[See page image]

Page 270

vised according to the Tetrapla of Origen. On its margins scholia record the critical labors of Origen,

and also contain other pertinent matter s. Biblical of various periods. Especially instrucand Patristic tive for scholia literature is the Athos

taining Acts and the Catholic and Pauline epistles. The scholia contain valuable critical notes, mostly with the citation of the authorities and works from which they are drawn. The principal sources are the Stromata and the commentaries of Origen, though Ireneeus, Clement, and Basil are also used. The scholia are not invariably named, however, the anonymous ones apparently belonging to the original owner of the manuscript, which has been plausibly supposed to have come from the school of Arethas of Caesarea. The character of the echolia of this manuscript clearly show that the interest of the writer was concentrated on the subject-matter and its problems, thus leading to a scientific revision of the entire manuscript. The Biblical acholia afford no certain data concerning the problem of their origin, since they for the most part presuppose the exegetical tradition of the commentary. The analogy of the scholia on the Church Fathers must accordingly be employed. Here the most important scholia are those on Clement of Alexandria, written by Baanes and Arethas, and the scholia on Gregory Nazianzen. The scholia of Baanes are primarily linguistic, though they also give notes on mythology and history. The interest of Arethas was primarily theological, though he cites the classics as well as the Bible or such Church Fathers as Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzen (qq.v.). He pays especial attention to allegorical exegesis, etymologies, definitions, figures, and similes, Short rules of life, paronomasias, antitheses, and anecdotes from history and natural science. The objects of Elias of Crete, one of the scholiasts on Gregory Nazianzen, were to interpret theological, ethical, and scientific material, as well as the mythological and linguistic problems of his text.

It may be assumed that similar interests and intentions led to the writing of scholia on the Bible; but if this be true, these scholia can rightly be judged only in connection with classical philology, the

methods being identical, despite the 3. Early divergence of matter and of aim. In

to protect the sources of classical training and to guard their exegesis. Thus arose the classical commentaries, collections of acholia, florilegia, and lexicons. Even more attention, however, was directed to interpretation of the language and the matter than to criticism, and allegorical exegesis was carried far (See EXEGESIS OR HERMENEU Tlcs). This tendency to interpret and deepen authoritative tradition led, in ancient philology, to a special class of Bcholiastic literature, designed to reconcile the discrepant statements of an author. This latter type to harmonize difficulties forms an important class of Christian scholia, exemplified not only by frequent passages in the commentaries of Origen, but also by marginal notes on manu-

scripts of the Bible, as is Laur~ VI., 33 and Cod. COW. 206. The earliest patristic collection of echolia is doubtless the Hypotyposeis of Clement, its sources being the original elders and Pantaenus, the founder of the catechetical school at Alexandria, whose object was to deepen knowledge, investigation, and interpretation of the Bible. The work, as described by Photius (Bibliotheca, cix.), was a condensation and a summary, incomplete, allegorizing, and full of repetitions. Despite the unfavorable attitude of Photius, who was theologically opposed to Clement, it is clear that the latter 's book was acholiastic in character. Origen is expressly said to have written acholia, besides his homilies and com-

mentaries. Many of these scholia are preserved in the catenas, and Jerome mentions such comments on Leviticus, Isaiah, Psalms i.-xv., Ecclesiastes, and John. The Athos manuscript likewise cites

Origen's scholia on Genesis, and mentions his Stromata as a source for its own scholia. The scholia of Origen are characterized by brevity and cogency. They contain notes on the text, pertinent interpre-

tations, and information on the subject-matter, with relatively little allegorizing. The catenas contain numerous scholia of Theodore of Mopsuestia

and other Antiochian theologians, while Theodoret is also occasionally mentioned as a scholiast.

The majority of the anonymous scholia are characterized by Byzantine orthodoxy, as is shown by the scholia of Hesychius on the Psalms. Whether

the scholia of Johannes Hamartolus on

tine and istic spirit is problematical, but at all

Other events he furnished the sole source for

Works. the catena of Nicetaa. Byzantine scho

lia are essentially of one type; dog

matic, ascetic, and allegorical interpretations pre

vail, rather than notes on geography, history, or

subject-matter. Numerous examples of these

acholia may be drawn from J. C. G. Ernesti's edi

tions of the Glosso; sacrie of Hesychius (Leipsic,

1785) and Phavorinua (1786), as well as from C. F.

de Matthaei's Glossaria. (irceca minors (2 vols., Riga,

1774-75) and J. Alberti's Glossarium Crrcecum in

sucros Novi Teatamenti libros (Leyden, 1735). The

oldest treatise on Biblical difficulties is Philo's

Qucestiones et soluliones quae aunt in Genesi et in

Exodo, translated from Armenian into Latin by

J. B. Aucher (Venice, 1828), and from the Latin

into English in Bohn's Theological Library, Works

of Philo, iv. 284 sqq., London, 1855. Of the Church

Fathers Eusebius wrote on the solution of discrepan

cies in the Gospels, those preserved (ed. A. Mai, Nova

collectio, i.1-60, 61-189, Rome, 1825) treating respec

tively of the genealogy and infancy of Christ, and

of his passion. A comprehensive work of similar

character was written by Theodoret (MPG, Ixxx.

77-856), discussing the Oetateuch, Kings, and

Chronicles. In like manner, the " Collection of

Problems and Solutions " ascribed to the presbyter

Hesychiua (MPG, xciii. 1391-1448), the 446 " Ques

tions and Answers " of Anaatasius of Sinai (MPG,

lxxxix. 311-824), and the Qucestiones ad Amphiloch,

ium of Photiua (Mai, Nova colLectio, i.) contain chiefly

exegetical difficulties side by aide with dogmatic

and ascetic problems. To the Western Church be-