ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 38x book-length rather indicates that the abbreviation which is shown up by the Latin translation in Books XII-XVII, but would seldom be readily discernible without its independent evidence, is present also in Books X-XI. Interest in the merits of the Latin translation has tended to focus attention on those books where it is extant. The present article will discuss some examples of corruption in Books X-XI, where we have the Greek manuscripts only. These are two cases of insertion requiring deletion, the second case involving examination of evidence from the catenae and Jerome; then some omissions, and finally a transposition, which raises questions of page size in archetypes of our Origen manu- scripts. I. INSERTION AT X. 3 At X. 3 the words ¢as 70d xdopov (p. 3. 21") from Matt. v. 14 seem superfluous. Origen here is commenting on Matt. xiii. 43 (ré7€ of Bixatoe Adysbovew «bs 5 #htos) and the point he has emphasized is that after the harvest described in the parable the just will all shine as one sun in the kingdom of their Father, and no longer in different ways as they did previously (p. 3. 9-10: rére uddora of Biscator Adupovow odxént Biagdpws, tbs Kard ras dpyds, dMd rdvres ds efs spktos and 18-20: oby ds 7d mpsrepor Siaddpas Adpupovow of Sicatot, AN aovrat of wdvres abs els #dos). He then supports the statement that they previously shone Scagépws with references to Daniel xii. 3 and x Cor. xv. 41-2. The relevant sentence, omitting das rod xdopov, makes sense as follows: ‘It seems that it was knowing that the understanding and the majority of the just differ in glory that Daniel said, “And the understanding will shine out like the brightness of the firmament, and from the majority of the just like the stars, .."’. The construction taken by émorapa: is accusative (rods cunévras Kal rods moAlods rv Sixatwy) and participle (S:agépovras). gas rod xéopov inserted before émordpevos interrupts both sense and syntax. It is conceivable that it might have a place in apposition to Tous ovévras etc., but not introduced in this abrupt way; in this case we should expect at least that it should follow rods o. Kal rods 7. rev Sexaieay and be included in some suitable phrase such as rods $as TG xéapov Aeyopévous. I should prefer to delete the words, assuming that they are © References are to page and line in the edition by Klosterman in the Berlin Corpus, G.C.S., Origenes, X (Leipzig, 1935)- 2 ‘The translation by R. Girod in Sources Chrétiennes 162 (Paris, 1970) ignores the train of argument in the context, and that by J. Patrick in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, additional volume (ed. A. Menzies, Edinburgh, 1896), is also unsatisfactory.382 c. P. HAMMOND an intrusion from the margin into the text. The word ¢ds is in fact used later in the section several times (p. 3. 29 and 32, p. 4. 3 and 5), and at the end of the section (p. 4. 7-12) a triple interpretation is given of Matt. v. 16. Any of these might have inspired a reader to write the familiar words from Matt. v. 14 in the margin.! II. INSERTION AT X. 5 AND Marr. xiii. 44 1N THE CATENAE AND JEROME The second deletion would presuppose a similar intrusion, but the case here is more complicated. In Book X. 5 (p. 5. tt ff.) Origen discusses the treasure hidden in the field of Matt. xiii. 44, and suggests two possible ways of interpreting the field and the treasure. Either (p. 5. 15-20) the field is the field of scripture planted with the ‘obvious’ meanings of the historical books, ‘the law, and the prophets etc.,? and the treasure hidden in it is the treasure of its hidden meaning lying beneath these, or (p. 5. 21~4) the field is to be interpreted as Christ, the field which the Lord has blessed (Gen. xxvii. 27), and the treasure is that spoken of by Paul when he says of Christ, “In whom are hid the treasures of wisdom and knowledge’ (Col. ii. 3). The first interpretation is supported by an allusion to x Cor. ii. 7 (cod codiay ev puornpie, viv drrorexpujipevmp), the second by the allusion to Gen. xxvii. 27, as well as the direct quotation from Colossians. In this sequence of thought the words Kal 7 XprorG, &v ¢f ela of Onoavpoi ris aodpias Kai yreicews dx dxpugor atp. 5. 20-1 forman awkward interruption. As part of the first interpretation of the treasure in the field they are superfluous and also somewhat confusing, since it is not clear how the dative 7@ Xptor@ should be taken. Klostermann (app. crit. ad loc.) suggests supplying é and even if we do not supply it in the text we must presumably supply it mentally (cf. note on p. 5. 20 in G.C.S., Origenes, XII. ii, p. 53), 80 as to take 7G Xpiors as parallel to 2 puornpie. This gives rise to the difficulty that, whereas éy porgpiy standing alone can be understood as ‘secretly’ or ‘mysteriously’, if the parallel <é> 7G Xpior@ is added, the phrases are naturally taken as indicating the place where # codéa is hidden and therefore provide a second equivalent for év rg dypd. This, however, would be a confusing 1 Tt may be noted that whereas the quotations used by Origen from Daniel and 1 Cor. refer explicitly to the resurrection, the context of Matt. v. 14-6 is quite different and it requires a special explanation to apply it to the resurrection; this is a further argument against its premature introduction at p. 3. 21. 2 yonpdtwy in 17 is emended to vorjzaow by Friichtel (G.C.S., Origenes, XII. ii, p. 53).ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 383 semi-anticipation of the interpretation to be given at Il. 21-4. Koetschau felt that there was a difficulty and suggested adding davepwOelons after dréxpugor (G.C.S., Origenes, X, app. crit. ad loc,), but this would bring in anew idea which is totally irrelevant in the context. We are concerned here with a treasure ‘which a man found? (8v espdw dvOpwmros ..., to be elucidated by Origen on the next page) and talk of its revelation here would be merely confusing. Another objection to the text as it stands is the fact that the quotation of Col. ii. 3 at Il, 23-4 is introduced as if it ‘were a new one—its effect would be spoiled if it were a mere repetition from Il, 20-1. Moreover the rest of the section is based on the double interpretation of Il. 15-20 and 21-4 and contains frequent back- references to the other details but none to the offending words in Il. 20-1. I would therefore delete cal 7 Xpior, ev d claw of Onoavpol ris oodias kat yraicews daéxpudgor as an intrusion from the margin similar to that posited above for X. 3. It is not impossible that some user of an ancestor of our manuscripts copied the quotation at |. 24 into the margin and that the words later got into the text and were emended to the form in which they now appear. At this point, however, we have to ask whether we are dealing with a simple insertion or an insertion which replaced the original text. That further material originally followed 1. 20 might appear to be suggested by the parallel passages from the catenae and Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew (cited by Klostermann in his footnotes ad loc.). These require examination in detail. i, The first is from JZ, the compilation ascribed to Peter of Laodicea (ed. Heinrici, Beitrdge zur Geschichte u. Erkldrung des Neuen Testamentes, V (Leipzig, 1908)), which consists of a patchwork of extracts from different sources (according to Heinrici* about ¥; from Origen, & from Chrysostom, and #; from elsewhere); these are neither ascribed to their authors nor divided off into separate extracts, so the task of disentangling them is not easy. The section on Matt. xiii. 44-6 (op. cit., pp. 157-8) seems to be a combination of material from Origen’s commentary with extracts from elsewhere. The opening words are clearly based on Origen, p. 5. 15-20 (words underlined are taken from Origen): dypds dow 4 ypadh morxidny eyouoa ev 7H snr gurelav, Onaavpds rd Sroxelpeva arf ris copias vorfpara. ¥ Op. cit., introduction, p. xxix; for some corrections to Heinrici on the character of this compilation cf. J. Reuss, Matehdus-, Markus- und Johannes Katenen (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, xviii. 4-5, Minster, 1941), Pp. 72-8384. Cc. Pp. HAMMOND Then comes the following section which I have divided into four sentences for convenience of reference: (a) & ff xéxpurrac cis Onoaupés Kai # 709 owriipos yudors- (8) wenpidBar 88 adrsv Reyer, erreid} ob méoiv cor Kardindos epi rs capxcsoews 705 povoyevods Adyos. (c) dv ddv ris w@ wevrww rev drapysvrwr Katagpovel, va Krijonras roy Ociov ris yudboews Onoarpdv. (d) wodMol vot anpooBomrirus moretoavres els Xpioriv wdvray 1a madatdy Karappovijoavres els pdvyy elBov riy adfGeav, } eorw 7 els Xpiozév riots. ‘The next sentence is equivalent to Origen p. 5. 21-4 (it may be noted that Col. ii. 3 is quoted here corresponding to its correct position in Origen): 4 dypdy daw tov Xpiardv, ev } claw of Onoarpo! rijs cogtas xal ydacws didKpudot, Then comes the following: (e) Onoavpdv viv 108 Xpioros Ocdrqra thy olovel oxerropevyy rh ris capxds mepiBodF, and after this there are two sentences derived from Origen p. 6. 12-4 and 15-7 (with 21-22). OF the sentences not paralleled in our text of Origen (¢) seems quite foreign to his thought here. According to Origen the treasures hidden in Christ are those of cogfa and yuaas (p. 5. 24, also p. 6. 10 and 13-4). This is quite different from the application of the parable to the in- carnation in (e).! The same interest in the incarnation as we find in (e) is to be seen also in (6) and again the idea seems foreign to Origen. (c) and (d) are a development of the second half of the parable, but this is done by Origen at a later stage (p. 6. 8 £.), so would not fit into his train of thought here. For (d) morcover it is possible to suggest another derivation. Its wording reflects the opening sentence of an extract from Theodore of Mopsuestia, printed by Reuss in his Matthaus-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche? p. 121, as follows: Emad} odol rv dMorpluw ndvrn iis edocPelas eaidyns xard Belay 1 Itis possible that this interpretation originated at a time when interest was centred on the incarnation because of major Christological controversies. It is found already in Hilary, Commentary on Matthew (Migne, P.L. 9. 995: “The- saurus .. . in agro... . Christus intelligitur in carne.’). For the kind of thing Origen has in mind here we might compare Comm. on John, I. vii (G.C.S., Origenes, IV, p. 12. 11-6) or Comm. on Song of Songs, I (G-C.S., Origenes, VIII, PP. 9377)- ? Texte wu. Untersuchungen, Ixi (1957).ORIGEN'’S COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 385 xépw tywoav 70d Xpiorob 73 plyeDos ds mdvrew karabpovoat tv qadady Kad mpds tavryy pedvor Seiv chs dAnflelas wal ewrnplas mpsbevov airots yeréolar Svvapéryv, Todd dyow (roe 70d Unoavpod)- Of this 7 takes over the opening zoA\oi, paraphrases é€aigums . . « Epwoay 709 Xpiorod 75 peye0os with dspoodoxrjrws morevoarres eis Xpirév, and adopts Theodore’s vocabulary in wdyrww ray malady katagporjarres, and also the idea of using {Sefv with a preposition and pdvos. The extract from Theodore is a combined discussion of Matt. xiii. 44 and xiii. 45-6, the treasure and the pearl of great price, opening with an abruptness that makes it somewhat obscure. In particular it is not clear what was Theodore’s interpretation of the treasure (and the pearl) referred to no doubt by zpés ravrnv (Reuss, I. 3). I suspect that it was not just edoéBeta since finding the treasure or pearl needs to be equivalent to Eyvwcav ro Xpiorod 73 pdyeos (Reuss, 1. 2) or éyrwxdres 08 Knptyparos 76 péyelos (Reuss I. 6), 17 here provides us with the answer in the paraphrase marevoavres eis Xpvoréy and the explanation 4 eorw els Xpworév mionss. Near the end of the extract (Reuss, Il. 11-12), Theodore makes the distinction that the parable of the treasure refers to the Greeks and that of the pearl to the Jews. The same distine- tion is made in the passage in J7 immediately following those already described (p. 158. 5-11), and this passage explicitly identifies the treasure with # wéorts. Perhaps it too is derived from ‘Theodore. ‘What about (a), (6), and (c)? There are several arguments against these coming from Theodore (despite the repetition of xaradpovetv in (0 and (d), which may be the reason that IT added (d) at this point). Firstly they imply a different interpretation of the treasure—not aéoris but 9 708 cewrfpos ywaors ( (a), explained in (b) and referred back to in (c) as réy OeCov rifs yrdoews Onoavpsv). Seconilly, (a), (¢), and (2) appear to haye been used by Jerome, but Jerome! docs not mention "Theodore of 1 Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, ed. D. Hurst and M. Adriuen, C.C. LXXVII (Turnhout, 1969). Jerome seems to have thought of a commentary as a compilation from earlier authors, the compiler’s judgement being exercised in the selection (cf. for instance the prologue to his Conrmentary on Jeremiah (C.C. LXXIV (Turnhout, 1960), p. 9): ‘leges commentariorum, in quibus multae diuersorum ponuntur opiniones uel tacitis wel expressis auctorum nominibus.’) or to the Cormmentary on Matthew (loc. cit., p. 4): ‘omnes Ingere qui in euange! scripserint, .. . deinde . . . adhibito iudicio quae optima sunt excerpere.’). ‘The present work, as he complains in his prologue, he was made to write in a hurry and so did not have time to carry out this ideal to his satisfaction (‘igitur omissa quctoritate ueterum quos nec legendi nee sequendi mihi facultas data est, historicam interpretationem quam praccipue postulasti digessi breuiter et inter~ dum spiritalis intellegentiae flores miscui, perfectum opus reseruans in posterum’). Nevertheless he gives an impressive list of sources: ‘Legisse me fateor ante386 c. P. HAMMOND Mopsuestia in his list of sources. We must now examine the relevant passage in Jerome. ii. Jerome's section on Matt. xiii. 44 starts with a remark on the difficulties of the parables and an apology for length, and finishes with an explanation of the motives for hiding the treasure, but the middle part is what concerns us here: Thesaurus iste in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae absconditi aut deus ucrbum est qui in carne Christi uidetur absconditus aut sanctae scripturac in quibus reposita est notitia saluatoris, quem cum quis in eis inuenerit debet omnia istius saeculi emolumenta contemnere ut illum possit habere quem repperit.' This is quoted as a parallel to Origen, and of course the scheme of the double interpretation and the quotation of Col. 3 do reflect Origen, although Jerome has the items in a different order. What is equally striking, however, is the similarity between Jerome and J7, sentences (a), (e), and (¢). Jerome’s first interpretation gives the same application to the incarnation which we find in (e), and his second interpretation seems to reficct sense, wording, and sentence structure of (a) and (c)—cf. particularly ‘in quibus reposita est notitia saluatoris’ / ev A xékpumrac. ..7) 708 owrhpos yudars ; ‘quem cum quis... inuenerit’ / dv édv 15 wv; ‘dcbet omnia... contemnere’ | wdvrwy . . . karagporet; ‘ut illum possit habere’ / iva xrzjonrac. What are we to make of this? Both Jerome and JT use a scheme taken from Origen combined with later material. Neither can be directly dependent on the other. The most likely solution seems to be that the extra material in both derives from an author who himself took over and elaborated Origen’s scheme of a double interpretation, onc of the Greck commentators listed by Jerome among his sources who was also excerpted by the compiler of the extracts in JT, an author sufficiently influenced by Origen to follow his scheme of field = scripture or Christ, but sufficiently independent to give the sccond alternative a different, Christological interpretation and to combine the first with a new interpretation of the treasure.* annos plurimos in Mathcum Origenis uiginti quinque uolumina et totidem eius omelias commaticumque interpretationis genus et Theophili Antiochenae urbis episcopi commentarios Hippolyti quoque martyris et Theodori Heracleotae Apollinarisque Laodiceni ac Didimi Alexandrini ct Latinorum Hilarii, Uicto- rini, Fortunatiani opuscula, e quibus etiam si parua carperem dignum aliquid memorize scriberetur’ (pp. 5-6). The impression he seems to intend to make is that he relice! mainly on his memory in his usc of these, but he often reproduces them so closely that one may be inclined to doubt this (for an examination of this question ef. Theodor Zahn, Forschungen sur Geschichte des neutestament= lichen Kanons, 1f (Erlangen, 1883), pp. 89-92). * Op. cit., p. 113. 2 The only other possible explanation for the similarity between Tand JeromeSEEN S GOMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 387 Can we tell who this was? On Jerome's preferences among his sources Hurst and Adriaen (op, cit,, p. v) report: ‘Hilarium raro omnino secutus est Origenem uero multo saepius; Theodorum Heracleae et Praesertim Apollinarem, ut patet ¢ fragmentis quae supersunt, Hierony- mus libentius adhibuit; Didymi uero proh dolor nullum fere fragmenturm usque hodie inuentum est. . . ’. ‘The collection of extracts printed by Reuss (see above, p. 384, n. 2) includes nothing by Apollinarius or Theodore of Heraclea on Matt. xiii, 44 (Theodore of Heraclea, extract 9 appears to be on Matt. xiii. 38). Apollinarius was a teacher of Jerome (who attended his lectures on the Bible in Antioch, Epistle 84. 2) and one of his favourite exegetes, to judge by the number of times he is cited as a source in the prologues to Jerome's exegetical works. The following points might favour him here: ‘The word odpxwas which figures in (b) (and is not listed in any of the indices of Origen's works inthe Berlin Corpus) is characterized in Lampe's Patristic Greek Lexicon as ‘a favourite word of Apollinarius’. The term mepsfods used in (¢) is specifically cited as used by Apollinarius by Theodoret, Eranistes (in H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea u. seine Schule, p. 237, frag. 124): ‘odpewors xévwos: 4 58 xévwous odx dvfpwmov, ANd visv dvOpomou rv xorbaavra éavréy dnéfqve ward Thy mepipodiy, 03 ard. peraBohiy,” iBod cot wal 13 ris mepiBodis Svopa mpooerivoyer 6 rier atdv Soyudrav 8iSdonados. Would be a combination of three unproved hypotheses, viz. (1) that Jerome used {gollection of excerpts (cither an earlier one or one prepared specially by or for him), (2) that a collection of excerpts lies behind Fl, and (3) that there was some connection between these two hypothetical collections of excerpts, The first wag siegested by Zahn, though only with reference to Jerome's use of Origen (op. cits p. 91 ‘Ob ihm dabei Excerpte aus friherer Zeit zur Verfligung standen, istnicht 2u entscheiden.’ If it were correct, Jerome's words in his prologue (p. 5: liactis Fundamentis et ex parte constructis parietibus’) might refer to seme cack, assemblage of source-material). ‘The second hypothesis was voiced by Max Rauer in his study of the Commentary on Luke ascribed to Peter of Loodies (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, VIII. 2 (Minster, 1920), p. 70, ‘Allerdings muss auch bei m (= 77) ins Auge gefasst werden, dass ihm cine ihnliche Quelte vorgelegen hat (vielleicht dieselbe Urkatene fir Matthius) wie dem Kompilazos von p [= Commentary on Luke for which Rauer posits Urkatenc}), All thees might be elucidated by a thorough examination of all the relevant material Certainly the parallels collected by Heinrici, Klostermann, Reuss, and Pac and Adriaen in their & ons of JT, Origen, the catenae extracts from Apol- linarius and Theodore of Heraclea, and Jerome show that Jerome and JT often used the same sources and that they often agree with each other, but no one ha set out to show whether or not they agre significantly in their selection and i ed sources. For the purpose of the Present discussion, however, we may note that in any case, even if Jerorne and IT are not independent, it would seem likely that their shared material here comes from an author who developed Origen’s double acheme of interpretacion, oz. ce388 c. P. HAMMOND Apollinarius’ use of Origen on Matthew can be illustrated from the extract on Matt. xiii. 47-50 (the net and the fishes, Reuss, p. 23, extract 77), where we may note that he follows Origen in providing an equivalent for each of the main terms of the parable, reflects Origen to the extent of a verbal reminiscence, but also shows independence in developing or disagreeing with Origen. Thus in providing an equivalent for the sea into which the net is thrown he keeps Origen’s idea of stormy human life but not his wording (Apollinarius, loc. cit., Il. 1-3, and G.C.S., Origenes, X, p. 14. 11-3). His equivalent for the net substitutes rod Adyou Svvapts for Origen’s ypady (p. 13. 28) or Adyos (p. 14. 7) but shows a verbal reminiscence (Origen, p. 13. 27-8, ék mavr0- Bandy kat nosidwv vonudrww raaidy cai xawsy ypagyy, Apollinarius, IL. 5-7, ek oixiAwy vorjedruw madards Kai Kawi ypadijs). His interpre tation of the different kinds of fishes may possibly be a combination of Origen’s alternative explanations (Origen, p. 13. 21-6 and p. 14. 21-2) but in any case shows independence in his use of Romans i. 14. His comment on the filling of the net diverges from Origen, but there may be another reflection of Origen at the end of the extract (Apollinarius, LU. 27-31; Origen, pp. 15. 32-16. 4), where Apollinarius seems to have picked up Origen’s idea of comparing the unpleasant fate of the fishes caught in the net with that of the men they represent in the parable but to have used it very differently. ‘The same extract also gives evidence for the methods of IT and Jerome. JI on Matt. xiii. 47-50 (Ieinrici, p. 159) has a large proportion of material from Origen (as is shown by Icinrici in his footnotes), but two ideas in IT may perhaps come from Apollinarius; that of elaborating ek navzés yévous owayayoven of the parable with a list similar to that of Romans i. 14, and that of explaining the vessels into which the good fishes arc put in terms of the many mansions of John xiv. 2 (IZ, p- 159s Il. 4-5 dyyn af Siddopor provat). Jerome also has this second allusion (‘uasa caclestium mansionum’), and repeats the ideas common to Origen and Apollinarius in his interpretation of the net (woven from Old and New Testament) and the sea (‘mare huius saeculi . . . mediis fluctibus . .. salsis et amaris gurgitibus’). He starts with material not in Origen, on Peter, Andrew, James, and John as weavers of the net (‘contexuerunt sibi.. . sagenam cuangelicorum dogmatum’) and fishers of men, with references to Jeremiah xvi. 16 and Matt. iv. 19. This may be the interpretation represented by IT's roe cayyn 4 dzroorohext BBacKadla corév and we find a reflection of it in the extract from Cyril of Alexandria on the same parable (Reuss, op. cit., p. 209, extract 171, Ll, 6-8 Svvayis 708 Kypvyparos Kai 7 Oavpacr) Kal roAdmAoKos Toy lepadv paOnpdrwy SidacKaXla, Hv of kadol devtal dndorodot éActav . . .).ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 389 We cannot exclude the Possibility that this idea too came from Apolli- narius, since we do not have his complete exegesis of the parable (nor even his exact wording for what we do haye); his references at Il. 15-17 todris SibaoxaNas Adyos and riy roi Adyou ja0yretav might be taken asa hint in this direction, and the Presence of 6 ris cayrjuns Seonéras (II. 12 and 18-19) need not exclude disciples as fishermen too. Clear examples of I7’s use of Apollinarius are Heinrici, p. 181, Il. 1o- 2 @ sentence which Heinrici describes as ‘frei nach Or.’ (cf. Origen, P. 75. 6-7), but in fact is almost identical with Apollinarius in Reuss, P. 26, extract 82, Il. 13-17; and Heinrici, PP. 208. 18-209. 1g is the same as Apollinarius, Reuss, P- 29, extract 92. Tt seems then that, on Matt. xiii. 44, IT, sentences (2), (2), (c), and (e), and Jerome are both based on an author, possibly Apollinarius, who himself had elaborated Origen’s double scheme of field = scripture or Christ. We must now ask whether the additional interpretation under the heading field = scripture, explaining the treasure as 1) To8 owrpos ydors, was entirely new, or whether it was based on matter in Origen’s text which has been lost because of the insertion at 1. 20. Further evidence is given by the other catena extract, cited by Klostermann on Origen, which must now be considered, iii. This is the extract from the Catena on Luke of Nicetas of Heraclea (second half of the eleventh century).! Its opening words are as follows: Kal” érépay 88 exBoyiy ein dv dypds ev xh ypagh noNdots xarame- dureenérm pyrots, vopsxots re Kal ypaspuxots Kal ioropixots, Onoaupds 8¢ rd totrois mouths &évra davepd re nai xexpynpéva voruara, Kat Xpiords & tiusos 7s ypadiis Poaupds. i dypss 5 Xpiords, & & Hathos Aepet ErnexpipOas rods dnoxpigous Bnoarposs ooias wal yuibacus rob lero We may note firstly that in this summary of Origen, p. 5. r5~24, the quotation of Col. ii. 3 appears in its correct place, but secondly that in place of its earlier quotation which we Proposed to delete there is a clearly expressed additional interpretation of the treasure under the first heading of field = scripture: xai Xpiarés 6 rijios Tis ypadiis Onoavpés. In order to explain this we must consider three possibilities : 1. That these words represent the original text of Origen on Matthew replaced by the insertion posited above. In this case they would have provided a basis for the author used by Jerome and J7 in his similar interpretation of the treasure a8 1) 700 owripos yous. F This extract is printed by Klosterman and Benz, Zur Uberlieferung der Matthduserklérung des Origenes (T.U. xlvii, 1932), p. 33.| 390 c. P. HAMMOND 2. That when Nicetas made his extracts the text was already corrupt and that this is his attempt to make sense of it. 3. That Nicetas got these words from elsewhere and the text of Origen on Matt. had nothing to correspond to them. On Nicctas’ methods in his use of material from Origen Raver reports that he sometimes combines material from different works," In this particular extract there are two further sentences which do not correspond to the Comm. on Matt. After the words quoted above there follows a paraphrase or inaccurate summary of Origen, pp. 5. 25-6. 2, and then the words of 4 yodots xara Suvajw év tiv eorw, evpioxerat 88 Bid fis mlorews wal dyopdlerar Sid row dperdov. After this comes a paraphrase of material from Origen, p. 6. 12-25 and then the following: r@ pnxére Civ tovrors, vexpwOfvat be 7H xdopw mavrt xat DeArjpact rots adrod. This extra material is not from the Comm. on Matt. (the only shared phrase is 5:4 rs worews = Origen, p. 6. 20, but it is uscd with different verbs), but it sounds the sort of thing that might come from Origen, unlike the extra material in JT. It is certainly possible that it came from some other work and, if it did, why not the phrase kai Xpards 6 réjuos ris ypadis Onoavpds? At this point it may be relevant to consider the parallel material from Origen’s other extant works. The interpretation of the field as scripture (introduced in the Comm. on Matt. as his own interpretation, Soxet 3x jot, whereas the field as Christ is introduced with @dos 8'av Aéyor) seems to have been Origen’s favourite one. The closest parallel is in a passage from De Princtpiis, Book IV, preserved in Greek in the Philokalia (G.C.S., Origenes, V, p. 340). Here the field is scripture, the plants in it are its superficial meaning, and the treasure its hidden meaning, just as in the Comm. on Matt. The interpretation is supported by references to Col. ii. 3 and Isa. xlv. 2 ff. It is interesting that in this passage Origen applies Col. ii. 3 to the treasures hidden in scripture. "There is a similar example in Hom. on Exodus, 7. 1 (G.C.S., Origenes, VI, p. 206. 3-4): ‘in Icgis litera sapientiae suac et scientiae thesauros condiderit Deus’; also Hom. on Numbers, 9. 6 (G.C.S., Origenes, VII, p- 62. 23-6): ‘in sermonibus legis . . . reconditus sit thesaurus sapientiae et scientiae Dei .’; whereas clsewhere the treasures of Col. ii. 3 are hidden in Christ (Hom. on Genesis, 14. 4 and Leviticus, 3. 8 (G.C.S., Origenes, VI, pp. 126. 7-8 and 313. 15), Hom. on Numbers, 12. 2 and * G.G.S., Origenes, 1X* (Berlin, 1959), p. xlvi, ‘Niketas verarbeitet auch Stoffe aus dem Matth.-Kommentar und aus alttestamentlichen Schrifterkla- rungen des Alexandriners. Hin und wieder sind auch Stiicke aus zwei verschiede- nen Schriften in cin Scholion zusammengezogen.”ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 391 Joshua, x7. 3 (G.CS., Origenes, VIL, pp. 100. 17 and 404. 9), and Comm. on Matthew, 15. 28 (G.C.S., Origenes, X, p. 435. 20-1), but Comm. on Matt. 17. 2 (G.C.S., Origenes, X, p. 578. 25 fL.), ev 7H cogia 708 Ocod ., . tot Onoavpoi ... THis coplas ... Kal Tis yrdoews ., .dmrd~ kpupor). There are further parallels for the field of Matt. xiii. 44 as the field of scripture in Comm. on Romans, Book ii (Lommatzsch, vol. vi, p. 83; P.G., 14. 879 B-c), where the hidden treasure or hidden meaning is that of the riches of God’s mercy, and Comm. on Matt., Commentariorum Series, 18 (G.C.S., Origenes, XI, p. 32. 22-4): ‘in talibus euangelii agris absconditum et non a quibuscumque comprehensibilem sensum scripturae’ (cf. also Hom. on Genesis, 8. 1 (G.C.S., Origenes, V1, p. 77. 6)). A different and more complex interpretation is found in the Com- mentary on the Song of Songs, in a discussion of i. 2, ‘quia bona sunt ubera tua super uinum’ (G.C.S., Origenes, VIII, pp. 92-7). The address of the bride to the bridegroom is understood as that of the church to Christ, and ‘ubera tua’ is explained as equivalent to ‘dogmata quae intra te sunt, uel doctrinae gratia’. The ‘uinum’ with which the ‘ubera’ are compared is equated with the ‘dogmata et doctrinae’ given through the law and prophets. The parable of Matt. xiii. 44 is then applied to this interpretation (p. 97). The ficld is the law and prophets, planted with vines which produce wine equivalent to ‘illa doctrina quae palam est’. The hidden treasure is ‘sponsus atque ubera sponsi’. Here again, then, the field is the field of scripture, but the hidden treasure is both Christ’s ‘doctrina’ and Christ himself. Col. ii. 3 (already quoted at pp- 93. 13-16 and 94. 5-7) is used to support this. “Thesauri sapientiae et scientiae’ are hidden in Christ (p. 97. 14; cf. also p. 97. 24-5). Here the idea seems to be implied that Christ is a ‘thesaurus’ (storing place for treasure) containing ‘thesauri? (treasures).? With ‘regard to the textual problem in the Comm. on Matt, the passage from the Comm. on Song of Songs might be used to support either the first or the third of the possibilities suggested above; it provides a parallel for the interpretation of Christ as the hidden treasure which would support equally well the supposition that Origen did use such an interpretation in the Comm. on Matt. or that Nicetas found such an interpretation elsewhere in his works. Possibility 2 seems the least likely of the three. There is one point that might seem to favour it, the fact that Nicetas’ text as printed does 1 The idea of Christ as 6 Onaaupés ray Onaaupay is expounded in Hom. on Jeremiah, 8. 5-6 (G.C.S., Origenes, III, pp. 60-1). For ‘thesaurus’ defined as a storing-place for treasure cf. Comm. on Romans, ii. 4, ed. Lommatzsch, vol. vi, P. 75.392 c. P. HAMMOND show a number of corruptions;! but even if we explain these by suppos- ing that Nicctas used corrupt manuscripts of Origen (rather than that Nicetas’ own text is corrupt or that he misunderstood Origen), they do not really provide a parallel, since possibility 2 posits a corruption shared by our manuscripts and the text used by Nicetas, which Nicetas would have to have been intelligent enough to correct, whereas the other examples would be of corruptions not shared by our manuscripts and left uncorrected by Nicetas. This argument can therefore be dismissed. Of possibilitics x and 3, 3 might seem preferable, but for the fact that it requires three independent insertions at the same point (the insertion in Origen’s text, the new interpretation in the author used by JT and Jerome, and the extra material in the Nicetas extract). This might seem too great a coincidence. If we are to argue in favour of possibility x, however, we must put forward some hypothesis for the original wording of the text. Both JT and Nicetas imply that some nominativeis required to provide a sccond equivalent for the treasure, but it is unlikely that this was just Xpiords 6 riptos ris ypapais Onoaupds, since one would expect Nicetas to have given a summary or paraphrase rather than a full quotation. One possible suggestion would be # yudors Xptoz0d, which would retain the word yvders used in IT, and also allows for the phrase used by Nicctas to be attached as an explanation (in apposition or a relative clause or with ydp). The exposition of Matt. xiii. 45-6 in the following sections perhaps favours a suggestion of this kind. It is natural to take the two parables of the treasure and the pearl of great price together and, although Origen docs not do this overtly, his exposition offers no obstacle to so doing. In his interpretation of the second parable the xadot papyaptrat arc the prophets and the pearl of great price is d Xptorés 708 0cod, 8 dmep 7d riya ypdppara kal voruara rod vdpou kal rv rpopnTav Adyos.* In sections 9-10 Origen discusses how the glory on the face of Moses, though rijuos, is excelled by the glory of Christ and the das ek pepous excelled by the ydous Xpiozod for which it is a preparation. The exposition of Christ as the pearl of great price.would balance an exposition of Christ as the treasure in the field and the idea contained in the word rijtos used by Nicetas is picked up in modMrypios oF rodurijenros of Christ and réusos of the law and prophets (for this idea cf. also p. 6. 26~7). The suggestion yrados Xprarod would be paralleled by the use made of this concept in sections 9-10 (the phrase comes from Phil. iii. 8 and is used at p. 11. 6, 7-8, and 12).3 1 Loc. cit. (above, p. 389 n. 1), 1. 2 ypadexots, 1. 3 davepd, 1. 8 7 Be. 2 Pp. 9. 19-10. 1. 2 Atthis point it is worth asking whether the quotation from Col. ii. 3 at Il. 20-1 might be retained in the text, if it followed some such supplement as thatORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 393 The rest of the discussion of Matt. xiii. 44 (pp. 5-6) presupposes the double interpretation field = scripture or Christ and makes no back- reference to an interpretation treasure = Christ, although if one reads it with something of this kind in mind some of the mentions of Christ might perhaps be taken in both ways. This has a certain attraction in the case of pp. 5. 25-6. 8. Here Origen says that the kingdom of heaven, likened to the treasure hidden in the field, is cither the scriptures or Christ. He then asks whether the kingdom of heaven is likened just to the treasure and not the field or to the whole phrase, so as to include both treasure and ficld. This question might seem to have more point if the preceding discussion had allowed the possibility of understanding kingdom of heaven = treasure only = Christ." III. Some Omissions The above discussion has not made use of the likelihood of omissions and abbreviations in the direct Greek tradition for Books X—XI similar to those shown up by the Latin translation in Books XII-XVII.? Is it possible to cite examples of these? Cases where it is probable that biblical quotations have been abbre- viated are the easiest to point to. At X. 2 (p. 2. 11-12), for instance, an abbreviation of the lemma is indicated in the manuscripts by the use of dé roo and a gap is marked by Klosterman. At the end of X. 13 (p. 16. 6-10) the furnace of Matt. xiii. 50 is illustrated by a reference to Ezekiel’s words about the furnace at Ezek, xxii, 17-22, but our manuscripts leave out the most relevant part of the quotation, substituting xai rd és éws 706 for verses 18b-22a. In XI. 11 (p. 50. 30ff.) Origen discusses the quotation from Isa. xxix. 13 in Matt. xv. 8-9. His first point is that suggested above. Possibly, but the objection would still stand that the repetition at], 24 is uncomfortable. An interpretation according to which the treasure is Christ hidden in the field of the world and in the scriptures is found in Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses, IV. 26 (Sources Chrétiennes, 100, p. 712); similarly in ps.-Theophilus of Antioch, Commentary on the Gospels, I. 18, the field is the world and the treasure Christ (ed. Zahn, Forschungen zr Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, ii (Erlangen, 1883), p. 50). * ‘The above discussion has been in no way exhaustive. On the main point at issue it has only been possible to indicate preferences, not to draw any firm conclusions. The ideas involved in Origen’s treatment of the parable of the treasure hidden in the field are important and basic ones for him and have scarcely been touched on here. The general tradition of exegesis on Matt. xiii, 44, complicated as it is by difficulties of distinguishing ideas which are common property and direct and indirect use of particular authors, would also merit much more detailed treatment. 2 Even if we were to posit an omission at p. 5. 20, it would be easier to argue for an accidental one, since one might expect that a deliberate abbreviation of the text would leave it making better sense than the reading of our manuscripts.394 c. P. HAMMOND Matthew's quotation is not exact, and we should expect that he would have quoted the whole verse asit stood in his text of Isaiah abais Aéfeow, not just the opening words with xai rd ééje as we find in our manuscripts. He then goes on to give an exegesis of the whole passage Isa. xxix. g-r5a. ‘The quotation of these verses is introduced (p. 51. 4-5) and referred back to (p. 51. 16-17) as if it were given in full, and the discussion includes all the verses, but our manuscripts substitute Kai ra é£js Ews rod for verses 13-152. Abbreviations of Origen’s own text in our manuscripts are less easy to identify but there may be an example in onc of the sections discussed above, X. 6 on Matt. xiii. 44. Here the positing of an omission is suggested by the text as we have it and supported by the evidence of the catenae. As we saw above, in X. 5 Origen has put forward a double interpretation of the verse under discussion, field = etther scripture or Christ. In section 6 (p. 6. 8 ff.) he clucidates the detailed wording of the verse with continual back references to this double scheme; this is carried out clearly and consistently up to p. 6. 15: eAdesw Sé ris dvOpwnos eis rv dypdv, etre ras ypagas etre rév Xporéy rev ex pavepav Kal kpunrav oweornxdra, etplone Tv Kexpuppdroy THs aopias Onoaupsy, cire ev Xpiore cire ev rails ypapats (épmeprepydpevos yap rev dypsy Kal epeway ras ypapas Kal Lnrdv vofjoa rév Xpiordv edplones rév &v ait Onoaupdv), Kal eipav xpunret, ob dxlvduvov elvat vopiluy ré roy ypahdy dndppnra vopara % rods &v XporG Onoavpods aodias Kal yrdocws expaiver rois ruxode, Kal xpupas dmewoe mpay- parevdpevos, 7s dyopdae rv dypov. At this point the expected reference to Christ is missed out and we have just rév dypév afrou 7s ypagds. This reading is unacceptable; #rat should introduce the first of a pair of alternatives and demands a following q with the second of the first pair.! What is required here is rov dypov rot ras ypagds . . .4} ov Xpiaréy, the alternatives ypagds and Xprorov being in apposition to dypév as in 1.8 of the same page. This is supported by, the summary in Nicetas* dmetot 6¢ xpvpas dyopdawy rév dypdy, dadrepov dv Bop, Sv EBpator nply émorevOnaay, and the extractin JT may give some help with the wording to be adopted. IT reads wwe? 8¢ wdvra Soa tyer dob pevos 7d dd xaxias Kai iSomotet rat Hd mpa@ror of “IovBator emorenoay Asya, 4 8% mpoveddxow Xprordy.3 1 fro normally introduces the first of a pair or of a series; for a few randomly chosen examples of its use in Origen cf. Contra Celsum, I. x and xi (G.C.S., Origenes, I, p. 63. 3 and 17), V. ii and iti (G.C.S., Origenes, IT, p. 3. 12 and 24), Comm. on Fon, I. xi (G.C.S., Origenes, IV, p. 17. 19). 2 Loc. cit. (above, p. 389 n. t), Il. 12-14. 3 Heinrici, op. cit., p. 158.ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 395 ‘The first part of this sentence seems to be based on Origen, p. 6. 20-2, but the second part clearly paraphrases p. 6. 15-17, with the same quotation of Rom. iii. 2 and the word iStomovetrae reflecting Origen’s Gov krfua avrds moujon. The last four words here provide a suitable supplement to follow émeresOycav in Origen (I. 17), and we may suppose that they or something like them originally stood in Origen’s text. An indication of J7’s faithfulness to Origen here is its preservation of Origen’s reading in Rom. iii. 2 mpdzo« which should also be adopted into the text.? 4 TV. TRANSPOSITION aT XI. 14 AND Pace Size IN Arcuetypes or Or1GEN Manuscripts In XI. 12-15 Origen discusses Matt. xv. 10-20. Section 12 expounds verse 11, the most important verse of the passage, containing Jesus’ pronouncement about pure and impure foods. At the beginning of section 13 Origen turns to the reaction met by Jesus’ words, the offence taken by the Pharisees because on account of their perverse doctrines and debased interpretation of the Law they were not a plant of Jesus’ heavenly Father, their uprooting, their failure to receive Christ or his words, their blindness, and so on. The section forms a simple and straightforward interpretation of verses 10-14, combining phrases taken verbatim from the verses with Origen's expansions and interpretations. It is in section 14 (p. 55) that we encounter difficulties. In this section Origen goes on to consider a misrepresentation which verse 12 gives rise to among the heretics who do not accept that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are the same, The arguments of the heretics are set out in II. 21-30; and Il. 30 ff. purport to give Origen’s answer. A minor emendation is required in order to connect the sentence beginning airés (23) with the preceding sentence. Koetschau suggested adding ydp after aids (Klostermann’s app. crit. ad loc.), but I should prefer to combine the two sentences to make a conditional sentence parallel to the heretics’ second argument.) * Reading mpooeSéxe for Heinrici’s rpoocSéxow. For this kind of idea in Origen cf. for instance Comm. on John, If. xxiv: mpooBoxta Xpiored (G.C.S., Origenes, IV, p. 93. 4). * The reading mpdro is attested for Origen by the Codex von der Goltz (Athos Laura 184, New Testament MS. 1739 Acts and Epistles); the verse is quoted with mpdzor later in the Comm, om Matt. at XVII. 7 (p. 602. 35-603, 1) and there is an allusion which implies this reading at XVII. 9 (p, 608, 29-30). 2 Adding dy, ciep after odx in |, 22. This makes the best sense of the heretics’ argumentation. ‘Their position is made sufficiently clear in Hl, 12, and Il, 3-4 (oirwes to eboefeir) is not needed for this purpose. If otzwes to expLoteda: is combined in the way suggested, they are given a suitable piece of argumentation, such as is implied in xal radra at |, 26,396 Cc. P, HAMMOND The emended text, translated literally into English, would read as follows : After this it is worth looking at a text which is misrepresented by those who assert that the God of the Law and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the same God; who say that if the heavenly Father of Jesus Christ is the husbandman of those who think they worship God according to the Law of Moses, Jesus would not himself have said that the Pharisees, who were serving the God who made the world and the Law, were a plant which his heavenly Father did not plant and that it was therefore being rooted up. And they would also say that, if he who brought in and planted the people which came out from Egypt in the mountain of his inheritance, in his own prepared dwelling-place (Exod. xv. 17), was the Father of Jesus, Jesus would not have said with reference to the Pharisees that every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. How does Origen answer these arguments? According to the text given in our manuscripts, not at all. He goes off into a digression on 2 Cor. iv. 4 with some slight relevance to Matt. xv. 14 but with none to the problem he is supposed to be answering. If we strained very hard we might extract some sort of inadequate answer from the dco: clause of Il, 31-2, which merely repeats what has been said in the previous section (p. 54-29-31, p- 55- 6), but fortunately this is not necessary. ‘The solution is not far to seek. At the bottom of the next page, following inconsequen- tially after a discussion of verses 15-18, is Origen’s answer to the heretics, presented with due emphasis and clarity. Transposing this (p. 56. 32 0 mapa rev vSpov- 57. 1076 mvebjed €orw) to its correct place following 7 (p. 55. 31) we can translate: ‘In reply to this we shall say that it was not because of the Law, in which they thought they believed, that the Pharisees were not a plant of the Father of Jesus, but because of their perverse interpretation of the Law and the things written in it’. He goes on to distinguish the two senses of the Law, as the ministration of death and the ministration of life, on the basis of 2 Cor. iii. 6 ff. and Rom. vii. 12-14; those who recognised the spiritual sense of the Law were a plant which the heavenly Father planted, those who followed only the death-giving letter were not a plant of God. This argument is what we should expect here. The heretics reject the Law and the God of the Law; Origen must show that the condem- nation of the Pharisces is not a condemnation of the Law and he does so by distinguishing the spirit and the letter of the Law. ‘The application of 2 Cor. iii. 6-18 to Matt. xv. 13 at the top of page 57 leads naturally into the discussion of 2 Cor. iv. 4 and Matt. xv. 14 at Pp. 55. 31 ff. All that is required is the addition of some connecting particle so that doo: can start a new sentence smoothly (e.g. d0:+5¢). After defining those who were a plant of God and those who were notORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 397 according to his own interpretation, Origen allows for the possibility that the latter might none the less turn towards the Lord (citing 2 Cor. iii. 16-18; p. 57. g-10). The sentence starting with aor resumes the discussion of those who were not a plant of God after this minor interruption and shows how their minds were blinded. In the course of this discussion Origen incidentally answers the question, ‘If the Pharisees were not a plant of God, whose plant were they?’ They were plant of him who hardened their heart and put a veil on it (p. 57. 7-8: 2 Cor. iii, 14-15), the God of this world, who blinded their minds (Pp. 55. 32-56. 2; 2 Cor. iv. 4). At this point Origen digresses to explain Paul's expression 6 08s rod aliavos ro¥rov (p. 56. 2-10), and only atl. 10 does he apologise for this digression and explain that he has discussed 2 Cor. iv. 4 because of its relevance to Matt. xv. 14 and its application to the Pharisees. The rest of the paragraph (p. 56. 15-23) consists of a warning against blind leaders, and the next paragraph (p. 56. 248.) goes on to Matt. xv. 15-18. The transition from P. 56. 32 Bddderar to P. 57- 11 Himor presents no difficulties. A train of argument similar to that of P. 55. 20ff.+p. 56. 32 ff. changing Origen’s unidentified heretics into Manichaeans, is found in a catena extract attributed variously to Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, printed by Klosterman in G,C.S., Origenes, XII. i, P- 145 no. 334, and by Reuss in his Matthius-Kommentare (cf. above, P- 384 n. 2), p. 125, under Theodore of Mopsuestia, extract 81. If, as seems probable, this is based on the Origen passage, it is based on a correct reading of it. For use of Origen on Matthew by Theodore, we may compare Reuss, extract 75, on Matt. xiii. 44-6 (discussed above), where the general approach is on the same lines as Origen’s and the use of Philippians iii. 7-8 to illuminate Matt. xiii, 46 seems to be derived from Origen, section 9 (p. 10. 17-11. 15). Klostermann prints two catenae extracts ascribed to Origen on Matt. xv. 13, his nos. 331 and 332 (G.C.S., Origenes, XIL. i, pp. 143-4), but neither of them corresponds to anything in the Commentary on Matthew. No. 331 is on Matt. xv. 11-14 in general and does not in fact cite verse 13 at all, but oes straight on from verse r2 to verse 14, unless we are to suppose that the description of the Pharisees’ abandon- ment of him who led them in the desert (pp. 14-19) refers to verse 13 as well as verse 14. No. 332 considers a problem raised by Matt. xv. ¥j when taken as a general statement in isolation, thus differing from the Comm. on Matt. which only discusses it in its context as applied to the Pharisees. The possibility that this material came from a different work of Origen might be supported by the fact that 332 reappears in Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew, the sources of which included Origen’s398 c. P;- HAMMOND Homilies and Scholia on Matthew as well as his Commentary (cf. above P. 385 n. 1). After his reproduction of 332 Jerome continues with a passage arguing against those who use Matt. xv. 13 to deny free will (op. cit., p. 130). Both this and the material from 332 deal with quibbles caused by detaching Matt. xv. 13 from its context (in the second case also reversing it). It is not unlikely that they belong together, since the quotation of 1 Cor. iii.6f. and the idea of human and divine co-operation which figure in 332 are used elsewhere by Origen in discussing free will (De Principiis, III. i. 19 (G.C.S., Origenes, V, p. 232) = Philocalia, ed. Robinson, p. 171). In the Commentary on Matthew the problem of free will does not come up, since Matt. xv. 13 is only discussed in contest, but it is interesting to see how careful Origen is to make clear the responsibility of the Pharisces for the fact that they were not a plant of Jesus’ heavenly Father and were rooted up and became blind. It was, he tells us, because they interpreted the Law wrongly (p. 54-29-30 P- 55-6, P. $7: 33-4) P- 55 31-2), because they did not accept Christ and his words (p. $4. 31-55. 2), because they followed the death-giving letter (p. 57+ 7), because they did not believe the truth (p. 55- 33), because they were not willing to accept the spirit of adoption (p. 56. 7-10); but the veil placed over their hearts was only effective in so far as they did not turn towards the Lord (p. 57. 8-10). Matt. xv. 13 is interpreted differently yet again in Origen’s Homilies on Jeremiah, I. 14 (C.C.S. Origenes, ITT, p. 13), where the pureéa is identified with the evil thoughts of Matt. xv. 19; anda double interpretation is offered in the Commentary on the Song of Songs (G.C.S., Origenes, VAIL, p. 224- 26 ff.). The passage to be transposed (p. 56. 32 od-p. 57. 10 éarw) is 142 words long, How are we to suppose that such a transposition occurred ? ‘The easiest explanation would be if a page in some earlier exemplar had got loose and been turned round or moved out of place; but, if this were the case here, we should expect p. 55. 31 Srp. 56. 32 Badrera to be either the same length as p. 56- 32-57- 10 or twice its length (or three times, four times etc., depending on how many pages got out of place).In fact it is 363 words, significantly more than twiee but significantly less than three times as long. Rejecting this idea therefore, the most likely hypothesis seems to be that, at some stage in copying, the passage p. 56. 32-57. 10 was omitted for some reason, and that a corrector added it in a margin with inadequate sigues de renvoi and in such away that it followed Paderar at p. 56. 32. Itmight then have been copied in the wrong order. ‘An example of the kind of correction envisaged occurs in the MS. Vat. gr. 386 (s. x111) of the Contra Celsum. It is described by Koetschau in the introduction to his edition (G.C.S., Origenes, I, p. lix, note 1) and in the apparatus criticus ad loc. (p. 149. 22). Here the passage p. 149-22ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 399 al mpos “EAAnvas to 150. 12 obrws 6 Adyos is omitted from the text and added in the lower margin, This passage is much the same length as that transposed in the Commentary on Matthew; indecd, if we count the number of words, the coincidence seems remarkable. In the Commentary on Matthew we have a passage of 142 words, in the Contra Celsum one of 143 words, Is it possible to ascribe any significance to this? It is at least worth considering the hypothesis that the coincidence reflects some earlier stage in the transmission when there were companion volumes of Origen’s works with similar-sized pages.? For the Contra Celsum there is supporting evidence that the passage p. 149. 22-150. 12 does represent the page length in an earlier exemplar. At pp. 207-9 a transposition in the text involving passages of more or less the same length was pointed out by Dr. Chadwick in his translation.? P. 207. 30 dpotws 5€ edSos—p. 208. 14 rods Stbxovras, a passage of 139 words, ought to follow p. 209. 3 éréBevro, thus changing places with p. 208. 14 xatrot~209. 3 éréBevro, a passage of 151 words, These lengths are sufficiently close to each other and to that of 143 words to support a theory of page dislocation in both cases. Is there anything similar in the Greek text of any of Origen’s other works? In the Homilies on Jeremiah there is a transposition involving the exchange of passages of 156 and 3x0 words (G.C.S., Origenes, IIT, p: 78. 6-79. 9 and p. 79. 9-80. 16; cf. app. crit. ad loc.), Here one of the passages is almost exactly twice the length of the other and the unit is slightly larger than for the Contra Celsum. The assumption that pages were loose in an carlier exemplar is supported by the fact that there are a number of gaps in the Greck text, which may be the result of missing pages. These are discussed by Klostermann in his introduction (pp. xiii— xiv) and in the apparatus criticus at p. 145. 19, p. 167. 6, p. 21. 20, and Pp. 165. 1. At p. 145. 19 Jerome’s Latin translation gives an approximate idea of the length of the gap, not unfavourable to the idea that a page had dropped out, but his translation technique is too loose for it to be possible to base any calculations of page length on this.3 * But for this coincidence, one might prefer to explain the dropping out of the passage in the Commentary on Matthew, pp. 56. 32-57. 10, differently. The whole context of pp. 55-7 is full of repeated phrases, in particular repetitions of Matt. xv. 13, and the passage dropped out begins with expressions which recur in the sentence immediately after it; p. 56. 32-43 09 mapd téy rduor .. . od Faay gureia 700 mazpis . .. GAAd napd Tiy poxOnpdv wept rad wbkeou . . . exboyay; P. 55. 31-2 Go0t Bed ay poxPnpdv wept raw Kard Téy vépow éxBoxyy bk Foar pureta 708 ev otpavois mazpés. A possible explanation of the omission is that the eye of a scribe copying might have jumped from one of these r phrases to the next so that he left out the interyening words. 2 (Cambridge, 1953), p. 512. > Cf. Klostermann’s discussion of Jerome’s translation in his introduction, G.G.S,, Origenes, III, pp. xix—xxi400 c. P, HAMMOND Evidence from other works is less clear. Both Koetschau in discussing the text of the De Oratione and Preuschen for the Commentary on John attempted to use the fact that the manuscripts of these works leave gaps in the text as evidence for page size in earlier ‘exemplars, but in both cases the argumentation is only valid if the scribes were accurate in leaving gaps of exactly the length the missing portions of text would haye taken up in their own copies, an assumption that may by no means be taken for granted. The De Oratione is preserved, bound together with the Commentary on Matthew but in a later hand, in the MS. Cambridge, Trinity College 194 (B. 8, 10; s. xiv). Koetschau lists the gaps left by the scribe (G.C.S., Origenes, I, pp. Ixxxvi-lxxxvii) and argues that these show that in the exemplar from which it was copied the first or last lines of the sides were damaged by damp, and that this exemplar contained 23 lines of his text to each side. He has managed to arrange the evidence into four portions of text-+ gaps, each divisible into sections of 23 lines of his own text, but the result is not as regular as one might wish. The damp would appear to have attacked large portions of text at the beginning and/or end of some sides while leaving neighbouring sides untouched; and there would be extra damage unaccounted for in the middles of Koetschau’s sides 9 and 13. The case of the Commentary on John is more complicated, The surviving books of this work are also bound with the Commentary on Matthew, this time in the MS. Munich Bayrische Staatsbibliothek gr. 191 (s. x11). Its tradition is distinguished by its preservation of a series of fascinating marginal notes from an earlier date, which draw attention to heretical views expressed by Origen and to other points of interest (cE. G.C.S., Origenes, LV, pp. xiii-xvii). Preuschen argued on the basis of certain repetitions in the text and of a large gap near the beginning of Book 28, which he supposed was caused by the loss of a leaf in the immediate exemplar, that this immediate exemplar was written with about 2,400 letters to a page, and 30 lines of about 40 letters to a side (ibid., pp. xvii-xviii). There is further evidence, however, which conflicts with this. Between pp. 162 and 267 there is a succession of small gaps and Preuschen reckons that: from pp. 252 ff. these recur at more or less regular intervals of about 800 letters. He suggests the hypothesis that the ‘Archetypus der Vorlage’ was damaged in this pattern, but rejects it as improbable without further comment (ibid., pp. xix-xx). It would be possible to make use of the hypothesis in arguing for an archetype for the Commentary on John of similar page- size to that put forward above for the Commentary on Matthew, Contra Celsunn and Homilies on Jeremiah; if we take advantage of the leewayORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 4or allowed by the uncertainty about how the gaps in the text should be filled, it is quite possible to reckon the distance from the beginning of one gap or Set of gaps to the n p- 256. 6-22, p. 256. 22-257. 11, and p. 266. 23-267. 3 at the required length (about 145 words). One might even suggest that the larger gap of about 2,400 letters was caused by the dropping out of several pages at the same stage, without needing to argue against Preuschcn’s calculations of line-length in the immediate exemplar. The evidence from the Commentary on John cannot be taken as a firm basis for any hypothesis because of the uncertainty both about the length of the gaps in the text and about the possible ways they might have been caused. That from the Contra Celsum, Homilies on Feremiah, and Commentary on Matthew, however, is definitely striking, despite various factors which make calculation of page-length from number of words inexact. One of these is spacing. Both the Tura papyrus and the Vat. MS. of the Contra Celsum use blanks for punctuation and the correspondence between them in the application of this system led Scherer to suggest that it derives from their common archetype (cf. below, p. 403 n. 3, and p. x2 of Scherer’s edition; also Chadwick in §-T.S.N.5. viii (1957), p.323)- The passage transposed in the Homilies on Jeremiah includes the opening of a new homily, which may have involved some spacing out of headings, and the passage added as a correction at Coritra Celswn, pp. 149-50, contains three iambic trimeters quoted from Euripides’ Phoenissae, which might possibly have been written with some extra spacing. In most of the passages discussed count- ing of words is complicated by minor emendations introduced by the editors (Contra Celsum, p. 150. 4, p. 209. 2, Homilies on Jeremiah, p. 78. 6, p. 80. 7; all additions of single words). In the Commentary on Matthew it is even possible that the abbreviation of the direct tradition diagnosed by Klostermann has affected the passage transposed at pp. 56. 32-57. 10, although there is nothing in the text that actually invites such an assumption, It is also possible that in some of the cases, transposition left phrases hanging which were then omitted from the text. In the Commentary on Matthew for instance it might well be suggested that some nominative phrase originally preceded the door now at p. §5. 31 and that this was left hanging at p. 57. 10 and then omitted altogether. The sense required for such a phrase would be something like ‘Those however who did not turn towards the Lord or follow the life-giving Spirit’, but it is unlikely that Origen repeated the words used immediately above. For the sake of an example one might suggest of 8¢ x) BovlnDévres mvetpeart Oeod dyealat (using the wording of Rom. viii. 14, the verse preceding that quoted on p. 56. 7-8).402 c. P. HAMMOND Possible variations in length of the kind just suggested are not really sufficient to destroy the coincidence between the three works. Continuing then with the hypothesis of loose pages in some earlier set of Origen’s writings, we must consider two questions. Are we to think in terms of pages or of sides of about 143/155 words for our hypothetical exemplars and to what sort of date are we to assign them? If we were to look at the Contra Gelsum in isolation we might prefer to think of sides of about 143 words. The transposition at pp. 207-9 could equally well have been caused by one page being reversed or by two being exchanged, and it is possible to explain the correction at pp. 149-50 in the same terms, if a scribe copying a page which had got reversed did not at first realize that it was reversed.! If, however, we are to propose a hypothesis linking the phenomena from the three works, we must think in terms of page-length. The transposition in the Homilies on Jeremiah must surely be explained in terms of one page of 156 words changing places with two pages of about 155 words cach. The transposition in the Commentary on Matthew is most casily thought of in terms of one page having dropped out and been added as a correction. The question of date is not unconnected. 143 or 155 words is very short for the length of a side, and extremely short for the length of a page, and one would scarcely expect an author so voluminous as Origen to have been copied on abnormally small pages. If we think in terms of a rather early date, however, perhaps the fourth, fifth, or sixth century, this kind of page-size seems to be less unusual.* Does the evidence from our manuscripts offer any obstacles to our putting the source of corruption so far back and thinking of their ancestors in terms of a set of companion volumes of about this period which were in a rather bad state of repair by the time they were copied? 1 This possibility is set out by Dr. Chadwick in his review of Scherer’s edition of the Tura papyrus extracts of the Contra Celsum in J.T.S. Ns. viii (1957), pp. 325-6. The evidence from the Commentary on Fohn might also favour about 145 words as the length of a side rather than a page, if we included it here, since one would expect regular damage to affect every side rather than just every page Fhe evidence for Greek patristic works for this period is not abundant, but ‘one might cite for instance the following examples from the Oxyrhynchus ' Papyri: vol. xxxi, 2531, s. V1 (2), Theophilus of Alexandria, papyrus codex with about 70 words to a side; vol. xv, 1778, s. IV, Aristides, papyrus codex with about 66 words to a side; vol. xv, 1783, s. 1, Hermas, vellum codex with about 64 words to a side; vol. xiii, 1602, s. 1v (late) or s. v, Homily to Monks, velham codex with about 60 words to a side; also Bodmer Papyrus V, a collection of s. 11 (?) including Nativity of Mary and Melito of Sardis with about 75 words to a side. On the preference for a small format among early Christians cf. for instance Bodmer Papyrus II, cd. Victor Martin (1956), p. 10, ‘Il semble que l’on ait affectionné dans les cercles chrétiens primitifs les formats réduits’.ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 403, The Homilies on Jeremiah are preserved in the MS. of the Escorial Library @-III-19 (s. x1/xu). The transposing and dropping-out of leaves which it presupposes could presumably have happened either in its immediate exemplar or equally well at an earlier stage in the trans- mission, though, if the latter, we should have to suppose that the copy- ing which took place in between was fairly mechanical. Two of the gaps in the text are indicated by gaps in the manuscript, two of them not. In the case of the Commentary on Matthew we must suppose that the corruption was already present in the common ancestor of our two manu- scripts of s, x11 ands. xiv. The exemplar with the loose pages must have been at least two stages back from this, since it is necessary to imagine an intermediate copy in which the omission and the misleading correction were made. The evidence from the Contra Celsem is conflicting. At pp. 207-9 the Vat. MS. of s. x111 has not only a transposition but also a correction added to make sense of the transposed text (mepi 38 Xpiotiavayv added at 209. 3). This makes it most likely that the transposition took place in an exemplar at least two stages back and that the correction was added in an intermediate copy.! At p. 149 on the other hand it would be most natural to suppose that the loss of a page had occurred in the immediate exemplar and that the scribe had later found the page and added it in the lower margin. If we wish to put the loss of the page further back, one possibility would be to suppose that the scribe of our manuscript has copied out his exemplar mechanically with the correction exactly as it stood in it.? The Vatican manuscript of the Contra Celsum contains a subscription at the end of Book I supposed by KCoctschau to derive from Pamphilus and Eusebius; if Koetschau is correct, therefore, our tradition goes back toa copy made by Pamphilus.> We learn from Jerome of Pamphilus’ activities in collecting and copying the works of Origen and of their preservation in the library at Caesarea;4 also of the damage suffered by * Itis unlikely that a correction of this kind would have been made by anyone who actually had the copy with transposed pages in front of him. 2 For the question whether we can admit the possibi of independent corrections in the Vat, MS. of the Contra Gelsum cf. Chadwick, loc. cit. (above, Pp. 402 n, 1), > The subscription reads pereBaxj0n «ai dvreBaybn && dvtypddwy trav abrod "Qpryévous BeBAiww and is discussed by Koetschau in T.U. vi (1889), p. 66. ‘The same subscription, with only one word altered (dvmypdgou for dvriypdgan) is found also in the same position in the ‘Tura Papyrus extracts of the Contra Celsum (ed. Jean Scherer (Cairo, 1956), ef. pp. 6 und 102). Scherer regards this as an indication that the common archetype of the Vat. MS. and the papyrus was the copy in the library at Caesarea. + De Viris Ilustribus, 75 (ed. E. C. Richardson, T.U. xiv (1896), p. 41), and ane pd404 c. P. HAMMOND this collection and its attempted restoration by Acacius and Euzoius in the second half of the fourth century.? It is generally assumed that Acacius and Euzoius transferred Origen’s works not only from papyrus to parchment? but also from rolls to codex-form, and Jerome mentions ‘uolumina’ of Origen written in Pamphilus’ own hand.? Are we to suppose then that our hypothetical set of companion volumes were these first ones in book form, the ones made by Acacius and Euzoius, or copies of these? Not necessarily—even if the above assumptions are right, our branch of the tradition could have diverged before the activities of Acacius and Euzoius—there must have been other copies of Origen’s works circulating at this period. But here we are in the realm of pure speculation. "The whole hypothesis is uncertain, though sufficiently attractive to merit serious consideration. Perhaps further evidence will be forthcoming. Cc. P. HAMMOND Epistles, 34. 1 (C.S-ELL. liv, p. 260). For Origen’s works in this Ibrary cf. Klosterman in Sitawngsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften 2u Berlin (4897), p. 85s, and for the library in general R. Devreesse, Introduction a Pétude des manuserits grecs (Paris, 1954), Dp. 122 fl 1 De Viris Iltustribus, 113 (T.U. xiv, p. 51) and Epistles, 34. 1. 2 Jerome's words are ‘in membranis instaurare’. The Vienna MS. of Philo, theol. gr. 29 (6. X1), contains a notice Evféos enfoxonos dv owparioss dvevedboaro, (cf. Philonis Opera quae supersunt, ed. L. Cohn and P. Wendland (1896), vol. T, p. iii). 3 De Viris Ilustribus, 75. In his Apologia aduersus Libros Rufini, 1. 9 (P-L., xxiii, 404A) on the other hand, where he quotes the third book of Eusebius’ Life of Panphilus, Jerome uses the word ‘codices’, but this is apparently referring to Pamphilus’ preparation of copies of the Scriptures.