was all in all ; whoamong the patriarchs was patriarch ; who in the law was law

;

among priests chief priest ; amongst kings governor ; amongprophets the prophet ; among the angels archangel ; in the Voice

the word ; among spirits spirit ; in the Father the Son ; in God,

God the King forever and everj who was with Noah, Abram . . .

(etc.) ; who in David and the prophets foretold his own sufl'eriugs;

who was incarnate in the Virgin ; who was born in Bethlehem;

who was wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger ; who was

seen of the shepherds ; who was gloriiied of the angels ; who was

worshiped of the Magi ; Avho was pointed out by John ; who assem-

bled the apostles; who preached the kingdom; who healed the

maimed ; who gave light to the blind ; who raised the dead ; whoappeared in the temple ; who was not believed in by tlie people

;

who was betrayed by Judas ; who was laid hold on by tlie ])riests;

who was condemned by Pilate ; who was transfixed in the flesh ; whowas hanged u])on the tree ; who was buried in the earth ; who rose

from the dead ; who appeared to the apostles ; who ascended into

heaven ; who sitteth on the right hand of the Father; wlio is the

rest of those that have departed, the recoverer of those that were

lost, the light of those who were in darkness, the deliverer of those

who are captives, the guide of those who have gone astray, the

refuge of the afflicted, the bridegroom of the church, the charioteer

of the cherubim, the captain of tlie angels, God who is of God, the

Son who is of the Father, Jesus Christ the King forever and ever.

Amen." Otto and others hold tliat this fragment is actually from a

work of Melito, but Ilarnack {Texte iind UnfersucJiungen, Vol. I.,

Heft 1, p. 2G8) considers it an extract from a work of Ircnaeus.

u

4. ^lilti'ulcs : Adversus Juiheos.

Of tliis work, which is no longer extant, we know only through

Eusebiiis, who mentions it in //. E. v. 17. 5, and informs us that

it existed in two volume.-.'

5. Fray/fienhttn incoyniti njieris adcersus JniUeos.

Under this title Mai {^Script, vet. nova coll. viii. 2. 2G) gives a

))rief fragment in (Jreek which bears the name of S\ivester, and

is printed in Migne (P((tr. Lat. viii. 814) among the works of

Poi)e Sylvester. The fragment is too brief to permit much of a

judgment as to the character of the work, or even to make it cer-

tain that it is from a work against the Jews. It is devoted to an

illustration of the two natures in Christ.

G. lIii)polytus : Demons! ratio adrersus'Jiutceos.

Only a fragment exists (Migne, Patr. Greer, x. 787-704), which

is devoted chiefly to the passion of Christ and to the agency of the

Jews in it, with prophecies foretelling it and the consecpient

j)unishment of the Jews. One i)assage is quite similar to a ])as-

sage in our dialogue (see p. 90), but no literary relationship between

the two works can be constituted from the fragment which we have.

According to Bunsen {IIij)jiot/jtus and his Age, Vol. I., j). '-^Oo)

*' The anonymous author of the 'Acta Martyrum,' gives in Appen-

dix III. (pp. 440-488), the text of an old Latin translation of a

consideraijie i)art of tiie fragment preserved to us in Greek. Hehad discovered it among the si)urious works ascribed to Cyprian.

The title is ' Demonstratio adversus Jud{i?os.' It begins exactly

with the first words of our Greek fragment, which cannot have

been the opening of the address, but was i)rol)al)ly the Ixginning of

the peroration. The (Jreek text forms the first two chapters of this

very remarkal)le fragment. What follows (ch. 3-7, pp. 4r>2l)-4.'>8)

is far more interesting than the part i)rescrved in the (Jreek

text. Tiieautiior no longer appeals to sacred texts of tlieir pro-

phets ; he speaks to their hearts, he appeals to the sj)irit in them.' The eye of the min.l,' he says, * is the si)irit ; through him things

spirit iial art' sci'ii : if llicrrfoi-c you arc >|Mrilual,V()U undi'i'st.md

l)iisciiiiis ^//. H. W . ijJi iiM'iiiit»iis among lln' wriliiiirs ol Ai»<>liiiiiriiis

of Ilicrapolis a work irijoi 7<;f(5a/'ot>? Tr/jf.jroK ua) Sft'refjor. 'I'he words

howeviT arc wantit)<; in many manuscripts and also in Kullnus and in .Irronu*.

and are thorrfori' to l)o ropirdrd as a later insertion. Fai)nfius mentions llio

work in his list, l)ut with the notice of Kusebius shown to be spurious no trace

of the existence of such a writing remain!?.

15

heavenly things. For like knows (understands) what is like to it.'

These words may he considered as the theme of the whole. Hence

we see that we have not an attack upon the Jews in this treatise,

hut an address to them, an appeal to their conscience and intellect.

The character of the treatise is that of an eloquent writer, who had

studied Plato, and who had not only a deep Christian intellect, Ijut

also a lieart full of Christ, and of love to his brethren." Harnack

(Ojj. cit. p. 75) refers to Bunsen's notice, but says that he knows

nothing about the Latin fragment mentioned. I have not myself

seen it, and know only what Bunsen states.

7. Diodorus Tarsensis : Contra Judmos.

This work, which is no longer extant, is mentioned in the list

given by Fabricins-Harles, Vol. VI., p. 747. Suidas (who is there

referred to) gives a list of the writings of Diodorus (art. Diodorus),

upon the authority of QEodoopoi AvayvoDaTij^ ev rij EjcjcXj/-

auxaTunj l(jropi(Y. The list includes the Contra Jiidceos.

8. Hieronymus Gra3cus : Dialogus Christiani cum Judcco de

Trinitate.

In Migne, xl. 847-859. A dialogue of an entirely theological

character, as indicated by the title. The Old Testament is used

only as a source of proof texts for the doctrine of the Trinity, and

not as a book of prophecies.

9. Testimonia adversus Judceos.

Although this work was ascribed to Gregory of Nyssa and

printed by Migne (xlvi. 193-234) among his writings, it was

composed long after his time. It is of the same general nature as

the Testimonia of Cyprian, giving detailed prophecies of the life of

Christ, but in its first 2>aragraph is quite theological, containing the

fully developed doctrine of the Trinity. For further details in

regard to this work and its relation to our dialogue, see § 5 below.

10. Chrysostom: Adversus Judwos et Gentiles demonst ratio

quod Christus sit Deus.

In Migne'sP^ifr. Grmc. xlviii. 813-838. The first part of

this work is composed chiefly of Old Testament prophecies, fore-

telling that the Christ to come was to be a God, and predicting the

manner and place of his advent, the commission of the apostles, the

casting out of the Jews, the last judgment, etc. The latter part is

devoted to a brief account of the prosperity of the church and of

the attacks of various emperors upon the Christians.

11. Chrysostom : Adversus Jiidceos Orationes, viii.

16

In Mifrno, ib. 843-892. Ei^^lit long orations devoted ratlier to

positi\'e attacks upon the Jews tlian to tlie defense of Christianity.

The predictions in regard to the life of Christ play but a small i)art,

while those in regard to the conduct and condition of the Jew.-: are

dwelt upon at great length.

12. Cyril of Alexandria : Lihri <lc Synagoge defectii.

This work is no longer extant, hut Migne {Pafr. Grwc. Ixxvi.

14M-1-424:) gives a brief fragment upon the change of the nameAbrani to Abraham, which perha])s formed a part of the lost work.

13. Basil of Seleucia : Contra Jufheos de Salvaforis adventu

dcinonsf ratio (Oratio xxxviii.).

Ill Migne, it/. Ixxxv. 400-425. This work is devoted chiefly to

a numerical calculation as to the time of the Messiah's advent and

the destruction of Jerusalem, resulting in the proof that Jesus is

the Messiah. As a consequence the prophecies of Daniel play a

large part in the work.

14. Philip of Side : Acta 7)isj)i(tatio?n's de Chrisfo in Pcrside

inter C/iri.^tia?ios, Gentites ac Judceos hahitw.

This work, or a fragment of it, exists in a manuscript in tlie

Imperial Lilmiry at Vienna. Through the kindness of a friend I

have been furnished with the following notice taken from the

catalogue of the library :'* Philippi, ab urbe Pamphilia^ 8ida. ul)i

natus fuit, cognominati Sidetn', (jui sa^culo post Christum (juarto

S. Joannis Chrisostonii fuit presbyter et syncellus, acta disputationis

de Christo in Perside inter Christianos, Gentiles ac Judf^os habita^

cui ipse interfuit ; excerpta ex amijlissimo ipsius opere Ilistoria*

Christiana' in triginta sex libros diviso, et ([uidem ex eo jam menu>rata^ Ilistoria' libro, (|uo egit de nativitate Christi et de Magis.''

I Jim iiif(»nn(Ml that \\\v Acta Disjtiitationis fill only the first two

leaves of the manuscript.

15. (iregentius of Taphar : Dispatatiu cmn J/ertjano Juda'o.

In Mignc, Ixxxvi. 081-784. A very elaborate account of a

di:'.](;gue whicli look ])hice between the Archbishop (Jregentins and

the Jew IIerl»anus, in the presence of a vast concourse of Jews and

Christians, the king, the senate, etc. The dialogue continues for

four days and ends with the conversion and baj)tism of Ilcrbanus

and r),()()(),000 other Jews, comj)rising all the Jews in the kingdom.

The conversion is not accomplisluil however by the arguments of

the archbisliop, l»ut by the miraculous appearance of Christ himself

upon the clouds. The work displays a highly developed theology

17

and chrlsfcology, and abounds in abstruse discussions upon doctrinal

points. At the same time the argument for the Messiahship of

Jesus and for the truth of Christianity drawn from prophecy plays

a prominent part and appears in quite a developed form.

The work closes with an account of the death of Gregentius, and

therefore does not pretend to be his own composition. It is cer-

tainly later than his time.

16. /liaXe^ib jiara lovdaioov.

Bandini in his Catalogns Bibl. Meclicece Laurentiance, tom. I.,

p. 165, has given a brief portion of this work, which is too short to

enable much of a judgment to be formed in regard to it. It is not

in the form of a dialogue, however, as Harnack says (Op. cit. p. 75).

The purpose of the work is stated in the first sentence to be to prove

to the Jew from the Old Testament that the Saviour Christ was

prophesied of old and taught to be divine. It thus ranks itself with

the general class of works under consideration.

17. Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila.

See Mai, Spic, Rom. ix. p. xii. sq., and Nova Bill. vi. ii. p.

537 sq. Mai gives only the beginning and end of this dialogue,

from a codex of the Patmos library, but it is enough to prove that

it is much later than the time of Cyril, when it pretends to have

been written. Many theological expressions betray a later date.

The Jew is converted and receives baptism after the dialogue is con-

cluded.

18. Stephen of Bostra : Contra JudcBOs.

This work is no longer extant. We know of it only through

John of Damascus, who in his Third Oration on Images (^ligne,

Patr. Gr. xciv. 1376) gives two brief quotations from it on the

subject of image worship. AYe know nothing as to the nature of

the work as a whole.

19. Anastasius Abbas : Adversus Judceos Disjjutatio.

The Greek original of this work was first published by Mai

(Script. Vet. nova collect, vii. 207-244) and is contained in Migne's

Patr. Gr., Ixxxix. 1203-1282. A Latin translation, less full than

the Greek, had already been made by Turrianus and published

by Canisius in his Antiq. lect., tom. II., part iii., p. 12, ed. Bas-

nagii (according to Mai, ih. p. 207 note). The close of the work is

wanting. For a detailed description of the work and a comparison

of it with our dialogue, see § 5 below.

20. Leontius of Neapolis in Cyprus : Sermo contra Judceos.

18

In Migne, xciii. 1597-1009. Tlic work is devoted exclusively

to the subject of imaf^e worshij). It is throughout an argument ad

homineni. It is first maintained against the Jews that (iod com-

manded. Moses to make the cherubim, etc., and then it is declared

that the Christians do not worship the wood of the cross itself, but,

through it and inuiges of all kinds, God and Christ. Instances are

drawn from the Old Testament of the same kind of worship, and

the instance of Jacob and Joseph (given also in our dialogue § 1)

is cited, but with a slight variation in form (see the notes, p. 85).

This line of argument is the same as that pursued by the Christian

in our dialogue. The work bears the form of a discourse, but

occasionally a Jew and a Christian are introduced as speaking with-

out any apj)arent reasons.

21. Leontius of Cyprus : Contra Judoios.

In Migne, ib., 1609-1612. A fragment, extant only in Latin,

of a lost work ascribed to the same author. There is no hint in the

fragment itself as to its author.

It contains prophecies from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, etc., which

foretell the nature of the Messianic kingdom, its i)eacefulness and

blessedness, and which the author applies to the Christian church.

22. Theodorus Abucara : Dissertatio cum Judceo {Opu^cida \.).

In Migne, xcvii. 1520-1534:. A brief dialogue which is devoted

to proving that the Scriptures are to be interi)reted of Christ and

the Christians, and not literally of the Jews.

23. Euthymius Zigabenus : Contra Jlebrcpos.

In Migne, cxxx. 257-305. The first })art of the W(U*k is

devoted chiefly to quotations from the Old Testament in })roof of

the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, etc., and in ])ropheey of his

birth, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, the church of the (Jentiles,

etc. The remainder of the work contains extracts from the orations

of Chrysostom against the Jews, from Leontius, John of Damascus

and anonymous works.

24. Thadda'us Pelusiota : Contra Judceos.

This work has not yet been ])ublished. It is extant in three

Greek manuscripts in the National Library at Paris (Cod. Gra'C.

887, 1285, Siij)))!. (Jrac. 120) and has been transcribed by the writer

with a view to possible publication. It is of considerable extent,

l)erha}>s twice as long aa the Dialogue of Papiscus and Philo, and

dates from the year 1265. Tlic auth(»r, Thaddivus Pelusiota, is an

otherwise unknow n man. The occurrence of the name " Pelusiota " at

19

this late date is very surprising. The work is largely devoted to the

miseries of the Jews, all of which are shown to have been prophesied

in the Old Testament, and all of which are represented as a punish-

ment for the nation's rejection of Christ. It is urged that the

present scattered condition of the Jews is the last captivity foretold

in the prophets, a captivity which shall never end because no end

has been foretold ; and it is maintained that the sin which deserves

such an endless captivity for its punishment must have been greater

than any that had been committed before the previous captivities.

A long passage upon the contrast between the glorious condition of

the Christians and the miserable condition of the Jews resembles

closely the passage upon the same subject in our present dialogue.

The work is very interesting, and in the main far stronger than

most anti-Jewish writings. The author was evidently a learned and

an able man. His historical references are numerous and many of

them curious. The work opens with a passage some pages in

length from Josephus' Jewish War, and the works of Eusebius,

Chrysostom, Theodoret, Cyril and others are frequently quoted.

25. Andronicus Comnenus : Dialogus contra Judceos Christiani

et Judm.This work has as yet been published only in a Latin version

(given by Migne in his Pair. Or., cxxxiii. 797-924), but the Greek

original is extant in a manuscript in the Imperial Library at Vienna

(Cod. Graec. 255) according to Lambecius, 2d ed., Vol. V. p. 355 ff.

It is in the form of a dialogue, is of great length, and is divided

into sixty-four chapters. It is in part very theological, as for instance

where it discusses the Trinity, the generation of the Son, the con-

substantiality of the Spirit, etc. Other jiarts are devoted to the

prophecies fulfilled in Christ. The Old Testament is used extensively

throughout.

20. Georgius of Cyprus: Contra Marcum ex Jiid. Christianum,

In Migne, cxlii. 247-252. This brief tract is purely theological

and has nothing to do with propiiecy.

27. Theoplianes of Nice : Contra Judmos libri vi.

This Avork has not yet been published. It is extant in three

manuscripts in the Paris Library (Cod. Grrec. 778, 1249, 1293).

28. John Cantacuzenus : Adversus Jiid(Bos libri novem.

Likewise unedited and extant in tiiree Paris manuscripts (Cod.

Graec. 1243, 1275. Suppl. Graec. 120). It is about twice as long

as the work of Thaddaeus mentioned above.

20

29. Nicolaus llydriintinus : Dialogus cum Juclwo.

LikoAviso unedited and extant in Par. Cod. Gra?c., 1255.

30. ^latthffius Ilieronionaehus : Libri V. in Jialwos.

Likewise unedited and extant in Par. Cod. Gra^c., 1203, fol.

119-240, also, according to Fabrieius, '' in Bodleiana codice Barocc.

xxxiii."

31. Gennadius of Constantinople : Dialogus contra Judmos.

Likewise unedited and extant in Par. Cod. Graec., 1293, fol.

1-54, and, according to Fabrieius, in **MSS. in variis bibliothecis."

II. Latin works.

1. Tertullian: Adversus Judceos.

In Oehler's edition of Tertullian's works Vol. II. pp. 701-741.

The carnality, particularity and temporality of Judaism over against

the spirituality, universality and eternity of Christianity are dwelt

upon in the first part of this work. The numerical prophecies of

Daniel are then considered at length, and a prominent part is given

to a detailed exhibition of the fulfillment of prophecy in the life of

Christ. For a comparison of the work with the Dial, of Pap. and

Jason see Harnack, Op. cit. p. 92 ff. The work makes large use of

Justin's Dial. c. Trxjplio. See further § 5, below.

2. Cyprian : Ad Quirinum (Tcstimoniorum libri frcs).

In llartel's Cyjjriani opera {Script, eccles. Lat. Vind), I.

35-184.

Tliese Testimonia consist of three ijooks. The first two are

composed of collections of Old Testament propliecics foretelling the

life of Clirist, the Christian church, etc., and thus belong to the

general class of works under consideraticm. The third book is

devoted to the graces, virtues, etc., of the Cliristian life and the sins

to be avoided, and is comi)osed chiefly of New Testament passages

referring to these subjects. It therefore does not come under

consideration in this connection. For a comparison of t!ie work

with till' Dial, of Pap. and Jason see Ilarnuck {Op. cit. p. 97 IT.),

and for its relation to our dialogue see § 5, below.

3. Pseudo-Cyprian : De Mnntilnis Sina et Sinn.

Hartcl, iii. 104-119. The spiritual comi)ari'd with the temporal

Israel. Only a limited use is nnule of ])ro])liecy.

4. Pseudo-Cyprian : Adrersus Jndwo.s.

Ibid. 133-144. In this the idea of the casting out of the Jews

and of the aeeejjtance of the Gentiles is emj)hasized.

21

5. Celsiis : Ad Vigilium Episcopum de Judaica incredulitate.

Also printed among the Pseiido-Cyprianic works, ibid. 119-

133. An arraignment of the Jews for their unbelief in tlie face of

the clear declarations of the prophets in regard to Christ. The

Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason is mentioned with high praise, and

the author announces that he has himself translated it into Latin,

His epistle is really an introduction to the translation which he sends

with it to the Bishop Vigilium. The epistle belongs probably to the

end of the fifth century (cf. Harnack, Op. cit. Bd. L, HeftL, p. 1192.).

6. Augustine : Tradatus adv. Judceos,

In Migne, Pair. Lat. xlii. 51-64. The subject of this tract is

in the main the rejection of the literal and the acceptance of the

spiritual Israel in their place. It is not in the form of a dialogue,

but resembles one somewhat, since the objections of the Jews are

quoted and answered one after the other.

7. Pseudo-Augustine : Contra JudcBOs Paganos et Arianos Sermo

de symholo.

In Migne, ibid. 1117-1130. The work contains twenty-two

chapters, of which four are directed against the Jews. Testimonies

for Christ are drawn from the Old and New Testaments, and also

from profane writers and from the Sibylline books.

8. Pseudo-Augustine : De altercatione ecclesio} et synagogis

Dialogus.

In Migne, ibid. 1131-1110. A dialogue between the church

and the synagogue, personified as two women. Tiie general subject

is the same as tliat of the Augustinian Tractatus mentioned above.

The synagogue confesses herself beaten at every point, and con-

cludes ^'Ergo omncs ad te venerunt," etc., which indicates the

scope of the work.

9. Evagrius : AUercatio Simonis Judcei et Theophili Christiani.

See Harnack's Texte und Untersuclmngen, Bd. L, Heft 3, where

this dialogue is shown to be a free reproduction of the lost dialogue

of Papiscus and Jason. See also § 5, below.

10. Maximus of Turin : Tractatus contra Judceos.

In Migne, Ivii. 793-806. This work is, in many respects, simi-

lar to the earlier works against the Jews, containing an attack upon

the Jews and an argument fo;- the divinity of the Christ. For the

latter a mass of Old and New Testament passages arc quoted, of

which many are found in the Testimonia of Cyprian and otlier

earlier works. The tract is comparatively free from dogmatics.

22

11. Isidore of Seville : De Jhlc rnthnliea ex Veteri et Novo Testa-

inento contra Jnilccos ad Florentinam sororem suam.

In Migne, Ixxxiii. 449-538. The work is in two buuks. Thefirst is devoted to prophecies from tlie Old Testament which foretell

the career of Christ, beginning with his generation from the Father,

and closing with his coming to judge the .world. The details are

drawn out with great fullness, more than fifty different events being

shown to have been prophesied. The whole resembles closely the

long paragra])h of the Paris M8. of our Dialogue upon the same sub-

ject. The resemblance is not such as to involve literary dependence,

but it shows the prevalence of this kind of writing, and shows too

that there was a large circle of subjects treated by all such writers,

and that the texts quoted were in many cases the same. The second

hook treats in the same manner the relations of the Jews and Gen-tiles, including the calling of the Gentiles, the rejection of the

Jews, etc., twenty-seven particulars being taken up one after the

other. The whole work is intensely Biblical, being devoted exclu-

sively to the fulfillment of Old Testament projihecy in Christ and in

his church. It is thus one of the very best examples of the kind

of works under consideration—apologies based upon prophecy.

12. Agobard : Fpisfola de Judaicis supcrstitio)iihus.

In Migne, civ. 77-100. This epistle can hardly be regarded as

belonging to the class of works under consideration, since it is

chiefly devoted to a mere account of the folly and wickedness of the

Jews, and of their enemity against the Christians. A few prophecies

are however quoted which are interpreted as foretelling the bad

fo) tunes of Jews and the prosperity of the Christians. In so far

therefore the work contains an argument from ])r()phecy, and maythus be mentioned in this connection. Throe other epistles by Ago-

bard given by Migne do not come into consideration here. (See note

at the close of the preceding paragraj)h.)

13. Amnio: Lihcr contra ,Jud<tus.

Ill Migne, cxvi. 141-184. This work was originally published

under the name of Kabanus, but the authors of the Hist. lit. Gal.

ascribed it to Amnio (d. sr)2), and they are followed by Migne.

Tlie work, like the preceding, is chiefly devoted to the wickedness

and unbelief of the Jews, for which .illustrations are drawn from

the Fathers and from history. But since .some sections of the work

contain prophecies from Scripture pointing to Christ as the Mes-

siah, it may claim a place in our list.

23

14. Fulbertus : Tradatus contra Judceos.

In Migne, cxli. 306-318. In this' work the Old Testament is

freely used to prove the Messiahship of Christ. The prophecy of

Gen. xlix. 10, plays an important part in the argument. In one

section the details of Christ's life to the number of fourteen are

mentioned. The passages in proof of them are however simply

referred to, not quoted. This section of course contains manyparticulars in common with our dialogue and with other earlier

works, but betrays no literary connection with them.

15. Petrus Daraianus : Antilogus contra Judmos.

In Migne, cxlv. 41-57. The work is chiefly devoted to the

Scripture proofs of the Trinity, of Christ's Messiahship and God-

manhood, and of the fact that the Messiah has already come in

his person. For the Trinity the familiar passages of Genesis,

which seem to imply a plurality in the Godhead, are chiefly relied

upon.

16. The same : Dialogus inter Judceum reqiiirentem, et Christi-

anum e contrario resi^ondentem.

In Migne, ihid. 57-68. This work is put in the form of ques-

tions and responses. The Jew inquires why, if Christ came not to

destroy but to fulfill the law, the Christians do not still observe its

precepts. The Christian in reply shows that the law was only

mystical and typical, and was fulfilled and therefore done away

with by Christ. After completing this subject, the Christian in an

epilogue draws out at considerable length the details of Christ's

life, quoting Old Testament passages in prophecy of them. Most

of the particulars are found in Papiscus and Philo, which shows

how natural and almost necessary is agreement in connection with

this subject, even when literary relationship, as in the present case,

cannot be constituted, indeed is quite out of the question.

17. Gilbert : Tractatus de incarnatione contra Jndwos.

In Migne, clvi. 489-528. This work is divided into three books,

of which the first is put in the form of questions embodying objec-

tions, and responses containing solutions of them. Tiie first book

is devoted chiefly to the conception of the Son of God by the Virgin,

and is thoroughly scholastic. The second book, likewise scholastic,

discusses Deus omnia honimis iitrum susceperit an non f The

third book, which alone warrants us in including this work in our

list, is devoted particularly to Christ's earthly life as foretold by the

prophets, and thus sbows many resemblances to our dialogue and

24

other earlier works. Even here however scholasticism plays animportant part.

A closing chapter is devoted to Christian image worship, in

which tiie argument deduced in favor of such worship is similar

to that in our dialogue, and different from most of the argu-

ments of this age. Not the things themselves, hut Christ repre-

sented by them, is the object of worshi]). Many mure parallels are

drawn from Old Testament history in illustration of this sort of

worship than are found in Pnjnscus and Philo. Thurot, in the

Revue Historique, ii. 105, points out the connection of this workwith Gilbert's History of the Crusades.

18. Rabbi Samuel Marochianus : De adventu MessicB prcetcrito

liher.

In Migne, cxlix. 337-368. This work is peculiar from the

fact that it was written by a converted Jew. He demonstrates fromthe Scriptures, for the benefit of his unconverted countrymen, the

truth of Christianity, dwelling at length upon the rejection of the

Jews as a result of their treatment of Christ, who is shown fromthe prophets to be the true Messiah. The tone is very gentle andconciliatory. The work is a translation of an Arabic original.

19. Gilbert, Al)bot of Westminster : Disjnitatio Judwi cum(Itrisfiano de fide Christiana.

Printed among the works of Auselm in ^ligne, clix. 1005-

103G. The author states that the work is a rcjiroduction of an

actual disputation between himself and a Jew, and indeed the Jewplays a much more i)rominent part than is usual in these dialogues,

thus giving a character of reality to the discussion. The Jew in-

quires what authority the Christians have for rejecting the law of

Moses. The Christian insists in roi)ly upon the spiritual interpre-

tation of the Old Testament. The prophecy of Gen. xlix. 10

occupies a prominent position in the i)r()()f of Christ's Messiahship.

The work contains a lengthy discussion of the continued virgin-

ity of Mary and closes with objections against image worship, whichthe Christian answers by referring to the various images mentionedin the Old Testament (cf. j). 85). A feature of this dialogue is

the discussion of the authority of the LXX. whicii the Jew denies

and the Christian maintains. An interesting point is that Baruchiii. 3G is quoted (see p. 88) but denied by the Jew to be the

words of Jeremiah, while the Christian contends that they were

spoken by Jeremiah and recorded by Baruch.

20. Odo : Disputatio contra Judceum Lconem nowine de adventu

Christ ijilii Dei.

In Migne, clx. 1103-1112. A theological disquisition upon the

Atonement, thrown into the form of a dialogue between Odo and

Leo, and closing with a discussion of Mary's virginity. It makes no

use of Scripture prophecies, quoting the Old Testament rarely, and

then only in regard to the remission of sins. Only the fact that

it assumes the form of a dialogue entitles it to a place in this

list.

21. Dialogns inter Christianum et Judmum defide cathoUca,

Printed in Migne, clxiii. 1015-1072, among the spurious

works of Guilelmus Episcopus Calalaunensis. A theological dis-

quisition similar to the preceding, but more scholastic. Old

Testament prophecies are used but little, and the work therefore

is but slightly connected with the general class of anti-Jewish

writings.

22. Rupertus : Annulus sive Dialogns inter Christianum et

Judmum.In Migne, clxx. 5G 1-610. The work is in three books, of

which the first demonstrates that circumcision no longer avails ; the

second discusses chiefly the relation of faith and the Jewish law,

and the reason for tlie rejection of the Jews ; and the third is

devoted to Scripture proof of Christ's Messiahship. The work

therefore falls well into line with the general class of anti-Jewish

writings, but at the same time contains much scholasticism. The

worship of images is defended by a reference to the images men-

tioned in the Old Testament, e. g., the brazen serpent, etc. This is

a very common argument for the practice, but quite different from

that employed in Papiscus and Philo. (See p. 85.)

23. Ilildebert : Contra Judmos de incarnatione. (Sermones

de diversis XIV.)Migne, clxxi. 811-814. This brief discourse cites passages

from the Old Testament prophetic of the incarnation and of the

birth from the Virgin, and shows that the latter is not impossible

by referring to many wonders recorded in Scripture, nse.g., the

conception of Sarah.

24. Peter, Abbot of Clugny : Tractatus adversus Jiidmorum

inveteratam duritiem.

In Migne, clxxxix. 507-G50. This lengthy tract, although in

the main different from any other anti-Jewish work with which

20

I am acciuaintetl, yet belongs witli riglit to the general class of

writings under consideration. It is divided into five sections, whichare devoted to proving, chiefly from Old Testament Scripture, that

Christ is the Son of God, that he is true God, that he is not a tem-poral but an eternal and celestial king, and that as the JewishMessiah he has already come. The fifth section is devoted to the

ridiculce fabulcB of the Jews. The fourth section, which demon-strates that Christ is the Jewish Messiah, most resembles the earlier

works of our class. Gen. xlix. 10 and the prophecies of Daniel play

a prominent part in the demonstration, a feature which is peculiarly

characteristic of the anti-Jewish works of this a^e

25. Richard of St. Victor : De Emmanueh lihri duo.

In Migne, cxcvi. GOl-GGo. This work does not belong strictly

to the class of writings under consideration, inasmuch as it has

nothing to do with Scripture proofs for Christ's Messiahship. It is

however written ostensibly against the Jews, and is devoted to a

discussion of the Emanuel passage of Isa. vii. The work is chiefly

a scholastic refutation of objections to the incarnation and related

doctrines. In the second book tiie form of a dialogue between the

author and Hugo is assumed. The work is occasioned by a com-mentary of *OIagistri Andrew" upon Isaiah, in which various

objections of the Jews were cited, and as it appeared to Richardaccepted, or at least left as insoluble. In the second book therefore

Hugo is represented as one of the disciples of Andreas who adducesJewish objections. A dialogue tlierefore between two Christians,

instead of between a Christian and a Jew. The reason which the

author gives for the adoption of the dialogisfcic form in the secondbook is interesting and significant. '^Sub forma autem dialogi

totam sul)sequentis operisseriem digessi, eoquod hie modus dioendi,

vel docendi ])ra3 ceteris sit, vel ad audiendum jucundior, vol adpersuadendum effieacior. Unum itaque ex .Nfagistri Andre.T dis-

cipulis mecum alttM'oantem introduxi, ut sub forma ratiocinandi

senata vicissitudine interrogandi et respondendi, melius elucesceret

quidcjuid in dubium venire potuisset.''

20. Petrus lilesensis : Contra perjid iam Judmoruni.

In Migne, ccvii. 825-870. This work consists of thirty-seven clia])-

ters of " testimonies/' drawji chiefly from the Old Testament. Tiiey

are deduced ])arlly in proof of various ect'lcsiastical doctrines, partly

as prophecies of the events of Christ's life, which is treated in

great detail. The last chapter contains a passage from the Sil)vl-

27

line books, which is quoted also by Augustine in his work against the

Jews, a fact noticed by the author.

27. Tractatus sive dialogus Magistri Gualteri Tornacensis et

Balchiini Valentiane7isis contra Judceos.

In Migne, ccix. 426-458. This work consists of three books, and

is peculiar in being a dialogue between two Christians, one of whomassumes the role of a Jew. Bk. I. shows that the Messiah has come,

by pointing out the fulfillment of prophecies in the life of Jesus.

Bk. II. lias considerable to say about the calling of the Gentiles, but

quotes also prophecies of Christ's deatb, resurrection, etc. Bk. III.

is wholly doctrinal, devoted chiefly to the Trinity and the Holy

Spirit.

28. Alanus : Contra lia^reticos Uhri quattuor. Liber terthis

contra Judceos.

In Migne, ccx. 305-430. Bk. III. 400-422. The third book

alone comes under consideration here. The first part of it is

thoroughly scholastic, and chiefly devoted to answering objections

against the Trinity urged by the Jews. The abolition of the Jewish

law is then discussed, and for this many Scripture prophecies are

quoted. The fact that the Messiah has already come, his divinity,

his birth from the Virgin, his descent into Hades, his passion, his

resurrection and ascension, are all demonstrated, chiefly from Old

Testament prophecies.

29. Tractatics adversus Judmum.In Martene and Durand's Tlies. nov. anecdot. v, 1507-1 5G8, and in

Migne, ccxiii. 749-808. The first part of this anonymous tract (of

the twelfth century) is a theological disquisition, which is devoted

to a demonstration of the various doctrines of the church by means

of proof texts drawn from Scripture. The author, in accordance

with a principle laid down at the start, draws his proofs (almost)

exclusively from the Old Testament, which he uses, not for prophe-

cies, but for proof texts. In the latter part of his work, however,

he dwells upon the details of Christ's life and the jn-edictions of

the Old Testament in regard to them, including the advent, birth

from a virgin, Christ's coming for the nations, his passion, the

destruction of Jerusalem, and the universal preaching of the Gos-

pel. The last paragi'aph is devoted to the continued virginity of

Mary, a subject seldom omitted in the later works of this class.

CHAPTER II.

DIALOGUE OF PAPISCUS AXD PRILO.

§ 3. Ma miser ipts.

Our dialogue is extant in three manuscripts. Of these one is in

tlie Xational Library at Paris, anotlier in the 8t. Mark's Library at

Venice, and tlie third in the Library of the Most Sacred Synod at

Moscow.

I. Par. Cod. Gra?c. 1111.'

The catalogue contains the following description of this manu-script :

Codex inembranaceus, olim Ludovici de Targny, ibi continentur :

I. S. Johannis Damasceni de hymno trisagio epistola ad Jor-

danem Archimandritam. Quaedam desiderantur.

2-8. Theodori Abucara^ [Seven dialogues of Theodorus Abucara,

all of which are given in Migne].

0. Papisci et Jasonis Judaeorum cum monacho quodam de

Christiana religione et Mosaica lege colloquium.^

10. Collo(piium aliud de non comedenda suilla, etc.

II. Theodori responsum ad objectionem sibi a Severianis pro-

positam adversus orthodoxam fidem.

12. Ejusdem capita undecim, (|uibus ostenditur disparitas exem-pli singularis hujus hominis cum unione quii) in Christo facta est.

13. Ejusdem exemplum quo ostenditur quomodo macuhipeccati Adami et per incarnationem Salvatoris nostri ex])iatio ad

universum genus liunianum pervaserit.

14. Anonymus de fine mundi.

15. 8. Joaunis Chrys. fragment uni de eodem arguinento.

10. S. Ilijtpolyti, Epise. Poma-, o])nseuluin de siueuli consum-

matione et de Antichristo.

17. S. Hieronymi interrogalio et responsa, imju-imis utilia, do

pnrcipuis religionis Christ, capitibus.

' This codex will be desi^mitod by the klter V.

' This is our dialogue, though it is given in the catalogue witli an incorrect

and very deceptive title.

29

18. Anoiiymi dialogus, quo ostenclitur a Cbristianis triiiitatem

defendentibns Mosaicam de Dei unitate doctrinam nee everti nee

labefactad.

19. S. Joan. Dam. orthodoxae fidei aceurata expositio.

20. Ejusdem institutio elementaris ad dogmata adv. monothe-

litas, etc.

21. Ejusdem opusculiim de duabiis in Cbristo volentatibus et

operationibus.

22. Ejusdem capita dialectica ad Cosmam.

23. Joannis orthodoxi ciialogus cum Mauicha30, inter Dam.opera editus. ^

24. Ejusdem responsio ad qusest. quare sicut dicimus liumani-

tas Cbristi est ipsa bumanitas Petri et Pauli, etc.

25. Ejusdem Theodori 02Hisculum de luctatione Cbristi cumdiabolo.

2G. Interrogatio a Saraceno quodam adv. Cbrist. religionem

proposita.

27. Ejusdem responsum ad qii^est. sibi ab infidele propositum.

28. Ejusdem resp. ad qu^st. sibi a Saraceno propos. Est autem

dial, inter editos nonus.

29. Ejusdem dialogus'adv. Nestorianum, inter ed. XIY.

30. Ejusdem dialogus adv. Nest, quo explicatur : ^'data est

mibi omnis potestas."

31. Ejusdem dialogus tertius cum Nest., bactenus ineditus.

32. Doctrina ortbodoxi, quomodo oportuit credere.

33. Exemplum libelli, sive fidei prot'essionis a Joan. Monacb. et

presb. Damasceno, etc.

34. Expositio fidei quam S. Joannes Evang., jubente Maria

virg., Gregorio Tbaumat. revelavit.

35. Expositio parabolse, sicut auctore S. Joan. Cbrys.

36. Anonymus de quattuor formis animalium et de beatis.

Is codex sa.'Culo duodecimo exaratus videtur.

Tbe codex contains 244 fol. in 8vo, and dates from tlie eleventh

or twelfth century. It is in good condition, the beginning and

the end alone being somewhat worm-eaten and discolored. Tlie

page measures 18 x 13 i^ cm., and contains on an average 20 lines

with about 32 letters to a line. There are comparatively few

abbreviations, no iota subscripts and no marginal notes. Tbecodex is written by one hand tbrougbout. Our dialogue fills fol.

29-49.

30

II. Vcn. Cod. Oraec. 505.'

Tiic catalogue describes this codex as follows : Continentur :

Libanii Soj)histaj epistolae xxx. Fol. 2a-10a.

Syiiesii Cyrenaei epist. x. lla-15a.

Siibseqiiitur ej)ist. metropolitoe cujiisdam Khodi ad metrop.

Trapezuntiuin. 17a-24a.

Mattha'i . . . patriarclia) instriictio ad eos qui ad sacerdotium

])roiiioventiir et ad Sacerdotes vTttp avrojy j.ur/jTi'/jf}o'oi'Tai.

25a-3Ib.

Adjinigitur oratio, £vx'} • • • ^l^^- ^'

Marmelis Palieologi oratio in uativitatem Christi. 33b-54b.

Nicepliori Blemmydae de imperatoris institutioiie . . . 57a-TGb.

Discei)tatio Pappisci et Philoiiis. 70a-87a.

Psalteriuin et cantica veteris et uovi Testaraenti, aliaque ad

officium Graicorum pertinentia. 89b. ff.

In 8vo cbartaccus, foliorum 375, saeculi c. xiv.

The page measures 21J x 14 cm. and contains 28 lines, with

about 40 letters to a line. The handwriting is clear, and for the

most part without abbreviations. Titles and occasional capitals are

in red. Our dialogue is free from marginal notes, though the re-

mainder of the manuscript contains a great many of them. In

18G8, a student in the library disfigured the codex by adding non-

serisical titles to various works. Our dialogue is absurdly desig-

nated : (PXa/iloi) 'fo()t(/)ot) 'ItfGoi.

III. The third manuscript, which is in the Bibliotheca Sanctis-

simae Synodi at Moscow"^ (Cod. Grjec. 4\\) is described by Matthan

as follows': Codex in charta bombycina sec. xv. foliorum 14G.

Fuit antca in monasterio Iberorum. A principio est mutiliis.

Continet collectionem canonum, Rhodiorum yof-iov vavTiHov et

avTifioXify IlanicfHov K(x\ <Pi\Gjyo5 Ln^daictiy npoi j^ioyaxoy

TtifA 7riifT€cj? ^/jzo'rza?'G3r.* Ejus initium : ^' tfiJooTtjaey ]fa-

TticJHoi o loudaioiy SkytI tov Seov TnxpayytXoyTOi.'*

' This codex will In? dosii^Miatod by tlio lot tor V.

" This C'tnlex will bo dosi;;imtod by tlio lottor M.'

I owe my knowledge of this codex to ii coiniiiunicntion made to Professor

Adolf llanmok by Dr. Oscar von Gobhardt. I have not been able to examine

the co<lex myself, but the librarian in Moscow has very kindly furnishe<l mewilh its variant roa<linjrs for the first three juii^os of tho dialo^nie, which com-

mences at fol. 131.

* Mattha'i does not ^ivc tho title fully, as will be t>eon by a comparison of the

text, where the variations of M are given.

31

§ 4. liclation letween the Two Forms of the Dialogue.

The two manuscripts of our dialogue, P and V, give recensions

of the work differing greatly in extent as well as in many minor

details. It takes but a casual examination to convince any one

that the recension represented by V is older than that repre-

sented by P, although the former manuscript is at least two cen-

turies younger than the latter. The most obvious evidence of this

is the fact that the recension represented by P (which we shall call

RP for brevity's sake) expressly indicates the date of its com-

position as the eleventh century, while the recension represented by

V (RV) as clearly indicates the seventh or eighth. This is in itself

decisive proof of the later date of RP, unless it be supposed that

the numbers were inserted by some mere copyist and are independ-

ent of the respective recensions as a whole. Such a conclusion

could of course be accepted only under the pressure of strong inter-

nal grounds. Let us then compare the two forms somewhat in

detail to ascertain whether the relation indicated by the dates is

borne out by internal evidence. For the later origin of RP speak

the following arguments :

1. The passage inserted by P {hHqv Mcxpia^, p. 53, 1. 13), which

is omitted by both V and An.,' is clearly a later interpolation, for

there is no connection between it and the answer of the Jew which

follows. The latter is evidently to be connected directly with 1. 13.

2. The passage which in P follows efSa^iXsvaev (p. 58, I. 7)

seems to be a later insertion, for we can see otherwise no reason for its

omission both by V and An. It may be noticed too that the use of

o Ja/Sid at the beginning is peculiar. If all were the work of one

hand we should expect simply nai TtdXiv. Again the phrase

diappifdrfv cpaffjcet used in connection with Malachi is suspicious,

for neither of these words occurs again in the whole work.

3. The most important difference between the two forms occurs

in the passage upon the details of Christ's life, p. 65 ff. The fuller

and more highly developed form of P appears at once to be later

than the very simple form of V. If however it be suggested that Vhas simply omitted the fuller particulars of P for the sake of brevity

(a thing very improbable in itself, since this passage forms the

strongest part of the Christian's argument) it can be shown that

' The abbreviation An. is used to designate the work of Anastasius, men-

tioned above, p. 17, whose relations to our dialogue are discussed below, p. 35 ff.

32

internal indications confirm tlic later insertion of the passages pecul-

iar to P. We need mention but two i)oints. First, the use of

anovffamev in introducing quotations. 'J'liis form occurs ten

times in the i)assage in ([uestion, and only once in the rest of tlie

work, and that in introducing one of the Daniel quotations which

is likewise peculiar to P ; so that V does not once have the form.

A second and decisive point is the difference in the wording of

Isa. ix. 6 as quoted on p. 57 in the part of the work common to

both MSS. and on p. 66 in the part peculiar to P. Tlie writer of

RP certainly used a LXX. text different from that used by the

writer of the original of the earlier portion of the dialogue, while

in copying that earlier portion he simply transcribed his source

directly as it stood.

4. P contains a long passage (p. 80 fp.) which is devoted chiefly

to prophecies from Daniel, and is wholly omitted by V. The very-

nature of this passage, which is so different from the rest of the

work, excites suspicion at once. Again, the same form auovffojfjievy

which occurs elsewhere only in the long passage mentioned as pecul-

iar to P, occurs once in this portion of the work. And finally, not

to multiply arguments for so patent a fact, this whole passage is

omitted not only by V but also by An., which contains otherwise

much that is i)eculiar to P over against V. Other minor additions

of P which witness to a later hand will be mentioned in the notes.

We conclude then that RV is certninly older than KP.

The question then arises, did RP draw directly from KV or

must we assume an older common source ? Although the varia-

tions between V and P are numerous, they are nevertheless of such

a character as to furnish no reason for assuming an older commonsource, and more than that V contains no passage of any length

omitted l)y P, so that the original cannot at any rate have differed

in extent from RV. And when it is remembered tliat V is two

centuries later than P, tlic variations, all of which are l)ut minor,

are easily exjjlainrd. NW' mav look upon RV then as the original

of RP.'^

^ 5. Ih'Utti())i of the Uiahttjuc lo utiivr Afi/i-Jcfrish Worl's.

An interesting question connected with our dialogue is its rela-

tion to other works of the kind.

' That lU* usi'd another source in addition to RV will be shown in § 5.

33

Its title leads us at once to look for some relationship between it

and the lost dialogue of Papiscus and Jason. But in this expecta-

tion we find ourselves disappointed. Our actual knowledge of that

ancient dialogue is very limited ; at the same time we know enoughabout it to be able to conclude that the present work stands in no

literary relationship to it.

Harnack, in his most keen and suggestive essay already men-tioned, has summed up ' the facts known in regard to the contents of

the lost work under thirteen heads. Our dialogue was probably com-posed in Egypt (see below, § 7), where the dialogue of Papiscus andJason was well known, and to which country Papiscus was represented

as belonging. Again the older dialogue treated chiefly of Christ, andwas devoted to showing that the Old Testament Messianic prophecies

correspond to the facts of Jesus' life. In both of these points our

dialogue agrees well with the lost one ; but the agreement ceases

here. The latter belonged to the class of works which contain

allegories ; it concluded with the conversion of the Jew ; Deut. xxi.

23 was quoted, and that in the form given by Aquila ; Gen. i. 1

was interpreted as if it read :'^ In filio fecit Deus coelum et terrara ;"

the expression ''seven heavens" was found in it ; the dialogue wasperhaps of an apocalyptic nature. Of all these characteristic traits

not one appears in our present dialogue, a series of omissions exceed-

ingly dithcult to explain if the writer based his work in any wayupon the earlier one. The title, which so strongly suggests the

older dialogue, will be discussed below (§ 0).

The next point is to inquire whether our dialogue shows any

relationship to Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. Such a relationship

might api)ear in itself antecedently probable, as Justin's woi-k was

widely circulated and enjoyed a very high reputation." But a

comparison of the two works shows no connection between them.

They exhibit an entirely different line of thought, different inter-

pretations of Biblical passages which they happen to have in com-

mon, and all that is most characteristic of Justin's dialogue is

lacking in the present one. To attempt a detailed exhibition of

the differences would be useless. Justin's dialogue contains about

385 Old Testament quotations and the dialogue of Papiscus andPhilo about 103. Of these but 38 are common to both works, andmost of them are used in different connections, and many of them

' Texte imd Untersuchangen , Bd. I. Heft 3, p. 116 ff.

^ We know too that it was used by Tertullian in his Adv. Judccos.

3

34

interpreted in a manner (jiiite unlike in tlie two. A resemblance

between tlie two occurs in the ai)i)lieation of tlie words of Psa. Ixxi.

1, to Solomon botli by Tryplio (c. IJ4) and by Papiscus-Philo (p.

55) ; but tlie language in the two cases is quite different, and the

ap])lieation of the words to Solomon is too natural to need any

literary dependence to exidain it. Another resemblance is found

between Trypho, c. 49 and Pap., p. 50, where the Jews avow

their expected Messiah to be only human ; but of tliis the same

may be said.

llarnack has shown that a common source (probably the dialogue

of Papiscus and Jason) existed, of which Tcrtullian, Cyprian, Lac-

tantius and Evagrins made extensive use, and which explains their

common and often striking agreement in a portion of their Biblical

citations. But our dialogue shows no more of a connection with

these works than with the dialogues of Papiscus and Jason, and of

Justin and Trypho. Further its independence of the assumed

common source is still more marked, for the passages common to it

and to that source reduce themselves to seven in number, and in

these the resemblance is in no case striking. C3'prian-s Testimonia,

the fullest development of this common type, was widely used amongoccidental writers subsequent to his time (see Harnack, ib. p. 97 if.).

Bnt in the orient we find no trace of a knowledge of the work (in

itself of course antecedently improbable), and what is still more

important, no trace of a use of the common source from which the

various occidental writers drew. The Pseudo-CJregorian Testimonia

adv. JudiBOs (a work very similar in scope and character to the Testi-

tmmia of Cyprian), Chrysostom's Adversits Jndwos, the dialogue of

(iregentius with llerbano the Jew, and our own dialogue, although

all devote a large space to the fulfillment of prophecy in the life of

Christ, yet are all quite independent of the source mentioned, and

at the same time of each other. The resemblances to be sure between

the Pseudo-Cregorian TesHmania and our dialogue are a little more

marked than tliose between th.e latter and the Testitnonia oi V\\)Y\'dn

(of tlu' particulars in ri'gard to the life of Christ contained in

Pseu(lo-(Jregory all are found in HP, though the texts cited are

often <|uite different), and yet not sufficiently so to warrant the

assum])tion of any literary connection. A common tradition grown

into a habit of jjointing out certain coincidences between pro])hecy

and tlie life of Christ seems enough to account for all the resem-

blances, and we are thus enal)led at the same time to explain the

oo

differences, both in the details mentioned and in the texts quoted,

differences which are very numerous and very great between all

these works. Each writer meanwhile in pointing out new details

would add to the common stock of material upon this subject, of

which we should expect later writers to make use. It is therefore

not surprising that RP should, contain the details of Pseudo-Gregory

and of other works. The great differences in the texts quoted, in

the details themselves (Gregory containing many others on the

Sacraments, circumcision, the Sabbath, etc., entirely omitted byPapiscus), in the general arrangement and plan of the two worksntterly preclude any direct literary dependence. The resemblance

between our dialogue and the works of Chrysostom and of Gregen-

tius is still less.

A work is extant however which is very closely connected with

our dialogue. This is the work (or rather collection of works, for it

contains five separate tracts) wliich bears the title 'AvaGTaaiovafijia SiaXe^ii Kara Uovdaiojv (no. 19 in the list of Greek worksgiven in § 2). Large portions of tbis work are identical with the

dialogue of Papiscus and Philo. The question at once confronts us,

how are the two related ? Is our dialogue a mere extract from the

larger work, or is the latter an enlargement of the former, or do the

two spring from an older source ?

The first supposition is ruled out by the respective dates of the

two works. RV belongs to the seventh or eighth centuries (see § 7),

while Anastasius' work belongs to the ninth. These dates, whichare distinctly given in the writings themselves, we have no reason to

doubt, especially since a comparison of RV and An. shows that the

former contains every mark of originality over against the latter.

At the same time, that An. is not itself- an original work is ante-

cedently probable, both from its fragmentary character and fromthe fact that it purports to be simply a collection of directions howto answer a Jew in case he makes certain objections or asks certain

questions. The probability is further confirmed by the irregularity

of construction in introducing the objections of the Jew. Some-times they are given in direct discourse, sometimes in indirect, a

course which is best explained by supposing the writer to have drawnfrom a source which had the form of a dialogue and to have been

careless in his reproduction of it. A decisive proof of the non-

original character of An. lies in the opening sentence of the second

tract, which begins ual yap arcavTa. The i^revious tract had

36

closed wiili a doxoloiry, and was tlius quite complete in itself. Tlio

n(x\ ydfj of the ojx'iiiiig scnleiice of the second shows clearly that

it is sinii)ly an extract frum a previous work torn al)rui)tly from its

context. The exact words occur, in fact, in \l\ in their proper con-

nection.

On the other hand, nothing which \XX contains is omitted by

An., except the external setting of tlie dialogue, which, of course,

was dro])])ed when the dialogistic form was given up. Tliis leads

us to conclude that the source of An. was practically identical with

RV : that is, that no common source for the two need be assumed.'

But a comparison of An. with the fuller form RP reveals connec-

tions between the two which cannot be explained by their common

use of RV. An. in many places agrees with RV in the omission of

passages which RP contains, but at the same time it has a great

deal in common with RP over against RV. On the other hand,

RV and RP agree in many points over against An., notably in the

title, in the first jiaragraph, and in the dialogistic form with all its

accessories. In any case therefore, RV lies at the base of both, and

neither can be explained by its exclusive use of the other. Moan-

while, the respective dates of An. and RP rule out the dependence

of the former upon the latter. There remain, therefore, but two

possibilities open : either RP made use of An. in addition to RV, or

both RP and An. made use of a common work which included RV,

that is, was a later growth from it. In the latter case of course

the dependence of An. and RP upon RV is not direct but mediate.

Meanwhile, inasmuch as P has every one of the prophetic particu-

lars contained in An. and with a similarity of language which in-

volves literary connection in all of them, the source from which RPdrew must have contained them all. But it is noticeable that in

An. they are given, a ])art of them in the second treatise, a p:irt in the

third, and, when com])ared with RP, in a very disordered way. It

is impossible to conceive that An. could in the second treatise have

omitted entirely so many of these particulars and in the tliii'd have

introduced them in so dilTerent an order if the source contained

them as given in RP. This of course confirms the fact, which we

have already accepted as established by the respective dates, that

An. did not draw from lU* (a fact further confirmed l)y its much

less full and develo})ed form in res])ect to these particulars), and

also goes to show that An., in addition to the common source RV.

' Upon the " Ana-stasius " of the two lilies, sec below. § 6.

37

cannot liave drawn from another source any more like RP than

itself.

Further it is a significant fact that on p. G9, 1. 8, RP shows its

dependence upon a non-dialogistic source, for it reads epoorijGov

Xoinov rov lovSaiov nai eiTrt avrai, which is CA'idently a reminis-

cence of a work of the same nature as An. in which this sort of plirase

occurs frequently. It is true that RP varies considerably from An. in

detail, and that it omits entirely a great deal whicli An. contains.

But in the variations RP is almost always superior to An., both

in arrangement and in logical force, and they can thus be easily

explained as purposed improvements upon the part of the former.

In regard to the long passages omitted, we have no right to expect

that RP would transcribe the whole of An. The writer took natu-

rally only such parts as he wished, and those were especially the sec-

tions containing the detailed prophecies of Christ's life, of which

he adopted every one, gathering them from the different parts of

An. and arranging them in a logical and symmetrical way. From

the omission of the lengthy discussion of An. upon the history of

the Jews and justification by faith and works, we have no right to

assume a lack of knowledge of them on the part of RP.

We may conclude then that there exists nothing to necessitate the

assumption of a common source for An. and RP over and above RV,

but that all the plienomena are explained by supposing RP to have

made use of both RV and An.^ This conclusion agrees exactly with

what the respective dates of the works would lead us to expect.

§ 6. Sources and Title.

The reader must be struck, upon the most hasty perusal, with

tiie utter lack of connection between the first paragrai)h of our

dialogue and that which follows. It cannot be supposed that the

author began his work with this utterly foreign i)assage upon image

' It is noticeable that An. and RP have nothing in common which is omitted

by RV except in connection with the details of Christ's life. Aside from these

details both seem to have drawn directly from RV, and RP seems to have paid

no attention to An. If this fact were pressed, it might appear to lead to the

assumi)tion of a common source for An. and RP, containing the dialogistic set-

ting and all the common peculiarities of RV and RP over against An., wiiile at

the same time enlarged in the direction of An. so as to include all the details

upon Christ's life found in the latter, and in the same order as in it. The assump-

tion of such a source would account fully for RP without supposing a direct

dependence on its part upon either RV or An. In this case the minor verbal

38

woi-ship, and tlioii passed over so abruptly to tlio subject uliicli

constitutes the substance of the dialogue. The only possible ex-

planation of the matter, if a single author be assumed for the

whole, is the addition of this passage after the completion of the

body of the work, for the purj)ose of attracting interest in an age

when the image controversy was absorbing all minds. But against

this speak two very obvious facts. First, the reference to images on

p. 75 ])resupposes the existence of this introductory j^assage, and

secondly, the Christian is called in the opening paragraph /^ojvrjo;

by V, and aftfia^ by P, while in the remainder of the work he is

uniformly called jpzcr/n ro? by both MSS. We are thus led to

conclude that the opening paragraph is the addition of a later

hand, and, if this paragraph, then also the passage upon the same

subject on p. 75. RV is therefore not the original form of our

dialogue. But when we ask what was the original form, we can

frame only a conjectural answer. The passages which have been

shown to be later additions of P, and the paragraphs just mentioned

are of course to be stricken out, but further than that we cannot go

with coi-taiiity. Other passages which it seems probable did not

belong to the oiiginal will be referred to in the notes.

'J'he question next arises, what was the title of tlie original

source which luis l)een shown to have existed ? In turning to this

question we are met by a peculiar fact. In our existing title two

Jews are mentioned, while in the dialogue itself only one is rejire-

sented as speaking. It is certain that the title and the dialogue as

they stand cannot be from the same hand, and it is further certain

that the singular form of the text is older than the plural form of

the title, for no one would have changed lovStrJoi throughout to

JovSalng^ while leaving the title in the plural' "When and how

amercements of An. and KP over a^'ainsl KV (in the sections eoniraon also to KV)nii^Mil represent the altered form of the intermediate soiire". Still facts do not

necessitate the existence of sucii a source, and we may therefore rest content \\\[]i

the conclusion reached above, that HP drew directly from HV and An. In that

cas»' the minor verbal apreeinents just spoken of. representing: as they woidd the

form of HV used by both An. and HP, would 1)0 a stronpT witness to the

original form than the later manuscript V. It has seemed l)ost however to give

the text according to V rather tluin to intrcwluce conjectural emendations.

^lovScxioi occurs once in P. p. 5(5. 1. 22 (where V has the singuhir). l)ut this

is owing to the multitude of .lews who are mentioned shortly before as onlookers,

and has no reference to the two .Tews of the title. The plural occui*s once also

in W p. 6"). I. 6. See note on p. sy.

39

tlien did the plural form arise ? Did the original title contain the

names of the two contesting parties—of a Jew and a Christian—or

did it simply contain the name of tlie author (as tlie dialogues of

Petrus Damianus, of Gilbert of Westminster, etc.), or no name at

all (as the anonymous Latin dialogue in Migne, clxiii. 1015 ff.) ?

Tlie first alternative is antecedently the most probable, when the

analogy of similar works is considered,' and this probability is

strengthened, as we shall see, by the existing form. Our title as it

stands arouses at first sight the suspicion that the names Papiscus

and Philo have been added as representative Jews, typical of the

Jewish people as a whole, the former name being naturally sug-

gested for such a dialogue from its use in the earlier dialogue of

Papiscus and Jason, the latter as the name of the great Jewish

philosopher. In this case the original title either contained no

Jewish name (for we cannot suppose an original name to have been

displaced to make room for two others), or it contained one and the

other was afterward added. If the former was the case it is

difficult to explain the addition of two names when the dialogue

itself runs throughout in the singular, and still more so to explain

the name Papiscus, which stands in the opening of V and M Avith-

out Philo. This latter fact seems to indicate that Papiscus stood

originally in the title and Philo was afterwards added, but it is

difficult to see the necessity for such an addition both inconsistent

with the dialogue itself and out of all analogy with other works of

the kind. The simplest explanation of the matter seems to me to

be that the original title contained both names, Papiscus and Philo,

but that the former only was the name of a Jew, the latter the

name of a Christian. We should then have to think of ihe title as

bearing the form 'Avti^oXi) TLaTtiaHOV uai ^iXcovo?, which would

asrree excellentlv with the titles of other anti-Jewish dialoirues.

The name Papiscus then might represent an actual Jew, or be simply

a repetition of the name used in the dialogue of Papiscus and

Jason. The latter is of course much more probable, for that two

Jews. should have existed in different ages and both separately

either actually have taken part in or have been represented as

taking part in dialogues with Jews is quite improbable, especially

when we realize the uncommonness of the name, for, so far as the

writer knows, the name occurs nowhere else than in these two

^ Of. 'Id6ovo^ HcxL JlaTtidHov avziXoyux iiEpi Xpidrov, Altercaiio Simonis

et Theophili, etc.

40

dialoo^iies. It is therefore probable tliut the author owes tlie namePai)iscus to tlie earlier dialogue, wliich we know was still in cir-

culation in the seventh century, for it is mentioned b}^ MaximusConfessor.' It is of course not necessary to conclude that the

author luid himself read the earlier dialogue, though the lack of all

resemblance between the two works cannot be urged as absolutely

proving that he had not.

The name Philo then might either have been taken from some])r()minent Christian of the age (we know of a number of Christian

Philos of the fourth and following centuries), or it might have been

the name of the author himself. This being the original title of the

dialogue, it is very easy to explain the later corruption. When the

Christian Philo meant in the title had dropped out of memory, it

would be quite natural to think, in connection with this name, of

the great Jewish philosopher, and later editors or copyists wouldthen have before them the singular spectacle of an anti-Jewish dia-

logue held between two Jews. The extension of the title, when it

was once thus interpreted, became of course a necessity. There is a

hint of this subsequent extension in the designation of the Christian

which occurs in the extant title. P and ^I give no name to him,

but call him simply /lovaxoy Tivn, a most remarkably impersonal

designation if it be a part of the original title. Its later addition

however is quite natural. The editor who added it thought, very

likely, that the original name of the Christian had fallen out, andinstead of inserting presumptuously a particular name, for whichbe had no authority, he simply subjoined *'with a certain monk,''

for that the dialogue must have been with soi/ic Christian was self-

evident.

That the name Avacrracjio; of V is a later addition seems

])robal)le for two reasons : first, because we can otherwise see noground for its omission by both P and M, which are otherwise indc-

|icii(lcnt of t'lich other (so far as ctin be jmlged from (he brief extract

of M wliich has been {•omj)ared) ; secondly, because of the occur-

rence of r/r^r in connection with the \ I mcfraaiay of V. Whenthere existed a reason for adding ihi> name Anastasius, which could

have been only because of his prominence as a Christian, or because

he himself revised the dialogue, il would have been peculiar to call

him ''a certain monk, Anastasius." In fact, it seems clear that

the /<orn;v'"' ^'»''» ^>f 1*, M and V was the original addition, and' See llurnack : Tcxle und Unitrsuchungni, IJd. I. Ilift I. ji. 12.3.

41

that later the " Aiiastasiiis " of V was attached. AVe have further

a hint as to the origin of this name. The Abhot Anastasius, in the

work mentioned in § 5, as shown there makes extensive use of our

dialogue, incorporating into his larger work almost the whole of it

as it exists in V, and at the same time dropi)ing the dialogistic form.

He wrote in the ninth centurv. It would be very natural for his

name, some centuries later, to be commonly connected with the

dialogue itself which he had worked, over, and all the more so since

that represented the Christian as a monk and yet left his personality

entirely indefinite. Thus it is not in the least unlikely that the

writer of the manuscrijit V, of the fourteenth century, added

Anastasius' name to the impersonal designation which existed in

his cop3^ This may of course have been done in all good faith, and

the manuscript may in other respects have been exactly like its

original.

The word fAovaxoi occurs both in the title and in the first par-

agraph of the dialogue {df3f3a^ in P) and nowhere else. It is

therefore natural, though of course not necessary, to conclude that

the two additions are from the same hand, that the person whorevised the original dialogue enlarged the original title. The addi-

tion we can easily understand. It was done in a time when the

image controversy was raging, that is, not before the sixth century,

nor yet later than the seventh (for RV dates from the beginning of

the eighth, or from the end of the seventh century). The redactor

wished to fit the dialogue to the age and took the easiest way to do

it. A work could not expect much of a circulation at that time

unless it touched upon the great question of the day. It was a cap-

ital way too to depict the Christianity of image worship by picturing

its opponent as a Jew, and an effective "tract for the times" w^is

thus produced with a minimum of labor. The insertion of the word

f.ionxxo'^ was likewise most natural. It carried weight with it in

those days and meant far more than the simple jpzoTzrYros. Themonks, too, were the great champions of image worship.

§ 7. Time and Place of Composition. Authorsliij).

Having thus reached probable conclusions as to the source and

title of our work, we may finally inquire as to its authorshi]), and

the time and place of its composition.

The date of each of our recensions is given with considerable

42

exactness. On p. 05 RV, in speaking of the words of Christ,

says aTTEp npo e^ajtrxjiajv stcov npouTtev. On p. 78 the Jews

are said to have been driven about the world for 600 years, and in

the following sentence the destruction of Jerusalem under Vespas^ian

and Titus is mentioned, whicli would seem to imply that these

years arc to be reckoned from 70 a.d. These figures therefore,

taken as round numbers, would bring us down to the seventh cen-

tury. But on p. 79 the Jews are said to have been without sacri-

fices, without the passover, etc., for 670 years. It seems impossible

to bring this number into harmony with the two preceding. If it

be counted from 70 a.d. it brings us to the year 740, and if that

be the true date we shouhl expect on p. 65 to find iTTrauoaiojy

i'TGDv instead of it^iXKoaioDv^ it being to the authors interest to

make the time as long as possible. The most probable exi)lanation

of the difficulty seems to be that the writer in the present instance

reckoned from the destruction of Jerusalem under Hadrian; for

although this destruction is not spoken of in the context, yet,

correctly speaking, he could count the complete abolition of sacrifices

only from that date. In that case he must have written nEVTi\KO(jia

efi6oi.u'}H()vra instead of i^ixnoaia ifi6o}.u)Kovra, and some copy-

ist, having already written iB,ixKoaia twice, wrote it again in this

case by mistake. If this explanation be the true one the writer of

RV was more conscientious in his reckoning than the writers

of An. and RP, who count in both cases from the destruction of

Jerusalem under Titus. AVe are thus led to assign the composition

of RV to the very end of the seventh century or to the beginning

of the eighth.'

The same j)assages in An., moanwhile, substitute for the figures

of RV on p. 65 npo j^porcs^r ouranoGioDv ?) nal inhisiva, and

for the figures on ])p. 7S and 79 (>HT(XHo0ia X(\\ TrXeinva. Theinexactness of tlie statement does not permit us to fix the date with

precision ; we can simply say toward the end of the ninth century.

The writer in the present case clearly reckoiuMl both on ]>. 7S and

on p. 70 from 70 a.d.

\\V nicanuhile substitutes for the ninnlxMs of WX and (tf An. on

pp. 78 and 71) the number 1000. On p. 65 it has simply the indefi-

nite expression rmWcov FTaiy, but on p. 61 (note 84) it contains

another (lalnm, wliicii is omittod by RV and An. The last, taken

' It cannot have bot-n as lute as TM), for thrn «»n p. 05 we slunild fiiul TOO

instead of 600.

43

with preciseoess, would lead us to about the year 1030 ; but taken as

a round number, as it is evidently meant to be taken, it is in sub-

stantial harmony with the figures of \)]). 78 and 79, which point to

about the 3^ear 1070 for the composition of RP.

A more exact date may perhaps be drawn from another passage

in RP. On p. 61 (note 3) occur the words fj?) yap /.wi tovto gho-

TtifaijTe r/ ei7rr]r8 on apri eii ra n ravra i'rr/ 7raideiw/.(€B(Y oi

XpK^Tiavoi K.T.X. The interpretation of the sentence is somewhat

dark, bat it seems to imply that the Christians had been undergoing

some sort of a persecution for twenty years. It is probable, as will

be shown below, that our dialogue was written in Egypt, and it

happens to be a fact that about the year 1058 under the Caliph El-

Mustansir a persecution broke out in Alexandria against the Chris-

tians. AVe know of no other at about this time to which the author

could liavc referred, and the agreement in the present case is quite

remarkable. The internal relations of the three forms confirm this

order of composition, as we have already shown, and there is there-

fore no reason to doubt the accuracy of these dates.

A more interesting question is as to the date of the original lost

source. Here we are left entirely to conjecture. Tliere is nothing

in it except the passing reference to the eternal virginity of Mary,

which would prevent a very early date. At the same time the

absence of later doctrines in a work of this class is not a decisive

proof of its antiquity, as has been shown in Chap. I., § 1. Theterminus a quo is given by the words ae\ nap^evov applied to

Mary,' words which could not have been used before the fifth cen-

tury. The terminus ad quern is given by the date of RV, namely,

the early part of the eighth century or end of the seventh. Mean-

while, if our view of the form of the original title be correct, con-

siderable time must have elnpsed between its composition and its

use by RV, and still furtlier its omission of all reference to image

worship, which it was found necessary to insert in the later

recensions, would likewise seem to point to a date nearer the begin-

ning than the end of the period mentioned.

As to the place of composition a hint is furnished us by the

enumeration of the various religious cults on p. 74. Xearly all

of them are Egyj-jtian, a fact which points strongly to the Egyptian

' Unless the possibility that the whole phrase is a later insertion, as suggested

in the notes, be accepted, in which case there is nothing in the dialogue to pre-

vent a much earlier date.

44

oriiiin of tlie work. Again the persecution mentioned above fits so

well, as far as date is concerned, that it is allowable to urge this

agreement as an additional testimony to the Egyjitian origin of

\IV. If this be accepted for our three recensions the most natural

cuuclusion is that the original source was also of Egyptian origin.

As to tiie authorship of KV and of 1\P we have no clue (the

Anastasius of KV being, as already shown, a later addition). An.

pur])orts to be the work of an abbot Anastasius, and we have no

reason to question this. It cannot of course be the work of Anasta-

sius Sinaiticus (although it is printed among his writings by

Migne), for it is some centuries too late for him. Nor can it be

the work of Anastasius, Abbot of St. Eutimius in Palestine, as sup-

posed by others, for lie lived in the early part of the eighth cen-

tury, not in the ninth. There is in fact no ground for connecting

the work witli any particular Anastasius known to us. The namewas a very common one and the comi)ilation may perhaps be the

work of an Anastasius of whom we know nothing.

As to the authorship of the original source we are of course left

entirely to conjecture. It has been, however, suggested above that

the Philo of the title may be the name of tiie original author ; weknow of a number of Christians of tliis name of the fourtli and

following centuries,' and the work may have been written by one

of them or by some other Philo unknown to us.

§ 8. .l)ialf/sis of f/ic Didlofjue.

The dialogue dispenses with a fornud introduction and opens

abruptly with a question from the Jew. If the first paragraph,

which is ((uite indei)endent of the remainder of the dialogue, be left

out of consideration for the moment, the work consists of three

general sections. The first extenils from ]). 5'^ to j). (>5, and is

devoted in the main to the divine sonship and pre-existence of

Christ, as proved by the i)redieti()ns of the Old Testament. Thesecond" (])p. Vu) to T3) contains an account of tiie life of Jesus,

which is shown to have been foretold in detail by the projjhets.

These two divisions are thus chiefiy l)il)lieal. The third (pp. 73

to SO) is devoted in the main to an exhibition of the ])rosperity of

Christianity in contrast with the fall of iKathcndoni, and esiiecially

' C'f. tlio list ^ivcn l>y Fabricius-Uarlos. iv. ToO fF.

' This is very brief in V. l)Ut carried out in great detail by P.

45

the misfortunes of the Jews—an argument, therefore, for tlie truth of

Christianity drawn from history. § 17 (pp. 80 to 82), wliich is wholly

wanting in the Venetian manuscript, may be regarded as a separate

section, or simply as a biblical supplement to the historical argument

of the third diyision. The work is supplemented (in the Paris MS.)

with a formal conclusion stating the reason for its composition.

We may divide the whole for cohyenience's sake into seventeen

paragraphs.

§ 1. The work opens with a question from the Jew, who asks

why the Christians worship images when such worship has been

forbidden by God. The Christian answers that they do not worship

the images themselves, but through them Christ.

§ 2. The Jew, without expressing satisfaction or dissatisfaction

with the answer of the Christian, passes abruptly to another subject,

inquiring why the Christians blaspheme by saying that God has a

son. The Christian proceeds to show that thjs is taught in the

Jewish Scriptures, beginning his proof with the familiar ])assage,

Psa. ii. 7. The Jew claims that this refers to Solomon, an opinion

which the Christian demonstrates to be untenable.

§ 3. The Jew then asks how God can say, '^Ask of m.e," as if

speaking to a servant, if the person addressed be his son. Heinquires also how the words, *^This day have I begotten thee," can

be reconciled with the Christian doctrine of the pre-existence of

Christ. The first trivial objection the Christian disposes of briefly,

and answers the second by applying the words of the psalm to the

birth according to the flesh.

§ 4. The Jew considers it impossible that Christ, if born of

Mary, could have existed before the world, and be God. TheChristian then proposes to show from the Jewish Scriptures and the

prophets the truth of what th^ Christians preach concerning Christ.

§ 5. He begins by showing that the *'Son was begotten of the

Father before all creation."

§ G. He then asks the Jew whether tlic Messiah expected by

them is to be God or mere man. The Jew replies that he is to be a

mere man, like one of the prophets.

§ 7. The Christian upon this appeals to the spectators and pro-

poses that the Scriptures be examined, and if they have proclaimed

the coming Messiah to be God, then the Christ worshiped by the

Christians is truly God and Christ, but the one whom the Jews

expect is a deceiver and Antichrist ; while on the other hand if the

46

propliots are not sliowu to have proclaimed tlie Me.s.<iali as God,

tlien the Cljristian.s are deceived and the Jews s])eak tlie truth, lie

therefore causes them to brin^^ tlieir hooks ficjm their synagogue,

and proposes to draw his i)roofs from tliem.

§ 8. Ue begins by quoting numerous passages from tlie Psalms

and jirophets to prove that Christ is God.

§ 9. He then i)roceeds to show that tlie Messiah was i)romised

as the Messiah of the nations. Quoting among other j)assages Jacob's

blessing u])on Judah (Gen. xlix. 10) he points out that the terms of

the proi)hecy have been already fulfilled, since the Jews have no longer

king, rulers, temple, etc. Tlieir sacred places have ail been taken

from them and given to the Christians, whose name is spread every-

where in spite of the many persecutions which they have suffered.

^ 10. He then puts the question : If Christianity be false, wliy

has (Jod preserved it so wonderfully in the face of such enemies ?

The church endures but its adversaries have perished. In this

connection ho shows that the prophecies of Christ himself have been

l)roved true, quoting a number of them and pointing out their

fulfillment in detail.

§ 11. The Jew then asks why, if it were true, the prophets did

not clearly foretell that Christ should come and do away with the

Jewish ritual. The Christian answers that they would have been

stoned had they thus prophesied, and their books would have been

bur?)ed, which would have been a great loss to the Christ ia!is, for

even now, he says, he has been able to refute the Jew from those

very books.

sj 1*2. This leads him to return to the ju'ophets, anil he })roeeeds

to make extracts from them which foretell the life of Christ in

detail. In \ foui-, in P thirty-live separate particulars of his life

are mentioned, covering the time frnm his advent to his a-cen-;ion.

From tliis paragraph on the Jew says nothing ami the work thus

loses entirely the dialogistic form.

g 13. Tlie Christian concludes this section ujmn the details of

Christ's life by asking, Who can deny Christ to i)e true (Jod after

hearing all this, for the Christians hold him to be not a mere man,

but (rod incarnate who has overthrown itlols and destroyed the

sacrifices of demons? This leads him to in(juire what has becomeof the ])riests of Memphis, of the worship of the Nile, etc., and to

draw the contrast between their obliteration and the prosperity of

Christianity.

47

§ 14. After his long digression he returns to the question of the

Jew, as to why the prophets had not foretold the doing away of the

Jewish ritual, and meets it by inquiring in return why the prophets

had not foretold that a false Christ would come calling himself

Jesus.

§ 15. He then goes back to the first question of the Jew in

regard to the Christians' worship of images, and retorts by inquiring

why the Jews worshiped the image of Nebuchadnezzar and the

golden calf. This leads him to dwell upon their faithlessness and

blindness, and to quote various Old Testament passages denuncia-

tory of their wickedness.

§ 16. As a consequence of their sins the Jews were sent in

captivity to Babylon, but after seventy years were restored to their

own country. What sin did they then commit of such magnitude

as to cause God again to destroy their city and to banish them from

it, this time for so many centuries ? If they will not answer, the

very stones will cry out that it is because they crucified Christ.

At this point the work comes to an end in V, and a doxology is

added.'

§ 17 (in P) gives extended quotations from Daniel, in which

the destruction of Jerusalem, the dispersion of the Jews, and the

coming of the Messiah are foretold, and the work proper is brought

to a close with a doxology.

The writer then adds that he has made these quotations from

the prophets in order to confirm the faith of the Christians, and to

convict the Jews. He concludes with an exhortation to fulfill the

commands of Christ in return for the salvation accomplished by

him, and in order to obtain the blessings of eternity.

' The second tract of An. also ends at the same point.

THE TEXT

ABBREVIATIONS.

V = Vcn. Cod. Gra'c. 505.

P = Par. Cod. Grac. 1111.

M •.= Bibl. Mosq. SaiK t. Synodi Cod. Gnrc. ^,^,7^t-

An. — Anastasii Abbatisadv. Jiuhoos disputatio.

The text is givvn accordiiij? to V except in the few places where V is

manifestly incorrect, wlicn P and .\n. are followed. All the variations of P

of every description an; jrivt-n. Tlie variations of M arc tjiven s<> far as known.

that is for the first two pa.i,'es. Tli.- variations of An. from the text of V are

given wherever the two texts run i)arallel, but not its variations from 1' in the

long piissape which V omits, for P and An, are so different at this jwint, both in

matter and arrangement, us to preclude the possibility of such comparison.

ANTiBOAH nAni'SKor' KAi mAnNo:s IOTAAI-nN TllN HAP EBPAI0I2 ^O^HN UPO:^ MO-NAXON TINA' HEPI ni2TEn2 XPi:STIANnNKAI NOMOT EBPAinN' KPOTHfJEi:SA EHIAHMOr XPi:^riANnN' KAI lOTAAinN. 5

1. 'HpGJT?j(j€^ n(X7ii(yH0£- lovdaio? '^ Sia ri rov Seov

7rap(xyyeXovTO? * fAi) TtpoffHVveiv XiBov 7) B,v\ov^^ vi/.i€iS

ravra GefiscjBe uai TTpoauvyeire TtoiovvTes it, avrcov

(Travpov? uai eiuova?^

aTTSiipiBf^v 6 /AOvaxo<5 • " eiTte pioi av^'' 6ia t'l 6 lauooft 10

7ipo()8Kvyi](Da TO aupov rrji paftdov rov Icoaif^ ^

*

o Iovdaio<i eiTtev • ^ ovxi t?}v pa/3Sov TcpoGeKvvr]<jev ?)

TO B,v\oy^ aWa rov nparovvra avnjv^ looGijij) erifj-rjaay.

6 fxovaxoi^'' einev '^^ ovtooZ nal ijueii TtpoffiiVvovyTe?

toy ffravpoy, ov ri)v (^vffiv rov B,v\ov npoakvvovjxav ' 15

/.n) yeyoiro ' aWd rov aravpcaStyra iv atrcp. uai

Goanap av TtpoaKvyei^^^ ei'^ svpi]^'* raS dvo nXanai uai

ra 6vo x^P^'^P^^i^ anep inoh-fGE M.oovGri'i^ na\ ri]v klft gj-

roy, rificoy roy ^eoy roy iniraB,ayra avra,^^ outgo

KayoD 7tpoaj{vyGDV

Kt)yc^ ' '"//// yeyoLTO

ayiov? aiJTOij.

uai^^ on ovT8^° to ^vXoy ovre'^" n)v 8,Giypa^Lay

TtpoaHVvc^y en rovrov'^ ST/Xov^ on TroXAanib rai eiHova'S

ra? ebioya'^y ov ro ^vXov Ttpoa-'^ aXXa rov XpiGToy Ti}.iwy nai rov?

20

' IlairidHov PM, IlaititidKov V.

'^''Ava6rd6iov add. V ; om, PM.^ 'Efipaioov V, efipaiuov PM.*\'lfjp(ifjoov TE add. P, 'Afjapoov rf.

add. M.' ^HpcoTydEv M,^ TlaTCTtioHoi V.^ 'Epoorrjua 'lovdaiov P.

* TrapayysXuvro'i P, napayyei-Xayro<S An.

^ XiSoy 7} ^vA.oy PV, zvAov ;} Xi-

3ov M An.' 6 dpP(X<i E17CEV P, dytoHpidii M.

^ EL71E uoi 6v om. p.

* EiTtEv om.P." avrifv om. P." a/i/iaS PM. '' EiTtEv om. P.

^ 7tpo6EHVVEl<^ P.

^ dv Ei F. " Ei Evpyi om. M.^ avT^ P, ravra An." TtpudHvvc^y P.

' /ii?) yEvoiTo VMAm., om. P.

" rodovTov add. M, xai om. P.

" ov 5e M, 8e ov P.

' ovdE PM.' EK TovTov om. PM.

• vid. Gen. xlvii. 31 (Ueb. xi. 21.)

61

52

5 c jpzrrrz/rKos • "" op^ iffieU efff-uv* oi Xlyovre^ rouro,

dWa Kai }) yfjiv(j)t) inic^v • Xtyei ydfj'" '' Kvpio^ iine npoi

ju£ DIG? f.iov ej ffv, eyoj ajf^iEpov yaytwijua GeJ^ *

o 'lovdaloi -^ 7iap\ ^oXo^iGjyToi Xtyti a i/'aXfic?.

n ;i;p£a'rzrt'ro?•

' Ttoaov ^tfjovi'' tov uoGf^iov envpi-

10 eifaav a '^oXof.ic^v ,•

o 'invSalo^ • ' ovSt TOV iff-iiaeoi, ov6t tov t/jitov ).ii-

pOP? TOV HOffZ-iOV.^"

o xpif^'''^^^^^^'^' duovaov ovv dftTi^'' rovvexc^^ Jtocl

/ud^€^' oTi ov 7iep\ ^oXof.i(^vToi, aXXd 7tep\ XpicTTov**

15 Xtyei o faX/u6?' eiTze '" yap oti ^' Kvpiog eiTte Ttpog /.te

via? f.iov €1 av, eyco Gi]f.iEpov yeytvvjjna ffe ' cxiTijGai

tiTta^ /.wi ov KaTtax^ ^V)Ao;/g3k toc ntpixTix r//^ yi}

i7roif.iavev avTox)^ iv pafiSui oiSijpci ,• tvote od^ ansvjf

Hepa/Atojg OvvtTpiftv avTovi Tot)g fj:^/joi'? ,•'" ov6(7roTe.'°

" 7taXaiuv^i£i'a: ,) PM. " xai vvv /iaoiXfii CvvETe om.

** uovov dya^rjy P, dyaSi/i' ^i6- ^- etTre orr noi a/jri 6v ' nora

vov An., uovoy dyaSfjy t&jk liyi- naredxsy ni ntpara r/^S yyi 6

ajK M. ' £/Vf V, fT/rfK M, om. P. ^oAoz/wk; P. fine not ovv 6v' A^yoirfS on PM. <>^^jr/, lovSa'/Ey Tra'iTOJ? ST/Xoy xai

finev mid. M. onf'^X<iyov^sr6y idrty^ ah ehoney^* hinh' fiot'ot V^\. " y<x()nTiVy\. on yittdv r;/5 yiji 2oXutiioy oi)

^ finty luU]. y[. ' mV/ ; add. M. mtredxsy, ovSf ro TftiToVy turoi

"^ Hixl nn6()y nefjo'i VSWu. ha\ ftoyoy T}}y 'h>v6aiay ynr'" fiTTfy (uh\. M. AiUTToy, nore Hitredx^y o 2£o\ouu)y

"• ovSi ri) f/f4i6Vy ov6f ro r^j/ror P, ra ntifuxra r//? ,»';)? ; An.

ov8i TO ymdv, ovSl to Tfjiroy " ttote dvyeTfjitl^e rori /^S^oj"?

ror? Kod/tov MAn. " nrrey atld. M. uvtov w5 dHEiT/ nepanecoi; P, niWt

" (r/:>n om. PAn. Si aJ5 dxevtf ><fpaftiu)i dvyizpitf

» cxHfjt/iM'. add. .M. ror';? fx^fjovi avroT ; An.

^ TOV Xfjidroi' VMAu. "* ovdenoTS dtjXoyori P, naiTu^'^

^ Xeyn PMAn " uioi P. ovSinozE An.

• I'Mi ii 7. " Pi.a. ii. 7-9.

53

3. '0 lovSaio? ' 7t(2)<^ \iyei ' '^ sItts Kvpio<; npoi fA€

airr/Gai Trap' epiov^'y nai yap ei"^ vioi iarir, obi Xiyere,

TtcoS Xeyei 6 Beo? cob npoZ dovXov airrjaai nap' e/uovj

jiai TtaXiv Ttc^i^ Xey€i '^ syoo (Xypiepov yeytwijua ae''^

vjuieii 6t Xeyere on npo rov nofffxov oXov eyevv?j^7j. 5

o jpzcyrzaro'? • nepl rov siTteiv toy nartpa 7tp6<i rov

viov^* " airrfOai nap' ijxov^ nai 6oo()Gd aoi s'Bvr//' ^ /a?)

ffnavSaXi^ov noXXauii Y^P Xeyei narijp npos rov

viov avrov^ ano noXXyb ayani]^, airr/ffai fxe o 5fA£z?

Hal napd(TXGO (Jol'' ' naXiv^ nepl rov aineiVy^ ^^ eyc^ orj- 10

jXEpov yayempia 08,'^ nepi ri)i Kara Gapita yavvijaeGoi

avrov Xeyei' €i)douia yap narpo? erex^V ^^ ^7^ dyia?

^eoroKOV nai aei nap^irov Mapia?.'"

4. 'O lovdaiOb €1 uai nsi^sii /as on eyevri'j^ri in Ma-pia^y aXX^ ovu ix^ii }xoi dei^ai on nai npo rov kog- 15

ixov iysvvij^i], on uai ' 5fo? iariv 6 X.piC)r6<i cy? Xayeii.^

6 xpi^T^^^^o<; ' p.j) oXa ojxoi) epGora aXXd ev itai ev

uai iXn 18,00 eii rovb oiuripjAOvi rov B'sov on eu ro5r

ypa(l>GOV v/Acov uai rcov npo^ijrc^v v^k^v napiarco nav-

ra rd nepi Xpwrov ovra aXr^^^i), na\ nepi avrov vn' 20

avrc^v npoK-qpvx'^^yra.^

5. IIXj)v rovro ^iXoo juaS-siv e^ vjagov • * 6 Jafiid

Xsysrs on P, ' ei om, V. sA^slv, npo ds Ttavroov fJovv<Sv^ ;r(i3? om. P. yErvd /lie'^^, eftoorovvvi ovv /.loi

* rov viov on P. Eiite, riva npo Ttd6rj<i Trj<i Kri6EG0<i

^ xai 8od6cj 6oi e^vrj om. P, e^v?/ tyEvyr^dEr 6 Ge6^ ; post Mapia'i

om. An. add. P.

® TtoXXdnii yap 6 /ja6tA.Evi XsyEi ' xai on P.

Tipd'i rov viov avrov P. TToAAa yap '^ XsyETE P.

xai f3a6iXEvi npoi ror avrov viov ^ 6 xftK^riavoS ' Ttdvra naptdrrfdoo

XsyEi An. vf^ilv eh t(Sv ypacpcSv v/lic^v nai^ El Ti 3f/l£z5 uai TtapExoa doi pro tojv npoq)rfT^y, on xai npo rov

6 3fA«z? H.T.X. P, nai napixco 6oi xod^ov iyEvvrj^rj uai on Sfds

El Ti ^EXEi<i An. tdnv 6 Xpi6r6<3y &?? XsyoiiEv, xai" xai ndXiv PAn. to. nEpi rov Xpi6rov ndvra dXTjBr/,

' EinElv on P. xai rd nspi avrov xyjpvx'^svra pro'" orz 8e xai npo aloavoov rov o ;<:pz(jrza:Ko5' urf oXa x.r.X. P; to-

narpoi lyevvij^r/j 6 2oXoju(3v, ooi turn om. An.

EX npodoonov avrov rov uovoyE- ^ nXrjv rovro hpGorcSvro'i ^lov Eins

rovi viovy Xsyei *^ npo rov rd opr] P. nXi}y npcaror BeXco uaBsIv i^

yevEd^ai, npo rov rdi nf/yds npo- v/ncSv " An.

Frov. viii. iM-35.

54

/3a(7i\ej< Qjy xtv'i TTfjoi/if/T//? noti ayio?, riva nvpiov ual

n loifSaio^ TovTo tfjGJTiffia'^ (tint f'x^^' ^^ J(r/ii6 ytr/J

Jd'fjiov licWov^ ovH f'x^h ^^ /^'/ Tov btov T(JV TtoiJfaavTa

5 Toi' oi'/J(Kyov Jcai tj)v yf/v.

o jp:rTrz<^j'7'G? • opSg35 tivra^. iSov ovv ainoi* \tyei

Ttep) XpiffTov" on Hvpioi avrov eOTiVj on nai" Ttpo

aioovoov'' eyevvtf^tf ' tv yap tc3 tnaToarcp avvarcD*

T/vrA//(i3 \tyei ovTooi, '^ einev 6 xvpioi rco uDpicp l^iov,

10 na^oiy en SeBid/v j^wv ' " idov ovv avTo?' tov viov

HVpiov'" 6/.io\oy€i • Ttpoi avTOV yap eiTtev^^ o Trarrjpy

jAETa n)v ayiav avTOV GapuoDGiv uai avaXiplnv, '^ ua^ov€H 6e^t(^v /.loVj eoj? av 5g5 tov^ ex^povi aov vttottoSiov

TGJV TTodc^V (TOf • " ** *' fV Tai? Xa/ATTpOTTJffl TCDV OCyiODV

15 (TO/', eu yaffTpOb^'' npo ioDa<f)cpov eyevvtjcra oe.^^^ tUyap^'' eyevvijBfj npo eoDG(j)opov ; apa nepi tov JSa/^t

Xtyfi; ov6a).i(^i' fjieta dvo yap ^* f}/upa? tov eoD(j(f)opov

uai Tcjy a(TTtpGJv eyivero. aW dpa^" nepl tov f/A;///-

pti^uv^^ t^f-ic^y Xtyei y aXX^ ''' viov Aafi\6^^ Xlyei'^ eivai-

20 6 dt JafiiS f-ietd ttoAAoT'?" tov 'ASd/.i eyevvif^j}' o 6t

AfSdfi t(} ncTij iff-itpa enXaa^ij ' of St iooa^opoi Tfj ts-

TapTtj^^ i)[dp(} eyevovTo o St Sfos Xtyei nepi tov i^iov

viov" oTi ^' npo ecj(r<j)opoi> eyivvf^crd^' (xe,^* ai) f/" lepev?

Fi? T/}v aicova HtxTa tj}v Taf^iv 3/fA j/0"£(^i;r/^" ** TovTtcJ-

* ipoartjua tovtoV. '' Jafi'td V, roil JafJiS avroy P,

* avrov pro nXXov P. JafiiS aiWoy An.* avToi o Ja(it6 PAn. '" Xeyerat P, ov Aeycrixt An.* rov ^^j/(Jro»^ PAn. '^ ttoWoiH xpo^or^ PAn* xai uTi P, Ktti on xal An. " renxfjrt^ VAn., <5' P.

^ ruty aiuiVMv PAn. * fj"^ PAn, " 6 df 3ct»5 TTSfj} rov i6i'iv viov" ovy avroi om. P ; I'Sov orr rov Xeyei PAn.

vioy rov 3for An. " lyev%'rf6d VAn.. yfyt'irf^nd P."* xvpioy favrov P, Hvpiov eav- ** xai on <pt)6'i post 6f uild P.

TOV xaXil An. •* troni. PAn." xal TCfjdi avroy finey P. * l7rei6!^t/i apa xdy dpn on itfpl

" xai Ix ya6Tpo<i P. rov Xpitirov xai ^eov y/jicoy i6Tty^* yd ft oxn. v. '* yap dvo PAn. ovroi 6 Xuyoi; avroi yap tdny^* apa om. PAn. iPpev? f/5 r6y ai^ya xard n)y'• iLXfif-iueyov V. ra'^iK MeXxtCEdiXy post M^Xxid^^sx" dXXd PAn. add. P.

• Psa. cix. 1. »> PAd. vers. 1. ' Jf>id. \vt». 3. > JIAJ. vers. 3-4.

55

riv lepei)^ twv e^vgjv nai yap 6 MeXxKy^^tu^'' lepevi

rjv r(£)v tBvGOVy^^ Hal aprov uai oirov'^ Ttpoaac^epeVy GD<i

f.iapTVp8i naXiv i) ypa(l)i) vfic^v-'' on ore edt^aro TOi^

'A/3pad/x 6 MeXx^^^^^^^ ^^ aproj nai oivcp s^uffe Tcp

^foS/" jcaSdj? uai 6 Xpiaroi dpxi^p^vi Ttaptdojuey Vf^ir,^' 5

^veii' ainc^ dval/Aauror ^tJffiav Kara Tr)v raB,iv MeX-

Xiffe^tK. dnovaov ovv ndXiv Sid 2oXo/AcarroS XtyovTO?

Tov vi'oi)'^ '' Ttpo Tov rd oprj yavia^ai, npo rov rai

Ttijydi TTpoeX^eir^ npo dt TtdrrGor rG5r" /3ovvc^v, yevva

/x€-'^^ Ssl^cv juoi Ttpo Ttdar/? T?;? j{Ti(d£c^? riva o ^fOs 10

eyivvtjaev. '' (^(javrGD<i ndXiv ev rep s/5do},irjnoaTcp npoo-

TO)^" t/:aX/u(p XtysL '" ^' 6 Sfo?, to upl/Aa Gov rep fiaaiXei

doi, xai rrfv diHaioffvvr^v Gov rep vicp rov (iaGiXtooZ.''^ ^

nai iva i^u)^' ei7C0 on nepi 2oXojASvro^ Xeyst,^^ ev^v?

€i7t€j pier' oXiyov; Grixovg^^' '' Jtai uaraHvpievGei ano 15

^aXd6ai}<i eoD£ ^aXdG0ri<^,'' ^ uai ''npo rov rfXiov 6i-

a/ievei ro ovopia avrov/'^ '' nai npo rri^ aeXyviji yevea?

yevec^v.^' ^ iSov edei^d aoi 0a(l)(^^, uai did Aapid uai

did ^oXofA(^yro<iy on npo ndai]<i uriaecioS i5zo?" en na-

rpob*^ (i9b oiSe juovo^ avroi. 20

6. nXT]y eueivo einare jxoi^ vjAeU, uai ex]^eoji (fiaive-

rai ?} dXjj^eia, rov eiX?]/A/Aevov "^ eH6ex£(^^£^ ^^^^^^ t^ ^^-

^^ nai yap 6 MaXxtdaden V. 6 yap P. Sslqov mn ovv viva o Bfd? npo

MeXxi6e6ek PAn. Ttd6r]<i vy^ MvidEooi kyivvi^6Ev An."^"^ r^v E^voov rjv iEpEv<iV.o\n. Kw.. dXV ovk dv fj^zS, &3 'lovdaTE,

'* uai oivov yai 'dprov P. oivov rovvo dito rojv ypaq)o5v 7ti6Ta)6a6-

xai dpTov An. 3az ; add. P.

3° Hvpiop P. '^ na P.

^' o Xpidru<i dpxiEpEvi TrapsdcoHEv ^^ Asysi 6 JcxfSid P.

rjulr V. o Xpi6T6<i 6 dpxiEpEvi j^/ncov " dvai6xvvra)v ndXiv , oo 'lovdalE

TtapiSooHEv yjttdi An. avro's 6 hv- post //?/ add. P.

pzo? yfiGjy tvETEiXaro rji-uy P. ^* ravra EiprjTai P.

'"^ xai avTov dh ndXiv dnovdov ^^ EvSvi eike h.t.X. V. duovdov

Sid 2nA()Uck)vroS XEyorroi rov vlov ti ^ft'' oXiya EiprjuEv P.

on P. dnovdov ds nai ^oXojUo^vroi *" tyevvy^rf 6 vioS PAn.

X€yovTo<i TtEpi ryji npo atoovoDv ^' rov Ttarpo's PAn.

yEvyTJdEGOi rov uovoyEvov'i viov ' /<or om P.

TOV Beov An. ^^ rd5v om. PAn. "^ r)XEmf.iEvov V.^* SE7c,6y iioi XoiTtov riva 6 Sfd? '^ ok iuSixEd^E PAn.

Ttpo Ttddtfi r;)$ HTi6£oo<i EyivvrjdEv * nai om. PAn.

ecf. Gen. xiv. 18 sq. f Prov. viii. 24-25. « Psa. Ixxi. 1.

» Ibid. vers. 8. ' Ibid. 17. * Ibid. 5.

56

yfTe (xtnov fivai,'' Sffov (rafjjcai^tvra, ?) av^poonoy ipiXov

oJf roi' Jixfild Hal tov? Xourovb ay':::f)0D7T(Wi;

o lovSixloi- dvBpcoTrov aiiTov A^y()/.iev co? fi'va tcov

TTpoiptjTOJV nixi ov !:^€oy odk kjti ycxij ti f.iif m uai /.loroi

T) o Sfo?,' H(xi oi) dvo 00^' i^^ieU v()/.ii^eT£.

7. 7orf o xpi(^TiO(yo? 6iei.i(XfjrvfjixTo /.ifyaXtj t(i (J^c^mj^

Xiyaiy tm oxXco,^ BXtTrere HVpioi,' ti Xtyouan' oti av-

SpGjTTo^ ecrri //"zAo?' o spxo/Aevo? XpiffTcU ai'Tcov.* i'Soj-

fAtv'' ovv Ixpxi roi)b npo(j)i}Tai^ nai ei /luv' Ssov (HTJpif-

]0 $av Tov Epxoi-iei^ov xpiGrov^ di'/Xov oti o fASa?r/ Jiai'

TTafy ;///G3r tcov xpi(^Ti^^'(^^^ TTiaTevojuevo^ ^'^ jialnpoffuv-

vovf^ievoij (xvToi taTLv aXi)^oo^ 6 ovrooi ^A^S^/i " Xpia-ro?," ov 6t EKdtxovTat ovtol oti epx^Tai^^ nXavoi eGTi

Hal avTLXpKyto^ ' €1 St naXii^ or'* 7rapa(TT7}(jo/^tev ^^ tov?

15 7Tpo(l)ifTai XtyovTa? avTov Sfor," di'iXov oti jj^uU ea^-dv

nXavoi Hal lovSaloi aXyj^evovGi.

TOTE i/viyHaffev " ai^ToiJS ual jjyayov avTol Tai /3i/i-

Xov? aincov tJi r//b idiai avvayooyt}?, i'va " e^ atncoy

fXeyx^cDCfi."

20 8. Kal npoXafiaiv epoDTcx ainovi Hal Xtyei *' ivXoytf-

ptvo^ o s'fjxofi^yo?.'" " ' r/s ovToi ecfTiv ' o spx^ji*^^^^ i

o lojySaioi ' ' o XpiffTo? 6 inoS tov JafiiS.

r) ^/iirrr/ryi^os • '' EDXoyjfptvo^ o 6fJXO/.i€i'oi ev oyo/.iaTi

HDpiov Sf05 Hvpio? Hal €7rt(f>avev iff.iiv.'"^ rjp^avTO ovv

25 HftdS,eir oi lov^aJoi, '' fTTKJxxytfbi t'luly^" \tyfi, ^tXX(*^'Ta

• e.ivat avTov P. eu'ixi oiii. An. '" nai Tftdrevoitevo^ V.

• 6 S£o5 VAn., 6 om. 1*. " 6 uyroji (xXr^Sr)? oin, P.

' 0)5 KaStki? P. xabdnEp An. "" 3eo$ xai Xfjidro^ V.

' r/7 (pMi'fjy TTiturl roj oX'^^ ^^ - " ori ffjxfrai om. An. »«<i/ Aeroi'-

yMt' V. 6iv f/3^f(J5a/ P.

• fiXenfTf ual axoverfy <o nvfji- '* naXif ov V. //;/ P. naXtv in) An.

t)i P. " TTiXfjcxCrt'/dootify PAn.' ^^lAcis *(Jr/i' P. '" 3f(JK PAn. A'/j/cJrcM' V.

• iri)ruiy XfjtOro^ P. " rfyixynadey {sic) V.

' Lveyxoo^if y PAii. '" o;ra)5 P.

' //<!k om. PAn. "• dtaXex^wOty P."* Xpi6r6<i Hixl ^Eoi ifuojy o X^x^ * " evXoyf/ue'yoS o ^fjxoueyo^ ly

rftpvo^ieyoi post IX^c'yy add. P. oyouctri xvpiov" P.

• x(xi om. P. ' idrty ovroi P.

• Tcoy Xf^'(it^t(xy(r)y om. P. " oi lovSixIot P.

• I'sia. cxvil. 26. " lb. wn. ao, 27.

57

yap SrfXoi xpovov. * Jtaraffsiffa? 6^ avrov? 6 jpz(5'rz«'vo?

rfj x^^p'^" ei7t£y Ha\w<^ Xeyere, jueXXf^TiHov eam^ • t8oo? rev

epxo/jevov Beov j{ai uvpiov'^ Xky^i^ eItk^v " ^eo'^ Hvpio<;

itai i7ti(j)ar£v ;//izr/'° eits ovv €7ra(^av€v, sirs 67ri(f>avai''

^fAAfz/ ovH effTiv 6 Xpiaroi v/ac^v, a\X^ ijfAaTepoi • ® v/jsig

yap avSfpGDTTOv eudex^f^^^ ^of €px6ju6voVy aXX ov Seov. '"

6 6t AafiiS Kvpiov itai 3for " rov eXSovra uai epxof^E-

vov eui'jpv^ev ' ojuoigd? ual 6 '^ Al3f5ajiovf.i '^ uai 'llaaiai "

ual Ttavrei oi 7tpo(j)r]rai '^eov rov ipxo^^vov *^ EKi)pvB,av •

'Haai'ai juev eXeyev '^ on '' TtaiSlov €yervi]^i] ijfAlv^ vio'i

uai edo^ij if^iv • xai jiaXeirai ro ovojua avrov /.isyaX?/?

^ox)Xi/S ayyeXoiy S^av/Aaffro^ avfAfSovXoiy Bsoi iGxvpoi^i^ovaiaarr/iy apxoov Eipi^vr]^^ narrfp rov fjiiXXovro<^ aico-

vo?.'^'''^ GDffavroo? nai 6 ^Aj^Panov^i^'' (j>rj(Siv '' 6 3eo?ano QaijAav '* fj^si.^^ ° jcaz lepsjuia? dt ^°

(j)}](jiv '' ovro^o 5eo? TfjAc^Vy ov XoyiG'^ifaETai erepoi npo^ avrov • iB,Ev-

pODv"^^ Ttaaav odov eTtiarrjiAijS sSooKev^'^ avrrjv lanc^fi rwxidi avrov, 7iai lapar/X rc^ ijyaTtijfAlvoD vn^ avrov.nau

pLEra ravra Eiti yr/£ " Gcxf)^!], uai roH av^paoTTOi? (Tvvav-

Effrpac/)!/ • ^^ ^ ^XetteiS^* on ^eov aXy^ivov"^'" EKr^pvB,av

rov E7i\ yi]i o^^Evra nai roU av^pooTtoiS avvavaarpa-(f)Evra.

10

15

20

* /LieXXovra yap rcr.X. V. iieXXtj-

riHov tdriv P.

''

^V X^^P^ ^ ;i;/9r(?rzaro? P.

® Seov xai Hvpiov rov tpx^/^^-

vor P.

' knKpavrjvai An." ei'vE ovv tTiEqjavev h.t.X. VAn.

ei'te 6e E7itq}cxvai ueXXei, ei'te I.tte-

(pavEv P.

^ 6 r)l.l£TEpO<s p.

'° vfiEli yap av3pG07tov ipiXor

rov ipx^M^^ov ekSexsO^e, xai ov

^e6v p. vf-iEK yap av^pojitov rovepxojiiEyov tHSEXE(jSE, xai oi) BeovAn. " ^e6v Hal xvpiov PAn.

'" o om. P. '' 'A/.ifSaHovu P.

'^ 'IspEjuiai nai MaXaxLa<i add.

P. ui.ioioo<i H.T.X txr/pv^av

om. An.

'^ rov Epxd/iifvov ^Euv P."^ XEyaov P. XsyEi An." Tiolo'i OVV avBpGOTto^, xaBoo<s

viiEli XsyETE, ipiXoS tdn 3ec>? i(JXV-

fjo^, t^ov6ia6TTJ's, Ttazyp rov hieX-

XovTo<i aid5vo<i; post ai^ro^ add.

P. 7ry2o5 a rS/jojTro?, xa'^co'i v/^Ei<i

XsyETEy dvi^avai eivai 5£o$ i^xv-

p6<i, tqov6ia6Tt}i, apxGay Ei(jr}yr;i,

7rar?}fj rov /u'XXovroi aioovoS ; add.

An."" \4ti/JaMov/it o 7rpo<p}}r}/<s P.''•' e)£//aV P.•'" Se TtdXtv P.

^' ktEi)pFv PAn." xai tdcoxEt' PAn.-' tTtl yyi VAn., tni r/>5 yi}<i P.

"' opa<i P.

-SvA?/37/ P.

Psa. cxvii. * Isa. ix. 6. Hab. iii. 3. ' Baruch iii. 36-38.

58

9. Kai naXiv n Jixft\6 \tyti ntfA avrov or/' '' ifiaGi-

\iVCSiv 6 Seos ini naynx" ra e'^vry' • * dia ri ami tintv '

tfiaaiXevaev o Sfo? eTzl rovi loudaiov? ; hui naXiv

oTi ^^ I'ScoffaJ' * navTa Ta e^V7] to aojTtjpiov rov ^eov

5 j}/n(^y-''^ J((ri TtaXiv ^' navTa tu aiivt} upaTijaocre x^^^-

pa?-'-'' Hat naXiv ^' ei'naTe ev ro/? ehveaiv on Hvoto?

(^ixGLX^vaevy '^'^ Ha\ 'llffaia? TtaXiv nefA vncov, ^aXXov

St 6i^ (xiWov 6 Seob einf-.v,'' on ^' naXtaoj rov ov Xaov fiov

Xaor ^i(n), jcai rov ijXerf^evor oim ?/A£//;^<:Vo?'/^*

' tov-

10 Tt(7n Ti/y (Tinuxyojyrfv vpic^y." codaifTOJ^ J{ai lauGjft o

TTixriJiapx^]^', nfjo4>t}TevGJV nepi XfjiffTov^^ evXoycov toy

'lov6ay, fiTTey'" '' ovu euXeiil^ei apx^^' ^^ Ioi)6a ovSt ^^

7)yovf.ievoi t)i Tcoy /.it^pc^y avrov foj? dv^'X^tj cd ^^ arro-

nairat xai avrd? TrpoGdouia eSvcDvJ' ' npoatx^fE, (xv-

3 5 cJ/jf?/' ri 'hxHQj/i einsj' '^ ovu ejcXeii/^ei apxoov i^ lovSa

ovSt^* i^yov/Aevoi tu rwy ////pG3r (xvrov eao? av fXB}j cp^"

anoHEircd,^^ rovrtffnv o jpz^yro^^ "next avro? npoadoKia

e^vojy.''' '' GJ? €1?''' judrt/v TtpoffdoHc^ffiv '^ 'lovdaloi ov

Ttpoadojiojffiv ' " oy yap TtpoffedoHovfiav ra i'Svt/ XpicX-

' Xf'yei TCepi avrov An., TTEfA ai"}- ' xai rov }}XF?//i£yoy x.r.X. V, xai

rov XeyEi P, XevEi TTffA eaifrov rt'/y ovh yjyaTCTjUEytjv ijyixitijfxivi^v

oTi V. P, Kai TTJy f}X£7//it£yt/y ovh ifXetfus-

' TidvTcx om. PAn. r/;r An.' fiTtEv oTt PAn. * Ei()oo6ar V. " Ti)y 6v\'ixycoyi)\' vhmv V, r//j'

^ Hal TtixXiv 6 Jaftld '' Ttcxyra rd InnXf/diay P, ri/r din'ayaiyrjr rojK

E^vTf o6a lTtoiTj6a'i f/zovdiy nal "lovdaicoy An.

itfto6Hvyrf6ov6ty tyaimoy 6ov, hv- ° rov Xf^tfJ^"^' ^oc^ !'•

piE. Hal So^a'dovdi r6 oyoud dov on '" nnEv om. et i^, ov e^ieXXei' Xfjtd-

tieyai e^ dv, nal noiccv ^av^ddta rui to xard ddpna napayiyEd^at,

6v It 6 S/?o; //oi'o5."« Hal MaXa- orlroj ttoj? <p//(Ji |X)st 7(>j;<5rti' add. P.

Xia<i 61 itEpl r(oy ^Bkwk «5/a/J- " ov6e VAn., nai P.

pijUrfv (pddHEi, Xiyccy " ovh edriy " a> PAn., o V.

itov ^eXrina ly i^//?»'," Tovridziy ^' u) dyfipE<iV. '• «a? P.

l.y roli "lovSai'ot'i, " Siort dno dya- " gj PAn., t» V.

ToX^y j'fXiov Hal 'iwi dvduuw r<) " oi>h EtnEy Toy IpxouEyov f'dEd-

ovofid pov iiESo^adrai ly roii /3- Bat npodfioHiay lovSaiayy, dXXdyfdiy'" ^ YXist //SadiXEvdFy udd. W TrpodSoniay ^Skwk j)os>t iByayr

* Hal 'Udaiai ndXtv itEpl vnwy, add. P.

H.T.X. V, Hal ndXiy Std tov 'fldtft " Mdrt PAn.

Tov npotpt'jTov XsyEi P. nal ndXiy '" itpodSonovdiy P.

X>df}E. An. '* Txpoduvyovdi P.

• Psa. xlvl. 9. » PHU. xcvli. .V ' Pf«a. xlvi. 1. " Pwi. xcv. 10.

• H»)s. ii. 23. ' Gcu. xlix. 10. ' Psn. Ixxxv. 9-10. Mul. i. lO-U.

31 1

59

TOVy iSov 7/A5f K • " dia rovro'^ e^lXiner dp^oov eB>

lovda jcai 7}yov/A£voS nai " navra ra ayaBa.enei Seizor ^^ j.ioi^* a<f>^ ov efftavpooBfi 6 XP^^'^^'^ ^

TToio? 7zpo(l)tfri]S evpeBf/ ev "^ vfiiv ,• Ttolov ftaaiXeiov "^^

e'x^re

Gi'jf-iEpov -^ Ttoi) eiffiv oi Kpirai v/ac5v ^ nov oi apxoyrei^

e^tXiTtov.'^ Ttov ai Bvffiai t^/jwv • nov 6 vao? vjjc^v-'^^

iSov ueirai epifjAO^ Kara rov Xoyov rov jpzoTo?} " ijiaqjv.

rov eiTtovTO^ ov }.uj /usivt] XiB^os eii avrov ^" enl XiSov.

apa ju?)^" ov7€ iyerero 6 Xoyoi rov jpzcrroi) ,• siTret"

"

•^^ eXevfjovrai nai apov(ji PoDf-ialoi ri]v fiacyiXetav a(/)' 10

vj.i(^v • ^^ ^* ^ Ka\ iSov eTTjjpBr/^^ i) fiaaiXEia eB, vjac^v xai

7/ 7tpo(f)7]reLa ual y Xarpeia uai i) '^iiaia. nov EiGiv ai

nXocKei^^ ai iXafSere ^ iSov ancoXovro. nov i) jiLfiGDr6<^

V/.ICOV rTJS SiaBi'/ur/? y" idov ov (paiverai. nov ro Bvaiaa-rijpiov 6 enobfae Mgdv(T7JS ^ nov // pafddoi i)"^ fSXaartf- 15

aaffa ^ nov 7] ffra/uvo? Hal ro juavva • nov?} EnWHiaGiirov vaov nai 6 Ka^api(y)J.o£ rov a'ljiaroi ^ nov ro nvp ro

KarepxoMSvov eu rov ovpavov nov nap^ vjuc^v " ei? arri

MoDvatoDi ,• nov " era npo(j)7]rj]v evpiaHere ,• nov ?/ oprv-

yo/J.r/rpa uai ro /Aavra^ ovStv aXf^Sw? ex^rEj ovSev • 20

jtara rf}v rmv rpiSv naidoov (ficjinjv *^ rijv Xtyovffav *'

'^ ovK ear IV ev rep naipc^ rovrco dpxoov uai npo(f)f}r?/?

nai ifyovfj-svoi • ovSh 6XoKavrooGi<iy ovSt ^vffiay ovSt

"^^ ov ydfJ ra- 'e^vrj 7tpo68oKovdi ^^ Eiitev art PAn.Xpi6r6v, 7/AS^ • An., idov yd ft ov ^^ oi 'Pcojiuxloi Mai dpov6tv dcp-

TtpoddoHovjuEv ra eBvt/, tJX^ev • P. vjlk^v r?}v /SadiXe/av P, ol 'Pcojuaiot

^' did TovTo uai An., tK rovrov nai 'dpovdiv intdor to f Sj'o?, yai

ovv Sf/Xov on P. rrjv 7t6A.zr xcxi to fJadiXsiov An." oi) ui)v dWd Hal P. ^^ VP^V ^y ^^^ idov :k'.r.A

" eTiei, SeI^ov V, tTtideiqov P. ^v(5ia om. An.^* uai XoiTtov, 00 ^lovSals P. ^'' TtXdnat P.

^^ nap^ F. "'' ryi SiaS7}x?/'i vua)v P. vuaiv"' fJadiXea P. om. An.'" ovH EcsXiTtov HaBa]<i i] Ttpotprj- '*

ij PAn., ov V.

TEia Xiysi ; P. "^^ xnilv P. nov reap n.r.X^^ vn^v om. P. M.oov6Eoo<i ; om. An.'" Tov xpi(^Tov ual ^eov P. ''° Ttov xdv P.'" £/5 avrdv PAn. om. ^' rr/v q)covijv n^v vpic^v naidoov3' tnl XiSov a)dE P, Inl XiBov in' PAn.

ocvTov An. *'- TT/v nepl I'^iidov Xeyovdav P,^'•^ /o/ om. P. . rr/v I'y/tfp v/na)v X^yovdav An.

' Cf. Matt. xxiv. 2. " .lohii xi. 4 '.

60

7rpo6(popay ovot ^Df-iiaf-ia^ ov totto^ tod

evGOTtiov Tov Sfop,** Hal evpelv Afo?/^* nnlov yap ro-

7TOV f$ obv vf.iiv i'dainev*^ o 5fo? Fxere aij^Epov ^ aWanavra Tavra d(f}€iX€To " eS Vf^idov dtdc^ne ual i)p.iv aina. *'

5 Hay TO 2iyd eiTC}}^ opo?*" ottod tov voi.iov edtBoD ual ov

Harede^GD, dWa XpiffrrU fuei doBai^ETai avf-iepov • " ndv

TOV ^lopdavtjy ottov'"' e7ripa(Ja<5 ei'mji, aXXa Xpidrov

enei /ianTiaBtyToi avToi nafJ iff.uy euel So^d^eTai nay

T?)y 'lepovaaXiff-i nai Ti)y ^lojy aov ti)v naXaiav "' ^I'Tttj?,

10 dXXd XpiGToi) enei aravpoD^tyroi rd ai'Tov 7raS?}paTa

euei npoauvvovvTai'"' G7jf.itpov udv^^ to opo; tcdv

eXaicoy einij^, nal Ti)y HoiXa6a tov Iojaa(l)aT,^* aXXa

XpiffTov {HeiBey aT^o'Ay/^^SfVros " avTo? itaial peyaXvy-

ETai- nay Bij^Xetp ti)v noXiy Ja/SiS'"' 8,7)Ttfai}^,^'' aXXa

15 XpicTTov fhel Tex^tyTo^ GDi ey oupayai fuei'"^ 6oBa8,eTai

TtdyTOTE ' Hal Ti Xtyco Ti}y "^lcdv, ki\1 Bt/BXetp, }((ri rnr

'lopc^dvjjy ;^'' ndpeX^e Svffiy, eTTiauoTtijaov avaToXffy^

fH8,7jT7)0oy Ti)y vn^ovpayoy 6Xify,^° atnd^ Tai BpSTTayi-

nd'S vfjffoD^y avrd Ta ianipia nal F(Sxo(Ta tov nocjpoi^^

20 wrt'z " tvptjcJtib Td pev loi'Saiojy nal 'EXX?}yooy aiaiTTco-

ptya, Td St XpiGTov nayTi'''^ uijpvrTo^sya nal Tutco-

^sva^^ Hal TTiGTEVopeya nal /3E/3aiovp£va. Hal pt; poi

eiTtf}'; oTi iSov Gifpepoy naTanoyovpe^a oi ^pzcrrz^ro/

nal aixpaXoJT iS,ope^a ^ tovto ydp egti to pn^a,'* or/ vtto

" Hrti 7}yov/iFV()<i M.T.A Jdx- " f/'Vj;? post "/f.)(>a>/.nr add. P.

rait(Z6iXi om. P. ov6l oXoxavToodi^ '''' tHE/Sev (xvaXf/cpSeyroi Xpi6-

H.r.X H(XT(X7r(i^i6(ti om. An. h(x) rov P.

T(x f^r}i add. PAn "*r;/i' Ih^SXFf.ii noXiy Jix(SiS An.,

** ot3>^ fdriv To7to<i add P. r^/r nnXn' JixfJ'tS lh;S\£f^n P.

*' f'Sayuev v^i'iv PAn. '" ^tjTy)6n^ 1*. rinr)^ An.*• (xcpFiAfro V, InyfjFi' An., ;;/jf »' P. '"' xixuF} PAn." xai rjnlv avrd f^mufi- P. Htt) " Br^SXeht, xa) rt}y 2i/ui»', na/ r6»'

ijily avrovi FScjHFy An. ^lopfidvTjy ; P, Btj^Xiht, nai 2l/&j>',

** opn'i Fi'ir0 P. o/joi oni. An. xai lopSixyrp' ; An.*"

<r AAa xdhFt df'piepoy Xptdroi ~ oAr/K om. An. ndpeXSe Svdty,

fSo^a'C/Trt/ P. fnidxiiTrr/^oy dy(xroX}}y i>ost oXr^y

"• onov VAn. ok P. add. V. •' xai Ixel P.

" 2ia)y TT/y 7T(x\(Xi<xy don V. " rraVrrt PAn." npv6xvyFlTcxi P. " xai rtnuiuFyiX om. P.

" ei xai P, ei'rF An. " 3avmt6r6y P.

' " Hymn of the Three Children," vers. 14.

61

roaovTGDv e^vGDv diGDJiOfxevoi jiai /^iiffoij/jevoi uai noXe-

jxovjAEvoi^ rijy niaTiy^^ r/i^c^v earc^aav'^'^ i'xofA.ev^'' uai ov(T/3€vvvrai,^^ uai ovrs^^ to fiaaiXeiov i)}xcS)V uarripyTjrai

0VT8 " at SHuXijaiai ifi^ic^v JiXeiorrai, aWa uai " dva-JJiiaOV TC2)V i^VGJV Td>V SlGOJiOVTGDV ^"^

7/yW^? " €KH\7](yia<i

ixofdevy aravpovi '* nriaaojx^v^''^ ^vaiaGrijpia " oinoSo-

juovjLisv^ eniTeXovfASv ^vffiaS.'''' apa""^ toiovtgd?''^ admosiariv 6 5fOb/° ci??"' ei eyivGOGJiey on TrXavaof^s^a oi

Xpi()riavoi ffvvexoopei"'^ 7/yw^?" vrXaraff^at aTroXXvffSai^*

rff TtXavj] TovTQ?v yevo? av^pooTTODv •®^

fu) yevoiro. xai-

TOi ye ODH enavGaro Ttavrore^'' 7roX6jnov/.{ev?/ 7; niaris

rj^.ic^v jiai iGra^iivij xai " fxi) e^aXsKpo/^avjj.*"'

10. Ei apa Hani] i)v 7t(2>i ov GvvexoDp7](jev 6 5fo? ' afte-

ffBjJvai ano togovtgov'EXXtjvodv, ano UepGcoVy ano ^apa-HTjvc^v • ^

i^irf yap juoi eiTtrjre on 7rai6ev6ju€^a 01 jpzo"-

navoi.^ aXX^ ejieiro p.01 ^pEvvrfGaTa* 7t(^i i)^iv roh nXa-roDfjiavoiiy ce?? Xayere, rrfv f^aGiXaiav TtaGrfZ rtfi yi)z 6

Baos'' iniGrevGe ^ 7t(^z rr/v rov xP^^t^ov" G(l>payiSa jJtxpi

7iai vvv ovSah KanjpyrjGar ''

?) anapai a^ /;yWG5r iGxvGa •

10

15

"^7) TtidTii PAn.

*^ tdrarai PAn." s'xo/iEi' om. PAn.^^ Tcavsrai PAn.*' >cai ovTE V, ovde PAn.^^ ovSe PAn.'' Hat om. PAn.'^ T(Sv Kfjarovvrcov uai dicoxov-

Toov PAn.'^ T/udi xai P.''* xai dravpov': PAn.^^ Trrjyvvo,uEy P.

^^ xai BvdiadTT/fjta P, xai exxXyf-

6iai An." xai ^vdiai kniTEXovuev P, ^v-

dia's t7tirRXuv/ii£v An.""^ apa ovv P.

^* roiovToi PAn."" 6 Seoi edriv P. edriv om. An.»' orz PAn.^"^ ycpiEv PAn.''^ ovTQoc, add. An." 7rAc»:Ka(?3az (XTCoXXvd^ai V, ttAo:-

T^ad^ar /5oi3 Xoindv xiXioVi xP^^^vi

(XTtoXEdSai P, idoi) Xoiitov itodoi

Xpovoi aito XpidTov dnoXed^ai rrj

itXdry An.''^ Ty TtXav^} Todovrov yEro<i xai

TcXrj^oi dv^pGOTtcov PAn."^ TtdvTOTE ovH ETcavdavo p.'*'' udXXov xai P.

^ wt; yEvoiTo. xairoi x.r.X

l^aXEiqjonEvrj om. An.' avT7)v 6 3/?a5 P.

^ a'TTo 2xXa^c2v add. P.

^ /<?7 X'^'^P Ti.r.X jprrJrra-

7'oz V, jii7} yap (.tui rovro dxoityj-

d7/rE r/ Ei'nrjTE on dpri Et<i rd xravra f'r;/ TraidEvo/uE^a oi XP^^-

TiavoL P, ^7] ydp rovro dxony}-

dr}rai 7, Ei7C7}rai on dpri etb rod-

avra Er7f TraiSsvojutSa and rciHv

^ldpa7]Xirc3jv kSvciv An.* Ep/in/rEvdarE P, EpjU7}yEvdat

An.^ 6 S/-(;$ om. P.

" ^/-jj'o/'oj; An.' uarapyydai PAn.

62

nnaoi ^a(Ji\eU t^vGDv, nepadbv,' 'Appdftcov* rovm €6o~hifiadav uiu ov6(}(fA(^<; i'frxi^cTfrv • i'va 6uc^)) n Sfo? or/nay diaiHGj^ie^a <>i xiiKyriavo'i, dW if^ieU ttixvtgjv fiaai-Xet:o/X8y, r/^ifl; 7tayTa)y '" Hi^pievoj-itr • to ydp //fS'

a ifi^icov na) f-)c r//f (iaai\eia<; ////Gjr ()7fi.iFh)y tov xpif>^'>^>

effTi ajf^iepov.'' iner eint ;/o/ i-i ;<;/ (jjfptlov oS? " aioj-v/o? " H(A'' aviHt/TOi j(ai dyf^^dXtinroi i/ niaTi^'" tgdvXpi^TiayaJy xai ?} fhxcJiXeia,"' ncoi Toy ffTavpny " 7rdyT€?vjiei^jiaioi'ex^poi'' y^ic^y jjicreiTs'' Jtai /3\aff(ffr//ueiTe ^

''

10 aXXd j(ai ay " jpi^o'oi'ir " GTavpoy " iSijte, ftSeXvaaea^e'''na\ d7ro(rTpt(f>3(xSe. oyTci; uaX(2>^ nepl v^wv 6 Ja/SiS""eiTTfy'"' ^^ o(p^aX/iioijg Fxovai na\ ooh mf^ovTai^ napSiay'''

f'xoDdi jtai ovcjvyjfaovGiy.^^ '" ^ ttgd^ onep noXefxeiTe tovtoTTO^eiTS, Jiai OTTSp ^SeXvffffeaSe''' tovto npo^v^iGD? naTa-

15 dtx^a'^F 7Tapa6o^Gig viKGjfieyoi ; nal^" el dpa" (f>pnytJ()iy

FiXfTE'' j'/puFi na\ vf.iiy^'' naGi^' tovto to ()T//n8ioy"- xalTO TTpavf^ia si? to nuaai na\ delSai '" oti " 6 (JTavpo?TOV xpi(}Tov fig Tovg^^ aicoyag nayTaxov^' f5aaiXevei,

TtayTax'^v*" rroXiTevFTai. rroffoi T))y TrlffTiy ?}^iGoy nai

" 7oi;fS<r/w;' Jiiid. I'.

^'Afjf'jafiojy ]*An., \lfja/Jcoy V."• fi(x6i\Evo^F.y, i/iiFig Ttdyra-iy om.

P. 7}u£lg Ttayrooy HvpiFi'ioftsy om. An." TO ydp //f S' H.T.X. PV, ru ydp

CjjueIov tov Xf->t>(jioi) Ttjs /JadiXsiai

r'ffidjy, 6r}f.tFluy too ^/j/oroi7 avTovt6Tly An.

'^ Idny P, //;' or/ An." aiajyioy P. "

;/ P.'*

7/ TT/o'r/? V, TTidn^ P, ;//' /} Tr/dni

An.'• xai fi<x6t\Fux TMV ;(/ji(>riti-

y^y ; P.

" TOV XPidrvv inld. I'Aii

'" oi Annrnl Ix'^ij'X \\ >.<»/ . / / x -n"'oni. An.

'" ^ix6ovvTf<i PAn.''^ ft\ix6(pi}novyTF<i, dnodTpii^ai ov

^vva6'bF^ d\Xd tovtov npo'bv-//aj$ xaTcxSexF'i^e ; P. f5Xa6cprfUovy-

TFif tHnBTtTGJHLXTE ; TTcoi Tth' drav-

^» rai'i^.r^ irXAd xai Tovroy 7rpo:^v.

itcoi utxtoiii ; An.""' hxy PAn. " ;t/J^(^"'' ^.•'' f58FXv6E6^F P.'* Xoopi^ dTiivpov An." o JafSiS TiFp'i vudoy P.-• xal 6 'Ildaia?^ add. P.-' xai 7cap6iay P.

" dvytovdi PAn." fifiFXvTTidSE P. *> Hiti om. P.

^' cxpcx o\y P, (xpix rorr An." «a2 Kor»' add. P.

" i'///K }<al pro ;«<!:/ j ///r P.Vn.

'* rt)/5 dnidroti ad«l. I*.

" Tt) dr/uFioy TOVTO V.

"'' TTFldHt niX) SF/c,(Xt V, (5f/4ai H^^l

TTFUUxt PAn.''

;/ TtidTii hixi add. P.\ii.

*" Tovi om. PAn." n^aVraS P, TtixyToTE An.*• n-ayror^or V, xal nayTi tco

tioduu) P, 7TnyT<xx<>r zoXitei'ETiXI

poy Ix roi xpvdiov txTCixXFiiluti ov om. .\n.

•Jir. V. 21.

63

r7]v emikifGiav uXeiaai ncxl uaTapyf/ffai edoKifAaaav uai

ovK ^(5'J^;(ra'K ,• a^.X^ avroi jj.tv TtapjjX^ov, 6 6t '' Bs/xe-

Azos^' iffAC^v uai 7/ TtiffTL?^' iffTatai affaXeurob''^ 6ia

Tov*^ Xpiffrov Tov ** eiTTovTa " on '' nvXai adov ov na-

rwx^x^^^^^i^ (yvTi'/i.'' '^ Ttov ^'ari AiojtXTjTiavo';,*'^ uai*'' 5

Ma^ifiuxvoi y*^ Ttov eariv^^ 'Hpc^drji ^ nov i'ariv Oveff-

7raGiav6?/''° Hal jravreb oi rov Xpiffrov rov? "' /Aaprv-

pas aTtoKTeivavre? ti)v dt niariv i)}.i(^v //?/ 7tcxvaavrE<i

fAjjSi: lik^LGavreiy'' uai avTOi f.itr aTtGoXovro, o St Xpiaros'"^

OVK €tf:£v(jaTo"'^ eiTTGDv ^' F(j€(jBe /.ii(TovjA€voi vno navroov 10

8ia TO ovo.}.ia j^iov •"^'-"^ sv ovv sic rc^v Svo ETtiXi^affBe^

7/ ).lt/ )ALai]re 7/yU«?^ fllJTS V/A81? /A7/T€ TCX B^VT], 7] €aV

/ai(}7')t€^''^ 7/yU^?, TTavroDi^" SaiuvveTe, xal /A7} Sf'Aorrf?/'

rov Xpiarov '^'' aX7]BevovTay rov eiTtovra^^ on ^' eaeoBe

/j.i()Ovjx£voi vno TravrGDV dia ro ovojAa }.iovP^ ov jaovov 15

Se rovTO, o-AA^ uai a tinEv 7)jaiv "^ anva Becopoij/xer

HaB^ 7]}xkpav^''' yivo/uevay uai eTtiTtXeiov avrov go5 Beov

7tpoaHVvovf.iey^^ einev on ''• H7'ipvx'^Ti)G£raL ro evay-

yeXiov ev o\gd r^ uoafxooP ^' ^ sinsv on^'^ '•^ ei ja?) a^ij-

*' r;/? 7tl6TEooi add. P, r^5 tHukii- XeH uai ijysnovai ax^7}6E63E eve-

di'ai add. An. hsv ejuov " add. An.^^ xal 7/ Ttidzii om. P. *°

7} Jin) /.ii6eIte P, 7/ mdElzE An.^3 rov om. PAn. ^"^

f.u)TE ora. P.

" ovToo^ add. PAn. =*« ut^^e P.•^ EiprfKova P, opidavra An. '"^ juidElrE P."^ 6 AioHXiTiav6<i ; P, 6 AioxXtj- ^° ijixdi, /a/r£ i3/i£?? u.r.X

ricxvo'i', An. 7rarr&95 om. An."'' Ttov P. "' fiovXojiEvoi p. H(xi fu) St'Xor-*^ uai Ma'iii.iiixv6<^ om. et Ttov TE<i om. An.

edriv 6 NepGov ; rtov 6 'OvE67ta6icx- ^'- Xpidrov 3£(3k P.

J'd?; add. An. ^^ aXr/^svovra, rov ELTCovra V,*^ tdriv om. PAn. cxXri'^Evoyra EiTCuvra i)fj.iy An.,°° Ttov Edrir X)vE6Tta6iaydi om. aXjf^ivov npoEiTtovra ijulv P.

PAn. 7COV 6 Mcxiif/iai^oi add. An. "^ 7///Zk om. PAn.^' roi3? rov Xpidrov P, rouS Xpid- •"'" «a5' rjuepav ^Ecopovnev PAn.

rot? An. '*- HivijdavTE^ P. "' npodHwovuEr PAn., Ttpodnv-" «-(r2 7; Tcidrii avrov add. P. 7'ol>/«£koj' V.^* i7rau'(5aro P. "^ eittev oti *' oi) /a/ jnEi'i^p A/3o?^'^

>crt:i TTrt/lzK " tTri /SadiXsH xai kill Xi'bov eU rov vaov vfidov'^^

r/yEi.i6va<; cxx^r/dEd^E Sicx ro ovojitd add. PAn.lAov '^f add. P, xai ncxXir " titi fJadi- "* on om. PAn.

" (/. ii. Tim. ii. 19. '^ Matt. xvi. 18. '' Luke xxl. 17.

« cf. Miuk xvi. 15. f Matt. x. 18. « Matt. xxiv. 2.

64

(Tf/?*"* 7T(^Ttpa xai f.a)Ttpa''° nai a6f\(f)nui ''' ou Svvaffai^^

aojfAaTO?''* 7(ai aijuixTO^''' avTov.'^^ eiTrev ijf.iiv'''' nefA

hXajjfAOGvrif^ hPUtttco^ avrifi' ttouIv^ einev if^iv ^ami-5 ^aa'^txi el? ovo/xai narpoi Jtal viov nai dyiov nyav^ixro;}

einev i}}.Civ on '' jueS^ vjucdv ei/ut naaa? toc? rf^tpa? /ojs

r//s (XvvTsXeia? tov alcovob.^^ '"' ^ ti? ovv eOTiv o dvva-/xevo? iXtyBoti " on TixvTa eif^evffaro''^ ev tovtoi? o Xpicx-

TO? iff.ioov y ovoei?. aptx ovu en-eaev o v(xo? kixl euav-

10 S;/" i)7t6 todv 'Poj/.i(Xiojy ;"* apix ovu extjpvx^V ^<^ suay-

ytXiov (xvTov*^ ev oXcp tcd noffjUGJ ^ apix ov piGovfAS^a oi

XpiffTiavoi "'^ Sia ro ovopa avToi) vno TravTCJV ^"^ apa

ov ^eaipelre rroXXov? naS^ ?}/.itpav /iaTrn^optyov? "" ei?

TO ovoj^ia TOV TtiXTpo? ncx\ TOV viov Jicxl TOV cxyiov nvev-

15 /uaTo?^"^ apex ov fiXeTTOfiev jcai roovf-iev oti jueS^ ifpcov

ecfTiv 6 XpiGTo? koj? TjJ? (TvrTeXeux? tov aicovo?, /a?) (Xi'y-

XODpcov uaTapyjj^i'/yai Tt)v TTi'aTiv t'/pcov • cxpix ov Becopov-

pev fivpiov? e^ I'jpcav KpVTTTaj? ttoiovvtcx? ti)v eXeifpoovvjjy

IXVTCOV HCXTOC Tj)v 8VToXj}j^ TOV XplffTOV ,'"" Tl? Ol'V /iXtTTGJV

20 T(X TOiaVTiX n(\\ T0(J(XVTCX CXVTOV tov XplCXTOV pt}pOT(X Hill

" 6 fi}} (Up/cov PAn. " ixiWov oni. P.

'•• Hcti ntfTtfja om. An. _•* vito ndyrojy add. PAn.

^' xai ciS£\(p(ir add. An. " cxfja ov ^ecopovnEv «rt3' 7/j^te'fjay

''' dvyanxi PAn. uvpioVi acpeyrai itarefuxi xai (.irf-

"" (XHoXov3 rf6ai /ioi VAn. Tipa<i, xai d7r()ra6ootie'yov? ru'* ro 6ojmx P. " TO ixiua P. xoditoj xai txxoXoviovyrcxi rco""^ eiTTEv //fS' y'ntc^y eiycxi ndda'; Xpidrco; ixpcx ov Seajpeire xa3'

rnr5 rjfiepai ^f.j5 r;/5 CvyTtXEia? tov y'fHepav TCotovyrai rovi ^/j/(Jrur-

a£(M)yo<i add. P. yov<i xa3oJ5 TtpoBlney ifuly o Xpi6-"7//^/;'om. P. rc>5 ; add. P. dpa ov '^loapovne.y""^ EiTtfy r'miy on u.t.X aido- uvpiov'i dtpioynx'i Trare'ptxi xixi ntf-

Ko5"om. P. Tapa<i, mxi nxoAovBovyra? rcu

" avroy add. PAn. Xfjidri^ ; add. An.•* rai^ra itpnJ6aro V, iil'Ei'duro •" ;^aS' t)nipay fianri'^onayovi

ravra An , itlfei^daro iy tov- n'oAAoi;5 P.

Toii P. *' ifnuiy om. P. "" apix ov dEojpe'tre 7ioXXov'» x.r..\.

" v// (UK add. PAn. .... tov dyiov irytv^iaroi; om.•* kxdrj PAn. An."* vno Tmy 'PctiuixiMy P, om. An., '^ ixpcx ov ^eojpovuey ftvpiovi

tJTCo Tcoy 'lovSitiGiy V. x.r.X XpiuroC ; om. An.

•» cf. Luke xiv. 26. I <•/. Mark xiv. 2:1, etc. » cf. Mutt. vi. 1 IT.

' </. Matt, xxviii. 19. » 76. vcr»«. 20.

65

Ttpayi^aTa, anep Ttpo e^anoaioDv troDv^^ TrpoeiTtsVy^'^ arj-

/.lepov^^ Kai ua^^ ?}jA€pav^* yivojjeva uai \af.i7TOvra,^^

dvvarcxi anwrifGai i) GnavdixXiG^ijvai^^' 8i<; aurov; fA?)

yevoiTo. j{ai yap aTtavTOL ra mpi avTov oi npocprjrai

vf^K^v " TtpoEHjjpvBay, aW vjusH ovH ef.ifjXtTtere.^'' 5

11. EpoJTijGav oi lovdaiOL ' ' el ovv apa oi TtpocpyTai

I'lf-ic^v ra Ttepl tov Xpifftov Gov npoeiTtov,'^ 6ia rl ovhsiTtov Ttpocparco? on yivGoGuere ' lovdaioi on fAeXXei eX-

Bsir 6 XpiGToS xai navGai rov vo/aov ual rai Bvaia?TOV roj^iov ,•

*

10

o jpzaTz/^ro? eiTtsv • ^ €1 eiTtov ovtgd? yv/xvco? to

Ttpay/Aa^ evBeco? eXiBa^€T€ avTOV?, Xomov 6t uai Tai

pif3Xov^ avT&)v oXa'^ suaieTe, jtal tf^eH ei? tovto i^Xan-TOfxe^a' apnyapano^ tc^v npoqyrjTc^v vjAc^r'' uaTaiG-Xvvofjiev vf^id^,^ TtavTa Ta tov XpiGTov i$ avTc^v Ttapi- 15

GTc^vTeSy uai vfAa<i iXiyxovTSi.^

12. 'O yap Aapid Xeyei^ '' ejiXivev ovpavovi uai uaT-

tftt] • ^^ * idov i) KaTa/SaGii.'^ 'HGaia^ Xeyei '^ idov t} nap-Bsvo? ev yaGTpl e'^si, uai T^^eTai viov^ uai naXeGovGiTO ovojua avrov E/AjAavovj}X • ^' ^ iSov i) ykvvifGi^. " oopv- 20

Bar x^^p^^ f^ov Jtai noda'^ juov^^ '^ Ha\ ^' i'r^coHav ei? to

/3p(^jua JjIov x^^^V^i ^^^^ ^^^ t^P' ^tfp(xv j.iov enoTiGav /as

oB,oVy^^ ^ ^ nai die/AepiGavTO Ta i/AaTid jnov eavToiS, uai

eTti TOV ijJLaTiGjAov /lov eftaXov n\ifpov •''

" * idov ^ i) GTav-pGDGli. 25

°'7tf)6 7to\X(2v iroov P, 7tp6 XP*^-

'' ^iTter om. P. " in PAn.roDi^ oHraxoOiGov ?} uai tTrexeivcx. ' vmSv om. P.

An. °- TTpoEiTtEv om. P. ** vua'i HaraiCxvi'onev PAn.^^ jus'xpt TTJ'i dTJuEpov P. ^ ndvrcx rd rov XpiCrov h.t \.'•"^ HOii Ka'^' yuepav om. P. .... iXeyxorzEi V, oXa rd rov"^ vTtEp TfXior add. P. Xpidrov tc avvoov vf.idi aXeyxov-'"'' dnidTijCai 7/ 6Hay5aXi6^rjvai rsS xai TtapidroovrEi An., eXeyx^^^-

VAn., 6xarSaXi6^yvai y diri6- rsi vnd^ t^ avrcSi' xai Ttapidrcoy-

tTJ6ai P. '" vucay om. P. re? D/y dXy'/BEiar P."^ ov fiXeTtETE P. xai ydp dnavTix ' 6 Ja/Ji6 /iuy ydp XiyEi An.

x.r.X ovx E^fiXETtETE om. An. "^ idov 7) xard/3a6ii om. An.^"'EpooTT^jita 'lovdaiuv P, 7^02' ^ xcxi " sdaoxay eiS r6 /jpojud uov

ATTOr /iETTEPA EPnTH212 x.r.X oEoy " om. An.

An. "^ EiTtov P. * t^rjpi^u7j6ay itdyra rd oCrd' I'Seze P, tya Ei'Sr/tE An. uov add. An.* TOV voi-iov om. P. '" idov xai An.

» Psa. xvii. 10. >> Isa. vii. 14. «= Psa. xxi. 17.

<* Pea. Ixviii. 22. « Pea. xxi. 19.

66

erraS^e T(YUTa 6 Xftiffrn? j eav eif^evGavTo uai JafiiS

etl'EvaaTo <> T(\vt(K ^inoDv • a\Xa u?) yevoiTo. bt\€ii

aHOVffai H(ti TJfv avixaTaaiv ai)Tov , floijt n 7Tpocpi)Trj<^

5 Xlyei ^' S,}fTt}()COfAey tov uvpioVy k(x\ {yyia^ei i)f.iai fXETct

6vo iff^itpai ' HCKi ev Ttj TpiTtj i)^dpa avixGTtjao^e^a.^^*

[1*2.' yltyei yap 6 JafiiS " aHXivev ovpavov? nai uaTt-

fiif • " * hai TtaXiv " HaTcxfijjaeTai ooi veroi eni ttohov •"^

i6()i' 7f HcxTtxfiaffi'^. 6/uoicfj<5 hcxi IIgixicx^ Xtysi ^' idov i)

10 Ticxp^tvoi ev yaarpi e^ei, nai TtB,ei viov, nai uaXlaovaiTO ovo/jcx avTov E/uiuavov?}X' ^^ ^ iSov i) yfvvT^cm. xat

naXiv aXX(xxf^v o amo? npocpjjTifi Xeyei '^ ovh ixyyeXoiy

ov TTplafivb, aXX^ (xvToS o Hvpioi i]B,ai uai (Swan j}/ud?'"^

on dt SfOb effTiy Xtyei '' uai naXeirai to ovof.ia avTOV15 /.uytxXtf? ftoifX?)? cxyyeXo^y 5fo? zo'jt^po?, eBovaicxGTTjiy

(XfJXOi)i^ eip)fvj]<iy 7ran)p tov f.itXXovToi azo3ros."*' tiTa

H(x\ Tor T07T0V TTfi y€vyff(X€cj? 67}X6dv Xlyei ^^;/// Zapov-

XcDv H(xi yif N8(pBaX?}/Uy o6ov ^aXaG0r]i ntpav tovIop6a%'oVy FixXiXaia tg3k eBvc^v. 6 Xao? 6 ){(xBt}/.i€vo?

20 ev OHOTEi eidEv epc^? /^eya/'^ TovTeOTiv o Xixob toov

ebi'ojv TOV XpiffTov eH€i yevv7]BtyT(x €SoH(X(J(xy Hal

npoaaKVvjjaav. xai Mixoda? Se 6 Ttpocpt'/Tt/i oiWai? Xfj'Si

*^ jiat (TV BtfBXee/.i, yi) lovda, ov6a/.i(D? eXaxiffTt; fi ev

Toh 7}y€/AO(Xiv lovSa' en (Tov yixp eBaXevaaTai ifyov-

25 ^evo?."^ jial Aafi\6 61 dfiJivvi oti did Ta f'Sv;/ o 5fo?

(TapHoixrBai e'jueXXev, Tpai^co? nai ayimo(TToXc^? (iTrev

^' €fta(TiXtv(yi-y o 5/^0? frr} Ta fSv;/-"** nai naXiy coi ex

7rpo(fco7rov Tor TraTpo^ npoi Toy vioy <pt/c)h' ^'' ai'T7j(Tai

nap' f/iov, J{ai 6gd(Toj (Toi fhy7/ Tt)y HX7/poy()^iiay (Tov •"*

30 H<xl TTcxXiy '' TCayTa Ta f'^yt; HpoT7f(TaT6 jf /prr?," " ^^ oti

naiSioy eyiyy7fB7f ///^m', ?'/of nix\ f'doS;/ '//</»' "*' Ha)

'^ TTixyTa Ta F'Sy7^ ooa fnoitfiJa'i //t'ToPtTM' Ha\ npoOHvyi}-

aoi^(Jiy ^yctJTTioy (Toif hvpie.'""* oti 6t iy 2£icoy f'/.ieXXey

(fxxyepovaSai o Xpi(TT(U^ Hat or/ vif'HTToi tifTiy^ ey tcd

IJ5 ttS'' ifaX/ic^) ovTCt)s Jafi)6 7rpoK/)t/Tfr(f€yy " f.ir}T})p 2£iojy

' Usrjuc nd caimt 13, jwig. 73 P; totuin om. V.

' HoH. vl. 1-2. INa. xvli. 10. «> Pen. Ixxi. r,. ' Isn. vii. 14.

•> I»a. Ixill. <t. ' Ina. Ix. 6. ' Ii«a. ix. 1-2. « Mir. v. 2.

" P^a, xlvl. 9. ' ii. 8. * xlvj. 1. ' !««. Ix. 6.

"» Psa. Ixixv. 9.

epsi avBpGJTto?, nai av^poD7ro<^ eyevvi]^!} ev aurrj, uai

avroi 8^ej.i€XiGj()€v avr?}v 6 vifnijro^ •'"'^ ojffre ovv

vifnGToi ioriv 6 X(Ji0r6<^ xai r)i6<^ rov Sfou. oti de

rfj5fk o XpiffTo? i'l^ieWev juera r;/? iSia? jujjrpo^ rrji

Ttvev/xarua/b recpeX?]'^ epx^(y^oii si? "AiyuTtTOv^ 'HGaiov 5

Tov npocpiftov aKOvaoDp.Ev \kyovro<iy " idov KVpwi na'^if-

rai erci vEcpeXi^? Kovcptji, uai i)B,ei eh'AiyxiTirov nai geig-

^7]Govrai Ta x^^P^^Tio'njra AiyvTtTOV."^ on de f5a7rTi8,o-

juevov rov Xpiorov efxeXXev 6 narr}p avooBev avTc^

juaprvpsiv, ev tgS kt} ipaXpLcS) ovrooZ yiypanrai^ '' cpoDvij 10

HVpiov ini rc^v vddcTODVy 6 ^eoi rrj? dc^tj? e^povrjjffs,

HvpioS £7ti vdaxGov TCoXXc^v.'^"^ sira nai ne.pi tc^v ^av-jiiaTGOv avrov uai iaffeoov d)y enoiiioev ^HGaicxi o npo-

q)?]Tif<^ Xeyei " avro'^ ra<? aa'^evia'i vpc^r aveXafiev ncx\

ra'5 roGovi efiaGTaGsr.-^ ^ on dh eipijvsvaai rov uoff- 15

poj^ ?}X^6Vy a^iovaoDf.ier rov Aa^id Xeyovro?, '' arareXei

ev rati r^jxepaiZ avrov duiaioawtfy xai TtXrjBo? eipZ/vrf?

eoDi ov avravaipsBrj ?} GeXr^vif. nai naranx^pievGei ano^aXaoar]? 8go<? S'aXacyffrj?^ nai ano norapc^v eoo? nepa-

rcDV rrj? oiuovpevi]?." *" nav £ini]<^y <^ lovSaie, on nepi 20

'2oXop(^vro<^ Xeyei ipevS)] ae^ npoi'oDv yap Xeyei ^^ npo

rov r}Xiov Siapevei ro ovopa avrov, uai navra ra

eSvi] pauapiovaiv avrov/'^ ua\ ^' npoanvvijaovaiv av-

rov navrez oi ^aGiXei'i ri}<^ y?}<;."^ ravra St ov Svva-

rov fz? ^oXopmrra XiysaBaiy oi>6t yap yv npo rov 25

TfXioVy aXV ovre diijpueffev e'cj? ov avravaipe^tj ?} ffe-

Xjjvi]. on dt uai Sia /3anri(fparo? epeXXer XpiGro? 6

S'fd? j)pcDv jtarapyeiv rov dia/SoXov luu rov? (Jvv avrcp

daipova?, o Aafiid Xiysi papri^pd>v npo? avrov ovroo?,

'' 6v Gvvirpifa? ra? xeqjaXd? rc^v Spajwvroov eni rov 30

vSaro?' av (jvvi^Xaaa? n)v neqjaXijv rov Spaxovro?.''^

on 6t noujrrf? ecynv ovpavov uai yi}? o ev SaXa(f(Ttj

nepinarj}(Xa?, rot") Igd/3 aHovffcopev Xeyovro? '' 6 ravvaa?rov ovpavov povo?, xai nepinar(^v eni S^aXaiJff?^? go?

eni eSacpov?.'^'' nep\ de rov nc^Xov uai ri}? ovov ecp^ cov o 35

Xpiffro? eua^KjeVy auovaoopev Zaxfypiov roi'j npocpijrov

Xeyovro? " x^^^P^ ffcpodpa, Bvyarep ^icov, Ki)pvGae,

n Psa. Ixxxvi. 5. ." Isa. xix. 1. p Psa. xxviii. 3.

<< Isa. liii. 4. ' Psa. Ixxi. 7-8. " Ih. vers. 17.

t lb. vers. 11. » Psa. Ixxiii. 13-14. ' Job ix. 8.

68

^vyareft 'lepntf(ra\?}/i ' iSov o fta<Ji\ei)<; o'o?' ^^ixtrix'i goi

V7To8,vyiov.'' "^

Ti roi'yiyy rc^yy 7Tfj()(f)7}Tind)y Tovrojy (pGiy^y T7/\ai>yt(J-

5 repoy • aXX^ onco<i naiTrep ovrooi rpayco? Ttept Tot"} Xpi(r-

Tov TGDv 7Tpo(p7jTGjy 7tpocp7}Tei)<jayT coy , a7r€Tl)(pAGO<r8y o

(TaTayd? rd Tcoy lovdaiooy of-ifAara, nai inoDpojcjey rd?

rrfi f/'t'X^/^ ^yt'Tc^y anod?^ i'ya rd? rniavTa? ^rAz/Sf?; M^P-TVpiai 7r(itp(rypai/-oyTai. xai rovTO d;/Aor xai ixya^ifpi-

10 ftoXov EK Td)y TOV Ilffaiov pTjjuaTGjy Xeyoyro? ^^ Hvpie,

Ti? f7ri(rT8if(78 tTi aHotj 7/f.iwy • H(A n ftpaxiooy Ht>pinif Tiyi

(XTtenocXtHp^?! ;"^ Sid tovto ovh j/Stn'ayTO niffTeveiy onTTaXiy ein^y 'llaai'a^ '' TeTiupXcjuey (xi)Twy rom ocp^aX-

juoij? ){ai TtarroDpaiHey avTcoy Tijy Hapdiay, I'ya /i?) i'Scocji

15 ToU ocpSaXpoIi Hai vo?/(TGJffiy Ttj 7i(xpdia Ha\ fTTKJTpa-

(pcDffry nai iaffojuai avrov?." ^ /SXerrsi? ttgo? Ttayrax^^ainoi aiTioi tj}? aTtiariix^ na\ arraiXela? avTcoy ^^orSfO"-

TJfHaaiy. TOVTO yap ijyif^aTo eiTtajy ^^ JivpiSj ti? inia-

Tevffe Tpf auorf yjAc^y ^''^ nipi lovdaiooy tovto sTpr^Jie,

20 oif TTEpi TGjy 6^ ^yojy. otl 6t aXr^St? fCJTi to sipjjf^ityoy

f-tapTvpfl /lafi\6 Xeyooy ^' nayTa Td eSyyf oaa e7Tou}0a?

i)B,ovai Hai TTpoGHvytfaovaiv eycDnioy gov, Hvpie,"**^ ytai

Td €^i}?. aHOVGco^isy St j(ai Ttepl Tcoy naiSooy Tcoy anay-TffGayTGDy tco HVpioj xtxi fiojjGnyTODv to coGayyd Jiai

"i') Hvpioy ixmoy anoHaXEGixvToo^^, ttco? ytai toi^jto Jafi\S

7TpoeipT]TtvGay Xtyojy iv tco ipaX/ucOy ^' uvpiSj o uvpio?

I'mooy, GD<i ^avf-iaGToy to oyopd Goif iv TraGtj r/J ytj uti

enifpSff jf /ASyaXoTTpfTreia Gov r^'Trepdyco Tcoy oi^paycoy.

fH GTop<xTo? yjfnicov Hixi ^jfXix8,()yTcoy yarTr/pTiGG) ot-

.'30 yoy."'^^ ti rrpo? tovto fjf^? ityTFinely, co lotfSaie ;

Trepi Sc Ttf? TOV Ioi>S(x TrpoSoGux? e'y tco /i i/^oXitcd

Xtyei '^ o fG^iayy dpTotf? ;/op ffjej'ixXt^yfy fV f'^u tttf/j-

yiGfioy.'' '"^ Tf)y S^ Tcoy lovSnicoy xni 'lIpa)S<>v yto) IliXd-

Top f7ri(i<)i^Xt)y H(XT(r XpiGTov o (i' fttXpoi Xtyfi '* hut Ti

.'}") fcppiHxfuvy f-'^yr^, )((x\ X(X(n f^aXtTJfGay ufya ; naptGTjjGixy

oi ftaGiXfl? Tt}? yfJ'S/* TomtGTiy ITtXtxTo; xal 'JlpcoSt/?,

'^ Ha\ oi /r/ajoiTf? ffiyyjfx^^ff^f^^ f^ri rn amo/'^Ayva? xal

Kauxiptx? H(x\ oi XoiTTfH (xpxifpfJ? X(x\ ypap/.i(XTe}?y *^ xtxTd

TOV HVpiOlf h<xlL JUXTd TOV j^'p/fTTOr IXVTOV .'' '^'^ Trdl'TGD?

" Zcch. ix. 9.

69

T^HOVffe? OTi " Kara rov Hvpiov uai uard rov jpzcyroi)

avTov," 6 yap TroXefxc^v rov viov v^pL3,et rov narepa.£jfz? avaiax'^^'^^^'^ nav ini rovro, go lovdaie-

Ttepl dt rcdv Seajuc^v gov edooOcxv rov Xpiarov, raXa-yi8,Gjv rovs lovdaioviy 'H()aia<^ 6 7tpocp7frr]S Xiyei ^' oval 5

rrf tpvxrj avrcov diori /SajSovXevovrai fiovXrjv novyjpav

uaS' iavrcovy Xtyovre^, Sf/ffaoj-iev rov diuaiov on dva-

XpiGroi ifjAiv €(friv."^^ ipcorrjcjov Xoinov rov lovdaiov

Hal eiTti: avrcp, rU av^poDTtGov eTtl rijz yjj? avajjaprr/ro?^

evdrjXov on ov6ei<^ • Xeyei yap Ttpocpavc^g i) ypacpif on 10'^ ovdeii jiaB^apo<; ano pVTtov, ovd^ av juia yjutpa i} 8,gdi)

avrov €7tl rrjG yr/?."^^ ual naXiv cpi^alv 6 Ttpocprjrf]? npoirov SfoV '' }^u) €iatXBrf? sis upiaiv jusra rov SovXovGOV, on ov diJiaiGD^7](jerai evgottiov aov nai <?o3r •

''^^

Gjffre cpavepc^S didaffHopieS^a on ovSsl? avajuaprt^ros el 15

pi?) eU 6 S-fo?. auovaGo^av ovv ri Xoinov 6 7tpocpt]r7]£

'Hoai'ai SiaXeysrai ijjxiv nepl rov TtaSrov? rov avajuap-rr/rov XP^^'^(^^ '''ov S'Sov, '^ go? npoftarov inl Gcpayi'/v

VX^Vy ^^^^ ^^ afj.v6£ evavriov rov Hsipavroi avrovaqjojvo<Sy ovros ovk avoiyei ro Gro^ia avrov '" ^^ SjjXov 20

St on iaicDTta 6 XpiGrob UiXaroD 7tapiGrajj£vo<; ajtl ro

Tta^oi avrov * ^^ ev rij raTteivoDGei avrov i) npiGiZ av-rov i]p^7] ' r7]v Si yeveav avrov ri? dirjy7]Gerai/'^^ rov-rtanv ri^v npoaiGoviov yevv7]Giv • uard Gapua yapyeveaXoyeirai XpiGroS 6 5fo?. sira ndXiv ^^ ano rc^v 25

avofAic^v rov Xaov j^iov rfxei sk S^dvarov "^^ dijXov dt

on vntp rGov afiapriGDv rov KOGp-OV XpiGro? antSavev •

^^ Hal SodGgd rov? nov7/pov? avrl rij? racp7j? avrov/' Si'fXov

on rov? lovdaiovs napaSovi roH 'PGo/xaloi?, " Jial rov?

nXovGiov? avrl rov ^avarov avrov •^'

" Sid rlj go npo- 30

cpi'fray eint 7)}xiv • ^' on d/.iapriav '' cp7]Glv ^' ovh enoL7jGevy

ovSh SoXoS evpt^rf €v rep Grofxan avrov." ^ rii dv^pai-nos go? npofiarov inl Gcpayr/v yx^Vy d/Aaprlav //;/ noi-

TfGa? y aXV OVH i'xovGi Sei^ai avS^pconov avajiidpr7/rov,

€i U71 juovov rov Bsov rov yevoi^ievov dvBpGonov. anov- 35

GGJJ.16V St ual nepl rcov i/:€vSoj^iaprvpGJv rc^v Hard rovXpiGrov ipsvSo/xaprvpiGdvrcjv ev faXjuc^ XS' '^ avaG-ravre? jjoi f.iaprvpe? dSiHoi d ovh eyii^GOGJiov 7^pGoroov

jue ' avraneSlSoGav f.ioi nov7jpd avrl aya^(^v.'' "™ S7}Xov

« Isa. iii. 9-10. " Job xiv. 4-5. ee Psa. cxlii. 2. "h Isa. liii. 7.

" vers. 8. " ji^a. n vers. 9. """ Psa. xxxiv. 11-12.

70

oTi ODV f> XfJi(fT()<; ey tg5 \acfj rravTi TreTtohpiev Trpcorov

f.itv rifv f'S;<)S()v avrcov rifv e$ AiyvTiTov nai tol Xoinapivpia ayaira a f/? avrov^ eipyacfaTo, eTtEira 6t next

T(n>s yoaovvTdb ama>i' inKUxiitvo^. nefA 6t rc^v fiaGii-

5 ycoifavTCiiy nai /jaTrKfayTCjy tov XpicTToy Ilaaiai o npo-

(ptjrifi Gl)3 en npoGoDnoxy Tot) XP^^"^^^ ovtoo? ^(ptj, " toyvcoToy //op dtdcDHa eii }.iaffTiyaiy rds 6t (Jiayova? /jov ti?

paTTiaiXixray to 6t TTpoGCtJTTov fAov ovH aTttaTpEif'a arro

alffxvyf/^ £;/7rr?'(Tywr^rGjr.""" 6/.ioIoj5 6t nai o npoipi)Ti]i

10 Ja/HiS en npoGoDTTov tov ^'pz(5'Toi} ev \Bi ipaX^cp \tyai on'^ eyco eis paffTiya? e'Toi/.io;j jcai i) aXyr/Sojy /.iov evoDniov

piov effTiv Sid 7cavTo^."°° nepi St Tt')'; npaaeoji tov Xpiff-

Tov Xtyei Iep8/uia<; o TtpocprJTf/i ''' nai i'Xafiov toc TpianovTaapyvpKx T?/y Tijui/v tov T8TijAJ/pavov oy eTipTjGavTo ano

15 vioDV Iffpat}\y jiai i'Sojua avTa eh Toy aypov tov nepa-

ptoD^j HaSd avvtTa^lv f.ioi itvpio?."^^ apex tovto ncxptx-

ypai/'aoBtxi SvyixaSe^ cj lovSaioi, ojrsp npo ocpScxXpoJv

TTayTch TOV HO(jpOV TtpOUaLTlXL i)l TOTe )£(Xl J^(€Xpi TOV vvvy

Xtyoj Sf) 6 (xypo? tov Kep(xptoji aii Tcxcpijy toU Sfvoi?.

20 oj(X(xvTco^ St H(xi Zaxt^piii'^ o Ttpoc/jjJT?/? Tttpi Tcov A ap-

yvpicov &3; tji TtpoaoDTTov TOV ^'pzcroi) '^ Kix\ tTi^aixr

Toy j-iiffSroy piov Tpid)toyTix apyvpiov?.'' "^^ OTi St Tt)y

(Xpxfjy T//5 (TGiT?pjuxi ifpc^y ?) yovv Toy Tipioy OTavporfv Toh iSioi^ ixtnov copoi? (/i(X(TTa(X€v 6 XpiffTO? vi/:qj-

25 StU ty (XI Tcfiy 'Hffauxb Trpotcpi'fTevffey Xtyojy *^ ov ;; apxj)

fTTl TOV c6/(Otf aVToCf^''^ TOVTtGTiy O 8,00071010^ (jTlXl'pO?.

TTtpl St TOV tt; txHixy^oov (JTtcpayov ytypanTai ev

ToU adptxdi Tcoy ixapaTt^yy oinco?, ''• SvyaTtpe? Itpov-

(TaXtfPj t\^tXB(XTt Hai I'StTt Toy GTtipixyoy ov icTtipix-

.'50 ycoaty ixvToy if pifTf}p ixvTov," " TOt>Tt(fTiy // av%uxyioyif

Tobv lovSa'nijyj ptlTtjp yap XpiCTTOv avTtf nara aapnavoelTai, *' eV ifptptx vvpiptvatcoi avTov hix\ ty ifptpa

tvcppocrvytfi uapSia^ ainov ' '"^ npoSt/Xoy St oti // f/papa

TOV nrx'^oi^i: T(>v j/j/r/rrjr ff/Jtpa i/y tvcppocsvyfj^ at^Tov

35 Sid Ti)y (fu)Ttfpi(xy t/piHy coiJTttp yap anav^ai Tiyt?

ovTuib VTTt^pxoy ai dpapTiai tov noapoi^ txffTiva^ tX^cov

o ^/jzfTro^ ^' o dpyoi tov ^tov o ai'pajv Tt)y amxpTiavTOV horrpotf'' ^^ tSf/Xtifl'fy. u(i'i uix'^dntp Sia tov nap-

nov TOV t,vXov ;/ dpapTia Ti)y ticroSoy t^x^^'y omoj?

»» I»a. I. 6. "-^ IVa. xxxvii. 18. rp Zrrh. xi. 12-13. « lb. vore. 12.

"iBa. Ix.O. " Cant. lii. 11. « John i. 29.

71

6ia rou aravpov rov Jioff^ou i) acorrfpia Jiat dia rovro€v jiT/TTOj TO TtaBo? Tov XpKXTov eyevsTo. eTteiS?) tv napa-dfiiaco naptfti] 6 A6a/,i 6io xal rep ^irjarfj Ttapadeiao?ano rov aravpov avoiyerai. dia rovro St na\ oopa

eurrf o XpiaroG oravpovrai in^iSi) ro Seikivov 6 'ASajx 5

i^opia^?]. joA//? 6t yeverai iva rrjv yXvuvnjra ri'fi

TTiJipd^ i)6ovi}<i rov A6a/d iaa?jrai. paTti^erai i'va a/uoi

rrfv fXevBspiav j<a'pzo'?;r«'z. ejdTtrvrerai i'va ro ifxcpv-

Gi]^a rov dyiov TtvevjAaroi rffjiir dojprjarjrai. cppayeX-

Xovrai iva ro ettI rov vcorov rfpc^v cpoprior rc^v d/Aap- 10

ric^v (jHOpTtiar].^ yvjuvovrai ev ^v\od iva rrjv i}xi)y

aiaxf^^V^ ^fi^TioLG)}.'^ Savarovrai i'va €/xe ^GJOTtoijjfftj.^

jiaraupiverai iva f/zi r//? Jtardpai aTtoXvai]. uaXafAi}

rrjv KeqjaXifv rvnrerai iva n)v rov ocpeoog jcecpaXijv

(?vvrpLi/:t].* Xoyxi} n)v nXevpav vvrrerai i'va rrjv in 15

TtXevpai rov ASdfi nrr/GBeiaav yvvaiua BepaTtevffr},'"

Hal rrfv cpXoyivijv pojxcpaiav ri)v uaB^ i/jic^v arpecpo-

}A.ev7]v 7tavG))y^ Hal ri]v odov ij^iv rov Ttapadeiaov dv-oi^ij.'' on dt ev fxaffcp ri]<i yij<; ajueXXev 6 xpi(^T^o^ ffrav-

pova^ai ev rG5 oy faX^cp Xeyei ovrco? 6 Aafild, '' 6 6e 205fo? fiaffiXevS r/pc^v npo ai(^vog eipydffaro aoorijpiav

ev jAeacp rrf<; yijg." "" on 6e pierd Xr^arc^v epeXXev 6 XP^(^-ro? aravpova^ai 'Haai'a^ 6 Ttpocpyri]^ cpifGl " nal perdavo/AGov eXoyiaSip""'^ nepi de rc^v ijXqdv nal rov Siape-piG^ov r^v ipariojv ev tpaXpcp nd ovrao? yeypaTtrai, 25" c^pvB,av jffpa? p.ov nai 7i6da<; pov, e^ijpiBpijaavTtavra rd oard pov-'"^ nal ^^ diepepiaavro rd ipd-ria pov eavroHy jial enl rov ipdrwpov pov efiaXovHXypov.'' ^^ opoiQii 6e nal T^axoLpiaZ 6 npocpi'inji nepl

rcov "jXcDV ovroDi ecpi}^ ''nal epovoiv npoi avrov^ rl 'SO

ai TtXijyai avrai ai avd ptaov rc^v jezpr«?F gov ^ 7ial

epeiy a? eTtXijyr/v ev rep oiucp rep dyanifrc^ pov.'' "'

Tiepl dt rov aiioraGpov 6 avrog Trpocpi'/nji ZaxoipLa<i

Xeyei '^ nal earai ev eueivij rfj i)pepa ovn e'arai cpc^i^

ual 7/'vxo; Hal TtayoS earai p'la i)ptpa, nal tjpepa eneivif 35

' dHopTtidei cod. * dvyrpiipsj cod.

^ 6HE7td6Ei cod. * Se.pa7tEv6ei cod.^ ^ojo7Cot?}6Ei cod. ' TCavOEi cod. ' ai'oii,Ei cod.

"" Psa. Ixxiii, 12. »» Isa. liii. 13. "* Psa. xxi. 17-18.

" vers. 19. yy Zech. xiii. 6.

72

yva-KTT?) rep uvpiM, nal opj i)fxtpa nal vvS, xat rrpd? €ff-

XtyfL *^ H(u F(JTaL ei' tutimj r;/ t/fUfjay Xtyti jtvfjio?

5 aei fTTi yf/i (v tfl^tpa rd </>g3?."*** hiu Jqj?}\ d Trpoc/JT/Tr^s

Xtyei'* o f/Azos nat 7} ffeXijyTj (JvaHOTaaovaiv^ uai 01 dart-

fj€? dvffoixn TO qjeyyog avTcoVy xai xvpio^ Scoffei (/JOJ%n}y

ar'Tov.''^^^ dri 6t i'l^ieXXov d^oi «^yz joA;/r TtoTicifiv rdvXfJKJrdy^ ifuxXf-iov Brj anovaco^ev XiyovToi '' edojHav

10 6/5 ro lifjQo^ux /uov joA;;k, ucxleii tjjv Sifav f.iov indri-

aav //f o<?05 •""^^ iSov xai 1) (JTavpcocji? xai ra iv aVTtj

7T(xpaK()X<w^7f(JavTa. 610 d avTd<i TtpocpjjTjji Tovroi<; tol

l^itXXovTa TTpoXtyei, '' yeyrj^jjTGD 7) rpaTreS^a aindjy iroj-

TTiov aiJTc^v f/s Ttayida, xai aU avTaTtcSoGiVy xai f/s

15 (yxavSaXov ' axoria^jjrcoffav 01 ocpSaXjuot aindov rov pi?)

ftXtneir, xai Toy ycorov avTcov Sta TravTO? (fvvxa^i-

t/^oy." '^'^'^ x(xi Sux Tov npoipijTov Afi^axov^" aTTSiXei 6

Bed? ToU ovTQO diaxei^tvovfJiVy jtai pi?) niGTevovGiy^

Xtyojv ovToji, ^' I'dere 01 xaTacppovf^Tai xai €7Ti/i}til'aTe,

2U Jtat Baxff.ia(Jarey oti fpyov epya^o^ai eycj €y Tah 7ff.ii-

pai? i^f^idbv, d ov fut) niGTevai^Ti lav ti? if^lv fxdujysi-

Tai/^ "^ TtavTa tolvdv to?? loi^Saioi? apf.ioS,ei^ a? xai

McJVGt)? Torroi? eTrepi^aireiy Xtyaiv ^^ xai earai 7) ^(k;;/

Gov xptpa/^itv?/ aTTtvavTi tcdv oqjbaXpcov Goi'y xat

25 (pofi7fBtfG)j i/ptpa? xa\ viniTo?, xa\ ot) niGTevGei? Ttj S,u)ff

Gov.'''" nap'i 6t T7}? ExxevT7iGeQj? t/~/^ '^'TA'/^ Xtj'fi

Zaxtf^piff^? d 7Tpo(pifT7}? '^ )ia\ eTTifiXtfovTai npoi p€ f/s dv

(BsjitvTjfGay.'' ^'^^ Ttepi 6t tt}? ayiai ainov nXevpd? T7''i?

€xftXi^GaG7f? TO atpa xa\ to vSojp d atnd? 7Tpoip7fT7}?

'M) Xhyfi '^ €y t(i 7)pipa exeivtj e^eXfi'^GeTai vSa^p ^coy f\^

hpoifGaXZ/p."^'^^' axot}Gopey 6^ xa\ Toif 7Tpoif}7fTnv

IlGtxiov 7T€pi r//? ra(pi'f? tov jiifpiov XtyovTo?, xa\ ottuj?

SiaytXa tov? lovdaiovi, *'' I'Serf CaU d Sixaio? anooXaTo,

Jia\ ovdeh fwdf^fr^/ rtj JtapSia,"^^^ t) yovv T7/y avrov av-

35 aGTaGiv ' xai naXiv *"' arro 7rpoGa)7rov aSixia? 7}pTai o

Sixaio? xai t'GTai ev eip7fytj 7} ratpu trvTov ' " ^"^fip7fy7fv

" 'AufSixHox'n c<k].

•• Ztrh. xlv. r» 7. •" Ainoji viil. 9. •"••" .I«>ol Hi. 15. »" IVn. Ixviii. 28.

•">•' \vT». 28-21. "• Ilah. I. 5. "' IVut. xxrill. 66. »" Zcch. xii. 10.

"" xlv. 8. ' I..a. Ivli. 1. "» vers. 1-2.

73

6^ Xtyei ore IltXdro? jjet' eipjfvt]^ TtapeSoDKev to (Xcojua

Tov Hvpiov 7//^G3r hfffov XpWTov Tcp loDGijcp. 6/Aoico5

6e Hex I A(xf3id Tiepi ri'fi racpr/i avrov \eyei ev ra5 rt^

tpaX/d(^^ odS eii TtpoaoDTtov Xpwrov, " eSerro /xe ev Xax-

HOD HaTGOTarCf) ev GuoTeivoii Jiai ev auia ^avarov --'^^^ 5

uai TtaXiv " nai eyevijSt]v &)(yei av^pGOTto? ix/3or/Br/TO?

ev vejipoH £A£i;5epos/'™™'" // yovv ava/uapTfjro?. ye-

ypanrai dt ual ev rep Igo/3 ovrao^y '^ avoiyoovrai 6oi

q)6^oo TTvXai ^avarov, nvXoopoi 6e aSov iSovre? Ge

eTtrtf^av,"'^'''' difXov on ai evavriai rc^v Saijuovaov 6i^- 10

vafxeii. ofAoioob 6t uai ev rep ^8, ipaX/uS ovrooi yeypan-

rai, '' eB,ayQDv 7te7te6fj^evov<^ ev avSpia, o/xoigj? rov?

TtapaTiiKpaivovrai rovi KaroiHOvvrai ev racpoi<;." """^

on dt 6 XP^^'^^^ ^^ "^9^ ^^^ anopLeveiv ovh ejxeXXev aXXa

rpii}ixepoZ aviffraa^aiy t/;aX/AOu le anovao^ev Xeyov- 15

TO? on '•' ovK eynaraXeiipei? rrfv rpvxrfv /aov eii adtjVy

ovSe Sojffeii rov ocxiov aov iSeiv SiaepBopav/' ^^^ ual o

7rpocp7}rt/b St '£l(j7]e ovrao? eq)r], '' jtopevSc^iAev uai enw-rpeipisOfJLev npoi nvpiov rov S^eov i]i.ic^v, on avroi nenai-

KEv TffAai nai iaaerixi i]^(xi j.iera dvo i)fxepcxi • Ka\ ev rtj 20

rpiT)] ij^xepn avaaryjoOfAe'^a ual (^jjGojxe^a '

'"^'^'^ iSov

nepl rtfi avaffraffeco?. nepl St rcov /uvpocpopoov yv-

vaiuc^v 'Hoaiai 6 7tpoq)t]r7]i einev " yvvaiuei epxo^e-

vai ano ^ea? Sevre- ov yap XaoS effnv e'xoov (yvve-

aiv.^'"^ nepl 6e r//? avaXi^ipeoDi Xpiarov ev i8, tpaXfAcp 25

yeypanrai " ual enefiif enl x^pov^l^, ual eneraa^ri enl

nrepvyoDv avefAoov." ^"^ ual naXiv ev )a8, tpaXjAcp '' aveftij

6 -S^ed? ev aXaXay/Aco, uvpioi ev cpcovrf (faXTriyyoi/'^^*

ual ev rep npocpi)ri^ Zaxocpia yeypanrai '^ ev rrj i)}Aepa

eueiv}] anjffovrai oi 7t66e<i uvpiov fz? ro opos rcDv 30

eXaie^v ro narevavn 'lepovffaXijfA e^ avaroXcor^ ?/Xi-

13. Ti<; XoiTCov eu rcov npocpijrc^v ravra auovoov

nepl Xpiarov,'' ovx ojAoXoyei avrov Seov aXij^ivov

^

* r/5 XoiTtov eu rear h.t.A.. Y, r/5 rc^v Trepl avrov pr^Sei'toov P, Xcn-

ovv ravra ndvra aHovoov in roov itov r/$ ravra axovoov Ik r&jK iif)o-

^eiaov npoqirjrc^y nefji Xpi6rov, xal cprfrojy nepi rov ;t;pi(5rot; An.

'" Psa. Ixxxvii. 7. '""™ Psa. Ixxxvii, 5-6. """ Job xxxviii. 17. °°° Psa. Ixvii. 7.

ppp Pfia. XV. 10. •Ill Hos. vi 1-2. "' Isa. xxvii. 11. "• Psa. xvii. 11.

»»' Psa, xlvi. 6. u"" Zech. xiv. 4.

74

I'f^i^i^ yotp ovK dv^pQjTToy iJhXov amo^^^ X^yo^iei'^ uWd*Sfnr* eyay^pajnijaavra, nai '" si'ScoXa' JiaTapyijaavTa,

S'DffuY^ SaLi^ioviuai'' mxDiJa^^Ta, /ico/uov?* xaracfT/jt-

ifuxyTd'. TTov eiffiv at Bvaiai AiyvTtTojj • rrov at ^av-5 Tuai Mtf.nptaj^ ^^ ttov slfft (x/fpiepov oi tov A'f/AoK '" ffe-

fio/Aevoi ; TToif T//5 ApTtfJ-idoi o rao'i ; nov tov vaov Ktf-

<?/Kofj " ai fiavTEiai Jtai bvaiai ^^"^ anojXovTn TravTa'*

ra rdbv daifiovGJv npctyf-uxTa tov XpiffTov '^ (pavtvT'oiy

aravpov " TtaytvTn^. XpidToi '" Travraxov TTpoanvvsi-

10 T(xi Ha\ 6()BixS,{:Tai, ual ovu aidxi'yovTai oi'^ lovdaioi ei-

ScoXoBvTai f}/-id<; itai eiScoXoXaTpa? '" ovo/ja^ovT€?. 6f.tQJi

ovStv ^evoy • naiJa yap yinn) Ttopvij ro idiov ovo/ua

Ttj eX8t)Stpa yvyaiul TtapiTiSf/aiy,^'' HiJaS,ovGa 7Topyi}v^°

Jlffaiiov^^ ){ai lepifxiov Ha\ avTov tov SeanoTov ovu

15 iq)tiiJ(\()Sey nal 7i(^=, iff.iQDv fj^rf " (pelaaffSai ^ ayco^'

/jtv 7rp()()Hvy(2>y eiuoya'^^ Xtyoo doBix Got o beo^ tcov

dyiojyy uai ov Xtyoo doBa Goi ^vXoy // 8,Qjypacpia '" GvSt^" TrpoffHvycdy'' T?}y eluova, Xtyeib^* do^a (To^ " JSa-

ftovx^x^oyofTop. fyoD npoajivycoy^'' Toy GTai^pov, ov

20 Xtyui Soc^a (Xoi'' SvXoy •

^'^

//;; ytvoiTo ' (^XXd Xtyo) So^a

' atiruy ipi\6y P. Xoovoi xal ndrrccy rujv Sai-

* (xXXd vai P. jiioyoijy; tov yd ft Xfttdrov An.

* }}^tfH yd ft ovH ?i. r.A beuv '^ nal Cravoov PAn.

ora. An. '" u 3£o5 An.' xal om. PAn. " oi oni. PAn." Ei6<M)\d TE An. '" Mixi eiScoXoXdrftixi f'/tidi P.

^ Sctittoycoy An. " neftxri'^y P.

* 'jtai)6ayTa, (ioonovi oiii. .\n."" noftyr; P, nenoftvfviuytf An.

" Ttov 2£ffJf:yyvroi i) zdy ^iiiosya ^' nXi/y 'UocxCov P.

6e.fio^ityj/ ; rrov "(Jyovfpi^ t) Toy uroy ^ y'/tttoy f^/^rf V, f^frf t'fttc^n- P,

TiftodHvyorda ; Std yd ft tovto rd i/n/y ro/5 ;f/j/(5r/(t»'(u? *^*rc An.

TotavTn oyofiaTd add. P, ttov 2f- '' niti tyc.) P, ndyuj An.

ftr/vvTo^ y) Toy 2^iuGJra 6Ffion£y)/ ;"* rify fihnya P.

nov Noixf't^ f) Toy <>iyi)y Uftoonv- '^'' ^x'^Xov 7f^rDypacpiWi kn,

vov6tx a<l(l. An. "^ hcxI An.'° t)\i<)y An. "*'

TtftodExvyjfCai^ \n.

" vaov Kv'^ixov VAn , A rr/i,..f) "^ etirix^ An.

yaov P. "^ 6oi om. An." ai StKj/a/ P. »° Ttftoduvyuj An.

" oXa P. *' dot om. An.

"a/ nayTFiai xai h.t.X " ci'Aor An. ;} ^oaypaifux 6r 6f

TOV XpiCTov Vi*, (1/ uavTEuxt Vi/ToA- n.r.A (Jo/ iJi-Aor om. P.

75

Goi aravpe navrodvva^JtE 6 rvTtoi^^ rov XpiaTov' " ffv

St TtpocDjcvvc^y rov jiioffxov Xiyeis^'' '^ ovroi oi Seol goviGpajfX OL eBayayorres GS en yj)<; AiyvTtrov." " eyao

aix l^icxX GOT 18,0 i^iero^ jcai TVTtropisro? uai acpa^o/xevoi^'^

ual^'' TtoWa'^*" ?iaTa7Tovovixevo£y rov ^eov fxov ov)c ap- 5

rovpiai • £1 Se '"^ rivs? jpzOTzai^oz *° j/pvjjffavro, aXX'

ov roffovroi*^ v/uei?*^ St yu^/ " cpovevS^tvre? ** ano ipiXov"^

rov ^Eov npay}.iaroZ^^ r/pvijCDaaBe.

14. Kai eneidi] eiTtare dia ri ovu einov yvjAvc^s 01

TrpocpT/rai itEpi JLpiarov,^ epGoroD v/ua? uayc^, dia ri ov 10

nponnov vjxiv nepl rov jpzcrroLi/ on I^XtTtere,'^ iX^eiv

fxeXXei * av^pcsDTZoz mxXovfxsvos hjGovi,'' ^1) niarevarfre^

avrcp on TtXaroi sffnv^'' ovrcj? avoijroi Jiai jSpadaiS

rif napdia nXavov nai ov Xpiarov^ npoadexoi-i^yoi^

sari.'' ' 15

15. Ka\ ).uf6ev' )j.oi eiTttj? Xoittov i.ii]Sh syHaXefftj?^

Sia rl^ raS eiuovaG* npoffuvvc^. aXX^ eueivo jiioi eint

6ia ri " n)v einova rov NafSovxodovoGop ev Ba/3vXa)vi

<jv^ 7tpoa£nvvi]6aZ nairoi ye e'xoov euel rov'' AavnjX

^^ 6 TvTtoi rov dravpov P. ^ nai ^eov t)/iiGJv add. P.^* aXXd Xsyco 8 oca rov Xpi6- ^ (SXeTtEze om. P.

VOX) om. An, * sx^i PAn.^^ eXeve^ p. "> opdvE add P.^^ dq)az6i.iEvo<; P {sic). ^ TtidrsvdEirE P, TtidrEvdars An.^'' >{ai rvTtroHEvu^ Hat 6(paZ6litEvo<; '' uai 06a vheK uar avrov k^-

nai om. An. ay&iv Haxidrov 8iaroia<i uai dvai6-^® Etrj TtoXXd P, TtoXXd ettj uai An. ^i;j'rm5 xal 7tapaTiXr]^ia<i XeyEve^^ 8e xaiVAii. add. P. dX?C ovrooi rov dXr}3iv6v*^ XPi^^'^^ocvoi om. P. Xpidrdv uai ^eov, ov oi vrpocpT/Tai

*' ov T060VT01 V, ov T060VTOL oDi TtpoEHTfpvqav, Hal ^ EXydavtEiy

An., ovTGoi ovH rfpvtfdavro oSi P. TtXdvov xai ov Xpidrov EHSsx^dBe*' tv DafjvXojvi, itj'fTE rvcpBEVTEi add. An.

Ui'/TE add. PAn. " EdEdSar add. P.

" 8e /ht) om. PAn. ° 7tpod8E8Eyiit£yoi P.

** dapEVTEi Tvip^EvrE<i m/TE 8a- '" idvE om. P. ' /.ii) P.

pevTEi An. ^ /.ujSe EyHaXidrfi era. P.*^ dXX dito ipiXov pi)^iaro'i TtdvvEi ^ tyoj add. P.

PAn. '' T7}v Eiuora rov Xpidrov P.*^ Ttpdyf-iaroi om. P, r6v Beov '" dv add. P.

7tpdyiiiaro<i om. An. " dv om. P.

' rov xpidrov PAn. ' rov om. P.

» Ex. xxxii. 4.

' 76

7iat Ieftef.iiav nat le^exn/X ' xai aWov; npocptfrai 6i6a(J-

HoyTa? (j8 • juiii iihoi'i nfjoffeuvvt/aaTe aybpcoTtov,* nai

iq)i'\aSixy,^^ hcxltoi ye roaavra (J7//uiia nai rifjcxTa

5 ^iGJfjf/iJayTe? ^* e'y Aiyvnrcp uixl ey tkxvtI tottod ijtzo

MojvaloDi " iy Tt) epvBpa ^a\d(J(Tt}," ty t[\ ipfjfACj, ev

TCD dpet ro3 ^lyd,*' ev (JTvAai ni^po?, tv veiptXt] (pcoTo?.^"

TTore 6 Sf(>s ronxvra enoij/ae m^i^^^ ttote 6 Sfrk rivi

iXaXifCSty ey ^lyd"^"^ ovtqi?'* Sia rof-iov^ uai aaXniy-lU yutyy"^* Hal Ttvpob, uai (paiyc^y, Jia\ aiff^itiajy roiovTaiy^

yo^oy doDi vf-ily,"^^ /.lavt^a fipt^ai, 7tp(>(pt/Tai avaSti^ai,id e^vrf vnordBai, aXXoq)v\ovi " f^oXo^pevGai, rdsTrXana? eTTidovi," t;/f 6kijvi)v i)f.icDy avTO? diarimco-

(Jai, Mojvffia^'^ g?? " Sevrepoy ^eoy tottottoiov*" v/.iiy'^

IT) uaT(x(JTfj(Ja<^ ^ 6j t;/? 7roXXy<; vfjicov 7tojpoo(J€GJi ' cd r;/?

Haj(f)? iff.iQjy yyoD^tfi' gj r;/? axo(piffTOV vf^iGoy npoaipt-

(j€co^ Hal Tt^cpXooaea)^ ' dyoo ey to3 opei Mcjvffi/?^^ vrrtp

V}.i6bv tiy(jjyi8,£To'^* uai holtoo v/^ieU tov /noffx^^ f^(k;K£t;fr£ *

dvoj eneiyo? ror S^or TrapenaXei wo'z " av toy ^offxov

20 TtpoaeHvyeii • to f.iayya I'/ffSie? nai Toy ^£oy vppi^e?

-

Xtyei ydp o Jafi\6 ^* ^' e'ri Tf/5 /^pGjffeo)? ovat)^ ey 7<y

(XTopiaTi aDTc^y nal opyij^'' tov ^eov aylfhj en av-

"'lEZEHii/X P/E:iEuiay V. Haile- " Iv ^lya o\u. PAn.

pe^iav nai 'le^ExiifX oni. An. " ovrc^ P.

• avSpaJTCov TtfjodexvyT/dare P. ** dyyfXiHcoy add. PAn." xai li Hi) VAn., el xa'i P. " t5///> PAn., i]n)v V." xa2 oni. P. " Kai //oko/ oin. An. "^ aXXocpvXovi PAn., ix\Xo(pxX-" rd ni6Td P. '* r£y '^eqS orn. P. Aot>5 V," TToi; j'//f/? TOO S«g5 ni6Td l(pn- ^ eziSeScdhm^ V, fTiiSoJOaS An.

Xdqare ; a<ld. P. Trot"' Eint //o/ 7Ti6r<r' '" A/ojcJ/a PV.

icpvXdsitre roji 3f gJ ; a<ld. An. •'a')? oni. An.

'* bEcofitf6ayTE'i VAn , bEoopyj- ^ ronoTroiovyra PAn.<5rt5 V. " I'v/?!' P, avror npu^ viid<i P,

" MoadeoJi PV. ixvroy itfiui i'//<i$ An.'" /k rj7 i*aArt(;<Jj7 rf/ ipvbfjd P. " HitKi6rr/^ P.

" roj 2tyd om. I', ^k raJ cV'^^ r<i5 " Mckidi/S V.

^iKa om. An. •* t}y<Mjyi!^t;rn V.

** />' ro) ofjEi 2:ii'd add. l*.\n. " Htxr&J add. IWn."' ;rorf 6 SeoS rnurvra (iya^ii ** on add. An., Uixi roC JafJiS

litoit}6Ey iToTE Tivi; P. noTE 6 nnovdoy A/koktoS pro Xeyei ydp3«o$ rotixvrcx dya^d rtyt Inoiif- 6 JitfJiS P.

dey; An. '^/) o/a;';/ P.

77

rov? •^'

« " uai "/^v j^ot einrji *° Sid ti tov *' vtov rov "

Bsov TtpoffHVvc^ ' dXX^ dne /aoi ai),'^ did ri v/a£i? viovi**

jtai ^vyarepa? v/acov,*^ go? Xsyei Aaftid, s^vaare toi?

6ai/Aovioi?^*^ Jiai*'' Tcp*" BesXcpeyG)p • yu;/ ydp vf^isH nia-

riv ix^Te ' ju?) yevoiro. dHOvaoy*^ Mcoijffeai'i^'' npo? rov 5

Xaov Xeyovro^y^^ uairoi ys tots epical " ^eocTe/Sy? ?)v 6

Xao? Twv 'EftpaiGDv—aXX^ duovaor ti XiyEi MoovGijij"'*

'' yeved e^sffTpa/A/uerr/^* edTiv, viol " of? ovh effri TtiffTi?

8v avToU • "^ uai ndXir '' ovto? 6 Xaoi /.laopo? uai ovxi

(yo(p6<5 • "" uai TrdXiv '' yered GKoXid uai dieaTpafAjjitvi], 10

ravra uvpioD avraTroSiSoTe/' *^ 7iai dXXa /xDpia jrepi

v/AGJv ^^ €v Toi? Ttpocp-qTaiZ ^' EK ^60v ^* stpj^vTai '^'' '^tn'ov?'-

ydp q)7](Jiy '' eyevvrjffa nai vipGOffa^ avTOi 6i jjs //SfT?/-

(jav. xai^" eyvGO ftov? tov uTi^ffd/ASvov uai ovoi TVfv

(pdrvrfv tov nvpiov avTov' lapaijX 6e^^ jue ovit eyvoo 15

jiai 6 Xao? JUS ov Gvvrfusv. ovai 8^vo? dfAapTooXov,

Xao? TrXijpjf? avopiK^i'."^'^^ uai ndXiv 6 avTO? Ttpocpr^T?^?

^Hffaia? Ttpo? vjAd? cpijffiv^^ " anovGaTB. Xoyov nvpiov,

^^ uai TtdXir er nadir rovroi's " ^sode/3?)i ijv 6 Xaoi x.r.X

Tj/Liapror en Xsyovrsi '^ tTcei Itcol- McovO^'i VAn., itpoi xaipov Beo-

racs Tterftav, uai eppvvdocv vdara, de/^ovrroi rov Xaov, aAA' ouaos rrjv

ycai x^Luappoi xarEKXvdSpdav '/iiTJ fii vdrspov vf-idav ddefSeiav npoXe-

Hal dprov dvvarai dovvai, 7} hroi- yorro's uai tXeyxovroi xai P.

/itddai rpocTteZav rep Xaco avrov ;' ' ^* ysvadr ezadrpaimevr/v P.

ov did rovro Xeysi on ^^r/uovdE ^^ edm^, viol om.P. tnoi am. et eidiv

Hvpio's xai drEfidXsro, xai nvp ^votdzLvAn. dnoxaXovvroi xai iv

dvrf(p^rj hv 'laxoj/d, xai opyi] dveftrj add. P.

£Tti Toy ^IdparjV ;^ add. P. ^'^ dXXai f^ivpiai f.iaprvpiai novi]-^° xai cm. P. ""^ ovv Xontuv ad. P. pai nepi vitaiv sldiv P, dXXai //f-

*' rov om. P. *'^ rov oin. P. piai naprvpiai ntpi vj^kSv Ttorijpai

*" dv om. P. eldiv An.** rovS viovi P. " £>' raH npocpi/nxali fiifiXoi'i P," iHiGoy xai rdi Bvyare'pa? PAn. ev ralS Ttpocpy^raiaii vjti&jv An.''" 055 Xeyei Jaf5i6, tSvdare roli ^*' rou 3«oi) PAn.

fiamovioi'i, VAn., E'^vdars roiidat- ^^ eipyjusvai PAn.fxovioi<i, &35 XiyFi 6 Aafiid P. "» xai om. PAn. *' j^iov PAn.

" E^vdav add. P. "'^ diiapnajv PAn.*" yXvTtra add. F. '^^ (pjjdiv om. An. 'HdaiaS Ttpoi

" xai dxovdov P. '^" Mc^df-'oo<i V. i)i.id<i (pydiv om. et dmapriaS vnwv^' Xsyovroi Ttpo'i rov Xady PAn. IxxaXvnrooi^ TTovrfpdi ovroo drrj-

" q)r]di om. PAn. XirEvoov XsyEi add. P.

«Psa. Ixxvii. :iO-31. " Dent, xxxii. 20. «= /iirf. vers. 6. '^ Ibid. b^.« Isa. i. a-4. ' Psa. Ixxvii. 20. « Ibid. vers. 21.

78

apxovTE? 2oS(^f.iCjjv ' TTpofftx^TS Xoyov '* HVpinVy A«o?I\)jAopfS(K?."^ opaTE (Ti ^()6()/.iiTa? Hat aniOTovZ, na\

Xaov f-ioDpov Xtyei rov? lovSaiovi"' o Sfo?, jtai eiScoXo^v-

Ta^, j{a\ T8HV()'^i}T(xiy Hal 8iH()V()XaTpa<5y Hat a7Ti(JToviy

5 Ha\^^ axfypic^Toi^^y" Hal effnoTiafxtvov<i, nai ayj'Gj^f)va?,''

Hat yfvedi' novjjpav Hal SteffTpa^^tyrjVy Hat Ttn^a //&?-

f.njTa' '" " Hal s'Sfixxav'" Sai/uovloi? nal ov Sfoj-'" ^^ ual ey-

HaTtXiTtov'^ heov toy non/cravTa ai)Tni)b, nal aTTidTT^ffav'^

ano Seov dojTfJpo^ ainwy/' ""^ ^ €fj€in^i^(ja)/.ier ovv nal''*

10 Ta? ypacpaiy''^ eav'^ nepl dXXov oiovSZ/TroTe eSvnifg 7)

ylvoDb'''' TotavTa nal''" TOffavTa nana ""^ 6 S'fo? narrfy-

yeiXev, f) €j.tapTvpr^0s diHaicoi.^'^

10. Kal yap ev lepo(joXv/.ioig TrevTf'/Hovra nai ' 6voETTf €7roi?f(Xav Bdovts? €v T(p r^aco"^ roU eidojXoi<i^ nal roj

15 dia/3oXay enl Mavaaarj rov fSaaiXioo^ fieftrfXcDadym rovvaov Hal T7/V ttoXiv rov ^eov.* Sid tovto ev Ba/3vXcdvi

j(al dna^ nal devrepov TtapidojHer v/ud?'' Toh XaXSaiot?€1? aix^tivXojaiav ' eira naXiv v/Ad<i j-ierd e/SSo/ATfJiovra^

€TT/ av£HaXeaaTO. apTi ovv Sf'Acj piaBsiv e^'' v/.tody

20 /^£ra TO aveXSeiv i^/ui? ejc Baf3vXc^voi nal HTt(jB?jvat

Tov vaov t'ywo3r en Sevrepov*' ev 'Iepo(joXi>f.ioib nal ev

avT(^ v/ud? npocjHvyelv Tcp ^fo3 nal ovxl eidooXoii* noiavdpiapriav eTtoitjaare evojTtiov tov Beov ,* on iSov e^a-

HoGta^" sTtj^^ ev naai) Ttj yfj eaHopTTiffev t\fid?y^^ nal

25 j'fyaye TItov nal Oveanafftavov ann 'Voof-iif^y nal Siecp-

" ruuuy I'An. ' nal oin. PAn.•• rov'ilovSaiot)'^ XevFi pro \tyei ^ tov 3

£

oC^ adil. PAn.roi)5 Vov5a/oi'? PAn. ^ ro?5 Sai'itodtv P.

"• Kai om. P. '" rf add P. * rov Sfor xat n'/r TroXiy P.•" Tf. viov> mid. P. " 6 Sf o? add. PAn.*' JZ7TOV? re. 37/At-'//a»'£/5 adil. i'. * <>' P.

'" 3i;oj'r(r5 P. ' Trap P.

'' lyHaraXtnoyrni P. ' In devrepov rot' taor ruc3y

'' aVotfrai-rn:? P. '^ ari'ror P. IWn.'* ovv Hal V, fij) P, oi'i' An. " ov To]<i eiSwXoii P, <)j'»,^^r/ ro?5

" Ao/7r()»' add. An. '" e'l'nefj 1*. fASoJAor? An."

;/ yivoVi om. PAn. '° i^cxxoOta «>in. P. ohraxoCia xai" Toiavra nal oni. An. nXEiora pro f^aHo6i<x An.

" xaxix om. An. " X'Xtit add. P.

** lySiHcoi P. ?} luapTV()tj6e 6t. " fCxoprctCey t'ttds ly na6^ r^

xaicDS om. An. vrj P.

" l8a. 1. 10. ' Dcut. xxxll. 17. » Ibid. 16.

79

5fzpf " jiai sfftpa^sv " fV 'lepovaa\7)f.i nepi nov^^ ajtarov

nai 6ana jAvpiaSaS '" gd? Iojgjjtto^ " (jvveypaiparo • 7iai

ivETtvpWav Tov raoVy uai epijfiGoffav to BvaiaGTiTpioVy

Ka\ ra ayia^ nai n)v noXiv naGav, real ri)v 2iGDVy ?cai

?/j//<arA(i?rf i^o'o'r ^® v;.ia? ' nai effta ev 7ra(X)j rij ytj diaa- 5

Tcapfxiroi ?ia\ '^ Trapavojdovvre? ecjb ri'js arffxepov. uai

idov i^ajioaia efiSof.u'piovTa'^" arrf ov ^vaiaGtijpioVy ov

Hi/3Gjr6?y ov npocpi)ri]<^y ov ronoZ^ ov tov ^' naax^^ <pv\a-

7^7/ •" aiTte yap^^ v/xiv 6 ^ao? jutjSa/iov'^* Ttoujaairo naaxoi-

aB,OD 'lapoGoXvf.iGoVy fxj'jra av AiyvTtTcp aiaaX^aiv.^^ idov "^^ oi 10

ncxrapaz v^^v a^aprr}Gavraz anaXal^ov'^'' davrapov aix^oc-

XaoTiff^avTaiy jiai 6 vaoi dar]pi]^GO^r]y nai diT]Wayt] v/xiv 6

Baos ' " rvv"^^ da Ttoiar afAapriav anoirjaaraj nai roiavrr/v

fAayaXrjVy on ovuaTi ?)yaipav v/aiv tor raov^ ovxaTt

dyrjyayar vjxaZ an rdfv a^voav ,•'^ apa ^* ai6(jD\oi<i a'Svffa- 15

Tf ^^ TOV? viov? Hal ra? ^vyarapaS vpic^r ^^ c^anap " oi na-

rapa? v}X(^v ,• apa bikovi npoGaKVvrfGara gd? axaivoi j apaah TOV vaov aidcoXov affTijcjaTa Goanap^^ 6 ^® MavaGGiji

^

^^ die(p^ sips om. An. tpr/noD6avV. ''^ devrspov aix/uocXooridBevrs?

" €dq)a'zav e^ vnc^v PAn. w.r.A vjlu^ o 3ed? V, devrepov'^ Ttepi nov om. P. pro eodem xav iv BafivXoovi alxi^iaXaiTEV^evTE?

An. kK devrepov, kcxl devrepov rov'*^ euaroir nai diucx /ivpiddai V. vaov tpv/.iGD^Evro<^, uai diaXXayr}-

uvptadai pi P, exardv j.ivpidda<S rai avrov<i rdv Seov uai oiHodo^tf-

An. B-^vai rdv j'cxoi' An., tv AfyvTtrcp

" 7ca(j7/7ro? 6 vju(2v 6vyypa(pev<; Ttporepov, eira ei^ BafivX(3va cxti-

/twi'oi ravra eu^SMevoi An., 7&;- rJXBov a/^/^aAojr/cJSfVrf?, Hcxl tt}v

dr/TTTtoS 6 6o(p6<i vuaJv dvyypa- itoXiv ndXtv dneXcxftov xaraXXa-

cpeviV. yirro<i vfilv rov ^eov, xai cohoSo-

'" ^XM(^Xcjn/6cxv P (sic). HV^V " ^^^^ ^" Hixi om. P. ^^ yvv de V, i;//£25 de P, v/iie2S xai

=° ecLXKodux epdom'jHovra V, Xoi- An. ^° dyrjyeipev P.

nor xiXicx P, oHrax6d7cx 7(ai nXeio- ^* vf.uv om. P.

vex An. ^' rov om. P.^"^ ovxiri VAn., v/ticov, ovre P.

'' (pvXdrroyrei v.^"^ vjucx<; ex rc^v e^i^oov dvvrfya-

""^Elite rdp Y, xal yap eiTtey V. yev ; P. dvrjyayev v^di tx roov

^* nr/dancji dXXaxov P. tx-P^^^ i-'^^"•

" fqoj x.r.X e^deXSelv V, £///;/^* vneH add. P.

tv 'lepovdaXt'/u P, £/ //r/ tv 'lepov- ^^ t5//£25 add. An.

(Ja/l?7yu • /urj8e eii Aiyvnrov eideX- ^^ rolS SamovioiS add. P.

^eiv An. ^° Kat i(5ou XoiTtdv P. " oj5 PAn.^ dneXaftov An., aVfA^vok V, '" oS? PAn.

om. P. '° o om. P.

80

apa TtpoqjtfTai aTteuTeivare ^ ovSapico?.*^ Tivo? ovv eve-

7j^€t? pii) eintjre tt}v aiTiaVy nav vfAeU Oiyr'jaijrSy oiXi^oi7ieHpa$ovT(xiy nri (kc// ov tov XpKJror iarixvpooaaxE

5 f^itxpi Jia\ rvv Ha\ tii tov {riaova 6 lecjnopniaS^7]T8,*' eyvfi-

r&?S;/Tf/'' fcUoDX^VT^y ^'^^ raov nal r//? ^icor " 7ia\ nd-Otj^ T?}? ** Tov vof.ioi} XaTpela?.*" ot yap Ttartpei I'f/jcoy oi**

/.to<7X07roiT}(TavT€'S,*^ hat ev tgd vao) tov benv d^apTJfGav-T£?," uai Tovi ifiov? aindov uiA Tai Bvyarepa?*' toH

10 Sai^iovioi^^'" ^j>(TavTe?j efidoj-UfuovTa eTij 7ia\ euaTov*'^

ey Ba/HifXoovi rf/i UepffiSng 7rai6ev^evT€?, atfvexoopr'fSif-

(Jav Ttavra'''^ exeiva rd af.iapTJff.iara^^'^ nal avSHXjj^jj-

aav'"* t')/.ieib St ot'"" ei? XpiffTov ''' djnapTf}(fayrs? or^-z"

ifi6o)AJfHOVTa fV;/ ;/ enaTov er BaftvXc^vi ri^i IJapGidoi

15 eTTaiSev^fjTE,^'^ aXX^ e'oj? tj}? (JvvTeXeiai tov alcot^og e^a-

ftXij^ijTe ' ?}/.ieU St Ta e^vij i)7to " XpicXTov fVAz/S^z/^fK,

j(at avTcp Soi}Xevo/A£Vj j(ai avTOv"" 6o^d^o/.i8y dj^ia tco

7raTp\ jial'^^ tu) dyi'ai''^ Trvei^/uaTi £zs Tot'^? aicovtr? • ''

aiufv ."*

20 [IT.' 'Iva St eu ttoXX?}? TCEpiovcria?, xat xd tc^v 7n?'-

daiaiv avaiax^^^'Tt^ (TTo/uaTa Jtai /iXd(TcpT//ja Sf.i<ppd^Gj-

*° ovSatico? om. et <tp<r //;/ xai " oXa P.

vueH &3? oi TCare'pF.'i vn(^v zov x^^- " ^^^ duapTi/iuxra tHEii'a P.

Xovv ocpii\ Toy 1)116 TOV MooiuSscoi ''\h'FH\t}^T^6ar PAii,, m')'£hA/'S?;-

7C£7rotf;tt£yoy, 7rpo6£HVi'7'/6aTF, xal day V.

l6ffJ(x6^T/Te coi oi Ttar€pE<i I'tic^y ;"* o/ om. P.

Hal ydfj xal tovto f/> eXeyxoy '^ ei? t6i' Xpi6t6v P, ^ r XptdTojI'/icoy yiypaitTat add. P. An.

*' TOV ^Fov p. -* ovx I*-^"-

" xal add. \\ ''" f/JSofiT/uorra fttj jc.t.X

"^/&}»' VAn., noXecoi P. fnai6e.i'if;TF. V, / /i(5o//;/«o»-r.i ovSi** TcdyTcoy TGiy P. Fnardr irtj /loya An., Ffi8o^rjxoy-" XarpFiMy P. ra Tr^/ P.*• oi VAn., Hal P. " viol An.*"* Hal noXXd TTapayonTfday T F ^

*"*<rt'rc3i An.

ndd. P, TtoXXd napayoftrjOarr t i add. ''' dvr An.An. «" atWov a<ld. An.

'" d<5efJr}6ayrFs \\ '» rcor a/aircji- odd. An.*"* Hal Tdi ^tfyarf pa; om. V. '* t'/nti^ Si rd eByj; vn>) Xpid-•* roJ SiafJoXaj PAn. tov iuXifSyfuFv h.t.\ duify" k/SSom'fXovTa FTTj Hal (Hazoy oin. P.

VAn., d ert; y nal itXeloy P. ' od flneni P. totuni om. V.

81

^ev, Hai i)}xiv roiz vno Xpiarov GSffGD(jf^8voi<; TtXeiova

Ta yiKt]ri]pia VTzap^rj avayiiaiooi avra. uai aito rc^v

Tov AaviifX XoyoDv, j.4dXXov dt rcov rov ^€o{} tc5v vtco

rov ayyeXov npos avrov prjS^evTODv^ Troir^ffao/je^a rriv

i^eraaiVy aTtodeinvvvre^ on Xoinov rov Bsov reXeov 5

anoarpacpeyroi rd rc^v lovdaioovy ovntri Xoinov nap^

avroU ovre ispoDCJvyij, ovre yao?^ ovre avra ra r;/? no-XsGj? T/S^rj xai Ttpay/Aara €7tayjj^€i ' nai dijXov an^avrwyrcov rov ayyeXov pj^judrajVy '' Aayi7]X'' yap (pr]6iy '^ dyrfp

e7ti^Vjj.i(^yy (Xvy£5 fV roU XoyoiS ois eyc^ ijX^oy XaXrjaai 10

Ttpoi G€, on €1? Kaipov Ttipa^ o efiSo/xddss, (prjGij GvvEr-

fxrj'^rjaay ini roy Xaoy Gov, xai eni ryy noXiy rov oiuo-

6oju?^!^r}yai •'"" ^' nai oiiiodofXTi^rfGerai nXareia uai nepi-

reixoi, Hal iKKeyoj^rfGovrai oi xaipoi • " ^ nai " dnoiB>oSov Xoyojv rov oijiodojur^BfJyai 'lspov(XaX?}p. i'cj? 15

Xpiarov i)yovfj,8yov iftdo}j.ddes inrd uai e^do/xdSs^

e^TjHoyradvo/"^ onep eiffW irrj rerpanocfia ny • ''naiap^ijaerai ^vaia nai Gnoydi] uai eni ro hpov ftdiXvyyiarf]Z ipi]p.0D6£0DZj'^ ^ nors ovy ypBy i) ^vffia^ Jiai r/ anoy-dtf, uai 7] Bvaia rov yofxov ^ ovxi rov xpiGrov iX^6yro<; ^ 20rh iany 6 jp^c^tk dyioZ dyiooy ei //?/ o xP^^^^os ,• Ttspl

ov Hal r?)5 iydo^ov avrov TtapovalaiXtyei 6 avros AavujX'^ eBsGopovy ay opafxan r?J? yvnro?, nai idov jAsrd rc^y

yecpeXcay rov ovpayov go? vio5 ayBpcDTtov ipxoiAeyo?,Hal 80J? rov TTaXaiov rcoy r/fAepc^y eq)^aGeyy nai npoGrf- 25

vix^V o[vr(p ' Hal avrcp edo^jj i) dpxi), nai i) ri^i)^ nai r/

fta<jiXeia, nai Ttayre? oiXaol, cpvXal^ yXc^aaai avrc^ dov-Xevaovaiy •

?; e^ovaia avrov e^ovffia aiGDyio? ?}n? ovTrapeXavfferai, xal ?/ /SaffiXela avrov eii rov? alc^vabov diacpBapf^aerai/'^ iSot) ffacpc^? Sid rc^v elpjj/xiyojy 30ejudS^ojdev on avro? acxriy 6 vio? rov Ssoi)^ 6 (lapHoo^als

Hal TraSajy Si^ ?}/Ad?y nai avaffrd? an vanpc^v, nai dvaXtj-

cpBah av So^ij Ttpo? roy avrov rrarapa, nai jAaXXojy ap-

X^<y'^oLi jxara rc^v yacpaXc^y rov ovpavov nai doB,!]? ovpa-viov Hpiyai B,(^yra? nai yanpoik. oj.igo? nai rc^v Xoinc^v 35anovaoopayy " a^aoopovy '' yap cpr^aly '' aoD<i ov SpovoiaraSjjffay, nai o naXaioi rcoy rfjAapcov andBiffay • roaydvp-a avrov XavHoy ooaal xigdv, nai if ^pl$ ri'fb nacpaXiji

avrov GJffal apiov na^apov • 6 ^poyo? avrov cpXoB, 7Tvp6<i,

» Dan. ix. 23-24. »> 76i(/. vers. 25. <= Ibid. "^ vers. 27 ^ Dan. vii. 1.3-14.

6

82

oi rpoxoi avTOv jrvp (pXeyov • Trora/Ao? Ttvpo? iiXnev

F^mpoa^sv cYVTov ' ^^zAz<:^ri ^zAzart^f? eXeiTovpyovv avrcp,

j(ai /.tvpiai j^n^piade? TrapeiGTiiHEiaav avrcp • npntjpiov

ena^iaev, uat ftifiXoi i/vecpx^V^^'^ '"' ^^ i'cppi^ev to nviv-

5 //Of /^^i^^ ey(^ JaviT/X/' ' XoiTtov del niGTODacxG^ai rdfipr^/jtva €H Tc^y rov ayytXov pt^/AarajVy oti napa lovSai-

oi<s ovHtTi i'arai ovre rao'^, ovte ttoXiS, ovte ti tcov naf^

avroi? yo/ui/AGJv. si xai iB, anpai avoiaS, ravra npoaSo-

udbGiv axovaov ovv ri 6 ayyeXos eipjjuevy on (prjaiv '^ eoj?

10 avvTeXeia^ uaipc^v awTtXeux ScoSi^Gerai enl 7i)v epiffioo-

Giv,'"^ TODTecTTiv €0J? GDVTsXei'ai Tc^y aiojycDy nai rov

HOd/Aov Ttayrog GwrtXeia dcoSf/dETai t7i\ Tify tfjjfiiCD-

<Jiy T//5 Tf TToXeCfj^ uai rov vaov tov iovdaiuov • fcjj,

(pyjGi, (JvvTeXeiai naipcov uai aicovcoy tpi/f-icoGiS raXeicDi

15 Jia^tBei Tcx Taiy lovdaicoy • oray dt auovaeiiy co lov-

6al€, ()VvrtX8iay, ri Xoinoy npoadouai ^ ri rovr 6ei

TCpofftxEiv rc^ Xtyoyrij eoji ffwreXsiab ain^rtXeiay eaea

Bat nai ept'}f.iQDGiy^ f) roU X?fpQidoif(Jiv p?}j.iaaiy ayano-

Seiurois ^ i'va dh //;/ inij-ieiuiaroy nai ntpa rfj? dufyifaeooi

20 inreiyoDfjiey rov Xoyov, orrep f.iinpov diiv j)f.ia;, napi-

SpafAE, rovro npoa^ivrsi roU eipiff-ityoii jiaranavaoo-

/A8V rov Xoyoy ' Sio cpijaly o Xtyojv " t^ecopovy rors ano

cpQDV7)<i rc^y Xoyojy rcoy f.ieya\cDy ojy rn ntpai eneivo

iXaXei, eao? dvtjpeSi/ro ^ifpioy •"' npodj/Xoy St on ro S;/-

25 pioy 6 dvrixpKTToS iany • o yap inoi rov ^eov ' " f'pxo-

fitvo; t7t\ r(2>v vscpeXcov rov ovpavov/'^ HaSa)^ ytypan-

rai, ^' dveXei avrov rep Trvevjuan rov (Troparo? avrov •"'

avr(D yap TTptnei // So^a eii rov? aicovab rcov aicDvaiy .

apjjy.

:3() IS. f^Yvra fu noXXc^y oXiya fu rcov dyicoy 7Tp(>(f)jfrdoy

nafjeStpa^a npoi pty ijperipav raoy Xf^i(^Ti^^^'(^*' psi^ova

niarcoaiv, npo? f'Xeyxov St rf/? iovSaini)? anXfjpoHapdia?

Ha\ (ppeyofiXafiia^y on o fU rrj? dyia? uat S,aio7Toiov rpta-

do^Sfof, Xoyoi nal Seov vt'oi, n nvptoi t}pcoy It/dov? Xpiff-

35 T05, avr(U Sid rf}y ifpsrtpay aconjpiav in^ fVj^arajr rcoy

ypapcutv u'tp'^pcoTTicTey en ri}? nayayia? axpi^vTov Sea-

TToiyj/? ifpctyy ^Fornuai* uat aft nap^tyiw Mapia?, ual

ndyra Sfonpsnc^)? trTrepyaffapfyo?, uaSco? ual oi ay tot

f Ibid. vcrp. 0-10. » von>. l.').»" Dan. ix. 27 ' Ml. 11.

» cf. Dan. vii r.\ : M.-itt \xiv :*) ' -f. U&. xi. -4.

83

7rpoq)T}rai npoeinov, eaaoffsr in ryi rov sx^P^i^ TtXavrji

nai dovXeia^ ro yevo? t/jagov • V7t€p ovv rwv roGovroov£V£py£ai(^y, wv rvx^iy napa rrf^ avrov dya^on^ro^rf$iGD^7]iA£Vy artovdaGGD^ev avrcp evapsffroi dradeix^ff-vai did rij^ rcov dyioDV avrov evroXc^r ejiTtXi^pGoaeGoiy

OTTGO? T(^v aiGoviGDV HOI aTsXevT/fTGov dyaBc^v inirvxoD-p.£v €v avTcp Xpifftcp rep ^acp rji^ic^v' &> rj do^a uai roKparo'^ €1? rovb aicova^ r(2>y aioovGDV • ajdrfv.^

NOTES.

The Title.—For a full discussion of the title see p. 37 ff. It is there

shown that the ^yord^Ava6tddlov, which occurs in V, did not originally

form a part of the title, and it is therefore omitted in our edition.

P. 51, 1. 9 ff. The incident here referred to by the Christian consti-

tuted a favorite argument for those who wrote in support of image worsliip.

The passage in Genesis reads, in the A. V., "Israel bowed himself upon

the bed's head.'' Tlie Hebrew word translated bed is HDD, which means

led or staff, according as it is pointed niijp or JltSD. The LXX. chose

the latter meaning, and translated 7tpo6Exvrrj6Ev 'idparjX hni rd aupov

rrji pdp^ov avrov, which was followed exactly by the author of the Epis-

tle to the Hebrews, xi. 31. In this form the passage was frequently quoted

in support of image-worship, as, e. g., by Psuedo-Athanasius in the extract

quoted just below, and .by Leontius in his discourse mentioned on p. 17.

The Vulgate, meanwhile, translated the passage in the Epistle to the He-

brews adoravitfastigium virgm ejus, giving quite a different turn to the sen-

tence, and furnishing a still stronger argument for the worship of images,

which Latin writers were not slow to take advantage of. Our dialogue

likewise follows the Vulgate in making the dnpov rf/i pd/3duv the direct

object of Ttpodenvvr/de.

P. 51, 1. 14 ff. Compare the words of Pseudo-Athanasius in the Quces-

tiones ad Antiochum ducem, xxxix. (Migne, Pair. Gra>c., xxviii. 621). Thesame line of argument is there presented. The incident in regard to Jacob,

mentioned above, is reproduced in the following form : nal oo6itep ""laHcofi

/.ieWoov reXtvrdv kiti to dnpov rrji pdfidov rep "'loodrfqi TCpodEHvvrfdEv,

ov TTJv pdfidov rijiicSv, dXXd rov Tavrrjv HatEXovra n.r.X. Compare

also the discourse of Leontius mentioned in the previous note, also John of

Damascus, Be fide ortliodoxa^ iv. 11, and Gilbert's Tractatus de incarnatione

c. Judcws (described on p. 23). The same argument occurs very frequently.

Another still more common method was to show that even under the Jew-

ish dispensation images were used and sanctioned by God, as, e. g., the

brazen serpent, the cherubim, etc. Still another way of meeting the Jews

upon this subject appears in our dialogue, p. 75 ff. This introductory sec-

tion upon image worship occurs in An., not at the beginning, but in the

second treatise, in connection with the other passage just mentioned. Thefirst tract of An. contains no reference to images.

86

P. 51, 1. 23 il. This sliows tlic long standing of the practice. The pas-

sage from Pseudo-Atlianasius referred to above makes the same statement.

P. 52, 1. 3. The original dialogue begins at this point. In regard to

the addition of the opening paragraph, see p. 37 ff.

P. 52, 1. C. This is a favorite passage with the authors of works against

the Jews, but it is commonly employed in a different way; cf., e. g., the use

of tlie same text in the Dialogue of Simon and Theophilus, p. 19 (Ilarnack's

Tcj:te und Untermchungeii, Bd. I. Ileft 3).

P. 52, 1. 8. According to Theodoret (in liis commentary on Daniel) this

passage was applied by the Jews to Zerubbabel.

P. 52, 1. 9. The agreement of An. with our dialogue commences at this

point. It lias two opening pages which are entirely wanting in P and V.

It begins the present passage with the words eiJtl d€ 6u n.r.X. Its mixed

construction, sometimes direct discourse as in the present instance, some-

times indirect, clearly shows it to be a compilation, at whose basis lies an

original of dialogistic form.

P. 52, 1. 11. The form of the Jew's answer is significant. A real Jew

would certainly have responded: ^'At least the half," etc., putting the

em{)hasis upon the greatness of Solomon's kingdom, and not upon the

smallness of it, as he is here represented as doing. This is but one of many

marks of the artificial character of the dialogue.

P. 53, 1. 1. The abrupt way in which the Jew passes on to a new sub-

ject, apparently quite satisfied with the Christian's answer, however meagre

that answer may be, is a characteristic feature of the majority of these

dialogues, and another mark of their artificial nature. The. present dia-

logue is, however, extreme in this respect, for neither assent nor dissent is

ever expressed by the Jew, who occu}>ics, in fact, quite a passive position,

and drops more and more into the background as the dialogue proceeds.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, and Evagrius' Dialogue of Simon and The-

opliilus, are a deviation from the common rule, for in them tlu; conclusions

of the Christian are often disputed, and he is then obliged to ground

them more firmly. This is a significant fact, for at the time when tliese

dialogues were written (the Dial, of Simon and Theophilus being regarded

as a reproduction of the Dial, of Papiscus and Jason) the Jew was an

active factor who liad to l>e reckoned with by Christian writers, and

not a mere lay figure as lie afterward became. It is natural, therefore, to

find in the earlier works an honest effort to meet real objections which

must have been raised by all Jews, as Jews. It would not l>e out of place

to urge the fact, that the Dial, of Simon and Theophilus exhibits this char-

acteristic, as an additional argument for Ilarnack's theory, that it is a

reproduction of a much more ancient dialogue.

P. 53, 1. 13. The epithet 3£oro«o$ was very frequently applied to

Mary by the Fathers of the fourth century (Kusebius, Athanasius, the two

Gregories, etc.), and it was perhaps current in Alexandria in the third,

87

though no absolute proof of this is at hand. It was officially a<lo[)tc<l as an

appellation of Mary at the Council of Ephesus (431), in opposition to Nes-

torius.

asl Ttap^ivov. The doctrine of the continued virginity of Mary is not

older than Jerome. It appears in the Orient about as early as in the Occident.

The same doctrine is discussed in the Dial, of Simon <iml Theoph., in Gil-

bert's Disputatio Judoei cum Christiano (see p. 24), and in the anonymous

Tractatus adv. Judms (see p. 27). In the present instance, the words

appear simply as part of a technical phrase long in current use.

It is possible, though only a possibility, that the words did not occur in

the original Dialogue of Papiscus and Philo. They exist, to be sure, in all

the extant witnesses, but they may have crept into the text through tlie

unconscious error of a copyist, to whom the phrase had become so natural,

in connection with the name of Mary, that he could scarcely avoid using it

when writing the latter word. It is noticeable that in the present instance

no emphasis is laid upon the virginity of Mary ; the point is simply that

Christ was born of Mary, and the Jew takes it thus, and reveals no knowl-

edge of the theological phrase introduced by the Christian, in wdiich the

miraculousness of the Saviour's birth is assumed. The Jew, it might

seem, could hardly have passed such a claim by unnoticed, and indeed

we find him objecting to it in the Dialogue of Theophilus and Simon, and

in many of the later dialogues. Were our work the account of an actual

dialogue betw^een a Jew and a Christian, we should, therefore, be war-

ranted in rejecting the words; but the artificial character of this and of

other similar dialogues deprives the silence of the Jew of the significance

which it would otherwise have. It remains therefore not a i)robability,

but only a possibility, that these w-ords w-erc not a part of the original

dialogue. The difference between the simple formula used here and the

much fuller one used in P on p. 82 is very significant.

The passage, w^hich occurs at this point in P, is omitted by V and An.,

and is clearly a later insertion of PP. It breaks the connection, and the

answer of the Jew has relevancy only when taken in direct connection with

Mapm5, as it stands in V.

P. 54, 1. 11. avTui Toy vldv Hvpiov 6j.ioXoy£i. An. enlarges upon

this subject, inserting almost half a page found neither in RV nor in KP.

P. 55, I. 14. Cf. Justin's Dial. c. Tryplio^ c. 34.

P. 5G, 1. 3. Cf. ihid. c. 41).

P. 56, 1. 6. This external setting of the dialogue is, of course, omitted

by An.

P. 50, 1. 17 ff. This also.

P. 56, 1. 22. The plurtd form, oi 'lovSalui^ of P seems to have been

caused by the reference to the crowd of Jews which has just preceded.

The writer of HP apparently thinks of the audience as taking part in the

discussion at this point, while liV confines it still to the single Jew.

I*. "iT. I. 10. Tliis pjissagc from Isaiah is (juotc*! also on p. OG in the

section peculiar to P. It is "^^ivcn tlicre in a somewhat difTerent form,

wliich shows clearly a (lilTercnt han<l. In the Tctftimouia of Pseu<lo-Gre«jrory

the j)assage occurs in the form found here. It differs from Tischendorf's

text of the LXX., in which Sdv/zaJro? and the following words are omitted.

The Codex Alexandrinus, however, contains all cxccj^t the word i-fo?, and

the Codex Sinaiticus contains the whole.

P. 57, 1. 14. It is very significant that, in the passage inserted here by

P, the phrase ^ixvf.ux6r6<i 6vf.ifiovXoi is omitted, in agreement with the

form of the quotation given on j). GG, and over against the form contained

in V and An. The difference of authorship mentioned in the previous note

is thus further confirmed.

P. ."iT, 1. 15. The passage attributed here to Jeremiah is taken from

the book of Haruch. The citation of this book under the name of Jere-

miah was (juite common. This same passage is referred to Jeremiah, for

instance, by Cyprian in his T'catimoniH^ by the Pseudo-CJregorian Teat'unonii,

by Gregentius in his Dialogue with Ilerbanus, by Evagrius in the Dialogue

of Simon and Tlieoj)hilus, etc. In the work of Gilbert of "Westminster (see

above, p. 24) the i)as.sage is attributed by the Christian to Jeremiah, but

the Jew denies Jeremiah's authorship, and calls the book of Baruch apoc-

ryjjhal. The Christian contends, on the other side, that the words were

spoken by Jeremiah, and that Baruch took them down from his mouth.

P. 5s, 1. G. It is noteworthy that Justin, in quoting this passage from

the Psalms (Ps. xcv. 10), adds the apocryphal words aVo tov ^vXoi-, ami

that Tertullian and fjvagrius add the corresponding words a litjno.

P. 58, 1. 7. .The passage inserted here by P occurs neither in V nor in

An. and is undoubtedly a later aildition (cf. p. \\\ ). The (piotation from ^lala-

clii. however, occurs in a different part of An. in quite another connection,

ami there under the name of Isaiah.

P. 5s. 1. 12 ff. This passage (Gen xlix. 10) is very fre<|uently (pioted

in works against the Jews, especially at a later j)eriod, when great stress

was laid upon the misfortunes of the Jews over against the pn)sperity of

the Christians.

I'. 51), 1. 10. These were the words of the High Priest, not of Christ.

P. <i<>, 1. 5. According to tradition, St. Helena built a Ciiri.stian church

upon .Mt. Sinai, and Justinian founded a monastery there two centuries

later.

P. 00, 1. IMT. Compare Theodoretus' Comment, in Ezech., xlviii. : xai

'ii'a rd tt\ia aynXinw /ttfpiix orra, ifri vvy ly ro/5 'l€fjo6oXi'/toiSj t}re

rov 6rnv()()t> h(HXf/6i(Xy Hni f) nyndra^i?, nai t) ixyaXf/ilfi?, HiXi i) i y rpZiuty /HHXf/(Si\Xy Hix) if itpii Iir;^Xffu, xai rrFpnt <5^ fvurtunoi ruTtoi

uvfjiDi.'" Compare also Gregentius' Dialogue with Ilerbanus, p. 002 (cd.

Galland.).

P. Gl, 1. 1», note M4. The ^/A/oi< ^f^joror? of P must be taken as a

89

round number, for below (pp. 78 and 79) the author indicates that he is

writing 1,000 years after the destruction of Jerusalem (see p. 42 ff.).

P. 61, 1. 16. Upon the insertion of P at this point, as indicating the

date of HP, see p. 43.

P. 61, 1. 18. 6<ppayi<i is used as signum crucis by Athanasius, Gregory

Naz., and others. Cf. Chrysostom's Ilomilia de adorat. S. crucis, where the

reason for this use of the word is given.

P. 62, 1. 10. ^pi;doi;x' dravpov. Whether these words refer to a specific

golden cross, or whether the term is used to indicate any cross which might

be used in worshij), I do not know. I liave not found a parallel expression

in any other w^ork.

P. 64, 1. 11. Such statements as this in regard to the Christians, whentlirown into the present tense, seem to imply a hostile attitude of the

surrounding world toward them ; and this coincides with their actual posi-

tion among the Mohammedans from the eighth century on. The statement

cannot be insisted on in the present case as indicating peculiar hostility

against the Christians in the home or at the period of the author, for the

words may be used of the position of the Christians in general, or they mayeven be purely rhetorical and have reference only to the condition of the

Christians in ancient times.

P. 65, 1. 1. Upon the significance of these dates of V and An., see

p. 42.

P. 65, 1. 6. This is the only place in the dialogue wliere V has the

plural 'lovdaioi, and here P has the singular, which undoubtedly stood

in the oldest form of the text. It is difficult to account for the plural form

in this one place, when it occurs nowhere else ; but it is possible that the

long passage upon the affairs of the Jews in general, in which the Jews are

addressed over and over again in the pliu-al number, may have influenced

the copyist of V, as the mention of the crowd of Jewish spectators influ-

enced in one passage the copyist of P (see p. 87).

At this point begins the second tract of An.

P. 65, 1. 17. At this point begin the greatest divergencies between KPand RV (see §§ 4 and 5 of the Introduction). Paragraph 12 is pjinted

entire in the form given by V, and the same paragraph is then printed entire

in the form given by P, the differences between the two forms being so great

as to render any other mctliod impracticable. The paragraph, which in Vfills but sixteen lines, in P fills more than seven pages, beginning at p. 66, 1.

8. An. contains only a part of the matter peculiar to P, and the form andarrangement of tliat common part is so different in the two works that it is

impossible satisfactorily to indicate the parallels. The text of P is there-

fore given witliout variations.

P. 66, 1. 14. Cf. the note upon this passage (Isa. ix. 6) on p. 88.

P. 66, 1. 17. The use made of this passage (Isa. ix. 1-2) by our author

is quite peculiar (cf. the interpretation of it given in Matt. iv. 14-1 6j. He

90

seems to have no idea of Palestinian geograj)!)}-, for lie represents Christ as

born in IJethleheni, and yet refers to the hin«ls of Zebuhin an<l Naphtali

as the {)lace of his birth. How lie eanie to conimit such a blunder, I do

not knoNV. The use made of the text in Matt. iv. 14-10, is quite different;

so also in ('y|)rian's Tcst'nmniUi. The text does not occur in Justin's

Dialogue with Trypho, in Tertuliian's Ailr. Juthcos^ nor in the Dialogue of

Simon and Tlieopliilus.

1*. <»7, I. "JT IT. This passage is closely connected in subject with 1. 12.

The intervening sentences look like an insertion by a different hand. Thepassage moreover is omitted by An., which is another mark of the originality

of the latter over against RP.

P. 08, 1. 31. The passage (pioted here (Ps. xl. lOj is referred to by

almost all works of this kind as foretelling the betrayal of Christ by Judas,

and is as a rule the only passage <]Uoted as a i)rophecy of that act. But An.

quite })eculiarly omits it and quotes instead Ps. ii. 1-3, and interprets it as

referring to the betrayal. The latter passage in P follows the other one,

but is referred, not to the betrayal, but, as by all other writers, to the plots

of the Jews, of Ilerod and of Pilate, against C-hrist.

P. 08, 1. :U. Cf. Isidore's Contra Judipos (see p. 22), i. ID, 1 : "(.^uare

fremuerunt gentes, id est Komani, et po[)uli meditati sunt inania, hoc est

Judjei ? Astitcrunt reges terra?, hoc est Ilerodes et Pilatus, et principes

convenerunt in unum, scilicet principes Sacerdotum et .seniores Juda-orum,

adversus dominuin et adversus Christum ejus."

P. 09, 1. 8. The su<lden change of construction here is peculiar (cf. the

remarks on p. :}7;. It is the same form that occurs frequently in An., but

happens to be omitted l)y it in this particular passage. It is probable there-

fore that the writer of HP iiad become familiar with the expression in using

All., and inserted it here, in introducing a new subject, without thinking

of its inconsistency with the dialogistic form of the rest of his work.

P. 0J», 1. 80. It is peculiar that this same form of appeal occurs in the

y><7/<'///.-«//v///w()f ni|)polytus(see p. 14), chap. vii.. but there in quite a different

connection, as follows : Sni ri^ io TCfjocpi'^nx, eint t}ftit', riroi ^(lyj/r 6 vaoi

i]f))fuu')^i) \ ixfiiX ^ici T))v rcdXat no6xonoiiiXv ) ixftix did rt}v tov Aaovfi6M\o\(xrp£t'txi' ; (Xft(xSitx ro roiv n/jocfjf/rcoi' itutcx; dpa 6td riji fioix^ttti

Hixl Trofji'P.iai^Id/jaf'/X ; ovdiX^tojS q>}j6)i' n.r.X. Aside from the opening

phra.se, this passage reminds us of p. 70 ff. of our dialogue. But there exist

no other resemblances between our dialogue and the brief fragment of the

I)fmount nit io kn(nvn to us.

P. 70, 1, \:\. This (piotati(»n is from Z( chariah ami not from .lereiniah.

Matthew also gives it as from Jeremiah, and that accounts for the error here,

for the writer reproduces Matthew's text exactly at this point, and does not

follow the LXX. The same error is committed by the author of the Dialogue

of (Jregentius with Ilerbanus, but the Pseudo-Oreg. TtHfimonia correctly

attribute the words to Zcchariah.

91

P. 70, 1. 17. The pretended site of the Potter's field is still shown (see

Smith's Bible Diet., art. Aceldama).

P. 70, 1. 20. It is peculiar that here the quotation, which is in the

original prophecy in close connection with the preceding, should be correctly

attributed to Zcchariah. The ascription of the previous words to Jeremiah

by Matthew was enough to make our author and others ascribe them to him,

although they could not have quoted these words from Zechariah, as they do

quote them, without seeing that the other words were but a part of the same

passage. The incident shows how slavishly the New Testament was followed.

P. 70, 1. 37 ff. The writer here takes liberties with the text in omitting

the word "Solomon," which occurs in the original.

P. 70, 1. 38 ff. Cf. John Dam., dejide orthod. iv. 11.

P. 72, 1. 27. P quotes this passage (Zech. xii. 10) exactly in the form

given in Theodotion's version of the Old Testament, which differs from tlie

form given in the LXX., and also from tliat given in John xix. 37, where

the passage is quoted.

P. 74, 1. 4. For the bearing of these sentences upon the question as to

the home of our dialogue, see p. 43 ff. All tlie cults mentioned point to

Egypt, except those of Cyzicus and of Artemis, which point to Asia Minor

(cf. Pliny, xxxvi. 15, where the temple of Cyzicus is mentioned).

P. 75, 1. 16. This passage occurs in An. in the same connection, but

has joined with it the opening paragraph of our dialogue. The combina-

tion in An. is clearly later than the separation in P and V. For the com-

bination of the two detached passages, the reason is plain enough, but their

separation, if they were originally one, would be inexplicable.

P. 76, 1. 3 ff. This section is very similar to passages in many later

works against the Jews, nearly all of whicli devote considerable space to

the blindness and wickedness of the Jews in the face of all God's provi-

dences. Compare also Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, c. 131.

P. 76, 1. 12 ff. See Ex. iv. 16; vii. 1; xviii. 19.

P. 78, 1. 13 ff. Cf. II. Kings, xxi.

P. 78, 1. 24. On this date see p. 42.

P. 79, 1. 7. As was shown on p. 42, it is probable that 7t£VTaj(66ia

should be read here instead of £qax6dta. I have not, however, cared to

introduce a conjectural emendation into the text, and have therefore

allowed the suspected word to stand.

P. 70, 1. 13 ff. Cf. the quotation from the work of Ilippolytus given on

p. 90.

P. 80, 1. 2 ff. In the work of Thaddffius Pelusiota against the Jews

(see p. 18), this sentence occurs word for word, and the whole line of

thought of the context is similar. The resemblance is so great as to neces-

sitate some sort of literary relationship, 1)ut what that may be I am not

prepared to state. I have noticed no other striking resemblance between

the two works.

92

P. 80, 1. 20. The dialogue as given in V conies to an end at this point,

as also tlie second tract of An. The third tract of An. contains scattering

points of resemblance to P in connection with the prophetic details of

Christ's life, as mentioned on p. 30. Otherwise it is quite different from P,

containing a mass of material not found in the latter.

P. 81, 1. 30 ff. The simplicity of this confession of faith is noteworthy

at so late a date. Compare what is said on the subject in § 1. Cf. also

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, c. 34, 85, 12G, 132.

P. 82, 1. 25. The quotation resembles the text of Matthew more closely

than that of Daniel, but differs from both, and from all the parallel passages

in the Gospels, in substituting Oeov for ixvdpooTtov.

P. 82, 1. 27. The authcr allows himself some license here in substitut-

ing for the d6EfSt] of Isaiah an avzov referring to the Antichrist. lie

evidently quotes from memory, and as a consequence quotes the passage

from Isaiah (if this is the passage he intends to quote, and I can refer his

words to no other) inexactly.

P. 82, 1. 30 ff. These words arc very significant, as showing that the

intention of the work was to confirm the faith of the Christians rather than

to refute the Jews (see p. 3).

P. 82, 1. 36 ff. Compare the heaped-up epithets of Mary with the muchsimpler formula on p. 53.

SCRIPTURE REFERENCES.

PAGE

Gen. xiv. 18 sq 55

xlvii. 31 51

xlix. 10 58

Ex. xxxii. 4 75

Deut. xxviii. 66 72

xxxii. 5-6 77" 6 77

" 15.. 78

" 17 78

" 20 77

Jobix. 8 67

xiv. 4-5 69

xxxviii. 17 73

Psa. ii. 1-2 68

" 7 52

" 7-9 52*' 8 .... 66

viii. 2-8 68

XV. 10 73

xvii. 10 65, 66

" 11 73

xxi. 17 65

" 17-18 71

" 19 65,71

xxviii. 3 67

xxxiv. 11-12 69

xxxvii. 18 ... 70

xl. 10 68

xlvi. 1 5a 66" 6 73" 9 58. 66

Ixvii. 7 73

Ixviii. 22 65, 72" 23-24 72

Ixxi. 1 55" 5 55" 6 66" 7-8 67

PAGE

Psa. Ixxi. 8 55

" 11 67

" 17 55,67

Ixxiii. 12 71

" 13-14 67

Ixxvii. 20 77

" 21 77

" 30-31 77

Ixxxv. 9 66, 68

" 9-10 58

Ixxxvi. 5 67

Ixxxvii. 5-6 73

7 73

xcv. 10 58

xcvii. 5 58

cix. 1 54

" 3 54

- 4 54

cxvii. 26 56, 57

" 27 56

cxlii. 2 69

Prov. viii. 24-25 58, 55

Cant. iii. 11 70

Isa. i. 2-4 77

"10 78

iii. 9-10 69

"10 68

vii. 14 65, 66

ix. 1-2 66

" 6 57, 66. 70

xi. 4 82

xix. 1 67

xxvii. 11 73

1.6 70

liii. 1 68

" 4 67

" 7 69

" 8 69

94

PAGE I r.\r.r.

Lsa. liii. 69 I Zech. xii. 10 7-J

" 12 71 ' xiii. (3 71

Ivii. 1 72 xiv. 4 73" 1-2 72 " (>-7 72

Ixiii. y 6(1 " 8 72

Jer. V. 21 62 Mai. i. 10-11 58

Dan. vii. 9-10 82 Baruch iii. 30-38 57• 11 82 Hymn of the Three Holy Children," 13 82 verse 14

*.

60" 13-14 81 Matt. vi. 1 64" 15 82 X. 18 06

ix. 23-24 81 xvi. 18 03'' 20 81 xxiv. 2 59, 63«* 27 81,82 '* 30 82

Hos. ii. 23 58 xxviii. 11) 64

vi. 1-2 66,73 " 20 64

Joel iii. 15 72 Mark xiv. 22 .. 64

Amos viii. 9 72 i xvi. 15 03

Mic. V. 2 00 Luke xiv. 26 64llab. i. 5 72 xxi. 17 63

iii. 3 57 John i. 29 70

Zech. ix. 9 08 xi. 48 59

xi. 12 70 TI. Tim. ii. 19 63•• 12-13 70;

iu.''''vJ:*III

1 101

llllllllllllllllllllll

2 01124

It 11 1111

5364

;ipr.

;^^-

^I

h'] .'

r

"v."^'

^^;'

w f'