CHAPTER III

CHAPTER III

CHAPTER III

THE NATURE AND CONTENTS OF THE MANUSCRIPT

The text reproduced in the previous chapter comprises fourteen fragments which the British Museum bound together into one volume and which its Catalogue describes in the following terms:

"Fragments of the Commentaries of Philoxenus of Mabbug on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, "298

Such a description assumes that all the fragments are in fact from the same work to which the final fragment with its important colophon belongs.

That colophon states in part:

"The end of the fourth book of the commentary of the Evangelists, Matthew

: and Luke, which was made by Philoxenus ...."

It is the intention of this chapter to examine these fragments inductively to discover what interrelationships exist among them and what light they shed on the nature of the "commentary" to which the colophon bears witness.

In order to accomplish this, we shall first present the evidence in the form of an English translation of the manuscript followed by descriptive and analytical notes before presenting a synthesis of the available facts.

In the translation square brackets [ ] denote a lacuna in the text and words within them translate a suggested reconstruction.

Round brackets ( ) 'contain words which clarify the meaning in Fnglish for which there is no Syriac equivalent in the text.

Biblical and other quotations have been identified by quotations whether or not the equivalent mark

/<¢/ appears in the margin of the text.

For convenience, biblical references are placed as footnotes to the translation and are identified alphabetically to distinguish them from the numerically listed notes which are gathered at the end of this work.

The foliations and lines of the Manuscript are noted in the margin of the translation with the approximate beginning of the line marked by an asterisk (*) within the translation.

The paragraph divisions of the translation follow the major

divisions marked in the manuscript by the sign /...w.-/ or its variants.

TRANSLATION

OF BRITISH MUSEUM MANUSCRIPT ADD.

17,126 Fragment

And of forgiveness; for He will forgive Folto ir wrongdoers "not only seven (times), but seventy times seven."* Indeed, He has proved it by means of His sufferings of old.

While indicating this about Himself, He reminded Simon about *that number which was quoted for Lamech:

"Because Cain was avenged seven times, Lamech (will be avenged) seventy times seven."

Cain therefore enquired of God whether he would die because he had committed murder:

"He said to him, '[It is] not *so, for whoever kills Cain shall release seven

nC [That is to say,] "He who kills you will be penalties'. doing you a favour, because you will escape the capital punishment which I have decreed for you.

However, what happens to all murderers will not happen to you:

*'He who

sheds the blood of wan, by man shall his blood, besshedts— It is you, then, who have become illustrative of the fact that 'murder will be avenged seven times'."© This saying may be understood in the following *senses: either Cain received

seven punishments because he had committed murder; or he remained alive for seven generations while being punished; or he spared anyone who has committed murder from seven penalties; or, in the judgement to come, *his punishment

will also be greater than [that of] all murderers; or the terms of his sentence were [fulfilled] after he was chastened, and he was considered worthy of mercy.

Perhaps this happened to him *because he was not the author Folto lv of murder, but had served the will of that other person about whom Christ has said:

"From the beginning he has been killing men, and *he does not stand in the truth. "*

Now He

refers either to the fact that Satan brought death by the a. Matthew 18:22 d. Genesis 9:6 b. Genesis 4:24 e. unidentified quotation c. Genesis 4:15 f£. John 8:33(44)

transgressing of the command, or to the fact that he killed Abel by means of Cain.

Since, in the one place, he brought death to Adam by means of Eve, in the other *he killed Abel

by means of Cain.

Because of these things, everyone [governs himself] as he wishes.

Now after Cain committed murder, he received those punishments which were prescribed and a mark was placed on him so that he might not be destroyed by anything

-- neither by man alone, *nor by beast, nor even burned by fire, nor 4:5 drowned by water; for he probably would have thrown himself either into a fire or into water in order to escape the tortures that he was in.

But *a mark was put on him that

he might not also be destroyed by these things.

And even mute elements recognized the mark which was upon him.

As it is, he who asked of God that anyone finding him should kill him, did not destroy himself again and again,

*and the

indelible mark which was put on him was well invoked.

For, is it not a miracle that flesh should fall into a fire and not [catch fire], *and into water and not be drowned, Folto 2r and thrown to the beasts and not be devoured?

But after these things which were told about him, it is written:

"Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land *of Nod opposite Eden";? that is, he could not settle down

in the vicinity of Paradise, for Adam and those who were descendants of Seth were dwelling in that place.

Now Eden is the name of that land in which Paradise was planted, while the land of Nod is that in which *Cain dwelt.

So with

regard to Adam it is said:

"God removed Adam and caused him to dwell opposite the Paradise of Delights";> but with regard to Cain:

"He dwelt in the land of Nod opposite Eden."° . On the basis of these words, it is known that while Adam dwelt outside Paradise *in the land of Eden, Cain was outside it

in that which used to be called the land of Nod.

After Cain settled in that land, a son was born to him, and he called him Enoch.

It was Cain who afterwards first built a city, *"and he called the city after the name of his son,"

While 20 Adam and those who (descended) from him probably dwelt in a. Genesis 4:16 c. Genesis 4:16 b. Genesis 3:24 d. Genesis 4:17

tents, those who were descendants of Cain built a city for themselves [where they were held in the fear] of beasts *and 25 destruction in that they had been forsaken by the Providence of God, or because they loved the land and the dwellings which were in it more than the house of Seth (did).

Where do we see that *there happens to be even more of those Folto 2v who adorn every well-built structure of cities and walls and dwellings than of those who have ordinary thoughts?

It is because of them that *the prophet has said:

"Their mind

feeds on ashes, and causes the wayward to err."@ For, behold, the patriarch of the house of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob dwelt in tents; as [the apostle] said:

*"They looked

for [a city] which had a foundation whose [builder and maker is Goa]."P So Adam and the family of Seth, [acting on] the same conviction, did not build [a city] for themselves as the house of Cain which had [acted wilfully].

Rather they forsook him for the place in which Paradise is situated, *which is better than that land in which they

(i.e., the

house of Cain) settled.

Scripture finds fault with Hezekiah also because he built and strengthened the walls of Jerusalem, © and brought water into it in a novel way!

(On the other hand,) with regard to what is written about David that he built the fortress *of Zion and called it by his

name, > it seems that he did not do this by human planning; but, because Solomon was to build the temple, he also preceded him and built the city in which the temple was to be situated, and in which *that kingdom was to be established

which was given to him as a type.

If he had been allowed by God, he would have built the temple also.

But the city...

Fragment

"and he foresaw and spoke concerning] *the Folto 3r resurrection of Christ that His soul was not left in Sheol, a.

Isaiah 44:20 a.

2 Kings 20320; b. Hebrews 11:10

2 Chronicles 32:30; .ܘ‎ 2 Chronicles 32:5 cf.

Isaiah 22:9-11 e.

2 Samuel 5:7, 9; i Chronicles, 11:15.

±31 nor did His body see corruption."

Again, it is our Lord who teaches that He not only had a human body, *but also a soul.

"Because of this my Father loves me, for I lay down my soul that I may take it again."

Again, "I have power to lay down my soul, and I have power to take it again. "` Again, "The good shepherd *lays down his soul for his sheep. «5

another place it is written that He said, "Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say, 'Father, deliver me from this hour'?

But it is because of this that I have come to this @ *The books of the Evangelists relate that these

hour." things came from Him in that hour of prayer: that when the time of His passion came, He was afraid, and trembled, and was troubled as a man, and He said to His disciples, "My very soul is sorrowful, even to death"; * and that 'He departed from them, *and fell on His face and prayed'9 to His Father

in agony like a man; that He was full of grief and sorrow and was seized by the fear of death, and terror prevailed upon Him to such a degree that He did not abstain *from

saying clearly:

"My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, "> -- not only once, but also a second and a third time.

*When He understood the will of His Folto 3v Father, for He prayed for something far greater than that He should not die, He said to Him:

"May my own will no longer be done, but yours."

Although He was afraid as a man, because *the reality of death frightened Him also as it does

everyone else, the will of His Father was much more important than the love of human life.

Again it is written in a certain place:

"When He was in fear He prayed earnestly, and His sweat became *like drops of blood, and it fell to the

ground";J "and there appeared to Him an angel strengthening Him. "* Because it is understood that Jesus is God who became man, more than anyone else He was humiliated and afflicted by human sufferings; *for, as for the rest of men, (their)

a. Acts 2:31, cf. Psalms 16:10 g. Matthew 26:39 b. 0688 7 h. Matthew 26:39 c. John 10:18 i. Matthew 26:39, d. John 101 cf.

Luke 22:42

Jonn 22227 j. Luke 22:44 f. Matthew 26:38

K. Luke 22:43

nature is enough to affirm their corporality; but as for Christ, it is with sight, the sense of touch and the true nature of the body, both (its) needs and sufferings, with which He was very deeply afflicted more than anyone else.

*If this is not so, whom of men did the fear of death

dominate to such a degree that his sweat fell to the ground like drops of blood?"

In the same way He could be plunged into such a sleep that He would not be wakened from His sleep by the roar of storms, *the noise and clamour of sailors

and disciples, and the violent tossing of the 583 7 Therefore, in order that His corporality might not be considered false because of His divinity, and His sufferings *and mortal needs be thought an illusion

Folto 4r because of the greatness of His being, © He was afflicted by them in human ways more than any natural man.

Indeed, *the opinion of the heretics bears witness to the fact that

this providential action was wise; for, after all these things, they have denied His corporality.

What is the error they would not have introduced, if one of these things which are written had been removed, even though one of our Lord's apostles has clearly said, *"Every spirit which does not "1.0 confess that Jesus has come in the flesh is not of God, but is of the false christ."¢ The spirit of that quotation therefore is against those heretics who renounce the humanity of the Word, and deny *the true existence of Him by whom men 15 have become children of God; for Simon the Sorcerer,~ the first of the apostles of the false christ, said concerning Jesus that He was not a man in reality, but only in likeness did He appear to be *so.

Because the Eutychianists,

Marcionites, Valentinians, and Manicheans possess his (i.e., Simon the Sorcerer's) opinion concerning Christ, like him (they will also get) that justice which they deserve, and especially those who are our contemporaries and are with us, who are believed to be *children of the common congregation

of the Faith. a. cf.

Luke 22:44 dad. i John 3 b. cf. Matthew 8:24 e. cf. Acts 8:9-24 c. cf. Luke 1:49

How, then, 0 heretic, may the corporality of Christ be compared *with the likeness of the dove in which Folto © the Spirit was seen?* Do the Scriptures teach all of these things, or many of them, with regard to His corporality?

When the Holy Spirit appeared alone, it was *in the

likeness of a dove; as they say, "No one saw except only John."

But everyone was well aware of Jesus.

All eyes observed His body, His needs and His sufferings.

His stature with its differences *was known to the multitude of the

Jews; and, because of His gradual growth which (was familiar) to them, and the plainness of His appearance, He was even considered by them to be the son of Joseph.

Again, if the corporality of God is a likeness, *then the good things

which He by Himself has prepared for men are (mere) likenesses.

Indeed, because of this, He became a man to make us children of His Father.

He appeared bodily to change us into His spiritual existence.

He was born of a woman to give us birth by His Holy Spirit.

He received *circumcision

and observed the law to set us free by His obedience and redeem us by His becoming accursed.

He grew in stature to bring us to perfection and full maturity.

By grace He submitted Himself to the fathers to make us by nature the friends and relatives of the Father.

*As a man He was

baptized by John to form another womb for our birth as children of God.

He fasted, became hungry and was tempted, to give *us victory over all the pains of sin.

He Folto 6? conquered the tempter in the desert that we may not henceforth be his (i.e., Satan's) slaves but his adversaries.

He endured sufferings and tasted death *to impart by His

sufferings an indifference (to pain) and by His death to confirm immortal life.

He dwelt in the bowels of the earth to make us inhabitants of heaven.

He was reckoned with men to unite us with spiritual powers.

If the corporality *which made these things possible for us is a likeness,

then all of them which came into being through it are an illusion, as is the vision which revealed the salvation of Christ.

But as far as the Word alone is concerned, these a.

Luke 3:22, cf. Matthew 3:16 bs-ct.

John 4

are the blessings which He promised.

(If not, then) according to the word of Paul, *'The preaching of the 3:5

If the apostles and the faith of Christians are vain. cause of the blessings is a likeness, why then should they be valued?

Perhaps not at all, unless there is something which is lower and more unworthy than it.

Now *it was not by the

physical eye that the Spirit was seen, but by revelation He was perceived by the mind in the way that the early prophets were also accustomed to seeing; as it is (written):

"I saw the Lord sitting upon a high throne, and all the host of heaven standing *above Him. "> And as it is (written):

"In

the year that king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting upon a high and lofty throne.

*And His glory filled His Folto 5v temple, and seraphs stood beyond Him."° As it is written:

"I looked and behold the Spirit coming from the north, a great cloud, and a fire burning and shining *all round it."?

As it is (written):

"I saw the Lord standing upon a wall of adamant. and in His hand was an adamant."©

As it is (written) :

"± saw and behold the thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days sat down. "* By this kind of revelation *the Holy

Spirit was seen by John in the likeness of a dove.

As in various ways it was shown in these likenesses to the prophets and not in the same appearance to all of them, so also it was seen by John in another way.

As *in the former

instances the variety of likenesses had taught something, although it was not made known to everyone, so also was this a vision by which the Spirit was revealed, and the impact of the visions and revelations was not lessened by the fact that the men themselves were not able *to understand them

accurately; but by means of their incomprehensibility their importance was especially seen, for it is obvious to anyone that the things which are known and-understood are of less importance than the things which are incomprehensible *and

indescribable.

If, then, God appeared to be man in (this kind of) a.

Cf.

1 Corinthians 15:14 d. Ezekiel 1:4 b. 1 Kings' 22/19 e. Amos 7:7 ce.

Isaiah 6:1,

£. Daniel 7:9

3:35 likeness, and He was not a man in reality but remained God, it would not be *something worthy of wonder and Folto 6r faith in the earthly ministry (of Christ).

(If this were so) then Christ, the likeness and equal of the Father, did not empty Himself as Paul taught, nor did the One who "was rich become poor," nor *"are we enriched by His poverty,"*

nor "did God send forth His Son and He was of a woman, "? nor is it true that 'like the children, He also was made a partaker of flesh and blood.'© We do not know Him to be unchangeable in actual fact, *if He did not change because

He did not exist (in reality), nor is it a miracle that He was conceived without intercourse and born of a virgin.

If the body which was conceived and born was only a likeness, and it does not make known something *which is praiseworthy,

which God therefore loves forever, how is it that He gave His only-begotten Son instead of Himself?

If it was the likeness which was delivered to death and not the truly incarnate Son, then even the death was not *in fact

experienced.

If the shadow was tempted within Him and not the true body -- besides the fact that if there was no flesh there was no soul -if that did not exist, why is it (found in the scriptures), "I lay down my soul for the sheep, "2 along with *the other?

If God did not really become a man,

the Virgin would not be the 'Bearer of God'

(i.e., Theotokos); for that which was born would have been a shadow, *and not the incarnate God.

Now, when you Folto 6v avoid the snare of Nestorian doctrine, you are at the same time falling into it; for he said that God was not incarnate and born, but *He dwelt in the man who was born.

ascribed to Him the birth of the temple but not of the Word, and of the man but not of God.

It seemed to him that he had to say this because he had formerly denied the coming into existence of God.

On account of the fact that He was born, *it was fitting that He should come into being for the

first time.

If He did not come into being, He was not also born.

Because Nestorius rejected the fact that God became a. cf.

2 Corinthians 8:9 c. Hebrews 2:14 b. Galatians 4:4 d. John 10:15

1.36 a man, along with it he also denied that He was born of the Virgin.

He thought of the nativity, as *I have said, in

nature and in truth to be that of a man, but in name and in metaphor to be that of God.

If you are witnesses to your teaching, you adhere to it.

Do you not first confess that God became *truly a man in order that the nativity also may

be established by Him?

But you have compared the incarnation of the Word to the likeness of the dove in which the Spirit appeared, and you have betrayed the Scripture (in your statement):

"As the Person of the Spirit appeared *in the

likeness of a dove, so the Son showed Himself in the likeness of a man."

Why was the womb of the Virgin *and the Folto ?r nine months of development needed by Him who was not really endowed with a body?

Why did He not pull the likeness out of the air or out of some other place, in the way that angels have sometimes appeared -- even demons are in the habit of *exhibiting themselves to men -- or in the manner in which

the Spirit swiftly began and ended the vision of His revelation?

It is clear that the time was short and swift in which the Spirit appeared to John in "the likeness of the body of a dove."* ܫ‎ suppose *that it was even swifter than

the twinkling of an eye.

It is not for us to say where that likeness came from, nor that the Person of the Spirit was transformed into the vision of the dove, nor that He took that likeness from the air, nor that *it had been in heaven,

nor should we suppose that 'He came suddenly from nothing' is the right thing to think.

But we only adhere to that which is written, and we do not penetrate into the innermost part of the Word by questioning, lest error confront us *instead of knowledge, and deception instead of truth.

Now

if Jesus had also appeared to men in that likeness, why was His kind of revelation not even such that the man would suddenly be revealed and then concealed, like the Spirit *in 25 the likeness of a dove, and like the Father in various appearances, and like angels in the likeness of men?

He needed the Virgin within whose womb He dwelt and remained a. Luke 3:22

3:3/7 for nine months, *because prophets had made preFolto 7v dictions on His behalf, and the Spirit had revealed Him through preachers, and types and mysteries of Him had been formed and inscribed in the Old (Testament), and prophets and righteous men had been waiting for the appearance of *His birth, and the fathers longed to gaze upon the mystery

which was created by Him:

"Your father Abraham eagerly desired to see my day, and he saw (it) and was glaa."@ And again:

"Many prophets and righteous men long *to see what

you see and did not see (it), and to hear what you hear and Not only did the ancients look for and did not hear ) expect the revelation of that mystery , ܗ‎ but disciples, obedient to His religion, have also *died and are dying in

various ways for Him.

By torments and afflictions they confess Him before rulers and judges, and fearlessly and unashamedly they preach the New (Testament) which is usually unknown, that God of His own will had become incarnate *and

was born of the Virgin.

Now if, as they reason, His was a likeness, the prophets are false and the apostles are liars, and the confession of those who have died for Him is worthless.

Not only is faith in the mystery found to be *worthless and useless, but also that mystery (itself) and

the things which occurred by means of it.

Because of this, the word of the Apostle is quoted against those who deny Him:

"Perhaps *even those who have gone to sleep in Folto 8r Christ have perishea."¢ Why, then, are they amazed as if it were something new that the Virgin conceived without intercourse and continued to be *a virgin even after she had given birth, if

she had conceived a likeness and given birth to a shadow?

For if a real body -solid, and thick, and heavy -- could not come out through the opening of the womb while it remained closed, the birth would not be wonderful; *for the

spiritual nature is accustomed to passing through places much narrower than the womb and is uninhibited by the body.

The flesh is no barrier to its thinness, and any composite thing a.

John 8:45(56) c. cf. Romans 16:25 b. Matthew 13:17 d.

1 Corinthians 15:18

does not resist it.

It is *not only the holy angels who

are like this, but also the unclean demons.

We are not amazed if we understand that an angel can pass through a body, and a demon can enter when doors are shut where even the sun and the air, whose thinness is thicker *than

theirs, can often pass through.

They are not then inhibited by bodies.

If it is so for them, why should we be amazed by a spiritual Word coming forth from a Virgin, and the virginity of her who gave Him birth remaining undefiled?

*For if the likeness is in accordance with their opinion,

it came forth spiritually and not physically; and along with this, it was also spiritually conceived.

How, *then, Folto 8v was the appearance of the conception evident in the womb of her who bore Him?

While being a spirit, did He not grow little by little, and swell the womb *in which He was

conceived?

Now it is on account of them that the prophet spoke concerning these things:

"We have conceived and we have been in labour as those who have given birth to spirits."* Was it the Virgin (that the prophet was speaking of)?

Was her conception a manifestation of evil things and not of good things so that because of this also the prophet had to deal *with the very manifestation and speak of the

likeness of those things:

"We have conceived and we have given birth to spirits?"> "Do we possess the instruction of the Lord in vain?"° Or do we conceive and bring forth worthless opinions like these?

Then, too, if the Virgin *did conceive and give birth to a disembodied spirit

similar to those, she would also have to be numbered with them.

Why is it appropriate for John to cry aloud in amazement at the mystery as he taught:

"The Word became flesh, and dwelt among weet He did not say, "the likeness *of flesh."

If the incarnation is in accordance with your

understanding, was it therefore right for him to use that other expression?

He did not write that 'He became like', but 'He became'; for the former corresponds to the likeness a.

Isaiah 26:18 c. perhaps paraphrases b. Isaiah 26:18

Galatians 3:4 d. John 1:14

while the latter, 'He became', does not.

*(In this way)

he proclaims that the supernatural birth is true.

A resemblance, however, has to do with two things, and John did not say that the Word became like flesh,

*but that Folto 9r He became flesh.

We must understand that from the Word (comes) that which is consonant with all physical bodies which come into existence when they are non-existent, so that the Word truly became flesh.

From the two *words in

the mystery we are certain of the fact that, on the one hand, 'He became', and that on the other, 'He became flesh'.

Now if the heretics still persist in their opinion and assert that if He became He was changed, that is sufficient to condemn *those who flirt with the heretical

without adhering to it.

Indeed, everywhere they report that they are fighting against the Nestorians, but it is with the (same) error which they bear.

If they are making use of their own words among themselves, they are being *contentious.

However, if they say, "We adhere to the fact

that the Word became flesh," they are abstaining from that which is likeness; but, while not acknowledging (it) in words, by (their) actions they deny (it).

They cannot eliminate the one and explain the other; for utterances which are spoken *on the basis of faith do not admit explanation.

"God sent forth His Son, and He was of a woman."* As written, it is credible, and it does not admit another meaning.

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among nay"? -its reading is its *explanation, and faith accepts this.

"We

are reconciled to God by the death of His Son."° -- the saying has no other teaching.

*"If He did not spare Folto 9v His Son, but delivered Him up for all of us, how shall He d We are amazed at the not give us everything with Him?" grace of the Giver, and we do not divide His Gift, *but we

glory in the fact that the Father delivered up His Son to death for us, and we do not exalt some other person above the Name.

"God so loved the world that He gave His only Son £Or it."© We marvel at how much the Father has loved, a. Galatians 4:4 c.

Romans 5:10 b. John 1:14 d. Romans 8:32 e.

John 3:16

*but we do not inquire into how His immortal Son died.

If, therefore, you affirm that the Word became flesh, you must not understand "likeness for "flesh," or "He became like" for "He became" as *the Nestorians do who explain

They say thaẗ ‏ ܒ(His) coming into existence as "adoption. the Word did not become flesh but adopted a man.

If then the birth is true for you, He became flesh and not a likeness; and if it is credible to you *that the Virgin

conceived and gave birth, it was a physical body that came out of her and not a shadow.

For this reason, the miracle that after having given birth she remained a virgin, is credible; for, if what had come out of her had been the likeness of that which for Him was not a true body *and she

had remained a virgin after her childbirth, the thing which had happened to her would not have been new, and she who had conceived *would not have been wonderful.

If she Folto tor had conceived a likeness and not the true body of someone conceived and born, we ought to strike at the nature of the one who gave birth to Him.

Because this very thing is common to *all who are born, even the Son became primarily

a man when He came to a second birth.

He was related to His mother by nature, then born of her and called her Son.

If He were not like her, He would also not be her Son; *or, if

He is believed to be a likeness only, she who bore Him must also of necessity be so acknowledged.

If, however, she was a woman by nature, and I suppose you have no *doubt about

that, He who was born of her was also like her in every way, and on this basis He was a Son and she a mother.

As for those things which it was right for us to have written against the Nestorians, your ignorance compels us *to say

that you speak against them while adhering to their teaching.

Now, if God did not become a man in reality, but only adopted the likeness or became incarnate in appearance,

*His mother would not have been the Bearer of God.

Again,

if He adopted a man who came into being without intercourse and He did not come into being in reality, then too *the Virgin would not be known as the Bearer of God,

Folio lov a. cf, Philippians 2:7, "He adopted the likeness of a servant."

and this very thing is said by two of the heretics with respect to the beginning of the earthly ministry

(Of@Chriset) .

It is clear, with regard also to those things which remain, that if *the nativity is a likeness, the needs and ܐ‎

sufferings of our Saviour are an illusion also.

In reality He did not fast and get hungry, nor did He become weary, and sit, and slumber, and sleep, and suffer, and die, as the Scriptures teach.

But we adhere completely *to the way in

which He was born of the Virgin.

His circumcision, His growth in stature, and the fact that He became twelve and thirty years of age -- did these not exist in reality?

If, however, they should say that the Apostle did indeed state:

"He adopted the likeness *of a servant, "5? and also:

"God

sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh because of sin," they are judged by their own opinion and not by the words of Paul; for in the first (biblical reference) he placed two *"likenesses" beside each other.

First he called 20 Christ "the likeness of God, "° and then "the likeness of a servant"; and he gave an example with each likeness separate from the other, so that he who speaks falsely of His likeness, reckoning us to be like you, *is shown to be

wrong by the fact that He is "the likeness of God."

He who denies this, like the Nestorians, is condemned by the fact that (He is) "the likeness of a servant."

Paul, therefore, by these two likenesses...

Fragment

. to think and to speak.

One can clearly Folto i1ir perceive that, according to his commentaries, Theodore did not consider the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High to be the very *Persons of the Son and the Spirit, but only

the operation of the Spirit and the activity of the Son.

While it is a fact that the Holy Spirit comes because predictably He brings into full reality all the mysteries which *He has declared Himself to be like, now, as he has

said, it is He who has also formed a man by the Virgin ina a. Philippians 2:7 c. Philippians 2:6 b. Romans 8:3

new and extraordinary way.

But "the power of the Most High"* he explained in terms of the authority which God possesses for everything He wishes *to do; as it is (written),

"The

Lord made the earth by His power, "> and as it (is written), "Thus says the mighty Lord. "° So, reasoning as a human being about the divine Persons, he thought that the power and energy of them all rested upon the Virgin.

*"But the

Persons came. to the Virgin"

-as if he refused to affirm that which was not proper for them, except that they had thought about these other names, as we say.

*However, the

fact that the Word is asserted to be the Son of God by John, we do not find in the writings of the heretics, who meditate upon everything except *what is read (in Folto 9 Scripture).

Moreover, Nestorius has evidently stated that the titles "Christ,"

"Son," "Only-Begotten," and "Lord" are composite, but "Word" and "God" are *simple.

But the

Evangelist associated Him who was born (i.e., "the OnlyBegotten") with the title of Him who is said to be simple

(i.e., "the Word").

So it follows that either the statement stands that the titles are not simple and composite as he thinks, or the title, *"Word," should be considered

composite like the rest of them.

Thus, as Saint John has written, He placed the reality of being born on Himself, even if *the title "Son" or "Christ" seemed to be composite

because of the fact that the flesh was assumed by God.

This title, then, has to be considered composite also; because above and beyond the fact that He became flesh,

*John at the beginning of his book praised "the Word" which

is God:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Goa. "4

If, *as the Evangelist

has stated, the Word is God but He became flesh by the Virgin, doubtless He was also born of God in that if ....

Fragment

. by man it is impossible for Him to be seen.© Folto 12r a.

Luke 1:35

9. 73988 7 b. Jeremiah 51:15 e. allusion to John 1:18 c. passim in Peshitta 0O.T. where "Lord of Hosts" is translated by ܡܝܪܣܡ ܐ ̈ܢܬܠܝܚ‎

But He did say concerning the one who is pure in his heart that he is able to see God.* It is evident that he means that when he sees *the flesh he recognizes the Word.

As He

taught the blind man to believe in Him, so it is written that He also gave him sight; for when He saw the man, He declared Himself (i.e., who He was) in order that God might be known to him.> *We must not think that God dwelt in Him

in such a way that the other (i.e., the flesh) was beyond Him.

Indeed, he asks who the Son of God is that he might believe in Him, and He answered him:

"You have seen Him, and He who is speaking with you is He."° *Whoever wishes

to be a Christian must (know) the full meaning of what was intended by the fact that He was considered to be a man by the multitudes.

He had lived among them, He had come in and gone out with them, taught from *a ship and sat on the top

of a mountain.

He spoke also with the blind man in order that he might believe that He was God incarnate, which is what he wanted.

The flesh was visible to the eye without any difference, whereas His nature was not apparent to the mind.

*In a way that is even more subtle than the mind's

vision, He was incarnate far *beyond the vision of Folio 12v the eye; because not even the [mind] of angels or of one of the [orators] would be able [to see] Him by means of that which was much too subtle, esoteric, [remote] *and distant

for any mind which gives heed merely to the vision of the eye; because by becoming flesh He even went beyond it, since the physical sense of touch happens to be far more insensitive than the vision of the eye.

*He who was ܕ‎

incarnate was not only seen, but He was also touched by being seized, captured, bound, scourged, and more.

On the cross He was fastened with nails.

Because *man has other

vision besides (that of) the physical eye, (we can say that) while the eye saw Him as a man, the mind which is within perceived Him to be God.

Now even as *bread is seen by the

former kind of eye, to the vision of a new man it appears to be the body of God.

Because of this, he (i.e., Thomas) a. allusion to Matthew 5:8

John 9337 b. allusion to John 9:35-38

was also given a blessing; for when he touched the flesh, he declared that He was Lord and God.* *It was the Apostle

Thomas, one of the Twelve (who said), "Except I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger in the place of the nails, ... ga?

Fragment

- that it is evident in every one or the other Fotto 13r of them: the spirit along with that which is tangible, and the body with that which remains intangible.

For *Christ did not go in as a spirit when the doors

were shut and afterwards show Himself in the flesh.° If He had gone in as a spiritual being, there would have been no miracle and things would not have happened as is supposed.

*In fact, if solid bodies are not able to restrain angels

and all the other spiritual ranks from passing through them, how could closed *doors restrain the Spirit of God

when He is infinitely different from them?

Or would He be obliged to go in through narrow chinks?

Well, then, Christ did not go through the doors which were shut as a disembodied spirit, or as an angel, *or as

an ethereal body, even though He was transformed after the resurrection.

However, although He arose to the spiritual life in which all of our bodies are to be, ethereal and *invisible to the sight, what we have now He keeps within

Himself.

Those things which became His through suffering and which He had gained formerly, (were His) also after the resurrection:

*the handling, I maintain, and the Folto 13v scars, and the fact that He was seen.

It seems that He proved them by what He did.

Miracles will be valued by everyone but not natural phenomena.

*Now Diodore, because he chose to speak of Christ as

an ordinary man and not as the God who became flesh entering also into all those things He had which were natural and ordinary, considered His coming into existence,

I say, *His

birth, His needs and His growth, His suffering and His a.

Cf. John 20:28 c. allusion to John 20:19,

b. John 20:25

death (in the same way).

It is likely that he also thought of His resurrection in that way.

With régard to it, he dared to say that it was not by a miracle, but as God incarnate *He was able to enter while the doors were shut.

"It was not possible," as he said, "for Him who was seen and handled and was in the flesh, to enter through closed doors."

However, he wrote that which must not be *considered a precept but blasphemy equal to what is said

only by Jews and pagans:

"The disciples, for fear of the Jews and the chief of the nightwatch, were mistaken (in saying) that they fastened the doors.

*Jesus found them 2 7 closed and He opened (them) and went in.

Because they thought, as he said, that He went in while the doors were fastened, they trembled and were terrified by His appearance, and He yielded...

Fragment

. to the souls of sinners who were seized by Folto 14r Sheol; because "the soul of the righteous," it is written, "are in the hands of Goa."@ Whereas he first commended their lives (to God) while they were in the flesh, the souls *of sinners on the other hand remain in Sheol with the body.

Because they loved the [passions] and the lusts of the flesh, they remain with it in desolation, not in it but with it; that is, the souls of the ungodly who have denied God, or those who have not *believed at all, or those in the

power of demons.

He therefore preached [with] His body, which was [also] laid inside the sepulchre, to the souls of 09: ܸܨ‎ It is evident that a corpse did not proclaim the resurrection.

Because the corpses *of sinners and of the ungodly are wv alone, how much would the body of God be recognized as being alive and giving life?

Human life also leaves the bodies of the [righteous] daily.

We have [testified] that the divine life *does not abandon them. © (Consider) the

miracles which will be wrought on their bones, and (the fact a. Wisdom of Solomon 3:1 c. cf. Wisdom of Solomon 1:15,16 be CL.

L Peter 3:19

that) it is demons who shout and teach against the divine life remaining with them.

If it is so with respect to the righteous servants, how much more must it be with respect to the Lord God?

*Therefore it is well stated that that Spirit which

made Jesus incarnate was amazingly united to His body.

It is what Luke has said, that when he grew *in His Folto 14v stature, He also became strong by Himself, and He set the stages for His subsequent growth in stature because everyone who is born in the Spirit by water *grows in that stature.

If ordinary [thoughts] belong to His growth, as I have said, they are not for nothing, and they are justifiably written about Jesus, because to us He has become the head of another race.

Instead of Adam who is of the dust, the Adam who is from *heaven has become known [to us.

It was not] the

heavenly Adam who was of the dust [and who,] after the Holy [Spi]Jrit had departed from him, [trans]gressed the commandment.

There was no growth in spiritual stature for him (i.e., Adam).

How could he grow in *that which at one

time [he drove away] from himself?

He was not filled [with wisdom], for wisdom does not stand where evil intrudes, and the grace of God was never again upon him

(from that time).

That which is *lovely and sweet had appointed him over

natural things and over races.

By it he called the names [of everything] and received power over everything.

By it he also became the likeness and image of God.

As one who was in the likeness of God, all races *and dumb natural

objects were subject to him.

As soon as he abandoned Him, everything rebelled against him, and instead of authority.

Fragment

from the things we say, but also from every Folto 15r record of the Gospel.

Now Luke adds to the statement that He went down to Nazareth and was subject*to them,

"His mother kept *all these things in her heart."* It is evident

that because they were not natural or customary, it is written in another place:

"She kept and compared all these a.

Luke 2:51

things, "$? And again:

"But Joseph and His mother marvelled at those things *which were uttered concerning Him, ">

they had not seen (things) which were new and strange, they would not have marvelled at them, and furthermore Mary would not have kept and compared them with each other.

If they had been natural *in a human way, she would not have needed

to compare them.

But, while comparing the words (spoken) about Him and the deeds (done) by Him with each other and with everything else that is human, she marvelled at the things which Jesus (did) as if *at things which were new;

because up to that time the exact nature of the mystery was not even clear to her.

The fact is that it was revealed after the coming of the Spirit:

"The Holy Spirit had not been given because *Jesus had not yet been glorified. "$

Mary had known that she conceived and gave birth without intercourse, that it was by God then that He was made incarnate, and He became a man through her.

*She Folto 15v gave birth without having been convinced of the fact that He had not been made incarnate through her but as by a miracle, while not knowing that she was the same as those who *conceive from semen.

Although He was formed and

fashioned (as if) by them (i.e., by women), she did not conceive (as) they experience (conception).

If it is this way with the (divine) nature, sometimes those things which are known of the earthly ministry (of Christ) are beyond utterance, thought and perception.

Because she had not clearly known *at that time that she had given birth to the

incarnate God, she had marvelled at those things which she saw in Him, and heard from all the others concerning Him.

Now after the Evangelist has related these things which were in Him and with Him and by Him until *the age of twelve,

he gathers all of them together, both first and last, and says:

"Jesus grew in stature, and in wisdom, and in favour with God and man."

But above (i.e., before that statement), he said:

"The boy grew *and became strong in the spirit.""

There (i.e., in the first quotation) "Jesus grew in wisdom : 9 ܘ‎ . John 7:39 ݂ d. Luke 2:52 e.

Luke 2:40 a. b. Luke 2:33

and stature" to demonstrate that from this stage on He no longer knew Himself as a boy; but from seven to twelve years of age, He was known in this way (i.e., in that of the second quotation).

*From this stage on, there is a

different degree of stature along with that other; so that he did not write there (i.e., in the first quotation) that He grew and became strong in the Spirit, but "He grew in Stature...) < ot Fragment

- .

"The weakness of God is stronger than men, and Folto 16r :

; a His foolishness is wiser than men."

If His weakness is stronger than the strength of men, it is (also) more incomprehensible *than theirs, and His foolishness is more

misunderstood than their wisdom; for the great words of orators are not sufficient to understand the smallest things of God.

If the fact that He grew in stature is considered weak by you (sing.) and *that He increased in wisdom is a

deficiency, behold, the Apostle has said that they are not perceived by men.

So then, it should be enough for you to know the One who grew, and you should not ask, "How did Jesus grow in stature, and in wisdom, and in favour?"° ¥*I

am convinced that what must be believed by you is that Jesus is the Christ, and that "Christ is the Power and Wisdom of d God"

-- behold, Paul has proclaimed it to you!

So then, the Power grew in that stature and wisdom *within her

(i.e., the Virgin).

"The Holy Spirit will come, and the Power of the Most High will overshadow you.

« = The Power of the Most High was made incarnate, and He who was incarnate was weak flesh and received a rational soul.

He grew both in the stature *of His body and in the wisdom of His soul.

If we are not able to understand the mystery of His growth, shall we not marvel that the things which are not explained belong to God, and not to man?

If *His mighty Folto 16v deeds cannot be examined, how can His weaknesses be investigated?

Perhaps it is easier for the mighty deeds a.

1 Corinthians 1:25 d.

1 Corinthians 1:24 b. cf.. ly Corinthians 3948 e.

Luke 1:35 c.

Luke 2:52

of God to be expressed than for His weaknesses to be investigated; because the mighty deeds belong to His

(divine) nature, *but His weaknesses belong to the miracle which

happened in His Person.

If the miracle is the fact that God became weak, all those things associated with it are also miracles.

It is impossible for miracles to be explained, except that they persuade the mind *to be amazed and to

wonder at them, not only those which were wrought by God, but also the others which were caused by the rest of (the mighty) deeds.

If the signs which were wrought in the (following) deeds are not recognized, either (in) what occurred in Egypt, or in what was done *in the wilderness,

or in the things which have taken place in every generation, or in those things Jesus demonstrated which were apart from Himself, or in things which have been effected by natural and physical means from the beginning of the world until now and are considered usual, how can anyone seek to understand and explain *a miracle which happened in an

unusual way in the Person of the Word, who was emptied and became a man and fulfilled everything human by His birth?

So I suppose *that he who pays attention to these things,

whether he is an orator or not, will consider the fact that he did not know beforehand how to reckon them and which of them should be investigated by him.

If it is written that Jesus grew, and Jesus is indeed God the Word, aS...

Fragment

. the age of twelve years according to that Folto 17r custom.* For if human ideas are not inferior, how can divine ideas be less?

If they are given over to involvement *in many studies at this age, how can they not have

incorruptible involvement with the Holy Spirit?

The fact is that Jesus also, when He had developed and become strong in it (i.e., the Spirit), *displayed the fruit ofphis

[education].

He chose for Himself to be in the [temple] of God, and to be listening to and questioning the teachers. aw cl. buke "2242 b. cf. Luke 2:46

Now, the Evangelist in this passage did not merely indicate what the age *of Jesus was, but what common

teaching he would offer everyone through it.

He would declare that from henceforth it is right for men to be ambitious by choosing the most excellent things.

But for Jesus, this age was not the beginning of good works, *because He was never moved by anything, either feeling or

thought, which opposed goodness.

But anything which was in Him and was not known, He in fact made it known here, for He remained in the temple *of God while (being) in constant

study of the teaching.

Indeed, although men receive secular teaching until this age, *even if there are Folto 17v seven-year-olds and other men who [are made foolish] by it, how many times was He more humble than they?

Because only the human voice and speech are complex, they are learning from the age *of twelve and on.

Any man can receive divine

ideas, and listen, and utter words which are not complex, and attain to the vision of (that) spiritual wisdom which is beyond (this) world which, as it seems to me, *was granted

in the wilderness to John the Baptist also.

Because [he was baptized] by the Holy Spirit, he grew there, and along with growth in stature his soul was also developing in divine ideas, and this *is what we did not know through 3:5

John.

Because His growth in spiritual things was not recorded, we have not been aware of it in the growth of Christ.

No one will take account of a saying which is not worthy of confidence when he is considering things which grow in *the world; for in the world, there are many things

which hinder a man from arriving at a perceptiveness in spiritual things.

Indeed, how can he perceive by means of something that does not grow in him?

The ways of man are known *to be fat and fleshy not only because of eating and

drinking, but also *because of human pleasures and Folto 18r visions which set lusts aflame.

Those who are growing up in boyhood are at least not (involved) in these things, but they are approaching them; *because all worldly effort

including human customs leads to lusts, dulls the mind, and darkens the thoughts.

Although in the time of his infancy one is not aware of the passions because they are dormant

0:51. within him, *when they have reached within him the age of

our boyhood even if he does not wish it, they entice the members (of the body), and stir the thoughts, and he is unable to recognize at the age of twelve that this is his growth and labour in spiritual things, *but only in those

(other) things has he grown and (to them) become accustomed.

With Jesus, however, it was the opposite; because lust had not been implanted in His incarnation, the things which fostered growth for Him were not struggles from the outside.

Human visions did not impel it.

*But at that age of twelve,

He announced to everyone how the hidden growth of His thoughts had come into being, and because of it He seta limit for those who were going to receive *His Spirit and

be members of His body.

But they first (have to) recognize what is evil and then *what is good; because lust

Folio 18v is stirred up in men first, and then (after it) are found teachers, and instructors, and a good upbringing in what the Spirit desires.

*It was not so with Jesus, however.

But the desire for and the choice of the good came before what was revealed at that specified age.

It was not that He chose the good after He had rejected the evil; for how *could He have rejected something He did not completely know 10 about; as it is written:

"Before the boy knows how to reject evil, he will choose the good. "* Jesus therefore did not reject and then choose, but He showed clearly what it was that was chosen first *by Him, and He completed the 3:5 common education for all those who are at this stage of life; so that from henceforth they may refuse evil things and choose good things, exchanging worldly habits for habits which belong to God and not retaining the things of *infancy 20 and childhood which have been said to be like one season.

Everything which is of the world, or of thought, or of fellowship or of any other carnal desire, this stage can achieve.

More and more, *therefore, (should it be able to

achieve) those things which are spiritual.

But there are some who have thought concerning the first Adam that at the age of twelve years...

'Isaiah 7:15

1:52

Fragment

", .

. but towards Him who of His own will was Folto 19r emptied and became a man."

Again, "He will set a sign for us, for He will grow in good things first towards God and then towards men."

Again, this, regarding *God, "He will

become like the Father because He was brought low by Him in that He became a man."

Again, "It was not that He came to men that they might completely grow towards God, but it was only that in part.

*(While) He grew towards the other

righteous men and prophets, He was the first and the beginning of the way for everyone; for, as He wished and as long as He wished, He was growing and also being brought towards that which they were each to become with us."

But if anyone wants a similar formulation of it, let him consider and repeat (this) statement, *"Because He became

a man He grew first towards God in good things and then towards men,"

-- which is surely not far from the truth.

As for the heretics, however, who say that He became an ordinary man *like one of us, that He grew in stature,

and increased in wisdom and favour, I agree with (them) that in that passage he has used few words, but I would ask them first what it is they are saying: that Jesus is a natural man, *or (that He is) God and man?

If they are

saying the first, let them listen to the Scriptures which in every place call Jesus God, and His equal,

*and Folto 19v con-substantial with the Father, and Maker of the worlds, and He who is before all things from henceforth.

Either we consider the Man to be equal with the God and Maker of all, or *that Jesus is God, the Word, which is still our

(belief).

Since the Scriptures discuss the Son by (divine) nature, from whom then do they say that the Man received wisdom and favour?

If (He received them) from the Father, then indeed is He the Son; *but if from the Son, Jesus is

not the Son of God, and if from the Holy Spirit like one of the prophets, why is He the Son and they the prophets?

If from the Trinity He has become wise and received favour *like one of the servants, He is considering all of them

(i.e., the servants) to be created by the divine nature, and established and sustained by Himself.

If, however, He

is like a favoured son, He came into being better than anyone else that (as) the Son He would be considered one of the Persons.

*If they should say 'of the Father' because

the name 'Son' is appropriate to 'Father', then the Word is divine.

If the Son is considered to be one of the Father, the Son and the Spirit together, then every divine nature *should be called "Father," and where is the understanding

of the Persons and the variation of names?

But if they say that the divine nature is *a human father, Folio 20r following the foolish thought of Theodore whose opinion this is, and not the teaching of Scripture, there are those who in every place *give the name 'Father' to that

one Person who has truly begotten one eternal Son.

He is considered the natural Father of Him and of us who have been baptized in grace, because we have become brothers of the (divinely) natural Son by baptism, and from *henceforth

we are called the Son's brothers, and the Father's children.

As it was said by Him who is the Son of His Father:

"I shall proclaim your name to my brothers."* And again, "He was not ashamed to call them His brothers. ">

We are therefore *brothers of the (divinely) natural

Son and children of God the Father.

It is not because the Father, Son and Spirit are believed to be one in nature, for the name of fatherhood is a nature just as the Incarnation, the Birth by the Virgin, the Passion, and the Death *are also of an uncommon (nature).

It is because

they are one in essence.

But if they give an example of our adoption as sons apart from that of the Jews, and as it is with them (i.e., the Jews) think that the nature is the Father and not the Person of the Father -- *they even thinky ©25 in this way about us -- they reject the Father's earthly ministry, they falsify the Son's redemption, and they consider our things *to be like those of the Jews.

Folto 20v Indeed, their adoption as sons was a type, and all their things were shadows prefiguring the reality, but ours are the reality and the truth; *for we are not known as children

apart from the Person of the Son, but He is the head and a. Hebrews 2:12 b. Hebrews 2:11

we are members in His body.

Because of this, He became a man to make us children of God, just as His incarnation was not only in name but *factually real, and He has made us

members (of His body) and children of His Father not merely in word, as it was with the Jews; for at that time He did not become a man and then make children, nor was He humbled and then exalted, nor did He receive *shame and then honour.

But as He gave the divine name to Moses, He also gave Israel the title of 'son'; and, desiring to honour the people before their enemies, He sent word to Pharaoh by Moses:

"Send me my son, my first born, *Israel, and he

will serve me."* When He had made known to Pharaoh the honour of the people, He declared to Moses his (i.e., Pharaoh's) reprobation and the election of the others whom

He did not call "son" in an ordinary way.

But He added that of "first-born" which teaches that others *were to come

after him.

The word was a sign to Moses that as Ishmael, Esau and Reuben were rejected and others came in (to the adopted sonship) in their place, (so) *Israel went Folio 21r out, and the Gentiles were accepted in their place.

And if their expulsion was known from the beginning to be their election, how can their sonship be.compared with ours?

Because, then, *the people were first honoured by

the name alone, the Son was considered to be of God.

But He is of the divine nature and not of the Person of the Father; for He was not known to them as Father, Son, and Spirit so that everywhere the teaching about the (divine) nature was delivered *to them in the language of one God.

Here, however, it was revealed that along with faith in the (divine) nature goes also the profession of faith in the Persons; for it is only right that the sons, who were chosen for the honour of the adoption of sons, should take account of the Person of the Father.

*They did not simply assume

the name, but because they were brothers by the grace of the (divinely) natural Son.

Even this did not happen simply in word and not in fact, but the Son first became a man,

*and then He made men sons.

They are born again, and then

a. Exodus 4:22,

they come into being:

"You have been buried with Him by baptism into death, and into Him you were raised with Him."*

Again the Apostle has said:

"Do you not know that those of us who have been baptized *into Jesus Christ were baptized

into His death?

You have been buried with Him in baptism into death that just as Jesus Christ rose from the grave in the glory *of His Father; so we too shall walk Folto 21v in the new Lent?

So we become immortal, and then (we become) sons; for it was not right for dead persons to become members in the living body *of Christ.

God does not

accept sons and dear ones to be His who are subject to death, but His words testify that those who are in His image are alive and immortal.

Out of mercy He has said:

"'I am the God *of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob'.

And He is

not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live in Him. " 7

Again, concerning the sons, it was proclaimed by the prophets:

"I have said that you are all gods, and *sons of

the Highest; therefore, like one of the men you shall die. "@ He showed that (His) sons are immortal men, and mortals are not those who deserve the honour of sons.

So the Scriptures do not consider *ordinary men and angels to be sons of God,

but it is only some men who become sons by death and resurrection.

Because they have become brothers to the Son who became man *through the new birth which is by baptism,

they are of necessity known as sons of the Father.

If the matter of brotherhood is common (to both the Son and the baptized), so also does the name of fatherhood belong to both *the Head and His members, the Word who Folto 22r became a man and the men who have become sons.

Just as we are truly born as men from the natural womb, (so) in truth and in reality, *we become sons from the womb of baptism.

The first explains the second; for the former is not foolish, nor the latter presumptuous.

So there is no place for your new and strange idea *that the divine nature be considered a human father, or

that those who received the glory of the adoption of sons a. Colossians 2:12 c. Matthew 22:32

+ Luke 20:

37-48 conflated Romans 6 : 3 , d. Psalm 82:6, 7 ܐ‎

are sons by nature and not by the Person of the Father.

Is it not enough that the presumed adoption of sons should appear to our glory?

*In that passage (already mentioned) 31:5 the saying was for the Jews alone:

"I have said that you are gods and sons of the Highest. "?

The word written is "I have said," and not "I have made."

He said and He promised, but He did not make.

*But in this passage (which follows)

He made a promise before the foundations of the world, and He will fulfil His promise at the end of the times:

"He chose you beforehand in Him before the foundations of the worla."> Again, Jesus said to His disciples:

"You were chosen by me *before the foundations of the world."© But

if a heretic should say:

"All believers along with that Man are sons of the Person of the Father," he should be asked, "Who has given him *this glory, and where and how

Folto 22v was it received?"

If it was from baptism, which is a type of death and resurrection, that the baptized received Him, *as the Apostle teaches, where did that Man receive

it?

There is no precedent for him to say (that it is) by means of His own death and resurrection, since men have not deserved it by means of their death and resurrection.

Therefore the death *and resurrection of others are taken

into account, for when someone is made to participate in them, he becomes a son and it follows that God the Word was afflicted by them.

It is through participating in His suffering and resurrection that man is made worthy of His glory.

When *a heretic exempts God from the sufferings, `

he increasingly burdens himself with sufferings; because it follows that He was not made flesh, nor was He born physically, nor did He suffer in that way.

Yet it was on account of man that He assumed for Himself that birth.

Again, if he avoids this *by considering Jesus to be only

a man but cunningly confessing Him according to his tradition as God and man, he should be asked which of the two of them grew.

If he should say that the growth was a. Psalm 82:6 b. Ephesians 1:4 ec.

Ch. Johnel5:16

+ 17:24

01507 common (i.e., shared by both) because *it is written that

Jesus grew, how can God be incomplete?

Whether He grew up alone or with another man, *in each of these Folto 28r (instances) it is not Christ who becomes known along with something else, for first it is written about Him that He grew in stature.

If He was not incarnate and did not become *a man, how did He grow?

For, behold, we who believe that .

these words were written about God, confess first that He came into being and had a human beginning, and then we have the basis (on which to consider) His growth.

*But you

yourself say that it was in fellowship with a man that He grew as God without being enfleshed.

That clearly is blasphemy.

Again, it is not written that they grew, but that Jesus grew; *and the Evangelist points out plainly that 15 the growth was of a single (person).

Whether He is regarded as man or as God, therefore, the fact that Jesus is called God and man by you (makes) that expression meaningless and false, for it is uttered *to deceive the common people.

Now that doctrinal perversity has been exposed, let Jesus be henceforth recognized either as God incarnate, as we believe, or as a righteous man, as Theodore and Nestorius *understand (Him to be).

That (Jesus) is of God and man,

which recently has been found among the heretics, is nonsense.

If *(they think) they are supported by Folto 23v the writings of the Fathers where that expression is used, they should first believe as they (the Fathers) did: that God, who is immutable, became man, and then use *their

wording by which they understood that God and the Man were not separate, but that they should teach that He truly became flesh:

His divinity was not changed by His incarnation, and His corporality was brought to birth and had a beginning *after He became flesh.

However, just as

God is believed in because He exists, so the Man is confessed because He came into being, and a change in either case did not occur.

If that way of thinking is theirs (i.e., the Fathers), then yours is *quite the opposite.

The joining and sharing of the name of God and of man, unlike their word, only bear witness to yours.

It is not natures as you yourselves claim but characteristics which

they have, and *the Man has a share in the mighty works of

God.

You have denied that God the Word was united with the humbler things of man, and you have senselessly followed the foolish word of Nestorius which preaches *two natures.

Again, He speaks to them as one power, one will, one wisdom, and one authority.

If this is so, we shall understand each of those natures which have been united.

It is right *that power, wisdom and authority can come into Folto 24r being and that it then is the power, wisdom and authority of the Man.

If He did not possess any of these (things) so that on this basis *what He did not have was received

from God in order for Him to have a share in them, are not the actions of both of them one, even though a man is involved in the great works of God?

If this can be maintained and they had a single wisdom, how did Jesus grow in wisdom?

*If they were one (in) authority, how did He

increase in grace?

If the same power belonged to them, how was it that "the weakness of God is stronger than men?"*

For God, according to what you say did not *partake of

weakness, and the Man He possessed by (divine) nature had the same power as God.

In what way, then, is the weakness of God stronger than men?

If *weakness is not recognized

early, it will not be known to be weak.

When you leave God out of the lesser things, you increasingly deprive Him of the greater things.

Again, if both of them were one in wisdom, how did Jesus *grow in wisdom?

If He became a man

who matured, they (i.e., both God and man) did not become *wisdom as you say.

If the growth included both of Folto 24v them, God was ignorant and He needed to grow also since

He would not be fully developed.

Where *then was the

wisdom of God which the Man shared?

Why, it was discovered and acquired by growth!

Therefore, either they were not one (in) wisdom as you say, or if they were *Jesus did not

grow in wisdom.

Yet He did grow up by means of wisdom -He who once shared it with God the Word and was known to be one with Him (in) wisdom.

Where, when and how can the wisdom of God *and of the Man be one?

(Either) the Man's § a.

1 Corinthians 5

0:59 wisdom developed and became equal with God's, or God's was diminished and became co-extensive with the Man's.

When and where was that Man's wisdom made known *and thus became

one with God's (wisdom)?

If they say that the union came into being in the womb, how could wisdom come into being for Him who had not yet become a son?

If He was united to God by His creation and both of them became one, how RI Seodt,

written that Jesus grew in stature and in wisdom?

If it was when He was twelve years old, according to this reckoning, (how) is it written *that He grew after Folto 25r this number?

If, then, it was at (His) baptism following which He became one (in) wisdom (with God), (how) is it said:

"No one knows that day or that hour, neither the @ If *no man knows the hour of His

angels nor the Son?" coming -for you understand the Son in that place -- how did He along with God come to be as one wisdom?

If, again, it was after the resurrection that that partnership came into being, why is it that He said:

*"All authority in

b In the same heaven and in earth has been given to me?" way, at the time of His ascension when His disciples asked

Him, "Will you restore the kingdom to Israel at this time?"

He said to them, "It is not yours to know *the time or the

dates which the Father has put in His own power. "= He has shown that we understand these things only by the Father.

If (it was) after He ascended that they became one (in) wisdom and one (in) authority, why did Paul say:

"Christ *died and rose again, and is at the right hand of God, and

He intercedes for us?"

How can He intercede as one in need if they have a single authority?

It is especially of Christ that Paul said, "He intercedes," which you explain to mean that *He was God and man.

Do both of them pray to the Father?

But if it is only the Man, the Word then does not possess a single *authority and a single power.

If Folto 25v there were no place in them for all those things of which it was said that there was one authority, power and wisdom, God and the Man *would not therefore be two as you suppose,

a. Matthew 24:36

€: Acts 16,7

b. Matthew 28:18 d. Romans 8:34

and that partnership which you promote would not have come into being.

But "Christ, the power and wisdom of God, "* emptied himself by the will of the Father, and became a weak human being without being changed.

*Just as it was

right for His body to grow in stature, so (it was right) for His soul to increase in wisdom, and for His weakness to receive grace.

While He appeared to be weak, He became known as the strong one.

While wisdom was increasing in Him, *the providential source of His wisdom was being

revealed more and more.

We believe these things because they are written, and not because they are comprehensible to those who hear them; for the earthly ministry of God is an unutterable mystery and we are not ashamed to have our doctrine falter in its lack of description and comprehensibility.

*But we especially glory in this: we hold a

mystery that cannot be grasped by knowledge.

While all philosophies and doctrines may be examined and comprehended, what we have continues quietly on.

We believe only because *we cannot comprehend.

To those who are lost we are

considered foolish, but to those who believe (we are) unutterably wise:

"The word of the cross *is Folto 26r foolishness to those who are lost."° In the name of the cross it is clear that he has indicated the whole earthly ministry (of Christ) beginning with the birth by the Virgin which is reckoned to be foolishness by those who are lost, for they do not *believe that God dwelt in the womb, became

flesh as a man, and was born of a woman.

Pagans and Jews deny the Birth completely and do not believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin.

Heretics, who are supposed to accept *the doctrine of the mystery, yield themselves to the Man

instead of to God.

They say that a natural fetus was conceived without intercourse and born without semen; and, in a different way, they move towards what is said by Jews and 'pagans.

*If it was not God who was conceived and born and

a Man did not come into being of (the divine) nature without intercourse, they are like the Jews and pagans who agree a.

1 Corinthians 1:24

1 ܘ‎ . 1 Corinthians 1:18 b. cf. Philippians 2:7

that He was born of Mary, and they limit the Man with (the divine) nature *to their own likeness, and in this alone

does the blasphemy differ: while theirs (the blasphemy of Jews and pagans) is clearly articulated, that of the others (the heretics) is skilfully concealed.

Truly, it does not agree with the order of nature that God should become man and be born of a woman, *for this does not suit Him and

human nature is not up to it.

As long as human thinking contemplates the miracle, it shuns Him.

But Christians who believe *accept it, not by understanding it but Folto 26v because it is written.

When they compare the deed with the power of God, they yield to His authority remembering the proclaimed word of the mystery:

*"Nothing is difficult

for God."* If, again, the heretic continues to argue by saying:

"How is it possible for God to grow in stature and : wisdom?" we grant him that He is perfect and complete in His being.

*Paul called Christ "the power and wisdom of

Goa."

It is clear that the Son is the power and wisdom of the Father, therefore Christ is the Son of God.

Because ate is written that Jesus grew, Jesus *then is Christ, that Son

of God who grew in stature and wisdom.

If he says that the Word, (who is) the power and wisdom of the Father, is God, he in fact is confessing that God the Word is Christ.

If *Christ, (then) the Word is God.

But (if) Jesus is Christ

then those things written (about Him) are appropriate to God the Word, in which He was made ready for the salvation of men and for the dedication and consecration of everything, for He was called *Saviour by (His) action.

Now if he says

that Christ is called God the Word as a figure of speech, then (He is) Man also (as a figure of speech).

(If this is so), where is the true man?

*Behold, Jesus is Folto 27r the one who is believed by you to be a man.

It is evident that He is Christ and God the Word:

"Jesus grew in stature and in wisdom. "° If He grew in stature, *it is

clear that where He did not have stature He did not have growth.

Where He did not have a human soul, He did not a.

Luke 1:37 e.

Luke 2252 b. 1 Corinthians 1:24

receive an increase in wisdom.

Hold, therefore, to the physical beginning, and add to it the human actions.

*By

not considering the way of the earthly ministry (of Christ) or comparing His (divine) nature with His earthly ministry and His divine activities with His human activities, you (sing.) deny the common salvation.

The stature was therefore of the body.

The physical nature *came to Him

from Mary from whom He received a human soul.

Where He began (His) growth in stature, He began also (His) development in wisdom.

He who has said that wisdom did not increase in Him, has clearly denied *both (His) growth in

stature and His true physical nature, and is declared (to be) not only a disciple of Paul of Samosata and of Sabellius, but especially of Mani and Marcion; for they reject *the physical nature of God and His earthly ministry

for our salvation.

Jesus, therefore, grew in those ways which are first written about Him: in the stature of His body and in accordance with the stages of His development,

*in Fotto 27v wisdom also as well as in the grace of God.

Just as the stages in the development of His stature sprang forth one after the other, so that wisdom of His also grew *out of

Him.

The growth was evident by (its) appearance and by other things which were part of Him.

The wisdom (was evident) by (His) teaching, and the grace by signs and wonders.

Even if it is not written that miracles happened before (His) baptism, (the grace was evident) *from the fact 10 that He loved men and was loved by them.

As it (is written), "Joseph received favour before his master."* Again, "In the eyes of the governor of the prison, "> as (it says), "He found favour before Pharaoh."*© And as it (also is written), *"The apostles received favour before all the

people."* Now because of this, we have said that He grew partly upwards to God.

If we cannot write about it accurately, there is nothing to wonder at, because even those things *which are thought to be revealed are not

a. Genesis 39:4 c. Genesis 41:37; cf. Acts 7:10 b. Genesis 39:21 d. Acts 2:47

clear to us.

Not every spiritual insight can be expressed in a word or an oral composition, because the one involves the senses while the other (involves) knowledge brought together by doctrine.

Grace communicates with the senses, *but the knowledge of ideas is acquired by discipline and

study.

Along with these, in a third category, faith is known *as the power which is born of a correct

Folio 28r choice (made) by the soul.

Two of them belong to us:

*to

acquire knowledge by discipline and exercise which is our responsibility, and to be aware of the spiritual things which the grace of God places within a word or an idea.

But the other one is the gift of God to believe in those incomprehensible things which we choose.

Sometimes (it is given) freely as (it was) to the apostles, and sometimes for the purity *of mind gained by victory over the passions and

the senses which are like something inexpressible and not subject to intellectual ideas, because they

(i.e., the ideas) have not seen it.

But only by grace can it be made manifest to the mind.

*It alone rejoices and takes delight

in it.

If this knowledge is not held in the ideas within words, how can it be put together in a word or captured in letters?

*If those who are aware of it cannot transmit it

in a word because the senses as I have said are not expressed in a word, how can heretics who do not even possess the faith, *offer a correct interpretation of it?

"Wisdom

does not dwell in a soul guilty of evil things, nor *in a body made guilty by a sinful woman."*

Now in Folto 28v this place, (this verse includes) not only those who are enslaved by their passions and trained in craftiness, but also those deprived of the true faith in God.

How could they understand *the wisdom in which Christ grew?

E£;..as

the apostle said, His wisdom is imparted among the mature" and is revealed to them alone, how could Christ's

(wisdom) be understood by heretics, since a simple reading *of the

Scriptures does not indicate the wisdom which is in them, just as the appearance of natural things does not (display) a. Wisdom of Solomon 1:4 b. allusion to 1 Corinthians 2:6

the knowledge which is concealed in them.

By the appearance of things that are made, anyone who wishes is able to know God.

But by the spiritual wisdom *which is in them, they

alone discover their intellect who have been cleansed of their earlier passions.

Thus, it is in that wisdom that the intellect grows.

They see it, not because of the bodies in which it is clothed, but by the purity of the intellect; *for this is its nature when it cleanses itself and discards 20 the old man®* to find the spiritual things completely devoid of the intervention of physical things.

If physical words without bodily appearances were able *to make the knowledge

of God known, He would not have created those things which are seen.

But because He has willed to make not only rational spirits, but also man who is composed of soul and body, He has placed *wisdom in bodies for his discipline.

Then, when he sees, and hears, *and smells and Folto 29r touches, he will gather knowledge for his soul, not spiritual (knowledge), but that which is joined to facts.

As I have said, it is not acquired by discipline, but only by purity *of intellect.

By it discipline is discovered

and named, as is the inquiry which (is based) on everything.

Even someone who lives in the old man can acquire this grace of God which is made manifest to the mind.

*But spiritual

(wisdom) can only be discovered by the new man who is known to be such by grace and by works; because, when this wisdom took flesh (by grace), it appeared externally by works, not on account of spiritual things, but in order that it may gather the idea of physical things to itself.

*Although 02:5 it (i.e., the intellect) was not able to perceive it, wisdom was not destroyed by works, but continues to be clothed with them until the end of time.

It exists in the Maker and in the things made.

Those who are in the flesh are not even disciplined by it *apart from physical

mediation.

That is to say, (unregenerate) men (gain knowledge) by means of them (i.e., physical things), but those who discard their passions (gain knowledge) by the likeness of spiritual powers.

When the time of discipline a. cf. Ephesians 4:22, Colossians 3:9

and learning has come to an end, and that which belongs to the inheritance and to the kingdom has been revealed,

*wisdom will be gathered into its place and will not be

corrupted or lost in the destruction of the elements.

It is like, for example, when a man wishes to write with the letters (of the alphabet) part of the knowledge *in Folto 29v his soul, and after he has written the letters he blots them destroying their appearance and structure, but not the knowledge which was mingled with them.

So it is with God, who has engraved His wisdom *into physical symbols which He

will bring to an end with respect to (their) composition.

But He will change it by making it new while not destroying the wisdom within them.

So it is also unchanged within itself and in the reconstruction of the bodies (it remains) undamaged, *because even when He mingles it with them it

does not desert Him, but it is believed to be in Him and in (His) works: in Him, while not being co-mingled (with Him), and with the works in fabric and in substance.

Because a segment of mankind was unwilling, *without the study of

these symbols, to discover their author and understand the knowledge which was in them, God demonstrated another way for it (i.e., the segment of mankind) to reach Him, and by another category He taught it wisdom.

Because in the beginning He embodied *the wisdom of His creativity in

things (He made), now at the end of time the wisdom of His nature has been embodied and has become flesh -- "Christ is «= When the *wisdom which was

the power and wisdom of God. embodied grew in stature, it gathered to itself by means of growth the wisdom which was embodied in the things (He made), and the fact that it shall be with the Father at the end of time.

...Fragment

. first; because of what (is said):

"Let us make Folto 30r .

man according to our image and according to our likeness."

Because that likeness is uncovered in us especially by a.

1 Corinthians 1:24 b. Genesis 1:26

baptism, it made a new beginning with Him *in a well-known

way.

Where (does it say) that we have become sons of the likeness of God and members (of the body) of His Son?

It was made known to us in the description (of) both the ascending and descending (genealogies) of the two Evangelists.

With the physical human genealogy, *Matthew

came right down to the physical birth of the Son of God; while Luke, with the development of their new

(life) which came into being by baptism, went up (the genealogy) until he brought them to God.

Indeed the type of this *'coming down'

and 'going up' is first described in that ladder which Jacob saw "standing upon the earth and its top reached heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending upon it, and While someone may liken 20 ‏ ܦthe Lord was standing above it." it to the revelation connected with Jacob's going down to Beth-Laban and his [going up] with (his leaving) there, to those of us who understand as I do, (it means) specifically (Beth-)Lehem.

Indeed, it is also evident that all those who *now deserve (to know) this mystery and all those (by

whom) it was transmitted at that time are not aware of it because of baptism.

It was derived from them; *for, Folto 30v after Adam lost the awareness (of it), Seth first became aware of it, and after him Enoch, and after him Noah, and then Shem, and after them Abraham, Isaac, *Jacob, and the

rest who imitated them in faith and works.

Today, for it has been granted to everyone in general, those who put off the old man by means of (ascetic) toil and separation and are alive *in the way of the new man can attain awareness

of it.

While goodness was first derived from one race and was not in all of it (i.e., the race), but was only achieved and handed down from one to another, (now) by means of baptism it is freely given to all *men and they receive the

Holy Spirit and become sons of God because the Word became flesh and received a soul.

Thus what happened to Him was well arranged, because the flesh needed *a soul and both

needed the Holy Spirit.

Just as the flesh on receiving a soul becomes a man, so that man who receives the Holy Spirit a. Genesis 28:12-13

is declared by God to be a son.

Instead of the flesh *acquiring a soul within the womb, the Holy Spirit is given

to man in baptism, for He received Him first as the first fruits ts eee Fragment

. we understand (that) just as Jesus was Folto 3ir supposed to be the son of Joseph,* so also the members of His (body) were supposed to be the sons of Adam, because before baptism they exist by supposition as men *and even

after it they are considered to be 'sons of Adam by supposition while they are in truth members

(of the body) of Christ and sons of God.

Again it is said that they are supposed to be sons of Adam in accordance with what he was before his *sin.

He did not remain as he was, nor are those 10 who have descended from him like the first creation.

Instead of the body of men coming to life and being sustained by means of those things *which are visible, now they

(i.e., the visible things) are sustained by Him and He repays them the reward of their work.

Through His renewing (activity) which (changes) death to life and the corruptible to incorruptibility, they also attain an amazing restoration and transformation.

Groans are changed *into shouts of

joy, and the corruptible into incorruptibility.

"All created things have been groaning and in. labour until today. "> While He calls this world "today" as long as it exists, all created things will groan and be in labour in it.

*Baptism is a type of its (i.e., the world's)

consummation in that when He was baptized Jesus fulfilled His Father's will, and He created all things new, both visible and invisible.

This is *the mystery which Folto 31v was fulfilled in the baptism of our Saviour, which the Father affirmed by His voice and the Spirit by His descent.

After He has made the members of His (body) new by means of His baptism, *Luke raises them up in the list of names

which he repeats right back to Adam.

Instead of mortals and corruptibles, by it (i.e., the genealogical list of a. cf.

Luke 3:23 b. Romans 8:22

1.88 names) he has demonstrated them (to be) in a different class, and thus he has brought them to the Father.

Then again he may be using the expression, "it is supposed,"

*with another meaning, since the Jews of old by

supposition were thought to be the sons of God.

But men who in reality are sons of grace, are known today as men by supposition but in reality as sons *of God, because the

adoption of sons which they have received is not taken away or changed, but their mutability is in keeping with the Person in whom they have become members.

Again, as it may otherwise be written by us about Christ:

*because among

the Jews He was supposed to be the son of Joseph, His mother also had spoken with Him in accordance with this supposition.

Luke also wrote about these things which were spoken in this way:

*"When His parents brought in the boy

Jesus,"* again, "His people went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover "> In this passage, to correct these things, Luke said:

"It was supposed...

Fragment

. he would pass on to us the remainder of those Folto 32r things which were done according to the book of Matthew, and he would understand that Christ became known in His earthly ministry by two births, one by the Virgin and the other by baptism.

*Those who have become members of His

(body) are also like Him, for first they are born as men from the womb and afterwards (they become) sons of God by baptism.

While He was God, of the (divine) nature He was born a man from the womb.

*While we are by nature men, we

become sons of God from (the womb) of baptism.

By repeating names (in the genealogy), Matthew goes down to the physical birth of the Word, but Luke in the series *of names goes

up from the baptism (of Christ) to God.

He explained the voice of the Father calling to His Son by the fact that [by repeating the names] he has followed the sequence and brought Him up to where He had been; because it is written a.

Luke 2:27 b. Luke 2:41

that He came from God and entered into the worla.* [He *descended to] a physical birth from that [.

.] and He

ascendedstto ¢܆‎

fous 1. sh 9:

9) baioe | Oar ie *which is from true baptism, because it was not Folto 32v formed to be a natal womb and those who are born by it do not perish but continue (to live) endlessly as spiritual members *in the body to which they are joined.

Those who

have become spiritual beings must continue to exist without being destroyed or changed.

When the Evangelist compares the birth of the (divine) nature with that of grace, he calls it first by a supposition:

*"It was supposed that He was

the son of Joseph. "> The saying is fulfilled in Jesus because He was not the son of Joseph in truth.

(It is also fulfilled) in the men who have become members of His (body) in that their first birth was not real.

*Because of this,

a second (birth) was needed which made them, not men by supposition, but [eternal] sons of God...

Ours£irst»bixth was not associated with nature in reality but [only] in appearance and in supposition.

*Also, the scripture

teaches:

"Man is like a vapour. "¢ And sometimes [. ..

.] And againePhles Lah Os, 59393 Shek ie oy ee ME: eile hed esi Fragment

. the genealogies which were written.

By her Folto 33r (i.e., the Virgin), (the Word) took flesh and was born physically, and by baptism (the Word) was clearly announced and made known through the witness of the Father and the Spirit.

When *Luke relates how He was revealed through

(that) witness, to (the words), "This is my beloved Son with whom I am elessed he adds, "Jesus was about thirty "© then by repeating the names, he followed the years old. sequence and brought Him right up to God *the Father who

in the beginning established the mystery in the creation of Adam.

When He came down, He bore witness to Him in the Jordan, "This is my beloved son. "£ al c£s Johns: 3, he728 d. Luke 3:22, cf. Matthew 3:17 b. Luke 3:23 e.

Luke 3:23 c. cf. James 4:14 f. Luke 3:22, cf. Matthew 3:17

Now when Adam was first created' by God he received two (things): that he would be the likeness (of God), *and 8:5 that he would transmit (that) likeness.

Both were taken away [from him] when he sinned.

The well-known (fact) that in his youth he felt himself to be in the image of God, for he had *nothing to be ashamed of, is evidence that the

[image] did not exist after his sin.

And along with this is (the fact) that he hid himself among the trees, for the likeness could not be hidden from its archetype.

Again, (there is the fact) that he gave (his) answers fearfully and deceitfully when he was asked, for not one of them was in keeping *with the image of God, and because of these

things Adam was known not to be (in) the likeness of God after his sin.

Then, again, *from the punishment he Folto 33v received, and from (the facts) that he became mortal, that in his labour the earth was cursed, that in toil he was to gather food for himself, *that He decreed against him,

"You are dust, and to dust you shall return, "$ that He spoke of him mockingly, "Behold, Adam has become like one b of us," that (He said), "Lest he take from the tree of life and eat and live forever,"° * -- from these and related

facts we learn that the likeness of God was erased from Adam after his sin.

That other likeness, which was to continue in his family, was known to have been taken from him because it was not transmitted *by Cain or by Abel

after him.

That (the thing) which is a mystery (i.e., the likeness of God) [came down] to Seth is attested by (the fact) that it was found to be with him, because of the offering and murder of Abel.

He (Seth) gave it to Enosh and from that time *"he hoped to call on the name of the

Lord."© Because the scripture has in this place repeated words like those used at the creation of Adam:

"This is the book of the generation of men" ;* and again, "In the day in which God made *Adam, in the image of God He made him,

male and female He made them";% that is, because the glory a. Genesis 3:19 e. Genesis 4:26 b. Genesis 3:22

£. Genesis 5 : ܐ‎ c. Genesis 3:22 g. Genesis 5:1b-2 d. cf. Genesis 5:3

1.71 taken from Adam was restored to Seth and Enosh, *the Folio 34r words written because of that glory (already) mentioned accompany those (others).

It is clear that Adam was (in) the likeness of God by reason of what is written:

"God said, Let us make man *according to our image and according

to [our] likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky."* We understand that he was [in] the image of God from (the scripture which says), "God created Adam in His image, in the image of God He [made him], *male and female He made them. "> Because the

sons who transmitted this image were born from the marriage of both of them, it says, "Male and female He made them."

In order that this understanding may strike us (forcefully) it (the Scripture) has repeated and supplemented its expression, *"God said, Let us make man according to our

image and according to our likeness," with "God created Adam in His image."

It has shown that not only did he become the image of God, but God put himself *in him that

He might continue to be (within man) in (succeeding) generations; especially since it is unusual for the written word to have one clear meaning repeated.

In this passage, however, both (verses) clearly teach that he was in the likeness of God and *received the image of God which was

to be transmitted through his [seed].

By the first (statement), "[God] said, [Let us make] man according to our image, and [according to] our likeness,"

*we Folto 34v understand (it to indicate) the Person of the Father.

By the second one, "God made man, in the image of God He made him," we understand the Son of God; because it is not only the Father who *is God in (His) nature, it is also the Son.

The Father as the archetype said, "Let man come into being"; while the Son, as the one who fulfils the will of His Father, made man.

It was [not] enough for *the Blessed

Moses to write this word twice concerning the creation of man, but again concerning the birth of Seth and Enosh he remembered it and said:

"This is the book of the generation of men, in the day when God made man, in the likeness of a. Genesis 1:26 b. Genesis 1:27

*God He made him."@ Now, while it was' the Son who made Adam, it was the Father who made him in the likeness of God.

Again, he repeats the word even with regard to Seth, not that he came into being in the likeness of God, for

(it was) Adam who came into being in it, but *the likeness of God came into being in him.

It was the Son, however, who dwelt within His first creation that He might be transmitted by his descendants.

(The fact) that he says, "Male and female He made them," because he was born of the marriage of a man and a woman, (means) that he came into 25) being to transmit *the likeness.

Because it is written in this way, "[He created] man in the likeness of God,"

[it was not said] that the fact He *made [them] male Folto 35r and female was ordained, but only "Let us make man [according] to our image and according to our likeness."

After Adam came into being it was [said] *of him [also that he appeared] in the likeness of God.

As its cause [was honoured, the effect] was also (held) in honour.

There are those who say (that the words), "God said, Let us make man according to our image and according to our likeness," ܘܐܘ‎ the plan *and purpose, and that what is written after

them, "God made man in His image," is the fulfilment of the plan.

But it is not like that, since God is in every place with the Word who causes the deed to appear and does not [need] *to plan and purpose.

So then, "Let us make" is the

same as "God said, Let there be light," and along with that word it is written, "There was light. "¢ The deed did not linger after the [command], not even for a moment, and the word did not need *to be repeated and thus something which

came into being would be seen.

But when He [began] to speak, light came into existence from nothing, without delay.

It is like what is made known which is the first thing written: ae the beginning God created *the heavens and the earth."

Along with Him who sought to make those first natural things by His will, the deeds appeared.

a. Genesis 5:1 c. Genesis 1: b. Genesis 1:26

; d. Genesis 1:1

Although *the will by which He created the Folto 35v creatures was His without a beginning, creation ܗܘ‎ made with a beginning.

[When] He willed it to come into being, suddenly it was [made] as soon as He willed *it to be made.

It was not that after His word was uttered that word eventually became a deed in order that by it the mystery of the Word which was finally to become man might be formed.

After God created heaven and earth by His will and made *the light by His command, then it is written:

"God said,

Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."*

As soon as He said (it), it was [changed].

The deed was not slower than the word.

Again, *after these things, He said:

"Let 3:5 b "Let lights be in the the waters be gathered together," firmament of the feavenst™™ "Let the waters swarm, "© and In every place the deed was "Let the earth bring forth. "= united with the word, for *the command of God possesses

that power; as it says:

"He calls those things which do not exist as though they did exist."2

These (words) are like (the text):

"Let us make man according to our image and according to our likeness;*" for along with the word man came into being.

*Then, too, his kind of origin was

different from that of the rest of the things that were made.

If He had said to the others, "Let us make," the deed would still not be slower than the word, just as the light did not linger *behind that word which I have

Folio 36r quoted, "Let there be."

Also, the firmament did not follow the command which would have thus delayed it.

Nor was the creation of man (delayed) by that voice which said, "Let us make [man]."

If *the Father had commanded the Son

to make, He also [would have created] and the deed would have appeared immediately.

The Person of the Son was revealed because the Father said to Him, "Let us make."

If, however, because the word is repeated, it is supposed by a. Genesis 1:6 e. Genesis 1:20 b. Genesis 1:9 f. Genesis 1:24 c. cf. Genesis 1:11 g. Romans 4:17 d. Genesis 1:14 h. Genesis 1:26

some that *man was not made (by) [birth] but He established

the plan and the purpose and afterwards the deed appeared, it follows that Adam came into being not once but twice: in the first place, because *"God made the man in His

image";* and, in the second place, because "God formed a man who came to life from the earth, and He breathed into his nostrils the breath of ts Because they say that the first was the plan and preparation, for "God planned first and then He made *man,"

-as if those first things

were created without [thought]!

But it is not so.

[Light] was created because (He said), "Let there be light."° Because (He said), "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the wateda ee it was made.

Similarly, there was no delay *also when (He said), "Let us make man according to

our image and according to our likeness."© It is obvious that suddenly and instantly man was fashioned in the likeness and in the image *of God.

Because after Folto 36v that (it says), "God made the man in His image, in the image of God he made him, "* for the likeness of God was destined to be in him, [since from the beginning] the Son of God dwelt in *created man in order to descend and be

transmitted in His generation.

Then because in the third place (it says), "God formed a man [who came to life] from the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,"9 Moses has shown why the body was created *where

the soul was inhaled, and how He also acted in the creation of the woman.

After he wrote:

"Male and female He created them," he taught how Eve was made *and said, "The Lord ܼܥ‎ God caused Adam to go into a trance and he slept; and He took one of his ribs and filled in the flesh in its

[place], and the Lord God built the woman out of the rib which He had taken from Adam, "£ By these (words), he has made known what Eve was made from and in what *way.

It is

not that he has written about her creation (occurring) a. Genesis 1:27

£. Genesis 1:27 b. Genesis 2:7 g. Genesis 2:7 c. Genesis 1:3 h. Genesis 1:27 d. Genesis 1:6 i. Genesis 2:21,

e. Genesis 1:26

E75 twice.

Now if, because the word was repeated, they err and think that God did not create Adam where (it is written),

"God said, Let us make man," but that He planned and devised in that passage *and subsequently He made him, then they

must also consider the creation of those other things in the same way.

Regarding the creation of beasts *and Folto 37r cattle (it is written), "God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and beasts and [reptiles] of the earth (each) according to Lis kina";? and after that (it says), "[God made] the [beasts] *of the earth according to their kind, and [the

cattle according to] their [kind], and every reptile according to its kinds."

When it is known that they were created by the first command, the-word was repeated to [teach] what God had commanded.

Once again, with regard to *the lights, it is written, "[God] said, Let there be lights 10 in the firmament of the heavens to give light to the then soon after he repeated the word and said,

"It 4 his is *typical

was so.

And God made two great lights." earth"; ܗ‎ of the word we find regarding all the deeds.

Although they were made by the first command, he duplicates the statement about them and declares that what God said came into being.

When we compare *the creation of man with these things, we

learn that because "God said, Let us make man according to our image and according to our likeness,"* he was really created.

If words are written which are like one another, they make known *in the first words what they intend.

The Son of the (divine) nature was therefore destined to be the exact image of the Father in the likeness which He had.

*And he continued to be Folto 37v transmitted through all of them, continuing right to the Virgin.

Because of Him, they have been preserved |:

of the forethought of His Father, [.

. as in truth] Isaiah *has urged, "[As] a bunch of grapes [is found] in a

cluster, and someone says, ['Do not] destroy it, because a. Genesis 1:24 d. Genesis 1:16 b. Genesis 1:25 e. Genesis 1:26 c. Genesis 1:15

[there is blessing] in it,' so [shall I do] because of my servants, and because of this I shall not [destroy] them

[all].

And I shall bring forth a descendant from *Jacob [and from Ju]dah, and he shall inherit my holy hil1."@ The destruction was not [therefore] retained or [perpetuated], according to the word of the prophet, because of the intermingled bunch which depends on Him.

Since the

cluster left the vine, *and the bunch in the cluster was dependant, we understand the vine to be the patriarchs of the race, the cluster to be their people, and the bunch to be Christ transmitted in their genealogy, who was implanted

in Adam through his creation and sprang *from the Virgin in the fulness of times.

All the intervening generations transmitted Him.

Just as He was transmitted from Adam to the Virgin, He also went from her to that baptism by which

when He was baptized, *He prepared a new womb for the birth of the sons of God.

As One who has already perfected the mystery by the deed and has gained *from that womb

Folto 38r new members for His (body), He has been exalted to His Father through the transmission of the names

(in the genealogy), as Luke has written.

When He said to Him, "Behold I and the sons whom you have given to me, "P these then are the men *who became members since the body is substituted for the image.

It is not the opposite, 'They become mine.'

Therefore [.

.] they are retained and [inscribed] without beginning or change, for *Paul teaches that the [likeness] of God became known but without change:

"Those (are the ones) whom He foreknew and predestined to become sons of the likeness of the image of His Son,"° -- where "image"

(means) the name of the Person of the Son, for He is truly the exact image of God *the Father, and "sons of His likeness"

(means) those who have become members of His (body) by baptism.

Because they were worthy of the adoption [of sons], for as this title was given to them so His (is called) the Head and the Firstborn from the dead"; *and again,

"That He might be the

9:5

Isaiah 65:8,

Romans 8:29 b. Hebrews 2:13 d. Colossians 1:18

3:77

First-born of many brothers."* Therefore, it is clear from these things which were said that not only did the first man come into being in the likeness of God, but he also was both the recipient and transmitter of (that) likeness.

*It is, however, the Person of the Son who is the exact

and natural image of God the Father, for Lamech prophesied concerning Him that after *seventy-seven

Folto 38v generations He would reveal Himself and blot out by means of His [death] Cain's sin of murder for which no repentance had been found to atone.

Because many (names) are written in *this genealogy, the fulfilment is to be found in [this

place].

Along with [.

.] who are derived from the book of Luke, the Evangelist, [we] are brought near (to Him); for [we] also are introduced [to-salvation (?)] when He brings us, as *we maintain, the blessing of God.

In this book, is a commentary of five chapters taken from Luke the Evangelist.

The end of the fourth book of the commentary £*ܘ‎

the Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, which was made by Philoxenus, lover of God, bishop of Mabbug.

It was written in the city of Mabbug in the year eight hundred and twenty-two of Alexander of Macedon.

*Anyone who loves to read should also be careful

to ponder and comprehend in depth, lest he find himself labouring in vain.

Glory to Christ Jesus, the God who became man.

Amen. a.

Romans 8:29

DESCRIPTIVE AND ANALYTICAL NOTES ON THE FOURTEEN

FRAGMENTS OF THE MANUSCRIPT

Fragment

The two folios of this fragment are badly stained, but are almost completely legible with the aid of ultra-violet light.

Fol.

1 is torn across the page from the right margin of lr 10 to the left margin of lr 12.

The writing is in Estrangela, the style being very similar to but not identical

with the rest of the manuscript.

A unique feature of this fragment is that an expanded paraphrase of a biblical

quotation is marked in the margin as a quotation (lr 12-18).

This does not occur elsewhere in this manuscript.

The fragment comes from the same scriptorium as the others and is contemporary with them.

There is no reason to doubt that it is part of a Philoxenian work, but it is not part of the work to which it is here attached.

Ir 1-2 -- The quotation from Matthew 18:22 led Wright to state that this fragment "seems to belong to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew (18:21, 22)_ "761

This is a more reasonable assumption than that made by de Halleux who attempts to fit it into a commentary on the genealogy in Luke 13134 9:5625

Much of this fragment is concerned with the meaning of the cryptic statement that "Cain will be avenged seven times"

(Genesis 4:24) in relation to his subsequent career, and Cain is not even mentioned in Luke 3:23-38.

So de Halleux' suggestion must be discounted. ܕܘܚܠܒ‎ -- "only"

-used by Aphrahat when quoting this text, but the word order is different. 7°?

No Greek text or Syriac version has this word or its equivalent in this context.

Ome ܟܝܥܵܒܫ ܠܟ‎ -- "seventy times seven"

-- the use of As in this context is not found in the Syriac versions.*°4 As far as can be ascertained, this phrase from Matthew 18:22 occurs in only one other Philoxenian work, The Letter Sent to a ` ܨ‎

Liber Graduum almost invariably uses the same phrase.

Ephrem reverses the ; \

é :

. word-order, using

Leloir has noted that ܠܥ‎ in this context is an older Syriac usage. 768

It appears to have been replaced later by ܢܝܢܒ‎ , as in the Peshitta.

The ܠܠ‎ preceding the numbers in Aphrahat and in the Curetonian and Sinaitic versions is equivalent to ܐܡܕܥ ܠ‎ in the Peshitta ‫ (= E€ws of Greek).

Ir 4 --\Qs>ax -- "Simon"

-- Peshitta read ܐܟܘܬܟ (= ܐܦܐܟ‎ of Greek text), but Curetonian version has ܢܢܥܡܫ ܐܦܐܒ‎ (Matthew 18:21).

In the Discourses, also, Philoxenus prefers "Simon" to "Peter. "269

Ir 6 -- that Matthew 18:22 is related to Genesis 4:24 was seen at least as early as Tertullian.??° :

Ir 7 -- ܠܥ ܥܫ‎ ea -- "seventy times seven" as in Ilr 2.

MT and Peshitta of Genesis 4:24 read "seventy-seven."

The Greek of Genesis 4:24

(LXX) and Matthew 18:22 has the same

1.79 phrase, Ep 6 ܘܙ ܟܐ) ܘ»:‎ taxes état, which can mean either "seventy-seven times" or seventy times seven."

The SyroHexapla follows Philoxenus' understanding of the text although the wording is different: ܥܒܫ‎ xa ܫܝ ܢܝܠܡܒ‎ .

Ir 8 -implies that in Genesis 4:14 Cain asked God the question:

"Shall it be that whoever finds me will kill me?"

This is a possible translation of MT and Syro-Hexapla and fits well with the context, but it is not the traditional understanding of the text as reflected in LXX and Peshitta where Cain simply makes a statement concerning his future. lr 11-18 -- this passage is marked as a quotation /</ although it is the author's paraphrastic exegesis of the divine dictum in Genesis 4:15.

Philoxenus uses this style of exegesis elsewhere in his writings, and its appearance in this fragment is additional evidence that he is the author of `

Ir 18 -- appears to be a quotation because of the emphasis placed on it in the sentence and in what follows, although the syntax itself is ambiguous.

It is reminiscent of the statement in the Greek Ben Sirach 40:8 f., "(There are) .

. upon the ungodly sevenfold (calamities) «3s Ir 20-28 -as far as can be determined, these exegetical alternatives taken together are original with Philoxenus.

None is found in early rabbinic or Christian hitevature e 2 lv

- 2r 2 -- the emphasis here on the possibility of some animal or natural force killing Cain is due to the understanding that Cain was the only man in existence apart from his father, Adam.

This is also assumed by the rabbis and ܝ‎ 2r 3-28 -- the geographical assumptions of this passage are based on Genesis 2:8, "The Lord God planted a garden tn Eden."

(7 7 3772( .

The garden, or "Paradise," is contained within the larger territory of Eden.

1 stresses this by leaving "Rden" as a proper name in Genesis 2:8, and translating it where the phrase is ]™ ]A4: thus avoiding the ambiguity of "Garden of edenu"2 0° Ephrem, Aphrahat and the Curetonian Gospels are unaware of these geographical subtleties in the context of Luke 23:43

("Today you will be with me in Paradise") where they read "Garden of Eden" for "Paradise," thus equating the swoshis

2: 3 --: ܠܥ ܝܡ‎ Kayew -- "ordinary thoughts" -- this expression seems to occur also in 14v 5-6

(although it is partly illegible) where it is used in the context of Christ's human growth of which "ordinary thoughts"

(or "the ideas that are common to this world") are a part.

2v 11 f. -- that Adam and the Sethites were not involved in the urbanization programme of Cain is inferred by the author.

It is not explicitly stated in the Bible.

2v 16 f. -Isaiah 22:9-11 condemns Judah (and therefore Hezekiah) for a rebuilding programme which the prophet relates to a lack of faith in God.

2 Chronicles 32:30 states that "Hezekiah prospered in all his works." av 19 -- dion pa -- Peshitta has dois which is surely a mistake.?7/ The word is not found in the Syriac lexicons, but it is obviously related to the Hebrew ܘܠܡ‎ which is used in this context in 2 Samuel 5:7, 9.

The Aramaic KX3X%% also occurs.

2v 26 -= conga}, -- this Greek word is used throughout the Manuscript.

Its use will be considered in chapter 5.

This first fragment is obviously exegetical in character.

Because of its fragmentary and somewhat rambling nature (going from Matthew 18:22 to Genesis 4:24 to an excursus on Genesis 4:15 to Hezekiah, David and Solomon), it is impossible to say whether Matthew 18:22 or Genesis 4:15 is the focus of the exegesis, although the former is a reasonable guess since Philoxenus seems to use the Old Testament to illumine his understanding of the New.

Throughout the fragment, the author's comments on the Bible are of a literal nature in the tradition of the School of Antioch.

There is no hint of allegorizing, or even of "une exégése typologique des premiéres pages de la Génésg" as de Halleux suggests.778

The only reference to typology is in 2v 26 where the Davidic kingdom is said to be a "type."

It is clear that, while Fragment 1 is Philoxenian, it does not belong with the bulk of the fragments which (as we shall show below) are from a "commentary" on five topics taken from Luke. 279

Whether it is from a "commentary" on Matthew must remain a moot question until more evidence comes to light

In favour of such a context is the fact that it contains no

polemic and no suggestion of'ascetic instruction (unless one considers his comments on urbanization to be a reflection of his ascetic bent).

On the other hand, we have noted in chapter 1 that so-called "commentary" fragments which we have already examined (apart from the manuscript before us) fit well into other literary genres which we know Philoxenus did produce.

Fragment

The eight folios of this second fragment are well preserved and completely legible.

The style of handwriting is the same as most of the manuscript including the last fragment with its colophon containing the author's name

(Philoxenus) and the date of writing (A.D. 1 ܝܫ‎ Three erasures and corrections occur, 5v 10, 19 and 9v 24, all made by the original scribe.

Quotations are clearly marked in the margin throughout.

This fragment has no quire number, perhaps indicating that it belonged to a quire of ten folios as we see in Fragment 10 and in the contemporary manuscript,

British Museum Add.

14,534 (Book on Selected Passages of the

Gospels).

This would mean that the first and last folios of this fragment's quire are lost (i.e., the outside sheet of vellum).

No unusual marks occur.

3p 1-3 -the translation supplies the probable beginning of this quotation from Acts 2:31, viz. SS ܠܠܡܘ‎ Mw ܡܕܫܕܩܘ‎

The words quoted are exactly those of the Harklean version.

The Peshitta omits rx along with nearly all the Greek mss. 782

The use of ܐܫܦ‎ here is necessary for Philoxenus' argument that Christ had a soul like any other human being.

3p 12 - 3v 11 -a similar passage is found in the Three Discourses on the Trinity and the Incarnatton where the author quotes from Matthew 26:38, John 12:27 and Luke 22:44, making reference to his source as ܘܡ ܠܓ ܗ ܐܝܐ,‎

Here, he quotes more fully from these passages, citing his source as ܐܛܘܟ ܠ ܓܢ ܘܐ‎ cad.

Bv 6 -- fK 19a -- the Synoptics make no mention of "sailors" in the pericope referred to.

4p 17 -- "Simon the Sorcerer"

-- Philoxenus with the Peshitta uses the form WU w for this man's name, which is oo graecized, perhaps to distinguish the protoheretic from the 3 7 ܒܝ‎ Indeed, in the Letter to Abraham and Orestes,

Simon Magus (ssw QoL) is contrasted with the apostle, Peter (e043) : 26

22:33:77

ܘܲܩܗܢܝܟܘܛܘܐ--ܕ‎ -- "Eutychianists"

-this form is not listed in R. Payne Smith's Thesaurus Syriacum.

It occurs also in the Three Discourses ©) One Philoxenian "confession of faith" is prefaced by a catalogue of heretics and their heresies which begins:

"Mani, Marcion and Eutyches deny the incarnation of God the Word ete, mee!

4r 23-26 -- Philoxenus in this fragment is combatting the teaching of those heretics or "near-heretics" who, while remaining within the monophysite fold, teach dogma that is heretical or "flirt with the heretical"

(9r 10).

The remaining contents of this fragment make this clear.

4r 27 -- "0 heretic"

-- The text clearly reads the singular, plural nouns being consistently marked by seyame; but the second person plural occurs throughout the rest of this fragment.

It may have been addressed to some monks whose loyalty to Philoxenus and the monophysite cause was unquestionable.

In the first two discourses of the "Ten Memre," the first person singular is consistently used, and the person addressed is called sarcastically "your wisdom," " "0 sage" and "O philosopher" with his work being referred to as "your heretical writings.

In his letter "To the Monks of Beth-Gogal," Philoxenus addresses them in warm and friendly tones, but when he deals with the heresy of his opponents in the body of the letter he apostrophizes his opponents as though they were a single adversary:

"O godless one,"

"O false disciple," and "O disciple in name (only) ."289

In the fragment before us, the author employs the same literary device.

In the rest of the fragment, he is addressing more than one person.

4v 1 -- ua. ܐܬܘܡܕ‎ -- "the likeness of a dove"

-- Philoxenus picks up the meaning of ܘܡܕ ܐܗ‎ in 4r 19 and discusses its meaning in the rest of the fragment.

The translation "likeness" has been used consistently in order to retain the flavour of the author's discussion; although the word "form" could at times be substituted for at, reflecting the English translation of €&6es in Luke 3:22 and ً»ܘܨ‎ and Smocwers in Philippians 2:6, 7 (the Syriac uses shen for all three words).

"Likeness" is the familiar word used in the context of

Genesis 1:26, "in our image and after our likeness (NIMT— Gpoiwercs - ܘܡ ܐܫܘܪ‎ 7) ," and that context is prominent in Fragment wa, 229 All Syriac versions of Luke 3:22 read: ܬܘܡܕܒ‎ end -ܐܡܫܘܓܝ‎ "in the likeness of the body of a dove," but here and most often in the fragment the author omits

ܓܢܘ‎ Only once (7r 9) is the full Lucan expression ܐܡܫ‎ used.

It is noteworthy that the Sinaitic version of Matthew 3:16 has mud KANDI for ܟܝܐ ܐܢܘܝ‎ of the other Syriac versions, and it may well be that that version of Matthew 3:16 came more readily to the author's mind than Luke 3:22 with which he was also familiar.

At any rate, what we have here is his answer to those who use this phrase to cast doubt on the real corporality of Christ.

The descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove was the focus of much theological controversy in the Church prior to the time of Philoxenus, but his particular development of the theme in this fragment seems to be original with him, although antecedents may be found for individual aspects of his `

4vy 5-6 -- "As they say, 'No one saw except only John'."

This is a reasonable inference drawn especially from John 1:29-34, and apparently current also in the time of 0: 83396

4v 11 -- ܐ=ܬܝܒܪܐܐܬ ܪܝܓܢ ܐܙ‎ -- literally "lengthy or prolonged growth" i.e., the long period of development or gradual growth of a child.

Sv" 38 ܐܝܢܘܪ‎ -- Philoxenus treats this word as a masculine noun whenever he believes it refers to the Holy Spirit, as apparently he does here.

He or his scribe, however, is not consistent in this quotation for he clearly uses the BS) £2r'ss suffix on ܗܝܪܼܘܝܢ ܙ)‎ ) 5 5).

6r 2 -- SdaAzIy -- translated here and throughout the manuscript as "the earthly ministry (of Christ)."

In 8 ܨ‎ context of theology, it is equivalent to the divine ܬ ܟܬ ܘܡܘܢ‎ (Philippians 1:10) fore-ordained and fulfilled in the life and work of Christ.

According to de Halleux, Philoxenus has provided us with a definition of this word in his Ten

Discourses:

"L'économie, c'est la naissance, la passion et la : ܒ‎ "Rarthly ministry" covers this quite well.

6r 27 ̄

= ܬܕܠܝ ܝܗܠܐ‎ Qcotoxos -- Nestorius had refused to use this term as a title for the mother of Jesus.

6 5 ܢܘܬܢܐ‎ -- here the second person plural is used, while in 4r 26 a heretic was addressed in the singular.

A plurality of persons is addressed throughout the rest of this second fragment.

7r 3-4 -- "as angels have sometimes appeared"

-in his sermon on the Annunciation, Philoxenus spoke of how an angel can put off and put on likenesses when he = es 70 4 -- ܙܪ ܐ‎ -- "mystery" is used throughout to translate this word which in the Peshitta always translates Mvetnpcoy.

The phrase in 7v 13 + ܐ ̈ܢܝܠܓ7 ܙ‎ is Pauline (Romans 16:25).

Because it is used here in conjunction with ܐܵܘܝܦܘܲܛ‎ , one is tempted to translate it by "symbol," but that term no longer contains the fulness of religious significance it once had.

A variant spelling -WAV -is found in 7v 24, 31v 1 and 33v 0071 while ܐܐ‎ ¥ occurs sixteen times in the whole manuscript.

8v 6 -- d= -- should be ts, but compare 8v 11, 13.

8v 11-12 -- KO ܬܘܗ ܬܘܠ‎ -- this is marked as a quotation, but as it is here phrased it is not biblical.

It is closest in spirit to Galatians 3:4.

9r 10 -- "those who flirt with the heretical"

-- the Syriac literally means "those who are familiar with the word of heresy."

These are the people to whom this fragment seems to be addressed. *?° 9v 10-11 -- ".

. how the immortal Son died"

-- this kind of paradoxical statement is found elsewhere in the writings of Philoxenus. „ 95 The contents of this second fragment clearly indicate that it is from a letter or a sermon addressed to a group within the monophysite camp whose monophysitism was not as sharply defined as Philoxenus would have liked.

In his "Seven Special Chapters, etc.," he writes "against those who say that what is bad in the teaching of the heretics should be cursed, but not the heretics themselves along with all their teaching."7?/ Obviously Philoxenus believed that heresy had to be opposed wherever it appeared and by whomever it was espoused, even in its mildest form.

The clear and precisely correct definition of monophysite christology had to be constantly maintained and defended.

This fragment is of that order, polemical and doctrinaire.

Fragment

This single-folio fragment and the two following it belong together as far as their scribal style and quality of vellum are concerned.

As has already been shown, they were not originally part of the manuscript before us or of any other

Philoxenian manuscript we know een22?

Although all three deal with aspects of the Incarnation, it is impossible to establish any continuity of thought which demonstrates unequivocally that these three fragments should be placed in their present order. lily 2 -- the reference is to Theodore of Mopsuestia (died A.D.

428), the great biblical exegete of the School of Antioch.

He was the teacher of Nestorius and by Philoxenus' time was considered the father of néaeorianient 2°

Theodore is also mentioned in 20r 2 and 23r 24.

No commentary on Luke by Theodore is extant by which to assess the value of Philoxenus' statement in this fragment, but there is a genuine tradition here which our author is constrained to criticize.

The glimpse provided of Theodore's exegesis of Luke 1:35 in llr 13-15 is true to the kind of literal interpretation to which he strictly adhered.

11y 4 --¥9s9s -- translated here by "composite," it literally means "double."

In this context, it is contrasted with ("simple").

It refers to the "double" or composite nature of Christ implicit in words like "Christ, Son, Only-Begotten and Lord."

On the other hand Nestorius (so we are here told) said that "God, and the Word" are "simple"; that is, they can refer

Philoxenus and only to a single, unambiguous divine nature. the monophysites claimed that these words too must be composite for the Word was both divine and human.

Whether we have here a direct quotation from Nestorius is not known.

This fragment is dogmatic and polemical in character.

Fragment

That this fragment belongs in some way with Fragments

and 5 has already been stated.

Though legible for the most part, its verso is stained making a few words illegible even under ultra-violet light.

A notable erasure and correction occurs in 12v 27 where the word Kadal is written over the erasure in the same style of handwriting as that of the rest of the fragment except that it is slightly larger and the waw

is formed esrather than m.

I judge it to be written by the

same scribe who wrote the rest.

It is impossible to say what was erased.

12r 1-3 -- these three lines, though beginning in a fragmentary way, strike the keynote ot this isolated folio: what it means for the pure in heart to see God (Matthew 5:8), when the Fourth Gospel assures us that no one has ever seen Him

(John 1:18).

The paradox is resolved when it is understood that the eyes of faith see beyond the flesh to the Word (12r 4-5) just as the sacramental bread is seen to be "the body of God" by "the vision (or insight) of a new man"

(12v 20-22).

12v 2 --xLiam] -- "the mind of angels"

-- only the final aleph is legible with hints of the other three letters.

The phrase fits the context though it is not found elsewhere in the manuscript.

D2 UO ܵ ܠܝܠ ̈ܙܡ ܐ = ܫ‎ -- "orators"

-- only the first and last letters are visible.

Philoxenus makes the same kind of reference to orators in l6r 7 and lé6év 24.

12v 20-22 -- "bread .

. is seen to be the body of God"

-- the sacramental reference is unique in this manuscript.

Indeed, Philoxenus rarely alludes to the Eucharist.>7 12v 27 -- ܘܛ ܗܦ ܐ‎ -is the Syriac equivalent of TUTTros used in the Greek in this context (John 20:25).

The Peshitta and other pre-Philoxenian Syriac traditions all read Toros )= ܐܘܬ‎ 307) and possibly the scribe (or was it Philoxenus himself?) first wrote Khia07 before changing it to ܐ ̈ܘܝܦܘܲܛ‎

The Greek text reflected here is SRERERS that of Codex Alexandrinus which reads, Eav 49 (Sw ܐܘܐ‎ rats YXepotv auto Tov ܘ4 ܗܢ ܫܘܘ‎ Kat ܬܝܢ ܘ‎ Tév Saxtulov wou ets tov ܫܘܘ‎ tav ܘܙ‎ As it stands, there is no real indication that this fragment is other than exegetical.

What its larger context was, is impossible to say.

As we have noted regarding other fragments, that context could be a polemical discourse or letter, or a discourse on the nature of the ascetic life.

In that case, it is more likely that this fragment would come from a theological discussion in which Philoxenus could hardly avoid

his polemic against non-monophysites.

On the other hand, we cannot ignore its claim to be an exegetical fragment, although what precisely the Biblical passage being exegeted would be is not clear.

It could be John 1:18, Matthew 5:8, John 9:37, or John 20:25, all of which are quoted or alluded to; or it could be another passage altogether such as ܐ‎ Corinthians 2:14 to whichithdcatthor aldudes. ine6eoll.?% scALl. dniall eit de difficult to believe that this came from an exegetical work in any formal or technical sense.

It is possible, however, that it is part of an expository homily on any of the abovementioned passages.

Fragment

This is the third of the three "orphan fragments."

Unlike the other two, this one contains no direct quotation from the Bible.

It is concerned nevertheless with a specific Biblical passage, John 20:19, 26.

13r 13 -- SX 01 -- one would expect J before ܐܗܠܐ‎ or perhaps ܐܗܠܐ‎ wo.

In his "Letter to the Monks of Senun,"

Philoxenus always uses =™\84 ܐܝܢܘܪ‎ .

395 Tt is unusual as an appositional construction which would reverse the word0 ܗܠ‎ What we have here is probably a scribal omission.

13v 5 ff.

-- two other Philoxenian fragments exist which attack the teachings of Diodore of Tarsus (died before 394) who was condemned by a synod held in Constantinople in 499 as the father of wéetectanisa.?°?

As a teacher in the School of Antioch, he had Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia as students.

The quotations purporting to be from Diodore in 13v 16-18 and 22-28 are not marked as such in the margin.

Whether Diodore ever wrote these words is not attested by any of his extant work, but they reflect his teaching and are true to his exegetical method.

13v 20-21 -- "Jews and pagans"

-in his "Letter to the Monks of Senun," Philoxenus again associates the idea of Christ's being an ordinary man with "the Jews and pagans,">98

While this fragment has a biblical basis for its discussion (i.e., John 20:19, 26), it is Philoxenus the polemicist who is writing, and the focus of his attack is Diodore of Tarsus.

In Fragments 3 and 4 he attacks Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius respectively.

We have already

mentioned the fact that our author carried on a polemic against all three, and (until other evidence is produced to the contrary) it is reasonable to assign these three fragments to that lost work or works. 29?

The fact that these fragments are found together and written in the same handwriting indicates that they belong to a single work rather than three separate works as the titles to other fragments assume, 21°

Probably such a work was basically against the Nestorians in which it was natural for Philoxenus to denounce also the teachings of Theodore and Diodore.

Fragment

Although this single-folio fragment is in poor condition, it is almost entirely legible.

A tear in the upper folio (repaired as well as possible by the British Museum) makes the last word of 14v 5 illegible.

A hole running through lines 10 to 15 has destroyed parts of words in each line.

Other smaller holes and stains have obliterated letters here and there, but in every instance reconstruction of the text has not been difficult.

A crude erasure occurs in the last line of 14r for no apparent reason, the words deliberately blotted out being necessary for the meaning of the text.

They were clearly legible under ultra-violet light and have been restored in this edition.

The script is in the same hand as that of most of this manuscript.

14r 2-3 -- the quotation from Wisdom 3:1 is not marked in the Margin as one would expect.

1i4¢r 11-24 -- this discussion concerning Christ's preaching to the dead is based on 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6.

In his "Letter to the Monks of Senun," Philoxenus includes "the preaching to those in prison and darkness" as part of the total ministry of 33:1

Christ.

14r 19 f. -- "while we have [testified] that the divine life does not abandon them,"

-in his "Memra on the Question Someone Asked, etc.," Philoxenus maintains that once the Holy

Spirit is given to a believer by baptism He never leaves his body even in death, except when he denies God or communicates with demons.

Thus, the Holy Spirit remained with the corpse of Christ in the tomb enabling Him to preach "to the souls of sinners."

14r 25 ff.

-- the idea of the Holy Spirit's being miraculously and inextricably joined to the body of Jesus is developed in the remainder of this fragment.

14r 27 -- with the aid of ultra-violet light the words ܐܢܒܘܠ‎ mam ܰܥܒܪ‎ an are discernible under what appears to be a crude erasure.

The obliterating mark is too definite in its contour to be a mere stain.

Why anyone would wish to remove these words is not at all evident.

14v 5-6 -- ܥܠܡܢܝܐ‎ Sua -- this reconstruction suits the context.

The phrase is also found in 2v ܨ‎ 14y 10-12 -- according to Philoxenus' theology, the Holy Spicee departed from Adam because he had denied God's authority and (through his wife) had communicated with the serpent (i.e., a demon) . 324

The tone and contents of this fragment suggest a discourse or memra similar to that already cited,

"Memra on the Question Someone Asked:

Does the Holy Spirit Leave a Man when He Sins and Return to Him when He Repents?"

As Tanghe has suggested, the latter may be a letter with the "introduction

The reference to Christ's growth in epistolaire" omitted. stature and in the Spirit indicate that the author had Luke

2:40 in mind, and that text may have been the basis for an expository homily of which, then, we have here a fragment.

Certainly, there is no hint of polemical intent in it.

Fragment

Fragment 7 is completely legible in spite of its generally stained appearance and a vertical tear in the lower right corner of the text.

The handwriting is that of most of the manuscript.

No erasures are discernible.

The quotation marks in the margin of 15r 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 were clear under ultra-violet light. set Jas == "Luke adds.

2°.

%.'=-—"the context suggests that in the lost text which preceded this fragment, Philoxenus discussed the statement that Jesus "went down to Nazareth and was subject to them."

Now he turns his attention to the meaning of the second part of that verse (Luke 2:51) relating it to the larger context of Luke, chapter 2.

15r 8 -- "Joseph"

-- Philoxenus follows the Peshitta and the Greek textual tradition reflected in Codex Alexandrinus, the

old Latin, Gothic and Diatessaron.

The older tradition of Codex Sinaiticus simply reads o Watgp ܫܘܐ ܘܘ‎ and this is followed by the Old Syriac of the Sinai Palimpsest.

Our author discusses Jesus' relation to Joseph in Fragment 12 (folio 31).

15v 7 -for the translation "earthly ministry (of Christ)," see the note on 6r 2. lév 19 -- ܐܝܠܛ‎ -- "the boy" ---this term has the specific meaning of child between the ages of seven and twelve as Philoxenus explicitly states in 15v 23-24.

He intends to contrast the use of ܐܝܠܛ‎ in Luke 2:40 with that of Sax. in Luke 2:52 the latter being applied to Jesus after he was twelve years of age (according to our author's exegesis).

He returns to this childhood period in Jesus' life in folio 18.

15v 20 -- "in the Spirit"

-- this phrase is found in Codex Alexandrinus and the Peshitta, Old Latin and Diatessaron, while Codex Sinaiticus and the Old Syriac version omit it.

The contents of this fragment are clearly exegetical.

The author considers the meaning of Luke 2 : 515, then moves on into Luke 2:52a.

Presumably, in the page or pages immediately preceding this folio, he had commented on at least Luke 2:5la,

"(Jesus) went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them," and beyond this folio he discussed the rest of Luke 2:52.

But the fact that we have here a running commentary on Luke 2:51-52 does not in itself make this fragment part of a Gospel commentary in any technical sense.

We have already demonstrated that such fragments may have belonged to some other literary genre.

Fragment 7 does not provide any evidence to the contrary.

Fragment

Before it was repaired by the British Museum, this single-leaf fragment was torn in two with the tear running roughly from the middle of the text at the top to about an inch from the right margin at the bottom.

Both sides are stained.

However, the text is entirely legible except for one letter on 16v 17 which has been obliterated because of a smudge.

The resh of ܪܡܬ‎ at the end of 1l6r 10 lacks a dot.

The second singular masculine pronoun is used in l6r 8, 12, 16, and US, but there is no indication of the identity of the person so addressed.

16r 1-3 -- Philoxenus has reversed the two clauses in this quotation from 1 Corinthians 1:25 which (all textual witnesses agree) reads:

"The foolishness of God is wiser than men and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

Only in this fragment (among his available writings) does he quote the verse in full (except for shortening "the foolishness of God" to "His foolishness") so it is impossible to say whether such an inversion reflects a versional tradition on which he was drawing.

He does quote the first clause of the text in 24r 12-13 of the manuscript before us, in his Three Discourses on the Trinity and in his discourse "On Simplicity."°>!® In each instance, he writes, "The foolishness of God is wiser than men," which suggests that he was quoting from memory or was unconcerned about rendering the text verbatim when he wrote this fragment.

16r 9 -- the reference to a single reader ("you") is suggestive of a letter except for the fact that Philoxenus' style in many of his discourses employs a similar form of address.

One notable example is in the discourse "On Simplicity"

(cited above), where, after quoting 1 Corinthians 1:25a, he exhorts his reader to follow Christ by living a life

It must be added, however, that in this of simplicity. fragment our author appears to be answering an enquirer who had difficulty in reconciling divine power with the "weakness" of Christ's humanity.

He is not engaged in a polemic, but is simply clarifying his understanding of the Incarnation.

16r 17 -- "Christ is the Power and Wisdom of God"

-it is necessary to capitalize "Power" and "Wisdom" because of what follows.

Philoxenus sees these words as synonyms for Christ.

The same understanding is found in his "Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gogal":

He who says that He of whom it is inscribed that He was in the beginning, and He was with God and He was God, is not the Power of the Most High, concerning whom the angel said to the Virgin, "You shall conceive in the womb, give birth to a son and call

His name Jesus," is excommunicated by the word of Jesus.

This fragment has been inserted in the manuscript immediately after Fragment 7 presumably because the latter ended with the words, "He grew in stature," while this one is

concerned with the "weakness of God" as it is seen in "the fact that He grew in stature"

(16r 8-9).

At first glance, the connection appears superficial.

The style and content of Fragment 7 are exegetical, while in Fragment 8 they are didactic and discursive.

Whether Fragments 7 and 8 belong together remains to be seen, and will be considered in the light of all evidence of the manuscript as a whole.

To reach any conclusion at this juncture would be premature. >>?

Fragment

These two, somewhat damaged folios are legible for the most part.

Folio 17 has two holes which have eliminated several letters of the text in recto 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, and 06 1, 2p oy LO, 13; 3:2:

13:0

14:

3703 3 needs running from the right of 17r 5 to left of 17r 8 has made the third letter of 17x 5 illegible.

A smudge, or more probably an erasure, has obliterated the first word of 17r 9.

A crude erasure or deliberate blot (for no apparent reason) occurs at the top of 17v, but the reading is clear under ultra-violet light.

Other stains and smudges abound on both sides of the folio, but the reading is always clear.

While also stained, folio 18 is on the whole much cleaner than 17.

It has a tear running from the left margin of 18r 5 to the right margin of 18r 10 almost obliterating the first letter of 18r 10.

The lower right corner of the text is missing, but only the initial letters of 18r 25 and of 18r 26 and the final letter of 18v 26 are lost.

A smudge covers the first word of 18v 3, but the reading is clear.

The large beth at the foot of 17v and the equally large gamal at the foot of 18r seem to indicate some form of numbering -- perhaps of folios or quires.

These numbers are rather crude in form and have been added by a later hand.

They have no relationship to the neat quire numbers found on folios 19, 29° and' 33.

; ܘܡ‎ 17r 1-2 -- the opening fragmentary phrase refers to Luke 2:42 as the following sentences show.

17r 9 -- the initial word is erased.

It was probably 9s erroneously repeated.

17r 12 ff.

-- the style of this passage is very like that of the ascetic discourses.

Philoxenus makes use of a biblical description of Jesus to commend the theory and practice of the

ascetic life for which (according to our author) Jesus is the

supreme example.

17v 1 -- ܼܲܝܫܡܕ ]ܢܝܛ‎ -it is assumed that Philoxenus had 1 Corinthians 1:20 in mind:

"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"

Yet Christ who has the teaching of God is 'many times more humble than they'.

17v 10 -- [647585 -- while the final two letters are obliterated, the seyame are visible, and the word should be translated "wildernesses" or "deserts."

But this is very likely a scribal error.°22 The singular is used in 169 15 with reference to the wilderness experience of Israel.

In 5r 2, ySD7NW is the place of Jesus' temptation.

The latter word occurs more often in the Peshitta, while ܪܒܒܡ ܐ‎ is preferred in the Old Syriac to translate a 18r 2 -- ܐܗܡܘܩܒ ܘܝܠܛܕ ܐܗ‎ -- literally, "in the stature of boyhood"; that is, between the ages of seven and twelve.

18r 8 -- "In the time of his infancy"

-- presumably the period prior to seven years of age.

18v 11-12 -in quoting from Isaiah 7:15b, Philoxenus follows the Greek of Codex Alexandrinus:

Veoval avtTov TpoeAé 6 Buc Tovypx ex\é%erac To aya ,ܣܗ‎ His exegesis requires it.

The Peshitta and the Greek tradition of Codex Sinaiticus are closer to the Hebrew.

18v 19-20 -- Kab ܬܘܪܘܥܙܘ‎ show ܬܘܪܝܨܒܒ‎ -- literally, "in fewness of days and smallness of years" which is taken here to mean "infancy and childhood," that is, prior to twelve years of age.

The style and content of this fragment have more in common with the ascetic discourses of Philoxenus than with what we find in exegetical fragments such as 1 and 7 of this manuscript.

While the discussion finds its base in Luke 2:42, 46, the main concern of the writer is to highlight an aspect of Christ's life which will encourage his readers to continue in the life of asceticism.

De Halleux has pointed out that Philoxenus in his introduction to the Discourses outlines the plan of his work in which il n'omet pourtant pas d'y mentionner la purification de l'intellect dans le recueillement de la solitude

(iM pelo, Lom?) , La contemplation spirituelle (I, p8) et la priére pure (I, p. 16), et il annonce

son intention de décrire 1'ascension intérieure jusqu'au 'degré supérieur de la charité', voire jusqu'a celui de la perfection (I, p. 25).

Or on ne découvrira pas la moindre trace de ceci dans les douze memre suivants.

Fragment 9 could well belong to a lost discourse on "la purification de l'intellect," for in this fragment we are told something of the author's understanding of Christ's intellectual development which makes "it right henceforth for men to be ambitious by choosing the most excellent things"

CELE Ly eB) ce Fragment

Besides being the longest of the fragments in this manuscript, Fragment 10 has also a very clean text except for folio 29.

It consists of a complete quire (folios 19-28) and the first folio of the quire which once followed ivy?

The recto of the first folio (19) is somewhat stained (but entirely legible) indicating that the quire has been separated from the original codex for some time.

The rest of the quire (19v-28v) is in excellent condition.

Folio 29 is stained and damaged, the worst stain covering about the first ten lines of 29r.

However, apart from three letters on 29r 1, the folio is legible under ultra-violet light.

The bad condition of 29r suggests that its quire (of which it is the first page) had a separate existence for a considerable time prior to its being incorporated into the present codex.

To all outward appearances, this fragment is closely related to Fragment 14. Not only is the handwriting the same, but together they contain a series of three quire numbers in sequence and in the same handwriting as that of the text: heth (19r), teth (29r) and yudh (33r).

Quire heth (=8) is complete with ten folios (19-28), quire teth (=9) has only the first folio (29), and quire yudh (=10) is complete with six folios (33-38).

Since quire yudh is the final one because it contains the colophon, we may expect it to have less than the full number of folios.

If ten folios to one quire was the rule for the original codex, we can assume that nine folios are missing from quire teth (that is, between folio 29 and gayge>

The composition of the present codex places three fragmentary folios (30-32) where these presumed nine folios were and it

remains to be seen whether they belong there or not.

19r 1 -- ܘܟܘܐ ܩܪܘ‎ -- the Peshitta of Philippians 2:7 has Philoxenus prefers the former in 65 2, 169 21, ‏ .

He never uses the latter expression in this codex. ‏ 19r 1-18 -- most of this section consists of quotations of ‏ and ‏ ܒܘܬܘunknown origin and marked only by the repetition of ‏ the general context.

It is uncertain whether the fourth ‏ (CUD or REO ‏ ܐܬܘܢܶܡܒSEO ‏ '))1..486( ܬܝܠܕquotation runs from ‏ e(1.

13).

Our translation assumes the second possibility. ‏ One can only speculate on the source of these quotations. ‏

Athanasius may be their author since this fragment (as we shall ‏ show below) is like some passages in his writings and we know ‏ that elsewhere Philoxenus expressed great admiration for ‏ him. 22° The beginning of the new paragraph on 1. 18 in which our author turns his attention to the teaching of his heretical opponents, suggests a contrast with the preceding paragraph containing these orthodox quotations, and who could be more orthodox than Athanasius?

19r 22

ead -- literally "there" but translated "in that passage" for he is alluding to Luke 2:52.

19r 25 --ySslse3 -- where this word refers to the nature of God but is not so qualified, we have translated it " (divine) nature."

It is clear that when Philoxenus writes of the nature of Christ, he means His nature as the second Person of the Trinity.

To use the word "nature" alone in translation would be to blur in some contexts the clear intention of the author.

The context here is a case in point.

A literal translation of the phrase wiatad ROIUAD ܗܬ ; ܥܘܫܝ‎ would be "Jesus is a natural man" which, as is evident from the sentences which follow, is far from the author's mind.

The correct translation of s&La% and its derivatives is particu-

larly important in this fragment.

20v 3-4 -- "prefiguring the reality"

-- literally, "running after the body."

20v 13 -- ܠܗܠ‎ -- here this adverb expressing remoteness refers to Israel's experience of God in the Old Testament; so it is translated "at that time."

21r 26 -- ܢܘܐܪܒܣܐܬܐ‎ -- second plural form for first plural of the Greek.

21v 6 -- the context requires the reading yS-Uaw4 ("dear ones") for ܐܡܝܪ‎ ("mercy"), unless one considers the latter

‫݀ as scripta defectiva for the former (that is, ESS er (% 21v 9-12 -- Philoxenus quotes from Matthew 22:32

(omitting the repetition, "God of" Isaac and "God of" Jacob), but adds the last clause of Luke 20:38, "for all live in Him."

This conflation is found also in the Diatessaron. 278

21v 13-16 -in his "Letter to Someone Who Asked the Question, etc.," Philoxenus quotes these lines from Psalm 82:6-7 correctly.2?"

Here he omits the second clause of v.

7, AIA ܢܡ ܕܚ ܐܢܒ ̈ܪܘܕ‎ 1750, taking from it ܢܡ ܕܝܢ‎ which he adds to the first making it read ܒܝܢ ܡ ܔܒ ܥܥ ܡ‎ instead of simply ܐܥܙܢ ܐ ܐ‎

. 330

This may in fact be a scribal error, but it is translated literally as it stands.

These verses from the Psalter are used both here and in the above-mentioned Letter to support the idea that they apply to Jews in the Old Testament but not to Christians who have been made sons of God by adoption.

21v 22 -- ܢܡ ܐܫܢܝܢܒ‎ is reminiscent of the supposed scribal error discussed in 2lv 13-16 above.

22r 9 -- note the use of the second plural.

It recurs in 23r 10, 23v 14, 24r 21, 25r 6; while the second singular is used in 27r 8, 13.

It is apparently part of the author's style and does not necessarily mean that this fragment is part of a letter or discourse addressed to anyone or any group in particular.

28r 22-23 -- ܓ ܢܠܦܦ‎ -- ` has ܢܒܓ‎ (= Greek)is "It Cm would be easy to mistake the wuas of the Greek text for Has.

However, in 2lr 26 he uses the second plural in place of the first plural, and it would thus appear that this is just a stylistic idiosyncrasy.

22r 23-25 -- this saying of Jesus (according to Philoxenus) appears to be a conflation of John 15:16 and 17:24.

It is by no means accidental for the exact same wording appears in his Three Dtscourses on the Trinity repeated three times. 231

23r 3 ff.

-- "first it is written that He grew in stature"

-the passage that follows is reminiscent of a similar passage in Athanasius'

"Third Discourse against the Arians" where he too stresses the fact that the growth in stature is mentioned

first:

"The Evangelist, speaking with cautious exactness, has mentioned stature in the advance (i.e., the growth); but being Word and God He is not measured by stature, which belongs to bodies. ">?

23r 25-27 -- "(Jesus) is of God and man"

-- the name of Jesus has been supplied in translation for the author understands by it the man who "grew in stature, etc.," and who "came into being"

(23v 12).

The "heresy" being attacked here as nonsense is that of the Council of Chalcedon as the reference to its

"recentness" would substantiate.>>In this fragment, Philoxenus is concerned to say that Christ had one divine nature which was clothed with a body when Jesus was born of the Virgin, and He was thus fully human but not "of God and man."

23v 16 -- ܘܦܢܙܒܢ ܐܗ‎ -- "joining"

-- Vaschalde has shown that the verb Gay and its derivatives belong to Nestorian terminology and are used to describe 'the mere moral union of the two natures of Christ.'734

23v 22 -an erasure occurs in the middle of the line with ܢܘܬܝܪܦܒܟ ܐܫܢ ̈ܪܒܖ‎ written over it.

The second word is a misspelling of ܢܘܗܪܦܟܒ‎ What was underneath the erasure is lost.

24v 22 -- the second half of the line was erased and the present text written over it.

25r 3-4 -in his "Third Discourse against the Arians,"

Athanasius discusses this verse (Matthew 24:36) at some length immediately before his discussion of Luke 2:52 mentioned above. esp 9 -- ܬܫ ܦ ܐܘܪܘ‎ -a mistake for ܘܫܝ ܘܦܬ ܐܙ‎ which occurs nine times in this codex (e.g., 25v 6).

27?r 17 -an erasure occurs under the word ,Lx.

27r 22 -- ܐ ̈ܠܘܦ‎ -- when this name refers to the Apostle Paul, it is always spelt ܘܣܘܠܘܦ‎ in this codex (nine times).

29r 25-26

ܐܠܘ ܐܠܘ‎ -- this is simply a case of dittography.

Fragment 10 belongs with the theological discourses of Philoxenus.

Its style, which at times borders on a dialogue with "the heretics," is discursive and dogmatic and its contents deal with certain aspects of his christology vis-a-vis that of his opponents.

Luke 2:52 is the biblical basis for his discussion, but that discussion is not exegetical in the technical sense of that term.

The clue to its genre is to be

found in the anti-Arian Discourses of Athanasius with one of which this fragment has close affinities

(as we have already In these discourses, Athanasius discusses certain

ܝܢ‎ biblical texts which were used (or could be used) by the opponents of orthodoxy to support their theological position.

The exposition of these texts is subordinated to the polemical intention of Athanasius.

Ina similar fashion, Philoxenus treats Luke 2:52 as a christological crux to promote his monophysitism and demolish the position of his enemies, the Nestorians and the Chalcedonians.

Fragment

This single folio is legible throughout except for two letters in a word on 30r 22.

These are obliterated because of a tear running from the right margin of 30r 22 to the left margin of 30r 25.

Both sides of the folio are somewhat stained.

The handwriting is identical with that of most of the manuscript.

In literary content, this fragment has obvious affinity with the following two single-folio fragments.

The sequence in which they originally occurred will be considered later in this chapter.

De Halleux reverses the present sequence without explaining why he does ¦}

30r 7 -- ܗܡ ܐܬܒ ܬܝܢܡܘ ܡܐܬ‎ -- literally, "the ascent and the descent."

The former refers to the Lucan genealogy which begins with the human Jesus and "ascends" to God, and the latter refers to the Matthean genealogy which begins with Abraham and "descends" to the birth of Jesus.

Chrysostom uses the same idea when dealing with the genealogies. 28

30r 21, 238 -eis ܬܝܒ‎ -the contrast between Beth-Laban and (Beth-)Lehem is that of 'literal' vis-a-vis typological interpretation.

In Genesis 28, Jacob had his dream while on his way down to the house of Laban; thus the "ascending" and "descending" can be linked with the immediate and literal context. 239

Philoxenus does not deny such an interpretation of Jacob's dream at Bethel, but he sees in it a type foreshadowing the Incarnation represented here by Bethlehem. >7° 30r 23-27 -- "all those .

. are not aware of it ..

. because of baptism"

-- that is, the Jews do not understand their own scriptures because they have not been initiated into "the

mystery" by baptism.

S00 Le Spero ACAM poets ee SEEN «os G Enoch:

'...) .eNoah) ts.» Shem - - . Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"

-- these names are all taken from the end of the Lucan genealogy (Luke 3:34-38), but in reverse order.

This fragment is based on Luke 3:22-23, being concerned with the relationship between the account of Jesus' baptism and the genealogy which immediately follows it.

The same expository concern is seen in the next two fragments.

Fragment

The somewhat stained and torn condition of this fragment is similar to that of Fragment 11.

The top left corner of the text was torn off and skilfully re-attached, the tear being in the shape of an irregular arc running from 1% inches to the right of the top left corner to the left margin of line 9.

A hole has eliminated two letters on 3lv 28.

The handwriting is that of most of the manuscript.

3ir 4 -- ܕܡ ܪܒܘ ܘܘܢ ܐ‎ -- translated in this context by "supposition" to bring out its relation to the participle used in Luke 3:23, ܬܣܗܡ ܪܒ‎ ("it is supposed").

Elsewhere in the Manuscript this noun is translated "opinion. "241

31y 28 35:5:

-- QUM QUM

~~ aittography.

31v 8-9 -- "he has brought them to the Father"

-- the Lucan genealogy ends with ".

Seth (son) of Adam (son) of God"; so in this sense they are brought to the Father.

In common with Fragments 11 and 13, this fragment deals with Christ's "supposed" filial relationship to Joseph.

The biblical basis for the discussion is Luke 3:23.

Fragment

About twenty-five percent of the text is missing from this mutilated folio, torn below line 20.

The folio was also torn in places to the edge of the margins, but fortunately what remains of the badly stained text is complete and mostly legible under ultra-violet light.

32r 15 --SO29 -- "he explained"

-- the subject of the verb is not known.

The word is used in Fragment 3 (llr 13) where Philoxenus refers to an exegetical comment of Theodore of Mopsuestia in order to refute it.

In this fragment he is citing a Church Father to support his conclusions (witness also

and \sdew in lines 1 and 21: who must have been named in the preceding lost folio.

In his second homily on Matthew 1:1, Chrysostom links the genealogies with the baptism

ܪܒܥܢ‎ = of Jesus and speaks of the twofold birth of Jesus (of the Virgin and of the Holy Spirit) and His twofold baptism (by John the Baptist and by descent of the Holy Spirit) as being "of the same kind, for it partook of the old and it partook of the ‫ Such a statement is similar to the fragmentary first new. sentence of this folio (32r 1-5), and when we consider that the contexts of both are the same we must conclude that either

Philoxenus was drawing on Chrysostom or on a source common to Chrysostom.

32r 17 -- -- "followed the sequence"

-in the preface to his Gospel, Luke stated his purpose in writing was to provide an "orderly account" of "the things which have been accomplished among us"

(Luke 1:1-3).

32v 20-21 -- "Man is like a vapour"

-- this is no doubt an allusion to James 4:14

(compare Wisdom 2:2), but it is by no means a direct quotation as Philoxenus would have us believe both by his reference to the "Scripture" and his use of

We note that in the same homily mentioned above, Chrysostom also speaks of the transitoriness of human life but he quotes from Psalm 102:4

(LXX):

"My days have failed like smoke, "243

That Fragments 11, 12 and 13 belong together is abundantly clear.

They contain separate parts of a discussion on the relation of Jesus" baptism (Luke 3:22) to the Lucan version of His genealogy (Luke 3:23-38).

Fragment 11 deals with the re-establishing of the likeness of God in man by baptism.

We suggest that, leading up to this in folios now lost, Philoxenus had been discussing the baptism of Jesus and especially the words, "This is my beloved Son with whom I am pleased"

(Luke 3:22), as they are related to the believer's baptism and his adoption into God's family.

This brings him to introduce the Lucan genealogy in relation both to Christ's baptism and to the Matthean genealogy (30r 5-10).

Fragment 12 is particularly concerned with the significance of the comment in 3:23 that Jesus "was supposed" to be the son of Joseph, and provides us with two points on this subject in two fragmentary paragraphs.

Fragment 13 discusses the relationship between

Christ's birth and baptism and those of the believer as it is reflected in Luke 3:22-23.

In the light of all this, it is evident that Fragments 11 and 13 go together in their respective discussions on the relation of verse

22 to verse

in Luke 3.

We submit that Fragment 11 came first because it introduces the whole discussion on that relationship

("Where [does it say] that we have become sons of the likeness of God, etc.?"), and deals with it more generally than Fragment 13.

Fragment 12 must be placed after 13 for it is concerned with the exposition of one word in Luke 3:23 ܪܒܬܘܣܡ‎ .244

Thus, the order of these fragments should be 11, 13, 12.

It is also evident that these three fragments come before the final fragment of the codex.

The first twelve lines of Fragment 14 contain the concluding sentences of the final paragraph of the section on Luke 3:22-23

(of which Fragments 11, 12 and 13 are parts).

In those final sentences, Philoxenus sums up the main points of his exposition.

We have already suggested that if the quire numbers on folios 29 vel) and 33 (4) mean anything, they mean that probably nine folios once existed between Fragments 10 and pale There is no doubt that Fragments 11, 12 and 13 are three folios from quire ty

In these three fragments along with their conclusion in 33r 1-12, we have evidence of a sustained exposition of two verses in the Gospel of Luke.

We have noted that Chrysostom, in his second homily on Matthew 1:1, developed his exposition in some ways similar to what is found here.

While the evidence is not strong enough to say that Philoxenus drew directly on Chrysostom, the parallel helps us to understand the nature of these fragments called "commentaries."

Just as the homilies of Chrysostom were expositions of biblical passages containing genuinely exegetical material, so (we submit) these three fragments indicate that they belong to an expository discourse, perhaps of a homiletical nature, based on Luke 3:22-23.

We shall consider this further at the conclusion of this chapter.

Fragment

This last fragment forms a complete quire since its first page contains the quire number yudh and its final page, the colophon.

Each of the six folios is damaged and stained in some way.

The first folio (no.

33) is the most legible of the

six, though it is stained, torn across the page from the right margin of line 6 to the left margin of line 9, and has two small holes on lines 16 and 17 which obliterate several letters.

Folio 34 is less legible, particularly because of a bad stain on both sides covering the left half of 34r 1-9 and the right half of 34v 1-9.

It has a tear running from the right margin of line 15 to the left margin of line 18, and about 3/4 inch is torn out of the last two lines.

A stain in the middle of 34r 25 has also obliterated several letters.

Most of the last four folios are so badly stained that they could only be read under ultra-violet light.

The lacunae in the text of these four folios are mostly holes caused by the deterioration of the vellum.

The scribe who copied most of the manuscript, was also the writer of all four notes in the The handwriting of ‏ ܝܫcolophon (which is completely legible). the third note is noticeably smaller than that of the others, but it is without doubt by the same hand.

33r 1-2 -- ܒܠܝܘ ܬ‎ doa dirs -- the antecedent of these feminine verbs is which, while normally feminine, is usually construed in Philoxenus as a masculine when it refers (as here) to Christ, "the Word."

The construction here changes to masculine in line 5 -- .ܝܥܢܬܐ‎ When ܫ ̇ܬܠܡ‎ refers to Christ, it is always treated as a masculine in the Peshitta, but in the Old Syriac it is construed as the feminine word it

PEN 33r 5-7 -- Philoxenus cites Luke for the source of his quotation, but the use of the third person, ܗܡܒ‎ ...qyM™M is the Matthean form (Matthew 3:17).

The overwhelming evidence of the texts and versions (including Syriac) favours the use of the second person singular in Luke ܝ‎ Our author may have been influenced by the Diatessaron, or he may simply be quoting from his memory of the text-in Matthew.

$3v 12-18 -- "that other likeness"

-- Philoxenus is referring to the implanted likeness of God which was transmitted by heredity (as the Lucan genealogy shows) through Seth to Mary.

The likeness was erased because of Adam's sin, but it was restored to Seth (so Philoxenus interprets the statement in Genesis 5:3) in such a way that he would transmit it through succeeding generations to the Virgin and thus to Christ who

alone is the true image of the Father (38£ 25).

Our author has to explain why Abel is not mentioned in the genealogy as one who had a restored divine likeness; he was murdered by Cain before he had any offspring.

Abel was murdered when Cain saw that God had accepted Abel's offering (alluded to in 33v 16-17) and rejected his.

34v 26 -- [S715] -- this reconstruction could also be [2&4].

In his writings, Philoxenus uses these two words synonymously.

36r 6 -- ܗܘܬ ܐܝܘ‎ -- is a misspelling for ܗܘ ܝ̈ܳ ܡ‎ , which is spelled correctly in 36r 24.

36r 18-20 -- unidentified quotation probably from a Nestorian opponent.

36v 7 -- . ܥܢܢ‎ ¶[ -- reconstructed on the basis of 36r 15.

37r 23-25 -- here Philoxenus enunciates one of his principles of biblical interpretation.

37v 1 -- "all of them"

-- that is, all those named in the Lucan genealogy.

36r 12 -- ܘܡܒ ܐܗܪ‎ yD -- literally (as here translated), "sons of the likeness."

Idiomatically, the expression means simply "like," but the literal meaning is used in our translation to retain some of the emphasis of the author as 38r 15 (where it is repeated) makes clear.

The expression also occurs in 30r 09 38v 1 -- "seventy-seven generations"

-is the number of names in the Lucan genealogy.

This reference to Lamech is at variance with the reference to him in Fragment 1 where

Philoxenus says that Lamech will be avenged seventy times seven (lr 7).

The Hebrew and Peshitta of Genesis 4:24 both read seventy-seven, but the Greek is ambiguous.°>° We note that Philoxenus does not press the numeral correspondence here, but seems only to mention it in passing.

In 38v 4, he refers vaguely to the "many written in the genealogy," when he could have been more specific.

This obvious discrepancy in citing the number from Genesis 4:24 could hardly have occurred in the same work and adds considerable weight to the conclusion already drawn that Fragment 1 does not belong to this :

manuscript.

38v 2 -- [ܗ]ܬܘܡ‎ -- this reconstruction is based solely on the context.

There is no reference to Christ's death negating

the sin of Cain in any of the extant writings of Philoxenus :

(as far as we can deternine)we 38v 8 -- the reconstructions on this line are quite uncertain.

The use of the first plural ending on both participles is based on its use in the next two lines. wha. wis -- the noun is used in only one other (and quite different) context in this manuscript (3lv 27).

It is translated here as "salvation" although its usual meaning is that of "the healing art" or "a cure. "393

38v 11-22 -the significance of the colophon will be considered in the next section of this chapter.

38v 14-15 -if the present codex as the fourth volume was limited to five topics ܐܫܝ‎ 4) taken from Luke 1-3, we may assume that the first three volumes (now lost) were devoted exclusively to Matthew; and if they were of similar length, then together they dealt with some fifteen topics from that Gospel.

Whether further volumes were written on topics from Luke 4-24 is not known.

38v 15-17 ܒܫ‎ dundee "lis == -- we have translated these words literally.

They mean that Philoxenus was the author of the book which was then copied in Mabbug on the date given.

388v 18-19 -- the date is equivalent to A.D.

510/511.

For the sake of simplicity, the single date of 511 has been used in this dissertation.

38v 21-22 -- this final comment is the scribe's own expression of restrained respect for the author who was his bishop.

Although it reads like a copybook aphorism, it may very well be an original comment.

SYNTHESIS

This study has established that ten of the fourteen fragments in the present codex originally belonged together.

Only Fragments 1, 3, 4, and 5 are intrusions.

It is clear, too, that the colophon, written by the same scribe who penned the manuscript, must apply to the contents of all ten fragments.

That colophon states categorically that the original codex was the fourth in a series of "commentaries" on Matthew and Luke, and that it contained five "chapters" on Luke.

Our task now, on the basis of the evidence already

adduced, is to present a reconstruction of the probable nature and contents of the original work by Philoxenus to which the colophon bears witness.

First, it is necessary to deal conclusively with two terms in the colophon, *®1xna3 and ܣܡܝ‎ 4, which have already been discussed in this dissertation.>>4 The contents of the ten fragments clearly show that ܐܒܩܫܘܦ‎ usually translated

"commentary," cannot in this context mean an exegetical work in any narrow sense.

The key to its meaning is well illustrated in the final four fragments to which the colophon is immediately attached.

We have seen that they are based on the introduction to the Lucan genealogy (Luke 3:23) and its relationship to the preceding biblical passage on the baptism of Jesus and to the Matthean genealogy.

The style is discursive.

We have noted a similar passage in one of the homilies of Chrysostom.

We conclude that ܫܒܫܘܦ‎ in this context is a homiletical exposition of a biblical verse

(or in this case part of a verse) into which are introduced the author's theological presuppositions.

This understanding will help us to re-evaluate the other fragments of the codex.

The colophon goes on to say that the commentary consists of "five" chapters (90,57).

This last fragment, along with the isolated leaves of Fragments 11-13, presumably contains the remnants of the fifth "chapter."

A "chapter," then, deals with a single topic based on a biblical verse or statement, in this case the statement that Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph.

It is also reasonable to expect that the chapters would be approximately equal in length, especially

(as we would suggest) if they were of a homiletical nature.

Assuming this, and considering the fact that the codex had about ninety-six flies >" we can conclude that the last four fragments are all that remains of the fifth chapter which could not have been more than fifteen folios in length; that is, it was somewhat less than a fifth of the original codex, thus confirming the reasonableness of our assumption.

We can then assume that the remaining eighty-one folios contained discussions of four other topics from Luke.

We are now able to work back to the other fragments and reconsider their place in the work as a whole.

We have noted

that Fragment 10 is tied to Fragment 14 because of the two quire numbers it contains, establishing the sequence: ܛܒܚ‎

We have also noted that, while Fragment 10 is part of a theological discourse, it is based on Luke 2252 °° We are inevitably drawn to the conclusion that that verse is the topic of the fourth chapter of our codex.

Fragment 7 clearly belongs to this fourth chapter, since it deals exegetically with the

Since relationship between Luke 2:51b and Luke 2:52a.

Fragment 14 has clearly demonstrated that the Philoxenian commentary can be both exegetical and discursive, we can now admit that Fragment 8 probably belonged with 7 and 10 as part

Since Fragment

of the fourth chapter on Luke Bisawen® relates Luke 2:52 to its context, it must have been near the beginning of its chapter.

The end of Fragment 10 must also have been near the end of the chapter, because the fifth chapter could not have been shorter than fourteen or fifteen folios without being too short.

Therefore, the order of these fragments in the fourth chapter is 7, 8, and 10.

There is internal evidence in Fragments 6 and 9 to link them together and perhaps also to Fragments

7, 8 and 10 of the fourth chapter.

In Fragment 6, the references to Luke and to Christ's growth in stature and "in the Spirit" point to Luke

2:40 as a possible focus for an expository discourse to which this fragment could belong. 2"?

Fragment 9 deals with Jesus' intellectual development in relation to His becoming strong in the Holy Spirit (17r 7-9) as His presence in the temple at the age of twelve reveals (Luke 2:42, 46).

It is possible that these two fragments belonged with 7, 8 and 10 in the fourth chapter on Luke 2:52.

But it is more likely that they are all we have of the third chapter, the topic of which was Luke 2:40.

The reasons for assigning them to the third chapter are these:

(1) the fragments of the fourth chapter are mainly concerned with the dogmatic implications of Luke 2:52, while these two fragments are parenetic and have more in common with the ascetic Dtscourses; (2) the tone of the bulk of Fragment 9 (from 17r 13 to 18v 27) suggests that it contains most of the concluding paragraph of a chapter, and the same may be said of the last paragraph (fragmentary) of Fragment 10 (from 27r 26 to 29v 28), which means that they came from two distinct chapters;

and (3) Fragments 7, 8 and 10 of the fourth chapter provide us with thirteen folios out of perhaps twenty leaving little room for the author to have introduced into them the kind of content of which Fragments 6 and 9 were a part.

Since the handwriting, quality of vellum and size of page of these two fragments are the same as most of the other fragments of this codex, we conclude that they are the remains of the third chapter on Luke 2:40.

Fragment 2 presents a certain difficulty in the effort to fit it into the scheme here proposed.

There is no doubt that it belongs to this "Commentary of five chapters taken from Luke the Evangelist."

The external style of production (handwriting, quality of vellum, size of page) are the same.

In our preliminary analysis we suggested that the contents indicated that it was part of a letter or a sermon.

We now see that the word yaPl»xAa9 (commentary) was applied to a discourse or homily based upon a biblical text.

The question is: upon what text in Luke was Fragment 2 based?

If we follow de Halleux in assigning it to a "commentary" on Luke 3:22 because of the extended discussion on the statement there that the Holy Spirit appeared "in the likeness of the form of a dove"? 69 we are confronted immediately by two objections:

(1) Luke 3:22

(or that portion of it quoted) is not the basis for the discussion found in the eight folios of this fragment, and (2) a discourse on Luke 3:22 would come between the discourse on Luke 2:52 and the one on Luke 3:23 and that would interrupt the sequence which the evidence of the manuscript has

The first objection is not insurmountable ܘ‎ = given the fact that there are only eight folios out of about twenty on which to base any conclusion.

But the second objection cannot be so easily skirted, for it arises out of the colophon's explicit statement that the codex is the fourth ina series of expository commentaries and contains five "chapters."

Given such an orderly presentation of collected expositions, it is highly improbable that the order of Luke's Gospel would be violated by placing a discourse on Luke 3:22 before that on Luke 2:52.

If this second fragment belongs with the others (and it surely must), the Lucan text on which it is based has to be one

that precedes Luke 2:52.

Such a text is not to be found as a direct quotation in this fragment.

We have suggested that 4r 2 contains an allusion to Luke 1:49, but it is not likely this was the text for one of the five chapters of this commentary.

However, it does point to the most probable text, Luke 2:14, "Glory to God in the highest .

It is true that there is no direct or indirect quotation from this verse in the fragment before us, and our conjecture must remain just that; but it is not without foundation.

The subject of Fragment 2 is that of the meaning of Christ's divinity vis-a-vis His incarnation.

The divinity is unequivocally affirmed, and what better scriptural affirmation could there be than the angelic doxology of Luke 2:14 accompanying the announcement of Christ's birth?

In this fragment, Philoxenus attacks those heretics who, in affirming His divinity, "deny His corporality"

(4r 6).

Moreover, one would expect an ardent spokesman for monophysitism like Philoxenus to choose the Birth narrative as the source of at least one of five topics taken from the first three chapters of Luke.

Certainly, the story of the Nativity is never far from the author's mind in this fragment whether or not Luke 2:14 was the actual basis for the discourse.

If it was not Luke 2:14, then it was probably some other verse from the same pericope.

Having proposed the topics for four of the chapters, we cannot avoid the question: what was the topic of the chapter that is completely missing?

Since, as has been demonstrated, this volume contained expository discourses on five texts taken from the first three chapters of Luke, and since four of these were from chapters 2 and 3, we can reasonably assume that one was from the first chapter.

Here the most likely verse is Luke 1:35, the climax of the Annunciation.

This passage was of considerable interest to Philoxenus, as his many citations of cle! show. 26?

Moreover, several years after the completion of this commentary, he wrote a short homily on the Annunciation;

3 which, however, must be regarded as distinct from the first chapter now lost, because it is much shorter than the probable length of that chapter (about twenty folios), having only the equivalent of five folios, because in its present form it is complete in itself and cannot be regarded as a

` ® and because internal evidence points to a later date of writing than that of our codex.

It is to be expected that Annunttattone repeats some of the contents of this conjectured first chapter.

Another reason for assuming that the Annunciation was the focus of the first chapter is that two monophysite commentators of a later age,

Bar Salibi and Bar Hebraeus, cite Philoxenus when dealing with that bavicoper We, therefore, conclude that the five chapters of the original volume were in all probability as follows:

Chapter 1 (now completely lost) on Luke 1:35

(or another verse from the Annunciation), Chapter 2 (Fragment 2) on Luke 2:14

(or another verse from the Nativity), Chapter 3 (Fragments 6 and 9) on Luke 2:40, Chapter 4 (Fragments 7, 8 and 10) on Luke 2:52, and Chapter 5 (Fragments 11, 13, 12 and 14) on Luke 3:23.

ܫ‎ ~~ e _ . a '

ܡ‎ hod? Mee _ ney if ܗ‎ :

ܘ##/܀܀‎ -53(Jo hn te ab × 748 ܟܤܗ :764

>08 &<ܫ‎ & "onde ` ܫܗܕܘܣܬ‎ + ܘܘ ܝܗܝ‎ 94684 »

si ee ee a > | peetajyeseris 79 = ve ,ܗܗ‎ Bae ܐܬܘ ܐܬܘ‎ sans tien tngtietetgude won), ® eat) Sire perm HOE) ܒܡܩ ܐ‎ ܫܕ‎ ~~~ ee ¥9( § 6ܽ6ܪ‎ ee ivike ܡܠ‎ 'whi ܡܪܬ‎ ifn, Blo "epee she a ol sey" ri ܘ‎

, `, .

| < + ܐܬܘܙܢܬܘ‎ = Gl scone he al + tther varse 2 sf Of ¢ cha) tour, genhot ateia-t ܡܡ ܘܫ ܢܡܕܐܘ ܙܘ ܙ :

ܨ‎ Aap ܠ‎ ¿7 :

: a thar ia comptetaly ܐܕ ܐܢܬܬ‎ +t hed. ܡ‎ ar TT St ܨܡ‎ > 7 ܝ ܚܡ ܚܬܘ‎ ee . ܪܡ ܘܒܛ‎ :

79009 &@€ = sie ee ` ܣ‎ at vim oro of Yulin.

) -. tees * Se) Likelt, eae 'tee

ܡܓܕܘ‎ coma ܗ ܘܗܕ‎ +hi ܒ ܬܡ‎ we ed ings ee co ܡܗ ܤܕ , ܐܹܟܪܩܸܛ6 ܛ) ܀ܡܘ‎ 4! years ܦܝ )ܡ ܣܣ‎ {ܘ ܩ‎ a ob be wrete omar:

:ܩܕ‎ IP sly we ܬܒܘܪ‎ elie Lit, DOWN. ))ܗܘܝܛܢܘܦܪ ܝܟ ܝ ܘܘܢ ܐܘܒܕ‎ ܟܕ ܨ ܐܕ‎ Lote, dentine,

he ܗܢܘ ܝ‎ ve prubabie ܐܪܥ ܘ) ܪ&;) ~) ܒ‎ taboep ܙܕ‎

ply che eek: at we five txbsowy, wena km fn . fous | wplece bn geeait end cannot. ms ܝܝ ܨ ܥܝ ܗܕܗ‎ :

↑ Back to top