[See page image]

Page 269

8cholis,

The patristic acholia on the Bible are distinguished from Biblical commentaries in that, instead of following the text continuously, they explain only such individual points as seem to require elucidation. The wholion thus resembles the gloss (see GLOSSES, BIBLICAL AND ECCLESIAS r. Character'rICAL), though in the medieval period of Scholia. " gloss " denotes a scholion which can not be ascribed to a definite author. In Greek philology, on the other hand, a gloss originally meant an obscure phrase or word, later being applied metaphorically to the interpretation of such a phrase or word. In such glosses the obscure words were replaced by intelligible ones, either on the margin of the text or above the words in question. Later still, the gloss comprised not only the interpretation of obscure words and phrases, but etymologies and elucidations of subject-matter in the text under consideration. Both the state of patristic exegesis and linguistic usage render it impossible to distinguish sharply between scholia and commentaries, especially as the individual notes of the commentaries possess a certain degree of independence and are thus akin to the scholion. Moreover the scholion is defined by Suidas and the Etymologicum magnum as a note placed beside the text during school instruction. It thus bore a distinctly informal character, was essentially characterized by the individuality and ability of the teacher, and was not necessarily intended for publication. The linguistic usage of patristic exegesis furnishes many examples of these meanings of the term scholion. Arethas (q.v.) terms his commentary on Revelation a " Scholiastic synopsis," and the commentaries on Matthew and Mark in Cod. Laur. VI., 18 and Codex Vaticanus 1,445 are likewise designated as scholiaThe-author of the catena Laur. VI., 33, on the other hand, distinguishes sharply between scholion and commentary, and this distinctioa is still more marked in the catena on Paul in Vindobonensis 166. The catenas are the principal sources for excerpt scholia, these being notes drawn from commentaries or other writings and appended to the words of the text they elucidate. Besides these sources, the independent labor of scholiasts must be considered, in which the individuality of the author appears more prominently than in the notes proceeding from studies in schools. Such scholia are the notes and comments of a reader less intent on explaining his text than on marking and elucidating passages which especially attract his attention. The scholiast's freedom is restricted in texts regarded as sacred, of which an authoritative interpretation had early been given. In itself it is immaterial whether the scholiast made his annotations for purposes of instruction, or for himself. In Biblical scholia the latter was rarely the case.

One of the most interesting Biblical scholia is the Codex Marchallianus on the prophets, which was re-