Daniel Heinsius’s Exercises on the Paraphrase of Nonnus

941 χατέεις ἵνα τίς σε ἐρεείνῃ 176. χατέει ὕδατος 148. χατέουσιν ὀπωπῆς 214; θερισμοῦ 40. χατέων βορῆς 216. χατίζω νουσοκόμοιο 48. χερὶ βάψας 152. χερμάδι λύσση 118. χιτῶνας τοὺς ἀπέθηκε 146. χοὺς ἀνδρογόνοιο 102. χοροστάδος ἑορτῆς 82. χραισμήτορα κόσμου 30. χρέος εἶχεν, opus habet; χρέος Ouly, necesse est; 30, 36. χρέος ἐστὶ τοκήων, opus est p. 106. χρέος πέλει ἔργα τελέσσαι 100. χρησμήτορα κόσμου 160; φωτῶν 26. χρησμήτορι μύθῳ 80. Χριστὸς, ὁ Μεσσίας 58. χυτῆς ψαμάθοιο 206. χέων αὐδήν 88. χιονέους σπινθῆρας 210. χιονωτὴν φύσιν 44. πέλει χρέος ὡς κεν ἐγείρω 114. χιονώδεας ὀθόνας 208. 942 ψευδαλέοι γνωτοί 74. ψευδήμονος ἐκ γενετῆρος 96. ψευδήμονι κλήσει 194; μύθῳ 190, 198; φωνῇ 22. ψευδώνυμος ἀνήρ 56. ψυχοσσόον ὕδωρ 82. ψυχοστόλον ἠχώ 138. ὠδίνοντες φόβον 106. ᾠξεν ὀπωπάς 108. ὧνον ὀλέθρου δέγμενος 146. ὤρεγε πᾶσιν ἐδωδήν 60. ὥριος χρόνος ἔλθῃ 170. ὡς pro οὕτως, sic 164, 166. ὥς κεν ὦσι, ut sint 182. ψαμαθώδεϊ θῆκε χαμεύνῃ 208.

DANIEL HEINSIUS' SACRED ARISTARCHUS, OR EXERCISES ON NONNUS' METAPHRASE OF JOHN

CAPUT I.

^A 1-3. Judicatrix, sive vera critice, quæ et qualis. Eam passim exercuisse Aristotelem. De utroque Nonni opere. Ac primo, de Dionysiacis seu Bacchicis. Bacchi historia cum universa ejus gente e Phænicia deducta: quod ex vocum vestigiis apparet. Nonnum in Oriente natum, eorum quæ ad Orientem spectant ignarum fuisse. A Cadmo rerum ac scientiarum in Græcia origo. Ejus in Bœotiam adventus, et in ea mera Orientis nomina, quemadmodum auctoris primi. Id quo pacto etiam Hebræis usurpatum. Bacchi nomen e Phœnicia. Unde desumptum. Ululare et ὀλολύζειν in sacris Bacchitis, εὐοῖ et evohe Hebræorum voces. A quibus εὐάζειν et Evan. Bacchus lacrymosus Deus. Tragoedia poema lacrymosum, et hinc Baccho consecrata. Adonis δακρυότιμος. Bacchus discerptus, ac cum lacrymis quæsitus. Βάκχος, κλαυθμός. Eleleus vox Hebræa. Διόνυσος unde. Origo ejus Nonno ignota. Bacchus domitor Indorum, id quoque unde. ^B Saba vox ambigua. Saba de ebrietate et Indis. Sabasius. Iacchus Atticorum mysticus. Ejus nomen unde. Attici a Cadmo atque Oriente oriundi. Nomen iis unde. Iach a Judæis in mensa celebratus. Eorum preces. Hallela iach. Ἐλελεῦ, ἴακχε. Natus e femore Bacchus, et unde. Femur, pars obscena Hebræis. Ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ μηροῦ. Εἰραφιώτης. Semele unde. Semel vox Hebræa. Semala et Semal. Sammael, malus dæmon. Arma Bacchi ex Oriente. Thyrsus unde. Thirza. Bacchi sacerdotes ex Oriente. Mimallonides unde. Chaldæam origine eam vocem. Thyades unde. Thea sive theas. Bassarides. Bassareus, et unde. Satyri unde. Maron unde. Pytho unde. Stultissima de ea Græculorum nænia. Pethen quid. Nachas. Divinationes ex serpentibus. Serpentes οἰωνοί. Antiquis, et, præ cæteris, Phœnicibus culti. Boreas. Lævum ejus numen. Aquilo et septentrio quid Hebræis denotarit. Βορεασμοί Græcorum. Βόρρας Hellenistarum. Boreach. Boriach. Δράκων ἀποστάτης. Calais, et unde. Draco arcticus. Ascra, patria Hesiodi, et unde. Aschera. Abominanda lucorum superstitio. Arborum cultus. Hilana Syrorum Oni et haoni. ^C Aonia. Musa. Musar. Lex in monte lata. Harmonia. Cabiri. Camiri. Cadmelus, Casmilus, Camiltus. Ἀθηνᾶ. De ejus origine Nonni ac Græcorum deliria. Chaldæorum Hatthenau. Iris Nonno in India nata. Græcorum de origine illius næniæ. Ab ἐλπίδι deducta. Iris unde; εἴρη Hellenistarum. Hir Chaldæorum. Hir ἄγγελος. Ἐγρήγοροι ἄγγελοι Clementi. Venus Libani, et unde ita dicta. Ὑπὸ Ἀφροδίτη. Unde Ἀναδυομένη. Venus unde. Ἔν quid Hellenistis. Fen et Ven. Adonis, comes Veneris quare et quis. Adon, ἑοῦ. Venus σύνδρομος planeta solis. Noga. Cinyra. Myrrha. Proteus quis. Dionysiacorum dispositio. De ea disputatum. Actionum, quæ in epico poemate a poeta describuntur, divisio. Odyssea, quod ad dispositionis artificium, Iliadi prælata. Et quare. Πλατυσμοῦ μηχαναί. Διονυσιακά inscriptio. Aliud πράξεις et πράγματα. Inscriptionum ratio antiquis usitata.

Inter cæteros scriptores, quos vel celebres accepit, vel ad aliquam celebritatem nostra hæc evexit ætas, sine dubio et Nonnus est. In cujus Bacchicis tum emendandis, tum Latine explicandis, cum non pœnitendam, quòd testantur multi, operam jam olim Utenhovius, patricius Gandensis, posuisset, tandem ea magno cum favore eruditorum ac applausu, Falckenburgius in lucem dedit. Nam Metaphrasis, de qua hic agimus, jam pridem factum est, cum eruditis se probavit. Porro, cum in omnium auctorum lectione, ut, quis scopum assecutus sit, quis item, in dicendo ac interpretatione, sive mentis suæ, quæ est eloquentia ac emendata ratio dicendi, sive alterius quem explicandum sumpsit, minus assecutus sit quod debuit, compertum quisque habeat, haud parum interesse ad solidam scientiam ac eruditionem videatur; idem alios docere posse, erecti est ingenii ac artis. Critices videlicet unius opus, non illius, quæ hac tempestate celebratur, sed quam inter veteres præ cunctis Aristoteles tractavit; qui in hoc præclarum studium ac vere heroicum, cum passim ubicunque de disciplinis agit, tum præsertim in libello De poetica, cujus sola jam fragmenta exstant, omnes animi intendit nervos. Quæ hoc tempore, eo diligentièr

^Awe had to recall with care and labor, how much more prompt this was for those who had more surviving authors than we do today, and who applied themselves to this matter with greater talent and learning. But there was no one who would be offended by this study, the end of which was considered to be either utility or truth. Indeed, just as those who either despise the ancients or do not even touch them are foolish or unskilled: so I consider those who hold everyone in the same place, or who admire everything in some one person or think everything is to be imitated, worthy of pity. The rest not only do not deserve well of posterity, but also impose laws on others. If they attain these, with the fruit of posterity, they either imitate the ancients or surpass them in judgment and care. I, indeed, although I think as much is owed to all the ancients as is deservedly owed to those who have preceded us in all learning with such success, nevertheless think that those who examine the writings of antiquity with judgment, who observe what is worthy of praise and what is to be avoided in them, deserve far better of studies, not only of this age, but of all posterity; than those who most happily emend infinite places in an ancient writer. For the norm of living and knowing 6 is judgment and the supreme law. The more keenly anyone possesses this on earth, the more he binds others, especially those who, although they excel others, are destitute of this. But our writer, when he published his writings, formed and arranged one of them as he wished; to the other he did not give arrangement, but he found it.

Before we deal with the sacred work, which is our purpose here, we have judged that certain things should be noted here in the former, which most excellent men have already diligently examined. For the work of the Bacchics itself, although it may seem to be fabulous, as it is, it can hardly be said how much learning from antiquity, and especially from the East, this subject admits; since in it he also described the arrival of Cadmus into Greece for the first time; from whom all human and divine things, language itself equally and the disciplines, which the Greeks are not accustomed to rightly claim for themselves, received their origin and birth. That, therefore, is to be deplored, that a man originating from the East, when he undertook history and those things which many of the Greek race had treated in such a way that they had given us hardly anything but fables and darkness, described them in such a way that he seems not to have touched even lightly upon the origin and truth, which had to be sought from the East alone, where all these things were born. For no one should doubt that the whole fable of Bacchus, with his entire race, ^C was brought from Phoenicia; no one should doubt that the traces and vestiges of the same language have remained everywhere in the very words themselves. About which, the Greeks could not even dream of anything, because they were ignorant of it. Cadmus, indeed, from whom they received their words along with their sacred rites, some have made a Jew, others a Canaanite. Just as Canaanite, if taken more narrowly, is the same as Phoenician, and sometimes is the same as Judean. Where, indeed, the Canaanites are placed by the Hebrews, the Phoenicians by the Greeks. ^D That Cadmus came to Boeotia first, there is no one who does not know, from whom almost all the names of places either preserved their origin or can easily be recalled to it by one who is skilled. For no one can doubt about him who is not ignorant of what Cedem and Cadmon are: about which the learned [must be consulted]. For effort must be given; lest we do here what has already been done. I will say this, that it seems likely that the Greeks first used the word Cadmus in the way that, when they speak of an uncertain man, they are accustomed to use their 'deiva', the Hebrews their 'Ploni Almoni', which the Hellenists called 'phemoni'. Just as the Hebrews generally use 'to Cadmoni' when they doubt about an author. Indeed, just as the Greeks, and Theocritus especially, when he brings in a proverb, 'As the wise man said', said it with wonderful sweetness, so they, 'As the proverb of the ancient says', when his name is kept silent, 'kaasher yomar mashal ha-kadmoni', 'As the ancient said the proverb'. For by the same ^A name they also call the inventor and author of individual things. Bacchus himself, there is no doubt, was named from 'buca', which is to howl or lament. Just as the Latins are also accustomed to use the same word for the Bacchantes. Virgil, Aeneid vii: But others fill the ether with trembling howls, And carry vine-clad spears, girded with skins. As also of wailing. The same: She wails, and hides her daughter in the leafy mountains. Just as the Greeks [use] 'to ololuzein' about the same. Whence Bacchus himself in Euripides' Bacchantes, And first I howled for Thebes of this Greek land, Having fastened a fawn-skin to my skin

8 he says he first filled Thebes with howls. And that the insane Bacchantes gave forth tearful voices, the acclamation customary to them, 'Euoi', or 'Evohe', proves. Which, indeed, is not derived from 'eu', 'the kalos' (the good), as those who are ignorant of all other languages wish, but from the same Hebrew word 'heestati'. For they were not thinking that 'Eboi' is the Hebrew 'oy', that is, 'avoi' or 'evoi'. Whence they also derived both 'Eboi' and 'aiboi', which are the acclamations of those who mourn. Whence 'euazein', 'Evan', and what is everywhere obvious in our ^B 'Epos'. With which this 'rhetoseidion' of the Kabbalists wonderfully agrees, who observe that the letters 'rini', the numbers with the word 'hoi', which denotes a howl, produce the same. To which they add, ten and four times, where the invention of wine is treated, this syllable is repeated. Which to the Hebrews denotes the same as 'va' to the Romans; because of the howl, they say, and the inconveniences which follow wine. Who is Bacchus or Osiris, a truly tearful God. To whom the Greeks also inscribe mournful things. Who, with all their wisdom, cannot teach us the reasons for those things which they themselves did. As when they consecrated a tragic poem to their Bacchus. Just as a tearful poem, tragedy is called by Flaccus: That you may watch more closely the tearful poems of Puppius. And who doubts, who has ever examined or consulted the ancient authors, that Osiris is the same as Bacchus? Whom they also made the same as Adonis: who is not without cause called 'dakruotimos' (honored with tears) by Orpheus; that is, Bacchus. For that Osiris is indeed no other than Bacchus, there is not even one among the Greeks who does not confess it. Among others, especially our own, who not rarely confuses the sacred rites and mysteries of both, who calls Osiris ^C the Bacchus of the Egyptians; who explicitly notes that Cadmus first of all celebrated the sacred rites of Osiris, the Bacchus of the Egyptians: and of the Egyptian Dionysus Showing the orgies of Osiris, the bearer of 'Eua'. Which, as being accustomed to be celebrated with howling and weeping, no beginner is ignorant of. For that is known: And whom you, weeping, testify is the man Osiris. Just as they expressed the name of Osiris in turn, when they called this very Bacchus 'Aithopa', just as Anacreon [called] 'Aithiopaida'. But also that Bacchus was torn to pieces by the Titans and sought with tears, there is no one who does not mention; before all, however, our own. And hence that immense mourning and wailing, about which Firmicus: Mourn Liber, mourn Proserpina, mourn Alyn, mourn Osiris, but without insult to our dignity. Eusebius reports in the theology of the Phoenicians that the most ancient among them worshipped the most useful fruits of the earth as gods; and when they failed, which happens at a certain time of the year, they followed them with tears and wailing: 'Eleon de kai oikton kai klauthmon, blastemati te apionti kathieron' (They consecrated pity and compassion and weeping to the departing sprout). Such a 'klauthmon' ^D the Phoenicians themselves in their own language called 'Bacchus'. About which name, indeed, there is no reason for us to dispute, since Hesychius, in whom the learning not only of all Greece, but in part also of the East, lies concluded, observes that it is a Phoenician word, denoting a howl or wailing: 'Bacchus'...

^A crying, say the Phoenicians. The most ancient Hebrew writings which exist, namely the Sacred Scriptures, confirm this as well. In Ezekiel, women are indeed said to be celebrating Thammuz or Adonis (whom the Greeks wish to be the same as Bacchus), *mebaccoth*, from *baca*, that is to say, "bacchantes" or "those performing Bacchic rites." From this it is clear that these rites, even in the East, were celebrated primarily and especially by women. As is the case with *Euoi*, so *Eleleu* confirms this: a term which the tragedians, especially Aeschylus in his extant *Prometheus*, did not use any less. For this very reason, this god was also called by them Eleleus. As in that passage: "And Nyctilius, and Eleleus the sire, and Iacchus and Evan." Wherefore, even in this regard, they should not have strayed so absurdly. For *eleleu*—which they did not see—is the Hebrew *helilu*. That is: "wail." And in the same sense, the prophets also used it everywhere. But as for Dionysus himself, whose name he inscribed on his work, I believe he knew as little about where it was derived as the ignorant. Regarding him, one can hardly say what and how nonsensical things the Greeks have imagined. He himself derives it from a Sicilian term: "Calling Dionysus; since with his foot he raises a burden, / Either limping, the son of Cronus with weighed-down thigh: / Nysos, because in the Syracusan tongue he is heard as 'lame'." As if *Dionysos* were so called from *nysos*, which is 'lame,' because Jupiter limped when he was pregnant with him. And this is the man—if it pleases the gods—who sometimes called Greece mendacious and fabulous. Just as no one is unaware that it was customary among the ancients, and especially among the Greeks, to consider all heroes to be born of some god, primarily Jupiter (whence they called Castor and his brother, excellently, *Dios kouroi*, and gradually in one word *Dioskouroi*), so there is no doubt that they called this person—whoever he was—a hero, *Dios huios* ("son of Zeus"), and then by a single word *Diosysos* (Dionysus), eventually—as we often see happen in such things—with letters changed or added in the pronunciation. For just as it is clearly noted by Theophilus 11 in his *To Autolycus*, that families drew their origin from the gods of the ancients (for, as those who were *Heracleidae* from Hercules, who *Apollonidae* and *Apollonii* from Apollo, who, he says, *Poseidonii* from Neptune, who *Dioi* and *Diogeneis* from Jupiter), so those who were sprung from Jupiter, *Dios huioi* ("sons of Zeus"), which gradually became *Dionysoi*, were so called. ^C Whence so many are commemorated by Cicero and others by this name. And hence so many fables and trifles about Nysa, which they placed in India, for no other reason than that, as fable usually drags in fable, they understood him to have lived in India, and, based on the common opinion of Greece (which our author has pursued in so many books), to have conquered it with singular valor. Which, like other things unknown to the Greeks, has its origin in the East. *Saba*, that is *NBS*, is said by the Hebrews (as the holy elders interpret this word) to mean "to gorge oneself on wine": whence *sobe*, *NBS*, "a terminally drunk person." *Saba* again, or *Seba*, that is *ND*, is said by the Hebrews and Punics to be the one who first conquered the region of India. So that "vanquisher of the Indians" and "drunkard," the same person, are one in word and origin. From both, the little Greeks fashioned *Sabasios* (which is the name for Bacchus among them). And hence that which, as our author does, the remaining authors report about the battles in India and the conquest of that region. Now the mystical Iacchus, of whom our author says so much, was first received by the Attics from the Boeotians: who themselves also draw their name from the Hebrews, to whom *hattikim* (as is known, they prided themselves most on this) were called the ancients. For to the divine name, as a most learned man correctly observed recently, they added nothing but the termination *Jah* or *Iach* used by the Hebrews. In which the devil delighted, who everywhere translated this name or invaded it himself. Moreover, that this god was celebrated at banquets—to add what is most important 12—there is no reason for anyone to doubt. But the Jews, as to their God, whom they do not utter by the common name, so they say *Jah* or *Iach*, as if he were the discoverer of wine, and celebrate this form even at this time at all tables ^D *Baruch attah Yahweh Eloheinu Melek Ha-olam...* "Blessed are You, O Lord our God, King of the world, Creator of the fruit of the vine." To which the ancients undoubtedly added the very well-known *hymnion*, *hallelu iah*. Which Justin, or whoever is the author of the booklet that is now inscribed *Orthodox Questions and Answers*, after seriously inquiring what *allelouia* might mean, finally explains: "With a song, praise the Being." From this *hallelu iach*, the enemy of the human race seems to have translated his own *eleleu, iachye* among the Greeks, into contempt of the divine name: which they used everywhere in the celebration of this god, and especially when drunk. Regarding which, already at length above. For they used this acclamation in a different way. Just as at this time the Jews, whenever they are drinking heavily, do not sing it—as is clear from certain formulas—that *hallelu iah* of theirs, more than at Passover. Whence also this festival is called from merriment, by a witty change, *ND*: just as also among our author elsewhere in the Gospel, the Passover is called *euazein*. And the very word of which we speak, in *Piel*, namely *hillel*, is used by the Sacred Scriptures concerning Bacchic choirs, that is, of those who through wantonness trampled grapes. The passage is illustrious, Jud. 9: 27: *And they went into the field, and gathered their vineyards, and trod them, and made dances.* Where they are called "those making the dances." Whence in the Bacchic rites and in comedy, which is sacred to him, [they are called] *the choirs*. For the Athenians retained almost all the traces of ancient antiquity. 13 It follows in the same place: *And they entered into the house of their god, and ate and drank, and cursed Abimelech.* Where the proper name of that god and the curses and insults of the comedies are placed. Daniel the prophet teaches that even the Chaldeans translated that *hallelu iach* to their own gods at banquets. *They drank wine and praised the gods—the golden ones*, where *‘elāhayā’* is in the Chaldee, which is placed by the Chaldeans instead of *hallelu iach*, even in the Psalms. The Greeks hand down that this child was born from the thigh. And what absurdities have they not also imagined about this! Even our author, who derived the beginning of his own work from these. But those who have greeted the Orient know that the word *yarek*, that is, "thigh," is used for the pudendum of a man as well as a woman. And indeed of a man, as when (for there are almost infinite places) the posterity of Jacob is said to have gone forth from his thigh, Gen. xlvi, 26; Exod. i, 5. Where at one time the Hellenists rendered it, *And the souls that came out of Jacob*, and at another, *those that came out of his thighs*. But for a woman, as when that part is meant, less apt for conception, *meros diapteptokos* is said by them, Num. v, 21. In the way that *diapherein* is used in obscene contexts among the Greeks, although the word in itself is honest. And who does not know the passage: *The scepter shall not depart from Judah, and the leader from his thighs?* And Procopius had perceived something such as this when he noted, *For the thigh signifies the seed*. And that God is called by that name; for to proceed from someone's thigh is to be a son of someone, or begotten of him. As concerning Gideon, to whom very many sons are said to have belonged: *Those going forth from his thighs, because he had many wives*, the Hellenists say. And the Sibyl, whose fragment Theophilus commemorates *To Autolycus*: *But if he is created entirely and decays, God cannot be formed from the thighs and womb of a man.* Where the thigh is in a man, what is the womb in a woman. Because they were ignorant of this, they wittily contrived the name *Elephatiou* and similar things, as if, so that he might be born from Jupiter, he had to be sewn into his thigh. In the parent of that one, Semele, who does not immediately see the word *Semel*? Which is the name of both the idol and the demon in the East, even

known to the prophets. But, that we may now proceed to instruct the Greeks in their own school, it is not to be doubted that the wise men of the East, when they observed a certain wonderful and exceptional utility in wine, rightly called it a gift of God; which is termed by them *semal*, or *zeon*, but among the Greeks, Zeus or Zēn, being called by the same word. Hence, they also called him the son of that god. Yet they attributed the fruits which it sometimes produces, and its abuse, to a god of the left hand and the sinister. Indeed, *semala*, or *semal*, is said by the Chaldeans and Syrians [to mean] left. Whence the deity of the left, whom the Greek Christians called the devil, the Chaldeans call Sammael, a term that later interpreters also use everywhere. Bacchus also has his arms from the same East. For the thyrsus is manifestly *thirza*. This word denotes a pine tree, which they used to clothe with vine-leaves and iron. Whence Hesychius, a grammarian of wonderful and profound learning, says: "Thyrsoi, branches, torches, lamps." For out of the pine tree, excellent lamps and torches were made. Wherefore they also assigned to Bacchus the pine, that is, *peukēn*. Euripides, in the *Bacchantes*:

The Bacchic one, holding The pine-fire torch, Springs from the reed bundle, Driving on the wanderers with running and dances, Leaping with shouts, Tossing his delicate hair into the ether. [15] You will see him also on the Delphic rocks Leaping with the pine-bearing spear-carrying band.

From the same source he has the priests: whom, when the Greeks called Mimallonides, and wished them to be said to be *apo tou mallou*, they produced no less a primary [derivation] against themselves and their own testimony. For in the first [syllable] of the word there is a *sheva*, not a *chirek*. But that is short—nay, the shortest of all, if it should be so spoken—it is a vowel. Indeed, ^B *memallelin*, from a noisy sound, the Chaldeans call talkative and garrulous [men]. *Memallelon* [is used] regarding women; which word also denotes clamour. Whence "Mimallonides" comes from the word or from the clamours. To omit the word "Thyads," which straightway reveals its origin: for *theas*, or *thyas*, denotes to wander or to err. Whence also Euripides used the word for Bacchic priests as a literal translation. What of the fact that it is also used regarding the drunken? As when Isaiah said [Hebrew text]. Where the Hellenists [say]: "For these are led astray by wine. They have wandered by reason of strong drink; priest and prophet have staggered by reason of wine; they have been swallowed up by the drunkenness of strong drink; they have wandered." The Targum [says]: "They have erred by *yain*," that is, old wine; and in Amos, chapter 11, verse 12, where the Hellenists have: "But you gave the sanctified ones wine to drink," the Chaldeans use this word. Hence *thui*, which the Syrians use for error. Therefore, the Thyads were those whom the Greeks spoke of: who, driven by wine or fury, wandered about. Which the poet expressed:

As one believes them to have touched with the vine-bearing two-horned spear, Wherever frenzy drove, thither she went.

What of the fact that Pausanias hints that this word also, first in Boeotia, like the rest, originated from Cadmus? Who, when he speaks of Delphi, [says]: "But the people of Delphi desire [a report that] a native man, Castalius, and his daughter Thuia were born, and that Thuia was the first to act as priestess to Dionysus and to celebrate the orgies for the god. And from her, later, all those who become frenzied for Dionysus are called Thyads by men." Castalio says that Thyam was his wife: who first instituted the rites of Bacchus, and that his priestesses were called Thyads from her. For in their myths, the Greeks everywhere find, as we have often said, a refuge for their ignorance. That truly teaches that the word was born there. For also *thyein*, regarding fury, [comes] from the same source. Just as perhaps also regarding the rites. Whence also the Cyprians, a part once of Syria, called *thya*, according to Hesychius, *apopata*. And *anarpax*, [miswritten] there in the text, is the *hierosylos*, the temple-robber.

^A They also called the same priestesses Bassarides. Which grammarians deduce from Lydia or Thrace. Those I do not now refute. I will say this: they seemed to be so called most simply from that word from which the god himself is. Who is called Bassareus by Flaccus and others, which is known. And *Bassareus* is Dionysus, the *euangelos* Dionysus, because he announced most abundant harvests and felicity. As from *baschar* is *basser*. Whence among the Targumists [is] *bassaru*; which, especially in the minor prophets, occurs so often, *basar*, that is, "bring good tidings," or "evangelize," and, like acclamations, it is accustomed for the most part to be repeated or doubled. But it is known what is said in the sacred rites: "Euphemeite, pas ho laos"—"Speak good words, all the people." And so, as from *helilu* (from which they made *Eleleu* and from it the name of the god *Eleleus*, of which before), which is of the same form, so from *bassarn*, [comes] *Bassareus*. Whence the appeal to the god himself, in Flaccus:

I shall not shake you, candid Bassareus, Against your will.

Where it is not for us to recount what the grammarians babble. For what can they do but appeal to unknown tongues, who have learned neither these nor any other save their own? The Satyrs, the Bacchic companions, were without doubt named from *satir*, which has already been observed by others, that is, "from lurking," because they lay hidden in caves and groves like wild beasts.

It is known from Diodorus—whom Eusebius, not without cause, called the most learned of the Greeks—and others, that men of lofty stature, and giants, accompanied Bacchus. Whence *Maro* seems to have been named: who is not only a companion of Bacchus, but is also placed by our [authority] among the first companions of the expedition, among the sons of that god, as in Euripides' *Bacchantes*. But everywhere, when they are customarily inflated by Bacchic fury, he [the poet] blusters with words that are turgid and great. Therefore, either from these or from a lofty body, *Marom*, and with the element changed, as is the custom of the Greeks, he was called Maron. Just as this word is used by Moses in the book of Deuteronomy regarding men of lofty stature, and who approached very close to the giants, or the Enacim: to whom also *rmm* is called lofty stature. Where you have that word from which *Maron* [is derived]. Let no one wonder that our [author] wishes him to be sprung from the blood of the Titans. For so it is in book XIX:

Nor did he, as an old man, bring the Titanic blood.

For the same word is used more than once by the royal Poet [David] concerning God, who is said to be *Marom* there from another loftiness. For the devil accomplished nothing else in these matters than to transfer the names of God to his own initiates in mockery. Which we constantly observe in these things. Just as *maran*, or *moran*, is among the Syrians *ho kyrios* [the Lord], by which name, for the sake of honor, the priests were also called. First of all Boeotia, just as our [author] observes with the rest, is thought to have been entered by Cadmus. Whence also he notes that he went straight to Python, in order to approach the oracle of Apollo. Concerning whose name, as of the others, how many, how intolerable are the things the Greeks comment upon! For among them there are some ^D who [derive it] from *pynthanesthai*, that is, consultation, and there are those who [say] *pythesthai* from him [the serpent] who, having been there, was destroyed by Apollo—that is, because the serpent was destroyed there by Apollo and rotted. Which, perhaps, are even more foul than that foul serpent. For with less effort they could have deduced it from *Pythōn* itself. Except that they saw it was easy for them to "stick in the mud" here also. For if the place is from Python, whence is *Pytho*, and from which is the name for the place? But *pethen* is called by the Hebrews a species of serpent. From this word *pethen*, that is, *Python* the serpent, and from this *Python*, comes *Pytho* the place. And Elias hallucinates festively elsewhere, who observes that *to pytho* (for so it is written) is an Italian word; for the masters of the Rabbis use the Greek word. Furthermore, it is known that the Hebrews once instituted many divinations and auguries from serpents, the most crafty animal on earth. Whence *niches* or *nachas*, which denotes in the sacred texts both the serpent and to divine or to augur, by the same letters. Which is not poorly [observed].

^A observed, the Greeks translate *oionizesthai* [to practice augury]—those who refer to serpents themselves as *oionous* [augural birds/signs]. The abyss of ancient grammatical erudition, Hesychius, says: "Oionos, a serpent; for they are accustomed to keep serpents for the sake of divination, which they also called *oionoi*." Just as the Romans include the serpent among their pedestrian auspices, so, clearly, did the Hebrews—using the same word *nechasin*—refer to both serpents and auguries (literally *oionous*). Primary, indeed, is the one who used this word in the most ancient author, Moses: Laban the Syrian, a most ancient idolater, as is apparent from his idols, or *theraphim*. The first, who transplanted this from the East, like other things, is Homer, in whose second book of the *Iliad* this type of divination is used, as the most ancient augur confirms the leader of the Greeks regarding the sum of the matter and the destruction of Ilium. For he is brought in—*pachon epi nota daphoinos* [crawling upon his back, blood-red]—which is a true description of *nachash*: for they wanted it to be called so from the marks that are on the backs of serpents, from which, among other things, they used to take the divinations and auguries of that animal.

^B There is no doubt that the Pythian Apollo—that is, that filthy spirit whom the Hebrews call *Ob* and *Abaddon*, and the Hellenists translate literally as *Apollona* and others as *Apollona*—was first worshipped in Greece under this form, by which he once brought misery to the human race. Just as Pherecydes the Syrian—who, according to Eusebius, had written a book on this theology—called the prince of evil demons *Ophioneus*. Whence they also consecrated serpents to Apollo, Minerva, Aesculapius, and others. And to Apollo, especially in that temple where he mocked the credulity of men with oracles. As if from this, the guest of the ancient serpent and instrument of fraud, the knowledge of good and evil might be sought—that which was persuaded to the first parents of our race: a belief sought in antiquity even by princes and kings for the sake of the greatest happiness or glory, notably by Alexander the Great, Maximinus, Commodus, Severus, Aurelian, and others. To this also pertains the religion and efficacy of the Psylli and the Marsi.

But before everything else, the most wicked and truly detestable worship and opinion of the Ophites. But beyond the others, the Phoenicians, whose leader Cadmus contributed much to the worship of serpents, as Eusebius shows first in *De Praeparatione Evangelii*: "Now Taautus was the first to deify the nature of the dragon and of serpents; and after him in turn the Phoenicians and the Egyptians." And after he gave the reason for this matter: "But the Phoenicians themselves call it a good demon." ^C For it revolved into itself and thus represented eternity. Whence, by the same witness, the Egyptians say *kneph*: "Likewise the Egyptians also name it *kneph*." Just as for the Arabs, *canaf* means "to revolve," or to go around. He adds that they consecrated them in temples, and that the Carthaginians paid vows and performed sacred rites to it. Which in that place was undoubtedly done by Cadmus. Nor is there any other cause why they use the dragon, by whose name, as the most known, they refer to the species of serpent, and especially why, as is noted in Pausanias in the *Eliaca*, they joined the tails of serpents in place of feet. ^D For it is known that every evil, and the devil in particular, is designated by the Hebrews by "the north" or the "settentrione" [the North]; just as it was also for the Greeks among the *scaevi* [left-handed/ill-omened] gods, or "left" ones. Whence the *Boreasmoi*—sacred rites by which they averted his left-handed divinity. Hesychius says: "Boreasmoi, thus at Athens those who conduct feasts and sacrifices to Boreas that the south winds might blow; they were called *boreasmoi*." For it is clear concerning the Hellenists, who are accustomed to denote that enemy hostile to the human race by the name *borron* or "north wind," following that of Jeremiah: "Out of the north shall evil break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land." Hesychius says: "Borras, a cold, freezing, and harsh wind, which, interpreted tropologically, is called *skaios* [left/sinister] and *apopompos* [averse/averter], which signifies the devil; but by the impious it is called 'right'." He referred to that most noble passage of Solomon, "The north is a harsh wind, but by name it is called right," whereas the Hebrews read nothing of the sort in this place. Add to this that the word ^A itself is also Hebrew: which notes speed as much in course as in flight. So that it might be as *boraach* or *boreach*; for the Greeks are often accustomed to add a final [letter] to the end, just as they made him *phugition* [a fugitive], whom the Attics did when he snatched Orithyia. For the things which they themselves bring forward concerning the origin can hardly be read without laughter: since he was worshipped so diligently by the Attics, and no differently than a familiar and domestic deity; just as our own [author] shows elsewhere; the same with the serpent, that is, the enemy of the human race. Thus the great writer Job says that the Lord created the serpent, *bariach* or *boriach*. From the same word from which *boreas* is named: which the noble Hellenist men have interpreted as *spattonta ton apostaten* [the runner who is the apostate], the serpent who defected—that is, the devil—from the speed, or because he penetrated everything. Whence, the divine poet says in the seventh book of the *Metamorphoses*:

I, too, when I have approached the curved holes of the earth, And have placed my back, fierce, into the lowest caverns, I rouse the shades, and the whole world with tremors.

Just as they also gave him the son *Cala* from the word *cal*, which notes speed. To him, therefore, they added even a serpent. The passage of Pausanias in the *Eliaca* is this: "The fourth upon the chest, as one goes from the left, is Boreas, having snatched Orithyia; and he has tails of serpents instead of feet." Whence perhaps also the arctic or northern dragon is placed by astronomers in that part. The name hints that among the first places to which Cadmus came, in Boeotia, was Ascra, the fatherland of the poet Hesiod. For it can hardly be doubted but that he consecrated a grove there according to the rite of the East, which the Lord abominates so greatly in sacred things: which is called *aschera* by them, and which, like other things, the Greeks expressed from the superstition of the East. Thus, the pious king Josiah, when he is said to have burned all the idols—which are not without grave cause called abominations by the Holy Spirit—is said to have burned the *aschera*, that is, the grove where they were worshipped: just as it is established that they were also ejected from the temples by the same. Just as, because they often worshipped one tree 22 or consecrated it to one God: such as that plane tree of Theocritus, which was sacred to Helen with the inscription: "Revere me; I am the plant of Helen." Nor is it to be doubted but that Homer, who, as we shall perhaps show shortly elsewhere, took everything from the East, drew Helen herself superstitiously from here. For *ilana* is "tree" in Chaldean, and, as is likely, one of the goddesses to whom they consecrated trees and groves: such as the Dryads of the Greeks. Thus in the sixth [chapter] of Ezekiel, when it is spoken of the worship of idols: "Under every thick tree and under every thick oak." Where *mabes* is *ela* [oak/tree], with which the name *El*, or God, is sometimes confused by interpreters. In which the Greeks, and Apollodorus himself in particular, confirm us, who notes that in the *alsei*—that is, in the groves or woods—the egg of Helen was found. But how old this superstition is, is apparent both from others, and especially from that of the *Deuteronomy* [lit. "Repeated Law"]: "Thou shalt not plant thee a grove; thou shalt not set thee up any tree by the altar of the LORD thy God." Where in the Hebrew it is *aschera*. And hence Hecataeus, where he speaks about the Jews in Josephus: "They have no image, nor statue at all, nor any plant, such as a grove or anything of that sort." From which *haoni* also is *navis* [ship]: whence they made *Aoniam*, because Cadmus had been brought into those parts by ship. For others have already dealt with Thebes, Helicon, and Parnassus, as Eastern words, just as they have regarding the Muses, although sparingly and not fully enough. Our author says that the Muses were present at the nuptials of Cadmus: in which he followed the others. Thus the ancient Hebrews handed down that the first instruction, which is accustomed to be called *musar* by them—that is, the Law—was given on a mountain, just as the Greeks wish their disciplines, which they also call Muses, to have been born on a mountain. Because Cadmus, according to the custom of his race, celebrated sacred rites only in high and elevated places 23. Which, when the people of God expressed it, like other things, they are said by the kingly Prophet to have offended God, *bam*, in their high places. For that...

which denotes an exalted place, the Greeks expressed their word ^A βωμούς; in which word, as in others, they themselves trifle wondrously. And not without caution, the Hellenists rendered this word by the word βουνός, which denotes either a mountain or a hill. Just as he transferred this to the mountains of Apollo: «Αθάνατον κορυφῇσιν ὀρεσσιβάτοις ἐρέθοντες. They celebrated ten parts of the law; these nine, the Muses. The Jews also seem to have accustomed themselves to call ethical doctrine specifically *musar*: whence even at this time they have a book which is called by them *Sepher musar*, or *Book of Discipline*, just as Solomon begins his gnomes with that word immediately, who testifies that he wrote them down [לִדַּעַת חָכְמָה וּמוּסָר]. Namely, to instill wisdom and *musar*, or discipline: whose presidents in Greece are the Muses. And Theognis began his ethical gnomes in this way: who adds incidentally this very thing which our author reports concerning Cadmus, that the Muses were present at his nuptials: Μοῦσαι καὶ Χάριτες κουραι Διὸς, αἴ ποτε Κάδμῳ. Εἰς γάμον ἐλθοῦσαι καλὸν ἀείσατ' ἔπος. He subjoins an ethical poem, namely: “Otti καλὸν φίλον ἐστί, τὸ δ' οὐ καλὸν οὐ φίλον [ἐστι· which Euripides attributes to Bacchus: just as Cadmus brought the rites of Bacchus himself into Greece. And in the same way, Hesiod the Boeotian also began his ethical book, *Works and Days*, with an invocation of the Muses. Nor should anyone think about the origin of a Hebrew word or its final letter, when they often derive a name from a name and, as seems fit to them 24, change the endings. In which they have allowed themselves the greatest license. And this is constant in them, if anything else is. The father-in-law of Cadmus, Ares, that is Mars, is called by them such. The same one the Greeks, according to the custom of the East, as Macrobius observes, make identical with the sun, which is called [שֶׁמֶשׁ] by them, or as the Hellenists read this name, "Αρης. Whence the interpreters of the Greeks, when in the eighth chapter of Judges Gideon is said to have returned from war before the rising of the sun, rendered it ἀπὸ ἀναβάσεως "Αρεος. Where "Αρης is written with the aspiration dissimulated. Just as the Hebrew *chasida* is *asida* to the Hellenists. Now those who invited the Muses to his nuptials thought his consort was named Harmonia. In which you have the word [אַרְמוֹן], *armon*, or *harmon*, from sublimity and height, which denotes a palace or building; and not rarely the Hellenists explain it as a foundation or [θεμέλιον], doubtless for every cause: because they viewed this in nuptials. Although there is another cause, if we stand by the rabbis, why the Hebrews impose names from palaces and buildings upon wives: because in the creation of the woman, Moses used the word for building. For he said [וַיִּבֶן], *and he built*. Whence many rot arguments from the similarity which a wife has to a building. Which is simpler, and without the trickery of sophistry, is demonstrated by the word for children, which in this language comes from *building*. Just as when matrons were sterile, and would substitute another for themselves to their husband, they said they were built by her. Whence that: *That I may be built by her*. In Greek, ἵνα τεκνοποιήσωμαι ἐξ αὐτῆς, in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis, as elsewhere, and not once. And hence the Hellenistic manner of speaking is without doubt: *And because the midwives feared God, he made them houses*. So that *to make houses* signifies to be happily multiplied. Where the scholion says: *Instead of, he multiplied the lineage from 25 them, God increased the lineage for them*. For they read: *He made them houses*, namely, God. Cadmus, as with Diodorus, took Harmonia to be his wife in Samothrace. Where those who are of the rites of the Cabiri, as the name argues, were translated thither from the East. Where likewise Mercury is celebrated under the name of Casmilus, as Varro teaches: whom Tzetzius notes as being the same as the Boeotian Cadmus. Whence that in our author:

εἰπὲ δὲ φύτλην

"...) ^A chief, which the Hebrews also attribute to the princes of families and patriarchs—a word about which the Greeks have devised something ridiculous! But in Athens, just as in *Aonia*, they hid it. And yet, this is a word that both the ancient Romans and, before them, the Greeks, inquire into and scrutinize so curiously. The philosophy, or poetry, is wonderful, in that it derives Iris's lineage from the borders of the Indians, where, as everyone knows, it never or very rarely rains. Pliny and Eratosthenes acknowledge only summer rains in India; while from Patallena, if we believe Strabo, to the Hydaspes, it never rains. "Inquire," he says, "how the places in between are not rained upon. For neither is Thebais until Syene and those nearby Meroë, nor are the Indian regions from Patallena as far as the Hydaspes." Our own author, however—it would be a wonder if he did not—wanted Iris to be born in those places, for he gives her Hydaspes as a brother. For thus it is:

From the beds of Thaumas was born a twin offspring, 28 Electra of the rose-arms, wedded wife; from whose bed A river sprang, and the herald of the heavenly ones, Iris the storm-footed, and the swiftly-flowing Hydaspes.

But I ask, how is Iris imagined to be born in those places, which are at odds with his reasoning? For since the cloud, in which she is generated, is dewy, and of such a nature that it is usually dissolved afterward—which is the matter and, as it were, the mother of Iris—how can she be generated or produced in those lands, where the sun is believed to hold absolutely no mother, or matter, or as it were a spouse from which it could produce her? In the meantime, it is well that he called her a "herald" (*angelon*). For thus he excellently expressed the word, about which, I think, he was thinking very little. For grammarians derive Iris from *eirein*, to herald. For it is forbidden for them to keep their hands off such things, and they seek by force from their own language those things that are diverse from it. Meanwhile, some derive it from *eris*, because she announces or composes contentions in the writings of poets. For—which is the height of tyranny—since they cannot be silent, they demand belief for those things that exceed all absurdity, which no sane person, and not even they themselves, believe. For no one is unaware that it is used by Homer himself for others in most cases. Just as in the eighth book of the Iliad, he calls back and stops Pallas from war and Juno; and in the fifth, he very benignly leads Venus, who was treated rather ungraciously by Diomedes, away from the battle; and in the fifteenth and sixteenth, he commands Neptune, so that he might lay aside his arms in accordance with the mind and mandate of Jove; and in the last (for it is tiresome to enumerate each), he calls Thetis to himself so that she might stop the excessive cruelty and fury of Achilles. To omit there also the very joyous report brought by her to the father about redeeming Hector. Moreover, as our great poet drew everything from the East, so Iris, who is called by him *theon angelos*, the messenger of the gods, is a Chaldean word *ir*. Hence, with Daniel, *Ir*, or *Hir*, is called an angel. He says, ^C "And behold, an angel and a holy one." For which the Hellenist [says], *eir kai hagios*. "I was watching," he says, "in a vision of the night, upon my bed, and behold, an angel and a holy one descended from heaven." Hesychius, who learnedly interprets the sacred codices in many places, says, "[*eir*], *angelos*, because this for the most part follows Iris, or because for this reason others might have accepted that word in Daniel." But the *Scholion* on Daniel: "But *eir* is nothing other than 'awake' and 'sleepless' translated." Item, "Instead of *eir*, the Seventy translated 'angel,' others used the word 'watcher'." From which, indeed, it appears that the version which is now inscribed to the "Elders" was frequently interpolated. And this is the reason why Clement called the angels "watchers" (*egrēgorous*). But more on these things at some time, when we discuss those things that Homer owes to the East (in regard to ceremonies, matters, and words). In which our author should have seen a little more, for he was born among the very sources from which Homer drew most things. Iris is perpetually called *angelos* by Homer. *Eir* is *angelos*, and so it is used by the Chaldeans, to whom *irin* is *angelos*, and ^D those who minister to God. Let this be the cause why, for the ministry of the gods, Iris was placed in charge. For you seek in vain for the cause of this matter in *phasma*, which is what Iris is called by philosophers, since it is to be sought from the usage of the word, not from the Greeks, but from the East. For the very *phasma*, as for the Latins, so for the Hebrews and Chaldeans, is called "bow."

He commemorates Venus from Lebanon, or the Libanitid, in many places: which also gives her a page on both sides. Since he neither explains the reason and origin of the matter anywhere, nor has he grasped it in his mind. 30 That the ancients thought, especially the men of the East, that the stars ought to be saluted on the mountains (which the sacred page everywhere also places as the seat and proper place of this idolatry), is certain, because they seemed to rise there first. And so in Lebanon, as on a most high mountain, since they observed its rising there best, they worshipped her. Which the Latins also observed regarding Oeta. Nor is there any other cause why they called her *Aphroditē*, except that they saluted the morning star, or Venus, bathed in the spray of the sea, as the poet speaks, as she rose in the morning. Whence also *Frutinal* to the Romans, as also *Fruti*, which is Venus herself. But how many, how inept are the things the little Greeks [devised] about their *Anadyomenē*? Which is the same as *Aphroditē*, or *Aphrodutē*, which they first saluted in the manner of the East, as if coming forth from the sea, or from the foam, and from this, without a doubt, they called her by that name. And yet, the origins of words, for the most part, are the origins of things, in which men of this and the ancient age, being supreme, placed the foundations for eliciting the truth. As, for example, the divine man Cæsar Scaliger, of the greatest Plato; who himself, to the form of the prince of philosophers, brought true criticism back in our time. So also regarding the origin of Venus, how rotten, how frivolous was what the descendants of Aeneas, having been born here, trifled! Or look at Cicero himself. But *venustas*, or grace, is *hen* to the Hebrews. Which is *hen* from the Greeks. Whence in Origen's Hexapla, *hen* of the Hebrews was written. In this way:

He. He. [D (margin)] *hen*. Aquila: *charopos* (bright-eyed). Symmachus | Seventy | Theodotio: *eucharistos* (graceful).

Which also with the Aeolic digamma is *Fen*, which to the Romans 31 is *Ven*. As *hespera*, *Fhespera*, *vespera*. *Enteron*, *Fenteron*, *venter*. Although they often kept that whole. As, in *Fircus*, *Fordeum*, *Fariolus*; *Hircus*, *Hordeum*, *Hariolus*. Thus *en*, *Fen*, *Ven*, and if you add the termination, *Venus*. Whom, because they made masculine, they also worshipped this goddess as bearded. Whence also *deus*, by the testimony of grammarians, is said to *Maro*. Although that also is rather from the rite of the East. To the Hebrews, moreover, *hen*, and to the Phoenicians, is without doubt the grace of the mouth and the elegance of the form. To this, in the East, he joins Adonis as a companion. Who to the Hebrews as well as to the Phoenicians is *Adon*, that is, *kyrios* (Lord). Hesychius: *Adōnis*, *despotēs* (master), *apo Phoinikōn*, that is, *kyrios*. But when fawning, they used to say *Aduni*, *kyrie mou* (my Lord). By which word they saluted the sun; and that *Adon* or *Adonin* is the sun, Macrobius also testifies. Whence also they brought forth *Adōna* from *Adon* in the sixth case. The same Hesychius interprets *Adōna* as *Adōnin*. *Adon*, therefore, is *Adon schemes*, Lord sun, just as the same was called *Baal schamam* by the Phoenicians, Lord of heaven. Concerning which, from the theology of the Phoenicians, and especially of Sanchuniathon, which Philo of Byblos had translated into Greek, Eusebius notes in the book *De praeparatione*: "For when the air became clear, they stretched forth their hands to heaven, to the sun; for this one, he says, they considered to be the only god, the lord of heaven, calling him Beelsamen." For when the weather cleared, he says, they lifted their hands to the sun in the heavens. For they thought this one alone, he says, to be god, whom they therefore also called lord of heaven, or Beelsamen. In which prayers, without a doubt, they were repeating *Adoni*, *Adoni*. But because Venus, who is called *Noga* by the teachers of the Hebrews, is a runner (*syn-dromos*) planet of the sun, and accompanies it, the loves of this one and Adonis to the Gre-

Greeks have been devised. Whence the Sicilian poet says of Adonis, ministering to the Hours, 32 that he both dies and rises again *from among* the heroes: Such as Adonis to you, from the ever-flowing Acheron, In the twelfth month the soft-footed Hours have brought back; Slowest of the blessed ones are the dear Hours. For he completes his annual course, to be sure, in twelve months. And then: You creep, O dear Adonis, both hither and to Acheron, Unique among demigods, as they say; neither Agamemnon Suffered this, nor Ajax the great, the heavy-wroth hero, Nor Hector, the eldest of the twenty children of Hecuba, Nor Patroclus, nor Pyrrhus, returned from Troy. But because of the mourning which they exhibited in his rites, which was called *kinyresthai* by them—a word which itself has a Hebrew origin—they called his father Cinyras. And because they customarily drenched his image with the most exquisite myrrh, above other perfumes, or offered myrrh to him in the ancestral custom of the Orient, ^B they gave him Myrrh for a mother. For the words are of Hebrew origin. But concerning the rites and myths of the Greeks, which flowed from this source, there will one day be a greater and more suitable place to speak. These are the things which seem to have to do with our inquiry. He who desires more may approach the very learned *Syntagma of the Gods of the Syrians* by that most eminent man, John Selden, where there is more on Adonis and others. At the beginning of his learned work, though he was ignorant of it, he employed Proteus as one who was very close to Bacchus. For thus it is there: Set up for me the many-turning Proteus, that he might appear, Having a variegated form, because I am weaving a variegated hymn. Indeed, to the Hebrews *cadam* is *proteuein* [to be first], whether you refer it to age, or to wisdom, or other such things. Thus *cadmon* is "first." Whence also *Proteus*, about which I marvel that none of the 33 learned men [have remarked]. But it seems that there has been lacking until now one who would carefully demand of Greece, and pressingly examine, the Orient. That they say Proteus was an Egyptian according to the poet, "Immortal Proteus is Egyptian," there is no reason for that to detain us here: for Diodorus says the same about Cadmus: "Cadmus, being from Thebes of the Egyptians, to have begotten children with others, and Semele." Therefore, since the word *Cadmon* denotes both him who is first in some matter and him who is sprung from the Orient, the Greeks, according to custom, have used one of these meanings, as is perpetual for the Hellenists. And the most ancient author Homer quite prudently called Proteus a minister of Neptune. For he was among the first in the art of navigation and of the stars: for which same name Cadmus is celebrated by our author. And to this point the poet’s expression tends: Of *the whole sea* ^C he knows the depths. Idothea, whom they wish to have been his daughter, demonstrates his erudition, as an inventor of letters. That he turns himself into all the elements—chiefly fire and water—is said because he publicly demonstrated the forces of natural things and the principles which they commonly call elements, and their causes; for the interpretations which grammarians are accustomed to bring forward make a spirit, uplifted nearly to the point of desperation of the truth. They say that Cadmus came into Greece many years before Proteus. As if a certain account of times could be held in fabulous matters; or as if Homer were saying something about the age of Proteus and not rather, as having been already related among the gods, celebrating him. Which indeed was owed by the Greeks to the merits of Cadmus. And thus indeed we opine. For there ought to be a place for conjectures where one does not know. Other things others have also noted, and we too formerly in the same books [noted] certain things, and not a few indeed that seemed worthy of notice. Among whom also truly 34 our other parent and incomparable teacher, the great Scaliger, who had marked his very many solecisms on the margin of his copy. Which we leave to others. Unless it be that some other things, in which the laws of either speaking or ^D of the poetic art are transgressed, can now be sought from our *Metaphrasis*: in which we note certain things of that kind according to public usage. That this was our purpose, not ambition, I can affirm. And we write the *Exercitationes*, as we profess. In which we do not hang onto the reader, but commend to him. Now something must be said about the work and its constitution. All poets who have produced some perfect heroic work, since they have pursued either uniform actions and ones clinging to each other, or diverse ones—yet of one person, or of one time—the author of *ours* departs very far from both in those parts which are called the Bacchic [books]. As one who described in this work neither the same actions *of one*—namely neither any nor all of one, nor diverse ones *of one time*—but of one cause, not of one, but of many, which did not cohere with some nor with all of one. We call "the same" of one, like those things which Bacchus performed among the Indians in a short time. Which, since they are barely a thousandth part of the whole work, could be sufficient for the whole work, and indeed a just one. "Some of one," like the Bacchic *Indica*, but [not] all things. "All of one," like those things which were performed by Bacchus throughout the whole of his life; which, however, is not without cause criticized by Aristotle. Wherefore, if we are to judge with the King of Critics, he produced not so much an epic work as a chaos. For in order that Bacchus might subdue the Indians, Jupiter carries off Europa, the heavens are attacked by Typhoeus, Cadmus wanders and searches for Harmonia. The same founds Thebes, and gives away his daughters; 35 Actaeon is torn apart by dogs, finally Proserpina is loved by the gods, and thus at last Zagreus, and after him Bacchus, is born. Of such mass was it to grant to the nations and the earth a god who would dwell, as he says, in a wine-jar. And therefore, even before him who was born, whose deeds he constructs, he consumed the material of six or seven works. Among which not even one argument is uniform, or of the same thread or color. So that as many books could be produced from these as there are the works themselves: the first would be *The Rape of Europa*, as he himself judged; the second, *The War of Typhoeus*, or *The Gigantomachy*; the third, *The Marriage of Cadmus and Harmonia*; the fourth, *The Cadmeia*, or *The Deeds of Cadmus*; the fifth, *The Marriage of Persephone*; the sixth, *The Births of Zagreus*; the seventh, *The Births of Dionysus*. For the following ones are no less intricate. So that in the twenty-third he undertakes the *Indica*, who before had proposed a catalogue in the thirteenth. Wherefore the whole work is nothing other than an episode which has no episode. For there is nothing principal or first; there is no *katastasis* [setting-of-stage] of the work, and finally nothing so *epallēlon* [interconnected] and coherent together, that with this one placed [first], which Homer alone handles, another follows. In which, however, the praise of all epic poetry turns. Nor is there another cause why critics prefer the *Odyssey* to the *Iliad* regarding the art of disposition, than that, as they say, *glischra kai oligothylos hē hypothesis* [the plot is sticky and small-pouched], except because the argument is thin and meager, and thus admitted the art of amplification: which the same critics gracefully called *platysmou mēchanas* [mechanisms of expansion]. Deceived by which, the ancients seem to have ascribed diverse works to our author: these he did not write elsewhere, as I think, but here he confuses them. Whence that: I, Nonnus, my city is Pan; but in Pharia, With a resounding spear I harvested the births of the Giants. 36 As if he had written a *Gigantiad*, not the *Dionysiaca*. Unless he understood the Indians: which seems to be the case to Falckenburg, a man who deserves very well of this writer. Furthermore, when the work was delineated, at least in thought and with himself, the poet of ours without doubt ought to think about the inscription of the work, not the contrary; before it, he thought about the inscription itself. By which he wished to embrace as broadly as he could whatever things could be performed by Bacchus. How correctly this was done by him, let us see. For since almost all the inscriptions among the Greeks are *ateleis* [incomplete], that is, to be aided by the understanding of the principal word: just as when I say *Ilias*, or *this book*, or

his name, of the Messiah, indeed. Just as ^A the Jerusalem Targum expounded the word *bir*, according to Elias in his *Thisbite*. Whence it seems they have transferred this to the saints and those already consecrated to God, and to their own proper names. This is confirmed by the case of the mother of Gregory the Theologian, and others, of whom the ancients made mention. So that it is not without cause that Moschopulus translates *Nonna* as "mistress" [or lady], which that most learned man wonders at. And the inscription is not lacking in modesty. For it is inscribed *Metabole* [Transformation], as we have said. For just as retail dealers, whom they called *metaboleis*, commonly exchanged merchandise for merchandise, or for a small coin, so it seems the duty and office ^B of the *metaboleus*, or interpreter, as belonging to that class, is to exchange in the writings of the authors they translate, word for word, and language for language. This same thing can also apply in other matters. But also critics note that he is a *metaboleus* who is [*ton to auto noema diaphoros exaggellonta*], who is accustomed to express the same meaning in one way or another. Regarding which the poet most eloquently [says/writes]:

He was wont to render the same thing often in another way.

It seems, therefore, that the term is taken by them more broadly for any interpretation whatsoever, and just as *paraphrasis* was in use among teachers of rhetoric for school exercises, so perhaps also *metabole*. Which grammarians and others in this kind of writing—that they should exchange word for word—would strive to do. Such was, of old, the interpretation of the Thracian writer Dionysius, or the Thracian, according to Eustathius, upon the ^C great poet's *Odyssey*: *Metaballein*, he says, is said of the bilingual speaker of words; whence also that Thracian Dionysius, having paraphrased this whole book, called such a work of his a *Metabole*. Where he said *paraphrasas* [having paraphrased] instead of *metaphrasas* [having translated], as it seems. Which appears from another passage, where he speaks of the same interpreter: "Instead of *asaminthos* [a bath], the *metaboleus* interprets it as *pyelos* [a trough]." For the word *asaminthos*, he says, which denotes a tub, the interpreter used the word *pyelos*, which denotes the same thing. Where you see, he rendered word for word. For when he had found the word *asaminthos*, which was less common, he translated it with a more common one: and thus, as in merchandise, he instituted an exchange. *Metaballein*, therefore, is *ameibein*, to exchange. In which latter sense I see the ancients also used it. Concerning interpretations, of course, or versions, as they say now. Also in poetic works, which is most relevant here. Whence also ^D *ameiphthenta* [things exchanged], the very writings or works themselves, are called so by the critics. Photius indeed praises the poetic Paraphrase of Eudoxia of the *Octateuch*, which are the first eight books of the Old Covenant. The subject of which the same very great man calls *ameiphthenta*: "The Paraphrase of the *Octateuch* was read; but she transmuted it according to heroics, into meter; and there were eight discourses, according to the number of those things exchanged." *Ameiphthenta*, therefore, [are] the *metaballomena* [things transformed], that is, the work itself, or the Octateuch, which Eudoxia, as ours did the Gospel of John, had rendered in that work. Just as the same supreme author and prince of sacred critics says there that a faithful interpreter, and one who departs as rarely as possible from the words, [is one who] does not depart from the sense, *engys ameibein* [to exchange closely]. Which does not always happen in our practice. Unless it be that he does not rarely adhere to words which, just as we prove concerning Hellenistic words and phrases, he did not attain. And to render the same word and not to exchange it, is neither *metaballein* nor religious, but to leave the reader gaping and empty. Who, when obscurity arises in very many places from an unknown word, after having long expected another from the interpreter, receives the same one which he does not understand. And these things concerning the inscription, indeed. For before we approach the interpretation itself, we shall do a service if we compare not only the words, but especially the mind with the sacred context, if we carefully weigh what he has added of his own, and what are so greatly and in so many ways commended by others (of which kind are the apposites and attributes). Concerning which, however, lest the reader’s study of the author...

^A be delayed by his own judgment of him, it seemed best to us to say something first on the matter in general. Therefore, since poets, after the manner of the philosophers who were their translators, were not accustomed to provide definitions, nor yet, for it is the principal thing in poetry, distinguished and separated things by means of great ornament, they assigned to both primary and secondary substances, and to some accidents as well, certain properties or attributes, often for the sake of definition, often merely for the sake of ornament: 41 by which, in that manner, particulars are in part bounded and in part distinguished: which are called either attributes, or apposites, or, as Fabius noted among other names for them, followers, and most commonly, epithets.

Indeed, the way these are used in poetry is such that they are applied either congruously or incongruously, but also often denote the false; or at the very least, as the dialecticians say, they involve an enunciation. Concerning which, since very grave and eminent men, among whom are some of the chief theologians of our age, have long attributed this praise to us, so that for the most part, in theological and sacred matters, the things used by him can serve in place of commentary or interpretation, we must take pains to examine them in a few chapters before everything else. Having finished this, we shall more easily dispatch the rest. Thus, for the sake of instruction, we shall premise what must be said about these in general. And first concerning the word [epithet], which it appears was transferred here from another usage, just as when the Pythagoreans called the binary, ^B or rather the second in the binary, that which they added [without doubt, for it does not make a number] to the monad. Hesychius: "An epithet is the number two among the Pythagoreans." And the Athenians spoke in this way of those festivals which were not native or their own, calling them "added festivals," [ἐπιθέτους ἑορτάς], and regarding those causes which, because they were foreign, were committed to the judges of Mars; and some things of the same kind, which must be sought from the observations of the ancients. To which the king of philosophers, in his urbanity and according to his custom, refers ^C when he called the things of which we are speaking "added names" [ἐπίθετα ὀνόματα]. "Nouns," he says in the *Rhetoric*, "are added and double"; just as that same philosopher in that same place spoke of the thing itself as "making additions" [ἐπιθέσεις ποιεῖσθαι], and "adding the epithets to the things" [ἐπιτιθέναι τὰ ἐπίθετα τοῖς 42 πράγμασι], as the interpreters urbanely said. Hermogenes: "For a word is sweet and because of the added nouns." But, before saying anything about the definition, let us touch here in passing upon their history, their first use, and their origin. That attributes first found a use in divine matters, many things teach; especially the sacred page. In which the holy, who speak especially with affection of soul and [ἐμπαθῶς], use them most. Let that most noble place in Exodus xxxiv be witness, where God himself leads the way in this manner of addressing or praying. Where thirteen, as is observed by the teachers of the Hebrews, or properties, he himself [ἐπιτίθεται]: "And Jehovah passed before him, and he called, Jehovah, Jehovah, strong, merciful, and compassionate. Long-suffering" and "abounding in mercy and truth," and what follows. Such is also that in Jeremiah xxxii: "Most strong, great, and powerful. The Lord of hosts is thy name. Great in counsel, and incomprehensible in thought." Which the devil continuously, like all things, expressed; for, to pass over so many attributes by which the Greeks and Romans named individual gods and goddesses, as is evident from their formulas, nowhere does it shine forth as clearly as in the Hymns of Onomacritus, who is commonly called Orpheus. For they consist solely of attributes. Nor ^D is there reason to doubt that he is the same author whose writings (for more were extant at that time) are first cited by the philosopher in *De Anima*: "This, he says, is also the case with the account in the so-called Orphic verses; for he says that the soul enters from the whole, being borne by the winds to those who breathe." Where Philoponus says: "He said 'so-called' because it does not seem that the verses are by Orpheus, as he himself also says in the *De Philosophia*; for the doctrines are his." They say that Onomacritus 43 [ἐπεὶ καταθεῖναι]. It should be read exactly so: Aristotle said in those poems which are called Orpheus's that it does not seem they are by Orpheus, just as he himself said in the first book of *De Philosophia*. For as the doctrine is Orpheus's, so they hold that Onomacritus conceived it in verse. But that entire book is a true liturgy of Satan himself, in which the hymns, as we were already saying, consist individually of naked attributes. That it is more recent than Homer, and that he added many things of his own, is proven even by this: that he scatters Priapus and other gods not yet known to him, as is believed. He, therefore, in the hymn to Bacchus, says that he calls Bacchus: Εριβρομον, εὐαστῆρα, Πρωτόγονον, διφυή, τρίγονον, βακχεῖον ἀνακτα, [Ἄγριον, ἄῤῥητον, κρύφιον, δικέρωτα, δίμορφον, Κισσόβρυον, ταυρωπόν] and the rest that follow there. Of which kind also is that hymn of Bacchus, which is read in the Anthology of Greek epigrams, constructed from the attributes of the letters, the beginning of which is: Μέλπωμεν βασιλῆα φιλεύτον, ειραφιώτην, Ἀβροκόμην, ἀγροίκον, ἀοίδιμον, ἀγλαόμορφον, [Βοιωτόν, βρόμιον, βακχεύτορα, βοτρυοχαίτην, etc.] Who are mere trifles, or amusements of men who have nothing greater to do. For among the prince of poets, Agamemnon and others, when they pray, use them according to their dignity: [Ζεῦ κύδιστε, μέγιστε, κελαινεφές, αἰθέρι ναίων.] Thus Achilles: [Ζεῦ ἄνα, Δωδωναῖε, Πελασγικέ, τηλόθι ναίων.] Which an excellent poet and critic, Callimachus, tempered with singular art and judgment in his hymns; for he used them sparingly and gave a reason for each. Just as concerning Jove, whom he initially 44 calls: [Πηλογόνων ἐλατῆρα, δικασπόλον οὐρανίδῃσι.] And then: [Πῶς καί νιν Δικταῖον ἀείσομεν ἠὲ Λυκαῖον, Ἐν δοιῇ μάλα θυμός.] And then most sweetly (for he always interweaves something, and for the most part joins a cause or a narrative, which does not fill the reader but detains him. And that with words not sesquipedalian, but chaste): Ζεῦ, σὲ μὲν Ἰδαίοισιν ἐν οὔρεσί φασι γενέσθαι, [Ζεῦ, σὲ δ' ἐν Ἀρκαδίῃ· πότεροι, πάτερ, ἐψεύ- σαντο; Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται.] You may say the same of Theocritus: in whose *Dioscuri* no attribute occurs that is turgid or insolently composed. Our author, outside the necessity of the work, gave to that god whose affairs he describes in his Bacchic poems so many attributes everywhere that a bright catalog and index could be made from them. Which was done by him for individual names. Most of which he transfers here without any reverence for the matters he was treating in the Gospel. So that he turns these very things, which are commended for their rarity and are accustomed to commend a discourse, almost into a mockery. Which the rhetoricians long ago saw sharply, having warned that one must take care not to use unnecessary or many attributes in discourse, of which the one is inept (as if you were to call snow white, or sweat humid), the other joined with boredom, because the speech leans toward poetry. And the great teacher Aristotle accuses Alcidamas, who, when writing in common and loose speech, used them too frequently, too lengthily, and too prominently. Although no one is ignorant that more is allowed to poets, as is repeated by him quite often; yet the individual items of these have their place in our author. Wherefore that is true concerning him which the same prince of critics pronounced with 45 judgment: [οὐχ ὡς ἡδύσμασιν, ἀλλ' ὡς ἐδέσμασιν], that he uses them everywhere not as condiments that delight, but as food, to the fastidiousness and satiety of the reader. What of the fact that that coldness,

which Aristotle condemns in his own work, he seems to have affected by design? For what is it that he most especially notes as cold in him, when he calls the "counter-mimicry of the soul" *epithymia* (desire) instead of *epithymia*—that is, when he signifies lust—other than that which our author so often takes pleasure in, a "counter-mimicry"? As in: "Counter-mimicry of the dragon’s face," wishing thereby to signify a dragon. This is at once an attribute and a compound, a "double" expression at the same time, as Aristotle calls it. You may observe this everywhere throughout the entire work with excessive frequency. A brilliant example occurs at the beginning, where the most holy Evangelist—though he had judged that he should abstain from all of them, and not without cause—wove a complete discourse out of attributes: "Timeless he was, untraceable, in the unspeakable beginning the Word, Of nature equal to the Begetter, coeval, a Son without a mother, And the Word of God who is self-grown." Cold, like that saying about the generation: "But they were born of God, husbandless children of the Begetter." And since invalid, or improper, terms occur everywhere, it even carries obscenity in a holy matter, due to the method of translation. What of the fact that he has assigned attributes to attributes? As in that line: "Abram of the first-born, of the cloud-gathering Begetter." For just as father is an attribute in that line, "And father Aeneas, the source of the Roman lineage," so is *genetor* (begetter) in this one. What of the fact that he mixes in attributes of an alien character? As in the first chapter: "46 And the choir of Hebrew men Sent him, a divine man, afterwards he took up in a tale." For he said *pempimos* (sent one) of those who were being sent from the Pharisees and Levites to the Baptist. Because he had read in the *Trachiniai* of Sophocles: "O children, how then did the gift sent for Heracles Initiate for us no small evils." As the ancient tragedian might say: "Furthermore, comrades, with the worst possible evil Did he initiate the gift, sent as it was for Heracles." This, in an epic character, and in that place, is of no value. To judge of which, as is proper, is the final end, as he says, of a great mind and nature. And since attributes were invented for the illustration of a matter, he even mixes in *adialogia* (non-reasoning) and obscurity, so that you do not know what he wishes to say. Just as in: "The night-shining, featureless star of the dawn it was." For what is *acharacton* (featureless) in a most shining star? Especially since, regarding eyes that are blind, to one who was born with this evil, he said in the ninth chapter thus: ^A Dithyrambically composed, for example, "God-terrible wanderings," or not "the spear-bearing army of the stars," but similar to those composed by the truth. For I make this a general rule for every naming: the legislators, and architects, and many other such things, are safely composed—that is, that one should use compound names, not such as are composed in a tumid and dithyrambic manner. As if someone were to say *theoterapous planas*, that is, errors sent prodigiously by God, or *astron doryphoron straton*, an army of stars fortified with fiery spears; but rather those which are so composed that they depart as little as possible from usages and received forms. I wish this to be a universal standard and law in such matters. As when we call *nomothetai* "legislators" and *architektones* "architects" of laborers. And others of that genus, which are safely composed. But ours is so removed from the common usage of words and from simple terms that, with danger, he everywhere affects compounds in their place, even when others offered themselves. Such is chapter 11: ^B "This first-appearing miracle beside the bridal chamber, Jesus performed." Which another would have said: "This, first, a miracle." For the compound decreases the truth no less than the simplicity of the matter. For *proton* (first) is more than *protophanes* (first-appearing). For it concerns a certain and simple miracle. Such is *polyspereis* (sown in many places) for *polloi* (many). Which are unusual, and please him for this reason. And he exceeds all absurdity, that he inadvertently called nails which were of iron, not *sidereous* (iron), that is, iron, but *siderophorous* (iron-bearing): "May this man perish, upright, by iron-bearing nails." As if you in Latin would say a wooden ship, "wood-bearing." I will omit the fact that there are certain things which occur perpetually, as *antitrypon, antikypton, palinnoston, palinagretos, atheito tini palmo, gampsonychi palmo*. Any one of which could have been expressed by simple words and others immediately. Which we note in passing, being very few from many, so that we may illustrate the opinion of antiquity, in which he so often ^C sinned. And these pertain properly to the form of the attribute: for the rest, which are either inept, or harmonize little with the matters, or are expressed viciously, we for the most part annotate individually below. Which, before it is done, the definition must be considered. Which the grammarians, as is their habit, have devised worthy of themselves. An *epitheton*, or attribute, is a noun denoting praise or vituperation: which is conveniently added to proper names, or to what they themselves call appellatives; and which is taken from the body, from the mind, or from those things which are outside. In which definition, as many words as there are, so many are the signs of laziness or negligence. For, first, who could bear that division, that it must denote praise or vituperation? For what praise or vituperation is there if, for instance, I say "herile gressum" (masterly gait)? "And holding a gathered, undivided, featureless countenance." And he scarcely admitted anything other than compounds: which are called *dipla* (double) by Aristotle. Which the remaining poets, as well as orators, admitted no less with judgment. For the end of composing, partly, as is noted by the critics, is that the speech may rise—not haphazardly, but when necessity demands it: partly so that our mind, where there is need, in place of a complete sentence, may use the benefit of a word, so that it may grasp not just one thing, but many, in one. By which meanwhile the speech also grows. Near to whose grandeur is tumor. Into which vice one goes when either many are used, or words are not composed sufficiently aptly, as was wont to happen in dithyrambs. Wherefore 47 both dithyrambic compositions of words, and (being) unusual and therefore harsh and dangerous, such as ours generally are, rhetoricians relegate. About which the author of the most excellent book *On Elocution*, who is now called Phalerius; by Ammonius, regarding the book *On Interpretation*, he is simply called Demetrius: who called the book itself *The book of the Rhetorical Idea*, has spoken elegantly. He, therefore, Demetrius: "One must also take compound names, not ^D those composed dithyrambically; for example, 'God-terrible wanderings,' or (as he says) 'the spear-bearing army of the stars,' but those similar to those composed by the truth. For I make this a universal rule for every naming: the legislators, and architects, and many other such things, are safely composed—that is, that one should use compound names, not such as are composed in a tumid and dithyrambic manner." And when the same prince of poets spoke concerning the nature of individuals, "the liquid fields," "the dark-blue sea," and others of that genus? Which indeed can denote neither praise nor vituperation. Just as they denote nothing in certain things, except what is redundant, as "and they chop with axes the liquid wines"; or "liquid humor," and others of that genus. Which Charisius, when he understood it, said: "An *epitheton* 49 is a verbal expression added to a vocabulary, for the sake of adorning, or destroying, or judging." And Donatus, "for the sake of discretion, propriety, or ornamentation." It is a wonder, however, what came into their minds regarding that division: when they say it is taken from the body, or from the mind, or from outside, or externally applied. Which Charisius and the others follow. Nor did Donatus—which you might wonder at—depart from this. And this is now generally accepted by all. But if this is true, it is necessary that they be restricted to the primary substance. For these things are observed in Socrates, not in a human being. For no one commands either by form, or by the fortitude of the mind, or by wealth, unless such a one as this: Hercules, Ulysses, indeed, or Croesus. And thus orators (commend) this one or that, by a triple felicity.

^A But those things which are said first by the Philosopher concerning goods, they had undoubtedly read. As if wisdom were not occupied as much about individuals as it is about species. For it always looks toward "this such-and-such," that is, the specific: such as Plato is, or Socrates. Whence from antiquity itself, the sophists chose certain names for their vituperations or commendations, as Isocrates did for Busiris; others, especially among the later writers, chose not a few others, whom they either debase or elevate. Just as not infrequently, since these gleaners feed themselves on the remains of philosophers, on scraps of feasts and crumbs, they do not so much satisfy the hunger of others as irritate it. For they did not consider that some things here are put forward, and others are appended. For they are put forward either as primary substances, which Varro calls names; or secondary ones, which the same author calls nouns. And these are either incorporeal, as God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who by a perpetual appended term, as he is, is called holy by the Church. In whose proper appended terms, as predicates, 50 which are attributed to a subject, our author errs neither rarely nor lightly. As when he called God either *autophuton* or *autogenethlon* from the theology of Orpheus and the pagans, and improperly and insolently called the Father coeval with the Son; and when he treats of the divinity of the Son, he occasionally incorrectly subjected an incongruous appended term. And when he called the Spirit either a Paraclete, or *hagnon* rather than *hagion*, and, which is least to be borne, *metanasten*; concerning each of which, [I shall speak] according to the authority of the ancients, in its proper place. And when he called the divine power of the Savior and *katholiken* by the appended term for Neptune, *gaiēochon*. Which he appended neither piously enough nor cautiously enough: whether they are created, such as angels, who are good or evil; or corporeal, inanimate, simple, as the heaven, *ouranos*, which our author called *kachnōta*, both tumidly and not aptly enough; when he intended to indicate open or patent: or corporeal, inanimate, composite, and absolute: such as a thunderbolt, snow, and the rest, about which the Philosopher speaks in his *Meteorology*, not to mention the others.

Eight places for these, to which they can be conveniently referred, certain fewer of the philosophers have made. In distinguishing which, the poet has often sinned, either through thoughtlessness or lack of skill, and perhaps more often than others. From which those things here especially look toward what is in substance or is found around it, which they call *symbebēkota*, such as those things which are expressed by the name of quantity, such as magnitude, space, and the rest of the same kind, namely time and number, which elsewhere in the *Bacchics* our author called *isometron*; or those of quality, such as habit: which the poets subject to appended terms that follow either the soul or the body—indeed, virtue and wisdom and almost all other matters of the same 51 kind, they subject to appended terms, just as [they do] other species of the same quality, concerning which the books of the philosophers must be consulted; for it is enough for us to have pointed these out incidentally. Or finally, those things which are said in relation to some one, as when one is called father, or impious, or pious.

To which class the ^B other six can be conveniently referred. Beyond which not even the Stoics ascend, unless they divide that final genus; for they said that some things exist in a certain manner; others, that they exist in a certain manner in relation to something, was the final one. They made only four genera: the subject, namely, qualities, and things that exist in a certain manner, and finally, things that exist in a certain manner in relation to something. By which the ten classes, or genera, of Aristotle, as they themselves wish it, are circumscribed. And indeed they best called the substance, from the custom of the poets. For although they themselves also called quantiables and qualifiers, and things related to something, often adorned by attributes, or appended terms, yet it is less properly appended or predicated of the former two, and also the latter, such as when I say, Father Aeneas, that is, Aeneas is a father. The same must be said of appended terms, which are properly called such. Which, since they are nothing else than accidents of the substance itself, are predicated of it. Quantity, as of Achilles, since he is called *pelōrios* by the Greeks, and in the same way of any thing whatever. And these are either continuous, as that which I have already said, or separate, as: *Twenty tawny cauldrons from elaborate bronze.*

Quality, such as swift, which to Homer is *podas ōkys* (which it owes to the Hebrews, to whom it owes this, as well as many other things: just as when the hero Asael is called *kouphos tois posin autou* by the Hellenists in Samuel), prudent, wise, and not a few other things of the same kind, are named by them either of one, or of the whole species, as when a man, or the human race, is called prudent, wise, or endowed with reason. 52 To which add also relations, which are either appended or admit of appended terms. If you again collect the remaining things which follow as genera, you will recall all the classes, if I am not mistaken, both the Homeric ones and the others. For there are accidents, which in a substance or around it, as children know, fluctuate, and the final ones are almost called *kata ti*, as relations. But also those are to be corrected who think that appended terms, with those things which are generally called adjectives by the grammarians, are ^C entirely the same, as when Priscian puts "great rogue, great thief" in such a way that what is first is an adjective, to which he appends that which is the latter. Although the latter is not rarely used for an appended term. For each is an accident. For just as "white" or "great" is necessarily referred to someone, so "thief" and "parricide," and the rest, are referred. And therefore the greatest of philosophers correctly counts "parricide" and "avenger" among attributes, or appended terms: since in the third book of the *Rhetoric*, where he treats of their use in speech, he teaches that "parricide of his mother" and "avenger of his father" can by that reason be said of Orestes. For these indeed are his appended terms: "And in ^D attributes," he says, "it is possible for attributes to be made from the base or the shameful, for example, 'matricide'; and it is possible from the better, for example, 'father-lover'." Thus "Virgin," concerning the most holy Mother of God; "Friend of God," concerning the parent of believers, are appended terms for Epiphanius. From which even the technical writers of the Hebrews do not depart. By whom, "servant," "king," "thief," "parricide," and other things of that kind, are accustomed to be understood no less than "good" or "wise." For thus they are accustomed to signify whatever denotes quantity and any form inherent by habit or potentiality, to use their words. And in the definition, which they called *kat' epainon*, as if I should say, "Memory is the guardian of things, the treasure of knowledge, etc.," whatever things are added to the defined are correctly called *epitheton* or *epitithemena*. As in that [verse]: *Root of life, Cytherea, nurse of gods, mother of loves.* Sola Cytherea, *ouk epitheta*. The nurse, therefore, and the mother, and whatever things are added in such cases, are said in such a way, as those which we commonly call epithets. Concerning which, as also infinite others, the grammarians did not even think. Add that for the Latins also, abstract nouns placed simply instead of concretes denote that which is said, as in that [phrase], *clay macerated with blood*, concerning Tiberius. For it denotes more than just "sordid" or "bloody," namely, such a one in an exceptional way. And the epigrammatist understood this when he said: *He lies who called you, Zoilus, vicious.* *You are not, Zoilus, a man who is vicious, but vice itself.* And for the Hebrews this is so customary that it belongs to the property of that language; for to the parent of believers it is said, *kai esē eulogia*. The Hellenists speak less accurately there, *kai esē eulogēmenos*. For it is said in the preterite: except that sometimes, however, they expressed it, as in that Cant. v, 16: *His palate is sweetnesses, pharynx autou glukasmoi*. Add, that these which are called attributes or appended terms for us, are the offspring and progeny of that name, which is *shēm*, or the name of an accident, as is commonly said to them. Such as is strength, wisdom, prudence, dementia, grayness, old age, childhood, youth, and other things of that kind. Whence, *Achilles* is *fortis*, *Pythagoras* is *sapiens*, *Ulysses* is *prudens*, *Dido* is *demens*, *Charon* is *canus*. Which *parōnuma*, [as] the Philosopher, and *par-

as John of Damascus speaks, *parayoga* (derivatives), are for the most part appositions, and therefore suit Titius or Seius; which are usually called by the Hebrew logicians ^A *’ish niphla* in the art of speaking as well.

For antonomasia comes very close to an apposition. But it is also at times the same. Concerning which matter, one should consult the man of diffuse erudition, Gerard Vossius. And sometimes they either define or are at least convertible, as if a poet were to call a rational being an "animal," and mean a man. For the defined is understood and is convertible. But as to the false, it cannot happen that a poet, when he adds an apposition, should likewise state or predicate it: he who thus joins a predicate with a subject, so that nothing is lacking in it save the copula. Therefore, if you confuse an apposition, or join it to a strange subject, not only is an incongruity introduced, but also a falsehood. And this, indeed, is so in any science whatever, as if you were to say the earth is light, or fire is heavy; it differs nothing from the enunciation. Nor does it matter whether you say, "The Punic man is Hannibal," or "Hannibal is the Punic man"—which is also called an axiom. And because it contains truth or falsehood, it is called by the Stoics the foundation of dialectic. And he who says "Miserable Crassus," according to Cicero, asserts that Crassus is miserable, or he says nothing, so that "Miserable Crassus" is the same as "Crassus is miserable," regarding which he speaks in the *Tusculans*. And it is to this point that he notes that appositive nouns are not, strictly speaking, nouns, but are called verbs. Because they are of the nature of verbs, which are predicated in such a place, as if you were to say "is best," it has the same force as "he acts best." I say that both have the same force if attributed to Achilles. Yet it truly denotes either truth or falsehood. So that it does not matter much, especially in poetry, whether you say "Achilles is best," or "Best is Achilles." For ^B the Hebrews place the apposition in the second position. Unless this is done, it is meant to be a predicate.

And so, when they say "God is good," they are said to be speaking imperfectly—or if you would say "he is such." Which they themselves also sometimes do not observe. But, what you might admire more, they even dissimulate those things which are most necessary to the mind and sentiment, as in that phrase: "He who finds a woman, finds a good." Which the Hellenists for this reason supplemented, *Hos heure gynaika agathēn*, "He who finds a good woman"—for about a bad woman it is certainly false. The Targumists, however, though they were interpreters, added nothing. It matters little to us whether the poet calls the Attic land "barren" appositely and *epitheton-wise*, or whether he says "Attica is barren." For both are true: seeing that it is for that reason called *leptogeōs* ("thin-soiled") by Thucydides, to whom he also ascribes the antiquity of the people logically. Thus, whether Jesus is called *poiētēs* ("maker"), in the Arian voice, or whether this is announced thus, we think it adds nothing to blasphemy. Nor does it signify whether *metanastēs* ("migrant") is said with an apposition of the Holy Spirit, or if this is announced about Him as an epithet; for both are false; the Manichaeans posited two gods, this one good, that one evil. To him, the profane and blasphemous attributed that book which is now inscribed as Exodus. Because they would deny that it belonged to the good God, that He should later inflict such a force of evil and calamities upon those whom He had led out of the land of servitude. "For it is not," says Leontius in *De sectis*, "of the good God to take them out of Egypt and afterward do many things against them." But certainly, whether one says "The evil God, when He led the people out of the land of servitude," or "The evil God was He who led the people out of the land of servitude," it is equally false. For neither can such a God exist, and he who is goodness itself places this mark of his goodness everywhere. What of the fact that they generally contain quantity also, when joined together? For universals, although without a sign, sometimes have force; for poets generally express their meanings *aprosdioplōtos*, or indefinitely, as if you were to say, *Deiloi brotoi*, "Miserable mortals." For this is the same as if you were to say, "Every man is miserable." And in those things which are called perpetual, that which I say is perpetual. It is singular, as if you were to say *dyō kynes argoi*, with Homer, "two white dogs." Which is as if you were to say, "Some dogs are white." Indefinite, as "pious Aeneas." Which is "Aeneas is pious." But you will also find a triple matter: necessary, as "Man is mortal"; impossible, as "The world is eternal"; contingent, as "Man is just." In which, in these three, *anthrōpos brotos*, *kosmos aidios*, and what you have elsewhere in our text, *anthrōpos dikaios*, you will find [a pattern], so that you may thus judge concerning the matter. Of which individual items, what Apuleius called an *effatum*, Cicero an *enuntiatum*, and the Stoics an *axioma*, others have called an interpretation—if a copula is added, they complete them. Plato elegantly called them *onoma kai rhēma* ("noun and verb"). Just as he also calls any speech whatsoever in the interim. And in his imitation, Flaccus:

There are words and voices, by which this pain you may Soften, and cast away a great part of the disease.

Concerning which matter, we used to say not a few things to the Tyrian philosopher. The logicians of the Hebrews, regarding the excellent *dabar*, said that it is the first judgment of the mind. Now, since that which is thus expressed is expressed properly, or figuratively, or unusually, and in these matters the greatest authors also not rarely err, the masters of the art of speaking [are best] concerning these. In which part our author has frequently sinned; for he often employed uncouth translations, and brought forth unusual expressions not cautiously enough, and does not always compose appositions most felicitously, and at times ^C adds them with some change and defect of the sense they involve. All of which examples he himself will provide a little later. Furthermore, since the scope of the first interpretation, or enunciation, as I have just said, is whether it be true or false, and these properly complete it, the reader ought to remember that we are also dealing here with this when we judge concerning the attributes and appositions in Nonnus, which are predicates and cling to the subject. Just as, for example, *thrasys* ("bold") is called by this our author "Judas"; which apposition,

^A even if it be attributed to Peter also, and to our evangelist, men most holy, it cannot be that it is true of both, unless there be either an equivocation or an impropriety in one of the terms. Yet the imprudence of the poet remains no less, who, in such a wealth of words and attributes, appends the same [epithet] to things clearly different, and, as the logicians say, disparate. For most of the time in their works, as I have already said, the poets understand *to prosgoroumenon*, or the copula. And so much for these matters. Which things far exceed the definition of the grammarians, and from which a more perfect [understanding] can easily be collected and constituted by anyone.

CHAPTER III

At the beginning, an attribute occurs placed in an odd position: for when the evangelist said: *En archē ēn ho Logos*, it is without doubt a most sweet parody, taken from the beginning of Genesis. Which he places even contrary to expectation, because it departs from that one. For whereas there it is: *En archē epoiēsen ho Theos ton ouranon kai tēn gēn*, he, using the same beginning, proposes an exception unknown to the Jews and no less necessary to the Church: *En archē ēn ho Logos*, but not, *epoiēthē*. Which principle was the more common precisely because the Hebrews [named] the book, which is first in order, as they [named] the rest, ^D and after their manner the Hellenists also, from the first words. Yet the allusion is most graceful and clearly sweet. [alt-version omitted] As if you were to say: In the beginning, when all things were being made, the *Logos* was not made, because He was. But to be in divinity presupposes eternity in itself. Whence also Procopius [says] excellently regarding Genesis: "He made," he says, "and it was not [before], which John says concerning the Word of God." For by a certain denotation of time, in which those things which were created began to be, it is clearly shown that He who preceded them was, who did not then begin, but was God with God. This style of speaking corrupted the mind of the greatest writer very badly when he added *th' archē*: by which, as if he had spoken adverbially, that time is denoted at which all things began to be. From which the evangelist excludes him, through whom were made the things which then began: that he had been *achronos* (timeless), he denies by this very fact. For thus he says: *Achronos ēn, akichētos, en arrhētō Logos archē*. Which does not express the mind of the writer. Who indeed intended this: *En archē hote panta epoiēsen ho Theos, ouk epoiēthē ho Logos, all' ēn*. And what did it matter to say *arrhētō tēn archēn* here, except either to obscure the brevity or to involve the speech equally with meaning? Which, as St. Basil [says] rightly, seems to be opposed to the Holy Spirit by that truly diabolical [expression], "There was when He was not." And therefore the holy Fathers, [warned] that nothing in these words should be rashly changed, but [that they should be] held and preserved perpetually as some sacred *keimēlion* (treasure), as often and with such care they have warned. The same Basil [says] 61: "Therefore, so that it may not be permitted to say such things, the Holy Spirit having anticipated through the Gospel, *En archē*, he says, *ēn ho Logos*. If you hold fast to this utterance, you will suffer no evil from the wicked craftsmen. But you say, How was He before He was begotten? You, do not let go of the *ēn*; do not leave behind the *en archē*. The summit of the beginning is not grasped; the extremity of the beginning is not found." Let that be preserved, he says, and let not that be snatched away, "In the beginning," you will easily preserve eternity. For as "was" denotes eternity, so "beginning" admits neither end, nor beginning, nor declaration, and therefore neither admission [of an added] *appositum*. In the beginning, when all things were being created, or, before they were created, the Word was, or existed. But this is from eternity. Which the ancients equally confirm. Solomon himself, first of all, who said that Wisdom, or the Son of God, concerning whom it is treated here, *echtisen* (created) (which the Hellenists render *pro aiōnos* / before the age) existed. And in the same way *en archē*. "The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways." Who would say here *en arrhētō archē*? For indeed *En archē*, as the Chaldeans have rendered it most excellently, since it is *bereshith*, denotes nothing else by the evangelist than that the Son of God, no less God from the beginning, that is, God of eternity, or eternal, is, than the Father. Which even among the first attributes of God the Holy Scriptures have known. Whence also in Isaiah IX, the Son of God concerning whom it is treated here, is called by the Chaldean [interpreter] *o ap' archēs* (from the beginning). Since this therefore is the attribute itself, there was no need here for a new attribute, which they now call an epithet. For whether you say, the Word was in the beginning, or, the Word is eternal, it makes no difference to the meaning. Just as God also, *Cadmon*, who is from the beginning, is said by the rabbis. But there is a passage truly illustrious indeed, since the divine author, which we prove here and there, has often alluded to the Chaldean interpretation, which the Asiatic Jews, as of old, so now use: but he alone remembers *tou Logou*, or *tou*, as it is said there, he could not better convince the Jews [that He was] in the beginning, than if he proved that He whom they read of daily, and who is so often called Jehova there, was this one. And since the paraphrast Onkelos, a writer, whatever the Jews may chatter, most ancient, and whom, even by their own calculation, our [evangelist] could have seen, made no mention of his first [beginning] in the creation of all things, but at paradise and immediately after the fall, our [author] even anticipates and precedes this time. And with him, also that of the creation, concerning which it is said: *En*

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.* With *In the beginning was the Word,* he says. And he adds: *All things were created through him, and without him was not even one thing created.* He ought not to have misinterpreted so illustrious a passage. It is truly apparent with how great a difficulty, both of understanding and of meaning, he involves himself here with one attribute, for he who places this beginning in the beginning, and indeed in another, although he is neither first nor alone, has interpreted this passage in such a way. For as the Jerusalem Targum explains *In the beginning he created* as *In wisdom he created* (which is that Wisdom of Solomon), so in this place the Greeks—who, since they could not place the Son in the Son (or in Wisdom), placed him in the Father—have rendered *the one in the beginning* as *in the Father*; among whom is Cyril. And Nonnus also intended this, if I am not mistaken, so that just as all things were created by them in the Son, so with our author, from the beginning, in the Father—as in another beginning—the Son is said to have been, that is, as the ^B *beginning and source* of divinity. Which he here called *ineffable*. He therefore understood the *beginning* of divinity. Regarding which the ancient theologians, and among others, Zacharias, bishop of Mitylene (63), says according to this sense: *We say that the Father of the Word and of Wisdom, and the producer of the Holy Spirit, is the first cause and beginning of divinity, an ageless beginning of that which is contemplated in the Son and in the Spirit*, as our theologian Gregory says. Augustine *in John*: *Because Christ is the Son of the Father, and the Father of Christ is the Father, and the Son is God from God the Father, but the Father is God, not God from the Son.*

Thus, therefore, our author understood. But although it may be true that the Father is the beginning of divinity, and that from him the Son arises in his own way, the evangelist did not for that reason speak of him here; for what he says here as *in the beginning*, he says in the Epistle as *from the beginning*: *That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes.* And this strikes at the jugular of this interpretation. Unless the Father is also to be understood there. To omit what he now puts forward, although it is said more circumspectly: *This was in the beginning with God.* Where St. Basil rightly says: *He did not say, "The Word was in God," but "With God," so that he might set forth the propriety of the hypostasis. He did not say "In God," so that he might not give an occasion for the confusion of the hypostasis.* He did not say "in God," but "the Word was with God," so that he might show the property of the person. He did not say "in God," so that he might not give occasion for the confusion of the person. And yet in this sense our author [was saying] the Son was in God, or in the Father, so that I might omit a most inept tautology. For who in this divine brevity could bear: *The Word was in the Father, and the Word was with God?* How much more ineptly will what follows come: *This one was in God with God?* And yet the divine man has spoken in this way, if we accede to these interpretations. In vain, therefore, from the mind of the most holy author, did he say an *ineffable* beginning, which does not admit an attribute, because there is nothing above it. Just as the word *was*, as it is the most simple, so it precedes every thought, so that if 64 anything is added, it does not ascend further, but diverts the intention elsewhere. Divinely, the same Basil on this matter, in his book *On the Holy Spirit*: *In the beginning was the Word; "was" is inaccessible to the mind, and the "beginning" is transcendent to the imagination.* Just as in *Against Eunomius*, he denies that this word is of those things which are said in relation to other things. Therefore, it no more respects an attribute than *from the beginning*, at the beginning of his same Epistle. But who then would be so insane, that if he were to render that in verse, he would say *That which was from the beginning, that which was from the ineffable beginning*, and add an appositive? Wherefore it is by no means to be borne that the luxury of epithets has, as it were, suffocated the ineffable roundness of the greatest author. Of which he left not even a trace. But it is clearly to be admired: *The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Through this Word all things were made; in this Word was life; and the life was the light of men; and the light shone in darkness; and the darkness did not overtake the light.* For which he substituted a great number of epithets ^C congeriem, so that you scarcely recognize the most elegant face of the speech, and what the rhetoricians so strongly denounce, the reader is nearly suffocated: for in place of the first statement, *In the beginning was the Word*, you have these: *He was without time, inaccessible, in an ineffable beginning, the Word,* *Isos-substantial, same-aged with the Begetter, Son without mother,* *And the Word of God, self-sprung, light, from light, light.* For the second, *And the Word was with God*, *Indivisible from the Father, co-throned in an endless seat.* For the third, *And the Word was God*, *And the Word, high-born, was God.* ^D Where then is the power of the speech? Where the density, the simplicity, and the vigor? Where the figures, which by repetition add both an ineffable force to the speech and suggest delight to the mind 65? Where those progressions, *was in the beginning, was with God, was God*? And is a man such a sophist that he has so carelessly read the writings of the rhetoricians, that he did not know that these *cola* or members are praised most highly in speech, which, though they are very brief, exhaust the author's mind individually? Which the Greeks so greatly admire. Such is the first, such the second, and such generally all the rest in turn. To which no one will reconcile the original purity, unless he who would remove this mask of appositives from the oration. As if you were to write thus, and correct this immense luxury: *In the beginning was the Word; with God was that one,* *And God, he who was the Word; with God he was in the beginning,* *He was always and remained and all things came to be through him;* *Without him nothing was, that which came to be.* *In him alone was life; and life was this light of mortals;* *In darkness this shone; and the darkness did not seize it.* Thus indeed the ratio of the parody [alt-version omitted] will be consistent, and the round sweetness will remain, and, if I am not mistaken, the splendor of purer Hellenism will be preserved. But neither, where the second 66 person is treated, who is said to be eternal, shall I heap up appositives of the whole divinity. Such as are *ageless, incomprehensible* (for this he intended when he said *inaccessible*), which are called properties of the divine nature. Nor, again, shall I add relations, or those which denote relation, since there is no necessity. For he did not say the Son, as the ancients rightly note, but the *Word*. Of which we are about to speak shortly. Such is *iso-substantial*, and what follows. Nor shall I attribute age to God the Father, when the eternity of the Son is discussed, or say that he is of the same age as the Son; mindful of that theological adage from antiquity: *Those things which are sublime titles are to be attributed to the nature alone, which is both greater than and free from affections; the others are merely human.* But common things [are attributed] to the composite. Namely, to Christ alone. Who, as he is God, so is he man. Which is excellently stated by Cyril. Not that we are unaware that it is customary in sacred writings to speak *anthropopathically*, and what the Hebrew critics, 𐤁𐤍 𐤀𐤃𐤌, holy men speak: which is, *from these things which are present in us, to fashion the energies of God.* But what place can this have, where you deal concerning divinity alone, nay, even of its source and origin, which is the Father? Add that *helikiā* (age/stature) is wont to be referred not only by Homer, but by the evangelists, to the magnitude of the body, that is, to the stature of the body. Such is, *to add upon his stature one cubit*, Matt. vi, 27. Such is, *And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature*, Luke ii. Concerning which passage Theodoret: *He increases in stature as to the body, and in wisdom as to the soul.* Likewise, *that he was small in stature*, concerning Zacchaeus, a short man, Luke xix, 3. And age, as well as nourishment, when they dispute concerning both natures, the theologians always separate from the divinity, as Cyril not once. Vigilius: *And what is added, "Jesus however was increasing in stature and wisdom, and grace, with God and men," cannot be congruent with the nature of his deity, because the deity neither receives an increase of age, nor feels any augmentation, nor is it subjected to the course of times, nor is it calculated by the number of years, and, so that all things...*

^A that are born of their own accord, immediately perish. But if you say that he is speaking here of the Father, as the man of wide-ranging erudition, Petrus Faber, in the little book he entitled *Dodecamenon*, notes that the pagan philosophers (for God forbid that he should say this of Christians) called the first person in the Godhead *autophue* (self-grown), *autogonon* (self-begotten), and *autogenehlon* (self-originated), you say nothing more. For just as to be *phuesthai* (to grow/come into being)—he who always was, always is, and always will be—is proper to God, so *agennesia* (unbegottenness) is proper to the Father, which constitutes his idiota (property). Therefore, he is himself the *phues*. And thus, by Cyril, an accurate author in such matters, the first person of the Trinity is called [the one] who, as he says, ^B *taute sunedreuei, kai to phusanti* (sits enthroned with him, and with the one who begat). Whence you will find the Son called *theoputon* (God-planted) by the theologians. To whom also add *autogonon* and *autogenehlon*, about which I will speak more in a moment. These things do not fit the individual persons any better than they fit the essence; nay, they overturn the *idiotas*. But our author, after having once derived these streamlets from pagan fountains, dares to apply them to the individual persons. For concerning the Father, chapter xiii, verse 10: *Dechnutai autogenehlon emon pempsanta Tokis*. But the property of the Father is not to be begotten. Concerning the Son, chapter ii, verse 12: ^C *Autogono de Parthenos hamartese theotokos Huiei meter*. And yet the property of the Son is not to be from himself, but from the Father, to have been eternally begotten. Concerning the Holy Spirit, chapter iv, verse 6: *Pneumatos autogonoio pelei katharoio loetrou*. And yet the property of the Holy Spirit is not to have been begotten, but to have proceeded. But what the evangelist said, *Kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon*, and before him Solomon, *Emen pros auto, hēn*, he expressed by putting something else, when he says that he was *sunthronos* (enthroned with). But to pass over the fact that he said the same thing twice—because *mōnos* (being alone) and *hedre* (sitting) are the same (though it would have been enough to have said *prostonmōnos*), he would have better expressed the simplicity ^D of the evangelist by using the same word that the evangelist uses here. Add that he attributes one [term] to the divine nature alone in this place, while the other is now common to the human nature as well. For just as I acknowledge that theological aphorism to be true: *Hoti ouk ek prokopēs ton thronon eschen ho Logos*, [the Word did not obtain the seat or throne by the passage of time]: so I know it to be true that in this way now the flesh is glorified. Rufinus, in his *Exposition of the Creed*: "He ascended, therefore, to the heavens; not where the Word [as] God had not been before—for he was always in the heavens, and remained in the Father—but where the Word made flesh had not before sat." How much more circumspect, then, is the evangelist, who said he was *with God*? By two things, as he thought himself, he encompassed whatever exists, when he said, at the third verse, *kai epleto panta di' autou, Apnoa kai pneionta*. Which division, if we wish to admit the truth, includes only the *hupobebēkota*, that is, as the theologians say, natures inferior in creation, and scarcely even that. Wherefore Cyril is better: *Panta ta onta ē ktista estin* (All things that are, are either created). Or Nyssenus, who divided all things into *noēta kai aisthēta* (things perceived by the mind and by the senses), in his *Catechetical Oration*: "There is a twofold understanding in existing things, divided into the intelligible and the sensible contemplation: and nothing could be grasped besides these." Others [divide] into *theōroumena kai nooumena* (things contemplated and things conceived), just as Theodoretus does when he treats of this passage. Others, finally, into *horata te kai aorata* (things seen and things unseen), with the Apostle. But who would bear what follows, *kai ergoponou dicha muthou, Ouden eou toper eske*? For who would say that the eternal Son of God labored when he created all things? Unless perhaps he considered the Son as an instrument in creation, or a vicarious minister, whom Eunomius and Arius [call] by the peculiar term *diourgon*

71 and he called him *ergoponon* (worker): whom faith rightly knows as Creator and *autourgon* (self-worker). For I would scarcely call the highest artificer *ergoponon*.

Rightly says Augustine: "The Lord is not to be said to have labored." Likewise, "As the Father works without labor, so too the Son." And he had forgotten the Word, or Speech, before the incarnation, or, as the ancients speak, *before the theandric visitation* (pro tēs theandrikēs epiphoitēseōs), to be considered in this place, who, as God, was present to God in creation, not as man. But to labor is a *human activity* (anthrōpinē energeia), not *divine* (theikē), not of the godhead, but a human function, as Anastasius says. And, as Basil rightly says, truly a *passion* (pathos). But *impassionately did God create all things*, God created all things without perturbations or fatigue, as is excellently said by the same. Therefore, when in the sacred books it is said that he labored, this was done *not by the nature of his godhead, but by the economy of the union*, that is, not by a natural manner, which is divine, but by that of the union, as the canons of the theologians have determined it should be understood.

Add to this that in the sacred books, wherever Jews inquire of the Lord and his will, as the profane do of Apollo, whether they say *id* [in] *to Kyriō* (for so the Hellenists render it), or *to say* to do a thing, in both places *Memra*, which is *the Word of God*, has been rendered by the Chaldeans. Since, for the most part, the same ones say *Memra* for the prophecy which the Lord is wont to dictate. So it is not without cause, as the ancients frequently testify, that when the Word of God was born on earth, Apollo no longer gave his oracles. Regarding which, his own confession is also adduced. Furthermore, the same one who is called the Word (*Logos*) to John, if indeed we stand with Justin—a man as holy as he is ancient—was called *Audē* (Voice) by them. For regarding that of Orpheus:

*I adjure you, the Audē of the Father, which he uttered first.*

He names here as *Audē* the Word of God, through whom *the heaven and the earth and every creature came into being*, as the divine prophecies of the holy men teach us, to which he attended in part in Egypt and learned that *through the Word of God all things came into being*. With which word the ancient theologians also make use, as Cæsarius, the brother of Gregory, in *Dialogue 1*: "For God and Father always existed, and as Father he always existed of the only-begotten Son, the ^A substantial *Audē*." Which word is manifestly, as are not a few that Homer uses, in the usage of the Chaldeans; for from *pehal* *p-e-l* is formed in *aphel* *a-p-l*. *Oda*, or *auda*, for so the Syrians [say]. Which is, to make something known to another, or (which is done by the benefit of speech) to signify. Just as Homer said, *Auda* (tell me), *that you know*.

From which it is clear that the use of the word, along with the thing itself, originated with the Chaldeans. For the same Orpheus, in the same place:

*And looking to the divine Word, he attended to him.*

For he calls the divine *Logos*, the Divine Word. And there is a great difference, indeed, regarding the wickedness of one who sins, whether one speaks with ignorance or imprudence, or whether knowingly, one speaks in a way that is little Christian or impious; it matters little to the damage and the opinion of him who is offended. Truly, ^B whoever, in the writings of the prophets, reads so many illustrious things regarding the Messiah, and the attributes, who in the Chaldean books and interpretation, as often as and in whatever ways the Church has invoked the Word of the Lord (for so it is called by them), in whom all the saints, especially in the Psalmist, say they hope, and contemplates that this Word has finally come and assumed human flesh; as one who, existing as God with God always, as he also was even then, became man for our salvation and for life; it is impossible that he should not be moved when he hears this same one being called a *mythos* (fable). If this word were of an honest notion, as we do not deny it sometimes is, yet on account of the infamy of its distinct signification, it should have been banished from this usage. To omit that there is nothing in it that is common in word or definition with the word *Logos*. Which, as the holy men formulated with highest piety, so with excellent success, at the prompting and leading of the Holy Spirit, that I might omit [the customs of] the Church and of the Fathers, who are wont to mark the dogmas of the ^C heretics with the same word. *For as the Arian myths, for as the myths of Eunomius*, when they speak of heresies. And Theodoret inscribed the book he edited on heresies, *On Heretical Myth-making*. In which he never or rarely calls their dogmas and opinions anything other than *myths*. Among other things: *And indeed the myths of the ancient heresies, gathered from the ancient teachers of the Church.* How much more wisely Gregory the Theologian [spoke]! Who of this Word:

*Yielding to the Word of the great God; who covers all the changeable and manifold myth of the human mind.*

Where he not only separates that subsistent *Logos* from this profane word, but also justly opposes it to it. When the most holy evangelist in verse 4 said, *And the*

light of men*, he did not speak distinctly; he created a compound, for he said: *And the life-giving light of men was the all-nurturing life*. Thus, he confuses the predicate and the subject; for he meant, *And this life was the light of me*n. Add to this that the principal function of that life, which is treated here, is not to nourish, but to vivify: for that life is self-life which he understands here. A fixed manner of life or living is what the Greeks elegantly call *politeia* (policy). Ecclesiastical writers do the same. Thus, "lofty *politeia*" in Nyssen, by which one has wholly consecrated oneself to God, in the *Laudatio Basilii*: "When someone, through a lofty *politeia*, is translated from earth to heaven." Hence "eremitic *politeia*", the life of hermits: such as John embraced. Photius says: "And Leontius, who chose the eremitic *politeia* and the solitary life." Whence John himself is called by Theodoret "citizen of the desert": "The citizen of the desert, who threatened the corrector of all cities." Or, "desert-citizen." The monastic garb ^A 76 is by way of imitation of the desert-citizen and Baptist John; for his garment was of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins. Germanus the Confessor. In the same way, the manner of life which each one used, the heretics and those like them called *politeia*. So, when the Massalian heretics, or Euchites, were called by the idle *Vacantini*, and in Greek *Bachantinoi*, Synesius called that word common to their *politeia*, proper to their life and conversation. In such a way our author, being quite inaccurate, when he wished to say "citizen of the desert," said "denizen of the waste." As if because *asty* (city) and *polis* (city) are sometimes the same, and likewise *astos* and *polites* (citizen) are the same, just as now authors had made their own in that sense, as they had made the word *politeia*. This is that in verse 6: *There was a certain mountain-roaming citizen of the desert waste.* Since he said *baptisma archegonon* (primordial baptism) in the same place, *Herald of the primordial baptism*; I think he looked to the opinion of some of the Greek interpreters, who from the beginning of creation, where the Hellenists say, *that the Spirit of God was borne above the water*, wished the grace of baptism to be understood. Theodoret in *Quaestiones in Genesin*: "To some, it seems that the Holy Spirit vivifies the nature of the waters, and maps out the grace of baptism." Procopius in *Genesin*: "But some say that the grace of the holy baptism is also hinted at immediately from the foundation of the world." Those who referred the Spirit, of whom Moses speaks there, to the Holy Spirit, undoubtedly gave rise to this interpretation. How ancient this opinion is, the Jerusalem Targum teaches. From which ^B *Spiritus gratia* (the grace of the Spirit), which is borne above the waters, is spoken of. That *archegonon* (primordial) is a word which ancient theologians use in the matter 77 of creation is certainly clear. Caesarius in *Dialogo 1*, quest. 62: "Who made the darkness? Was it primordial, or did the devil make it?" and in *Dialogo 3*: "And why is the primordial day not called the first by Scripture?" as also that, that the Syrians in the formulas of baptism remember the Spirit who brooded upon the waters: the thing which they express by that word, the mention of which is made in creation. The Evangelist Matthew thus interprets the name Jesus, *For He shall save His people*, which is truly *laossóos* (people-saving). Why then does he attribute to the Baptist what was the Lord's? To the Forerunner what is the King's, who arrives in the flesh, and whom the evangelist here so solicitously distinguishes? Unless he interpreted John's name in this way. For he says in the same place, *His name is divine John, the people-saver.* When that which is said to be proper, by itself, belongs to Jesus, and that name, by the very authority of the Holy Spirit, is interpreted. *And you shall call*, says the evangelist, *His name Jesus; for He Himself shall save His people from their sins.* Where Theophylactus rightly: "Here he interprets Jesus, what it signifies: that He is Savior. For He Himself, he says, shall save His people: not only the Jewish, but also the Gentile, who has made haste to believe and to become His people. But whence shall He save? Is it perhaps from wars? No; but from their sins." And then he adds: "Whence it is clear that He who is to be born is God; for it is for God alone to forgive sins." Whence it appears that it is God who was about to be born, because it is for God alone to save from sins, or to forgive sins. The Greeks themselves also, in their *Menaea*, after they have adorned the most holy Baptist in their own way with so many titles, excellently call him "the one preparing the way of salvation." But I would not call the *kosmou metera* (mother of the world) that faith, about which the evangelist speaks in the next verse, when he says, 78 *that all might believe through him*. For it is thus: *They might have right faith as the eternal mother of the world.* For whether you take the word *kosmos* (world) properly for the whole race of men, it is said ill, since there are many ^C faithless and infidels in it; or, as John commonly uses that word in the manner of the Hebrews, *the world* and *the faithful* are opposed. Whence those, *They are not of the world; I pray not for the world; the world hated them.* And, could he have been ignorant of what follows, *and the world did not know Him*? which others of the theologians interpret as the common, turbulent, and senseless people, that is, of the plebs and the seditious, others of the wicked, some of the Jews. St. August. *Tract. in Joannem* 77: "For 'world' is said in this place of those whom he immediately subjoined and said: 'He who does not love me, does not keep my words.' Idem *Tract.* 95: 'If the world did not know Him,' that is, infidel men, with whom the world is full throughout the whole orb of the earth." Theophylactus on the Jews in the tenth and seventeenth chapters of John: "He frequently calls the Jews the world." August. *Tract.* 89 on the same: "Christ spoke to the Jews, and not to other nations. In them, therefore, he wished the world to be understood, which hates Christ and His disciples: nay, in truth, not them alone, but he showed that these also pertain to the same world." He should at least have considered that the prince of this world is called the devil by this most holy man. *Now the prince of this world shall be cast out*, ch. xii, v. 31. You see, therefore, what is to be thought of this compound, and how it is not taken from the custom of the author, so that I may pass over the *hypallage*, which is undoubtedly unpleasant. For he wished *atermonos metera kosmou* (eternal mother of the world). Nor do they think rightly who distinguish otherwise. Since the evangelist said in the eighth verse: *That man was not the Light, but that he might bear witness 79 concerning the Light*, our author expressed it thus, *Truly he was not the intellectual Light*, he would have spoken far more prudently, *Truly he was not this light*. Or for the sake of those who took all these things concerning the Holy Spirit: whom they said was necessarily and always called *phaos* (light), whom Chrysostom refutes quite prolixly. Add that the Father is *phaos noeron* (intellectual light), and the Spirit is, not only the Son. Justin Martyr *Exposit. fidei*: "For the light from light generatedly shone forth; but the light, from light also, but processionally proceeded." Just as the Father is *phaos* (light), true and *anarchon* (without beginning), he himself is the fountain of divinity indeed: John was also a light, but not that light, of which we are now speaking, he says. Whence that in our author, *He was the burning and shining lamp*, how it is said not once in the Greek *Menaea*. On which occasion Augustine and those who are with him elegantly said that one light, of which he speaks here, is illuminated, and the other is illuminating. It can indeed be called a light, and is well called a light itself, but an illuminated one, ^D not an illuminating one. And therefore, do not discern one thing as light that is illuminated, and another that illuminates. The most holy evangelist, in the thirteenth verse, in order to describe the spiritual regeneration of the children of God, wards off every lewd and foul pleasure from it; for he denies that such are born of blood and flesh, or of the will of that, or that this nobility arises from grace, when

^A he altogether denies that it is the beginning of another life. Wherefore he would have abstained from this most foul term if he had applied it. For the word *apoūv*, which is in itself honest, others—and he himself in the *Bacchics*, and not in one place only (for this is almost customary for him)—transfer to obscenity. As one who might also call that part of the body, which cannot be expressed while preserving modesty, *arotron*, Dionys. XVIII:

80 Cut the male ear of the father's unwedded [ploughshares. For at times obscenity arises from proportion: which the usage of translation or a similarity to the thing itself produces. And yet he repeated this also: Nor even this itself: The marriage-bed—a bringer of love—pleased not the flesh, But they are born as children of the God-Parent, without man.

Which is not to avoid, but to show one's lack of shame thoughtlessly and imprudently. How much more circumspect, however, are the Hebrews: who, although they scarcely admit suggestive words, if any such seem to exist even in appearance, they soften them with a most elegant change of vowels, or divert them to another meaning. The Incarnation, or *Enanthropesis*, the most holy evangelist has described in few words, but most effectively: "And the Word became flesh." Where the Word, who assumed flesh, denotes the Son of God, the flesh, the man assumed, the assumption of it, and the ineffable conjunction of both natures in one person: and to show that this was absolute, he says not that he assumed flesh, but that he became it. But what did he intend, when in the following verse he used the word *autotelestos* in this mystery? To me, indeed, it does not seem a matter of doubt that what others call *autoteles*, our author here calls *autoteleston*. Unless it be taken adverbially. Truly, those things are *autotele* to which nothing more is lacking or wanting for their perfection. And thus the Pythagorean Ocellus, who frequently uses this word, defines the universe as *systēma tōn holōn physeōn autoteles kai teleion*. And theologians, when they discuss the Son ^B and his filiation, have transferred the word to their own disputations. And the great Athanasius: "Not a spoken Word, not one internal, not an emanation of the Perfect one, not a division of the impassible nature, nor a projection, but a Son *autotelē*, living and acting."

81 By these words he means this, that the Word of God, or the Sermon, is not a word which is either conceived in the mind, or uttered by the voice, nor a stream or segment or particle, or anything of the same kind, which is derived from that perfect and immutable nature of his, or brought forth, but that the Son of God is perfect, living, and endowed with the power of acting. Just as he also calls *to autoteles tēs hypostaseōs* the true and altogether absolute hypostasis of the Son: "As the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom he wills." He does not say that he does this separated from the Father according to energy, but he teaches us *to autoteles tēs heautou hypostaseōs*, in his fifth dialogue *On the Trinity*. Truly, if I can judge anything concerning this passage, our author, when he saw that it is somewhat more that the Word is said by the most holy John to have become flesh, than what others call *ensarkōthēnai*, to excuse the weakness of the word, added *to autoteleston*. Which in this place is *autotelōs*. So that the sense is, "And the Word *autotelōs* was made flesh," that is, he assumed the whole flesh, or man. For two natures, says Anastasius, we recognize in the mystery of the incarnation: the human, namely, and the divine: *hōs einai ton auton Hyion, Theon teleion, kai anthrōpon teleion*, that is, in such a way that both the perfect man and God are the same Son here. For I do not believe he called the Word himself *autoteleston*: as the interpreters imagined. For the things he adds clearly look to the union, not to this perfection of persons. Unless I am mistaken, he meant this, "And the Word *autotelōs* was made flesh, so that he became a God-man." But he attempted, though with little prudence, what he could not do. For just as, when they said *Theos kai anēr*, they expressed ^C the natures most excellently, and thus they are accustomed to speak, so when they said 82 *theanthrōpon*, they expressed the union, for the sake of which that word was devised, with care and success. Which does not proceed further in the other case. For we do not say *Theos kai anēr* in the same way, nor is the compound from them easily spoken; for in paronyms the ratio is different, as when the ancient Fathers treat *peri tōn theandrikōn energeiōn*. Wherefore the reason escaped him. And especially, because he brought forth those two things, *Theos* and *anēr*, which are neither compound nor joined by a copula, separately and distinctly, whereas he is treating here of the union, which, I say, he himself called in the following verse a *desmon*: And the Word *autotelestos* was made flesh, a God-man, Born late, pre-existent, in an ineffable bond Having united the divine to a mortal-seeming form.

Wherefore he should have at least said *Theos kai anēr syndetikōs*, so that, if I say the soul and body are a man, because they are united hypostatically, they perfect the man. The ancients sometimes say *theanthrōpon*. Caesarius dial. 4, quest. 189, *ho theanthrōpos diakeleuetai*. Now, that he thought *to autoteles* and *to autoteleston* to be the same, belongs to the forum of the grammarians, who, if I am not mistaken, will not admit this. For if *autotelestos* in this place is an appositive to the Word, so as to say this, that the whole Word, or Sermon, was made flesh, in the schools of the theologians an account will have to be rendered. Concerning which the great Athanasius, against the Arians, orat. 3: "For just as hearing John, 'The Word became flesh,' we do not think the Word is completely flesh, but that he put on flesh, and became man." And elsewhere, "He put on the man." So that through the whole *kataperychōresin* (for so they call this complex), just as the soul through the body, the divinity penetrates and is diffused. Which when it puts on that, it does not become because of that what it puts on, nor does it cease to be what it was. Certain things are 83 more perilous: which, I would scarcely admit, if a precedent of the ancients were available, or would rashly concede to a Christian poet. Such is that he called the Savior, or his truly human nature (for we shall speak elsewhere of the word *morphēs*), in the place we have now brought forward, *brotocidē*. By which, indeed, he could have abstained for the sake of Manes, Eutyches, Dioscorus, and others: of whom the former used to say that the Lord appeared in the flesh *phantasia psilē kai schēmati diakenō sōmatos anthrōpinou*, this is, by a bare imagination, and a vain form of a human body; the others said that he was made man only in appearance: which *brotocidē*, if I am not mistaken, you may interpret conveniently. Not to mention Marcion and the Manichaeans, who urged *tēn peri phantasias dokēsin* in the flesh. For this is the same as if someone were to call God and his nature, or at least the divine [nature] in Christ, *theoeidē*. Yet Homer himself does not call men gods in this way: namely, those who approach them most nearly in the form of body or mind. Nor indeed can a true man be more truly called *brotocidēs*. And who would bear for Titius or Seius to be called so? How much less he, who if he was *brotocidēs*, neither truly put on that which can die, nor even died truly. And Leo the First says excellently: "He who does not think the cross of the Lord is false, and does not doubt that the punishment undertaken for the salvation of the world was true, whose death he believes, recognizes also the flesh," *Epistle to Flavian*. And Ignatius, whom the most great Theodoret praises, says excellently: "If the Lord assumed flesh imaginarily, I also now am in bonds imaginarily for his sake": *Ei gar tō dokein tauta eprachthe hypo tou Kyriou hēmōn, kagō tō dokein dedemai*. And I do not say the cause, he says, lest I be insane, who have addicted myself to death for his sake. Add that the devil can be so called. But that Antichrist will be such, Hippolytus, bishop and 84 martyr, prophesies in his book *On the Consummation of the Age*; for it will be that he assumes flesh, *all’ en dokēsei*. Which is what else, than that he will be *brotocidēs*? By which name he is also noted, when the Apostle, 11 Thess. II, 3, expressly calls him the man of sin. But concerning the flesh of the Lord, whom the same one luculent! *Ho gar*

our God has settled among us in the flesh, and the flesh of our own, which He Himself made for Adam and for all those from Adam, without sin—that is to say: for our God truly dwelt with us in this flesh, a flesh such as ours, which He Himself fashioned and created for Adam and all who come from him, yet without sin. The ancients, being very refined, called the union of both natures a *synodos*: for they often join these two, the *enōsis* and the *synodos* of the natures. Our author, together with them, also placed the term *syzygia* there when he said: *Having yoked the sacred, mortal-seeming form.* That this word was used by the ancients in this way, there is no room for doubt. We know that we ourselves have used it regarding the Trinity, with the meaning of relation or *schesis*. Thus, those things which are said of the Son, because they presuppose the Father, are wont to be called *syzyga*. Even as when He is called *apaugasma* or *charaktēr*, He from whom these derive this quality is necessarily understood. Therefore, they are called *syzyga* in the Trinity, of which each single one is so used that there is nothing in them which is considered alone and by itself, but it presupposes by this very fact something else, the other of which being removed, the former is also removed. Thus, if there is a Son, there is also a Father, and if there is a Father, there is also a Son. But likewise, he who removes the Son removes the Father. Thus, if there is the Wisdom of God, the one to whom this Wisdom belongs also exists. These are the *syzygiai*, as is proved at length elsewhere by the Nyssen, who uses this argument to prove that *he who denies the Son, denies also the Father*, because he who does not admit the Son, rejects the Father along with Him. Such a relation does not exist in [created] natures. For it is not the case that he who says "human" therefore understands "divine" by itself. Wherefore in these cases it is a *synodos* rather than a *schesis*; yet he did not speak rashly or merely for the sake of supporting the verse, although he loves that word, but rather he spoke thus out of precedent. Nor am I forced to condone the fact (whether through forgetfulness or for the sake of the verse I know not) that he called John, who foretold the coming of the Lord, an *prōtangellos* in the following line. For he writes thus: *But holy John, the proto-messenger of the flesh-bearing Word, confirmed the witness voice.* Clearly, just as he had already called the Lord, before His coming, the *phaos akērykton*, the unproclaimed light, in line 8: *And the herald of the unproclaimed light appeared.* But if we believe this, let us also believe, if it seems right, that there was no one who foretold the coming of the Lord: that there was no one who brought forth any announcement in testimonies concerning the Savior before His coming. This is the opinion of the Manichaeans. Hence Faustus, of this sect, in Augustine: "Why, you ask, do you not accept the prophets? Nay, rather, say you, if you have any reason, why we ought to accept the prophets." "Because of the testimonies," you say, "which they pronounced concerning Christ." "I for my part have found none, although I have read them quite attentively and with the utmost curiosity." And yet, this itself is a confession of an idle faith: to believe in Christ without witness or argument. To which St. Augustine replied: "Faustus is surely working toward this with all these words, that we should believe that the Hebrew prophets neither foretold anything about Christ, nor—if they did foretell it—that the testimonies before us are of any profit, nor that they themselves lived according to the dignity of those same testimonies," in the twelfth book against Faustus the Manichaean. After which he accurately adduces every single one of the prophecies concerning Christ. The same author [says] in Tractate 36 on John: "Before our Lord Jesus Christ came, He ignited and sent many prophetic lamps before Himself. Of these was also John the Baptist: to whom the Light Himself, which is the Lord Christ, offered a testimony such as no man has ever received. For He says, *Among those born of women, there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist*." How then did He come *akēryktos* (unproclaimed)? Without a harbinger or messenger, I ask? How is he called a *prōtangellos* (first-messenger), he who had so many and such great predecessors? But he spoke through forgetfulness, and wishing to support the term that the Church is accustomed to call the *proangellos* (pre-messenger), he preferred to call him *prōtangellos* out of pity for the meter, lest it cause a collapse. As if *prōtodromos* and *prodromos* were the same thing.

^D Yet he is so named, who precedes and goes before a leader for the sake of either measuring out or sometimes scouting, from which his [the leader's] arrival is judged. This is what Synesius intended. "Leaders," he says, "arrive, *hous ouch horōntes*, whom when we do not see, we know from the precursors that they will be present." And sometimes for the Hellenists, *prodromein* means nothing other than to announce by running ahead. For which purpose soldiers were employed by commanders, so that nothing might be unready when they arrived. Whence in his *Meneiae*, the Greeks call the Baptist, among other things, a soldier and forerunner of Christ. For they call him both *the boundary among the prophets*, and *the beginning of the apostles*, and *an earthly angel*, and *the voice of the Word*, and *the forerunner and soldier of Christ*, in the sense that I have already stated. And Elizabeth says there to Mary: "You shall carry the King, and I the soldier." Which sometimes happened with others as well. Whence the angel added to Tobias, just as the Hellenists speak there: *Let us run before the woman*, and let us prepare the house, which Malachi had already stated: *He shall prepare the way before my face*. This passage of Malachi, indeed, not to speak of Isaiah, who accepts it concerning Christ, cannot, if I am not much mistaken, be used to name John *akēryktos* (unproclaimed) or *first of the angels*. To omit now that *prodromos* and *stratēgos*, precursor and leader or commander, are altogether relative terms, and are referred to each other by a certain necessity. Moreover, it was the prerogative of the greatest of men that, just as the others announced that He would come, he alone announced that He was coming, and thereby got there first. Chrysostom says remarkably: "The prophets and all the apostles, indeed, proclaimed Him as absent; and some [did so] before the coming in the flesh, others after the assumption; but this [John] alone [proclaimed Him] as present; wherefore he is also called the friend of the bridegroom." Add that, just as the Greeks, who called John an earthly angel, misunderstood the word, so it was with him. For in Malachi, from whom he is called *angelos*, God speaks after the manner of men. For He did not understand a spirit, but a man, in that place, who is indeed truly illustrious: *Behold, I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face, and the Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to His temple; and the angel of the covenant whom you desire. Behold he comes, saith the Lord almighty.* For there is an ambiguity in the word *malach*, which the Hellenists, as is their habit, have rendered ambiguously. Whence the Greeks, in order to extol the Baptist, seem to have accepted it not for a messenger but for a spirit: which there was no need to do. So that in the same way he errs in both cases, when he called both the arrival of our Lord in the flesh (of which we spoke before) *akēryktos*, and His precursor—after so many messengers—a *prōtangellos*. Not a few things, as we were already warning, adhered to him, whether from pagan custom, or from reading and recollection. As when he called God *autogenethlon* in line 18: *And God, self-born, in the opposite sights, / No one ever beheld.*

^D Just as they also said *autoparakton*, which is the same as *autopoiētos* or *autogenētos*, the *Questions and Answers to the Greeks*, which is inscribed thus far as Justin's, shows. Among other things: "If God is without beginning and eternal, He is neither *autoparakton* nor *heteroparakton*; for the *autoparakton* is in no way eternal and without beginning." If, he says, it lacks a beginning, and God is eternal, He is neither produced by Himself nor by another; for he who is produced by himself can by no reason be eternal or lack a beginning. And among other things about that word [he says] much: "There is no difference between *aparakton* and *autogenous*; but if God is *autoparakton*, then both God and the world will be *autoparakton* and *autogenētos*." And elsewhere he shows that *autoparakton*, *autopoieton*, and *autogenēton* are the same thing. Hesychius: *Autogenēs, autogenethlos*. Add to this what the scholastics testify, that God is not only eternal, but that His eternity is Himself. Which if true, [then] it is false that *autogenethlon* is the same [as eternal]. For thus, He is neither eternal, nor eternity, but rather a beginning.

^A *autophyton* (self-born), *autogonos* (self-generated), *autogenethlos* (self-originated), ^B or *autogeneis* (self-created), with similar terms, are to be relegated to whence they unwillingly brought their foot here. The Sacred Scriptures, that they might express the supreme majesty of God, which human condition does not grasp, assign to Him a seat in heaven: of which they make the Son (as the Fathers are accustomed to speak of the entire Trinity) a participant. And they call Him *homophroneon* 91 [co-thinking] from it, just as the Psalmist called God *ho kathemenos* [the One who sits]. Indeed, *ho kathemenos ap’ arches* [the One who sits from the beginning], Ps. liv, 20. And, because it places His majesty with supreme power far from our disturbances and mutability, He is said to have sat in the flood, so that *to bebaion, kai aperiphoiton*, that is, supreme stability, might be noted. Just as the Son, so that *to achoriston*, and, as Gregory the Theologian speaks, *to ameriston*, that is, supreme and inseparable conjunction, might be shown, comm. 18, is placed in the bosom of the Father. Where our [author] has not once managed the matter very poorly. For firstly, since it is customary for theologians, when they oppose the persons of the Trinity among themselves or treat of them together, to distinguish them hypostatically, ours on the contrary, when he speaks here of the Father and the Son, called the Father *amometos*, or "blameless," not reverently enough nor considerately. Which apposition Homer attributes to his Polydamas. But it is such that it neither befits that person [the Father] nor [the one] whom he joins to the Son. For who would call God, let alone that true, ineffable, and eternal Father of the eternal Son, "blameless"? Which word neither proposes essence nor declares hypostatic property, that is, *oute ten ousian parestesen, oute ten hypostasin*. How much better, therefore, ^C would he have spoken *homodoxon agennetoio Tokeos* [of the same glory as the unbegotten Offspring]? Except that *Tokeos*, which always pleased them, does not please us; a word which not even Homer attributes to his Jove. Meanwhile, in this way, he would have spoken more conveniently of both, and according to the usage of the ancients. The other thing is that, while the evangelist implies that both are sitting, it pleased our [author], however, not otherwise than if God the Father were the first unmoved mover, and the Son followed this motion of His, *homophoiton*, that is, co-walker, of the blameless Father, or, companion of that motion, 92 with supreme contumely to both, as I have already said, to call [Him] *homophoiton amometoio Tokeos*.

For *phoin* is said of any good and polite man. But how is *homophoitos*, or to walk or be moved with him, said (for so the interpreters render it), if He is in the bosom of the Father? For this seat, as it is *hedraios* [stable], so is it quiet; the other, however, [is] wandering and unstable. And he did not even think that *to phoitan* (which cannot be rightly used here even in an honest sense) is also an infamous word, which is used concerning Venus and fury. Whence *phoitos*. But truly he has no concern. The Bacchides of Plautus are *homophoitoi*. The two Agyrtae of Cybele who rave and wander about in like manner are *homophoitoi*. Osiris, and gods like him, whose images were accustomed to be carried about and wander, were called *phoitetai*. Whence our [author] rightly, in a profane writing, called him so. And so it must be said, that it cannot be sufficiently said for the sake of youth: that a man who has merited best of sacred things either by example or labor, has indulged himself so much in these matters, that he appears to have left us rehashed paganism for sacred poetry in many places. *Thyas, euazein, krotos, orgia*, for the feast of Pascha; *komos*, a word plainly infamous and proscribed, for sacred festivities, and especially the feast of Tabernacles; *Thalusia*, which is the feast of Ceres, for the worship of God; *gai- ^D ochos*, by which name Neptune is called by them, for the Son of God; the apposition of Minerva, *promachos*, for the same Wisdom of God, which created all things *aponeti*; *alexikakos*, by which word Hercules is celebrated by them, is transferred to the same [Christ]. Which, as they are used without measure, so they are used without reverence.

The most holy evangelist says a little later, *Kai haute estin he martyria tou Ioannou*, 93 *hote apesteilan hoi Ioudaioi ex Hierosolymon hiereis kai Leuitas*. Which words of the evangelist our [author] received thus, as if

^A this embassy were of the priests and Levites, to which the other, of the Pharisees, soon follows. In the opinion of Origen, who understood two embassies to be here, even though the evangelist soon says clearly, *And they who were sent were from the Pharisees*. Which Epiphanius also confirms: *And he immediately showed, how to those sent to John the Baptist by the Pharisees, John himself answers, saying, I am the voice of one crying*, etc., book 1 on the history and sect of the Ebionites. Concerning which, more below. I shall state now that he who wishes these priests to be others than the Pharisees—which would best befit the Pharisees—has attributed [the attribute] to these priests. For no one was more vigilant in that sect, nor did anyone practice *agrypnia* (vigil) from set purpose more than they. For some, as is found in Epiphanius, used to prepare small planks from those [materials], upon which they would lie, so that if they were ever pressed by sleep, they would straightway fall to the ground, and by this method return to themselves; others, during the night, would lie upon flints, others upon prickly thorns. They looked to nothing else but that they might drive sleep from themselves and repel it by every means. Wherefore this was to be attributed to them rather than to priests of any other sect, especially when many of the Pharisees were themselves priests, and this the evangelist himself would seem to demand. The words of Epiphanius concerning this *agrypnia* of theirs are as follows; for we have already explained the sense in passing: *Some would fasten planks to themselves a span in width, and would place themselves upon these at evening, so that if one were to doze, and were to fall to the ground, he might be aroused again to prayer, in order to keep his life wakeful in accordance with what is possible. Others, gathering pebbles, would spread them out for themselves so that by them they might not be carried off into deep sleep, but might be forced to supply themselves with wakefulness; others also had a bed of thorns, for the same purpose*. Wherefore, just as it often happens to travelers in a foreign land that, when once they have lost their way, they frequently turn aside and finally wander off the entire road, the same has happened here to our author, who did not even believe the evangelist that these things were to be understood of the Pharisees. And not even to himself, who here attributes them to the priests, whom he separates below from the Pharisees, although it was a property of the Pharisees, namely the *agrypnia*. For below he posits another embassy than this of the Pharisees, verse 25. Where he says: *And another faithless chorus of sinning Pharisees / Was sent*. But he has not always well expressed the attributes which he had found in the Holy Scriptures. As when in verse 21 he said of Elijah, who is called *Thesbites* from the city, *a citizen of Thesbite soil*. For Elijah's city, Thisbe or Thesbe, was of the land of Gilead or Gilad. Whence Elijah is called *ho Thesbites*, signifying Galaad, a citizen of Thesbite [territory], inhabitant of Gilead, 3 Reg. XVII, verse 4. Which place the Hellenists changed. Therefore, whether he understood the city, he wrongly called it *aroures* (soil), or whether the region, he less correctly called it *aston* (citizen). Although he is fond of this *achuron*. Josephus follows the Scriptures distinctly and after the manner of the sacred letters. Who said, *prophet of the most great God from the city of Thesbone, of the Galaitid region*, prophet of the most great God, from the city of Thesbone, of the Galaitid region, he said. There follows, in the following verse: *And the bold throng said of the unwashed-feet priests*. Which is a Homeric *kakozelia*, to be illustrated here in passing. Homer, in the sixteenth [book] of the Iliad, when he describes the religion of the Dodonaean Zeus in passing, called his priests *aniptopodas* (unwashed-footed): 95 *And around [him] dwell the Selloi / Interpreters, unwashed-footed, sleeping on the ground*. Which word gave, as usual, argument and occasion for arguing to the critics there. For some wished them to be so called because they were both chaste and did not leave the shrine, and therefore they thought they had no need even of the washing of feet. And that this itself was an indication of purity. As Euripides said of such in his Erectheus: «984 feet they do not moisten with springs.» To which the most learned Hesychius referred when he interpreted *aniptopodas* as «those who, out of purity, have no need to wash.» Others wished severity to be signified in this way, because by institution and intent they judged that not even the grit of their feet should be washed away. For in that way they had persevered strongly in their institution: for they were very studious of simplicity. Concerning which Philostratus in his *Imagines* [says]: *The interpreters of Zeus, whom Homer knew as unwashed-footed and sleeping on the ground, are a kind of impromptu men, and not yet furnished in their way of life; and they say they would not even be furnished: for Zeus is pleased with them, since they greet everything from its source*. He says they are pleasing to Zeus by that name, because they embrace simplicity. Andron, an old writer, [says] they were military men who, by that austerity, and, as the Greeks better express it, *skleragogia* (harsh training), hardened both soul and body. Others, and among them a certain Alexander, [say] they were a people originating from the Tyrrhenians: who, according to the institution of their own race, thus honored and celebrated Zeus. And this, our author did not so much examine as seize upon and make a prize for his own ostentation. Which, if we wish to confess the truth, succeeded very poorly. For since the Pharisees are understood here, that this sect was especially devoted to ablutions, 96 no one, unless he is a stranger to the Scriptures, is ignorant. And concerning hands, and their frequent washing, the evangelist Mark [speaks], in a place already praised by many. Nor indeed is there any doubt concerning the feet, since individual Jews also, even often for friends, either for the sake of refreshment, or because this part was especially unclean, would studiously wash their feet. Whence the Truth itself says, *He who has been washed has no need except to wash his feet, but is clean all over*. I will not omit that it was customary in the East to wash the feet also before a meal. That the Pharisees therefore did this is likely, both at other times and as often as they discharged their duties in the temple by their stations and turns. Concerning which matter, the most high and incomparable Joseph Scaliger is to be consulted in his dissertation with Serrarius. For, that they washed the whole body both frequently and according to the custom of the Orient, reason and practice dictate. Which the Sacred Scripture says is *baptizesthai* (to be baptized). For I do not believe they bathed their feet when they immersed themselves into a fountain or bath, [as if] they exposed them with a covering. Certainly not more than the matrons of the Jews, who, when after childbirth, before they join themselves to their husbands, are accustomed in cisterns, fountains, and pools to *baptizesthai*, and to immerse themselves entire, so that they have no part of the body unclean or untouched by the water. That other Jews, and especially the Hemerobaptists, did this diligently, no one is unaware, especially since there were Hemerobaptists even among the Pharisees. And all these things, when he either did not know, or feigned ignorance of, or, what is closer to the truth, in order to transfer what was gathered here from the myrothecia (perfume-boxes) of Homer, he called the priests *aniptopodas*, as if they were either not Pharisees who were priests, or that what is attributed to priests was alien to the Pharisees, although he himself admits a little later 97 that these who were washed most accurately and most frequently were priests and Pharisees. Just as Mark notes that they did the same when they returned from the marketplace. Which is also to be referred to the feet. For these parts were often unclean and touched things that were far from chaste, even against their will. Nor is it to be doubted that that eremitic Pharisee, whose very frequent, and indeed nightly as well as daily, washings Josephus celebrates, applied himself especially to the washing of his feet. I, among the other *lektikas* (lexical) virtues of the Holy Scriptures, admire the simplicity and *apheleian* (guilelessness), which I do not easily suffer to be encrusted either by other writers or by poets. What Matthew had said concerning the Baptist, *of whom I am not worthy to carry the shoes*, our evangelist said a little differently, in verse 27, *I am not worthy to unloose his shoe strap*. Which simplicity our author thus interpolated:

^A *Of a foot’s extremity* *Andromelian palm I am not worthy to approach* *To loose the sole strap of the God-breathed sandal.*

For first, what is it to "approach the palm to the extremity of the foot," when he meant "to the tip of the foot"? And who speaks Greek in this way? For it cannot even be excused by ellipsis, which occurs quite often with poets. Then, what does he call the *tip of the foot* (ἄκρον πόδα)? For this term properly belongs to this passage in that sense which ancients usually refer to the sole or the extremity of the toes. As when Apollonius says that Amycus stood in wrestling "in the extremities of his feet" (ἀκροτάτοισι ποσίν). This the Latin poet calls "standing erect on his toes." But he was not thinking that it was a question here of a thong or a sandal fastening; much less even that the Jews wore sandals on their shins. Whence the most learned Tertullian attributes a *caliga* (military boot) to Moses: he finished his 98 very fastidious scouting for his feet, beginning to step on holy ground, indeed a military *caliga*. Which, by way of the leg, it encompassed with a thong or strap; which, from the surrounding (ambiendo), is called by the Hebrews, and the same way by the Hellenists, *sphairotēra*. And so, what is called *himanta* (strap) in our Augustino, is called *sphairotēra* (sphere-binder) by Gregory. This is therefore the same as if someone placed our leggings on the tip of his foot. Wherefore, he involves himself in the greatest difficulties with this *periergia* (needless curiosity).

No less than those who, from the occasion of this passage, inquire whether the Lord walked in these lands shod or unshod. So much so that, even regarding parts (such curiosity was in the smallest matter), it has come to this. For just as the later writers, Arbulensis, Dionysius the Carthusian, Bonaventura, and Lyra, prove this: so the former, from this passage of Mark and Matthew, among others, Chrysostom in *Ad populum Antiochenum* and Blessed Augustine prove it. Since it was not said properly, but *kata paroimias tropon* (in the manner of a proverb) by the most holy evangelists. For they treat of the most worthless and abject part. As when Amos complains of selling the just for a shoe. And yet it can hardly be said how many allegories the greatest men have drawn from this. Which, if anyone cares for them, *kat’ ei tini*, just as the ancient theologians speak, *anagogais te kai theōriais* (by anagoges and contemplations), he may go to them if he wishes, in my place. For us, it is enough that a most lowly ministry is signified. So that from this the greatest humility of the most excellent man may appear. *To gar hypodēma lysai, tēs eschatēs diakonian esti* (For to unloose the shoe is of the lowest ministry). To unloose a shoe, the ancients say, is a most worthless and despised ministry. Among whom are also Augustine and Theophylact. But Jews used the Canaanite servants for this duty, as being vile. For those who take this regarding property argue no less. Furthermore, not content, 99 he called that part which is proverbially belittled by the greatest man, "sacred," and even called it *theopneuston* (God-breathed): as if the gift of prophesying also belonged to it, which the Baptist so depressed—nay, without which his divine humility and modesty cannot be understood. Therefore, he would have done better to abstain from these additions, as in most other things, with him whom he interprets. For absurdity led to absurdity. Because he had said "Andromelian palm," he called the shoe "God-breathed." Which the Jews would not read without laughter, namely, that the Holy Spirit, or the prophetic [Spirit], is placed in the sandals of the Messiah. When there was no need for this, nor that. How much more simply, therefore, he could have said:

*Whose strap* *I am not worthy to unloose, and of the extreme sandal.*

A little later, namely in the thirty-third verse, when it is said by the same John:

*Who cleanses the body of men meant for rebirth* *With fireless and breathless baths,*

the reason escapes him when he thought that *apneustois* (breathless) is the same as *apneumaton* (spiritless). Which, without any affectation, the Fathers more willingly said of *pneuma*, like Gregory and others. For *apneustos* is "he who does not breathe," who does not respire, but not "he who is not inspired or blown upon." Hesychius: *Apneustos*, *ho mē pneōn kata physin* (he who naturally does not breathe). For he looked to the Homeric passage:

^D *Who breathless and speechless* *Lies weak.*

Such are those whom mind and spirit fail: whom we call *leipothymountas* (fainting). Such is that most noble and much celebrated *apnous* (breathless), which Galen mentions, and about which Heraclitus had written a book. Such are those who are said by physicians to suffer from *apnoia*, as in strangulation of the womb, apoplexy, and lethargy. But to the matter from the words. 100 For the third time Matthew said the Baptist had spoken: *I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance*, and a little later concerning Christ, *but he himself will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire*. Whence the ancients, which no one is ignorant of, distinguished between the baptism of the Lord and of John. Basil calls the former *eisagōgikon* (introductory), to pass over others, and this *teleiōtikon* (perfective); the former a departure from sin, the latter a union toward God, or *hyothesias* (adoption). Just as Tertullian calls the former of preparation, the latter of perfection. Which perfection is newness of life, as Augustine is accustomed to speak, and regeneration. [*Enchiridion* ad Laurent.]: For his baptism is not in water only, as was John’s, but also in the Holy Spirit, so that everyone who believes in Christ may be regenerated by that Spirit, from whom Christ, being generated, needed no regeneration. As not once elsewhere, but even especially against the Donatists: as almost all the others [have done] from antiquity. For I do not touch on the opinion of the moderns here, nor do I dispute about the truth. And it appears that our author was indeed in that position. Who, to express his own mind, interprets what John said, *in water*, as *apyroisi kai apneustois loetroeis* (with fireless and breathless baths). I ask therefore, if he felt this way, why does he say that those baptized by him are *palingenesias* (of regeneration)? For he explicitly said *palingeneōn demas andrōn baptizei* (he baptizes the body of men meant for rebirth). But yet, those who restricted the baptism of the Forerunner to repentance, as they did the Spirit (the fount of regeneration), undoubtedly denied the regeneration. And therefore they also called his baptism *an[apneumaton]*. Where there is newness of life, as he says, there is also the innovator Spirit, as also the contrary. Whence also *palingenesia psychēs* (regeneration of the soul) is called baptism by Cyril, and *palingenesias loutron* (bath of regeneration) by Gregory the Theologian. Augustine in *Enchiridion*: *For they were not reborn, 101 those who were baptized with the baptism of John*. Our author, however, although he manifestly takes the Spirit of regeneration from them, nevertheless concedes the effect of the Spirit; for he calls them reborn. And not cautiously enough, when he withdrew the Spirit from the baptism of John and conceded regeneration again, he says that he baptized the body: which, whoever says, seems to exclude repentance itself also. Wherefore it would have been enough if he had said *baptizein andras* (to baptize men) or *anthrōpous*. Therefore he fluctuates and hesitates, or *meteōrizetai kai rembetai* (is tossed about and wanders), a deserter of both himself and the ancients. By some, one must abstain from reverence in holy things and religion. What *hypanemion* is, is known from the discussions of the philosopher and from the customary use of speaking. For *hypanemia* are those things which are imperfect, *kai atelē* (and incomplete) and of no thing. Whence *ōa hypanemia* (wind eggs), at times *ex hōn gonos ou ginetai oudeis* (from which no offspring is generated), in the book *De animalium historia*, vi, cap. 2, at other times simply *agona* (barren), as they are called elsewhere in the same books. Whence also commonly *panta ta achreia* (all useless things), whatever is useless, is indicated by this word by the Greeks. Wherefore, not reverently, nor as a theologian, has he done it, because he dared to call the Spirit of regeneration—the fount in the baptism of the Lord who consecrated it himself—by the translation *hypanêmion* in this place, which is little religious. For so in the following verse:

*Unto whom thou mightest breathe the wind-egg (hypanêmion) descending* *Spirit of God, the intellectual.*

But he intended to signify *meteōron* (sublime). But which of the poets besides him speaks thus? For the ancients call this *retakenthon*. Nor would I say the same Spirit is *Pneuma Theou noeroio*: especially, to omit that by theologians this is very often attributed not to God but to spirits who are destined for his ministry, nor [that] 102 *parum noeron kai noēton* (little intellectual and intelligible) differ . . .

in the Godhead from substance; ^A the Holy Spirit, however, differs from God. But those things which are less known are not illustrated without reason by epithets. Add that *to pneuma Theou* (the Spirit of God), among the attributes of the Son, is used by Theophilus, an ancient writer, in his book to Autolycus. I do not think it is sufficiently clear to everyone what he intended when he said of the Baptist, in verse 36, that he saw Him walking on earth (he means the Lord):

*Armathos hypsiporoio metarsion hēniochēs* "Who was the charioteer of a sublime chariot."

In this, he no doubt followed one of the Greeks who turns *cherub* into *harma* (which in the same letters, not changed but transposed, denotes the action of carrying) and thus expressed the divinity. For that of the royal Prophet is known, "He who sits upon the cherubim," and that of the same, "He rode upon the cherubim." Where the word of which I spoke now exists in Hebrew: 101, that is to say. Although the Greeks [also say] *kai epebē epi cheroubeim*. Nor should you wonder that it is expressed in the singular, for perhaps they wrote *cheroubeim*. But that this is a singular word, Suidas the grammarian dared to note among the Greeks: *Cheroubeim*, among the singulars, with a diphthong; but in the plural with *i*. A funny and witty thing. But Justin Martyr also, ^B by imitation of the Hebrews, even notes that Plato attributed a *harma* (chariot) to his Zeus, when he represents his magnificence and majesty, where he said: "The great Zeus in heaven, driving a winged chariot," because, he says, he had read in the prophets, 103 *Kai epebē epi cheroubeim*. The epithet which he used a little before is out of place, when he said:

*Ēnide pangenetao Theou schedon amnos echephrōn.* "Behold the prudent Lamb of the all-begetting God."

To which that which follows here is equal and akin:

*Outos epouranioio Theou lalos amnos hodeuei.* "This lamb of the heavenly God, gifted with speech, walks."

Many things are said by way of similitude about Christ, says St. Augustine, which are not so by propriety. By similitude Christ is a rock, he says, and Christ is a door, and Christ is a cornerstone, and Christ is a shepherd, and Christ is a lion. From this observation our [poet] sought a subtle or *gorgōteros* (vigorous) appearance, when he added the attribute *lalos*, so that he might show that the word *amnos* (lamb) is used less properly here; he added, as he thought, the propriety of a human: which is *logos*, or *legein* (to speak), which follows the difference or that which constitutes a human. Nor was he thinking that *amnos* and what he placed differed much from one another; for *to lalon* does not denote a property, but a defect. And the Greek poets, when they express that which our [poet] intended, use the word *audēeis*. How much better, therefore, would he have said:

*Ēnide kosmou pantos, amartada pasan aeirōn,* *Audēeis Theou amnos.*

And thus Homer ^C uses that word, as critics have long since noted, most notably Aristophanes. Who, he says, *Audēentes* are called, the humans, by way of distinction from other animals, that is, he usurped that word for the distinction of man from other animals. And therefore Circe and Calypso, whom he wished to be partly humans, partly goddesses—that is, as the ancients say, *sōmatikōteras theas*—he always addressed in this way. Nor was our [poet] entirely ignorant of that. For in chapter xv, v. 5, when the Lord called Himself a vine, he said *ampelon audēessan* for the sake of distinction. Just as *audēen pedaphoron*, 104 in another place. And therefore the great Scaliger had rightly marked this word with an obelisk in the margin.

CHAPTER IV

The attributes of Nonnus in the second and third chapters are examined. The passage marked at the beginning of the second chapter. *Meropes* who. The abuse of this word. *Oi tēs theias aulēs*, the Christians. The city of Chalana. Strato the Comedian. His jest ^D about the *meropes*. *Opisthokomoi* who. *Kyklēdon tonderi*. *Perikykloūn tēs kephalēs to klima* according to the interpretation of Aquila, forbidden to the Jews. *Isthē Hellenistēs* which. The *Abantes* *opistheokomoi*, and on what occasion. Hesychius in *istōthē* corrected. To shear the corners of the head. *Stephane*, *peridromos*. To surround the hair according to Tertullian. Hair cut in the shape of a wheel according to Sidonius. Whom Nonnus intended when he said *meropas opistheokomous*. The Galilaeans long-haired (*komali*), according to the opinion of Nonnus, and therefore called *tanuplokamoi* and *akersēkomoi* by him. Nazarites, or separated, who are *ēugmenoi* or *ēgiasmenoi* to the Hellenists, when they are confused by Nonnus with the Nazarenes. *Nazoraios* or *Nazēraios*. *Nazoraios* and *Nazēraios* used promiscuously by Nonnus. The absurdity of Nonnus concerning the Nazarites and Nazarenes. Nazaræus as a crown, by Nonnus *opisthokomion*. The indiscretion of Nonnus. Deceived by the word *methysthēnai*. How the word *methē* is used by the Hellenists. "No man to whom his own time [is not come]," a proverb of the Hebrews. "My hour is not yet come," a passage not understood by Nonnus. His *periergia* (excess) in epithets. *Pyratē kyklou hōra*. *Methysphaleis hymēnaioi*. *O kalos oinos*, a Hellenistic expression. *Kataibatis oimos*. *Katabainein*. Hallucination of Nonnus in the number of the disciples. *Stikta melēessi peleiades*. *Periergia* or *alogistia* of Nonnus. *Peleias* or *peristera*. What *stikton* is. *Stikta* animals which. *Trērōnes peleiades*. Bacchic words imprudently used concerning the festival of Pascha. The institution and end of that feast. Bahal Zephor. Its power and authority from the superstition of the Egyptians. *Seirim* gods of what kind. Nicodemus *aima Pharisaiōn*. "Rulers of the Jews." Nicodemus called *phios* (son) by Nonnus. The opinion of the ancients concerning him. The passage concerning heavenly and earthly things, not correctly understood by our [poet]. Christ the Lord, when his divine nature is treated, is called *theoskedos*. Many words, on account of heretics, [were] by the Fathers suppressed. *Erynganein logon*. *Pneuma Theou*. Son of God, *Logos hypourgos*. *Douratēē* 105 *akantha*, *Akantha* for a serpent. *Eudendros paradeisos* concerning life eternal, or the place of the blessed, incorrectly. *Monogenēs* concerning the Son of God, incorrectly changed into *tēlygeton*. *Tēlygetos* or *Monogenēs* who. A long dispute concerning him. This word [has been] preserved concerning the divinity of the Son in all Symbols, councils, and synods. By this word the ancients used [it] against the invectives of the *adelphotheas*, and likewise Arius and Eunomius. That *tēlygetos* suits a human and only that. *Yios gērou* (Son of old age). Wise son among the Chaldeans, who is *tēlygetos* among the Greeks. *Agapētos*, the same as *monogenēs*. [With] this word the Lord was baptized. The word *monogenēs* hated by Arius. His interpretation. In its place is the word *tēlygetos*. Petrus *thrasys* (bold) called by our [poet]. Likewise John. The same to the Greeks *philos epistēthios* (bosom-friend). The land of the Jews, a foreign land to the Lord, called [so] by our [poet]. Jerusalem and the *Ioudaion chōra*. *Saleim bathukolpōn*. Ignorance of places noted.

Everything we have undertaken must be conducted without any display or allure of words. For, as he says, "A walking of the tongue is gossip." Immediately in the second chapter, as it is now commonly distinguished, verse 2, that [passage] occurs:

*oti chthoniō para pastō* *Christos opisthokomōn meropōn thoinētori laō* *Klētos ēn syndorpos.*

Where he has joined two things equally apposed, neither of which, indeed, as it is done by him, seems to have been composed with mediocre judgment. Since the word *meropes* is an apposition or attribute which is used by Homer and others, not of a single nation, much less of a few guests, but of humans in general. And this is known by anyone who is not ignorant of Greek. Nor is it to be doubted that the poet, who took many things from the East, adorned the human race with this epithet from the writings of the Hebrews, whose language was divided in this way after the confusion which is described at length in the sacred books. From which [comes] an [attribution] to some sacred writer by Eustathius: "Indeed, those of our divine court" (so he calls the Christians) "*meropas*...

^A they say are called after the division, namely the division of the voice, which they suffered after the tower of Chalana, having been divided throughout the lands. *Chalana*, the city which he mentions, is that which is called *Chalne* by the Hebrews and Chaldeans. The Greek Hellenists, in the tenth chapter of Genesis, call it *Xala*. Therefore, as I said, this manner of speaking is inept and one which no one who speaks in the received custom and familiarly would imitate, unless perhaps he should mock, or charge another with bombast and affectation by this method. For he would be ridiculous who might call some guests or men invited to a banquet *meropas* rather than *anthropous*. This he could have been taught by the ancient comic poet Strato, in the comedy inscribed *Phoenicide*. Where he festively mocks a certain cook, a man insolent in his speech: who, among other things, would inquire with the greatest gravity of the one who had hired him how many *meropas* he had invited. Which the other, as stupid and novel, denies he can understand. Indeed, he says that he hired himself a sphinx, not a cook, whose diction no one could understand. And so, among other ineptitudes, he also sets down this:

*“I have taken a male sphinx, not a cook, into the house; for I understand absolutely nothing, by the gods, whenever he speaks; he is here having prepared strange words. For when he entered, he immediately asked me, looking at me greatly, ‘Tell me, how many meropas have you invited to dinner?’ Have I invited meropas to dinner? You are raving. Do you think I know these meropas? No one will be present. For this, by Zeus, is what is left over, to invite meropas to dinner.”*

That is, as the ancients speak: *I have brought a male sphinx into the house, upon my word, not a cook.* 107 *Who, by Pollux, I do not see at all what he means, so does he chatter with such new and musty [words]. I believe he had scarcely set foot into the dwelling, when he began to inquire, eyeing me with grave and significant [looks], “How many meropas have you just now invited to dinner?” What meropas? Am I to invite meropas? You are mad. No one is about [to come]. That, therefore, by Jove, is the one thing left, that I should invite meropas to dinner.*

For that madman, as mechanics often do now, because he had read Homer and remembered that men were sometimes called *meropas* by him, thought it a word too trite for *anthropous*. But he was doing something else, or else he was ignorant of the rites of the Jews, when he called guests who were Jews *meropas opisthocomous*. Which Homer assigns on purpose to certain nations that were better equipped than the rest in war, and therefore let their hair grow in the back. This is to be tonsured *kalthodon*. Which hair, or tonsure, Greek critics have called *trochalene*. Against which, by all means, those Jews had been forbidden, who had received the commandment, *to make a sisoen* (as the Hellenists speak) in Leviticus: which the interpreter Aquila rendered there as, *“You shall not cut around the corner/crown of your head,”* or, which is the same thing, *“not opisthocomous.”* The same thing which Homer attributes to the Abantes. Who, because they had fared badly in war several times on account of the hair hanging and prominent from the front part, which enemies would therefore grab, afterwards became *opisthocomoi* (having hair behind). Which others did as a vow (for it was a custom for many nations to nourish and vow [to dedicate] hair to the gods). But Moses seems (for regarding that passage, because they understand his mind too little, and especially, as it exists in the Greek, scholars have disputed) to have wished that the people of God should not, by the rite 108 of the rest, nourish or vow to some foreign god [hair] that had been consecrated to God. Which the Hellenists call *sisoen*: they explained the rest as *plexeidion*, as in the Collectanea which are ascribed to Suidas. And the nations seem, for the sake of the sun, to which the Orient would generally vow hair, to have tonsured their hair *sphairoden* (in a sphere). Just as when it follows there, *“And you shall not make incisions on your soul [body]”* (Leviticus 19:28), which designate a foreign and gentile religion. The vocabulary ^A *sisoen* (σισόην) the Hellenists undoubtedly made from the Hebrew *tsits* (ציץ), which they interpret as *plexeidion* (a plait), and it denotes a votive lock of hair. Hesychius [says]: *Sisocoura, roia, Phaselitae.* Write, *Sisoe, koura poia, Phaselitae.* That is, *Sisoa* is a kind of tonsure, which the Phaselites use. So that *sisoe* is, in his opinion, a word first used by the Phaselites, who, as a people of Pamphylia, were not far from Syria. It is probable that they dedicated such hair to their gods. Just as Pollux teaches that the Greeks themselves often nourished hair in that part for the gods: *"Some, however, [let grow] hair from the side, or from behind, or above the forehead, for the rivers or the gods, and it was called plochme, or skolys, or a row of hairs."* Such hair, without doubt, was *sisoe*. Furthermore, the word in the Hebrew is, *“You shall not shave the corner of your head into a circle.”* For he who levels the corners, introduces a crown, as some render it, or *peripheretan*. For he leaves only the hairs that are on the occiput. From which it does not depart entirely, which the Greeks called *stephane* and *peridromos*. Pollux: *“The last circuit of hair around the head is called stephane and peridromos.”* Just as the tonsure itself, without doubt, was so called. Whence that which is adduced by Eustathius from an ancient rhetorician, although metaphorical, *“a stephane has been shorn of the towers,”* which Tertullian says is to surround the hair. Sidonius 109 Apollinaris calls hair of this sort hair cut into the likeness of a wheel. And such are *opisthocomoi* in part. Which it is established the Jews very studiously avoided.

And from this is the fact that because the Christian priests, as they themselves say, shave the corners of the head, they call them *balcontemple* (the bald). Just as also those *enkleistous* or *koinobious*, whom we now call monks, they are accustomed, by hatred of both, to call *chirim* (נזירים/חרים), because the priests of the idols are so called: with whom the priests of our God (for so they most willingly speak) they compare and equate that Apella. It appears, therefore, that he is never more deceived than when he twists the rites and vocabularies of the Greek men to the explanation of the sacred and divine man, whom he had undertaken to interpret, or does not ponder them according to the customs and reasons of the Hebrews, as it behooved an interpreter. But not even thus have we finished this [matter] sufficiently. Wherefore, that I may say at once what I think concerning this place, I judge that when he said our Lord and Savior had reclined with men *opisthocomous*, he meant the Galileans, who are said to be perpetually *tanuplochamoi*, or *akersokomoi* (unshorn) by him. Because, since we are writing *Exercitations*, it does not seem alien if we investigate here why this was done by him. Those who are versed in these matters know that the Hellenists call the Nazarites, or the separated ones, whom Symmachus called *aphorismenous* (separated) to the word, and whom they call *eugmenous, euxamenous, hagiasmenous* (vowed, prayed, holy ones) [in the] Seniors, they simply also call *Nazeraious*, or *Nazaraious*. Just as in the same way the Savior is called by Matthew in the noblest place, chap. 1, where you have: *Nazaraeos*, or *Nazoraeos*, he shall be called. From whom, as far as I can remember, he is never called *Nazaraios*, just as he is not called [that] by our John. 110 Our [author] therefore took *tous Nazaraious*, or Nazarenes, and *tous Nazaraious*, or *aphorismenous* (the separated, to God separated), of whom mention is so often made in the Old Covenant, to mean the same. And because in his time and long before, all Christians were called now Galileans, now Nazarenes, and because the Lord is said to have been here in Galilee and invited by the Galileans, which was of the Nazaræans, that is, *tōn aphorismenōn* (the separated ones), as Samson once was, he attributes it to the Galileans, or Nazarenes. As if Nazarene and Nazaræan were the same, because in the Greek the name is mystically confused, especially by Matthew, as it has pleased some; or because the marriage in Cana of Galilee was celebrated by the Galileans, but Christ was called a Nazarene, [and] the others were also Nazarenes, nor did these names differ at all. And indeed, although all Nazarenes are Galileans, not the converse, our [author] nevertheless uses those names also in the title of the cross.

^A This title: *This is Jesus the King of the Jews, the Galilean*. Therefore, he treated Galileans and Nazarenes, as well as Nazarenes and Nazarites—that is, *nezer* and *nazir*—as the same, although the Jews deny that the latter existed in the ancient Law before the former. And although this seems to surpass all absurdity, as indeed in truth it does, we nevertheless doubt not that it is accurate. And because they, that is, the Nazarites, because they were consecrated to God, maintained their hair according to His commandment—a fact most well-known—he called the Galileans, whom he otherwise confounds with the Nazarenes, now *opisthocomoi* (long-haired at the back) from the tresses which they let down behind, now *akeirokomoi* or "unshorn," now *tanyplokamoi* or "long-maned." For who is ignorant of that, "Nor shall a razor pass over his head" (1 Sam. 1:11; and before that Judges 13:5, and elsewhere), for it is also used of Samson the Nazarite. We find, therefore, the term *opisthocomon* which lay hidden, denoting, of course, the Nazarite hair. Which the Hebrews call *nezer*, meaning a crown (which, as in Greek, denotes both a long head of hair and a wreath), and the Chaldeans call *nazir*. Our author therefore attributes to the Nazarenes what ought to have been attributed to the Nazarites. And although the Nazarites are most ancient, so much so that even in the first book of Moses, in the history of Joseph, mention is made of them, there is, nevertheless, little doubt that bit by bit something was added by vow, and that the Jews, having been separated unto God, were commanded to keep their hair so that, having seen and learned in Egypt that it was devoted to foreign gods, they might transfer this to their own property and truth, that is, to their own God. But if this pleased Him, as indeed it did, why did He forget the other: "Nor shall he drink wine or strong drink"? Since here both wine is drunk, and water is made into wine—not that anyone might not drink it, but so that everyone, from moderate hilarity, might celebrate with greater pleasure Him who proved such divinity here with a famous and amazing miracle. What of the fact that our author wished the guests to have been drunk? Because, I believe, he took those words which he had read below, "Everyone sets out the good wine first, and when they are drunk, then the inferior" (John 2:10), to refer to drunkenness, as if that word were nowhere used among the Hellenists for the moderate use of wine. Just as, for example, when Haggai said, "to eat, but not to fullness; to drink, but not to drunkenness" (Hag. 1:6), it is not wine, but satiety. And what is that (to pass over for now the rest, of which below), if it does not denote total drunkenness? "Seeing men drunk, weighed down in their heads" (112 where, he says, their heads were heavy with wine). For that saying of the old poet is famous: "I have a head heavy with wine, O Onomacritus, and the wine is too much for me." But what did he say or leave unsaid in this whole chapter concerning this matter? Yet I consider that nothing more imprudent or thoughtless, if I may say so, could have escaped him than that he attributes to the Virgin Mother of God—to whom, without doubt, sobriety commended itself no less than divine purity and other virtues—those parts in verse 13, so that He signifies to the Lord that the *hemitelē gaomoio methyn*, that is, those who were taking part in the wedding, were still half-drunk, and *aoine opōrē*, that is, that the second courses were destitute of wine. To what end? That, if we believe him (who attributes drunkenness to some of the guests), they might all be saturated with wine and be put to sleep. For then finally, and especially with the table cleared, the Greeks and Romans would call for more. Concerning which the epigrammatist says: ^B "When Lycus rages, / When the rose reigns, when the hair is wet." And in this matter, if we go along with him, the Mother, blessed among women, implores the aid of the Son and an *alexikakon* (averting) voice:

"The wedding, unfinished in its drunken state, and the autumn without wine, the mother told the knowing Christ that she shared the house with, this wedding needs a voice of the averter of evil."

Behold, the *opisthocomoi* (long-haired) mortals; behold, the Nazarites; behold, the holy nuptials at which the Son of God and the most holy Mother of God were present: which are more suited to Maron, Silenus, the Satyrs, and the Maenads. Although nothing of the sort is said here. So much so that among the Syrians these eleven verses, from those words, "And on the third day" (John 2:1), through to those, "After this he went down to Capernaum" (John 2:12), are read at the beginning of the fast, or 113. What, therefore, was in his mind when he described these nuptials, which our very Salvation honored with both a miracle and His presence, in no other way than as a sacred Bacchic rite and the banquet of his own shameless and insane god, from start to finish? Just as, to signify that wine was lacking for the feast, he dared to call it *abakcheuton*. For *abakcheuton* is not *to aoinon*, which lacks wine, but that which is ignorant of the intemperance and madness of bacchanals, as if this defect of the feast were the case, or as if, had the wine not run out, that feast would have been one of Thracians and bacchanals. To whom, in the presence of the Son of God, and the holy Virgin, as I have already said, ^C what place could there be? Hither points the fact that he has several times called this feast *philoinon* (wine-loving), and at times *daita diphaleān* and *diphada*, a thirsting banquet: these are the words of a satirist, not an interpreter. But the word is also inept in this sense. The Greeks certainly had their *aoina*, and the Romans their *sacra* (vintages); but who, unless perhaps in a satyric drama, would dare to call them *abakcheuta*? Except perhaps the unique Euripides, who dares everything on stage.

There exists a most urbane proverb in the writings of the Hebrews: "No man, to whom his own time has not yet come..." which is numbered among the counsels, and, as the Greeks used to say of philosophers, among the *apophthegmata* of Ben Azai. Now the meaning among them is this: that to no wise man should it be prescribed what and when something ought to be done, since those who are truly such know the proper time for convenience best: and therefore the matter should be left to them. Although some think a little differently. Here, there is no doubt in my mind that the Lord, being most urbane, looked to such allusions and, being most frequent in them, said, ch. 4: "My hour has not yet come." As if to say: "Why do you advise me? Why do you press me, if I do not yet judge 114 it advisable that I should do that?" Which saying—those who, because they turned the rest of the things which were either done or said more humbly by the Lord into a reproach against His divinity, are therefore elegantly called *sperein elattomata* (sowers of defects) by the holy Fathers—the Arians, indeed, understood very poorly, just as those who, from those words, subjected the Lord of fate to fate. Concerning whom Augustine speaks at length on this place. And elsewhere, to this same evangelist: "For what is 'His hour has not yet come'? For the Lord was not born under fate. This is not to be believed of Him whom He created: how much less of Him by whom he was created? If your hour is His will, what is His hour, if not His own will?" Our author involves the grace, first with the word *tymatēs*, equally with the sense, which is most simple. For he seems to speak of the death of the Lord:

"Not yet has the final course of the circling hour come for me,"

although I know there are among the ancients those who drag this place so that it might refer to the passion. Among whom I am surprised that the divine man Augustine is numbered. For there is nothing harsher. Then, when he adds *kyklados* (circling), he runs onto the same rocks as those whom Augustine accuses, as if the Lord were bound to a fixed time or revolution, such as the Hebrew *tecupha*. Just as when Orpheus said of Adonis, or the sun:

"Perishing and shining in the beautiful circling hours,"

which the divine man Joseph Scaliger [rendered]: "Slain and brought to life again as the fixed years revolve." For the sun has received fixed times and laws. So much ^D

^A for that; let us not, however, use materials inappropriately. Again he mocks us, nor has he sufficiently understood what it means to speak circumspectly, when in verse 12 he called these same nuptials *methyspalais*, wandering through wine. Unless perhaps he believed that the 115 Jews were present then, who, according to the custom received today, drunken and intoxicated, would shout their *chaiim tobim* at every toast. But the Fathers observe excellently that they were present for the sake of the faith and the dignity of the miracle, lest anyone think that the guests were drunk and intoxicated, and lest anyone think they were deceived by wine, when, regarding such a drink and such an admirable miracle, such witnesses could not judge as is proper: "Lest some should suspect that it was a gathering of drunkards, and their senses were corrupted, and as if corrupted by drunkenness they thought water to be wine." "Lest anyone should think it was a meeting of drunkards, whose senses were corrupted by wine; and hence it happened that they thought water was wine," says that most saintly man. For I cannot agree with those who [say] *methyspalais* is said because the wine had run out among them: for they judged this to be unworthy to be attributed to such a wedding. As if he had not often spoken in this very way in this chapter, as when he said *philarchytountes* and similar [words] which we noted before. Such is what he says about their having drunk *tassoteris kypellois*, with dense and frequent cups. But he, without a doubt, had in mind that which is in verse 10: "Every man at the beginning sets forth the good wine, and when they have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now," as I have already said. Which passage reminded me of the ignorance of Hellenistic diction. For what writers commonly call *agathon*, it is commonly called *kalon* by the Hellenists. As "Good is the mercy of the Lord." Also, "For He is good, for His mercy [endureth] forever." Alluding to 1 Machabees iv, 24; and elsewhere. Nor did the evangelist speak in any other sense: "Every man at the beginning sets forth the good wine, and when they have well drunk, then that which is worse." Which we would call *kreissio* and *cheiro*. Our author referred this to the color of the wine, as if he were commending nothing else. I believe that they used a reddish wine in those places. Such a wine, as the ancients observe, is 116 most potent, and remains for a very long time in the habits of those who drink it. Nor do I think one ought to inquire with great effort or anxiety why he calls the road that leads to Capernaum a *kataibatin oimon*. Thus he says in the same passage: "He bent his homeward path, traveling a path descending." Which the most holy evangelist [describes as]: "After this he went down to Capernaum, he and his mother." But no one is less secure about interpretation, and more agitated generally, than he who, because he does not grasp the genius of the language, does not dare to depart even from the words. He is twofold here, namely Hellenistic and Hebrew, although the latter is the interpreter of the former: whose ignorance has sometimes stood in the way of our author in the entire verse. It ought to be known to those who are versed in the text of both languages, that verbs which have no other force or meaning than walking or going are rendered by *to katabainein*. Such is what they say in the Song of Songs: "Let my beloved come down (*katabito*) into the garden," and in the books of Kings: "And Saul arose and went down (*katebe*) the road to his place." In the one is *yarad*, in the other is *yarad*. As for those things which learned men have curiously observed in some places about Judea, namely, and Palestine, and also the south and the north, let them have no place here. Hesychius, not an insignificant author, whose glosses, as I have observed in infinite places, seem to have been compiled for the sake of explaining the Hellenists, and especially the Seventy: *katebēsato*, he entered. And thus our John also spoke a few times. Such is the case here. In which our author has fluctuated vehemently, when the matter is of no importance and clearly trivial. And so he also said *nostein* and *kataibatin oimon odeuein*. Such is chapter iv, verse 47: "And he asked him to descend (*katabē*)," that is, to enter 117 his house. Also [verse] 49: "Lord, come down (*katabēthi*) before my child dies." Which he renders in one way ^B or another; *agchisanēs* ^C indeed sought Jesus, how he might save his son, walking the edge of the near-approaching city. See how laboriously [he speaks], when *katelthein* is nothing else for the Hellenists than *elthein* or *eiselthein*. He who does not know this must be occupied with nothing. So much do things that are sometimes small and of no consequence either exercise or stop and detain those who are ignorant of a language they have not learned. And interpreters perpetually follow these trifles, just as those who construct dictionaries; for when Scripture speaks of Jerusalem, the reason is different. For when shortly after the same verse he said: "The twelve-fold band of companions was walking behind, a flock of associates walking one path by the nearing divinities," he forgot, it seems, that five disciples [had been] called by the Lord shortly after the miracle performed at the wedding; nor did others follow at that time, of those who are called the twelve, except those mentioned in the chapter above. Whence then the twelve? For it is certain that Matthew and others were called some time later. What is more, Peter and Andrew also had not yet fully followed, since, having only followed in the beginning, as per the chapter above, it finally appears that they adhered to the Lord after abandoning everything. Concerning which, Matthew in the fourth chapter. But also with the greatest confidence he mentions the lower regions, verse 22, to which he says the Lord descended, *anostētoio barathrou*, a barathrum from which there is no return, he named it in the manner of the pagans, although in the following verse he affirms that the Lord returned from it. For after he had said: 118 "But that indeed after the bosom of the unreturning [barathrum]," he adds: "A returning one from Hades with a rekindled fate." Surely, if it had been *anostēton* [unreturnable] to our Savior, there would be no hope of our own resurrection. But this indeed seems to be a morbid obsession. He is always in love with what he has once said poorly. Thus in chapter v, verse 25, where he treats of the resurrection of the dead, and proves it, he called the sepulchers, from which those who will rise are to return, *anostētous kolpous*: "When the speechless dead shall again revive from the unreturning bosoms." And verse 28: "When the gathered dead shall hear from the life-giving [Voice] from the unreturning tombs." And how *anostētoi* [unreturning], if *zoogoni* [life-giving]? For these things expressly clash. He thought this was acumen; when it is lack of judgment, not sharpness. For it is the manner of the profane to speak, when he tries to prove a contrary opinion from the truth itself and its own self-authenticating words, because he had read that *anistētous enerous* was perpetually used by his own [authors]: for he is accustomed to willingly impute to the readers what he reads among them, and what helps the verse. Nor is curiosity always appropriate in poetry, and especially in interpretation. And a poet ought to be more learned than *periergos*. Surely, he who demands that the entire universe, and what is contained within it, be illustrated by his own attributes, ought to be either imprudent or clearly learned, but above all to excel in judgment. Which we admire so much in the Romans. Who generally imitated the Greeks so that they might improve them. Which you see almost perpetually in Maro. Our author did not lack spirit, but care and judgment failed him. Thus, when he had read that the Lord had found in the temple 119 those who were selling *peristeras*, that is, doves, he calls them *stiktas meloessi peleiedas*. For in verse 14 he said: "And speckled doves with [their] limbs." In which, first, he did not understand, what ought to be known to the poet, that the reason of philosophers is one thing, and the reason of poets, in the use of words, is another, who not rarely are compelled to use a species for a genus. In which, as in the rest, judgment is needed. Thus, in the case of the dove-

- ^A genus, *peristeria* is the genus, or, as others who do not wish the highest genus ignored want it to be, a species, but one more common. Which poets, because of numbers and meters, are accustomed, even unwillingly, to abstain from. For they use the species in place of that word. Which is the *peleias*. Which the Latins of this age, whose leader is Theodorus Gaza, have called *liviam*, which are either leaden, or of a varied color. Aristotle *History* book V, ch. 13: *Ἡ δὲ πελειάς, καὶ μέλαν καὶ μικρὸν, καὶ ἐρυθρόπουν, καὶ τραχύπουν· διὸ οὐδεὶς τρέφει*, he says, that it is small, black, reddish, and rough-footed; this species, and therefore scarcely kept by anyone. And so, as I said, it is better known to poets than in actual use. Concerning the variety, then, I shall concede even in that species. But who would attribute it to the limbs rather than the feathers? Which, if it were true, it would be necessary that pheasants and peacocks be such in their limbs. Which, just as it is true in part concerning the hair of quadrupeds, is false in plumage. For he notes in the *History* book, in the Philosopher: that to varied animals, a skin of the same color underlies, or something first appears in it, which refers to the color of the hair. Correctly, in the case of hair. For he distinguishes feathers and the affections of both, in the same place, soon after. Nor does he say it *pre-exists* in the limbs (for he used that word there), but in the skin. And if we follow this philosophy, either the feathers will be limbs, or, for those birds that have varied feathers, the limbs will be distinguished by the same color. Who could bear this? Or who of the ancients said that doves were varied and stained in their limbs? And what of the fact that he did not even understand what *stikton* (spotted) is in animals? Rightly the prince of the tragedians called stags *stikton*, rightly Oppian called the hyena *stikton*: *Θαῦμα δὲ καὶ τόδ' ἄκουσα περὶ στικτῇσιν ὑαίναις.* ^B Rightly Gregory [called] leopards, which the Hellenists in Jeremiah [called] *poikilous*, first against Julian, *kata-stiktous*. For in their skin, as is said by the great teacher, *proyparchei* (it pre-exists), which corresponds to the hair. Among birds, correctly the Numidian, which is called *guttata* (spotted) by Martial, *stiktas*. For spots are, inside the feathers, just as many points. But the neck of doves, which is so much varied when the sun especially approaches, should not be called *stikton*, but partly *poikilon*, partly *poikilophanes*. And doves, whose feathers or wings vary, are not *stiktai*, but *poikilai*. The peacock's tail is *stikton*, and the peacock itself is *poikilos*. Whence Euripides also spoke quite carelessly, which the old comedy often objects against him, when he calls the eyes of Argus in the *Phoenissae* *stiktous*: *Στικτοῖς πανόπτην ὄμμασιν δεδορκότα.* For his eyes are not *stiktoi*, but the bird itself is *stiktos* because of the eyes, as is the peacock's tail, to which the poets referred his eyes. And the refined model of eloquence, Naso, understood this, when in his books of *Metamorphoses* he called the chest of the stellio "starred with spots." For to the name of the animal and its power he alluded with great urbanity from the fable. And who tells him that there are more, or that they are preferred, in the East? We certainly believed in the white ones, which they both kept and held intact there. Which is known even from Tibullus. But, as we were saying before, no one will call birds that have varied feathers *stiktas*, ^D much less *stiktas melëessi* (spotted in limbs). Which even his own Hellenists, who had more than us and less corrupted ones, could have taught him. May it be far from him, therefore, to call her *stiktën* or *poikilën melëessi*, as he does! Which difficulties, when the prince of poets saw, he imposed upon the whole dove genus, removed from their customs. Which after him some even applied to the species. For from *pavor* (fear), which is common to all, he called them *tre-monas*. But best of all, the differences in animals are taken from their customs, with the philosopher as author. He himself said *dë*. I could never admire enough that an author so ancient, and who wrote many things in Greek, should so often slip, or depart from the genius of the language he professed. Just as, when a little ^A after, in clause 16, he said the Jerusalem temple, which in fact had been constructed from stones:

"These you have removed from the stony temple."

^A opere ingenioso aliisque notum, induisse fertur.

Now, concerning the fact that in the same place he says the priests [ate] the paschal lamb, this was done somewhat incautiously by him. For it was not a feast of the priests, but of the entire nation. And how could the priests alone have eaten the lamb, when it was distinctly stated in the institution of the feast that each person should receive a lamb *according to the houses of their fathers*? For since the entire people, as is well known, were divided into tribes; the tribes [were divided] into families or father-clans, and these into houses, or, as the Hebrew has it, *according to the houses of their fathers*, that is, they were divided house by house. Now, it is well known that those who were called Fathers presided over each.

What the evangelist said about Nicodemus at the beginning of the third chapter, *There was a man 124 of the Pharisees*. Where it is said *of the Pharisees*, as in the first chapter, *And they who were sent were of the Pharisees*, that is, they were Pharisees, although by reason of the Hebraism, concerning which we treat in its own place, it seems to imply that he was not the last among them. Where our author [Nonnus] says: *a chorus of the evil-minded Pharisees*: for those whom he there calls "evil-minded," he here calls "mentally wandering." And yet here he thought that *of the Pharisees* was said of one who was sprung from the Pharisees. From which he attributes to him *the sacred blood of the Pharisees*. And yet the Pharisees, a sect like the Stoics, and, as Epiphanius rightly and elegantly said, were nothing other than a *theoprosophia*, a superfluous and vain worship, which they had devised themselves. But not all Pharisees were priests; nor was Nicodemus himself: whom the evangelist called *a ruler of the Jews*, [and] he himself called *archon*. ^B This word the Syrian did not change, but kept it slightly inflected. And from the Law that [verse] is known, *Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people*. Among the Chaldeans, sometimes [it is] N27, as in that passage, sometimes [as it is] concerning Joseph. Where, however, the Greeks [say], *And Joseph was the ruler of the land*. But concerning Nicodemus, *he was a ruler*, that is, *one of the rulers*. But neither were priests.

But let us proceed. The ancients (although even from those things which are said in the Passion regarding Nicodemus, it is certain that he thought very well of the Lord), meanwhile, when they attach the third chapter—according to the division now received—to the preceding ones, as the Syrians also deliberately did, they place Nicodemus among those who, attracted by the miracles in the previous chapter, did not yet fully believe. Of whom, indeed, it is said, *Many believed in his name, seeing his signs which he did*. Likewise, *But Jesus himself did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all men*, etc. But our author, not content with having called Nicodemus a *believing man*, 125 *And to the believing man Jesus, revealing the divine radiance of baptism*, (which can thus be taken, as other things are said homonymously by the evangelist, among which is also that word) furthermore called him *persuadable by God*, verse 2: *And he spoke the fable to God, the persuadable man*, as if he understood himself to be speaking with God.

At Theophylactus, however, places him among those who had attained a *short-lived*, a *temporary*, a *not-firm* faith, that is, who had attained a very light, temporary, and not-yet-firm faith, as one who thought he was dealing with a divine man, but nothing less than with God: *For he attended to Christ for a time, not as God, but as a God-bearing man*; and then: *He calls him a Master, as a mere man; for such was the opinion he held concerning him; wherefore he also adds, For no one can do these things, except God be with him*; he calls him Master, as a mere man; because he thought of him in this way. Whence he also subjoins: *Because no one can perform these things, unless God be with him*, according to the opinion of St. Chrysostom: who himself, among other things, [says]: *He held an opinion concerning Christ, but not as he ought, nor with the mind that was proper, but was still held by the Jewish weakness*. St. Augustine, on that passage, *But the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life*: this Nicodemus, who had come by night to Jesus, did not understand. It follows, not long after, in verse 12: ^C *And so great are the heavy-persuading ears of you all; / If I should proclaim the winged army or the works of the ether, / Why from the untried desires do you prefer to be persuaded, / Hearing of the nature of heavenly, unseen matter?*

That which the most holy evangelist said: *If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how, if I tell you heavenly things, 126 will you believe?* In which place, it is known that the ancients understood *the earthly things*, and their opposite, which he adds, *heavenly things*, in the same way. Among whom the opinion of Chrysostom appears the simplest: who accepted the former, concerning baptism, insofar as it is performed on earth, or concerning the similarity of the blowing wind, which he had already used a little before. Just as, through *the heavenly things*, he understands the eternal generation of the Son from the Father: compared to which, this very thing, which is now being discussed, regeneration, may seem earthly. ^D What, therefore, came into our author's mind, when he takes *the heavenly things* concerning the host of angels, to which he has clearly added, to no purpose, the *winged* [nature]? Which is here surely beside the point, just as the works of the ether are for him the *ethereal things*. But he undoubtedly had his Hellenists in mind, for whom the *army of heaven*, sometimes angels, sometimes stars, are mentioned in Hebrew usage: which he expressed in the whole verse. They err vehemently who wish to allow everything to poets. Whom most learned antiquity, in order to correct them, rose up critically, which was divinely exercised against the license of poets by, among others, Aristotle. For, just as poets profess all erudition and science, so, in order that they might be kept in their office, these [critics] judged of everything. For recently it has begun to prevail only in those things which labor concerning the restoration of corruption in authors. But now, if critics have not permitted everything in profane literature to poets, how much less should it be permitted in sacred things? Who, when they depart from the custom of the Church or the Fathers, are rightly brought back into order by the learned.

Which Fathers, indeed, permitted themselves many things, which, on account of heretics, they later changed. Thus Tatian, a most ancient writer, thus Theophilus, dared to say that *God belched forth his own Son*, until a heretic 127 called the Son of God a *belch*. The same Theophilus called the Word a *co-worker* in creation: which others, and especially Basil in *Against Eunomius*, so strongly, and deservedly, censured. The same called the Spirit of God [the] Son of God. It is customary for Nonnus to call our Savior now *Word*, now *flesh*, just as he called the same *God-bearer* elsewhere, which for the ancients designated the same thing. Thus, in verse 13, when the most holy evangelist said, *And no one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven*, our author [says], *Unless this God-like one*.

As if you would say "the divine Son of God," and that in that place in which his higher nature is being discussed. Such appendages, because Nestorius cunningly abused them, the Fathers, as Damascenus testifies above all, rejected. He adds the cause: *For we do not say that the Word is a man deified, but God having become man*. Why? Because a higher nature assumed man in such a way that it remained that which it was, and he who was man was none the less God. We do not therefore call him a divine man, or a deified one, he says, but God incarnate. And that was the same reason why the Fathers, although they everywhere call holy men, such as Basil, Gregory, [and] Nyssenus, *God-bearers*, did not, however, admit this name here, by which Nestorius was cunningly abusing it. Damascenus: *And every God-bearing man can be called Christ, but not God by nature, even if Nestorius, that god-hated one, was panting to call him who was born of the Virgin a God-bearer*. And he adds, *But let it not be for us to call him a God-bearer*. Well, therefore, did he call the Baptist a *God-bearer*, but less rightly did he so call the Lord. For he is of the holy prophets—

^A—that attribute, not of Him who is above all, as the Fathers commonly attributed it, as I said before. The same Damascene, 128 lib. I of the *Orthodox Faith*: "Whose energy is one, of these the essence also is one, according to the God-speaking Fathers." Hesychius: "God-speaking, divine, receiving from God." I ask why he says a little later that the serpent, which Moses lifted up in the desert, had the ^B *wooden* type of the *thorn*. For thus it is in the fourteenth verse: "The wooden type following the thorn." Neither am I ignorant of what is observed by the learned, that Nonnus sometimes uses the word *thorn* for a serpent. But also the serpent, of which it is being treated, was of brass, and there were indeed serpents (which the Seventy call "deadly snakes") for whose sake it was lifted up. Nor is it true what he says, that this serpent ^C was "deadly to those who were bitten," a killer of the men whom it had bitten, since it healed the bites and provided an antidote against the poisonous ones; and therefore it was a true type of the Savior—unless, as Epiphanius rightly says, not because of the nature of the serpent, but because of God's favor, working as an antidote for those then bitten, just as it is explicitly written: "And every one who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live." Nonnus spoke as if Moses had lifted up a "deadly" serpent, which soon after he himself, forgetting his own words, calls "pain-releasing." But in truth, the *wooden thorn*, concerning which our author writes, signifies, if I am not mistaken, the crown of thorns, of which he intended this serpent to be a type. Because every serpent has something similar to the crown of thorns, so that in this way he might allude to the Lord’s crown of thorns in the Passion, which perhaps others from antiquity also did; such subtleties, however, heroic geniuses do not favor. Sometimes he ruins the words themselves and their use by inappropriate additions. *Paradise* ^D is a word from the East, but one which the Greeks have long possessed, and it is especially common to use it for the place of the blessed. Our author, because he gives a status to heaven that is proper to paradise, brings it about that *paradise* is now used improperly concerning it, which it is rightly used to describe. As when he said: "Dwelling in an immortal home in a well-wooded paradise," whereas the evangelist thought it sufficient to say "eternal life." For the analogy of the translation—without which, as Aristotle rightly says, it cannot consist—perishes in the translation.

But why do we note here one of so many things? The whole sentiment in which our author is engaged, and which he expresses through so many invalid and inept circumlocutions, is, as it is simply conceived by the evangelist, truly divine: would that those who have spoken on the sacrament of Christ the Lord would fix it in their minds. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." But this, as we were just saying, he expressed in such a way, partly by grandiloquence, partly by frequent and compound adjectives, that he marred it entirely, so that the *apheleia*, that is, the simplicity which is especially observed in sentences, perished entirely. For what is meant by "the multi-form world," and "the high-throning scepter-bearer," and again, "the four-yoked world," and "the turn-coat manner," and "the well-wooded paradise"? When the sentiment is chaste, and alien to all affectation and swelling, which is usually the sign of a well-constituted and composed mind. But let us hear him himself: "For He so loved the multi-form, wandering world, The High-throning Scepter-bearer, that for the sake of the harvest of lights, He gave the Only-begotten Word to the four-yoked world; That whoever should receive Him, having changed his turn-coat manner, And bending his neck of his own will to the unshakable faith, Might come into the eternal dance of heavenly life, Dwelling in an immortal home in a well-wooded paradise." 130 Add that he said it not once, but frequently, and the speech redundantly waxes wonderful. Add that "multi-form" is not an adjective of that world of which he is treating, but of this place, and of the world which God loved. And what is this to the world which the Son of God saved? Add an incongruous, nay, more than "ill-mannered" prayer: "So He loved the world, that He gave the Son." For who would speak thus? Especially when, having found the most sweet Attic phrasing, "so loved that He gave," he could have expressed it much more simply and less affectedly: "For God Himself so loved the formless world, That He gave His only-begotten, most supreme Son; That every one receiving Him might escape the steep destruction, And reach the all-blessed harbor of immortal life!" So that lovers of elegant letters might learn how much it matters how each thing is uttered. But let us proceed. Certain words, which the Church has admitted, one should hardly admit rashly if they are of the same power; so far am I from wishing to excuse the *cacozelia* and various interpretations of names, which are taken from the poorly understood writings of pagans. The Son of God, in the common Creed, we Christians confess daily by the word "only-begotten": whom in the same word the most holy evangelist here called "only-begotten." "But he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." For which word, since not even the verse was fighting it, he rather imprudently substituted the word "late-born."

1000

^A hearing "Son" again, do not think of God, but of a natural son, the only-begotten, having no other brother; for this reason, he is called Only-Begotten, because in the dignity of his divinity and in his generation from the Father, he has no brother. Rufinus, in his interpretation of the ^B Creed: "Lest you think that these human words teach you something earthly, he therefore adds that this is the one Son of God, our Lord." For one is born from one, because the radiance also is one of its light, and the word of the heart is one. Nor does an incorporeal generation dissolve into a plural number, nor does it fall into division, where He who is begotten is in no way separated from the begetter. But it is to this very word concerning which we are speaking that St. Augustine seems to have properly looked, in the 20th Tractate on John: "And perhaps someone will say, because for many ages ^C God received a Son in His old age. Just as the Father is without old age, so the Son is without increase. Neither did He grow old, nor did he grow: but the Equal begot the Equal, the Eternal the Eternal." By these words let this be settled once for all. For I do not write these things that I may entangle myself in the levity of the grammarians, but that I may vindicate sacred Scripture from them, and then show what is to be followed in this part by interpreters. Who, as they ought to be reverent, so they ought to be circumspect. I cannot, however, but add this: that I see no cause nor can imagine why a word received by the Church and the Creed, which the law of the poem no less permitted, should be changed—as if it were dangerous, suspicious, or at minimum ambiguous. He should at least have thought ^D of the counsel of the Great Basil, who accuses Eunomius because he imposes 133 words outside the usage of the divine Spirit, whereby he sanctions words unused by the holy Spirit. He should at least have considered that words received first from Scripture and then from the Church are not to be changed for that reason, because antiquity most prudently formed and derived from them arguments against the crafty deceits or inanities of heretics. And therefore that nothing should have been changed rashly.

For that axiom is well-known, that nothing in the holy Trinity is adventitious, as if not existing before and entering later; for the Son never fell away from the Father. This means: Nothing is adventitious in the holy Trinity, as if it did not exist before and soon arrived. Nor has the Son ever been absent from the Father in this. And this usage is already ancient, so that the Jerusalem interpreter of the Pentateuch has used this word, which is *monogenēs*, concerning God; as if one were made from us. And he said, he says, the Word of the Lord: "Behold, Adam, whom you created, is the only-begotten in the world, just as I am the only-begotten in the heavens on high." Add that the ancients also set Isaac as *monogenēs*, a type of our Savior: whom Sanchuniathon, who had written their theology, noted in his first book of the *Evangelical Preparation* as having been called *Ieoud* [by the Phoenicians]. *Ieoud*, that is, as the Chaldeans [say]. Add that the Lord was baptized into this name, which I wonder has not been observed until now. For the words are, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found pleasure," that is, the *Monogenēs*. For thus the Hellenists are accustomed to speak. St. Jerome ^B at chapter XII of Zechariah: "He is called Unigenitus, according to the propriety of his nature, and first-begotten, according to the Apostle, of those rising from the dead." The Septuagint translated *agapēton*, that is, most dear, for *unigenito*. Of whom we read in the Gospel: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found pleasure." A most illustrious example is Genesis xxii, 2, where concerning Isaac: "Take now your only-begotten Son whom you love, Isaac." 136 Where the Hellenists have: "Take your beloved Son." Just as to Homer, Astyanax is called the ^C *agapētos* [beloved] son of Hector: "Hector's beloved son, like a shining star." The Glossator, *beloved*, *only-begotten*. Hesychius, *beloved*, *only-begotten*, *favored*. Just as Aristotle in his *Rhetoric* called the eye of a one-eyed man *agapēton*. Because he has not another: and therefore he needs it more, and loves it more. But because we are now dealing with the Hellenists, in whose language the holy apostles wrote, the same Elders [use it] in the same chapter, verse 12: "You did not spare your beloved Son for my sake," which is repeated a little later. Jeremiah vi, 26: "Daughter of my people, gird yourself with sackcloth, and strew yourself with ashes; and make for yourself a mourning of the beloved one." So in Zechariah, "a wailing as for the ^D beloved," concerning an immense lamentation.

^A And who is so furious, when the very word, for which such great wars have been fought among Christians, and which Arius and the Arians have so petulantly abused—insomuch that, as Theophylact testifies, they said he was called "Only-begotten" because he was made and created by the Father alone, while all other things were from him—they substituted in its stead that which denotes his infirmity, just as it denotes the nature of man, namely, to beget late, or to be begotten. If Arius had found this elsewhere in the Scriptures, no one could easily have wrested from his hand that *“There was a time when he was not.”* For this is exactly what *tēlygetos* is. Certainly *monogenēs* (Only-begotten) is *he pro chronou* (he who is before time), who by the man of desires is called the *Ancient of Days*, that is, God. *Tēlygetos* is *ho en chronō* (he who is in time), that is, a man. Which has nothing to do with what he is expounding. Wherefore he should not have changed anything at all. For there are certain words that belong to the Church, not to us: in which we have no authority. And since philosophers do not tolerate this in their own spheres, neither should it be tolerated in ecclesiastical matters.

And this word, Cæsarius and other theologians have noted, because they place in it a *schesis*, or relation. For they note that by this notion it is proper to him whose Father is God: which is understood from the word itself. Which certainly has no place in *tēlygetos*, to omit the fact that it is said to be a proper noun by Theodoret. And what did he mean, when in the following chapter, verse 27, he called Peter, that most holy apostle and greatest hero, *thrasys* (bold/rash)? *“And Peter did not ask him, as he was bold.”* Which is generally attributed to glory, and indeed a most putrid one at that. Whence come the Thrasones (braggarts), whom Horace called the bold. By which name he also points to our evangelist elsewhere, and that in a place which is completely alien to this attribute, when he reclines upon the Lord's breast:

*“But the bold man, with a sharp pulse, Falling upon the immaculate breast, the man loved By the feasting King.”* (Chap. 13)

He was, therefore, in his judgment, *thrasytes*, whether you call it temerity or ambition, because he who was loved by the Lord above the rest, ^B by the privilege of his love, clung to his breast: whence he is also called *philos epistēthios* by the Greek Church. And how much better is their liturgy: which says he did this *pepoithota* (confidingly), not *thrasynomenon* (acting boldly). At the very least, he might have considered that he had assigned this epithet to Judas, as when he said: *“Son of Jacob, and not the bold Iscariot”* (Chap. 14, 22), whom Cyrus Theodorus called *thrasycheira* (bold-handed) and *authadē* (arrogant). But what could he have in common with two most holy men, the apostate and the traitor? Wherefore they were not to be noted with the same epithet, and certainly not if taken otherwise. ^C Imprudently, when the Lord is said to have come into the land of Judea after having held a conversation with Nicodemus from the holy city (*“After this, Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea,”* says the evangelist), he called the land of the Jews a foreign dwelling (or however one wishes to interpret *to enaulion*), as if he were not born in Bethlehem, or as if Bethlehem were not in Judea, or as if it had been said rashly by the prophet: *“Out of thee shall come forth for me he who is to be a ruler in Israel”*; or by the Apostle, that Christ was of the Jews according to the flesh; or by the Truth itself, that salvation was of the Jews. Furthermore, since some could not grasp how, after the divine discourse of the Lord with Nicodemus, which it is certain took place in the city itself, he is said to have removed himself to Judea, they want him to have gone first again into Galilee, and from Galilee after some time to have returned to Judea. Among whom is Bede. But he says after these things: Not immediately after the dispute with Nicodemus, which happened in Hierosolyma, but after a lapse of time he returned from Galilee to Judea. Which opinion our author also followed. But Theophylact, *“While the feast of the Passover was continuing, ^D Jesus was in Hierosolyma; but when it had passed, he went out into the land of the Jews, and tarried near the Jordan.”* Which the great Chrysostom also renders word for word before him. As if, indeed, it were a new thing to have come out of the city of the Jews into their land, that is, *chōran*. And thus our evangelist says, chapter 11, verse 55: *“And many went up to Hierosolyma out of the country.”* Here he means from Hierosolyma into the land of Judea. What of the fact that our own author himself has interpreted the word *chōran* there by the word *gains*, or *gēs* (earth):

*“And from the broad earth Many of the Jews, neighbors of the desert, Went up to the seat of the Mystagogues of Hierosolyma.”*

And in Matthew *nano*, *“into all that land,”* and *“in all that land,”* that is, *chōra*. For here the knot is really in the bulrush. In which, however, the greatest men entangle themselves. Sometimes ignorance regarding the places mentioned has imposed itself upon them. As when, a little later, in verse 23, he said of Salim *bathykymos* (deep-waving): *“Baptizing with water near deep-waving Salim,”* as if it were a river, or rather a sea, and not a city. But if he commended the place for the convenience and abundance of its waters, which seems more likely, because it follows, *“that there was much water there,”* he incurs the charge of maritime swelling and *tò achyron*. For there are no *kymata* (waves) there, as anyone knows: whence also the ocean is called *bathykymōn* by the most elegant poet Dionysius Periegetes. From which it is argued again that it should be attributed not to the earth, but to the ocean. But the evangelist noted something else, that is, the convenience of the water, or the abundance, which was there. Wherefore there was no need for him to repeat this, when he says:

*“For there, the water, overflowing in never-failing streams From the broad-flowing river, waves.”*

Regarding Salim and Ænon, the notes are known, and are in the hands of all which the ancients noted. So that in a matter so obvious, error can hardly find patronage.

CHAPTER V

John the Baptist, an imitator of Elijah. Elijah’s garment; John’s garment. *Mēlōtē*, *zōnē dermatine*. *Melota* and *zōnē* are the same to some. A girdle of mortification according to Jerome. *Dasys chitōn* of Nonnus. *Addereth* simply what it is. *Addereth sehar*. *Dora*. A garment *apo trichōn kamēlou* (of camel’s hair) and *chitōn dasys* are different. A skin tunic, and shaggy. Its use in penance. A different *dasios* and a different *chitōn*. Also a *chitōn* of such or such a kind. A sack of the Hebrews. *Cilicium* (haircloth). *Stolē* and *sakkos* are opposed. *Stolē* of the Chaldeans. The patriarchal purple sack in penance. *Cilicia*, and whence they are so named. Chaldean haircloth. Whence *cilicium*. 140 *Leptophyēs chitōn*. *Leptophyē* what it is. Conjectural note on the place of Nonnus. *Asoūrī* what it is. *Leptolachana*. *Psila*. James the *phytourgos* (planter). James the dweller in a tent, and why. The same called *oikōn oikian* by the Hellenists. The same called a minister of learning by the Chaldeans, and why. House of learning. A tabernacle is a type of the synagogue and temple. *En skēnē trechesthai*, what it is to the Greeks. Why the vineyard field is attributed to Jacob. Sichar from *schecar*. *Tò sichera* sometimes opposed to wine. The words *phrear* and *pēgē* according to Hebrew usage. In Nonnus, *lyoen phrear* (loosened well) the well of Jacob. *Hodos tēs lepōros* incorrectly. *Kalpin dia kolpou aeirein*. *Dorsenōpais* (or *darsenōpais*) Jacob. *Orkion hydōr*, and *archion*. *Phrear orkismou* or *archon*. Beersheba. The ridiculous folly of the author when he said *loibēn keraelkē*. *Loibē*, *chysis*, *spondē*, *nesech*. The *adoleschia* (garrulity) of Nonnus corrected. Galileans *philochristoi* or *philostorgoi*, and whether they are rightly called so by him.

Not without serious cause is it noted by Chrysostom concerning the third chapter of Matthew, most eloquently, that the most holy man John, the Forerunner and Baptist, concerning the gravity and austerity of whose life, and, as the Greeks better express it, *sklēragōgia*, he discourses there, in all things devoted himself to imitating the most holy man Elijah the Tishbite: to whom, as a garment, a *mēlōtē* is attributed not once, so also among...

these things a pallium, as Plautus speaks, he stripped off; they said: as if it were a shaggy tunic, when they had found nothing other than an *addereth*. But the error is indeed a foolish one, where a leather girdle is attributed to Elijah, for them to think that a shaggy tunic is attributed to the same, 143 because it is said *ba'al se'ar*, which signifies a shaggy man, not one possessing a shaggy tunic. Wherefore both the Hellenists and the Chaldeans interpreted it as *dasys* (shaggy), but not as *dasychitōnos* (shaggy-tunicked). For where it treats of the habit and marks of that greatest man, they write thus: "And the king said to them: 'What is the manner of the man who came up to meet you, and spoke to you these words?' And they said: 'A shaggy man, and girt with a leather girdle about his loins.' And he said, 'This is Elijah the Tishite.'" And Josephus, book VIII: "When the king ordered him to indicate who had spoken these things, he described a shaggy man, and one girt with a leather girdle." What of the fact that a "shaggy tunic" is not attributed even to John? To whom Matthew gives a garment of camel's hair: which Mark also preserves, who says he was "clothed in camel's hair." The passage of the other is: "And John himself had his clothing of camel's hair, and a leather girdle about his loins." Which surely denotes a garment, not shaggy or of skin, but coarse, of the kind that the Jews who were repenting, and the philosophers, especially the Stoics, generally wore: such as Lucan attributes to Cato: *For him, banquets had conquered hunger, and great household gods, / [And] had cast out winter with a roof; and his precious garment, / Hairy over his limbs, in the manner of a Roman Quirite, / He had brought on as a toga.* ^B John’s tunic, which the preacher of repentance wore, was altogether like this. And he bound it about his limbs with a girdle, as Lucan [says], as the Hebrews [say] *'ezôr*, which certainly was neither hide, nor of hides, but woven from hair. Wherefore Prudentius, in *Cathemerinon* Hymn 8, not as circumspectly as he ought, [says]: *Afterward he departed into the open solitudes, / Clothed in the shaggy skins of beasts, / Covered with 144 bristles and down, / Shuddering to be stained and defiled / By the contaminated morals of the towns.* Who, like our author, clearly gave him a *lasion chitōna* (shaggy tunic). Juvencus [is] more correct: *There were coverings woven of camel bristles, / And a skin girdle circled the middle of the prophet.* For he expressed the words of the Gospel, from which others failed. Which Paulinus later followed in the poem in which he celebrates this herald and legate of our King: *The garment was, woven of the curved bristles of a camel, / So that it might harden the soft limbs against luxury, / And ward off heavy slumbers with a pricking body.* But *lasion* (shaggy) and *trichinon* (hairy) are far different; likewise a *lasion chitōn* and a *trichinos* one. And the Hebrew *saq*, which penitents put on, is of the latter, not the former genus, which is *cilicium* in Latin. Thus, Jonah 3:6, the king who was repenting, *removed his cloak from him, and put on sackcloth, and sat in ashes.* Where *stolē* (cloak) ^C is called by the Hebrews by the same name as Elijah's mantle or chlamys: so that they understand *ha-'adderet*, which is a precious, or finely woven one. Whence it is also called [that] by them. Which the Chaldeans also generally express with a Greek word; for they themselves also, with letters nearly the same, or slightly deflected, call it a *stola*. But the garment which she who has stripped off the former puts on, is surely not a *lasion chitōna*, but a *trichinos* one, which would prick and exercise the body; and would excite the soul to repentance and subjection of the body (which is excellently called *asarkia* by Gregory in his praise of the martyr Cyprian). From which also perhaps the patriarchal *saccus* [comes]: which, because they judged this color to be 145 unseemly at that time, [they made] of purple. ^D

^A suitable for fasts, or 145 for mournings, the patriarch provided.

Regarding this, let the most illustrious man and one who has well deserved of these letters, Joannes Meursius, be consulted under this word in the Glossary which he inscribed *Graeco-barbarum*. Isidore says the Arabs of Cilicia call the coverings woven from goat hair, from which they make themselves tents, *cilicia*. Varro derives the name from the Cilicians, although it appears to have originated instead from a Chaldean word. For just as the ancient heroes, who are celebrated by Homer and Virgil, would cast dust on their heads in mourning, so the ancient Hebrews would cast themselves upon the ground. Thus, for his sick son, the royal prophet *ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἐκυλίσθη*, "on the earth he rolled himself." For thus the Hellenists [translate it], for which *ἐκυλίσθη* is now read. Which the Chaldeans call *galgali*. Whence *app kilki*, which in the glosses of the more recent writers is explained as *cilicium* [haircloth]. Why, then, does he fruitlessly attribute a *rásion chitōna* [frieze tunic] to John, which is more suited for warding off cold or for softness, since an *askētikē kai metanoētikē* [ascetic and penitential] garment is described here? But what did he intend, as I said before, when he called the same tunic *leptouphē*? Which is *addereth*, just as we should also admonish there, *sinear*; a Babylonian and precious garment, when not even *addereth*, which they call *sear* [hairy], or lined with skins—which I said before—is rightly attributed to him. But let us assist the learned man, who at that time did not poorly deserve of sacred things. What if he wrote *leptouphē* more specifically? So that *leptouphē* may be said of *kakouphē* [badly woven] and cheaply woven things, which are lightly and most vilely woven, just as "thin" is used by the Latins in both ways. Thus *leptolachanon* in the diet of ascetics. Although the little Greeks, who are absolutely the latest and of a lesser age, rendered what is called *leptophuē* [thin-grown] as *psilocharomena* [thinly brushed] in their own language, and by this word they understand what is accurately woven, and, as they are also wont to speak, *ta leptoskeuasmēna* [finely made things], which others also understand as *psila* [thin/bare] absolutely. However it may be, he entangles himself heavily. For *to leptophues* and *to perimuxasmenos* [the finely woven and the one wearing a cloak of camel hair] are manifestly in conflict; the garment, moreover, made of the hair of a camel, or of camels, which the Evangelist attributes to John, and the *chitōn lasios* [hairy tunic]. Meanwhile, in his mind, with this confusion, he had a description of his garment truly *askētikēn kai metanoētikēn* [ascetic and penitential], such as the Hellenists called *mēlōtēn*; thus some of the Hebrews attribute it to the monks, that is, the *addereth* of Elijah. In the history of the Samaritan woman, ch. 5, it is read: ^B *hopē phutoergos Iakōb/Ampeloen pedon eiche.*

It is imaginary, and sought from what follows, that he here called Jacob *phutoergon* [a planter], who is said by the sacred writer to have lived in a tent. Esau, he says, was "skilled in hunting and a man of the fields; but Jacob, a simple man, dwelt in tents." Where what seems to be attributed to Esau, our author attributes to Jacob, although not as a husbandman, but, as the learned Hellenists [say] there, Esau is rather called *agroikos* [a boor]. But Jacob, who is called *tōn skēnōn oikistēs* [a dweller in tents] literally, is said to *oikein oikian* [dwell in a house] to them, because he was intent on livestock: which, as the king of philosophers says, is most slothful and sluggish, ^C as it provides a living from tame animals with no labor. But because they follow the herds for the sake of pastures, he says, they are also frequently forced to change their location. So much so that they seem to practice a kind of living agriculture; since it consists not in plants but in animals, to which he forthwith joins hunters. But now let us hear him: "They are indeed most idle nomads; for they live in idleness, because their food comes from the animals. And because it is necessary for them to move for the sake of the pastures for the cattle, they themselves are forced to follow, as if cultivating a certain living agriculture."

147 That such men lived in tents, which they moved because of the necessity of pasture, we know. For nothing is more well-known from antiquity, and from those who wrote about Nomadic geographies. And in the thirty-third chapter of Genesis we have a famous passage on this matter: "And Jacob came to Sochot: where, a house being built, and [with] stakes fixed, he called the name of that place Sochot, that is ^D Tabernacle." Where the Hellenists have: *Kai Iakōb apairei eis skēnas; kai epoiēsen heautō oikias, kai tois ktēnesin autou epoiēse skēnas; dia touto ekalese to onoma tou topou ekeinou, Skēnai.* Which is to be noted for the sake of the Chaldeans, who call him a minister of erudition or doctrine: which seems forced to Fagius and Mercer, since he himself notes that the Jews are engaged in this opinion. For my part, there is no doubt that the Chaldeans interpreted this passage as if it alluded *kata pro-lēpsin* [by anticipation] to the *skēnē marturiou* [tabernacle of the testimony], in which the Lord was present. About which, indeed, he will not doubt who considers the famous passage of Exodus thirty-third, verse 7. Where, when it is a matter of this tabernacle for these men: *Kai labōn Mōusēs tēn skēnēn, epexen exō tēs parembolēs; kai eklēthē Skēnē tou marturiou; kai egeneto, pas ho zētōn ton Kurion, kai exeporeueto eis tēn skēnēn exō tēs parembolēs*, the Chaldean uses the same word. This tabernacle, he says, he called *sukkath*, that is, a house of doctrine. Just as also the *skēnē marturiou*, the type of the Synagogue and Temple, which received the Church, he undoubtedly signified Jacob as its president, and minister through faith, even then. Therefore Philo also interpreted it as *oikon, kai aulas tou Kuriou* [house and courts of the Lord]. Furthermore, the Hellenists interpreted it not as *skēnēn* but as *oikian*, as I think: not being unaware that the Greeks would less honestly use that word. Inasmuch as they commonly used *en skēnē* 148 *trephesthai* [to be brought up in a tent] for those who were lustful and obscene, or for those who had prostituted their body for a price. Theodoret in the Preface to the book to which he gave the inscription *Peri tēs hairetikēs kakomuthias* [On the heretical malicious stories]: "But the lechery also legislated and practiced by them—not even one of those raised in a tent would endure to speak of it, or to hear it from others; so much does it leave behind even the famous workers of lascivity." Now *en tē phutourgia* [in the planting], that the first place is assigned to *tē ampelourgia* [vine-pruning], is known even from Philo, who also inscribed a book with that very title, which is well known and which is in everyone's hands. But why he called the Sichemitic field *pedion ampeloen* [vine-rich plain], although I could perhaps bring forward other causes, I believe our author looked to the fact that Sichem (for he is not rarely delighted by allusions) was later called a city by some: that, however, the Greeks interpreted almost as from *sichy*, *sikr* or *sikera*. But he is mistaken in that he thinks *sikera* [strong drink] is made from the vine alone, since it is often contrasted with wine, as in Num. vi, 3; Mich. ii, 11; and elsewhere not once. Whence also that [saying]: "He shall not drink wine and *sikera*." To which passage the Greek Fathers, directly opposing what he intended here, noted: *hoti sikera pan to methēn empoiein dunamenon, legetai, ouk an de ex ampelou*—that "sikera" is said of everything capable of causing drunkenness, but not derived from the vine: since it can only have application in those places in which *oinos* [wine] and *sikera* are contrasted. As in that case, for example, in the first of Luke, of which I spoke before, and in similar [passages]. What he imposed upon Hesychius, when he said: *Sikera, oinos summiges hēdūsmasin, ē pan pōma empoiein methēn dunamenon, mē ex ampelou, skeuaston de kai suntheton* [strong drink, wine mixed with spices, or any drink capable of causing drunkenness, not from the vine, but manufactured and compound]. For that wine is also denoted by that word among the Hebrews, there is no one who does not know who has casually glanced at the Targum of the Chaldeans. Which is said by Josephus, a very great writer, in the second book of Antiquities about the 149 Barbarians, *hoti en tois thremmasi to palaion pasa ēn hē ktēsis autōn*, that is, that their wealth in ancient times consisted of livestock; it is true also concerning the ancient patriarchs, Jacob most especially, of whom we were speaking before. Furthermore, since the whole Orient was wondrously arid and dry, no one is ignorant of what care they took there to dig wells, or, having dug them, to defend them from injury and violence, as if these were more useful or necessary than other possessions for livestock. Nor are the things which are read about them in the history of Abimelech and Abraham, but especially in that of Jacob, unknown. Such was the well at which our Savior had those divine discourses with the Samaritan woman: which [is called] now *pēgē* [fountain], now, by the custom of the Hebrews,

^A *phrear* [well], as the elder Greeks say. For at one moment [he says], "Having come down to the fountain, she filled the pitcher, and went up"; and at another, "She ran again to the well," just as they found that variation in the Hebrew. For when there were wells, because of their purity, as it seems, they were also called fountains. For they were accustomed to being carefully closed and reopened by means of a stone placed over them. Concerning which matter one must look at the history of Jacob in the twenty-ninth [chapter] of Genesis, unless perhaps he spoke thus solely from the consideration of the language, or *kata tēn dialekton* [according to the dialect], as we were saying. Our author, which scarcely befits a translator—beyond the fact that he himself also said now *pēgē*, now *phrear*—dares also to say *elusen*, that is, "muddy." For thus he speaks:

"A deep-bosomed fountain..." [and then,] "He drew forth the lower water of the muddy well."

Nor was he thinking further down that it is said of Jacob: "And he himself drank from it, and his sons." Who ^B 150 have finished a huge or long journey, whom the Greeks call *tēlēporous*. And this is so well known that not even boys would be ignorant of it. Our author joined this to the journey itself. For thus [he writes] regarding comma 6:

"And there, having ceased from his far-faring path, Christ, weary from his journey, rested from his toil."

And since the Hebrews also have participles among the things added [to the text], this may be appended to what is above. It seems *desultory* what he says concerning the Samaritan woman at comma 7: *aeiromenēn dia kolpou kalpin echein*, that is, that she carried a pitcher in her bosom, when in the twenty-fourth chapter of Genesis, *ōmos*, as the Greeks translate it, *ōmon* [on her shoulder], she carried it. By which it is not to be doubted that he alludes to this chapter several times. Not much later, namely at comma 12:

"You are not greater than our father Jacob, of a holy line,"

he calls Jacob *arsenopaidas* [male-child-begetting] rather inappropriately, where the city of Sichem was mentioned a little before, just as all these things which he has pursued up to this point were done there. He might at least have thought of Dinah, whose defilement caused such a slaughter in this place that the city was ennobled by that alone. It would have been another matter if he had been speaking about the tribes. It matters so much how you speak. And perhaps this is the reason (although I know another can be brought forward based on the Hebrew way of reasoning) why it is not numbered in the list of the children of this patriarch. It follows:

"And he drank from it... water of the well for an oath."

Where most have read *orkion* [for an oath]. But if Nonnus wrote *arkion*, which the Hellenists are accustomed to call now *phrear horkismou* [well of the oath] or *archō* [ruling], now *Bersabee*, he might seem to have looked to [the text] ^C 151 where that [place] is called *Bersabee* [to which] Israel, when he was setting out for Egypt, was told [to go]. But what has that to do with this one, which is said to have been Jacob’s and is located in the region of the tribe of Ephraim, whereas Bersabee, or *phrear horkion*, or *horkismou*, or *horkou*, was the highest boundary and limit of Palestine; more celebrated in the affairs of Abraham and Isaac than of Jacob? And yet, that it can be called the same *arkion*, if the point is moved from right to left, they know who have been imbued with these letters: whence arises the abundance of vulgarity, because in the Greek it is read *orchon*. And so the difficulty will be removed if, as some do, we read *arkion*, unless this is to be ascribed to ignorance. What, however, was he intending when, for those words at comma 21: "Woman, believe me, that the hour is coming when neither on this mountain, nor at Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father," he translated: ^D "With bull's blood you will offer a horned libation"?

Which [the] interpreters render, "making a libation drawn with horns." First of all, it is one thing to adore, another to sacrifice. And one should not depart from the words of the Lord rashly, especially in this place; nor should things that are contrary and explicitly conflicting be said: for since sacrifices are abolished, our author holds them [in the text]. But let us suppose these things do not differ at all, and let us defend our author as best we can. I ask, what *keraelkes* [horned-drawn] is said to be here? Interpreters reply, a libation which is drawn by [means of] horns. But what am I hearing? That a horned victim should be a libation. The royal prophet commends in Psalm LXIX, 32, *moschon kerata ekpheronte*, a horned calf, but as a calf, if I am not mistaken. But as for a libation, which was made from wine, honey, and other liquids, who ever called [it] 152 *horned*? Which of the Greeks called *chuseis*, *choas*, *loibas*, and *spondas*, which were spoken of as being poured out or offered as a libation, a [horned] victim? The Hellenists of the Hebrews [use] *choē*, that is *choē*, mostly *spondē*; they called the instrument by which it was poured now *kyathos*, now *spondeion*. Glossary: drink-offering, *loibē*, *spondē*, *choē*. David, II Samuel XXIII, 16, when he could have drunk water from Bethlehem, preferred to pour [it] out: this is *loibē*. Aeschylus entitled one of his tragedies *Choēphoroi* [Libation Bearers], on account of the *choai* [libations] that are poured out there; which [in that same] place he also calls *chysin gaipoion* [earth-drinking pouring] and *chernitas* [purifying waters] from the liquid. And these are true *loibai*, yet not *keraelkeis* [horned-drawn], unless we are insane. Let us again suppose that bull’s blood is being considered, not as part of a victim, but as a *choē*, what does that have to do with horns? Why, if it is a *loibē*, how is it *keraelkes*? And if it is *keraelkes*, how [is it] now a *loibē*? It is sophistical and clearly untimely that, when the divine author treats [the subject] of adoration in Spirit and in truth with the purest words—the one of which separates [us] from superstition, the other from all ancient types, such as victims and sacrifices—he, as Chrysostom correctly interpreted, has foolishly expressed I know not what gestures and postures of the body in adoring, imprudently and with most annoying additions. For whereas the holy author, as he is wont to do, [speaks] most simply: "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father also seeks such to worship him": so our author:

"But for wise rites, the priest awaits the hour, And now it has come near, when true initiates Together incline the suppliant neck to the earth, The neck inclined from the dropping head, All in truth and in spirit; for 153 such The High-Ruler God desires, who to him Bend their joined knees [to the] earth, With divine spirit and truth-bearing voice, On the floor, prone, with face pressed down."

So that in that place, in which there is [a question] of simple, true, and spiritual worship, beyond an ineffable *adoxia* and loquacity, he appears to commend nothing else than superstitious and Judaic gesticulations, and, as Sidonius speaks, the sighs of men with humbled necks and bowed breasts. Which is no light or vulgar *akrisia*, especially in a man who, as some desire, has either taught or treated of sacred things; certainly he has interpreted them. How much better and simpler he would have expressed this great author in this way:

"But it has arrived, O woman, and the hour has come, When my attendants and true initiates, With divine spirit and with truth alone, Incline the knee to the Father; for he who dwells in the ether alone Is well-pleased with such; and he delights in those who pray."

One can inquire likewise, what came into his mind that he should call the Galileans sometimes *philochristous* [Christ-loving], sometimes *philostorgous* [affectionate]. For a little later in the history of the Samaritan [woman] it is read:

"And again he came to the plain of the affectionate Galileans."

^A

1011 AD NONNI METAPHRASIN IN JOANNEM

"Gladly did the swarm of affectionate Galileans receive him." It is as if nowhere else did the Lord have subjects more devoted or benevolent toward him. Yet the Truth itself pronounced concerning them: "A prophet is not held in honor in his own country." Item: "Woe to you, Chorazin; woe to you, Bethsaida," etc. Item: "And you, Capernaum, which are now exalted to heaven, shall be brought down to hell." However, certain ancients seem to have urged this point, because in Matt. 26:32 and Mark 14:28, it is said by Christ: "I will go before you into Galilee." Lactantius, lib. 4, chap. 20: "Having set out therefore into Galilee (for he did not wish to show himself to the Jews, lest he should lead them to repentance, and preserve the impious), with his disciples gathered again, he opened the scriptures of the holy law, that is, the secrets of the prophets, which, before he had suffered, could in no way be understood; because they announced him and his passion." Theophylact: "Showing from thence that he would abandon Jerusalem; but he would go to the nations: for Gentiles inhabited Galilee." Whence also the learned have noted that the whole time from the Passover to the Ascension, which the Lord had spent in Galilee, was called Galilee: among whom is also that most illustrious man, Joannes Meursius. Which, however, unless I am mistaken, can hardly have a place here.

CHAPTER VI

1013 From him who *hyperousiōs* (super-essentially) was *hyperousios*, he mutated into the substance of wine—whom he called *chionē*? Truly, *physis* (if one must speak in this way) *chionē*, will be snow rather than water. But also snow, which is *eidos* of water, and not water, should I call *physis chionē* or *chionōtē*? Because water, which is simply called such, was never snow: just as it does not freeze in every place, nor can it become snow. 156 Nor, indeed, upon the earth, *en tō anō topō*, as the prince of philosophers is accustomed to speak. The *chionōtē physis*, unless I am mistaken, does not exist anywhere. And *chionōdes hydōr* would be not nival, but nivata (snowy) water. And thus *oinōdes* [is] without doubt *chionōtē*. For *chionoun*, to make snowy, or, by infusing snow, as the learned know, to temper, just as Nero used those steeped in snow, as Suetonius witnesses: "He often refreshed himself in warm pools, and in summer time in those cooled with snow"; for that which he called *chionōtē physis* must be excused among the tribe of grammarians. But who would call a white nature, or, a nival nature, one who understands water? Truly *physis* is the *einai* [essence], but color is an accident. And it is indeed so [separable] in water, that whatever it assumes, it does not therefore cease to be water, or cease to be what it was. But also Aristotle, when in another place he says that those are most of all simple colors which adhere to the elements, as whiteness in water (as in the book *On Colors*: "Of colors, those are simple which follow the elements, such as fire, and air, and water, and earth: for air and water are by nature white in themselves"), yet elsewhere he says this comes from the earth, through which it flows. He treats of the earthy and the tints of waters, when they do not even allow that the color which receives the name "white"—of which snow is the source—is a perpetual and inseparable color, which in the mountains of Armenia, they note, arises not white, as elsewhere, but red, which is born from the exhalations of painted earth: which we now omit. But that is truly strange, and unworthy of a theologian, that he should have said—impudently, yet consistently—that the color of water rather than water itself was changed in this miracle, perhaps as other things usually are. So indeed above, in chapter 11, where this miracle is described.

157 "And it was a wonder; and into the flow ^B of dark wine he changed the watery color—the white."

You see *chroēn chionēēn*, which water he changed, you see water called *heterochroōn*. And then he adds, that it had been *akraton* water, pure, or mere, except that a certain Bacchic scent either breathed from it, or, as others read, floated upon it:

"And through the vessel-holding bosom ^C of pure water a sweet breath floated."

Which is to call the water vinous, or wine-tinctured: which nevertheless he calls pure, when especially after the miracle, which he had already introduced, it was not wine-tinctured or infused, but instead of water was wine. And let us suppose he had posited *hydatos akratou*, for *hydatos akratou prin oinōthentos*, that is, which had been diluted before and was now pure: how do the rest satisfy? What, that a little later, he did not say wine, but *nama oinōthen*, or, water tinctured with wine, or vinated?

"And when the steward of the feast tasted, with his throat as witness, the vinated stream, reddening."

And then he commends it from the color:

"How first he sets forth the sweet-colored wine by mixing."

But if the Lord changed nothing else in the wine than the color, it is necessary that the miracle was wrought *kata doxēn* (in appearance), not by the transformation of the water, and was not done in truth: for he provided nothing that any tavern-keeper could not do. And about Marcus the heretic, known from Epiphanius and Irenæus, who was accustomed to play with colors in this way. ^D Yet the evangelist says nothing about color, who judges from the taste.

^A For lest any one (Theophylact prudently says) should think that some were drunk, and did not judge correctly, the tasting is committed to the steward, as to one who is sober. Concerning which Chrysostom speaks at greater length. Indeed, unless it is certain, as Augustine rightly holds, that true wine and true water are understood in this miracle, all others labor in vain; for if this be not true, it is not rightly commended as the first. And Hilary excellently notes that it had ceased to be what it was, and had begun to be what it was not. Likewise Augustine, who says: "He made wine that day in the jars, who every year makes it in the vines." On which account Theodoret elegantly called it, as something born of a miracle and suddenly produced, an "offshoot." But this from the luxury of epithets, if I am not mistaken, which turns the simple and pure speech contained in those words, *as the steward tasted the water that had been made wine*, into an inappropriate and disordered form, which is anything but fitting. For he rendered it thus:

*And when the steward of the feast tasted with the witness of his throat* *The stream flowing red with wine.*

Where neither of those things which he puts for wine (namely, the *wafer* that had been turned into wine, and the *flowing stream* that is red) indicates its substance. Thus, when he found here that he did not "make the water wine," which was said simply enough by the author, but not "water," but "yellow water," and not "wine," but a "flowing of wine," and not "to make water," but to "make into water," or "into the flowing of water," he spoke that which the Greeks call "to make wine," or "to change into wine." Now, nothing denotes the substance of wine less than *chysis* [flowing], and it is common to both water and wine. For it is the very movement of pouring out, or an abundance ^B and flow. Thus it is transferred, as when the greatest poet in the fifth book of the *Odyssey* said a "flow of leaves"; and as astrologers also assign a "flow" to the stars. But we were seeking here the *being*, or the *essence* of the wine, which would resolve the miracle: which origin Sedulius mentioned in his Acrostich:

*A new kind of power,* *The water jars blush,* *And the wine, bidden to flow,* *The water changed its origin.*

Where you have a change in both nature and color. Nor is it to be doubted that when he posited "origin," he understood "flavor": which origin and principle is that from which wine is usually distinguished, as is noted by the prince of philosophers in the fourth book of his *Metaphysics*, among other things: "Whence the thing is first known, that is called the beginning of the thing." He says that which is the source from which a thing is first known is called its origin or beginning. Our author, having set down the color almost everywhere solely, judged very poorly of it too. For what did he mean, when he called the water, which he called "snow-white" or "snowy" elsewhere, "yellow" [xanthos] here? Although it will be worth the effort, if I am not mistaken, to set down here again the passage we have been considering:

*Where the Canaanite soil, whence of old into a flow of wine* *He made the yellow water, having changed the snowy nature.*

For what, I ask, did he intend when he said "yellow water," and in the same poem called it "snowy"? For he did not understand the force of the epithet. For in the elements, where color is most simple, water is called by the prince of philosophers "white," and fire "yellow." For he says: "Air and water, by nature, are white; fire and the sun are yellow." And yet that color is so far from being white that in fire it is reddish, in other things it is dark, and comes very close to black. Whence it is also called *aithos* by Eustathius and others. Therefore, ^C on account of the weakness or defect of the black, where nourishment is lacking, as in fruits, in the hair of animals, and others of that kind, it is born—this the philosopher proved by a sufficiently long induction in his book *On Colors*, just as in the case of the crow's wings, he notes, he derives it from black, and finally from the drying and concoction of the humors (as in fruits in August, in trees in autumn, which, whether they wither or ripen, put on a yellow color). By what reason, then, will this be the color of water, which is born when it [the water] is absent and deficient? Add that the closer each thing approaches the fire, the less it is tainted by darkness or shadow (which always tends toward black), so it is more cheerful in that color, and it appears less diluted. Whence *aithos*, which is the color of fire, is also called red and ruddy. Ancient glossaries: *xanthos*, yellow, reddish, ruddy. As in wine, not so much yellow as reddish, which Homer called *aithopa*; and which our author understood throughout the entire second book and here; which that [*word*] which the Hellenists incessantly call *akratos* [unmixed], because the less it is tempered by water, the more exquisitely it burns, or is less diluted in color. Indeed, that *xanthos* is the proper color of wine, and is sometimes used for reddish, or that which comes close to it, no one teaches more than the Hebrews and Chaldeans: for when a yellow color, but one that is reddish, as in Greek and Spanish wine, is called by the Hebrews *ahuv* (as they wish) from the color of gold, which (as appears from the noble passage on leprosy in the thirteenth chapter of Leviticus) is called *hharur* in the hair by the Chaldeans, they clearly transferred the same to their reddish color, which they call *hhamar*. ^D Moreover, all that is reddish draws more from white than from yellow, although the ancients often confused these two. And Plato, when he wishes yellow to consist of red, brilliant, and white, undoubtedly looked to this. For whatever light illuminates, it must needs have something of the white: for darkness and shadows lack light. Whence also *achroos* [colorless] is a term for darkness from Ocellus Lucanus; just as white, surrounded by much light (which almost all black lacks), is spoken of by Plato. But if you should say that the color is also described according to the capacity of the vessel or the quantity of the water (for as it is little or much, so it is less or more black; for either the vision penetrates to the bottom or is hindered: which is noted by Aristotle also concerning the sea and rivers), the author himself implies that these were full jars, and that each contained a great force and volume of water. But let us suppose that the ancients, which is indeed true, amazingly played with colors, and with that one in particular. Just as when Pacuvius said of both water and dust:

*Grant me, however, a foot with yellow waters, that I may wash* *The yellow from my skin, with the same hands* *With which I often caressed Ulysses, and lessen* *The weariness of my hands with their softness.*

(For concerning Ennius, when he called the sea both azure and yellow, he says:

*They sweep the sea at once with a calm, yellow marble,* *The azure struck by the foaming salt with a crowded raft,*

the less critical marvel, because they say, since yellow is a color mixed of green and white, he called the foams of the green sea "yellow marble," as it is in Gellius book 2, chapter 26.) Whatever there may be of this, not only does this pair of epithets—*xanthos* in the same water and "snowy"—plainly fight, but it will also be the same color of the water that was changed as the color of the wine which it assumed. By which reason the mark, which he everywhere places as *diakrisis* [discrimination], namely the color, he will overturn. And these things are surely enough concerning these colors: which both Greeks and Latins, as I have said often, confuse. But much the most the later Hebrews, who—having drawn from I know not what Arabic interpreter of Aristotle that simple colors are best seen in the elements and their colors, and therefore wrote that the tabernacle, which they called of the Testimony, represented individual ones—nevertheless contend so much about them that they can scarcely define one. Just as concerning the Thasian animal, and the color [of...]

^A of snowy stones, they have produced a multicolored radiance. The passage is immediately after the beginning of chapter 5. Where *snowy stones*, as *white stones* in Josephus: most white and uniform and *of one color*. Why, therefore, do I not pardon him, because he said *multicolored radiance*, that is, a variegated splendor, when especially, it is not variegated, but of one color, this whiteness of the marble, which should have commended the temple's appearance. In the same chapter concerning the sick man, who, already restored to himself, was taking up his bed, when he speaks thus:

*And shaking his unaccustomed knees,* *And bearing with toil on his shoulder the heavy bed,*

is faulty, and certainly not Greek; he said *shoulder-bed*. It would indeed be *to the shoulder*, although *shoulder* and *shoulder-blade* are different things. Nor would I call a bed, a very light little couch, which it was the custom to carry about, *heavy-burdened*. That is known:

*Who might be able to place on his neck* *The broken leg of an old bed.*

Wherefore he might have expressed this more in Greek and more truly thus:

*And straightway he himself lifted the bed upon his shoulders.*

Although he has already said the same thing before, *and taking the bed lying upon his shoulders*. How much better, therefore, he would have conceived the whole passage! ^B

*And he leaped up, and having planted his foot on the ground,* *He walked, as of old, again shaking his unaccustomed knees,* *And straightway he himself lifted the bed upon his shoulders.*

There is truly no kind of study that can be compared with this. For there is nothing that better informs the wit or accomplishes the judgment: a thing which we do not everywhere concede as whole even to the most ancient [writers] against us; for it is established that they could err in things just as in the method of language, as well as it is established concerning us, but of these matters at another time; now concerning the attributes of Nonnus. And since the Hebrews number participles following [them], let that be added here, which follows concerning this same sick man, in the fifteenth comma:

*Shouting a tale to the people, rejecting the jealous one.*

He surely does not notice, if I am not mistaken, what he says here. For if he who had been convalescent and had been restored, points out to the Jews that it was Jesus the Lord, by whom he had been restored to health previously, so that by this evidence (which Euthymius, Chrysostom, and others certainly do not fear to deny) he might betray him to the wicked, it is not to be doubted that this was perceived by them as pleasing. For the author himself adds, *and for this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus*. Why, therefore, did he say *to the people rejecting* (*anainomenôi laôi*), that is, refusing, [the truth]? In the same chapter, in the thirtieth verse, as the distinctions now have it, and [the] third, thus our poet sings:

*And they asked* *The holy John, pregnant with the God-receiving oracle.*

Those who are imbued with even vulgar erudition know that *God-receiving* (*theodegmon*) is said by the Greeks of one who admits God, or who receives God, one who receives God, such as those who are inspired by the divine. This is what the poet wished when he said: *There is a God in us*. For this is: *We are God-receiving*. Whence also the prophets are said to suffer and admit God. What, therefore, did he want, when he called the most holy John, who preceded the Lord and preached, full of the *God-receiving* oracle? For he should not be said to be so, [since it was not] that which John had received, but John himself, who was divine, [who was the receiver]. And thus he is accustomed to speak in chapter 10:

*There are, indeed, there are also other various ewes of the fold,* *Of this not being of the God-receiving court.*

And in 18: *He came as a companion to Christ within the God-receiving court.*

And 7: *Late-coming visitor of the radiance,* *Of the Spirit, which he was about to obtain with a God-receiving mind.*

^C And 1: *Declaring a common testimony to the God-receiving people.*

And concerning Joseph who was carrying the Lord and our God, 19: *Lightening the burden placed on his God-receiving shoulder.*

To all of which, against this passage, [my] opinion...

if I am not mistaken, he expressed. Although indeed he did not always understand the words of the Evangelist and of others whom he uses, yet those points which, not sufficiently circumspectly, and without taking into account either his own intention or [that of] the author he is interpreting, he took from Greek authors of the Church, do surpass [the others]: which, as it appears in the greater matters of which I spoke before, so it appears in the lesser. The boats in which they were accustomed to cross the lake of Tiberias in that time were altogether small: such as were called by a single helmsman or master, as it seems, by the Syrians. Whence the Evangelist called them *ploiaria* for the most part. So below, *and other little boats came from Tiberias.* Where *ploiarion* seems to be a skiff, by which the lake was crossed: the same which perhaps [is called] ^A *dugith*, or not much larger, by which they would cross the Jordan in that storm. Our author said *polukleidi* by Homeric example. For thus at the beginning of the sixth chapter, in the first verse to be sure: *With a multi-benched ship, cutting the opposing water.* Which [vessels] were generally huge and compacted with immense beams, and required the work and service of many. So that *poluzugoi* and *hekatonzugoi*, or *polukwoi*, because they were moved with difficulty by oars and by many [men], are called by grammarians of the same sort: similar to the *Dugith* of the Rabbis. Wherefore, he makes an elephant out of a fly, when of such a skiff, he said below: *Having played with a sea-coursing chariot of the sea.*

167 Most imprudently, not long after, in the 9th verse to be sure, he called the speech or word of Andrew, who was warning the Lord, that, as the Evangelist speaks, *there is a lad here, who has five barley loaves and two fish,* [a] *spetmon*: which truly was owed to [that] voice to which the miracle was also owed. For this was convenient to the Lord, when He was blessing the food, not to the Apostle, who could contribute nothing to the miracle from himself. Furthermore, when the most holy Evangelist wrote those words which I have already cited, *there is a lad here, who has five barley loaves and two fish,* because there is no one who does not know that *opson* and *opsarion* are said of fish, he translated it quite idiotically as *opespon*: as if *opsarion* and *to optasthai* (to be roasted) had anything in common, or [as if] those fish were roasted. Which, if I am not mistaken, neither Matthew, nor Mark, nor Luke said. Then, if I can judge anything at all, there was no cause why he preferred to recast the loaves, which are called *krithinoi* (barley), and to call them *krithodeis*. Which is as if you were to say of *tritikees* (wheat), *purudeis* instead of *purinous*: as if *krithodeis* denoted the material, not something of the form, or as if *xulodeis* meant the same as *xulinon* (wooden). Such are the words [which] grammarians, too carelessly until now, having taken no account of utility, have transferred into their glosses. In the same chapter at verse 22 it follows:

*But when [the crowd] having recognized the rock neighboring Tiberias, ^B dawn displayed the sunless mist, the people standing, looked across the sea-salt [water] of fine-pebbled face.*

*For your [fathers] in the desert near the rock of the air ate the undying bread of Manna,* he called Manna, the *arton aphthiton*, not very circumspectly. For the Jews could not have been ignorant that it is said in the sacred context concerning this bread, that it rotted and bred worms, *that it bred worms and stank.* Also, when the sun had grown hot, it began to melt, Exodus XVI. Which seems to have happened divinely, so that they would not attribute too much to this food, or expect another [food], which was truly *athanatos te kai athaanatzon*, of which this chapter treats. But the error is also clearly idiotic, nor worthy of an ^C educated man, that he called the desert of Sin, in which Israel ate manna, and in which the people wandered for forty years, *petren eremade* (a desolate rock). Hence it arose, without a doubt, that he confuses the *eremon Sin*, which is mentioned in Exodus sixteenth and in other places, and where manna was provided to the people, with the *eremon Sin*, which is mentioned in Numbers XX, where was the rock of Arabia, near which Moses' sister Mary was buried, whom our author dreams [is mentioned] both here and below, when he said, *And they died in the crags of the desolate rock,* being secure regarding the Scripture of the Hebrews; to whom [the Hebrews] the one desert, in which they ate the manna provided by God, is called *Midbar Sin*, the other, in which they did not eat manna, but water, which Moses provided from the rock, they drank, is called *Meribah*. Thus a little later: *Did not Moses before this provide for you by the rock the nectar-flowing bread of the air?* With a similar error. For the Rock, of which he speaks, was at Kadesh, where was the water of contradiction, of which our author was thinking nothing. It follows in the next verse: *Moses has not given you the bread from heaven.* Why? For it is said expressly from the person of God, Exodus xvi, 4, concerning manna: *Behold, I will rain bread for you from heaven.* And then, it is said with the greatest care by Moses: *This is the bread which the Lord gave you to eat; this word the Lord commanded.* Why? Because God Himself, as they speak now, gave the manna immediately; but concerning the water, which the sons of Israel drank from the rock, *And Moses lifting his hand, and striking the rock with the rod,* it is said. This therefore he says: As you did not receive manna from Moses, but from my Father, so my same Father now provides to you the true bread from heaven. For the defect in the speech is manifest: *Moses has not given you the ^D bread from heaven, but my Father, who also now gives to you the true bread from heaven,* when some seek the interpretation from the homonymy of *the bread from heaven*. As if he were to say: That bread of Moses was not truly heavenly, but this one is truly heavenly, which is given to you by my Father. In vain, because it is not attributed to Moses, but to God; and the Evangelist alludes casually to those same places in his own manner. For concerning the bread, that one was a type, this one was the truth, no one can doubt. Nor does our author depart from this opinion. Ineptly he said that the Jews despise Joseph, whose son they thought he was, as *theodea* (God-like) at verse 42: *Was he not the son of the God-like Joseph?* Around the end of this sixth chapter, in the penultimate verse to be sure, when the Evangelist said, *And one of you is a devil,* it is undoubtedly a hyperbole. Our author seems to have understood [it] as an evil spirit, since even the Greeks use that word concerning an extremely wicked man: whence *anthropos diabolos* is cited from Pindar. But also Athenaeus, elsewhere, called the disciples of Plato *turannikous kai diabolous* (tyrannical and slanderous). The same, *One reigned,* he says, *being a phailos and a devil,* concerning an extremely wicked man, as…

Eustathius correctly proved from this passage. And in Plautus’ ^A *Asinaria*, a worthless youth, good for nothing, is called a devil (*diabolus*); for he does not traduce the old man, but enjoins this upon the parasite. But to me it does not seem doubtful that the disciple reached the extreme of wickedness and depravity from slandering; he who thus wickedly traduces Martha and her divine deed. Just as it is not to be doubted that he judged the Lord and His acts in this way, and everywhere acted as a whisperer and a slanderer, such as the Law of Leviticus describes, where it is said: *Thou shalt not be a sycophant, or a whisperer.* Wherein, divinely, the Chaldean says, *Thou shalt not eat calumnies*: which some have interpreted as *Thou shalt not eat cakes*; [a suggestion] that this class of men was admitted to banquets, and, like parasites, for the sake of the belly, would slander others. But it is most well known that the Chaldeans speak in this manner.

In the sense in which it is said by the Greeks, *to rejoice as at a feast* (*chairein hos daiti*): thus warlike [men] are said to be *rejoicing in war as at a feast* (*polemo kecharēotes ēute daiti*). The Syrians interpret this with one word. Wherefore the Syrian interpreter, when he converts *diabolos* here as *karna*, would have spoken somewhat more circumspectly, had that most learned man said it in his own tongue. As in the eleventh chapter of Proverbs, verse 13, a man is called double-tongued: *A double-tongued man revealeth counsels in the council*, which fits this wicked man perfectly, and there the Chaldeans speak in the way I have already mentioned. ^B In the seventh chapter, verse 23, those words—*Ye are angry with me because I made a man every whit whole*—most people think are to be referred to the miracle which is described in the fifth chapter, namely, that of the man who had lain there for thirty-eight years. That he was a paralytic, both some others from antiquity, and Theophylact in that place, take for granted. For he says: *The patience of the paralytic was astonishing. He had thirty and eight years, and each year expecting to be freed from his disease, he was waylaid and hindered by the more powerful, and yet he did not stand aloof, nor did he despair.* What, then, did he mean when he said *kyklada noson*, that is, periodic? For a cycle is either the same as a period in medical terminology, or it expresses the force of a limit in a definition. Therefore Galen called a periodic disease *the disease which comes around in a certain cycle* (*tēn kata tina kyklon perierchomenēn noson*). And he adds: *Every physician calls such a cycle a period.* But paralysis, whether perfect or exquisite, quickly kills. The other is more lingering, but which, as seems to be the case with this patient, takes away all motion, and in this manner has something *kyklikon* (cyclical) and *periodikon* (periodic): because it sometimes returns or grows stronger. And this is what the same patient complains of above: *Lord, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool.* But he wanted [to say] something else, if I can judge anything at all. Namely, that the disease was chronic and long-lasting. For in that place he himself said,

*Three decades having passed in sickness,* *And again eight circles of rolling years.*

Just as Homer, the rule of poets, said *periplomenōn eniautōn* (rolling years). And so too did Maro say that the year rolls in itself. And a year is nothing other than a cycle. Just as a ring is a *kykliskos*. Such are the cycles of years in the hymn of Hilarius:

*Thrice ten cycles of years,* *Living already a part of time,* *He seeks the stream of baptism,* *Lacking all contagions.*

Just as for thirty-eight annual cycles that sick man had lain there, to whom he attributes a *kyklada noson*. He indicates, therefore, nothing besides the long duration of the disease, nor does he define anything further, unless I am mistaken. The ancients, when they wished to signify the *homotimon* (equality of honor) which the Fathers established in the Nicene Creed, with the *homoousion* (consubstantial) or *synaidion* (co-eternal), in Christ the Lord, said, among other things, that He was *homothronon* (co-throned) and *synthronon* (fellow-throned) with the Father, just as ^C Gregory the Theologian called the Spirit *ever co-throned and co-natural with the Father*. For which our [poet] *parakekindyneumenōs* (at great risk), and not prudently enough, said *anchithronon* (near-throned). For thus in chapter vii, verse 39:

*For not yet had it taken root in human intentions,* *Christ the King, having appeared near-throned to the Father's seat*

—having found in the sacred code, *For the Holy Spirit was not yet*, because Jesus was not yet glorified; which is to take away equality, or to grant vicinity or proximity. Which Aristotle also concedes to vices and virtues, because some things of a good nature, as the poet speaks, are covered by proximity, such as prodigality by liberality. And the same Gregory called virtue and vice, that is, *kakian kai aretēn*, *anchithyron* (near-doored). Yet he expressly adds that they *dwell separately* (*diandicha naietacin*), that is, they dwell apart. For thus he says concerning the parables of the four evangelists:

*Where virtue and vice dwelling separately* *Are near-doored.*

And what prevents you from saying *anchithronous*? So also, he who is far removed from the royal dignity can be near to the king in seat or in place. Such was that scribe whom Mucius was taking away for Porsenna. Thus with the book of Esther, the satraps, *hoi engys tou basileōs, kai parakathēmenos*, who were near to the king and sat beside him, that is, the *anchithronoi* (those near-throned), are mentioned; who doubts that there was a great difference between this honor and the king’s? ^D To omit that he ought to have said *synthronon tō Patri*, and not *anchithronon tēs Patros hedrēs*. For who would say *synthronon tō thronō* (co-throned with the throne), unless he says the same thing twice? Or *anchithronon*, unless he posits two thrones? And what of the fact that he assigns a throne to the Father, a throne to the Son? For those who made [the terms] *synthronon* and *homothronon* did not want to tear the essence asunder, but to distinguish the persons. Just as when it is said that the Word was with God, whom the ancients and our own called *synthronon*: whence He is said to be in the Father and in His bosom. Furthermore, as with not a few other things, so here he had in mind his pagans and their *paredroi* (co-sitters) gods. For thus the twelve gods were *theoi paredroi*, in Latin *assessores* (assessors). Just as those also who were referred into the number of the gods by princes, as when Alexander 174 is said by Lucian elsewhere to have made Hephaestion *theos paredros*. And as those to whom it was permitted to play at this with impunity combined *paredrous* or *synthronous*, whether gods or magistrates, and those who are called *paredroi* to the Athenians in the magistracy, because they sat beside the king, by Pollux, and by others *synkathedroi* (fellow-sitters), because both words would sometimes designate the vicinity of a seat or proximity, so our [poet], who recedes a little further, wanted *anchithronon* and *synthronon* to be the same in the person of the Son: as if you would say that *to homoousion* and *to homoiousion*, which caused so many troubles, are the same; for from the latter they prove the former. Thus, when from the word *synthronos*, they infer *to symphyes*, or the unity of nature in the Son or in the Spirit with the Father, against Arius and Macedonius, [it is so that] the Fathers, like Gregory and others, might not approve the word *anchithronos* for another. But, as I said, he was carried away by the imitation of the pagans. What of the fact that he said *phaneis* (having appeared), not *ōn* (being)? What of the fact that the entire passage has no place here, and the evangelist [says] no such thing? For while he speaks concerning the Holy Spirit, ours has spoken concerning the Son. But of this elsewhere, if I am not mistaken, more suitably. Let the learned meanwhile consider whether that passage of his, *For the Holy Spirit was not yet*, which he interpreted, was to be taken on this condition, that he might say nothing—certainly he could have expressed his thought in one word with Chrysostom and the others. In the eighth chapter, what came into his mind, when to those words in verse 30, *As he spake these words, many believed on him*, he wrote thus:

*These things being said by him, the multitudes of scattered men* *Inclined towards the unbreakable bonds of faith,*

as if it were a matter of true and immovable faith, when...

they heard the Lord’s teaching, they willingly listened, or did they admit it? ^A Chrysostom: *They believed indeed, but not as they ought; rather, they were simply and incidentally pleased and found rest in the simplicity of the words; for that they did not have perfect faith, the Evangelist shows by the words that follow, in which they again insult Him.* In the same way, the word *Gerionidae* is used by the Sadducees, almost as it is by the Pharisees. Those who "believe in the Law and the traditions of the fathers" are called the former, while the latter are said to believe "in the Law alone." And how was their faith immovable if, shortly after, as Chrysostom observes, they curse the Lord? A fact he himself, having forgotten his own words, shortly after admits: *The Hebrews cried out with a harmonious throat.* If with a harmonious voice, and all of them, then those who had believed were among them as well. From this, however, Augustine departs, who, in his forty-first treatise on this Evangelist, says: *They answered Him—not those who had already believed, but those who were in the crowd, not yet believing.* In the same chapter, not long after, in verse 34:

*Desiring to accomplish all the long-sought-after labors of the elevated Mind.*

Who the *pothoblētoi* (long-sought-after) are, scarcely boys who have a command of the language can be ignorant. Certainly, it is used for *pathētikos* (passionate). Therefore, *pothoblētos* is not love—which is clearly ridiculous—but the one who loves. Moreover, the magnitude of Nonnus’s authority is well established, even from Agathias the Scholastic, an elegant poet who lived at the same time as the incomparable poet Agathias, who himself also makes mention of Nonnus: who, by the example of Nonnus, dared to call amorous affairs *pothoblēta erga* (long-sought-after works). So much, if authority is added, can pedantry achieve, that even from this it becomes plain how much it concerns the integrity of judgment that the youth be warned against those things which are incorrectly spoken. And the same man, how much better he spoke elsewhere according to the custom of the Greeks:

^B 176 *In this dust* *The spoils of the long-sought-after Anaxagoras lie.*

Far better than Nonnus, however, he translated that word to mean love. For besides the fact that he spoke of *tas epithymias* (the desires) rather un-Greeklike as *pothoblētous merimnas* (long-sought-after cares), he did not even consider how alien this would be to the sense of the most holy writer: who called the *tas tou diabolou epithymias* (the desires of the devil) not love at all, but sins, of which the devil is the author, and primarily actual sins, just as Augustine observed long ago at this place. The species of which he himself sets forth here: certainly not lust or love, but the exact opposite; namely homicide, the origin of which the ancients ascribed to Cain. Augustine: *Therefore, in this place he signifies Cain, the father of the Jews, whose imitators the Jews, wanting to be, killed the Savior. For from him was the form of fratricide given.* But who would dare to call fratricide *pothoblēton*? But because the *yehen*, which the Hellenists translate as "desires," often denotes a pleasure, a perverse inclination, and especially *anthropoktonias* (homicides)—which in that author of crimes, who from the beginning is said to have been a murderer, exists—he expressed it thus. With the same chapter, at verse 38, which the Evangelist said, *that you are a Samaritan*, he renders it:

*That God, the new Creator, has grown up for the Samaritans,*

I thought at one time he had looked to the place in Isaiah ch. x, 11, *As I have done to Samaria and its idols*, and that he had used *to haplon* (the simple), as the critics say, instead of *syntheton* (the composite). Whether *theos cheiropoietos* (God made by hand) may be *o theos ouk theos* (God not God), that is, created, just as the Samaritans daily either worshipped new gods or produced them from their own mountain. It could have happened, however, that someone among the Greeks rendered that word thus. But truly 177 *Samareitēs* is one thing, which is here cast at the Lord by the Jews, and another thing are their gods or idols. Wherefore with the greatest

^C

CHAPTER VIII

Nonnus corrected. The passage in chapter nine concerning the blind man to whom sight is restored. That he was without eyes according to the opinion of the ancients. That they were created by God, according to their opinion. *The creation of the eye.* *Chthonios keneōn* (earthly void), to which the eyes of the blind are compared, what it is for Nonnus. *Kenōma* (emptiness) which is *kanōn* (rule) for Theodotion, Gen. ch. 1, 2. Both are attributed to the earth. *Chous androgonos* (man-begetting dust). *Alaupōs homichlē* (blind-eyed mist), whether correctly. The illness of Lazarus *astheneia* (weakness). *Phonios olethros* (homicidal destruction), the disease by which Lazarus perished. *Phonoi* (homicides), places where murders are committed. *Phonoi*, murderers. *Phonos*, the blood from a murder. Caiaphas *theopropos* (prophet), and whether correctly. *Theortos* (God-sent) other than *theopropos*. That the latter belongs to Caiaphas, not the former. The prophecy *di' oikonomias* (by divine dispensation), such as this of Caiaphas was. A verse of the Hebrews concerning her perhaps born spontaneously. A septenarius verse to Varro, who is the *Politicus* among later Greeks. In that genre, a triumphal song, which is first sung to David, conceived. The Feast of the Passover, which was approaching, called *artichoreutos heorte* (festival of initial dancing). *Op esthon*. The place of Zechariah poorly rendered by the interpreter. The works of the Lord are miraculous and which would argue for a divine nature in Christ, poorly called *theogenē* (God-born). What *theogenēs* is, even by his own testimony. The works of the Lord [are] divine, called *theoprepē* (God-becoming) by ancient theologians. *Artichoreutos*. The linen with which the Lord girded Himself, *sklēron hyphasma* (hard fabric). *Lention*, *sindon* (fine linen) to the Syriac interpreter. 178 *Baddin*, *byssinon endyma* (fine linen garment). The error of Hesychius. *Bad* and *bar* confused by the error of the Hellenists, the linen with which the Lord was girded was of cotton. Called the garment of Osiris by Tertullian. The error of Nonnus. *Opoteron* (which of the two) what it is to the Greeks. *Kainē entolē* (new commandment), *love one another*, and how the Evangelist says it. *Kainon* (new) by reason of Hebraism [means] *to exochon* (the excellent), and that which excels. The Holy Spirit thoughtlessly and imprudently called *metanastēs* (migrant). The Holy Spirit is a gift *ametamelēton* (irrevocable) and nothing less than *metastatikon ē apostatikon* (migratory or apostate). Who the *metanastai* (migrants) are in the republic. Who the *metanastai* are to geographers. The Iazyges are *metanastai*. Among astrologers, *metanastai* in the stars. The stars are *palinōra*. Among theologians, *metanastai* who are also *apostatai* (apostates). The Messalians or Euchitai are called *authairetoi metanastai* (self-willed migrants) by Synesius. In what way the presence and constancy of the Holy Spirit is spoken of among the Chaldeans. *Schecina* is the mark of constancy. *Menein* (to remain) and to dwell concerning the Holy Spirit. *Menein* by the custom of the Chaldeans and Syrians [is] what the Apostle calls *oikein* (to inhabit). Abraham is a *parepidēmos* (sojourner). The Holy Spirit is called *syngonos* (kinsman), or brother of the Lord. The Holy Spirit is from the Father, yet not *yhiōn* (as a son) like the Son, but *ekporeutōs* (by procession). *Adelphotheia* (brotherhood of God), which Nonnus seems to have expressed, is condemned by the ancients. *Proboleus* (producer) is the Father of the Spirit. *Tropoi yparxeōs* (modes of existence) confused. *Pherallēla kai allēlendeta* (parallel and interconnected) are names for theologians. *Kosmos aénaos* (eternal world), and whether correctly. *Korymbos* (cluster), *polyptorthos korymbos* (many-branched cluster), and in this is the error of our [author]. *Kradiē [...] protokos* (heart [...] first-born), concerning the Lord [is] insufficiently pious. The devil [is] *archēs agēnōr* (lordly of origin), insufficiently circumspect. In the beginning of the ninth chapter, the blind man, to whom the Lord restored sight, is said to have had *sympherēn ameriston, acharakton ōpōpēn* (indiscrete, undivided, unformed vision). Where I read *symphytēn* (confused) not *sympherēn*, so that it signifies that his vision was clearly confused and indistinct. For when he adds *acharakton*, it signifies that he had not even eyes, which the Evangelist was content to have called *typhlon ek genetēs* (blind from birth). And truly, the ancients felt this way about him, that not vision

but rather eye-sockets were given to him, but also that they were formed and created by the Lord. Cyprian says: "Christ fashioned eyes with spittle"; and Asterius says of this man, "the improvised eyes and to be constructed." The same author says, "so that from whence the whole animal was fashioned in the beginning, he might show the part being fashioned." Or, from that [dust, namely] from which the whole was 179 fashioned in the beginning, he might now show the part having been formed. Chrysostom looked to the same passage in Matthew XIV, when he called the miracle which is here treated, "a creation of the eye." "When," he says, "he created the eye." Theophylact, when he says he was formed and created in the same way as the protoplast: "On account of this he fashions the eyes also from clay, in that manner of creation in which he also fashioned Adam." Augustine, or whoever the author of the *Sermones De tempore* may be: "He received eyes in this instance (of the other blind man), he accepted another; and that which nature had not given, the hands of Christ fashioned. For he placed upon the forehead dust, mingled with spittle, and hastening at the touch of the sacred hand for the discipline of the work, he fixed shining gems in the perforated orbs, and that which nature had not given, Christ the artificer made whole." What did he intend by that same dust when he called it *chthonion keneona* [earthly void]? For so it follows at the 6th comma:

*And stirring the field mingled with earthly void.*

That the word to which this is applied is used in various ways by our poet, those who have read his *Bucolics* especially know. Now, when he says that the Lord made clay here from an "earthly void" and froth, that is, spittle, with which that blind man, of whom mention is made, might be anointed, the thing itself teaches that earth or dust is to be understood. But no one teaches the cause for why he spoke thus. For the interpretation which the interpreters offer concerning earth that is void of stones is certainly of no account. And perhaps, as he did not weigh everything to the exact balance of judgment, he looked to *to kenoma*, which the interpreter Aquila used in expressing the word 172, or "vanity" [emptiness]. This is what Theodotion had translated as *kenon*. For it is said of the earth that it was "void and empty" in the beginning (Gen. 1:2). But what, from its origin, is *konis* [dust] other than *kenoma* or *kenon*? Which is 180 *napa* to the Chaldeans. But as no one is unaware, Moses treats there of the *ataton* and *akataskeuaston* of the earth, or of the earth which was not yet earth. Nor does it however stand in the way that he might have looked to the very word of Aquila, and just as he had called it *kenoma*, an earth still empty and void, so he called a part of it—that which is most of all empty and light—by his example; dust, namely: for it is the lightest and most empty part of the earth of which he treats: for it is wonderful how much the ancients delighted themselves in those interpretations at that time. A little after, when he said,

*Perfecting newly-wrought eyes with humble clay From man-bearing dust,*

he had his Hellenists in mind. For they [say], "And God fashioned man, having taken dust from the earth." So that he might look to those whom I have already mentioned, who wished these eyes to have been made in the same way and from the same earth as Adam was made. Whence Cyrus Prodromus called the clay with which the Lord used here, *ommatourgatēn pēlon* [an eye-making clay]:

*This clay, an eye-making clay, Not as having the nature of an artificer of eyes, But as ministering to the command of the Word As you spat upon me, O Christ, for the pupils of my soul.*

To remove the darkness of the eyes, and to induce blindness in them, is clear: which is called *epiprosthein tois ophthalmois* by the Greeks. To whom to happen this is 181 *alaōpin*, it deserves this application. Hesychius: *Alaōpin*, dark, not seeing. *Alaōpon*, privation of eyes, blindness, not seeing. For this is the affliction of the blind man, which is called *alaōpē* by the poets from the blindness itself. Which he was not thinking of, when about this same blind man, some time after [he says]:

*In it he prepared clay, and fashioned light for the eyes, Christ, having driven the blinding mist from the eyelids.*

But why does he now say that the shadows were driven from the eyes, which he had said were formed before, indeed, had he said so many times? The evangelist did not express the sickness by which Lazarus, the friend of the Lord, was extinguished. Except that he urbanely called it *astheneian* [infirmity]. Concerning which matter, to the place itself below. Our author placed a fever above, if we judge anything. What then is that which he says at that place in the eleventh chapter, at comma 37, "But some of them said, 'Could not this man who opened the eyes of the blind man have done that this one also should not die?'" thus he speaks:

*Might this corpse not have parleyed with murderous destruction!*

For who called fever, or any sickness of the same kind, *phonion olethron*, that is, murderous death? For *phonos* is the death which is through slaughter, which he could surely have learned from the least of the Greeks; for such things as these are enough to nauseate grammarians. Whence *phonai*, the very places where slaughters are committed, and [those] who are of that crime, *phonoi* by the Dorians: who also call the wicked *axian phonou eirgasmenous* [worthy of [having done] slaughter], just as *ei phonos*, the blood from slaughter, which is blood from murder; and this is absolutely inconsistent. He imprudently, in the same chapter, at comma 51, called Caiaphas, whom he had previously not badly called *athemiston* [lawless], *theopropon*:

*But not of his own accord did this prophet-man speak this.*

Which does not suit him any more than it does Balaam or the devil, when, by the prompting of God, he says true things, even if unwilling. But in 182 the glosses of the grammarians, he had read *theopropon* to be said of one who foretells from God. But in truth he was *theortos*, not *theopropos*. For he spoke, not by his own powers, but by the will of him by whom he was ruled, as we might say with D. Hieronymo. He might at least have considered that elsewhere he had used that word concerning Christ the Lord. It was therefore a prophecy which the ancient theologians called an *oikonomia*. Which the masters of the Hebrews express most roundly, *Naba birtson ha-Elohim lo yada ma naba* [He prophesied by the will of God and knew not what he prophesied].

It is, moreover, a poem which is said by Varro to be septenary; by later Greeks, political: in which Manasses conceived the *Chronicon*, [and] Tzetze the *Chiliads*. In which kind we have observed the triumphal poem which is sung in reproach of Saul to David by the women, 1 Sam. XVIII, v. 7, conceived: so that it might appear to have pleased the Hebrews also: although those things sometimes slip out from those doing other things. Furthermore, although quite thoughtlessly, he called the groom, whose marriage had been recently celebrated, in chap. 2, *artichoreuton*, whom you might call *neogamon*, he surpasses every absurdity, because in this very chapter, at the fifty-sixth comma, he called the feast, not one that had passed, but one which was now imminent, *artichoreuton heorten*. Indeed, to omit that *to choreuein* is *ametabaton*, or a word that does not transit, so that *neochoreutos* cannot be said like *neopoietos*, who persuaded him that *to arti*, which is the same as *to pro oligou*, is a mark of future time? As if it were *neoploutos*, who is one who will be rich. And yet he said,

*For this mortal cannot to a recently-danced feast*

with the evangelist a little later saying that [this happened] *pro hex hemeron tou Pascha* [six days before the Passover], even [saying] that those things which follow immediately had occurred. In the 183 following chapter, at the fifteenth comma, when these words with the prophet Zechariah are brought in, "Fear not, daughter of Zion," he sings thus,

*Daughter of the high-climbing Mother, do not fear, O Zion.*

^A Now, those who are scarcely skilled in Hebraisms also err in the most well-known passage of the prophet, in that they say the lily of Zion is spoken of, just as in almost infinite places; namely, as the daughter of Tyre and of Judah, that is, in the genitive case, as grammarians say. So that it may be "daughter of Zion," of Zion, [or] "sons of the Achaeans." But our [author] has accepted "Zion" as if it had been placed in the nominative by the prophet. Whence he has assigned a mother to Zion, Jerusalem herself, as I think. And yet, in the prophet's place, "daughter of Jerusalem" is added in the very same way to the former: "Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion; preach, daughter of Jerusalem." Ridiculously, in the same chapter, or certainly carelessly and inaccurately, at comma 42, concerning miraculous works, and those which would demonstrate a divine nature in the Lord, he said "God-born": an attribute which is of Him who performed the miracles. That [fact] did not escape him either. For in chapter XIX he said: *The God-born King’s divine attire.* And in chapter XXI: *And the God-born King, while feasting,* etc. ^B Just as if He who is begotten were the same as the things that were made, He who is begotten from eternity, and the works which He performed. And yet the works, about which he treats, the ancient theologians have especially called "divine": like Cyril and others; a verse which he did not reject here. In chapter thirteen, comma 4, the most holy evangelist says that the Lord truly rose from the sacred and divine table. "And he laid aside his garments," he says, "and having taken a linen cloth, he girded himself." *And having taken a towel, he girded himself.* I do not see for what reason he should have called this linen cloth *skleron phasman*, a hard garment. For there is no doubt that it was both thin and clean, 184 especially. Such as is that which in Hebrew is called *ephod*. As when they say *ephod*, which the Chaldeans interpret as "byssus"; not because of the material, but rather because of its fineness. And therefore the learned Syrian also calls it a "sindon" [linen cloth] in this place. When Hesychius said *perizoma hieratikon* [priestly loincloth], he undoubtedly looked to the *ephod*. The same most learned grammarian [says] *baddin*, a linen garment, for priests, from the interpretation of the Chaldeans, to whom *bad* is "byssus." Whence *baddin*, which is of the plural form. For when the same [author] wrote, *Ephoud bar*, a priestly garment, and *the bar*, he says, is called "small," he follows the error of the Hellenists, who did not read *bad* but *bar* in the Hebrew, which I think no one is ignorant of. Unless someone thinks that a linen cloth made from the softest cotton down could be called hard: such as the most ancient author Tertullian without doubt thought it to have been; since he called the linen cloth, which Christ used here, the proper garment of Osiris, in his book *De Corona Militis*: "If you name an author of the day for each piece of every person's household goods, and for individual vessels, it is necessary to acknowledge Christ reclining on a couch, and when he offers the basin to the feet of the disciples, and when he pours water from a pitcher, and when he is girded with a linen cloth, [it is] the proper garment of Osiris, whose priests are for that reason called 'linigeri' by the poets, it is known, [and] it is called by Benjamin of Tudela 'Citin Mizri', the linen of Egypt, if I am not mistaken."

In the same chapter, comma 34, regarding the words, "A new commandment I give unto you," he does not seem to have understood what *oploteron* means to the Greeks, since he translates the words of the most holy evangelist thus: *I command a newer kindness in all things.* For the Greeks refer this to youth, which is apt for basic training, which the Romans also had described and defined. Furthermore, since this commandment, which is expressed by the Lord in this 185 place, "that you love one another" (since it is rather a compendium of the second table), is not new, although most of the ancients refer it to the mode by which Christ specifically loves us: it seems, however, as learned men have already cautioned in other places, that *exochos kai anankaia*, that is, eminent and excellent, or necessary, is signified here as the commandment. Just as "new wine" [is used] by Matthew; in the manner of the Hebrews, which not even boys are ignorant of. Add that he did not say: "A new commandment I give unto you, that as I have loved you, you [also] love one another," but simply, "that you love one another," to which he adds the rest: "as I have loved you, that you also should love one another." Just as when this precept is repeated elsewhere, it is not said, "that as I have loved you, [so] love one another," but, "love one another," as the most learned man Jansen noted correctly. Wherefore the ancients struggle here in vain, and depart from the now-received distinction. Theophylact: "Then, since someone might be puzzled, how, O Lord, you give a new commandment, [about] love, which we know was legalized even in the Old [Testament]; he adds, that 'As I have loved you, that you also love one another'," just as Chrysostom and Cyril also [say]. But if you take the word *kaine* [new] in the way I have already said, no difficulty remains. Nor does the passage in the epistle of our author, where he said "not a new commandment," stand in the way: [it is] in another sense, and because he had spoken there about it, as it pleases some. Unless someone reads "not a new" even here, which I do not approve, and [believes] the evangelist [possesses] his own [meaning], using the same word in a different way.

In the same evangelist, chapter fourteen, comma 16, Truth itself pronounces thus: *And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete.* Where our [author says]: *And I will ask God, my Genitor, that he may send you 186 From heaven a Paraclete, a wanderer,* *Another equal to Christ, established forever* *As a guide of truth.*

In which place, since the holy Spirit, a gift, [is] neither light nor inconstant, but perpetual, and, as the Apostle speaks, *ametameleton* [irrevocable], as the author [says] in this place, *menon es ton aiona* [remaining unto the age], is promised, who could divine what came into his mind, when he assigned to Him an attribute which, through all disciplines and sciences in which it has use, is proscribed with the significance of inconstancy and levity? Such is the word *metanastes* [wanderer]. For in political [matters], if I may begin from here, *metanastai* [wanderers/migrants] are not so much foreigners as [they are] vagabonds, and those who have no stable dwelling, as he is accustomed to speak: *oi methistamenoi* [those who move away], who elsewhere, as grammarians correctly [say], when they were born [somewhere], withdrew themselves thence. Whence it comes about that in the republic in which they live, they are *metoikoi* [sojourners], that is, residents, and cannot aspire to magistracies, as at Athens. Whence also [they are] *nothoi politai* [bastard citizens]. Hence Achilles complains: *Who made me among the Argives* *As some dishonored wanderer.* Who afflicted me with the greatest insult among the Greeks, as a wanderer and an errant, or a bastard and adulterous citizen. But, as I have said, it does not properly denote a foreigner (although it is so used in the republic), but one who has changed his own place or fatherland. In geography, roaming and erratic tribes, such as the nomadic, are called *metanastai*. Whence the Iazyges [are called] *metanastai*. Astronomers, and especially those who have followed the doctrine of the *phainomenon* [heavenly bodies], oppose to the rest those stars, or signs, which do not wander, but have both order and a definite rising and setting, [those] which they call errant, or *metanastas*. Theon on Aratus: "For all the planets do not have such an order of position 187 but wander, and are *metanastai*." And therefore they are not *palinora* [turning back] like the rest: which both set and rise at the same time. Aratus himself: *You would not then guess regarding other* *Stars, where they lie; since all are wanderers.* And in the same place Theon: "Since all are wanderers, and not reclining in the same place." And he then adds, "for they are not of those who remain." Just as the property of the holy Spirit is everywhere placed in the sacred [writings], *to menein* [to remain], about which a little later, [and] among theologians, *metanastai*, *metastatai*, [are] those who have deserted [their post], who have abandoned the order prescribed for them. Whence Synesius, [concerning] the Messalians or Euchites, who once having deserted their station, wandered about, called them *autairetous metanastas*, spontaneous wanderers, or fugitives, in epistle 67: "These, having a seat shown [to them]..." [index: entries preserved]

refuse to have one, as those having deserted their own; not expelled by calamity, but having become voluntary wanderers." Therefore, that attribute is always a mark of inconstancy and levity, although sometimes it is usurped otherwise ^B "by sequence," which has no place here at all. The most excellent and incomparable Glossary of Henry Stephens defines *metanastēs* as a "transfuga" (deserter) or "migrator" (migrator). So it cannot be denied that in that passage, where the Lord commends not less the constancy of him whom He is about to send than the excellence of the office, he has used an attribute clearly inept and contrary. But how much better the Chaldeans and Rabbis, who call the divine presence of the Spirit *Schechinah* (habitatium, or dwelling). Which word is ^C indeed the exact opposite of *metanastes* (wanderer). Even the Chaldeans, when they speak of the majesty of God and His presence, say that it dwells. And in this sense the Targum everywhere uses the word *schakan*, which is "to dwell," but the Hellenists use *menein* (to remain). Whence that very divine passage in Numbers 11, where the presence of the divine Word and His majesty is said to dwell among His own. Thus when in the first chapter of Ezekiel he says, "The hand of the Lord, that is, of Jehovah, came upon me," ^D which the Hellenists translate, "The hand of the Lord came upon me," the Chaldeans explain it as the spirit of prophecy having rested upon him, and they use this word. To which our holy author looked back everywhere in the Epistles. Especially in the second chapter, 14: "And the Word of God remains among you." Such are those things which are read there everywhere: "And he who remains in love, remains in God, and God in him," chapter 4, 16. And in the same place a little earlier: "No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God remains in us, and His love is perfected in us. In this we know that we remain in Him, and He in us, because He has given of His Spirit to us." And in the Gospel not once, has he used the word thus: "He who remains in me, and I in him." And elsewhere, "to make a dwelling." And the Apostle said *oikein* (to dwell) in the same sense. And indeed concerning the Spirit, he said distinctly: "If the Spirit of God dwells in you," Romans chapter 8, 9. And, "Do you not know that you are temples of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you," which is *schakan*. Which word, after the manner of the Chaldeans and Syrians, is attributed to *schechinah*, and denotes the same thing. Which, because of the Ark of the Covenant, was said to have dwelled in the sanctuary long ago: just as later in the temple. Whence, the faithful are "temples of the Spirit," whom here our own author has elsewhere called the "threshold and house of God." But why these things? Since it follows, "that He might remain with you for the age." And yet *metanastes* is what the Hebrews would call *ger*: the Hellenists are accustomed to translate it *parepidēmos* (sojourner). Thus Abraham is called *ger*, which Gregory translates *metanastes*: for the patriarchs were wandering: wherefore he [Nonnus] applied no judgment here. And surely it is not befitting in a man who desires to speak theologically, that he should have called this very Spirit, of whom he is now speaking, *Christou syngonon* (Christ's kin) in this place, that is, "brother." Although indeed both are from the Father, yet not in the same manner. For hence the very property of the persons arises, that one is "generation," the other is "procession." Although even the Spirit Himself is from the Father, yet not *huiikōs* (son-like) as the Son, as Cyril speaks, but *ekporeutōs* (processionally), when truly brothers are born *huiikōs*. Add to this that the ancients had already deservedly condemned that opinion. Cyril is excellent: "For the generation is not homogeneous; the generation is one thing, the generation of the Son of God is another; for if the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Father, yet it is not born, but proceeds." And Euthymius: "But why are the Son and the Spirit not called brothers, when they have the same Father? Because they are from Him in a different manner. Since the one is born, but the other proceeds." And Epiphanius against the *Pneumatomachi*: "Neither is the Son a fellow-brother to the Father, nor a commingling; and the Spirit is neither a commingling, nor a fellow-brother to the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is not begotten..." [missing text]

The unlooked-for

^A in the place of the cluster: for fear he should repeat himself, he confused it with the *corymbos*. Just as it was insufficient for Caesar that his wife be chaste, if she were not also above suspicion: so, for the 192 sacred poet, it ought not to be enough to avoid blasphemy, unless he also carefully beware of and avoid the suspicion of it, which generally arises from ambiguity. Our [poet], as we said above, in his *Bacchica*, more than once called Greece *mythotokon*, that is, a mother of vanity and lies. Which epithet, not without great negligence—to use a temperate word, so as not to call it impiety, to which it is not far removed—he gives to the Truth itself, our Lord and Savior, chapter xvi, verse 4. For when the evangelist says: *These things I did not tell you from the beginning, because I was with you*; he [writes]: *These things, however, by a myth-telling heart cloaked in silence,* *From the beginning I pondering did not tell, still remaining* *A fellow-walker of yours upon the earth.* Who could bear this? Or who could patiently read that His mind, or *kardiē*, is called *mythotokon*—He in whose mouth no guile was found? To which is similar that which he committed in chapter iv. For when the Savior said there, *My food is to do the will of Him who sent me*, etc., he imprudently said: *My food was myth; my drink the deeds of the Father.* Which some impious person, such as Julian was, would read with mocking laughter: as if the food of Him who knows not how to lie were fables or trifles: for the ambiguity of the word and common usage suggests this. When he could have spoken correctly and cautiously, if he had said instead of that: *My food is the Word; my drink the deeds of the Father.* For by the Syrians—an occasion which, urbanely, as with many others, is attributed to the Lord—everything in which someone delights is called *brōma* (food): just as *dais* (feast) is used by Greek poets. And Hesychius explains *eidar* as profit. In the same chapter, as above, at verse 2, he describes the devil loosely, when he said: *On account of the world* *The manysided, haughty prince is judged.* 193 For *polytropos* (manysided) and *agēnōr* (haughty) are middle terms, as grammarians say, and they often draw praise upon themselves. Thus Ulysses is called *polytropos* by Homer, and Achilles *agēnōr*; each with the greatest praise. And he had those virtues as the substance and argument of either work. The Lord had a reason for calling him the "prince of the world": our poet [has] none for adorning him with such attributes. Wherefore he would have spoken better: *On account of the world* *The manysided, crafty prince of the worthless [one] is judged.* ^D

CHAPTER IX.

1032 ^A And there are some who are called by the Hellenists *paroikoi* (sojourners) or *paroikountes* (dwellers). For because he said that the place was a neighboring region, he speaks perhaps according to the opinion of the common people, who used to set the little hill there—198 which bore the shape of a skull—as being so called. But he himself followed another opinion regarding the skull of Adam, so that he spoke of it with little circumspection. Certainly, the sacred page does not call Golgotha a mountain, but a "place." This is what Matthew also repeats twice: *"And having come to a place called Golgotha, which is called the place of the skull,"* and our evangelist: *"For the place was near the city where Jesus was crucified,"* as is also said by Cyprian and Tertullian. For Juvencus said in the rustic manner: *Infelix! nam qua primum te voce ciebo?* *Infelix! vox haec tristia cuncta notat.* *Matronae flos ille abiit: cui contigit aevi* *Moribus et vultu gloria prima sui.* *Nae verum Primae nomen tibi! namque secundae* *Nulli hominum veneres, diva, fuere tuae.* The name of this woman is therefore rightly said to be *etymon* (true). But here, there is nothing of the sort. For neither was the place named by the intention of the evangelist from the skull of Adam, nor does the term *Kranion* correspond to this, whether to a tradition inherited from fathers or to a secret instruction. And the place was not called the skull of Adam, but, as the evangelist speaks, the "place of the skull." For the fact that Chrysostom and others wish for Adam to have died in that place (some, he says, maintain that Adam [perished] there), among whom is also Athanasius, does not even contribute anything to the *pheronymia* (name-bearing) or to the word "skull." Closer to the point is the fact that Epiphanius notes that the skull of Adam was found in that spot. To this our author looked. I am surprised that those who were well-versed in Hellenistic books did not see the origin of this story: in those books, *Adam* is wont to be used collectively, and after the manner of the Hebrews, whose word they also preserve. Just as it was done by the Latin interpreter who says in 1 Samuel 7, 9: "This is the law *Adam*," that is, "of men," not "of Adam." Indeed, Symmachus translates *Adam* as "humanity." Thus, Josiah is said to have burned the 197 bones of [*Adam*], that is, "of men." And so the Hellenistic elders: *"And he burned the bones of men upon it."* Whoever is moderately versed in the Hebrew language understands what I mean. Since, therefore, there were skulls of Adam—that is, of men—in that place, the place was so called. Our author increased this absurdity, for he was not content to have said *Adam* so as to cover the error with ambiguity, but stripped it bare when he added, "of the first-born Adam."

But after it has come to the name *Golgotha*. The Syrian also calls the place by that name, and adds nothing further. Furthermore, concerning the title, in verse 19, which the most holy evangelist frames thus: *Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews*, our author substituted *Galailaios* (Galilean) for *Nazoraios*, although no one is unaware that Nazareth was in Galilee; yet it is certain that many even lesser things were both said and done here *kat’ oikonomian* (by way of management). And already an earlier evangelist had clearly stated in that passage which is difficult for the learned: *He shall be called a Nazarene.* For there is no doubt that that mystical word was one which denotes the *hagiasmenon* (sanctified). He was truly a *Nazoraios*, that *Nazoraios*—as in these neighboring words they silently allude, there is scarcely any doubt. For *Nazoraios* is rendered by the Hellenists as *ho hagiasmenos*, that is, "the sanctified." Just as he was the *Nazoraios*, the Holy One of the Lord whom Nazareth brought forth: which two things are separated by a single letter even for the Hebrews. So there is no doubt that in this inscription of the Lord which was carved on the tablet, there was an allusion to that plate of the crown of holiness, which itself was also called *Nezer*. And inscribed upon it was "Holiness to the Lord," which is *Naziraios tou Kyriou* (Nazarite of the Lord), in Exodus 39, 30. I, for my part, would not dare to change anything here. Just as he talks nonsense when he notes that this was written with a "reed" (*kalamo*). For although the word for "reed" is so well known to the Chaldeans that it is often found in the Targums, the evangelist here understands an entirely different method of writing: namely, that which the Hellenists call the *ektetypomenon tes sphragidos* (an impression of a seal), which is a carving, not writing—that is, a glyph, not a script. *"And they wrote upon it letters impressed as if by a seal,"* say the Hellenistic elders regarding that passage. Just as the *akrisia* (indiscriminate judgment) is also in our author, who, when the greatest doctor and evangelist mentions that it was written in Hebrew, says that it was written in Syriac. For it is known to all that Hebrew—as our evangelist himself confirms in several places—is called the Syrian, and not the other way around, just as the Syrian metaphrast also followed this elsewhere. Furthermore, because of these languages, the same title is gracefully called by Prudentius "in three parts": *Pilatus jubet ignorans: Tu scriba triplicis* *Digere versiculis.*

There is another error in that he ineptly said *antygi pheronymon* (name-bearing by the rim), when he should have said *pheronomos* (name-bearing). For the place of which he is speaking is not *pheronymos* (a person bearing a name related to his own)—for who would dare speak so?—but it was *pheronomos* to the skull. It would be an entirely different matter if he had said: "Many skulls were there; hence the place is *pheronymos*," or, "The skull of Adam is said to have occurred there; hence the place is *pheronymos*." For this is how Greeks are wont to speak, and their usage must always be taken into account. Not much later, in verse 20, when the evangelist wrote: *Many therefore of the Jews read this title*, it pleases us—lest I say anything deceitfully—that our author called those whom he refers to under the name of Jews, the "foreign-dwelling Hebrews." For thus, at verse 20: *And a great flock of foreign-dwelling Hebrews read* *The title, having seen: that the place, etc.* So that it may be understood that they were those who were staying in the city for the sake of celebrating the feast. Of whom, as most (such as the Hellenists) knew Greek, so some also knew Latin. So much so that all these, for whom that title of which mention is made here was devised by Pilate, would not have found it difficult to understand the languages. For the rest understood nothing besides their native tongue. So here therefore Pilate commands, unaware: *Tu scriba triplicis / Digere versiculis.*

In the same place, at verse 24, it may be asked why he called the seamless tunic of the Lord, of which the evangelist treats, *oinopa* (wine-colored): *Oinopa me schizomen alethea tonde chitona.* And to me, indeed, it seems he did this after the manner of the ancients, who not infrequently and secretly allude to some passage contrary to expectation. So now, it seems to have been in his mind: *He shall wash his garment in wine, and his vesture in the blood of the grape*, Genesis 49, when one speaks of Shiloh, or the Messiah. Just as for *alethea* (true), a word which in this place is of no value, I do not doubt that *anithea* (seam-less), which, as I think, others have suggested, should have been written, because he reads that it was woven from the whole, not stitched, for which *achoston* (seamless) would have been more correct and more common. But whoever would demand an accurate accounting from him, 200 who not infrequently speaks negligently? For concerning this very tunic, in its place. Not so long after, at verse 29, to be sure,

^A to Sophronius and others. And what need was there for a new attribute, where no mention of Andrew is made? A little later, the Lord says to Mary: *Touch me not*. Regarding which passage our author says this: *But God held back the woman, / Who was about to touch his immortal garment.* When he said this, he meant the manna, since it is said to have been *like frost on the earth*, Exod. xvi, 14. And Josephus, in book iii of the *Antiquities*, when speaking of the manna: *The multitude ignoring it and thinking it was snow*, he says; this is, like snow, clearly what our author meant, that it fell from heaven. And indeed to such a degree that all believed it to be snow. Rightly, then, did he call it a "honey-dropping frost." Nyssenus, in his sermon on the Resurrection of the Lord, says: *They gave bile to him who rained the manna upon them*, in the same sense and using nearly the same words as our author. The same writer, in his *Life of Moses*, using phrases like "crystal-like clots, the taste of which mimics the sweetness of honey," points to the same meaning. In the following chapter, at verse 2, when he speaks of Peter: *While he was grieving and suffering*, we must read *katyptiōonti*. And having placed the following, he gave John, the companion and member of the household, to Peter. But if this is true, the Lord will appear to have entrusted to Peter, at the same time that he entrusted his mother to the disciple whom he loved: which is *aprepes* in the story, as the critics put it. At the beginning of the last chapter, at the first verse, he seems to have spoken not prudently enough, that the Lord, after his passing, showed a divine form or appearance to his own, when he was showing a body, incorrupt indeed and ^B undefiled, but nevertheless a true body. Yet, it is one thing for a body to be incorrupt, and—if I may add—immortal, and quite another to be a 201 divine form. *And he said the words: Do not touch my garments.* Where, "immortal garment," he seems to mean the sacred body of the Lord. And thus the ancients have sometimes spoken. In Photius, Chrysostom says: *And my garment came*, from Zechariah, if I am not mistaken, where it says concerning the priest Jesus: *Remove the filthy garments from him.* Lactantius, lib. iv: *He spoke therefore of Jesus the Son of God, to show that he would come first in humility and flesh.* For this is the filthy garment; and also: *He therefore became incarnate, and was clothed in the garment of flesh.* I know that the Fathers, according to the various gifts of the Holy Spirit, sometimes attribute various things to him. So that one name may remain for him, which the Church desired to be proper to him. This is *Hagios*, or Holy. Wherefore our author is not correct, in that passage where he speaks properly of the Spirit, and yet he is expressed to the apostles as unknown, to have said *Pneuma hagnon* (pure spirit), when he could have called it *hagion* (holy). For when the Lord, in chapter 22, verse 22, had said, *Receive the Holy Spirit (Pneuma hagion)*, it sufficed to have said: *Receive the Holy Spirit.*

As if this would complete the name *hagion* in the Holy Spirit, who among the Hebrews is also called *Haccados*, but mostly *Haccodes*, that is, *of the Holy*, because they wished to attend *to the Holy*, that is, to the sanctuary. But if he had said *Receive the Holy Spirit (Pneuma hagion)*, 203 he would have spoken with the Church, and he would have left the propriety, or *middah*, as the Rabbis call it, of the third person, untouched in that place where it concerns the sensible sign of one already arriving, because "Holy" is the proper name of Him who is particularly designated by this word, just as Cyril the younger and other ancients speak. And Damasus, bishop of Rome, says: The proper name for the Father is Father, and the proper name for the Son is Son, and the proper name for the Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit. And St. Basil says: *an klesin idiazousan te kai kyrian*, that is, he calls the peculiar and proper name of the Holy Spirit what is said in this way. And what is more, he did not examine the word he used? For *hagnos* properly designates *that which is pure*, and does not always denote holiness. As when Sappho, a true prostitute and polluted with foul loves, and, as Tatian rightly says, an *erotomanes gynaion* (lustful woman), is called *hagna* by Alcaeus. As in that line: *Violet-crowned, pure, honey-smiling Sappho.* And for the Romans, all who are consecrated to a chaste god, that is, to a profane god, such as truly our God detests, are called chaste, just as among the Greeks. Thus in an ancient epigram of Dioscorides, not yet published as far as I know, Atys, a truly effeminate scoundrel, because he was in the service of the castrated Great Mother, is called *hagnos*: *The pure Atys, attendent of Cybele, was chilled by the spirit of dire frenzy during the evening, while it walked through the darkness.* The glosses of Henri Estienne, *castus*, *hagnos*; *castimonium*, *hagneia*, as in that line of Naevius, *He declares divine things, he predicts being chaste*. What of the fact that he himself usually uses this word otherwise? Certainly, that the Galileans were crafty men and of corrupt morals, both others testify, and that saying in our author: *Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?* And yet he called their land the *hagnon edhlon* (pure dwelling) of the Galileans in that line: *He walked to the pure dwelling of the unshorn Galileans.* The Jews were thinking of putting to death the Lord and our God, and yet, a little before that happened, he called him or their land *hagnos*.

^A You see that *hagnos* [unshorn/pure] is used for those who, as the Savior objects to them, sinned most frequently against the Holy Spirit. And yet he used the same attribute for them and for Him whose property it is not only to be holy but also to sanctify, doubtless on account of the sacrifices, and as one pure. But this, or that, or rather neither, is sufficiently cautious. For attributes ought not to be cast about rashly, or where one has cast them, they must be recalled to divine and holy expressions. Although I know the Greeks sometimes did this for the sake of the meter. As when Amphilochius, whom others called *panagion* [all-holy], said:

The Father with the Son and the all-holy Spirit.

And in those poems which were recently added to the rest of Gregory the Theologian’s works at Paris:

He shall see, if he wishes, and if he has drawn anything pure of the Spirit into his heart;

whether for the sake of the meter, or on account of the gifts which he bestows: which, however, I would not wish to be done. But in the interpretation of this passage, that change, without a doubt, argues complete either imprudence or *akrisia* [lack of judgment] on the part of the interpreter, which those who have sound judgment understand.

CHAPTER X.

Consideration of nouns and words. That the Stoics concerned themselves with their meaning diligently, and indeed in logic. The distinction of ambiguous terms and homonyms. How concerned sacred critics have been about these. The Seventy Interpreters. Their use of the European *diaspora*. ^B 205 To what extent the evangelists and apostles followed them. Regarding the fable of the Greeks. Its vanity now first exposed. From where it was drawn. The name of the Elders; and what is said about their number, about the chambers, and their separation. From where the fable about their consensus arose. The Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octapla of Origen, and their arrangement. The Hellenistic language. It is different from the Greek. Much in the New Testament misunderstood because of it. That the interpretation of the words of this language must be sought from other sources. How frequent in the New Testament are ambiguities and homonymy. That this is a property of the Hellenistic language, and this proven by some examples. The homonyms of St. John. The meanings of words adopted from the usage of the Orient. How variously the word *sarx* [flesh] is used. What is the duty of the interpreter in explaining the meanings of words that exist in the New Testament. The error of Nyssen and Optatus arising from the ambiguity of a word. How variously *pneuma* [spirit] is accepted. How variously the word *aletheia* [truth] is accepted from ours. The *episymbebekota* [accidents] of God, according to Anaxagoras. Other examples of *polysemon* [words with many meanings] in the sacred author. How variously *krisis* [judgment] and *krinein* [to judge] are accepted. A most obscure passage of the evangelist, and its interpretation. The method of interpreting only through the same words noted. This proven by various examples. *Aimata* [bloods] and *sarx* [flesh] poorly understood by Nonnus. What the Jews meant. *Atrekeia* and *aletheia* [truth], whether they are the same. *Aletheia* and *dikaiosyne* [justice] the same for Hellenists, most different for Greeks. Nonnus, as in words, so in the complexity of his speech, commits *parermeneiai* [misinterpretations]. ^C *Eis ta idia elthe* [He came unto his own]. The inept interpretation of this passage. *Yious Theou genesthai* [to become sons of God] and *tekna Theou akouein* [to hear children of God]. *Akouein* and *einai* [to hear and to be], and their difference. The *entelestate huiothesia* [most perfect adoption], regarding the election or its execution. The obscurity of Nonnus noted. The passage rendered in Greek differently than by him. The method of interpreting approved by Jerome. Hebraisms in Nonnus, even when none are in the evangelist, and whence they come. Hellenistic in canon law. The opinion of Antonius Augustinus on Ulpian examined. That even poets ignorant of the Greek and Hebrew language *hebraize*. The Hebraisms of Nonnus noted. *Oikos aeiphrouretos* [house perpetually guarded], regarding a prison. The use of *rubelli* [red/ruddy ones] in the East. *Hagios Theou* [Holy of God]. *Amoibas biblos* [book of exchanges]. *Gymnousthai* [to be stripped], regarding jars, after the custom of the Hebrews. *Es physin oinou poiein* [to turn into the nature of wine], a Hellenistic locution. Tribe for nation. *Choros* [dance] and *chorostados hemar heortes* [the dance-standing day of a feast]. *Mythos* [fable] used in the manner of the Hebrews and Chaldeans. The hallucination of Ambrose. *Ereugesthai logon* [to belch forth a word]. The idioms of Nonnus. *Time* [price] for ^D *ousia* [substance]. Concerning the interpretion of sacred books, especially those of the New Testament, advice. What should most be followed by others, and what has been neglected by our own. A judgment on the evangelist and his virtues in speech.

206 And these things, indeed, regarding what is appended. Which belong not so much to the interpreter as to the poet, although they must be required of the evangelist also, whom he has interpreted. Now let us speak something of the method of interpretation which he followed. In which, truly, while doing something else incidentally, we shall also illuminate the mind of the holy author. For this care requires another part, and as it were a proper one, in this volume. To which we shall come a little later. The Stoics, men diligent and industrious in searching for truth, and who spent a great part of their lives in examining its instrument, dialectic, because they saw that all investigation of truth is best begun from the signs of things, or the notion of words, dealt with this most especially in dialectic. Which they divided into two parts, *Peri semanonton kai semaineomenon*, Concerning signs and the signified. And Socrates, as Epictetus bears witness, called the *onomaton episkepsis*, the contemplation of nouns, the beginning of erudition. Especially, however, did they diligently treat the place *Peri amphibolon*, Concerning ambiguous terms. Just as ancient critics set forth the principal duties of an interpreter, especially one who is occupied in the interpretation of the sacred page, *hina tes homonymias apomerize tas lexeis*, so that he might distinguish all ambiguous words. But also regarding Eusebius, the ancient theologian, Photius notes that he did not censure Andrew the monk by any name more than this: *He hoti monosemanton to tes phthoras exeilephos onoma, epi mones hamartias oieto tattesthai*; That since the word *phthora* [corruption] had a wide reach, he had thought that it was to be used in one way only, namely for sin. Whence also the ancient philosophers rightly note that an ambiguous expression, and one which signifies now one thing and now another, is not an enunciation, but enunciations, and a word, which 207 is of such a kind, is several things rather than one. Because, as the Damascene says excellently, *Hekastos auton allo ti semainei, kai ousias alles esti*; Each one of them signifies something else, and belongs to a different substance.

Concerning which, before we speak, I think I will have done work worth doing if we speak here incidentally of those things which have devolved to us from the Hellenists and their language. The Seventy Elders’ most ancient and first interpretation, which at that time held sway in the European *diaspora* (whom they called Hellenistic Jews then), the evangelists and apostles followed not so much in individual words, as many think, as they followed their manner of writing, which it is established they used at that time *kat’ oikonomian* and by the dispensation of God, so that they might join the Jews with the Greeks, not without grave cause. Regarding which interpreters, what nonsense, fables, and trifles have the Greeks not devised! So that the most holy and learned man and writer D. Hieronymus does not rashly admire and at the same time laugh at most things from them. However, regarding the very origin of the name and the chamber, that we may incidentally uncover it, because we do not remember that this has been done by anyone, this place warns us. We note that the number of the interpreters, the manner of interpreting, and what is said about the separation and consensus in such volume, arose from the twenty-fourth chapter of the second book of Moses. Where that great emperor and friend of God is said *meta hebdomekonta presbyteron Israel pros Theon anabebekenai*, to have ascended to God with the seventy elders of Israel. But there it follows, *kai ton epilekton tou Israel diephonesen oudeis*, which is, and from those chosen ones, or from the seventy elders, no one disagreed or dissented. Hence the history without doubt about Ptolemy, hence those famous chambers which Jerome mocks. Hence that invention: that no one out of 208 so great a number had dissented in expressing sacred things. For some have, And of the chosen ones of Israel not one dissented. Whereas in the Hebrew it is written far otherwise; and almost what is in the vulgar: Nor upon those who had retreated far from the sons of Israel...

^A Since some chose, and others—from the Latins, who without doubt, as is their custom, followed the Greeks—rendered it "separated," that is, *kechorismenous*. Whence the story about the separation, and that they translated the Scriptures separately and apart. If the most learned Joannes Woverius, our dear friend while he lived, had considered this, he would have discovered the source and origin of the error without any trouble in his very elegant little book about these interpreters. But let us set forth the very words of the sacred codex. Thus, then, in the chapter already mentioned, verse 9: *And Moses went up, and Aaron, and Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel.* And verse 11: *And of the chosen ones of Israel not one dissented.* Although they could have derived that very number from almost infinite other places. Because mention of him, and of the Elders, is found everywhere in the sacred books. Which, because they wished to deviate from it a little, they were unwilling to make round. Which, however, is generally confused. From this and other interpretations, Origen had arranged the Tetrapla, the Hexapla, and finally the Octapla, so that each text might claim a page or part of it for itself. Of these, six were Greek, written in the Hellenistic language. Whence that language began to spread greatly. So that you may easily see its traces through all the writings of the Greeks, even those who speak more purely. The Tetrapla consisted of Aquila, Symmachus, the LXX Elders, and Theodotion. In the Hexapla, an edition found in jars in the city of Jericho in Palestine under Caracalla was added, and another found near Nicopolis. In the Octaplo ^B 209, the text of the Hebrews, written first in Hebrew letters, then also in Greek, claimed a place for itself. In this way:

Column 1. Hebrew, Hebrew letters. 2. Hebrew, Greek letters. 3. Septuagint. 4. Aquila. 5. Theodotion. 6. Symmachus. 7. Jericho. 8. Nicopolis.

Or since he published first the Tetrapla, soon the Hexapla and the Octapla, as we remember it was delineated for us in a table by Scaliger, we will exhibit it here. Page 1. Aquila. Page 2. Symmachus. Page 3. LXX Elders. Page 4. Theodotion. Page 5. Edition of Jericho. Page 6. Edition of Nicopolis. Page 7. Hebrew text, Hebrew letters. Page 8. Hebrew text, Greek letters.

After this most noble edition, he gave another to the Elders, from these alone, which others have noted more than once, so that he might slaughter what had been added to the Hebrew text; and he might supply what was lacking primarily from the interpretation of Theodotion. Hence arose a greater corruption of the text formerly 210 corrupt. So that it is not surprising if those who followed this are often mistaken. And these authors indeed, in the Old Testament, have that language which we call Hellenistic, because it is accustomed to speak not with the Greeks, but with those whom it interprets, and with the Orient: just as the notions of words and homonyms follow the precept of that language, not the Greeks; which anyone can see is held in the New Testament, though few have hitherto distinguished it from Greek. Whence come many errors of interpretation, and hallucinations of the greatest moment ^C in these books, of which so many illustrious men in this age have deserved very well, and mistranslations. For since the mind is expressed by speech, and the speech by which things are expressed is expressed by words or definition, the first ambiguity consists in the words: which is removed by the learned either by explanation or by definitions, which, when they denote diverse or other things as words, are distinctions. Wherefore when a word is one and the same, ^D from a name, a different definition, an equivocation is born: which, unless it is removed by another word or definition—which is either true and perfect, or is nothing other than an interpretation of the word—necessarily difficulty and ambiguity arise in matters. Which in books written in Greek is greater and more difficult, because either the interpretation of them must be drawn from elsewhere (namely, Hebrew, Syriac, and Chaldean), or the definition. But how frequent ambiguity is in this language, the interpreter must first consider: who from the beginning must apply himself to understand and remove these things correctly. For hence come all the Jewish sophistries, *kakoscholiai*, and inanities. Hence absurd *symphorata* and indignation. Nicodemus hears: *Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.* Hence that absurdity, *And how can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the mother's womb a second time and be born?*

And when the Lord had said: *He who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life*; the disciples themselves respond: *This is a hard saying; who can hear it?* Thus when it was said, *The truth shall make you free*, they take what was said differently. So when they heard: *If anyone keeps my word, he shall not see death forever*; as if it were about death, to wit, which is the solution of the soul from the body, not that which, as is correctly said by Cyril, has the annexed reason of guilt, they are wondrously indignant. Whence that: *Now we know that you have a demon.* Now we do not doubt that you are in the power of the devil. Why? For Abraham and the prophets have died. So when they heard: *Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am*, they are said to have taken up stones, so that they might vindicate with the death of an innocent man what they understood in the worst way. What, that there is a greater difficulty for us, to whom the ambiguities of this language are proposed in Greek? Let the word "flesh" be an example, which, although it pertains properly to physicians, they made three genera of it, which they also accurately distinguished: the rest used it according to the custom of the Greeks. But our evangelist uses both this word and most others in such a way that he expresses in Greek only the name, which is common to the Hellenists, but keeps the significance of the Orient, and assigns to the same words not the same, but other and different notions according to their reason. Thus the word *haimatos* is accepted differently in that, *Who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh*: differently, when he said, *And the Word became flesh*: differently, when he said, *And the bread which I will give, is my flesh*: differently, when he said, *As you have given him authority over all flesh.* In which the Greeks, unless those who have been versed in Hellenistic matters, understand or see nothing. For he transfers the Greek word 212 outside the notions of its language, to the significations of a foreign word, in a foreign manner not used by the Greeks. Which, unless a poet avoids, or transfers to the use of his own language, he acts neither as a true interpreter, nor as a poet. For he neither speaks Greek, which is the poet's task; nor is he understood by those for whose sake he writes in Greek. And to whom but the Greeks did he write? Such are *thelēma, paratabein, doxa, kosmos, hypsoun*, and others: which everywhere are used by the sacred author differently and again differently, according to the custom of the Orient, not of the Greeks. Such is *to pneuma*, which in the most noble place, *The spirit is God*, by its ambiguity, although it has no difficulty, has posed difficulties for the greatest men from antiquity: who understood it regarding the holy Spirit. Among whom are Nyssenus and Optatus. For it is one way in that, *Spirit is God*: another in that, *For as yet there was no holy Spirit*: another in that, *He groaned in the spirit*: another in that, *He gave up the Spirit*: another in that place of which we have already spoken:

The Spirit, turning back again with some unheard-of impulse, Knows how to blow wherever it wills; and you hear the nearness Of the voice of the divine-whirling air, Carried to your ears.

So that not without cause does Jerome feel anger toward the interpreters, because, with no regard for the reason of ambiguity,

everywhere this word is preserved. In his commentary on Amos, "Why did he speak of a spirit, and not say wind," which in Hebrew is called *ruach*, the cause is manifest, for with this word both wind and spirit are designated. But he also notes a further danger from this ambiguity. He says: "He who creates the spirit," is not to be understood as the Holy Spirit, as heretics suspect, but as the wind, or the spirit of man. Otherwise in the text, "Where do you dwell?"; otherwise in the same chapter, "And he remained with them," 213 concerning the Holy Spirit; otherwise in the text, "If I wish him to remain until I come," which is *zoein*, to live, according to the usage of the Syrians. In these things he understood nothing, nor did he render words more known in place of the terms of the Syrians and Chaldeans, but kept them obscure.

And yet these matters are of such moment that, from ambiguity, false conclusions, false reasonings in disputation or discourse, and, because of false definitions, a false method in teaching may arise. Otherwise is the word *truth* in the text, "The law was given through Moses; truth came through Jesus Christ." Otherwise in the text, "Sanctify them in the truth." Where the definition is subjoined: "Your word is truth"; and thus it is accepted by the author at times. Otherwise in the text, "I am the way and the truth." Where among the primary attributes, and, as Anaxagoras did not quite properly phrase it of old, the *accidents* of God. For it is Truth itself: just as divinity, in a neighboring word from which this could be deduced, is called *Malku* by the Syrians and Chaldeans. Another case in the text, "Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice," which our author rightly understood no better than Pilate, who asked, "What is truth?"; which truly no one could define, unless the individual notions of it were understood. It is pointless, therefore, to everywhere either preserve the word or change it to one less effective. The passage is most noble in the third chapter: "For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, so that his works should not be made manifest; but he who does the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be made manifest." Indeed, "doing the truth" and "living justly" are often joined by Hellenists. Truly, when Isaiah said: "Let there be peace and truth in my days," the Hellenists rendered it "justice": "Let there be peace and justice in my days," Isaiah xxxix, 8. For indeed, no one who knows Greek would understand our author’s translation: 214 "But he who fears God preserves all things that are true, He comes self-bidden to the light, so that his Works, which he wrought by the counsel of God, might be made manifest." Otherwise, when it is said, "In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true," when in the law it stands: "Every word shall be established." Which Matthew and Paul also followed: for according to the Hellenistic manner and custom of speaking, *truth* here is the same as *credible*. Nor is it said in the law, "two witnesses do not lie," but, "If two witnesses are present, it is held to be valid," since an accusation does not proceed from the testimony of one. Our author however interprets it as if the two did not know how to lie: "What is?" according to the usage of languages, varies and is exchanged. And therefore 215, without them, it cannot even be known. Thus *glory* (doxa) is otherwise in the text, "I do not receive glory from men." Otherwise in the text, "And we beheld his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father." Item, "And he manifested his glory." Item, "When he saw his glory." Item, "With the glory which I had before the world was, with you." Such are *to be glorified*, *to be exalted*, and the like. Which is otherwise in that Luke, "And he exalted those of low degree." Otherwise in our author, and particularly in the Syrian manner, as in the text, "When you have exalted the Son of man." Otherwise *peace* (eirēnē), a word of the Hellenists of many meanings, is accepted in the text, "Peace I leave with you." Otherwise in the text, "Peace be unto you," where, when Cyril, as in the previous passage, understands the Spirit of Christ, the great man was doing something else. For it is nothing other than a greeting: which the Hebrews call *shalom*, and the Greeks *chairete* (rejoice). Nor is this to be understood as the Spirit of Christ any more than in the infinite number of places in the Old Covenant; where holy men use this formula in greetings. Therefore when our author said, "Peace, the companion of your journey," or something else, he said either something else or nothing at all. If you ask what the *judgment* (krisis) is in the text, "But this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light," Chrysostom will answer, "punishment or condemnation." If you ask what it is in the text, "My judgment is true," he will answer, "a verdict," that is to say, "a judicial decision." If you ask our author what *judgment* denotes in the former place, he will answer *judgment*: "But the child of the world" (as he says) "this is judgment," with the ambiguity of the word, he does not remove the attribute, but confuses the passage. If from the same author, you ask what *judgment* means to him in the latter place, he will answer *judgment*: "My judgment is truthful and blameless." Among the signs and *criteria* of the Messiah, in Ezekiel chapter xxi, 216 verse 27, *the judgment* is placed, which is the truly royal office of judging. "Until he comes to whom the judgment belongs," which Theodoret and others think should be referred to the Messiah. For the Seniors have, "to whom it belongs." In which interpretation Truth itself pronounces: "For not even the Father judges anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son," chapter v, verse 22. If you ask what *to judge* is, he will answer, "to judge"; what *judgment* is, he will answer, "judgment." For the attributes he adds are either obscure or say nothing: "For my Father judges no one; but he has given All judgment to the Son of man’s later day." And what is more obscure in that passage? "And when he has come, he will convict the world, concerning sin, and concerning justice, and concerning judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning justice, because I go to my Father, and you see me no longer; and concerning judgment, because the prince of this world has been judged," chapter xvi, verse 8, and following. The world, he says, that is, those who follow the wickedness of the age: first, he will publicly convict him of sin, because after so many signs and miracles, which even against their will strike the eyes, they still do not believe in me; second, concerning justice, and its public contempt, because they have not embraced this in me, whom they also prove truly righteous and free from every stain, not as they clamor, a sinner, which even this very thing proves, because I am departing to God the Father, the fountain of justice and truth, whom you will never see again, and I shall be with him forever: concerning judgment, (he will convict them) of judgment, corrupt and perverse, because they have so often condemned him as unbelieving, by whom the prince of this age is at once convicted of injustice. If you ask our author what those individual things are, about which the learned here contend, he will respond, either with the same words, or with ones he wrongly judges to be synonyms. If you wish to know what *to convict* (elenchein) means, he will with good faith answer, as in that text: "He will convict the unbelieving world." "The testimony of two witnesses was proven to be true." But if this is true, what will become of those two who, against our Savior, that is, Truth itself, in Matthew xxvi, 60, testified most mendaciously? Therefore it was established, that is, this testimony was admitted and utilized according to the ordinary and customary formula of the law, when it was anything but true. Wherefore, if anyone publicly expounds a passage of a most holy author, and in place of the definition of one thing, sets the definition of another meaning, he will assuredly lead the unskilled into error, a thing which not rarely happens, and he will deserve to be a laughingstock for the learned. Nor can it be that one who does not distinguish notions because he does not understand them, should not, in the whole method and explanation of the subject, as we were saying before, gravely hallucinate. Because neither the *an sit*, nor the *cur*, nor the *quod* can be dealt with, except erroneously, in the explanations or dissertations of Sacred Scripture, unless that which is *per se* and *quid est* is established. But the *quid est* itself, upon which definition and the rest depend, lies hidden in equivocations, 217 If, what is justice, about which generally no one…

^A is accustomed to be accused or convicted, since this fits with injustice; or finally what judgment is, or whose judgment is here understood: he will answer, *About justice and judgment.* And this is perpetual for him in almost this entire work. Finally, as boys, when they shout in hollow places or valleys, receive from the refraction of the air what they themselves say: so our author (and this is something that we wonder at, which today they call religion) does not interpret doubtful things, but preserves them. Which is not ^B *metaboles* (translation), whose first duty is to exchange word for word, although he himself or others have ascribed this interpretation to *Metabole*. Chapter 1, verse 15, the ancients who explained this place, *not from blood*, marvelling not only at the significance, but at the insolence of the plural number, understood *ta katamenia*, or menstrual blood. And so many did. Our author, because he did not understand it, omitted it. Nothing, says Ulpian in book XII *Ad Edictum*, matters—neither whether one denies or is silent when asked, or answers obscurely, so that he leaves the questioner in uncertainty. But to the Jews nothing is more usual; for when they speak of other sins, and then of the origin in man that is corrupt, or the source of sins, they say this: which also *yeṣer hara‘*, a thought, or figment, evil, they commonly call. If you ask, what in that most obscure disputation of chapter VI, *Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood*, is blood, he will answer, or, which I scarcely believe, he himself, or whoever the author is, [will provide] this very thing which you asked, but with a verse frankly inept: *Unless you eat the flesh, and drink the sweet [wine] and blood.* If you ask what *phagein* (to eat) or *trogein* (to gnaw/munch) may mean, he will answer with most inept words. For he interprets [them as] *ereptein* (to graze) or *eilapinazesthai* (to feast). One of which belongs to wild animals or 218 beasts, which in their manner do not so much eat as devour. Hesychius: *The word is applied to grazing quadrupeds*. Concerning cattle, he says, the word is used. For others, to devour quickly, as they are wont to do. But *eilapinazein* is *euōcheisthai*, to indulge one’s genius in feasts. Moreover, both are *akratos* (unmixed/inappropriate) and useless in this place, nor does it have anything in common with a mystery so great and plainly ineffable. But they play who use ridiculous words. If you ask what there is in that [passage] *blood*, "And immediately there came out blood and water," our author will answer: *First indeed blood was poured, afterwards the divine water.* ^C Since here the *blood* differs no less from the higher significations of the same word than blood differs from water. Whence therefore shall I seek a definition? Or if a definition is not given, how will the theologian teach or interpret what he has not yet learned? Sometimes, therefore, he sticks, and omits the place which he does not grasp. Sometimes he says the same thing as is asked. Sometimes, in a sense plainly reluctant, as one who is doing something else, he joins synonyms that neither always mean the same thing, nor always teach. And sometimes, while they are Greek, the languages do not agree, or square with what he interprets. For no one asks, for example’s sake, whether *atrekē* (truth) is for Greek poets sometimes what *alētheia* is—this no one is ignorant of; but whether for the Hellenists, who do not use words in the Greek manner, but in the manner common in the East, those words are *tautodynamounta* (equivalent). About which he, as is the case with most [men] at this time, did not think. Then, whether in the individual places in which there is mention of *the truth*, that word expresses *atrekiē*. As in that Hebraism, *The grace and the truth through Jesus Christ*. Where it is immense how much these differ. And yet he said: *And grace from Christ and truth were for the world.* 219 Thus no one can doubt that for poets *etētymon* is what *alēthes* is. Furthermore, whether it is ever for the Greeks what is in that place, *He who does the truth*, that is, whether *etētymon* is the same as *dikaiosynē* (justice), that indeed is what is sought: which, if I am not mistaken, neither Homer nor Demosthenes himself, nor Aristarchus himself would understand. And yet, nothing is more usual for either the Hebrews or the Chaldeans. Who [use] *‘emeth*, that is, *alēthes*, and [it is] typically and more often used by the Hebrews thus. Thus there is a true measure [among the] Targumists, which is just for the Hebrews. Wherefore, as he confuses homonyms, so he did not understand synonyms. For Hellenists have other synonyms from the Greeks; for *dikaiosynē* and *alētheia*, both in definition and use, while being the same for Hellenists, differ from the Greeks by the whole heaven, as the saying goes. Just as [they do] when they say *theoudeiēsin*, which neither Aristotle nor Plato would understand. For the ancient Greeks speak of their own things, the Hellenists for the most part of foreign things. He who does not understand this, stumbles everywhere: which we observe daily in our author and in others to the point of being tedious. Wherefore it is ridiculous that which we were bringing forward even before, *He who guards all things truly in the fear of God.* And indeed, skilled only in Greek, he will never, as we were saying then, be able to divine what [the Hebrew] might mean, nor did he write for Hebrews, whose language he was ignorant of. But just as nothing more befits a merchant than that he should rightly understand the estimation of goods and the values of coins, so that he may not be deceived, so it is the proper duty of an interpreter to know the *isodynamiais* (equivalencies) of words and languages, so that he may not mix different notions or substitute one for another. In which our author is remarkably deceived. *Mē skandalisthēte*, chapter XVI, 1, says the Lord. Our author interprets *skandalon* as *oistron* (goad): 220 *Lest a rash goad of unbelief come upon your mind.* Which will be wondered at by one who has learned from Jerome, or the commentaries of others, what a *skandalon* is; for the things he adds there perhaps recede even further from the definition of a *skandalon*. But he feared the word, as also very many others, while he prefers to preserve some that are in use among the Hellenists, than to employ a different one which differs entirely in definition: just as he prefers not to change some, such as *Patēr*, *Logos*, [although] to call the Holy Spirit *Agon* is inept indeed. ^D Therefore, when he calls God the Father *Tokēs* sometimes, *Logon* (which is plainly inept), *Pneuma hagion* he calls *hagnon*, he exercises a license in serious matters which is granted to no one. Nor [does he do] this only in words, but also in the junction, or the complex of the entire speech. That place is well-known in the first chapter, verse 11: *Eis ta idia elthen. In his own [he] came.* Which some formerly referred to the Jews, others to the universal world. Theophylact: *“Unto his own,” either you will understand the whole world, or Judea, which he chose, as the measuring line of an inheritance, and as his own portion.* If you ask of our author, who the *idioi* are, you will learn [it] from me, because he preserves the same [meaning]. If [you ask] about the whole sentence, he has imprudently changed it all: that is, he said something entirely different. For whereas the evangelist [said], *Eis ta idia elthen*, he: *He was near to his own,* as if the Lord, *en oikonomiai* (in the economy), or the assumption of the flesh, about which it is treated there, were only near to us. Which is the same as if someone were to interpret *Kai eskenōsen en hēmin* (And he pitched his tent among us) as *eskenōsen engys hēmōn* (he pitched his tent near us), or, when the Apostle said that the Spirit of God *enoikein en hēmin* (dwell in us), you should say for it [that he] *engys hēmōn enoikein* (dwell near us). It is one thing, therefore, [to translate] *enoikein*, or what the evangelist said, and another the interpretation which he brings. Which you may see almost everywhere 221. Thus, because he had remembered that *akouein* and *einai* are elsewhere used promiscuously by the Greeks, for what follows, *As many as received him, to them he gave power to become children of God*, he himself said *tekna Theou akouein* (to be called children of God). Which is common to hypocrites with others. For it is one thing to be, another to be called the Son of God, especially when the ancients refer that place to the very election, or *tēn huiothesian* (the adoption), which they call *entelestatēn*. Truly it is one thing *to dokein* (to seem), another *to einai* (to be). Whether therefore he says the same thing, he says nothing; or whether he employs a word or speech which designates something else, he teaches nothing.

^A And it deceives and misleads the reader in both respects. For both the speech and the words, being interpreted otherwise than they should be, persuade him of something else. And if the same [words] are kept, the reader is no less deceived than by that line of Plautus:

*Those whom you see standing here as captives two,* *Those who stand by, both stand, they do not sit.*

For he hears nothing new who was awaiting this one thing. Obscurity is the greatest fault in discourse, yet it is a greater one in an interpreter, whose duty it is to remove it. And so they say that Homer, when he could not solve a riddle that held the sum of all knowledge, died out of indignation at the event. Yet our author—and whoever else, without regard for the character of the languages from which and into which divine oracles are translated, keeps foreign and unusual kinds of speech or words—often proposes riddles to his readers. Such is that one in the first chapter, verse 3:

*Those whom nature did not bring forth in travail, nor life know,* *The offspring of an Andromean will; nor did even the bed itself* *Of love-bearing flesh find favor as a marriage-bed.*

For both the subject matter itself, to a man ^B *tōn exō* (from the outside), or one who is ignorant of these mysteries, and the manner of speaking—*hoi ex haimatōn* (those from blood), which he does not clarify here but omits, and *hoi ek thelēmatos sarkos* (those from the will of the flesh), 222 *hoi ek thelēmatos andros* (those from the will of man), if especially they are more involved by the poet as interpreter—are equally unknown. I omit the foul and obscene translation of the word *porse*. I omit other things. For what *andros thēma* may be called, those skilled in Hebrew understand; but what he himself said, *andromeou blastēma thelēmatos*, comes from the vanity and insolence of the author, who does not interpret the Hebraism but involves it, nay, changes it so much that by this method he may consult meter and rhythm: which is not religion, but *akrisia* (lack of judgment). Now what is *physis ouk lechōias*? "Childbearing nature?" And why not rather "corrupt"? For the evangelist is dealing with the unregenerate. Truly, these things tend entirely to obscurity, not to [conveying] the sense. Which, if you were to render again into Latin word for word, you would think Loxias was speaking:

*Whom nature as a woman in labor did not bear, nor life know* *The germ of virile will; and not even* *Did the nuptial hour of love-bearing flesh plow.*

For these to be understood, there is need of the one whom he wished to translate, who however speaks like a foreigner, not in Greek; for the words are Greek, but the use of the words and phrases is not Greek, but from the East. This, then, is that foolish *kako zēlia* (bad emulation) which Jerome so forcefully agitates against, which takes away all grace, and does not provide or teach the reader what it ought, since it does not change what it was supposed to explain. Concerning which the great doctor most brilliantly writes to Pammachius: "But if it does not seem to anyone that the grace of language is changed in translation, let him express Homer in Latin word for word. I will say something more: let him translate the same into his own language in prose. You will see an order that is ridiculous, and a most eloquent poet scarcely speaking." Just like our author, who, sometimes the meaning, sometimes the definitions of words—not domestic, but foreign—has enclosed with great labor in Greek verses. Which is to abuse talent and 223 grace. How much better, however, he would have expressed the mind of the passage thus:

*Whom nature did not bring forth, and a man did not beget in sleep,* *Full of folly, a helper to a family,* *But they are offspring of God, and a heavenly origin is theirs.*

In which there is nothing foreign, nothing, if I am not mistaken, from across the sea; all of which has been removed by us. Regarding so serious and grave a matter, without which a poet cannot properly speak nor a paraphrast interpret, it seems our author has not even found time to think, since such things occur everywhere. Let those be an example which are read in the first chapter as Hellenistic, for those which exist here and there can better be given separately elsewhere: ^C

1, *kai ho Logos ēn pros ton Theon.* 8, *all’ hina marturēsē peri tou phōtos.* 9, *panta anthrōpon erchomenon es ton kosmon.* 11, *kai hoi idioi auton ou parelabon.* 12, *tois pisteuousin eis to onoma autou.* 13, *hoi ouk ex haimatōn, oude ek thelēmatos sarkos,* *oude ek thelēmatos andros, all' ek Theou egennēthēsan.* 14, *kai eskēnōsen en hēmin.* Ibid., *kai etheasametha tēn doxan autou, doxan hōs* *Monogenous para Patros.* 15, *hoti prōtos mou ēn.* 17, *hē charis kai hē alētheia dia Iēsou Christou egen* *neto.* 18, *ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou Patros.* 22, *hina apokrisin dōmen.* 26, *mesos de hymōn estēken.* 27, *kai ouk eimi axios hina lusō.* 33, *baptizein en tō hydati, ei, en Pneumati hagiō.* ^D Ibid., *to Pneuma katabainon kai menon ep' auton.* 37, *kai ēkousan autou hoi duo mathētai.* 39, *pou meneis?* 224 42, *heuriskei houtos prōtos ton adelphon.* 46, *heuriskei Philippos ton Nathanaēl.* 49, *pro tou se Philippon phōnēsai.*

Which the Greeks either do not admit in speech, and, as is wont to happen also with our own, do not understand at all or understand perversely. For in some cases the words, in others the *syntaxis*, in others the entire speech, is foreign. In all of which our author has everywhere shown himself such that he either preserves the very words and the speech, and therefore does not speak in Greek; or he makes the discourse—about which he ought to have been concerned above all else—foreign, and, when Greek is required, he makes it far different from Greek. Sometimes, what he does not grasp himself, he judges as customary and Greek; sometimes he utters plain and clear things obscuresly; sometimes he cunningly omits what he does not grasp. There is also where he substitutes something else, which does not fulfill the meaning. But he always walks timidly, nor has he an exact grasp of what he is about to say. And, what you would most admire, oppressed by so many difficulties 225, what he does not grasp in others, he uses of his own accord and not under compulsion. For he sprinkles many Hellenisms about himself: and not rarely, being ignorant himself, from their reading and imitation is *Hebraikos*. Yet no one will wonder that certain Hebraisms have slipped out of him who considers that most of the Interpreters of the Old Covenant, whom they used at that time, expressed Hebraisms even to the point of superstition, and kept certain words themselves just as they found them. It happened from this that the writings of some of the Fathers, which in many places are parodies or centos of Holy Scripture, bear upon them a language in which the authors had placed no study at all. Which you may say of 225 Greeks and Latins alike. Even in that age among them, there survived neither knowledge nor erudition of either Greek or Hebrew. Why? Because the Latins also had persisted in almost the same way of interpreting, namely, that they would not change the Hebrew and Chaldean custom. Such things occur in law also, which we call canonical, which have deceived Alciatus and others; for insofar as Antonius Augustinus, a most excellent man, thinks that the jurisconsults, especially Ulpian, a man from the East, speak in the manner of the Hebrews, or, as he himself says, of the Jews, because he loves the ellipsis common to Greeks and Romans, as when he says regarding the edict, "Pro haerede autem gerere," not to be of fact but of intent (of which kind he has gathered not a few), I fear that reason has escaped him. For he brings forward nothing, if I am not mistaken, of which there are not examples in Tacitus and Plautus—even Homer—authors of different ages and languages. For ellipses and similar things, which are called *endeias* (deficiencies) by the masters of speech, are figures, and as they are perhaps more familiar to the East, so they are common to all ages and languages. And what Ulpian has, seem to him to have stuck to him from the custom and usage of Roman authors. Which cannot be said of the writings of those who in a later age, being learned in neither Greek nor Hebrew, would willingly speak in the manner of the Hebrews: and sometimes the very words…

as they were, retained the voices of his language. I will provide one example of this: for to speak of phrases and locutions would be infinite: thus, when the ancient interpreter had preserved the word *manzer*, for "bastard," poets, unskilled in both the Greek and Hebrew tongues, Sedulius and Fortunatus, used it as though it were Latin. Of whom, the former in his description of the Lord's Passion: 226 *Yet none of these so feared signs of peril,* *Who fixed the Lord upon the cross: and furthermore,* *When He, athirst, did seek a draught, one of the wicked crowd,* *Reached out the vinegar, infused with a sponge upon a reed.* *To the degraded peoples, wallowing in worse,* *That liquor was appropriate.* He says that the Jews, a race truly adulterous and spurious, were most similar to that liquor which they offered to the Lord; once most excellent, as wine; but now, for nothing, as vinegar. But Fortunatus: *But the Christian throngs then perceive the "manzer" being yoked,* *They rush forward at once, where the treachery lies hidden.* Since the Hebrew word is *manzer*, which exists only twice in Hebrew. Which, had Greek interpreters also preserved it, would perhaps not appear among the inlaid work and emblems of our own. For it frequently slipped into the speech of the one doing other things. Thus, for "prison," he said *oikon aeiphroureton* (a house ever-watched): *A house ever-watched he donned, a minister of ruin.* Because among his own he had sometimes read *oikon phylakes* (a house of guard), among other places in 1 Sam. xx, 3; Isaiah xl, 7. Of the same habit is that: *Of water turned to wine in the reddening stream.* For he understood the Hebrew *adon*, or "reddish": which they used in the East. Thus, in chapter vi, what the evangelist said, *And we have known that Thou art the Christ of the Son of the living God*, he says thus: *That Thou alone art the Holy One of God.* Which is moreover *qadosh*. Which is in Mark i, 24, the confession of the devil, *I know Thee who Thou art: the Holy One of God.* Thus in the seventh chapter, verse 52, he called [it] *amoibada biblon*, the book of the law: which the Hebrews call *sepher* or a complicated codex, as also *to elissein* (to roll), because it expresses the same word more, he added: *Rolling the interchangeable book,* 227 *Seeking the [scroll] of Ezra.* It is also a Hebraism, that which is read in chapter ii, verse 3: *All the sweet-drinking wine-bearing jars* *Were emptied.* Which anyone who did not know Hebrew would rightly mark as *a-kyron* (invalid) in a Greek speaker. But he expressed the *to erah*, which is *to gymnoun* (to strip). Thus it is said of Rebecca in Genesis xxiv, 20: *And she emptied her pitcher;* that is, poured it out: for which the interpreter now [uses] *exekenose* (emptied), having rejected the novelty. Of the Hellenists also is that which is in chapter iv, verse 46: *When before, for the pouring of wine,* *He made the yellow water.* And he seems to have had in mind that, *He made them man and woman*, although the reason for both is not the same. The Greeks indeed say *metaballein es ti* (to change into something), not *poiein* (to make). Refer to this also when, for "race," he put "tribe" or "generation": *What have you in common with the Samaritan woman and your descent?* In the history of the Samaritan, chapter iv, verse 9, that too from the fountains of Hebraism, that he called a festival, *choron* (dance), or *chorostados hemar heortes* (the festive day of the dance), chapter ii, verse 37: *But when at last came the festive day of the dance.* Because, forsooth, the *chag* denotes both a dance and a festival, just as many a one [derives] the word *tripudium* from the Latin interpreters elsewhere, unless I am mistaken, he used it. It is a pure Hebraism that is read in the ninth chapter, verse 52. *Great is the story never heard, that to the allotted* *Eyes, manifold-threaded, of the unlighted face,* *One gave light to a man, whom, through the womb of the newly-delivered,* *While yet blind, the birth-pained Dawn beheld.* And chapter vi, verse 22: *Performing a mimic image of the true story.* And chapter ix, verse 32, concerning the restored blind man: 228 *Great is the story never heard.* In expressing which, the Hellenists use now the word *logou* (word), now *chrematos* (thing). Where he used *to mythos* (story) with the same rationale that they use their *dabar* or *pethgama* (Chaldean) for a deed or affair: just as I remember Homer also spoke elsewhere. Which deceived the most holy man Ambrose: who, when the shepherds say in Luke ii, *Let us see this word (verbum) which has come to pass*, that is, the thing done, namely the birth of the Lord, he thought the word was accepted in such a way as *ho Logos* is accepted in John i. Such is *ereugesthai phonen* (to belch a voice), instead of *lalein e legein* (to speak or to say) *... and the King belched a voice*. And, *From my heart I belch forth a story . . .* For he had in mind, *Day unto day belches forth speech.* Likewise, *My heart has belched forth words*; of which kind we have noted not a few, from which, lest we be tiresome, we omit some. To which add, those whose rationale can scarcely be rendered, proper idioms. What the Lord meant when He said to Pilate, *Thou wouldst have no authority at all against Me, unless it were given to thee from above*, anyone understands; what He Himself meant when He said: *Thou holdest no self-willed honor against Me,* no one will easily interpret, or render its rationale. What a gazophylacium (treasury) is, no one is ignorant; but perhaps what came into our author's mind when he called it *choron* (a space), which is surely an inept idiom. For when in chapter vii, verse 20, he had found: *in the treasury, teaching in the temple*, he said: *Where the space of the treasury is heard.* For who would call a certain part of the temple *choron*? It is certain that the man, who expressed almost no Hebraism or idiom from the most holy writer, 229 brought many things from home and from his own: as if it were a small thing to have written in the Greek language most excellently. Furthermore, before I impose an end to this chapter, I will set forth in a few words what I desire. That there is supreme majesty, eloquence, and power of speech in the sacred writings, no one ought to doubt. I add, that the same spirit manifestly appears in the New Testament, in its sinews. As to the *hermeneia*, or manner of speech, it is not so much different, as diverse by the dispensation and good pleasure of the same God. For the Hellenists do not use the Hebrew language, but the Greek in a Hebrew manner. For they were writing at once for Greeks and for Jews *Hellenizontes* (speaking Greek): whom they also followed. For our own [author], as the Elders who held sway at that time did, almost everywhere kept the Targumists before his eyes. It seems to us, therefore, to be hoped for and desired, that anyone who undertakes to interpret a writer from the New Testament, either in Greek or Latin, in free or bound speech, should do so with a great heart and study. Let him bring judgment, genius, sublime and upright: which, after God, to whom alone all things are owed, each one owes to his education and nature. And as, first of all, he should render all Hellenistic modes of speech into Greek or Latin for himself: and distinguish these very things among themselves. Let him remove ambiguity, if any exists in the words. Let him define the words first in passing for usage, then most fully. Let him ascribe what belongs to the Hebrews, Chaldeans, and Syrians, to each individually; or [let him take] in this the work of another, who might have these [original-script column: see facsimile]

^A, then most fully. Let him ascribe what belongs to the Hebrews, Chaldeans, and Syrians, to each individually; or [let him take] in this the work of another, who might have these, then must he add the Roman terms which sometimes occur here: let him add those which, as they are Greek in origin and primary concept, were, in their reason and usage, those of the Chaldeans and Syrians at that time. Such as *parrhesia*, *paraclete*, *lestes*, *astheneia*, *strategos*, and the like. Which words, as they used them then, so—a fact which even now deceives most people—they used with a different notion. It will thus happen that he writes purely, when he has grasped the definitions of the words in his mind, and rightly obtains the things that cohere with them, as it behooves an interpreter, and rightly explains them to others. Now it happens that those who have always neglected words, while they believe themselves to be teaching things as much as possible, contend among each other about words and almost about them alone. They are worthy of that punishment which they earn through the security and contempt of others, who treat words along with things, and pass from these to those with an unoffending step. Our author, secure from all these, neither gave us a pure speech, nor understood a foreign one: and therefore he did not interpret ^B: he is equally troublesome, whether he preserves what he does not grasp, or interprets otherwise than he ought: and therefore he has fulfilled the role of neither poet nor interpreter. Let us conclude. In our evangelist, everything *lexical*, as regards words and speech, is foreign, and the *synthesis* is sometimes harsh, sometimes softer, and indeed such that it goes into verse of its own accord. We have a few examples of this. Thus in chapter vi, verse 11:

*Ἐκ τῶν ὀψαρίων ὅσον ἤθελον.*

It is indeed a hemistich. And in the same chapter, verse 18:

*Ἡ τε θάλασσ' ἀνέμου μεγάλου.*

In the rest, the *kathomilēmenon* (the colloquial), the *aperiergon* (the unlabored), and the *anautourgon*, as the critics say—that is, simplicity free from all alien affectation and familiar—reigns. As for the *ennoēmatikon* and the senses themselves, everything is lofty, high, and sublime. In which such force resides that this part stands out and prevails. Therefore, just as Longinus, a most noble author, though a pagan, who wrote about the sublimity of speech, although he had read Moses in Greek ^C, nonetheless admired the character of his speech (whence he also calls him *ou tychonta andra*, not a common man): so in our writer, in speech there is *apheleia* (simplicity), and in the senses there is *hypsos* (sublimity), which he mostly extinguishes with bombast: for it does not rise, but, as critics are accustomed to say in these matters, *exothouphamboutai*, that is, he intumesces in the manner of the dithyrambic poets.

CHAPTER XI.

On the method of interpreting used by the ancients. Various species of it. *Hypomnēmata*. *Hermēneiai*. *Scholia*. *Paraphraseis*. *Metaphraseis*. *Homiliai*. Authors of *hypomnēmata*. Marianus the poet, a metaphrast. His diverse poetic metaphrases. The noblest method of interpreting, which is called Paraphrastic, and whence it arose. Examples of paraphrase in imitation of the ancients. An emended passage of Archilochus. The paraphrase of Gregory of Neocaesarea on Ecclesiastes. Judgment upon it. Its praise. Noted elsewhere. Falsely ascribed to Gregory Nazianzen. The *basis* of Gregory Nazianzen. *Metabolē*, what kind of method of interpreting it is. The praise of Janus Rutgersius. An example of *metabolē*. Nonnus ^D *en tō metaphrasei*, the error, and how badly this method of interpreting succeeds for him. Another *lykithon*, another *pyelos*. *Lykithon* not distinguished by Nonnus from paraphrase. *Lykithon*, which is called a purple patch by Horace. Examples of Nonnian *lykithōn*. Paraphrase, a species of *ekphrasis*. *Ēthos* and *ēthopoiia*. Its parts. *Alētheia* in speech, twofold. John the evangelist called *parōn* particularly, and why. Nonnus's idea, which he used, of having lifted the *ēthos* of the evangelist. He drove out the *vox*, interpolated with Nonnian interpretation. His *akrisia* and *adoleschia*. *Lykithoi* generally received with laughter from serious readers. Nonnus noted a few times. Another example of *lykithon*. His tautology.

[alt-version omitted]

*Parermēneia* of the same. *Anellēniston* of the same. *Hebræorum more* (the manner of the Hebrews) used by the evangelist. How the Greeks use that word otherwise. *Heuriskein* and *symballesthai* are synonymous to the poets. The solecism of Nonnus. The noted negligence of Nonnus in filling the defect of speech. The doubt of the ancients concerning the passage of chapter ii, 1. Regarding the miracle of Christ performed in Cana, the doubt of the ancients. The *paidika thaumata* (childhood miracles) of the Lord Jesus. *Doxa* and *timē*, another matter. Nonnus noted in the explanation of the place. *Paraphrasis* applied for the sake of supplying a deficiency. Figures of deficiency how customary in the Orient. Another passage poorly explained by Nonnus. The same explained by Augustine. *To ergon* in that passage, how poorly Nonnus expressed it. *Parabolika schēmata* (parabolic figures) of John, which are called *anexergasta* (unwrought) by critics. An example of them. A passage poorly understood by Nonnus. Interior sense, among the Hebrews. A passage of the evangelist which seems contrary to another passage. The same explained by Chrysostom. Negligence of Nonnus in his explanation of it. The same passage rendered otherwise. The paraphrase of the *Octateuch* by the Empress Eudocia. Her virtues and praise from Photius. Nonnus having lapsed into fables in a sacred author. Nonnian *adoleschia* (garrulity). Much omitted by him. The judgment of St. Jerome on that matter, in Nonnus the *metaphrastikon*, the *parekbolikon*, and the *metabolikon* genus of interpreting are confused.

And these things, then, thus far concerning the Hellenistic and the equivocal. The labor further increases; great indeed, but also most noble, which we have now undertaken. In which one or two things remain. And first, of the method of interpreting which he observed here: concerning which, before we come to our purpose, or to the principal part of it, something must be said. That the ancients followed various methods of interpreting, especially in sacred [writings], there is no one who does not know. And *Hypomnēmata*, *Hermēneiai*, *Sēmasiai*, *Scholia*, *Paraphraseis*, *Metaphraseis*, and others of that kind are praised by the ancients. For *Homiliai*, such as those of Chrysostom, can rightly be called *Homiliai kai Logoi hypomnēmatikoi* (Homilies and Commentarial Discourses): whose *Sēmasiai* on John, however, Suidas praises. They seem to have approached most nearly to the form of *Hērmēneiai*, or Commentaries. For they did not always examine only the words, as appears from Photius, who notes concerning the *Hermēneia* of Hippolytus the martyr on Daniel, that *kata men lexin ou poieitai tēn anaptyxin, plēn ton noun, hōs epos eipein, ou* 233 *paratrechei*. That is, he does not indeed unfold the individual words, yet he overlooks nothing that pertains to the sense. Nor, however, did they always neglect them. The same critic, when he treats of the *Hermēneia* of Theodoret on this same prophet, notes *tē tōn prophētikōn rhēmatōn anaptyxei kai diakatharsei kratein*, that he reigns in explaining and illustrating prophetic words. The ancients mention various authors of his, as also of *Hypomnēmatōn*, [namely] Theodoret, Hippolytus the martyr, Chrysostom, [and] Cyril, the latter two of whom are also often cited in *Hypomnēmasin*, as is extant today in Latin, that of Cyril on John. The method of *Scholia* from many authors is most well-known, as also that of the *meta-phraseōn*, except that it does not form one genus. For there were those who were called *diglōssōn* (bilingual): such as those who convert a language into another, just as the Jews also use the word *Targumim*. In which number Photius places the *Seventy*. Others, who interpret the mind briefly: so that they sometimes add interpretations of the sentences, sometimes of the whole. There were also those who exposed poems in the same way, that is, in metaphrastic verse. Suidas makes mention of a certain Marianus, who he observes wrote iambic metaphrases on Theocritus, the *Argonautica* of Apollonius, the *Hecale*, the *Hymns*, the *Aitia*, the *Epigrams* of Callimachus, Aratus, the *Theriaca* of Nicander, and other poets' writings. The noblest method and mode of interpreting is the paraphrase; not indeed that which is prolix and diffuse, but the most brief and strict: the most illustrious examples of which we have in Themistius, and in the *Andronicus Rhodius*, first published by us. Which, from imitation, first

^A arose, and is produced in common by orators from observation. Unless perhaps the rhetoricians later observed in imitation what interpreters had already brought to the light of ancient writings. Homer had said: *For such is the mind of men upon the earth, As the day which the father of men and gods brings on.* Which Archilochus expressed thus by paraphrase: *For such a spirit to men O Glaucus, son of Leptines, comes, Such as Zeus brings upon any day to mortals.* Which would be all iambics: *For such a spirit to men, O Glaucus, son of Leptines, comes, Such as Zeus brings upon any day to mortals.* Nam et *metaballei* verba. For it renders *noon* (mind) as *thymon* (spirit), and *ep’ hemar* as *eph’ hemeran*. And it removes the figure: for what he called "father of men and gods," this one called Zeus. And it omits the apposition. And it changes the case: for *anthropois*, not *anthropon*. Thus, what he had said: *It is not holy to exult over dead men,* The same expressed thus: *For it is not good to mock the dead over men.* Homer had said concerning the storming of cities: *They slay the men, and fire destroys the city, And others lead away children and deep-girdled women.* Which Aeschines expressed thus: *And consider that you see the city being taken, the tearing down of walls, the burning of houses, sacred things being plundered, women and children being led into slavery, and old men and old women, learning too late of their freedom.* This form of writing, as Jerome insightively observes, the sacred writers sometimes follow when quoting passages from the Old Testament. In which it is customary to add something gracefully, to change certain things, and, while the sense remains the same, to extend the appearance of the speech decently, though not laboriously.

The venerable monument of antiquity, the Paraphrase of Gregory Neocaesariensis on Ecclesiastes, still exists: which they now inscribe as *Metaphrasis*. Many things are set forth there tersely and politely. Nor was anything so much a care to him, as that which is proper to a paraphrast, namely, to demonstrate the *allelouchian* (sequence) in a very obscure writing. Which he for the most part happily achieved. And so, with feet unencumbered by the detours of the Hellenists—which our own [age] primarily lacks—he runs through the Greek and significantly, the level ground. So that he would more willingly omit some things (for the entire speeches, which I do not approve, are desired) than fail to connect them. Yet, although he lingers somewhat elsewhere, he never goes outside the laws of paraphrase. But the ancients, as I have already said, loved brevity in this genre. I know that elsewhere he goes not only away from the Hebrews, but even from his own. As in that passage: *I saw all the living, who walk under the sun with the second youth, who shall stand in his stead.* When the Hellenists say: *walking with the second youth, who shall arise in his stead.* But this means: to adore most people, the successors of kings, and, as that man [Tacitus] used to say, the rising sun. But what did he say? *For it happens that those placed under the new one, yet prudent, are free from grief, as many as are older.* ^B Which departs very far from the mind and spirit of the writer whom he is interpreting. Indeed, he said nothing of the kind. And the Chaldean rightly, as he usually does, grasped the meaning. Just as in the allegorical description of old age which exists under the banner of the same wise man, which the Chaldean reports more than he explains, he understood nothing. In which I fear he was deceived by his own Greeks. The great Gregory the Theologian, ^C as to those who ascribed it to him, the reason surely escapes us. For nowhere is that grave footing apparent, which even those who think differently about it praise in him. Concerning which Philostorgius, of the Arian sect, judges excellently according to Suidas. But this is proper to this interpretation, that while other interpreters omit what they do not understand, the paraphrast ought to weigh the *akolouthian* (sequence) and the intention of the author, so that while he interprets everything, he takes away nothing, and adds nothing, except what removes obscurity or diminishes difficulty. From which *metabole*—which properly is called so—he departs, which is sometimes a childish and grammatical method of interpretation. An example of this we have from the inheritance of our brother, the most noble and supreme man Janus Rutgersius, in a small poem of the Batrachomyomachia. The memory of which man, *Outis emou zontos kai epi chthoni derkomenoio*, no one will erase from his heart. In it, a certain Greek had inserted, according to the custom then received, equivalent lines in the following manner: ^D *[from the mountain of Helicon]* *Beginning first, I make a prayer of poetry that the chorus of the Muses may come from Helicon to my soul,* *I pray that it may come to my heart, for the sake of the song,* *Which song I have placed in the books,* *Which I have recently placed upon my knees in my tablets,* *I speak of the great battle, the action of fear,* *The boundless struggle, the clamor of war, the work of Ares,* *[making a prayer to put into the ears of men]* *Praying to cast into the ears of all mortals, in what manner the mice, having done the best deeds, came.]* *How the mice, having excelled among the frogs, have existed.* You see *verbum verbo* being transformed, just as in the last line he renders the word *myes* (mice) as *pontikoi* (of the sea/rats) according to the usage of his language, although sometimes he omits certain things. Truly, he who performs this in the interpretation of the New Testament ought to do what our own has most neglected: namely, both to change foreign terms, and to seek equivalents, from concepts, not of the Greek language, but of those whose custom those writers followed, with judgment and care. Which, although those who wish to call themselves "Realists" neglect—and in these things profess nothing but shameful ignorance, to such a degree that, because they understand nothing in the words, when it comes to the things themselves, they mostly sweat, hesitate, and trifle to the great laughter of those whom they despise; may the immortal God grant, *kai exoch’ o phile helie*, that someone might perform this according to its dignity. Our own writer, who for the most part represents the words themselves, as often as he departs from them, just as often either stumbles or falls. The Greek grammarians note that Demosthenes the Thracian, who, as we have also said above, had written *Metabolai* on Homer, said *pyelon* because *asaminthos* was said by him: with excellent success, indeed. But our own writer, in the fifth chapter, verse 2, when he had found the word *kolymbethran*, he dared to interpret it as *asaminthon*: with what success will be seen elsewhere. Wherefore he neither wrote [a] *Metabolen*—or at least does not change what is obscure or foreign, or if he attempts to do so, he succeeds very badly—nor [does he do it] because, which is his characteristic, he sometimes pours himself out immoderately in the explanation of words. And since he acts more as a paraphrast (such as the ancients wish him to be, surely Suidas calls the Parthenian Theologian [Nonnus] one who paraphrases by verses), whose property it is to amplify what you interpret, and to interpret what things are obscure, he usually performs neither, but the former, where it seems least necessary, he is accustomed to perform. And, which is above all to be noted with judgment, he does not distinguish *lekythos* from exposition. That is, for interpretation, he...

^A adds poetic pigments or *lekythoi* (oil-flasks): which is that bread of Horace, whom the supreme critic in his *Art* so wittily censures: *A purple patch, that it may gleam far and wide, is stitched on, one or two: when a grove and the altar of Diana, and the river rushing through pleasant fields, or the Rhine, or the rainbow is described.* Thus, he usually interjects descriptions of Aurora, Night, Vesper, and other things of that kind which are foreign to the explanation of the text. This is like painting battles of frogs on a wall, when the evangelist is speaking only of things [ἀναγκαῖα καὶ ψυχωφελῆ] (necessary and soul-beneficial), as the critics judge of sacred matters. If, for example, the author says regarding the third day, as in that most simple passage: *And on the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee*; immediately he has his perfume-box at hand. But that is something a wise man cannot approve: ^B ...that which the author treats, he scarcely touches upon or looks at, acting intemperately with the rest. He certainly surpassed my expectation; for in describing the almost supreme and ineffable love of the greatest hero—in which the author commends his own simplicity and candor even more—he lapsed into the ultimate details, and even admonished us about the shame of the fishermen. Because Homer had said of his Thersites, a shameful man: *He hides those things which are shameful*, I can endure it the less because the most holy Parthenias had used a virginal and especially modest voice. And lest anything should remain of such a great meditation, he even teaches how to swim: which he perhaps was ignorant of, as with many other things. For those things which he did not seem to have learned yet, his *lekythoi* provoke laughter. These he empties everywhere, even in the sermons—of which you have many here—not in the subjects themselves, but in the comparisons and other things 241 which are mentioned in passing: he plays and is fixed on the ^C trifle, and in passing, and for the sake of explanation, if anything is said, he immediately not so much fills as pours out his oil-flask. Which, just as in the poet they provoke laughter, as I have already said, so in the sacred paraphrast they also extort indignation from grave and serious men. The author said simply and in his own manner in the first chapter: *On the next day Jesus wished to go forth into Galilee; and he finds Philip, and says to him: Follow me.* Which he renders thus: *But when the threshold* *Of purple, the third-day handmaid of the dawn, was painting.* If the evangelist says: *On the next day John sees Jesus coming toward him*; he [writes]: *But when the far-shooting dawn brought another course.* 239 But this is perpetual with him. However, there is no doubt that a paraphrase is a certain species of [ἐκφράσεως] (ekphrasis), that is, of description, as it is called by the rhetoricians. Its primary virtue is a relaxed speech, which neither swells nor rises too much, as is posited by the same men. In this, two things have a place: [ἦθος] (ethos), namely, or manners, and what expresses and paints them, [ἠθοποιία] (ethopoiia). That he accurately expresses for us the manners of the Lord, who lay upon his breast, is not even to be doubted. The former, namely [ἦθος], is expressed in deeds and the description of them; the latter, I say [ἠθοποιία], is expressed in the sacred sermons of the Lord. It is observed in both. Which is twofold. Either that which rhetoricians consider, and which approaches closely to simplicity—which the most candid author has displayed everywhere—or that which the ancient theologians particularly praise in our author, and from which they call him [φιλαλήθης] (truth-loving). Not that others do not write equally true things, but because this author, whether he speaks of himself or of others, does not dissemble those things which he could have passed over while preserving the truth, out of his greatest love for Him. And you have examples of the latter in his narratives. These, with frequent translations, with perpetual additions, with inflation, and with such [λῃκύθοις] (lekythoi)—which especially conflict with this idea—our author has either changed or corrupted. We have a very illustrious example of the latter in the twenty-first chapter, verse seven. Where he reports that he, when he had warned Peter that he who was on the shore of the lake was Jesus, that man immediately cast himself into the water out of the impatience of love. In which he undoubtedly attributes the former to him: although he had said of himself, *whom the Lord loved*. This cannot be read by anyone without a stirring of the spirit, both because of his candor and because of the other's most flaming vehemence of love. But who 240 does not feel that the whole of this perishes because he used a dual *lekythos*; first he laboriously and most annoyingly describes the garment of Peter and the manner in which he girds himself, and then how he swims? For of the former: *Simon girded his loins with a cunningly-wrought garment,* *And his skin was covered with a linen robe of many holes,* *Wrapping the sea-covering around his buttocks,* *The pelt, which loosened into the fold of twin thighs,* *Which fishermen wear as a covering of shameful modesty.* Of the latter, however: *And quickly he leapt into the stream, and traversing the familiar sea,* *Oaring with his hands, lifting his head on high,* *With alternating feet he thrust the water behind him.* Although only haste commends both. Whereas the holy author had equaled them with the most brief speech and simplicity, our author abolished it: who, when the matter ^D which the author treats, he scarcely touches upon or looks at, acting intemperately with the rest. He certainly... *But when the neighbor* *Clear-appearing, with dewy darts, the dawn was reddening.* You have a *lekythos*. He adds: *Jesus after the night wished to go shadowless.* You have a tautology; for he who says that something will happen on the next day, if I am not mistaken, indicates that it will happen when the night has passed. But notice that *on the next day* had preceded it. Then: *Into the sweet-smelling city of the long-haired Galileans.* You have an interpretation. For the author did not say that the Lord went to Nazareth—which he not rarely avoided—but to Galilee. Then: *And he quickly found Philip.* You have a *lekythos*. Therefore, that which alone ought to have been interpreted, he omitted in such great luxury. For [εὑρίσκειν] in Greek is to find what you seek; but in Hebrew, [ἐντυγχάνειν] is to happen upon even him of whom you were not then thinking. And so it is several times in this chapter: *He finds this first the brother*; if, *He finds Philip Nathanael*. So Gen. ch. iv, vers. 13: *And it shall be that everyone who finds me will kill me*. Which for the poets is [συμβάλλεσθαι] (to meet). For it happens without a certain destination. It follows: 242 *And the King said he became* *A faithful fellow-contestant.* You have a solecism. For who would say [εἶπεν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι] (he said him to have become), who wishes to signify, he commanded that it should be, or that it existed? For he narrates past things, when he wished to indicate future things. All of which he would have avoided if, in the manner of the Greeks, and simply, he had written either this or a similar mode: *On the next day, Jesus desired to go again into Galilee, his fatherland: and Philip met him: and as Christ saw him, thus he spoke the word: Follow, divine Philip, to me immediately*. But there is no method of interpreting so strict in which critics do not permit one [τὰ ἠπορημένα λύειν, καὶ τὰ ἄδηλα σαφηνίζειν], that is, to solve doubts and to clarify obscurities. Our author has entered upon a method such that he mostly clings to the words, but does not look at or touch upon difficulties of any kind. So that he does not support the passage even by a word where he can, or present it in full, which is the greatest security—not to say negligence—now. Take for an example that passage in the first chapter, verse 8: *He was not that light, but that he might testify*

concerning the light. Nonnus wished to say: *He was not that light, but he came, having been sent, that he might testify concerning the light.* ^A Yet our poet, while having amplified nothing of good that he might rightly have left out, left the sentence half-complete and hanging just as he had found it:

*Yet he was not that intellectual light, but only that he might* *Unfold to all the God-taught throat,* *And appear as the forerunner of the unutterable light,* *Telling of a hidden witness to the God-receiving people.*

Thus, in such great excess, what was lacking to the speech he does not bring home; but that single thing which properly falls to the task of an interpreter, the reader might rightly have expected, he negligently 243 omitted.

There are places, too, that are even more obscure, where he remains seemingly destitute of aid—though he could easily have provided it—to the reader's great detriment. Furthermore, he seems to have hesitated. Various people are vehemently vexed at the beginning of the second chapter as to how those words, *on the third day*, should be referred. *On the third day, there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee.* Among these is Epiphanius, as we have mentioned elsewhere. Of this, however, he said nothing at all, while the other things he adds are beside the point. Nor were they any less perplexed by the ambiguity of that place in the same chapter: *This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee.* For it was a matter of doubt to them whether He did this *first*, or whether it was *first in Cana of Galilee*. And indeed those who peddled the *puerile miracles* ^B of the Lord Jesus and similar trifles to the people used to urge the former interpretation. Concerning whom, Theophylact speaks elsewhere. The same Theophylact proves this former interpretation by this argument in particular, that it is added: *And He manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him*, as if it were a *scheme of want*. As if he had said: *And then for the first time He manifested His glory.* Where our poet surely did not preserve the ambiguity, but even extorted from his readers that by which it is removed. For since *gloria* (glory) is the interpretation of the Chaldean *[yqar]*, by which the majesty and power of God is designated, for this he substituted *honour*. The evangelist was not thinking of this here; for he intended something entirely different. ^C Which is not the part of an interpreter or a paraphrast.

I believe this to be certain, that *for the fulfillment of what is lacking*, the paraphrase was formerly left to choice: which occurs when something is added to the speech that is missing. And yet, the *schemes of want*, as they are called, are most common among the Orientals and the Hellenists: wherefore they ought to be supplied by the interpreter. A wonderful ellipsis is that in chapter xxi, verse 9: *As then they landed on the earth, they see coals of fire laid, and a small fish laid thereon, and bread*, as if they had found bread with small fish placed upon the coals. To which place Augustine, in his Tractate on this evangelist, 123, says: Where it is not to be understood that the bread also was placed upon the coals, but only to be supplied: *they saw*. If we repeat that verb in the place where it must be supplied, the whole can be said thus: *They saw coals laid, and a fish placed thereon, and they saw bread.* Or rather thus: *They saw coals laid, and a fish placed thereon; they saw bread also.* But our poet, although he could have looked to the reader's need with a single word, joins the bread with the rest, ^D so that he intensifies the difficulty of the passage:

*And when they stepped upon the shore of the thirsty beach,* *They saw a fire burning with a scorching vapor;* *And upon the edges, lying above the coals, [a fish,* *A side-dish, and new bread.*

Furthermore, since *ovon* is used here for "fish" according to the custom of the Greeks, he himself set *ovon* as a third thing. Which is *idiotic* and trivial. Moreover, the evangelist abounds also in *parabolic schemes*, which are called *unworked* by the critics because they leave the sense, which is called "interior" by the Hebrews, to be supplied by the interpreter. Such is that in chapter xi, verse 9: *Are there not twelve hours of the day? If any man walk in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world.* In which place, if one were to be deterred from the interior sense by the fact that he was wondering about something like what the ancients used to think—that one could hardly preserve the connection with what went before without it—he should at least have correctly expressed what he had found. Which now he expressed as if it had been said: *If anyone walks in the morning, or when the sun has first risen, he does not stumble:* as if the morning time contained as many hours as the natural day; or the beginning of the day were the whole day. For thus does he render these things:

245 *Are there not twelve cyclic hours of the day?* *When the day is rising, a traveler never trips,* *His foot stumbling with slippery sandals;*

as if he had found, *if anyone walks while the day is rising*, which, unless I am mistaken, never came into the Lord's mind here.

In the eighth chapter, verse 13, it is read: *You bear witness of yourself; your witness is not true.* But on the contrary, in chapter v, verse 31, it is said: *If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.* Where it seems manifest *apemphaenon*, or absurd. For in what way is the testimony of Him not true, who is Truth itself? Rightly, therefore, Chrysostom adds here: *Therefore, "it is not true" is not to be read simply, but according to their assumption; as, "to you it is not true."* That [phrase], *It is not true*, is not to be taken absolutely in this place, but from the sense and judgment of the adversaries, as if He were saying, *You deny that it is true.* And therefore, by the law of a paraphrase, the whole difficulty could have been removed by even a single word. Or by a similar manner, indeed: *You indeed will say that if I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true*, that is, *I know indeed that it is said by you, etc.* Now he has miraculously increased the difficulty:

*Which witness I shall tell,* *No other hears and is persuaded;* *For my account is not proven to be true,* *Which I shall tell as my own witness* *Solely; but of me* *Another man is a sufficient witness; and I know of him* *His faithful witness.*

Who in this manner might have removed every [difficulty]:

*For I indeed* *Myself bear witness concerning myself, I no longer speak* *Of truth, but a lie is basely scattered, as is your account.* *But for me there is a witness, whom we know to be true,* *246 And his witness is altogether true, which on some occasion* *We know He spoke.*

Of which kind you will find not a few. For out of many I bring forward one or two, which will lead the way for the readers regarding the rest. Photius, the prince of sacred critics, praises the poetical metaphrase of the *Octateuch* by Queen Eudocia—admirable first and foremost in this genre—[saying it is] excellent: because it would express both all the virtues of an interpreter and that antiquity itself so that it would come close to it; and yet she would neither redundantly show off the art, as was customary for most at that time, nor impute it to her reader, but she would neither foolishly intersperse fables for the delight of the ears, nor draw Christian souls away from those things which she related from faith, by digressions. If our poet had performed these things, he would be an example to all in this genre now: now he has neglected almost everything. For he has both omitted certain things where it was not necessary, and sometimes, for no good reason, digresses quite abundantly. As when he describes the death of Lazarus, or rather the miracle exhibited by the Lord in that event. Where, with the evangelist, who, as is his custom, had said most simply: *And the dead man came out, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes; and his face was bound about with a napkin*, and the very few things that follow in the same verse; he, as if loosened from the sacrament by which he had spoken to the interpretation, or having now become a deserter of his own work, finishes with twenty verses or more, not entirely the best. In which he is very solicitous about how much Pluto he might have missed, who,

having searched in vain among the dead for the one who had escaped him near Lethe, shows the reader. Whose great portion he ought to have drunk, who would have forgotten this whole thing which he professed, that is, both the interpretation and the interpreter of it, since he had learned neither Lethe, nor Pluto, nor any of the foolishness and filth of the pagans of that sort. But if Prudentius and others were so much repelled by it, what ought the interpreter to be? But critics say it is necessary for the transmitter of the words of the Creator ^A not to feel things foreign to Him whom he interprets, for one who has taken on the role of interpreter. Thus, regarding those things about Mary Magdalene, *and he sees the stone taken away from the tomb*, he is very imprudently playful for nine or ten verses. And when he says the same thing, he nevertheless puts it back again. The same man, who in other places does not even interpret so much. Such is the beginning, as we showed above. Where he inflates and extends very short and simple periods or axioms with sesquipedalian words added, so that sometimes he amplifies even one single thing quite ridiculously. Such like you will find everywhere in the whole work, even in that admirable debate with Nicodemus. Where he fractured the sublimity of things ^B with preposterous amplifications. He also passed over many things, as we were saying before, with a plan not good for so holy a work. For, as Jerome rightly says, "It is better in divine Scripture to translate what has been said, even if you do not understand why it was said, than to remove what you do not know." That this is indeed plain even from those things which were inserted or added to his work by others. About which in the following chapter. So that in the same work, the *metaphrastic*, the *paraphrastic*, and the *digressive* style of interpreting is confused: you will recognize nothing less, however, than the *metaboli- con* which the title promised.

CHAPTER XII

Before we proceed further, the levity and lack of judgment of certain scholars must be castigated, who have thought that whatever was missing in this paraphrase had perished by the calamity of time or by negligence. Hence people have been found who would very solicitously supply even the most trivial words and particles which the holy author has. With what success, I do not say now: I only accuse this judgment. Especially in those things which are so manifest. For he omitted many things which he could not grasp. Such is that in the first chapter, verse 30: *ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν*, which is among the first Hebraisms, and about which we [speak] in its proper place. Such is that in the eleventh chapter, verse 33: *καὶ ἐτάραξεν ἑαυτόν*, which, when it occurs elsewhere, he is accustomed to interpret unhappily. Certain other things, terrified by the difficulty, he did not render: because, as I think, the verses would not wish to support it. Such is that in chapter 1, verse 12: ^D *τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ*, which he also represented elsewhere, neither correctly nor as he ought to have. Such is that in chapter v, verse 2: *Ἡ ἐπιλεγομένη Ἑβραϊστὶ Βηθεσδά, πέντε στοὰς ἔχουσα·* which neither Melpomene nor Polyhymnia could say, nor pious Calliope with Phoebus, as he says. Wherefore it is right that he be pardoned. Such is chapter xii, verse 21: *τῷ ἀπὸ Βηθσαϊδὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας*. Such is in the same chapter, verse 42: *ἵνα μὴ ἀποσυνάγωγοι γένωνται*. Which, when he attempted to interpret otherwise, succeeded very badly; for instead of "Synagogue" he put "temple," which the Jews would not admit. So in chapter vi, verse 39, those things about the Holy Spirit: *Οὔπω γὰρ ἦν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον*. For which he clearly supplied other things. And again, chapter xiv, verse 26: *Τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέμψει ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου*. There is also [a place] where he passed over certain things which he might have thought had preceded, or were sufficiently expressed. Thus after that, chapter 1, verse 31: *Ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος*, what follows, *ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν*, he did not express, because he believed that what he had posited embraced the other. So chapter iv, verse 7, in those words, *Ἔρχεται γυνὴ ἐκ τῆς Σαμαρείας, ἀντλῆσαι ὕδωρ*, he did not express the final parts, since he thought that what he had said was sufficiently understood: *Ἔνθα γυνὴ Σαμαρεῖτις, ἀειρομένην διὰ κόλπου / Ἠθάδα κάλπιν ἔχουσα, μετήε γείτονα πηγήν·* as also some other things of that sort. He omitted others through negligence: and either fewer, as when he neglected a word or another here or there: which were noted by Nausius; or more, as when in the fourth chapter, almost the entire twenty-seventh verse; and in the same chapter, the forty-first and forty-second; in the fifth chapter, part of the second, with the third and part of the fourth; finally in the eighth, he did not express the thirty-eighth. Which anyone will note for himself; and the individual items have been annotated by us privately. But I have no need to abuse the reader's leisure or diligence. Why he passed over part of the eighth chapter, others have already noted. Which, indeed, certain men from antiquity, partly the book and mostly the interpreters, would not acknowledge: which part in the most ancient codex of the four Gospels, which we, like all our possessions, carried to that supreme man of incomparable memory, Janus Rutgersius, [our] only brother, or which he reported [as accepted] by the reverend man of both erudition and humanity, Andreas Rivetus, as it stands, yet many things vary in it, and not a few things are read otherwise, although with almost the same sense. Nevertheless, he passed over nothing more than in the sixth chapter. Where he omitted almost the entire discussion, as we [do], divine, as the Capernaites then judged it, *σκληράν*, about the eating of the flesh of Christ. By what plan this was done by him, I am still asking. If there were no argument by which we could prove that this passage had been passed over, very inept verses could persuade us of it, which Bordat gave there, previously missing: we did not express them in this edition in their place. If anyone, however, thinks it of such importance, he will find them in the Sylburgian Notes, which we have subjoined to the interpreter. He who first gave them so confidently, it cannot be that he either saw nothing himself, or believed that judgment on the matters had perished; for they are clearly even unworthy of Nonnus, or entirely alien to his custom and habit of writing. At least the hiatus, and other things from which he clearly recoils, they should have weighed. To omit that there are different numbers here, namely slow and tardy; while in those [of ours], nothing is more agitated than [his], as indeed *ὁλοδάκτυλοι* delight him for the most part. For which reason he excluded *σπουδάζοντας* everywhere. So that he admits bucolic [verses] almost alone in very many places. Behold for them immediately in the very first chapter: An equal in nature to the Begetter, Equal in age to the Father, he was undivided, eternal. And the Word was God, of lofty birth. Older than the world, and he came to be. Nothing existed which was not, and innate. There was a mountain-haunting herald of the silence, A herald of the primeval baptism, Divine John, the gatherer of the people. "That they might have the right faith, eternal," which Theocritus so much delights in everywhere. [alt-version omitted]

^A And there is nothing of the sort in the Evangelist. Nor are those better which are read in the twelfth:

"Let the lord of Israel be praised in blessings, Coming in the name of the author of the everlasting."

They are more than trivial. Just as in other chapters also, a few of some worth are found. But now we are nauseated. And yet the most ornate and most learned old man, who has deserved most excellently well of this author, and is on that account worthy of every honor and praise, saw nothing of much consequence in these that might displease him, he who even inserted his own verses and imputed them to Nonnus: which, I confess, he would never have done had I been his advisor. For, just as I know it is a greater crime to murder a man than to abstain from writing verses (for everywhere this is permitted with impunity), so I also know that it is joined with less danger to write verses that are not of the best than to go to lengths to display them. For individuals remain in every age who are deficient in judgment both of our own works and of the ancients, ^B and it is not given to everyone to know how to judge; thus, of the poetry of the Greeks, [it is given] to very few. 254 Indeed, just as poets are born, so are the judges of poets. They are perfected, however, when, to a most excellent nature, without which we are in vain in many other matters too, there is added practice and the reading of authors.

CHAPTER XIII

Distinctions of commata and verses. That the ancients were ignorant of them, and Nonnus with them. Our verses. The verses of the Hebrews. The minor parashiot. Nonnus accommodated to these things. His [i]adoleschia[/i] (loquacity). Negligence in expressing the brevity of periods. The paraphrast of Aristotle's Ethics. His wondrous brevity. The brevity of Apollinaris in expressing the Psalms. The [i]stichoi[/i] rightly omitted by him in the interpretation. Another distinction of chapters among the ancients. A thousand one hundred and sixty-two chapters of the four Evangelists. The sixty-fifth of Matthew. The sixty-seventh of the same. The eighty-second of Luke. The division of the Greeks. The Catalogue of Theophylact. The division and parts of the Gospel of John according to him. The major parashiot of the Hebrews. The method of citing parts of books customary to the Hebrews. John [i]En arche[/i]. The parts of the holy Gospel of John according to Cyrus Prodromus. [i]Apokathelosis[/i], to which part it belongs. The division and titles of the same Gospel according to Gregory. Similar division of Homer. The [i]perikopai[/i] of both of his works. The division of Cyril. The division of the Syrians. The division of the sixth chapter of S. John according to the Syrian method. The division of the same from the Catalogue of Theophylact. The division of the Gospel of S. John according to Bede. The division of the sixth chapter according to the same. That the distinction of verses is not necessary, nor to be superstitiously observed.

Hitherto regarding our metaphrast, or paraphrast, for the most part; who, with the sacred author whom he has translated, must hereafter be compared by us. In which very thing, also, very many remained for us ^D which men of learning of this time have made for us. Which neither our author, nor perhaps those who hitherto have not sufficiently illustrated them. The first, 255 which comes to our mind, is concerning the division of chapters and commata. Concerning which nothing can be gathered from our author, who is ignorant of both, along with the other ancients (I speak of that [division] which now prevails): in whose work not rarely he concludes the end of a chapter with an acrostich, and begins with an acroteleutoni. For as to the fact that some have accommodated this metaphrasis to commata, which they call verses today, it was done because most are periodic, and complete a whole sense. Which, since the interpreter follows, it cannot be but that he closes and completes the sense in the same place. Just as it was easiest for Onkelos—not only who is shorter, and rarely strays beyond the text into the Law—but also for Jonathan in the Prophets, and for Joseph the Blind, who [wrote] on the Hagiographa, to accommodate the paraphrase to our commata, or verses and commata. For the end,

^A which the Hebrews call *soph*, he leads it. And just as they desire the sea to be called *soph*, because it is the boundary of the Holy Land and encloses it; so too [they call] the limit or end, *soph pasuc*: by which latter term the verse itself is called by the masters, *u* and *sp*. Which differ little from our own, as appears whenever they adduce any passage from the sacred scriptures. Thus, when they interpret those words of Isaiah, cap. vii, 14: *Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign*, they immediately add after them *ans*, that is, *In the end*; furthermore, it is so written in the verse. And they adduce those words: *Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Emmanuel*: which is also a verse for us. But the minor *parascha*, which between them and the greater *parschios*, as they are now called, sometimes comprises three little verses within its scope. Thus in Bereschit, which is the major *parascha*, you will find from those words, up to those, verses ^B three times. Our verses, or those which come nearest to them, the ancients usually speak of; and thus it is in the hand-copied manuscripts of the Gospels, which we have, and the chapters are enumerated in each. The *comma* today in the evangelist is, but it is minimal, in chapter xi, 35; but in Nonnus, a greater *comma*, for example, that one: cap. xii, 10. But in Nonnus, in which you see the intemperance of the poet. Which, however, elsewhere you see to be much greater; and sometimes, where there is a larger column, a smaller one. Such is that of the twentieth chapter, 25, not because there are fewer verses there, but because he said fewer things according to the prescription. For usually he expands himself according to the occasion, and cares nothing [for measure]. In which he conducted himself such that, while the *cola*, or members of the discourse, are wonderfully short and concise, the longer ones, which are called by the critics, arise also from the concurrence and, for the most part, from the accumulation of attributes; he has placed larger ones. Since some paraphrasts, among whom is the one already so often praised by us, whom we published in Ethics, even when they add certain things by illustrating the sense, contend elsewhere with the roundedness of Aristotle and brevity. And Apollinaris expressed certain psalms in such a way that he seems to vie in speed with the royal prophet: for which thing the eighth one will provide faith. Who, since ^C he offers a handle to so many, prudently omitted all of them. As those things which are said there concerning created things, of the sun, moon, stars, oxen, sheep, birds, and fish.

For if our man had not lingered on each of these, he would never have deserved the Attic talent. But how far otherwise the ancients divided the chapters, to omit the authority of Suidas, is manifest even from Caesarius, the brother of Nazianzen. Who in his *Questions* says: There are for us four Gospels, which consist of one thousand one hundred and sixty-two chapters. And Euthymius on John, to the chapter from our division the eighteenth and sixty-fifth of Matthew, which is now the twenty-sixth, he adduces. For to those words: *And he sent Annas bound to Caiaphas the high priest. And Simon Peter was standing and warming himself, etc.*, he says in the sixty-fifth chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew, this was diligently disputed. Where it is had: *And having entered within, he was sitting with the ministers to see the end.* And soon to the words which follow, *And immediately the cock crew, etc.*, *Wherefore*, he says, *in the sixty-sixth chapter of the said evangelist, where it is similarly said: And immediately the cock crew: there it is manifestly spoken of.* Yet both exist for us in the same chapter, and in that indeed which I have already said; the other in the 58th, the other in the *comma*. The same, to those words, in the nineteenth chapter of our evangelist, *And they took Jesus, and led him into the praetorium*, adduces the sixty-seventh of Matthew. Search in the sixty-seventh chapter according to Matthew; where it is held, *And after they had mocked him, they took off the chlamys from him, and clothed him in his own garments*, and by law the account. Which place, from our division, currently stands in the twenty-seventh chapter, *comma* 28. The same, ^D to the twentieth chapter of our evangelist, adduces the eighty-second of Luke. He has followed, however, his own division, or, if you will, that of the Greeks. From which the *Catalogum* of Theophylact departs somewhat. In our evangelist, Suidas and with him the Greeks place the titles; for there are minor sections there. Thus our evangelist is said to have titles and chapters. So that the first may be:

I. ON THE MARRIAGE IN CANA

II. ON NICODEMUS.

III. ON THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA.

IV. ON THE KING'S OFFICIAL.

V. ON THE MAN HAVING BEEN THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS IN HIS INFIRMITY.

VI. ON THE FIVE LOAVES AND THE TWO FISH.

VII. ON THE WALKING ON THE SEA.

VII. ON THE MAN BORN BLIND.

IX. ON LAZARUS.

X. ON THE WOMAN WHO ANOINTED THE LORD WITH MYRRH.

XI. ON WHAT JUDAS SAID.

XII. ON THE COLT.

XIII. ON THE GREEKS WHO CAME.

XIV. ON THE FOOT-WASHING.

XV. ON THE COMFORTER.

XVI. ON THE REQUEST FOR THE LORD'S BODY.

Which in my most ancient manuscript of the Gospels, you may find noted word for word sometimes in the upper, sometimes in the lower part of the page. Which portions, as the Hebrews [call] their *parschiot*, they are accustomed to cite, Bereschit, Noe, Lec Lecha. Unless it is that the Hebrews are accustomed to look to the beginnings of the words, but the Greeks to the history, as if you were to adduce our evangelist. Just as Cyrus Prodromus made his first lemma: which is the first as if it were a title; the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, the seventh, the eighth, the ninth, the tenth, which comprised the history of Nicodemus, who was taking the Lord down from the cross; the eleventh, [etc.]. For Gregory in his division exhibited only the miracles. Who seems to have made the titles,

^A regarding the death of the Lord, regarding the resurrection, regarding the discourses with the disciples. These pieces are very similar to those into which ancient critics divided the Iliad and the Odyssey. As if you were to cite *The Dream* or *The Catalogue*, *The Oath* or *The Single Combat*, *The Confusion of Oaths* or *The Inspection*, *The Aristeia of Diomedes*, *The Arming*, *The Renunciation of Anger*, and similar ones from the Iliad; *The Necromancy*, *The Departure from the Phaeacians*, *The Recognition*, and similar ones from the Odyssey. These 260 fragments help the memory not a little, and impress the division of the work upon it. Augustine explains them in individual treatises, Chrysostom in individual homilies, some meanings or verses. These men, so that it may be manifest how secure he was even about the Greek division, join those words, *and on the third day*, which both we and the Greeks separate and distinguish, with the end of the first chapter; Cyril divided the Gospel itself according to the division of the books, of which he published twelve on this Evangelist. For the first book he started from them, *In the beginning*; the second from them of the same chapter, *On the next day John sees Jesus coming*, which is the twenty-ninth verse; the third from them, *He was the burning lamp*, which is the thirty-fifth verse of the fifth chapter; the fourth from them, *That I have come down from heaven*, which is the thirty-sixth verse of the sixth chapter. And so on: for Chlichtovæus added the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth. With a far different division the Syrians [divide it], the first chapter into four, the second into three, so that they connect the end of it, where you have the words, *And when he was in Jerusalem*, which for us begin the twenty-third comma, with the dissertation that the Savior had with Nicodemus, up to the twenty-second comma of that chapter. Perhaps so that, regarding which some Greeks and Latins also noted something, they might refer those words, *from temporal things*, to Nicodemus, to whom they attribute a place among them 261; again, they might join the words of the twenty-second comma, *After this Jesus went and his disciples into the land of Judea*, up to the fourth comma of the fourth chapter, and the history of the Samaritan woman to the forty-third comma of the same chapter, where are the words, *And after two days he went out from thence*.

From which we understand how much regard they had for our chapters, and that sometimes they divided better those things which did not fit together. But they adapted the individual parts of these to their own feasts and solemnities. Thus they read the miracle at Cana at the Sunday Matins, where they begin the fast, and the history of the Samaritan woman before Pentecost. The sixth chapter for us has five parts for them, while we, although they fit together badly, collect [them]. Thus in the catalogue of Theophylact, eight parts were made of this chapter. Among which, it is necessary that some were very small, so that from the beginning to the fourteenth comma they establish the first part of it: which comprises the miracle of the five loaves and fish, up to those words, *The people then having seen the sign which Jesus did*; the second, in which the departure, so that he might not be made king, is described: which has for us no more than the fourteenth comma with the following: for from that verse which follows this, *Regarding the walking on the sea*, he begins to act. The fourth part contains, if I am not mistaken, eight verses; the fifth, when it begins with the thirtieth comma, follows the subsequent [text] *Regarding the bread from heaven*: which he made the sixth. Which part is truly the largest, and extends to the sixty-sixth comma, where it treats *Of the disciples who departed from Jesus*. The last part, again small, comprises the testimony of Peter about the Lord. Since the 262 manuscripts, both the Greek and the others, made only two parts of the sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters, up to the ninth. For they divided this place, from the beginning of the sixth chapter, *Jesus*, up to the beginning of the ninth chapter, *And passing by he saw a man blind from birth*, so that the former dealt with the miracle of the loaves and fish, the latter with the walking of Christ on the sea: which, as I said, is described in the ninth chapter. Therefore, in the most ancient codex, between that inscription or title, *Regarding the walking on the sea*, and that, *Regarding the man blind from birth*, twelve pages in all are entirely empty. The same thing done in other codices is manifest from the books of the great man Joachim Camerarius, and others, who copied them from the Greeks. From these the Catalog of Bede dissents, who made, if I am not mistaken, fourteen chapters for the whole Gospel. But he divided the sixth in such a way that he seems to have made five of it. For thus: Regarding the five loaves and two fishes, and that they wanted to make him king. Jesus walks upon the sea; and he speaks of the manna and the heavenly bread, and as the disciples depart from him, he says one of the twelve is a devil. But also those who have inspected once the catalogs of the Acts and Epistles, both of the teacher of the Gentiles, and of those which they call *catholic* or *encyclical*, which are read with the commentaries of OEcumenius (what their antiquity is, however, I do not ask), know that there is nothing there which squares with our division of chapters. For there are always more or fewer. Indeed the Acts of the Apostles, forty there, have twenty-eight for us. Those written to the Romans, sixteen for us, have twenty there. Those to the Galatians, six for us, have twelve there, lest anyone always think the chapters smaller, as when titles and chapters are joined together. Our Evangelists 263 have the first [part], five for us, seven there; the second, one for us, two there; the third finally has one for us, three there. For Aretha divided the Apocalypse both into *logoi* and chapters, so that it contains twenty-four *logoi* and seventy-two chapters, because the former number [alt-version omitted], or tripled, produces the other; the former, however, they say, [is] on account of the same number of presbyters, who are described in that place. For these things please them. But how much these are worth, we do not dispute. For it is enough if the superstition of those is removed, who, entirely ignorant of antiquity, superstitiously adhere to these distinctions. Indeed, just as the most excellent and most holy man St. Jerome, regarding the Minor Prophets and elsewhere, often begins a new book in the middle of a chapter, so those who have treated Cyril, Chrysostom, Augustine, and others know how many of our verses or commas the ancients made, just as, not to go at length, it is clear even from this, that the majority of the ancients, and among them Cyril, immediately combined the third comma of the first chapter, which is objected to the Manichaeans elsewhere by Augustine, with the fourth. He who admires this as something new (although I truly do not approve the interpretation of that place) binds the ancients to our findings *formerly and recently arranged*. I can affirm this, that these parts, just as they occur to the memory, thus have given occasion for the corruption of places elsewhere.

^C

CHAPTER XIV.

^A as he has found it, ^B or ^C what I had proposed, *logomachies*, and when he had become somewhat incensed, *foolish questions*, or rather *uninstructed* ones, as the same apostle calls them. For these mortals gladly seek from the inspired writings a veil for their ignorance, just as the first-formed pair sought leaves from the fig tree. There I again said, "Do not rage, great priest. Even here there are gods, as the philosopher used to say."

When he, ignorant of all elegance, scarcely penetrated the meaning, he began to rebuke me for my use of the word "gods," calling it vain and unworthy of a Christian man. Nor, he said, was it right or orderly for one to inquire into languages, or to busy oneself with them, when one was born for other, much weightier matters. In the Greek text, he claimed, there was nothing at all that was hidden from him. He knew it to the letter. Of the Hebrew and Chaldean, or the Syriac interpretation, he had never even thought. For he did not care for foreign things. He was fulfilling with faith the office that lay upon him. The care of souls was committed to him; that was the one thing he was now doing.

"A rare," I said, "and deeply stupendous felicity of intellect. To which, as I think, no theologian—though our age or that of our parents has produced so many supreme men—has reached. But why should I speak of them? Augustine, Jerome, Cyril, and indeed the prince of the interpreters of the New Testament, Chrysostom, sometimes either reveal or confess their ignorance. And we, base chicks hatched from unhappy eggs, seem to ourselves to know something if sometimes we observe something unknown or unsaid by others in these books."

To me, indeed, when I approach the word of God and His mysteries, I always endeavor to profess how much I do not know, and to raise my dim eyes to His Spirit, who alone is the torch of truth; for while they cling to this dust and to the fabric of a most wretched body, I believe nothing can be hoped for without this protection. Many years have passed since I began to read the writings of the Fathers diligently, 268 and I have progressed only so far as the confession of ignorance. But do you enjoy this, your felicity: and, as he says, *Assume the pride sought by your merits.*

"Yet spare me," I said, "Father, and as those Syrians whom you so despise say, [דָא (dâ)]: for even the Apostle Peter himself (you know the man, if I am not mistaken), lest I speak hereafter in the manner of philosophers, is accustomed to speak so; nor should you induce in your mind that whatever many prefer to ignore is learned in vain by some. Indeed, you should know that languages are both a gift of God and an instrument. And since he knew Greek, there was one thing I asked of him—at least that he should teach us, regarding a certain passage of Paul, how it was to be understood. And when he had nodded, 'In the First to the Corinthians,' I said, 'what did he mean when he said, *in tongues*...'"

[to others] faith, to others the gift of tongues, to others the interpretation of tongues, was given? And of what spirit did he think here?' For it is added there that all these are of one Spirit. Then, in the same Epistle, when he said that he wished all to speak in various tongues—'I wish you all to speak in tongues'—what did he mean? Finally, what was in his mind when he dared to boast of the tongues he possessed? And when he was searching a passage with the greatest attention, 'For the sake of brevity,' I said, 'I wish you would now let this research be, for it is read in the same chapter.' And when I had pointed it out to him with my finger, he took revenge on us with one or two quips. When I had passed over this with great modesty, I said, 'The study of Theology, which you champion, and to which you are committed, is indeed right. But that you should exclude others from its possession, I do not think is done rightly or in order by you. For it may be that they read the writings of the ancient Fathers and recent interpreters diligently—those whom I do not know how fittingly you call critics—who, I fear, know much more than you do, for they do not despise the philosophers, nor the ancient theologians, nor the languages which the prophets and apostles used.

Among the Chaldeans, indeed, beyond their erudition, no one is unaware of what clear testimonies exist concerning the eternal Word of God, concerning eternal life, even when it is not expressed in the sacred text, from the occasion of interpretation. And when all the synagogues, especially the Asiatic ones, where the most holy John is said to have preached, were sounding forth with these, I doubt whether those who in this age have tried to persuade the human race that these were first brought in by the apostles are to be considered human. The Syrian interpreter, too, is unjustly despised. For if I—already, not he who would understand and know all these things, but I and those like me—were to employ them when there was need, to understand their opinion, how much would they be worth, since they represented so well in many places the mind and even the idioms of the Savior and the apostles? There happened also to be present a theologian of exquisite and very diffuse erudition, who, although he knew much, would nevertheless willingly attribute more to others, such was the natural goodness in him, even to those who were less learned. You would have described my old favorite, Thysius, in terms of natural disposition and erudition. He, having chastised the man's rashness and ^A arrogance in good faith, said, 'But you, proceed, yet on the condition that you explain your opinion first of all on what you proposed, and so in order on the rest.' 'I will indeed do what you ask,' I said, 'yet keeping safe your judgment, to which you know how much I defer. As for the Syrian, when he uses the word for "preach," I am led to think that he had the Hebrews in mind. Who, since they divide sacred Scripture into the Law, or Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, say that the latter—to distinguish them from the others—were written indeed by the instinct of the Holy Spirit, but not "preached." Therefore, I think that by that word, authority is asserted for the evangelists. ^B So also the Greek. For he wants those books to have been written by others, and either preached or dictated by others. "We must know," he says, "that the Gospel according to Mark was dictated by Peter in Rome. And he made the beginning from the prophetic word which comes from on high to Isaiah, signifying the winged image of the Gospel." And then he adds these verses:

"Whatever, preaching, the heaven-speaking Peter taught the nations concerning Christ, from his honored lips, here Peter raised up and set in pages. Therefore, another evangelist for mortals was shown."

He wants his Gospel to have been preached, or rather dictated, by Peter, and excerpted by Mark. Hence Mark is called by Sophronius the ^C *hermeneutes* (interpreter) of Peter. And the Greeks explain *hypagoreuein* (to dictate) as *hermeneuein* (to interpret). Thus he holds the Gospel of Luke to have been written by Luke and dictated by Paul, since Dorotheus calls that writing *kat' epitropēn* (by commission) ^D of Paul, written at the instigation of Peter, to note the Acts of the Apostles. You are not unaware of what occurs a few times in Paul, when he deals with his own Gospel; for example, the Epistle to the Romans: "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my Gospel, through Jesus Christ"; as well as to the Galatians, "The Gospel preached by me," and again later to the Thessalonians, and finally the second to Timothy; the ancients refer this to the Gospel, just as he also remembers the author. Concerning John, however, he says that his Gospel was dictated 271 *en Patmō tē nēsō* (on the island of Patmos). First preached, soon dictated, after the manner—unless I am mistaken—of the Hebrews and the Syrians, who here use the word *in Aphel*.

And in truth, all the writings of the apostles and evangelists can rightly be called by us *Hypagoreuseis* (dictations) and *Hypagoreuomena* (things dictated), because they were written with the Holy Spirit dictating. They, however, used this word otherwise, although they seem to tend toward the same goal. The same author only excepts Matthew, whose words, because they have not yet been published as far as I know, I shall describe here: "The holy Gospel according to Matthew was published by him in Jerusalem before those from Judea, by means of Hebrew letters. For this reason, indeed, writing for the Hebrews, he sought to show nothing more than that Christ was from Abraham and David." And he adds:

"This is the work of Matthew, the noble-toiling tax collector, who declared the divine birth of the maiden who knew no man, whom she bore as a seedless son, whom the [wide] heaven did not contain, the ever-living Christ, God and man, who always is."

But whom will he persuade that Matthew performed nothing else than to show that the Savior was descended from Abraham and David? See what the ignorance of Hebrew letters can do. The same thing that a little Greek teacher imposed upon Erasmus (and what a man!). The beginning of Matthew in the Hellenistic language has it thus: *Biblos geneseōs Iēsou Christou, huiou Dauid, huiou Abraam*. Which they received as if this were an inscription of the whole Gospel, or as if *biblos* were a "book" rather than a "series." This is, he says, the series and order of the lineage of Jesus Christ. For he began from the first book of Moses, "This is the book of the lineage of man." Which is a common formula, not only in beginnings but also in the middle of books, especially when they mention some great man or describe a history. Because *ED* in that notion is a catalog, or series, not a book. But the Hellenists, by the notion of the Hebrews, as is their habit, accepted it, as John Drusius, who deserved well of these things, had noted before us. But this is wandering. Therefore, let us return to our evangelist. I would wish, therefore, from you, I say, most excellent of men (for with this man, who despises those things, we are at peace), to know what the inscription of the same author means, when it commemorates *tēn praktikēn tou Christou genean*. For in fact it does not exist in the New Testament, in which nothing escapes that man. Since he confessed that this was also unknown to himself, I shall therefore say what suddenly came into our mind, I say. Although I know that the ancients spoke thus more rarely, I think *praktikēn* is that which you call *hypostatikēn*, insofar as the Son is not generated from the Father in an image or idea, but *ousiōdōs* (essentially), just as he subsists. Which Cyril, in the first book *De Trinitate*, and Damascene, who wrote this chapter first in *De orthodoxa fide*, distinguish more subtly. Who wish that which is common in human beings—take Peter and Paul, for example—to be distinguished by mind and reason, but that which is diverse, by things, that is, *pragmata*. On the contrary, in the divine Trinity, in which that which is common, namely essence, goodness, will, and other things of that kind which show identity by communion, are distinguished by reality, not by reason; but the properties, or modes of existence, which [create] the difference...

^A are said in that same place to be distinguished by those "realities and by reason." Thus Epiphanius called the three persons three ^B "actualities." Yet he seems to have said "sovereign" because Christ, who is called the "substantial Wisdom," is said 273 by the ancients to have been generated from the very mind of the Father. Known is that [verse] of the ancient writer Damasus: "Voice of the highest and of the sense of God, which the Father poured forth from his high Mind." But "mind" is ^C "sovereign" to Plato. Or, which is more pleasing, because this generation precedes all created things, so that you might call it the first, or princely [nature], in Latin.

And not once have I remembered that theologians speak thus: for from that [precedence], as Cyril interprets this passage, "every family in heaven and on earth is named," from which our [Latin] men departed far when they translated it "family." When he did not refuse, and I was already hastening to other things, he [said] there: "But you, again and again, see what you are doing; for concerning the name of theologian, and the rest which are attributed by the ancients to your holy writer, nothing so far." See that, so that you may return to the [proposed] subject; for we already have the matter constrained. And you have already injected there a certain scruple, that you might have seen me pondering something about it as well. You are not unaware, I say, that the ancients not rarely speak so as to oppose "theology" and "economy" to each other. Thus Chrysostom, thus others sometimes use it, as when that great doctor [speaks] concerning the Evangelist and the others: "That the others flashed the economy, but John thunders the theology," so that with the others there exists economic lightning, but with him, the thunder of theology. And so they think that those things are said ^D "according to economy" which deal with the Lord's humanity, but those "according to theology" which deal with his other nature. Thus Basil against Eunomius: "He does not deliver to us a mode of theology, but he delivers the modes of theology." Which [the ancients] are accustomed to call "theoprepic," and also "anagogical," in this writer and others. Hence in the Menæa, "the leader of theology," or the guide of theology, and as it were the first author, is called ours. Which, not from the definition about which we argued before, and which exists in the books of the scholastics 274, but this one of ours the Greeks say there, because he began from theology, as others from economy. Thus the "Book of Generations," about which Matthew [speaks], is "according to economy"; about which ours [John works], is "according to theology." And this is what the Greeks add in the same place, that he is a leader, and as it were a prince, who brought theology down from heaven, because he cries, "In the beginning was the Word." Likewise they say that, being full of love, he has also become full of theology. Whence it is said "to theologize the Word," or "to theologize the Son of God." In the same Menæa, it is said, "He who has theologized the Son of the most high God." Just as to Caesarius, it is said that Scripture "theologizes Christ" when it deals with his divinity, as when it derives his generation, not from the series of the human race, but from eternity; when it proposes the "genealogy of the ungenealogized," and begins from this. Whence also, up to those words, "He came unto his own, and his own received him not," they say that he speaks [about what is] "to theologize," [but] in those things which follow, [he speaks] "according to economy." Theophylact on those words which I have already mentioned: "Here most clearly he injects the discourse concerning the economy in the flesh." Such are: "And the Word was made flesh," or, "And he tabernacled among us," which are said "according to economy." Although both the word "Word" and the word "tabernacled" also include a mode of theology. Whence the ancient theologian Eulogius: "See again also John preaching two natures; the tent is one thing, and the One who tents is another." And Photius likewise from an ancient theologian in the same place notes that the schema of the economy and that of theology are joined there. Thus concerning the principle, or the first foundations, Chrysostom, "about to deliver to us the things concerning the theology of the Son of God, gave no other beginning of all things." He called that same principle "the theology of the Only-begotten." Just as in one and the same passage he speaks "according to theology and according to economy."

1068 275 After he said, "And he tabernacled among us," he adds, "And we saw his glory, as the glory of the Only-begotten from the Father," which is to speak "according to theology," or "to theologize the Son." And this is that theology of the Only-begotten, to which Chrysostom looked, just as they have also called the whole Gospel by this name, as when Suidas [cites] from some ancient theologian, "dwelling there, he writes theology." Which, when I had said in passing, that prior doctor of mine and alpha of theologians seemed to let down his guard regarding the fateful gravity of his countenance and his eyebrows a little, so that he himself might ask me why he was called "son of thunder." For although he knew what is brought forth about him from the Gospel of Mark, if I had observed anything more about it, he appeared to consider it as a benefit not light for us to bestow, which he most gladly would hear. I replied that it had so much the more difficulty, because the Greeks had never ceased to doubt about it. Of whom some had referred it to a part and likewise to the first words, others to his entire Gospel, others assigned it to the gravity of the mysteries and to theology, others to the weight and brevity of the words; for as thunder unexpectedly suddenly ceases and is finished, so [he] equals individual periods, or clauses, which are things clearly unusual and unheard of in the weight of sentences and in speed. And what is more beyond expectation than that he who in the others reads that Christ was deduced from Abraham, from David, and from the rest, [here] hears in the beginning that he was [the one] whom he thinks of as having been deduced from so many ancestors? But also ever self-splendid and grave in language is the brevity. "Sharper is the short and imperative." Sharp and commanding is its own brevity, said the greatest author who wrote about elocution (Tacitus called it "imperatorial" in the same way), and it always leaves something for the reader to think about. Add 276 that his periods are "monocola," just as they have nothing "periodic," or "wound up," nothing of affectation, or [drawn] from the art of rhetoricians. Example for the sake of [illustration]: "In the beginning was the Word." Likewise, "And the Word was toward God, and God was the Word," and what follows. Which are mere bolts of lightning, shaken out at once and abrupt; for at the end of one, a new period begins and ends. Whence Pericles was also called "thunder." And hence indeed the Greeks believed he was called "son of thunder": whence also they said "thunder," or "thunder-voiced." Thus the same author, whom we have said wrote the Summaries of the Gospels and Epistles: "Thunder indeed, the God-voiced John, all-excellent, Of the First-born Wisdom he found the super-archaic beginning, The first-appearing Begetter of God, God self-begotten."

And he adds next: "Whence he dulled the minds of death-bearing heresies;" for he permitted so much to himself in poetry as he permitted in the Greek style. Thus in the Menæa or Menologies of the Greeks: "He also thundered, 'The Word was in the beginning'; whence he was shown to be thunder-voiced." And, "By your thunder-voiced tongue speaking forth." Which they seem to have believed as the same, that he was "son of thunder," when [the latter] is rather a question of what its true interpretation is. In the same place, "You were called son of divine thunder," just as in the same place he is also called "child of thunder," and "thunder-child" sometimes to Caesarius in the Questions. Among other things, "Concordantly, of this, John is the thunder-child." For the beginning and true cause of the name is from Mark, by whom he is called Boanerges. For he says in chapter 3, verse 17: "And James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James and he put upon them the names Boanerges, which is sons of thunder." Where this name is put not on John alone, but on James also, so that it can scarcely be referred to his eloquence. What the learned note about that word can be seen from their books. But to me 277 another thing seems [to be the case]. For I would not doubt that it is noted by the word [denoting] thunder, which for the Hebrews, who denote the presence of the divine majesty and of that Spirit, [is used]. Such is that which is in the secret of the thunder heard, in Psalm LXXXI, 8, that is, in the secret of my majesty. Where Symmachus had, "through hidden thunder."

^A to remove the Chaldean, who in the hidden place of His majesty, explained it. As God for the most part used to expound the divine pleasure and ordinances with thunder, just as He also brought forth the Law, so that today kings and magnates [might be moved] by the trumpet, Exodus xix, 16: whence also thunder is not rarely *qōl*, sometimes the "voice of the Lord," as in Psalm xxviii; and if the voice of God is added, it is called *qōl*. This kind of prophecy was [common] among the Hebrews (of which others have spoken more than once), because for the most part they were warned about future events with thunder. Thus, in chapter 12, verse 28 of our Evangelist, when the Lord had said, "Father, glorify thy name," there came, he says, "a voice from heaven. I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." The Hellenists, indeed, call thunder in their own language *phōnē*. In the place of Exodus already mentioned, "And it came to pass on the third day, when it was morning... and there were voices and lightnings and clouds." ^B Neither does the Chaldean [interpreter] differ. But in John it follows: "The multitude therefore that stood by, and heard, said that it had thundered. Others said, An angel hath spoken to him." You see that the same thing is called both a voice and thunder. But [it is clear] that the people also disputed about it, because thunder is the sign and concomitant of the divine voice. Some, therefore, said it was a voice, others thunder, that is *qōl*, or *pē’rāh*, divine thunder, or, joined with the divine oracle or testimony, they said. Others, however, said an angel was speaking, according to the custom then familiar to the Chaldeans, by which they ascribed divine works to these ministers. As when they spoke of sudden death, saying "the angel of death," in Psalm 91. Likewise, this our theologian here, in his prophecy which we call the Apocalypse, always joins thunder with divine oracles and voices. And this is constant with him. Thus in chapter 5, 5, he joins "lightnings, and voices, and thunders." Thus in chapter 6, 1, he testifies that he heard "as it were the voice of thunder," saying "Come," as a voice of thunder prophesying. And in chapter 10, 3, "the seven thunders uttered their voices," they are said to be giving forth their voice. Which are the last voices and the final thunders, by which the last prophecy on earth was confirmed. Whence also the Jewish Christians, who always join thunder with vision and prophecy, object to their own, that while they seek from morning until evening on the day of atonement for the coming of the Messiah and deliverance, yet no vision or voice regarding His coming is any longer exhibited. Wherefore one is no longer to wait, but [to realize] that He has come. From which it is clear that the two venerable messengers, *qōl*, of His voice and divine majesty, are named Boanerges, that is, as the Syrian rightly says. There are also other names which are attributed to this Evangelist by the ancients, in which there is no difficulty: as when he is called *philos* in the Meniæi, from history; as with Aquila, which is noted; as when he is called *theosynegetos* by Arethas from the collections of Andrew, as it seems, of Cæsarea, and perhaps not a few others. Of which kind new ones can be thought of daily. Which, when I had brought them forward, one [man] gave thanks modestly and bashfully; another also, who had perhaps heard by hearsay something from the writings of the Fathers, [or] that he had read something himself in them, when he had scarcely touched upon Greek letters, in which he took wondrous pleasure in himself, said with a very grave countenance that it did not displease him. I, although I knew that it was little safe among such men, 279 nevertheless began to beseech [him] that he would not deem it beneath his leisure and gravity to treat the writings of the ancient theologians a little more accurately than he had done; and to give some attention also to the languages of the time. But if that was not possible for him through other things, at least to judge well of them (for he spoke quite confidently about some great men who had excelled in that praise), who, having been instructed in those letters, might publicly benefit the world. No one has attained to celebrity by the contempt of others, unless perhaps an ill-starred one: but by contention, by labor, by science, and by erudition; nor by the envy of great men, but by emulation and example. Never would human affairs have returned to such a point that one would prefer— ^C judgment and estimation to be deferred only to the ignorant.

I, indeed, as a man who am well aware that I am ignorant of many things, and on every occasion profess this, have nevertheless learned this: that it is in vain for anyone to attempt to interpret the mysteries of the New Testament being instructed only in the knowledge of a few Greek words. In the Old [Testament], however, they alone are wise who, for the understanding of both, diligently compare the texts, not only Hebrew, but also Chaldean and Greek. That Origen was by far the most learned of all the Greeks; and that the Fathers testify to this (concerning whose other errors, lest you intervene again, I do not speak), [and] that Jerome yielded to none of the Latins. That both were the princes of critics; and from that most noble care, they earned for themselves the first praise. For which, as much as was due, there would never be wanting those who would profess it. Wherefore do not, I say, speak evil of those who, in illustrating the sacred [writings], confer and set their effort and study, by the example of these. For they are for the most part fiery, lest you be deceived; and there were among 280 them in this age who joined together not only some, but almost all languages and disciplines. Such as in our time I can rightly praise the Scaligers and Casaubons. Therefore, what I would now rather have said only in the ear,

I have never seen a rivalry more unfairly matched than that today among [you all. For you both give effort on both sides; the one, that you may know much and that the studies of the learned may profit; the others, that you may speciously lay claim to erudition and knowledge by the contempt of others. Nor have you, I believe, attained anything from that among those people thus far, except that they hold you as actors or buffoons, and publicly, when it seems good, traduce you; for those whom these [things] can move, are worthy of being despised. As for me, all you learned men, as much as each of you can, either by talent or by erudition, contribute to these studies. And, as it is in the ancient verse,

Bring together wings, O birds, and wax, O bees.

281 OF THE EXERCITATIONS PART TWO D In which the Gospel of St. John is chiefly illustrated from the collation of Nonnus. CHAPTER XV. The Evangelist is compared with the interpretation of Nonnus. The place in Nonnus is distinguished otherwise than is commonly read. The place is negligently rendered by Nonnus. The malignancy of Julian the Apostate. The *akolouthia* in the first chapter is noted by him. The words of the Apostate. His false accusation rejected. The *akolouthia* of the whole place is discussed. It is proposed according to the mind of the Evangelist. The times of the Baptist are divided by the Evangelists. The *endeiai* of the Word, which must be supplied in the Evangelist. A note on how the testimonies of others distinguish the Master of the Hebrews. The Father and the Spirit, called "light," as the Son. The imprudence of Nonnus. "The light coming into the world," is a Hebraism. For it, "to come upon the earth," wrongly used by Nonnus. "To come into the world" is one thing, "to go upon the earth" is another. Both are used by the Hellenists, and how they are used by the Hebrews. *Paralabein*, of the voice.

^A *Chaldaea interpretatio*. "Acceptance," *to accept*. It is, *and dwelt among us*. But in what manner, I know not. *To obey*. *To take* (being spoken) of the Prophet by excellence. *To honor*, in Nonnus for *to believe*, and used thus by the ancients. Of his places, *And he dwelt among us*, an interpretation. What *to dwell in a tent* is. The passage not correctly understood by Nonnus. The *dwelling* of Nestorius, and his perverse use of the word. Of his places. *And we saw his glory*, an interpretation. That he substituted *glory*, *fame*, and *honor* very ineptly for the word *doxa*. *Indwelling*, the *shekinah* of the Chaldaeans. *Indwelling* and *glory* joined regarding the divinity. *Glory*, the divinity itself to Cyril and others. This proved in many places. Instead of the ineffable name, the same word is in use. How the Asiatic and European Jews used that word. A hymn of Cosmas, and in it *that he was glorified*, concerning the incarnation of the Word, or, concerning the flesh which the Son of God assumed. Not even to the Hebrews was this name unknown concerning the Son. *The glory of the Lord* concerning the Son. A name of majesty unknown to the Greeks. How ridiculous the Greeks are in expressing it. *Royal magnanimity*. *Charge of sacrilege*, concerning the crime of majesty. ^B The passage of the Evangelist, *as of the Only-begotten from the Father*, 282 is falsely taken by heretics. The particle *as*, a note of assertion in that place. It is confirmed by the example of the Hellenists and Hebrew usage. Disputed concerning a certain reading in the text. *Grace and truth*, a note of divinity. Of that place, *he was before me*, an interpretation. *First* not only of order but also of power. *My first*, as my primate, or my ruler. The interpretation of Arius of that place is rejected. The opinion of Harmenopulus.

It remains, therefore, that we examine the sacred author with the interpreter now in order, and if anything is to be noted in him also or to be illustrated, we shall perform it without the apparatus and allurements of words. Immediately under the very beginning of the first chapter, at the first clause, it is read: *And the Word of God true-born, light, light out of light. / Partless, enthroned with the Father on an eternal seat.* Where it is indeed no doubt to us, but that the passage is badly distinguished, and by the author was conceived thus: *And the Word of God true-born, light, light out of light / of the Father was; partless, enthroned with the Father on an eternal seat.* ^C Since the Evangelist a little after, namely at the third clause, wrote, *And without him was made nothing that was made*, the Holy Fathers well annotated that it is rightly said by him, *that all things were made through the Son that were made*, not simply *all things*, or *all things that are*, that is, all things, or all things that exist, on account of the heretics, who did not fear to refer this to the Holy Spirit: who, as also the Father, *was not made, because he was*. Gregory the Theologian on the Holy Spirit: "And I shall not even fear that, that all things are said to have been made through the Son, as if He were one of all things and the Holy Spirit; for all things that were made, it is said, not simply all things; for neither was the Father, nor those things which were not made." But also, it is most well known from Epiphanius how cunningly not one of the heretics would abuse that place. Of the reason of which our author took no account, when he said: 283 *And without toil of fable / Nothing was born such as it was*; not however *was made*, as it ought to have been.

Follows at clause eight: *That man was not the light.* Which place, together with a few clauses that follow, the malignity of Julian the Apostate caused me to consider more diligently. Who wanted there to be no consistency therein, as if he speaks now from himself, now from the opinion of the Baptist; and when he himself first, as he thinks, taught that the Word of whom he speaks had been God, he cunningly ascribes this afterward to John the Baptist, so, however, that mention having been made of him, he again slips away from him. His words in Cyril, by whom he is refuted, are read thus: "And when he had said a few things about John the Baptist, he reduces the discourse again to him who was preached by him. And, *The Word*, he says, *was made flesh*," ^D being troubled, he says that he nowhere extols either Jesus or Christ to this point, that he might call him God and the Word; but quietly and secretly he lays it upon our ears, and that John the Baptist had proposed this testimony for Christ Jesus, that he truly is the one, whom it behooves to be believed to be God the Word, and the things which follow to the same sense. Which words, although they contain the height of malignity, it is clear, however, that he either imposed the reason of the consistency upon him, or gave occasion to his calumny and impropriety, although surely undeservedly, which I think not even our own have sufficiently perceived. Wherefore I think something must be said of it here. That whole chapter, that it is nothing other than a vestibule of the following history, in which with supreme artifice, from the testimony of the Baptist, to whom the Jews at that time paid a great deal, as is evident also from Josephus, the author commends the Lord, even some of the ancients saw. Furthermore, 284 from the eighth clause, it is wonderful how Nonnus, and others both of the ancients and of our own, have fluctuated in the connection of the oration. The reason for which is that they did not sufficiently perceive the *schemata of lack*, which are proper to the Syrians and to the Hebrews. Wherefore, I shall propose here once the *coherence*, according to the opinion of the author and his words, under the law that I add only those things which serve to complete the oration: *That man was not, that is, John the Baptist, the light; but was sent, that he might bear witness concerning this light; saying, that this light was the true light, which lighteth every man coming into the world. And that he was in the world, and the world was made through him; and the world knew him not. And, that he came into his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, that to them he gave power, to be made the children of God; that is, to those who believe in his name; who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and that we ourselves saw his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father. These things, therefore, John testified concerning him. But the same John testifies, and cries out, that is, he shouted, saying, that this was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me, is preferred before me: because he was before me. And of his fullness we all have received, and grace for grace: for the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.* So that all these things, contrary to what he thought and our own suppose, contain nothing other than the first testimony of the Baptist, nor are they the words of the evangelist, as is thought, but of him whom he always mentions. Which afterward, 285 new follows with these words: *And this is the testimony of John.* Which is the note of the second testimony, to which he subjoins the rest. But the ellipses misled them, as I was saying.

You see therefore the most illustrious testimonies of the Baptist. Which if any man should think therefore are not his, because the others nowhere mention them, even those things which are spoken concerning the legation to him and the second testimony, let him ascribe to others. There exists the most illustrious testimony of the Theotokos, there exists the most illustrious testimony of Zacharias concerning the Savior, of which, beside Luke alone, no one makes mention. There exist among the individual evangelists many things, and especially this one of ours, which except for him no one mentions. Nor is it to be doubted, but that the Baptist, full of the Holy Spirit, said not a few things concerning Christ, which either nowhere exist, or are not expounded by the others. Add that the evangelists also divided the times. Thus Matthew, those things which precede the captivity of the greatest prophet, casually, John has pursued at length. And this *distinguishing* note the Fathers use. Among others Chrysostom, when he says: "The evangelists divided the times; and Matthew, the times before the Baptist was bound,..."

he hastens to those that follow; but ^A the evangelist John, not only does not abbreviate, but especially lingers upon them." The evangelists, he says, divided the times. Thus Matthew contracted the time which precedes the captivity of the Baptist, so as to devote himself to other things; but the evangelist John not only did not contract it, but clings to it most of all. The first thing that misled the interpreters is the *lack* [ἔνδεια] in the lines, "in order that he might bear witness concerning the light; the light was," that is, "to bear witness concerning the light, that it was the light; the true light, which lighteth every man," etc. This is said in the same way as that, "I said, Ye are gods," which is, "that ye are gods." This is what the Hellenists commonly do, ^B "but in order that he might bear witness concerning the light," saying that it was the light. Nothing is more customary. As if, indeed, it had been said: "That one was not the light, but in order that he might bear witness concerning the light." He bore witness, therefore, that the Word was the light. Now after those things which follow, *discretively*, or for the sake of distinction, he adds, "John bears witness concerning him;" lest anyone should ascribe them to another, and that he might thus distinguish them from his own: which the teachers of the Hebrews say, *hic est sermo*, and distinguish with this mark, [.]. In the way in which his discourse has proceeded, which they subjoin, just as they sometimes prefix other things. Thus that is used, "And He cried out saying," such as they usually prefix to a new testimony. But now they are confused. Therefore "John bears witness," *subjunctively*, for that common phrase, "This is the testimony of John." For the authority of the Forerunner, which the Jews also, as Josephus notes, held in esteem at both the beginning and the end, he distinguishes when he cites his words. Such is verse 9: "And this is the testimony of John." And verse 52: "And John bare witness." Which is almost the same as that of Phocylides: ^C "And this of Phocylides," unless Phocylides speaks of himself, and ours speaks of another. In which he again imitated his Chaldeans and especially the Targumim, which he loves: who sometimes in the middle of a chapter, and sometimes even when nothing of the sort exists in the text, interpose those words, *Dixit propheta*, according to their custom. A most illustrious example of which you have at the strength of Micah, and likewise in the third of Malachi. Which, because the ancients sometimes believed that these were to be omitted in this very chapter, they added of their own. Just as after those words, "That he was before me," which are the Baptist's, yet are not distinguished from the following, they wish that what follows, "And of his fullness have we all received," to be the evangelist's. We have shown the *connection* which we think should be followed here: concerning which the Apostate attained nothing. And primarily, how those are joined, "that the law was given through Moses." And, "that no man hath seen God at any time." Certainly not more than Nonnus. And yet he dares to criticize these. Which proves that he occupied himself more with his Homer than with the Hellenistic tongue, even while he was living among Christians. But more of that below. For ^D that he says that this evangelist of all others attributed divinity to Christ, or rather, to him alone, and that this was not done by Paul and others, is plainly *easier to refute*, nay, it is unworthy of refutation, and what the Greeks would say of his words, "a falsehood not resembling truths." Let us now proceed. I have never been able to prove that, to those words in the 8th verse, "the light was" (how, or in what manner, those were to be joined to the others, he does not show), he added what he did not find: "For indeed, being with the Father, the truly primordial light, the Only-Begotten Word was." As if it had been written: "For indeed the Son was the true light with the Father;" *the Son with the Father was the true light.* Although here there is no mention of the Father: no more, indeed, than of the Holy Spirit, who is himself both light and is not rarely called so (for that saying of the ancients is known, "The Father is light, the Son is light, the Holy Spirit is light"). Whom he seems to exclude by this reasoning, and to whom the place also seemed to be due. This is easily suspected in a man who speaks less correctly of him in many places. They went clearly in the opposite direction who, so that they might separate the Son from the Father and the Spirit here, referred what follows, "coming into the world," to the Son here: as if it had been said, "the true light was, which coming into the world, 288 lighteth every man." In which passage, however, our author stumbled no less. Wherefore something must also be said about this. To the Hebrews, and to the Hellenists who interpret them, *to come into the world* is to be born. And thus the authors speak frequently. The author of Sepher Amana, concerning Abraham, "There was to him peace [Hebrew text]," with all those who come into the world, that is, as many as lived or were born on earth, just as also in Tobit, which book, as it was published by Fagius, is most purely and succinctly *Hebraized* according to the form of the Scriptures. For which our author [wrote], "enlightening the nature of men coming upon the earth," which does not even mean anything in Greek. *Coming into the earth*, for example, of the Phaeacians, is Greek, when it is said specifically. *Coming into the earth*, or *land*, or *upon the earth*, is nothing, and *to walk upon the earth* is something clearly different, as when they say [Hebrew text], by which the Jews, and Christians [too], note the time during which the Lord was on earth. The Greeks would say, "the saving sojourn of the Lord." And they sometimes use both equally. As when they ask about the Lord, why he walked on the earth for thirty years, before it was revealed to those coming into the world. Which the Greeks would say: "Why did he sojourn with us for thirty years, and this was known to none of the men of that time?" The Hellenists, however: "Why did he walk upon the earth for thirty years, and this was not made manifest to any of those coming into the world?" Where you see that *to walk upon the earth* is one thing, and *to come into the world* is another, with which *to come into the earth*, or *upon the land*, has nothing in common hitherto, which, if I am not mistaken, means nothing. Finally, how much they differ, *to come into the earth* and *to come into the world*, those who know how much they differ outside the usage of the Old Testament [know], the *erets* [land] and the *olam* [world]. 289 There follows in the same place verse 11: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." What entered into the minds of the learned, when they interpret it by excepting [others], I do not see. Ours, to the Hebrews, but in the Chaldean sense, would be [Hebrew text]. For that which to the Hebrews is *shama*, to the Hellenists is *to obey*, the Targumists express by this word, as in Gen. XXII and XXV:5, concerning the firm faith of Abraham; which to the Apostle is *to accept* [to welcome]. Whose acceptance is faith. But there is no more illustrious passage than Exod. XXIII, 21 and 22, where God solemnly promises his angel who would lead them into the land of Canaan: whose *discourse* [Word] they are commanded *to obey*. Which is *to receive* in Chaldean, that is [Hebrew text]. For this is perpetual, as in that illustrious passage Deut. XVIII, 18, 19, where plainly as here, concerning Christ himself, whom our John, a little later, when he looked to this same passage, calls *the Prophet*, God speaks thus: "I will raise up a prophet for them from the midst of their brethren," etc. And then: "And the man who will not obey my words, as many as the prophet will speak in my name, I will take vengeance upon him." For which the Chaldean [paraphrase reads]: "If any man does not receive my words which he will speak in my name, my Word will take vengeance upon him;" that is, If any man shall not receive my words, which he will speak in my name, my Word will avenge itself upon him. Where the same is that prophet and the Word. And so, just as following the Chaldeans, *from the Word*, which to them is the eternal Word of God, or Speech, the author began this Gospel, so here, as at other times...

he clearly has the Targumists in view. The ancients, ^A 290 and among them Augustine, refer it simply to faith, in the book *De Trinitate*, XIII: "And his own received him not." For it is understood: "they did not believe in him." And a little later, "as many as received him," he explains as "they who had believed in him." What, then, was in the mind of our author when he explains [Gk αἴρειν 1075] by [Gk γεραίρειν]?

"Near to his own, yet his own in foolish madness As God did not revere him."

This, I think, is not sufficiently understood by anyone. Yet he says the same as Augustine. For [Gk γεραίρειν] in those times they used instead of "to believe." Gelasius, in the Council of Nicaea, concerning those who after the death of Licinius professed the Lord, or believed in Him, says: "The King, God, and this his true Son, Christ, first of all, inasmuch as they had been taught this, they revered ([Gk ἐγεραίρον])." What, then, of the fact that our author himself used the word in this way? For because at Chapter IX, verse 36, it is said, "Who is he, Lord, that I might believe in him?" he himself [paraphrases]: ^B "King, who is this of whom you spoke, so that I may revere ([Gk γεραίρω]) him?" which is to be noted. What, then, do those eminent theologians mean here, who drag in that passage of Matthew, "do not fear to take Mary thy wife," and translate [Gk ἐκδέχεσθαι] here as "to accept"? For the masters would say one thing as *laqal*, another as *qabbel*. Who would expect such things from great men? Verse 14 follows: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The force and elegance of this passage neither our author, nor the interpreters, if I am not mistaken, have attained in any way. And therefore our author interpolated it. It is certain that *to skenoun* for the Hellenists is elsewhere what *shakan* is, as in Genesis XIII, 12, which the greatest man, Ephraem Syrus, warns should not be dragged in here in his Christian critique. Indeed, this is without doubt a most graceful parody, which had to be sought here from the usage of the Chaldeans and the Hellenists. Which learned men have not 291 once failed to notice. In Psalm LXXVII, 60, it is said: "And he cast off the tabernacle of Silo, the tent where he dwelt among men," ^C where indeed the Hebrew uses the word *Shekinah*, from which the Chaldeans derived the majesty of God, which is *Shekinah*, just as the Targumists also use that word there. To which he also indirectly looked. For parodies are often made of mere words, even the most sweet and clearly pleasant. And this is a property of this inspired author. But the prophecy itself to which he alluded exists in Zechariah II, 12: "Rejoice and be glad, daughter of Sion, for behold I come and will dwell in the midst of thee." But concerning this [Gk κατασκηνώσει], more in the following member. How much better, therefore, had our author been, if he had changed nothing here, if he had kept the same word, which is the soul of parody! He who, for what he now said:

"And God inhabited a house with men,"

would have said somewhat better:

"And God dwelt ([Gk ἐσκήνωσεν]) among men."

For one thing is [Gk οἶκος], which refers to human beings; the other is [Gk σκηνόω], from which the most holy word, of which we have already spoken, is derived. Better, therefore, that [word] than either *oikos* or *oikesis* had he placed here. At least, so that heretics might be excluded here with their *oikesis*: who, just as in the individual prophets, so in the Savior, said that the Word had his *oikesis*. Among whom was Nestorius, who posited a relative union and a mere indwelling. It follows: "And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father." And this is the member of which we were speaking, the other, [Gk Καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς Μονογενούς παρὰ Πατρός], ^D which, regarding the divinity of Him who is the subject, is so notable in our evangelist that it is 1076 scarcely possible to find such a passage. The more, therefore, I wish our author had correctly understood it. Who, as in other places where he follows the Chaldeans (292), which is perpetual with him, either he uses the same word, he has not at all attained its force. For at one time he substituted the word *kleos*, at another *times*, for the word *doxa*. And indeed both in this passage. For when he had found, "his glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father," he, however, did not hesitate to render:

"And his glory we saw in human eyes, even as the honor Of the Only-begotten Son from the highest Father."

Thus, in the second chapter, where the Lord proved his divinity by the first miracle, the evangelist proceeds, when he says: "This beginning of signs Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory," he [paraphrases] very confidently:

"And to the Hebrews he revealed the uplifted honor."

And chapter XII, verse 41, when it is said, "These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spoke about him," in the same way:

"That he saw the precious honor of the God Christ."

Than which nothing could be said or thought more alien to these passages. Since "here" *doxa* is far other than *kleos*, and far other than *time*. If the supreme man Chrysostom had understood the force of this, he would not have discoursed here so diffusely and abundantly concerning the glory of Moses and the saints. For with one word from the usage of the Chaldean language, which is perpetual and constant in the Targums, he could have sufficed. And indeed the evangelist would have said *Shekinah* if he had written in Hebrew. For sometimes they use that word in this way, although they also are accustomed to refer it to other things. Now, since he conceived in another language what he writes, and expressed what he had conceived in his mind, as the Hellenists are accustomed to, one will have to come to it. For he who does not do this labors in vain. *Kataskenosis*, of which we were just now speaking, 293 is called *Shekinah* by the Chaldeans: which denotes the divinity and the presence of that one: which cannot be unknown to him who reads one or the other of the authors in this language.

Thus, when Zechariah, in the place I mentioned before, wrote, "And I will dwell in the midst of thee," the Chaldean used that word for the interpretation of the passage, just as it appears passim elsewhere not once. Wherefore *kataskenosis* is *Shekinah*, as I said before. Which is derived from that word which the Hebrew also used there. But the word *doxa*, which he uses now, is *yaqra*, which two so agree, that one with the other is not joined without cause. And this is common to our author, whose most illustrious passage exists in the Apocalypse: "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them," Chapter XXI, 3. And afterwards he subjoins *tēn doxan* several times, as when at verse 11, he says he saw Jerusalem, "having the glory of God." Thus Moses in Exodus XXXIII, 18, wishes to see the glory of God, which is denied to him. And a little after it follows: "Thou canst not see my face: for no man shall see my face and live." Therefore, *doxa* is the majesty of God, or even his *ousia* or nature (for the neuter is separated) which no one has looked upon as it is, and lived. And lest anyone doubt about it, the Chaldean in that passage, "face," [Gk τὸ πρόσωπόν μου], interprets it in his own tongue, using the word that we have already mentioned. Thus also Isaiah is said by this evangelist to have seen "his glory," when he saw the thrice-holy, or the Trinity itself, of which it is treated there, by way of exhibition. For the seraphim are said there to have acclaimed three times, "Holy, holy, holy," when at the beginning the prophet says: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and the house was full of his glory." To which passage, in the Catena whose Greek has not yet been edited for that prophet, I profess that I owe the usage to the reverend and most learned man, Antony Thysius—294 after he said that Jacob from his own confession had seen God face to face, he adds: "He who is who..."

^A remains, having existed entirely in corruption, the wise Creator fashions anew; for He has been glorified. Seeing the Creator wasting away the man, whom He fashioned with His hands, He bows the heavens and descends; and He is entirely embodied from the divine holy Virgin, having been truly incarnate; for He has been glorified."

For Christ is born, glorify Him; Christ is from the heavens, go to meet Him; Christ is on earth, be lifted up. Sing to the Lord, all the earth, and in gladness praise, O nations; for He has been glorified. He who flows from the transgression toward the image—of those who have been ^B of the prophet, he himself also is testified to have seen His glory. And to this point looks the formula of the Rabbins, which they use in the prophecies where God speaks, *Yakar Adonai*, that is, *Elnev* or glory of the Lord. Nor do the Greeks use it only once. Cyril against Nestorius: "He came before Him, that is, taking precedence in glory." When he said, "He has been made before me," he looked to the glory by which He preceded him. Where *doxa*, or *theotes* (divinity), as the same author interprets it, if I am not mistaken, elsewhere. And expressly against the Anthropomorphites, to this effect: "But if they think that in truth anything has been ignored regarding Christ according to which He is understood as God, they are carried wide of the mark, and run against stones, and lift up the horn against His glory."

What of the fact that the Chaldeans express the ineffable name with this word? Thus in Genesis xviii, 33, where the Hebrews have, *And the Lord departed, and stopped speaking*, the Chaldeans have *Yakar Adonai*, that is, the glory of the Lord. Where those who ^B would render it "glory" with ours, let them be worthy of laughter or pity. But Haggai ii, 8: *And I will shake all nations, and the desired of all nations shall come; and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord of hosts.* Where the Hebrew has *yakar*, the Asiatic Jews *yakar*, the European—or Hellenistic—Europeans, *theoi* (gods) were reading. Which pertains only to Him, as I said, to whom the name of Jehovah pertains: since *kleos* or *time* (honor) is attributed to any man, and sometimes, such as are men, to the wicked. Because this is in the power of man: but not the former, because it pertains to Him alone, in whose power we all are. In which sense God everywhere promises to His people under this condition, both in the law and by the prophets, His *doxa*, or presence, if they remain in His law: 295 otherwise, He threatens that He will take it away, just as He also carries it out.

And hence the Fathers ask why Isaiah, when Uzziah died, says he saw the *doxa Kuriou* (glory of the Lord). And Eusebius answers: that the king had been polluted and therefore touched by leprosy. It was an abomination that as long ^C as such a king lived in the holy city, the *doxa Kuriou* should dwell in it. Therefore, the leprous king inhabiting the place, rightly the glory of God had departed; He says, the majesty of the Lord had departed under the leprous king. But when such a king was removed, he says it returned. Who here would explain *doxa*, *kleos*, or *time* as glory? But the evangelist, so that no one might doubt, sets a mark which does not deceive. For he adds, *the glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father*. And that the "Only-begotten" is an attribute of divinity, no one who has even inspected antiquity is ignorant. And Eusebius to the place of Isaiah, which is the *yakar* that the prophet says he saw, interprets this according to the opinion of our evangelist, *concerning the Only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father*. And Theophylact, because he was ignorant of the usage of the Chaldean word, noted that the divinity of the Only-begotten is to be understood. Away, therefore, with those who interpret "splendor" or "honor" here. Truly, no *kataskenosis* (tabernacling) can suit anyone except God, nor any *doxa* unless it is suitable also to the *shechina*: which is *kataskenosis*, which not even the teachers of the Hebrews can be ignorant of as being divinity, since they use this word in this way. Nor is it indeed any wonder that the Greeks, because of the Hellenists, ^D who had interpreted the Chaldean and Hebrew terms out of the usage of a language they did not understand—just as they had found them—interpreted them as they had spoken with them more often. Hence also in the hymn of Cosmas for the Nativity, they made the *kataskenosis* a refrain out of that word. For at the beginning, after every verse, they are accustomed to repeat, "For He has been glorified," which is, "For He tabernacled among us." Or, because He showed His glory on earth. 296 Although that is proper to God, we understand it better than they do. And thus they do: "Christ is born, glorify Him; Christ is from heaven, go to meet Him; Christ is on earth, be lifted up. Sing to the Lord, all the earth, and in gladness praise, O nations; for He has been glorified." After He had fallen through transgression, the one born according to the image

^A of God, and what was pleasing to politicians, the kingly majesty, the king himself. Thus, the imperial majesty, the emperor himself, as in the writings of the jurisconsults: where neither *kleos* (glory), nor *time* (honor), nor *doxa* (majesty) has a place. For it is something essential. Wherefore the Greeks are also ridiculous in that passage who render *basilikēn* (royal) instead of *megalophrosynēn* (magnanimity), which is a name of virtue, not of power; they render the crime of majesty itself, *enklima kathosiōseōs* (crime of high treason), in their own law. But the Latins handle these matters better.

Therefore, *Kai etheasametha tēn doxan autou, doxan hōs Monogenous para Patros*—"And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father." And so it is in all the passages of our evangelist, as often as it is thus used. There follows, *hōs doxan Monogenous para Patros*. In which passage *hōs* (as) somewhat twisted the most ancient writers of the Church, because heretics might mock at it, and commonly say, "Not the Only-Begotten, but as the Only-Begotten." Whence Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others wish it to be placed instead of *ontōs*, that is, *in truth*: so that, they say, it constitutes not 299 a note of similarity, but of confirmation and indubitable separation. That is, as if it had been said: "We beheld His glory, a glory truly," or *as truly*, "of the Only-Begotten of the Father."

Nor can it be denied that *hōs* is used for *alēthōs* (truly) by the Hellenists; and I am surprised that they have brought forward no example of this in such a great matter. Thus in Hosea 5:10: *Egenonto hoi archontes Iouda hōs metatithentes horia*. Where Cyril [says], that they surely transfer boundaries. "They have become as those who transfer a boundary," that is, they altogether transfer the boundary. Nor has this escaped the rabbis, who affirm that the *kaph* there is placed for the confirmation of the matter. Of which matter they bring forward many examples. But the whole affair is mere *kakozēlia* (bad emulation) and ingenious malice, which no one would tolerate in a state or a serious matter. If anyone should say of a monarch that he had seen majesty in him, and indeed majesty, as of the only king on earth, and another should infer from that that there is no king similar to the king, he would undoubtedly deserve mockery and ridicule.

Nor is the observation of Theophylact to be despised, who seems to refer those words, "full of grace and truth," to this place, when he says: "Instead of 'the glory which we beheld was as the glory of the Son in truth,' [it is] 'full of grace and truth'," so that the whole passage may be read in this manner: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, a glory as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." In which way the annoyance of the parenthesis, which intervenes rather harshly, will be removed. "And we beheld His majesty, majesty, inasmuch as it is of the Only-Begotten, full," etc., truly and excellently. And although our [version] and the vulgate books place these latter words with the Word, I am nonetheless surprised that scholars were so displeased by the other [reading]. And had they forgotten that a little later it is said: *Kai ek tou plērōmatos autou hēmeis pantes elabomen, kai charin anti charitos*? 300 What wonder, then, if it is said *plērēs charitos*, in whose *plērōmati* (fullness) of the bodily Godhead, as Basil speaks, *charis* (grace) is placed? Indeed, grace and truth are signs of majesty, and of divine [majesty] at that. As in Genesis 27: "Blessed be the Lord God, the Lord of my master Abraham: who has not taken away His mercy and His truth," or, as in the Hebrew, "His mercy and His truth." Regarding these entire matters in this chapter. Here relates that [passage], *kai charin anti charitos*. Item, "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

But it is a wonder how much the Hellenists vary in expressing the former. But a little later there will be a more convenient place to deal with these. Let us proceed. In verse 45, there follows: *Ho opisō mou erchomenos, emprosthen mou gegonen, hoti prōtos mou ēn*. The most holy and also greatest man, John Chrysostom, refers those words, *ho opisō mou erchomenos*, to preaching; those, *emprosthen mou gegonen*, to dignity. For the argument does not proceed otherwise, nor can those words which he presently adds, the *aitiologia* (cause) can stand—*hoti prōtos mou ēn*, he says—which is not without cause referred to the eternity of the Word. To which the same [evangelist] looked for our *emprosthen mou gegone*, which is said in Matthew: "Whose sandal I am not worthy to loose." To which Cyril also subscribes: except that those former things, "He who comes after me," refer to his birth, because, he says, John preceded him by almost six months. But what did our [author] mean for himself when he said, *prōtos emou bebēken*? Which is neither Greek, nor do I see in what way it can be true; for John preceded the Lord both in the time of preaching and of birth. Much less did he himself understand what he was writing when he said, *Hoti men dē prōtistos*. For *prōtistos*, 301 in Greek is not said of two. He was writing Greek, but did not understand that which is said by the author, because he had not learned—which I see happens to many in this age—that it is a peculiar language. Just as they also err commonly when they take *prōtos* as an adjective, so that it denotes nothing beyond order, just as [it does] in Latin [when one says] *primus*, although it is taken very differently. As when the Hebrews say *r’shōn* for the first, in which the whole elegance of the passage turns. But no one ought to judge of these things, unless he who can bring a genius and a sober judgment, and one trained in such things. And as if you would say in Latin *primum* for *primatem*, *summum* for *summate*. Which is customary, when the kind of speaking is unusual, although a prince of the Roman tongue, indeed, in the Eunuch: *Plurima salute Parmenonem* *Summum suum impertit Gnato.* Where, when the soul of the interpreters sees the ellipsis, in another place, however, in the Adelphoe, indeed, where the same [is], *Nam is nostro Simulo fuit summus, et nos coluit maxime*, he wishes it to be placed absolutely. For he notes thus: "Is *summus* referred to a relative, or to a friend? or is it placed absolutely, as in the Eunuch, *Plurima salute summum suum impertit Gnato*." The most learned Henry Stephanus's Glossary, *prōtoi*, *primores*, *primates*. Here indeed it is placed absolutely, there is not even a doubt. That to the Hellenists nothing is more frequent than to explain the word *r’shōn* with *prōtos*, those who are versed in their writings are not ignorant. Nor does it matter whether *Nisan* is called *r’shōn* among the months or *n’r’shōn*, for both are said and it is the same. But with that word also the Messiah is called. Among other things, Hosea 1:2: "And they shall appoint for themselves one head, or primate." In the Hebrew stands the word which I mentioned. And as if you would say in Greek, 302 *Kai thēsousin autois prōton tina*. Where Rabbi David [says], "This is the king Messiah." And it is an elegance to which our [author] did not aspire, which expresses at once the prerogative of both time and dignity in the divinity. Thus among Luke *prōtos tou laou*, in the Gospel, and *prōtos tōn Ioudaiōn*, in the Acts. If you would express this in Hebrew, nothing [is] milder or sweeter; if in Hellenistic [style], which John did, it cannot but seem harsh to those who are only skilled in Greek, or who are little trained in Hellenistic matters, whose words, as regards use and the custom of speaking, are far different from that, so that the sense is: "He who comes after me, surpasses me in excellence and in all gifts, as one who always took the first place over me." I seem to be *prōtostates* (the one who stands first) when I am a forerunner: he [is] *epistatēs* (the one who stands over or master), because he came after me. But he who comes after me has been made first. And not without wonder. For as he was in time, so in power he was my *prostates* (leader), for which the Hellenists [use] *prōtos mou*. For *to emprosthen gegone*, is referred to *doxa*. Which Cyril saw sharply, as he does most things. For just as it happens, he says, that he who teaches before the pupil, becomes of more value, because he excels in skill or in some matter, so it happens sometimes that the pupil precedes the teacher. He understood how dilute it would be [to say] *proteros mou gegone, hoti proteros mou ēn*. Therefore, *emprosthen mou gegone*, as man. Whence that [passage], "And Jesus advanced in age, and wisdom, and grace." *Prōtos mou ēn*, in time and power. For he was my predecessor. For he expressed the order, as [he expressed] the dignity of him of whom he speaks. Of whom the prophet [says]: "I am the first, and I am the last." Add to which

that the interpretation of Arius also falls here. He who explained those earlier words, "He who has come before me was created before me," to whom Hermonopulus, in his booklet *On Sects*, responds quite well from antiquity: that the sense is that it should have been said in reverse order, "that he is first in respect to me, because he was created before me." But for our own part, it proceeds perfectly: "he has come before me, because he was first in respect to me." And it would be wonderfully elegant if this were said in Hebrew. And they who do not sufficiently grasp this, after having twisted themselves for a long time in every direction, finally return to the point of admitting that the phrase, "because he was first in respect to me," denotes nothing other than dignity or also power. But what I have often said, that he who demands to prove himself from the Greek concerning the logic of the Hellenistic language must needs be playing in sacred matters. Our author [Nonnus] was of such an opinion that he thought *protistos mou* was said in Greek, while he did not understand by what reasoning *protos mou* might be said here.

CHAPTER XVI

^AInterpretation of that passage, "The law was given through Moses." Nonnus's misinterpretation. "Through Moses." To practice mercy, justice, grace, truth—these are synonymous among the Hellenists. To practice grace and truth, a mark of power. Grace and truth are the two foundations of the law according to the Jews. "And grace instead of grace." The thoughtlessness of Nonnus, who says the law was given not by God but by the Father. The Angel of the Great Counsel is excluded in the giving of the law. "Through Moses it was given, through Christ it came to be"—the distinction between "was given" and "came to be." This was neglected by Nonnus. The law which is to be understood in that place. The idiocy and miraculous negligence of Nonnus. *Biblos themiston*, for the law of which the evangelist speaks, and about the etymology of the word. How different *themis* is from *nomoi*. What *themis* is. Whence it was said. The foolishness of grammarians. The Greek word *nomos* is almost always retained by the Syrian interpreter, and for the most part by the Targumists. The *akolouthia* (sequence) of the evangelist is observed, [but] ignored by Nonnus. Interpretation of that passage, "No one has seen God." It is badly expressed by Nonnus. The heresy of the Massilians. *Horan* (to see), instead of *ginoskein* (to know). How the prophets and others are said to have seen God. The different species of his vision: that which is by phantasy; that by appearance; that by the configuration of the ruling faculty. In a threefold manner God was beheld by our evangelist. Interpretation of that passage, "He interpreted." *Exegetai*, if it is missing, how it is to be supplemented. *Exegeti* used by Hellenist interpreters. How powerfully it is said concerning the Son of God. The passage of Job and the passage of John compared. Concerning the embassy sent to the Baptist. That it was unique and established from the Pharisees. "Priests and Levites, priests [and] Levites." The same are the Pharisees. The ignorance and error of Nonnus. The prophet with *kaiedia*. John the Baptist is a prophet. "Angelos," the prophet. Nonnus's lack of attention. The diverse opinion of the Jews concerning the prophet so called by preeminence. That he is not rightly distinguished by Nonnus from the others. "The morrow." The custom of the Hellenists when they speak of the next day. "Bread of the morrow." Nonnus's *lecythus* noted.

It follows in the same chapter, in verse 17, a most elegant passage: "For the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ." In which whole passage our author understood nothing, as he ought to have. If the evangelist had written in Hebrew, he would have expressed himself otherwise. Now we must see what he intends. "Through Moses it was given" is what the Hebrews would say: *bejad Mosheh*. Which, for the most part, is a sign of a minister through whom the Lord acts. As King Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther, who is said to act *bejad serisim*, by the hand of eunuchs. And so elsewhere, as ibid. ch. 1, v. 12: where the Hellenists simply conceal the manner of speaking, while elsewhere they say *en cheiri* (in hand) for this. The law, therefore, was given by the hand of Moses, as a minister. Just as the commands of kings are said to be in the hand of ministers. And thus the Chaldean speaks in the passage already mentioned: "And queen Vashti refused to enter by the command of the royal word," *bejad ¸abday*, which was "in the hand of his ministers" or nobles; this is, what was in their ministry ^B or was committed to them. Thus the law of Moses is said to be by his ministry, and given by his hand, as Nehemiah 9:14: "And you showed them your holy Sabbath, and commanded them ceremonies, and gave them the law by the hand of Moses your servant." But grace and truth, which is of the Lord, came to be through Jesus Christ. Wherefore I am the more surprised at the Syrian interpreter, 305 who said *bejad* just as much concerning Jesus Christ as concerning Moses. For although the Hebrews use that word differently as well, yet here it had no place, as the distinction is necessary here. To perform grace and truth, *eleos kai aletheian*, righteousness and truth, grace and truth (which exist in the same sense among the Hellenists) is of the superior, and usually of God, as II Sam. 11, v. 6, concerning exquisite grace and benefit. And the Jews had said before that the whole law has two hinges upon which it turns, *to ton kai to pen*, grace and truth, by which are contained partly the benefits which are conferred freely, partly the truth of the promises, which exhibits them. Which the divine author, with his customary urbanity, transferred from the law to its end, which is Christ. It cannot be said with what grace this was stated, so that [the phrase] "and grace instead of grace" might now also be understood. The Jews recognize grace in the law, and the singular favor of God. And they perpetually have in their mouth that saying: "He has not done thus to every nation, and his judgments he has not manifested to them." Thus Nehemiah [cf. Esdr. 9:13], they act thankfully toward God because he gave "laws of truth and good commandments," that is, "full of grace," as the evangelist speaks. For the Chaldean, the Syrian, and sometimes the Hellenists say *agathosynen* (goodness) for it. This, then, is that grace. But now, he says, *charin anti charitos*, we received grace instead of grace, which Chrysostom interprets most excellently: instead of the Old, the New. But how many things concurrently occur here in the same place, in which he comported himself with too little circumspection, and as befits a theologian? Those words, "For the law was given through Moses," thus the Fathers interpret, as if it had been said, God ^C gave the law through Moses, or the law was given under God through Moses as mediator; lest in promulgating or carrying the law they should exclude the Angel 306 of the Great Counsel: whose voice, in the promulgation, is said to have shaken the earth, as the Apostle speaks to the Hebrews. Where Chrysostom [says], "The voice of him who then gave the law shook the earth." For he was a fearful *vastator* (destroyer), who spoke on Mount Sinai, not to mention that he gave the law, but that grace and truth are from Christ.

*Ottis themiston* *Biblon holen Genetes dia Moseos opasse lao;* *Kai charis ek Christoio, kai atrekie pele kosmo;* which did not come into the mind of the evangelist. Augustine: "And from where did God become known to Moses? Because the Lord revealed it to his servant." Who is the Lord? Christ himself, who sent the law before through his servant; so that he himself might come with grace and truth. Therefore two parts are attributed to him: ^D that he both gave the law and unbinds the guilt, as the same Augustine is wont to speak excellently. Which our author did not consider, when he placed a distinction of persons in the giving of the law. Now, that which the ancients urge so much, that *egeneto* (came to be) is said concerning Christ, not *esti* (is), he totally neglected. For he said *pele*, that is, *esti*. But the very great author Theophylact: "And see, how concerning the Old he said, 'It was given' through Moses; for this one was a minister and servant; but concerning the New he did not say 'it was given,' but 'it came to be'; that he might show that it was brought about by our Lord Jesus Christ, as Master, not as a slave, and advanced to the end, and the truth." And he adds: "For the law was given by God (and by the Father with Nonnus) through the intermediary of Moses; grace came to be, it was not given, through Jesus Christ." *Egeneto* is authentic, *edothe* is servile. It is full of authority, he says, *to egeneto*; *edothe* indeed is of a slave, or a minister. You see the extreme security in all things. As to the word of the law which he uses here, some [think] the ceremonial...

truth follows, as Augustine says, which held us as guilty, because it is opposed to the Gospel, or to its grace.

He understood the moral sense, therefore: which he points out eloquently in what follows. Although, nothing prevents our joining both together here: the former on account of truth, the latter on account of grace. Our author, however, plays the part of the layman. For he says the whole book of the law was given through Moses, just as if the evangelist understood the Pentateuch or the Torah. God gave the law, which he contracted at the same time. For he expressed himself first in ten words: for the interpretation was added. See, therefore, how ineptly he speaks here of whole books. He did not say *nomon* (law), but *themiston* (ordinances), since *themis* (divine right) differs not a little from *nomos* (law). Perhaps, saving the age of Nonnus, in which these were not rarely confused, as when the laws of the Emperor Justinian are called *themistes* by the Greek poet, whose verses are prefixed to them. But the grammarians, who in the origin of words—in which the truth of things and ancient learning are contained—toss everything up and down, confuse these: they who have not feared to form *themin* (divine law) from *tithesthai* (to be placed), ridiculously among boys, whereas the Greeks have made *Thamis, Themis* from *tam*, by which integrity in actions is noted (for, as is their habit, they added the termination). As long as this existed on earth, there was no place for laws. After, as the poets, those greatest men, said, it began to be exiled from the earth, there began to be a place for laws. And so, not until *Themis* departed into heaven and left men, were laws enacted. Thus our ancestors, the Protoplasts, and the patriarchs next after them, concerning whose golden age the greatest and most eloquent poet wrote: Of their own accord without law they cultivated faith and righteousness.

Which is *themis*. Once this was removed, a law was necessary. *Themis*, therefore, ^B which the Latins call *fas* (divine right): while it is safe, no use of law can even exist. And this is what the supreme author Tacitus said, that in a most corrupt republic there are most laws. *Nomos* (law), just as it is an effective word, so is it wonderfully polysemous. *Themis* is so far from being *nomos*, that it is entirely different. Nothing, therefore, had to be changed, so that not without cause the Syrian always, and the Targumist often, have usurped the Greek word. But how many things slipped away from them alike, about which more should have been warned here, if they did not call upon other things? He says the law was handed down not by God, but by the Father: whom he calls not even Father, but *geneta* (begetter). To whom he openly opposes Christ. Nor did he think that Moses, as a slave, was set against Christ, as Lord and King, the former as an administrator, the latter as the author of the law and its end. He changed the word of the law with no judgment: *aletheian* (truth), which is taken in the Hebrew sense, he changed into *atrekeien* (unwavering truth), which denotes nothing of the sort here. In those things which follow, to wit ^C verse 18, "No one has ever seen God," he had not examined the *akolouthian* (sequence), as he ought. Mention had already been made of Moses: concerning whom they had in their mouth, and still have, "Moses spoke to the Lord mouth to mouth." He shows, therefore, that not even he was admitted to the sight of God or His essence. Granted, this was reserved for Him who was one in essence with the Father. Who both saw God, and, as he adds later, represented and expressed Him. Others, therefore, saw God in this or that way, not as He was, but according to the mode of revelation; no one saw such a One as He was, except He who was not only such as He himself [was], but this very thing. Concerning which sequence, certainly, our author shows the thing itself, he never thought.

And who could have persuaded him that the evangelist in the next verse, when he said, "No one has ever seen God," said, "No one has seen God *kat' opsin* (by sight)," or intended this? For thus he rendered those things: And God the self-originated in opposite sights No one ever scanned. ^D As if against the Massalians and their opinion, who said they saw the Trinity with their physical eyes. This did not come to the mind of the author: who asserts against the Jews that the divine essence could neither be seen nor, as it is, be known, so that he might again draw the discourse with supreme art to the true character of God, and to the image of His glory, in which He offered Himself to be viewed. This, therefore, he intended: that the divine essence can neither be seen by man, nor, as it is, be known by any reason; and therefore, that it has been neither seen nor known by anyone up to now. And this the ancient theologian meant, according to Suidas: who, following the great Athanasius, interpreted *tēn opsin* (the sight) in this place as *gnōsin* (knowledge). *Opsis*, he says, is *gnōsis*. "And the evangelist [said], 'No one has ever seen God'; instead of 'he has not known clearly'." But, to omit Moses, that Isaiah saw the Lord, both he and our evangelist testify. But both that one, and the others concerning whom they testify this—as the Fathers note not without cause—saw Him who they saw indeed truly, but *en schēmati* (in a figure), and therefore *polutropōs* (in many ways), as the Apostle speaks: wherefore they did not even see Him [as He is]. For from that very fact, that no one has seen God, Chrysostom rightly proved it. "For if they had seen His very nature," he says, "they would not have viewed it differently." If they had seen His essence itself, they would not merely have seen it differently; for it is uniform. But Moses in one way, Isaiah in another, Ezekiel in another, others in other ways, 310 as they themselves confess, and each one often saw the Lord in a different manner; and yet not one of them said that he saw Him with physical eyes. With what, then? "With those of the mind, enlightened by the holy Spirit," as Cyril said concerning Isaiah. But the evangelist said that no one had seen God. But if he intended that no one had seen God with bodily eyes, that is, *kat' opsin*, he said that about which, if I am not mistaken, no one was in doubt: wherefore there was no need for this interpretation here. For, if others, and truly, and as it is, saw God (although not *kat' opsin*), what prerogative would be left to the Only-Begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father (which is His essential mark, blessed above all)? They, therefore, who saw God, saw Him "not as He is, but as it was possible to partake [thereof]," says Nyssenous: "as it was possible for man," says Basil: "as it was possible for them to see [Him]," says Theodoret. Wherefore also Moses, of whom we spoke before, and Isaiah, of whom he treats below, as also the others who testify this concerning themselves, indeed saw God; but they saw Him in their own manner, *kōs dynaton* (as it was possible). Nor does anyone [deny this], so that he might [bring up] that about which he treats here, wherefore also no one [has seen Him], except Him. And this is the cause why the theologians of the Greeks posit various *polutropous* (diverse) species of this vision. One, to be sure, *kata phantasian* (according to imagination), which they also establish as twofold, *hēmerinēn te kai tēn kata nukta* (both daily and nightly); another *kat' opsin*, when something occurs to the eyes for the sake of representation; and thirdly, finally, which they call *kath' hupotupōsin tou hēgemonikou tois mellousin hōs tois parousin antinomēnou* (according to an impression of the governing faculty manifesting itself to things future as present). This occurs when the mind of the prophets, first purged of all human filth, envisions future things as if they were present, as if with [its own] eyes. And thus Isaiah saw the glory of the Savior. And our evangelist saw God in three ways; for he saw His transfiguration 311 on the mount, and viewed the present [Christ] *kata sarka* (according to the flesh): and in the island of Patmos, *hēgemonikō tou pneumatos* (with the governing faculty of the Spirit), as Aretha speaks concerning him, he beheld [Him]. Finally, he lay in the bosom of Him whom he himself places in the bosom of the Father. And yet, such is the love of truth of the divine man, "No one," he says, "has seen God," not with the eyes, as our [author] speaks, but in no way at all, so that no one might claim for himself more than is right, or attribute to the prophets more than is right, or finally detract from the prerogative of the Only-Begotten, and believe the coming of the Messiah to be useless, who as He alone saw God, so He alone *exēgēsato* (made Him known): for this follows. In whose explanation, as in others, our [author] behaved himself. It follows, therefore, "He who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known." [As] in the preceding passage, so in this, every prophecy...

is put forth as the prerogative of the Only-begotten. In which, our [author], having followed others, saw nothing. For what did he mean, when he said,

ἐξηγήσατο μύθῳ

Ἑβραίων ὅτε λαὸς ἐρημάδος ἐς ῥάχιν ὕλης

Λευίτας προΐαλλε, καὶ ἀγρυπνους ἱερίας.

Μὴ σύ μοι, ὃν καλέουσι, θεηγόρος ἐσσὶ προφήτης,

Οὐ πέλω Ἠλίας, οὐ θέσκελός εἰμι προφήτης.

the Hebrew, where the Targum has ^A *prophet*. This is mere thoughtlessness, or rather a lack of attention. The reason, however, that John answers twice (for he denies that he is Christ, and that he is that prophet, although that prophet, who is also called the Word of God by the Chaldean, is undoubtedly Christ Himself) is none other than the error of the Jews who thought differently. For some understood him as Joshua, others as Elijah, and others as Jeremiah. It is not, therefore, that John felt this way, but that, being interrogated twice about the same thing, he answers twice in order to respond to what was asked. But that which he adds concerning this prophet—*Άγγελος ἐσσομένων*—is too watered down and unworthy of a theologian. ^B As if prophecy consisted entirely in prediction, or as if this were the distinctive mark of him whom Moses treats there, when more is attributed to Moses himself. For he is called the teacher of the people and the deliverer, indeed the mediator between the people and God. Chapter 29 follows: "The next day John sees Jesus." It is a custom of the Jews, in narrating, to use the term "the next day" as if speaking of the past. As when they say, what happened on the next day. This is expressed by the Hellenists as *τῇ ἐπαύριον*, as it is also called here by the most holy John. "And it was," says Moses, "on the next day, and God said," which is to say, On the following day God said. Such is that of Jonah: "And God ordered a worm in the early morning of the next day, and it struck down the gourd, and it withered," chap. iv, 7; and 2 Sam. xi, 12: "And Uriah sat in Jerusalem on that day and on the next day." Jud. xxi: "And it came to pass on the next day, and the people rose up early." The Greeks would say, *τῇ ἐπούσῃ*. Which the Latin epigrammatist used for the sake of ridicule: *Cras te, Cæciliane, non vocavi*, as the learned have long since read. This is *τῇ ἐπαύριον*, *in the following day*. Hence the mode of speaking by which in the Lord’s prayer we ask God for *ἄρτον τὸν ἐπιούσιον*, 317 in the manner of the Syrians, or *τὸν τῆς ἐπαύριον*: which the Greeks translated as *ἐπιούσιον*; for which we have need daily, both tomorrow and today, as the great man Joseph Scaliger and others have acutely noted. Nonnus, as he speaks with the evangelist, performs, in my judgment, with sufficient poetic ambition, just as he said in this passage: *But when the far-darting dawn brought another race*, when he could have said: *on the coming day*.

CHAPTER XVII

^A much the Hellenists frequently speak in the manner of the Hebrews, I am not unaware; for among them *מחר* often denotes a time near, sometimes far removed, so much so that it is often the same thing as *μετὰ ταῦτα* (after these things) to the Hellenists. As, for example, 320 in Exodus: *If your son asks you after these things* (when in the Hebrew it reads *τῇ ἐπαύριον* [on the morrow] word for word). Yet there is no need for this, if the things said here concerning the baptism are taken not as part of the history, but as the testimony of John (which this evangelist diligently collects here). When some of the ancients understood this, they began the series of the narrative and of the Gospel at the second chapter, and made the beginning of the history from those words, *And on the third day*; but they held the first chapter as a preface.

Nor was there further cause why the beginning of the second chapter should so exercise the learned; for since so often *τῇ ἐπαύριον* [on the morrow] was said there, but ^B here *τῇ τρίτῃ* [on the third day], they thought it was their business that an exact account of the time should stand. They seek, therefore, whether from whence he had set out from John, or from whence he had come into Galilee (which arrival is nowhere expressed here), or for the third day after the discourse held with Nathanael, the wedding was held in Cana (for others dream up absurdities), when there is no occasion for such difficulty here. And at the end of the first chapter, the way is paved for the second. For in verse 44 it is said: *On the morrow he wished to go forth into Galilee*, meanwhile he calls Philip and Nathanael, meanwhile he betakes himself there. Therefore *τῇ ἐπαύριον ἠθέλησεν ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν*, and *on the third day the wedding took place in Cana of Galilee*: for thus these things must be joined.

In this, it is strange why Epiphanius should not be consistent with himself, who never wavers. Thus, that difficulty concerning the forty days and the baptism of the Lord, and that other one, *περὶ τῇ ἐπαύριον*, which precedes so often, will be removed. Add that the Hellenists are accustomed to calculate thus: *Today, tomorrow* (which they sometimes call *μετὰ τὴν αὔριον* [the day after tomorrow]), *on the third day*. In Leviticus 19:6, *On whatever day you shall slaughter, 321 and on the morrow, and if it shall be left until the third day*. It fits together well, therefore, that what John says, that he saw the Spirit descending upon the blessed head of Christ, with that, *On the morrow he was again standing there*, the Baptist is simply explaining what happened at the baptism of the Lord, and what was revealed to him in it; and his own words, which speak of the past, ^C manifestly prove this: *And I did not know him*. When? Before the baptism. But at the baptism, *I saw the Spirit descending*, etc. After this testimony, *On the morrow*, he says, *John was again standing there, and two of his disciples*. Which is, first of all, to be observed by those who weave together historical Harmonies. Again that, *On the morrow he wished to go forth into Galilee*, is perfectly, as I have already said, joined with that, *And on the third day, the wedding happened in Cana of Galilee*, which can be historically connected. And thus, if I am not mistaken, both difficulties, which have somewhat fatigued the ancients and the greatest men of this age, are removed.

It is worth seeing how much this Epiphanius tortures himself. Who, from this passage, in which the hinge of the entire matter and discussion lies, could have brought the whole business to a conclusion. For he argues the mere lack of reason of the Alogi, because the evangelist nowhere reports the baptism conferred upon Christ by the Baptist; but the Baptist commemorates an illustrious sign concerning the descent of the Spirit upon him who was baptizing in that place: *And John testified, saying, that I have seen*. Who, therefore, admits that of Epiphanius, *As John, after saying, The Word became flesh*, says, *And dwelt among us, that is, to have become man; and that he came to John the Baptist at the Jordan, and was baptized by him*. Which indeed nowhere exists: for nowhere is baptism recounted ^D dogmatically. Epiphanius continues, *John 322 the evangelist testifying, after the return again from the temptation, as John the Baptist saying, that this is he of whom I spoke to you; and again, that I have seen the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove, and remaining*.

On the descent of the Spirit upon Christ

*He saw the Spirit of God borne along from the etherial bounds, resting with a wise tremor of his wings* upon him. *A figurative likeness of a dove; even unto him*.

But what is it that follows, *and remained upon him*? For Nonnus expressed the words in his own manner, as he had found them; he neither explained the force of the words, nor, which is everywhere manifest, did he understand it. From which passage, as in not a few others, it appears that the evangelist has everywhere looked to the Chaldeans. Furthermore, among all the prophets, who described with care the force, and the invasion, as it were, of the prophetic Spirit, so to speak, no one makes mention of it more often than Ezekiel; who expressed this in more than one way. For sometimes, *The hand of the Lord came upon me*, as in chapter 1, verse 3. Sometimes, *The Spirit came upon me*, as in chapter 11, verse 2. Sometimes, *And the Spirit of the Lord fell upon me*, as in chapter 11, verse 5. In almost all of which places, the Chaldean uses the word *שרא*, which word-for-word is *μένειν* [to remain]. Thus the majesty of God, that is, the glory, *שכינה*, of which we have spoken so much before, or the Spirit himself, is said *μένειν ἐπ᾿ ὄρους* [to remain upon the mountain] at Mount Sinai. Where the Hellenists, which is to be noted, *And the glory of God came down upon the mountain*. The Hebrew is *שכן*, the Chaldean is *שרא* [remained/dwelt], so that you may understand that *to descend* is *to remain*, which the evangelist has joined here, *inhabiting* [κατασκήνωσιν] likewise and *the glory* [δόξαν], which are inculcated so often in this chapter and repeated 324, and which have been neglected until now, are names of the divine majesty and presence; for so too *to remain* [μένειν] upon the cherubim is said of the divine majesty.

Which our author expressed, and most effectively concerning him, who without measure and proportion, full of that Spirit, as he himself speaks, has said. Therefore, he did not say *descending and coming upon him*, but, according to the usage of the Chaldeans, *remaining*. And this either *inhabitation* [μονήν] or *dwelling* [κατασκήνωσιν], the Jews also attribute to their own prophets. Whom the ancient Christians followed, who, as to that Holy Spirit whom we call, even in

the interpretation of the symbol, a prophetic Spirit, they called what is customary among the Chaldeans at the highest level. Justin, in his second apology for the Christians, says that they recognize first the Father, then the Son, and finally the prophetic Spirit; and we honor him after the Word, as we shall demonstrate, having learned [him] to be the Son of the existing God, and holding him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third rank. You see, therefore, what ^A it means to "descend" in that place, and what it means to "remain." To the following line is added: *And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water,* which place also, among others, has exercised not a little both our own and the ancients. For our [poet], as in many other things, has too imprudently rushed the meaning when he said: By my eyes, I knew him not before.

This, which the theologians of our time have followed, who say, "He did not know him by sight," although I would prefer [an interpretation relating to] name and fame, which pleases some. But by what logic, some say, did he not know him, both [his] kinsman, and him whom Elisabeth and Zacharias had proclaimed? ^B 325 Let us assume he lived in the desert. But that the inhabitant of the desert was so persistent that he would not want to see him whom his mother Elisabeth and his father Zacharias had called Lord, and salvation, or rather the "horn of salvation"? Or that he was so ignorant of all things that he did not grasp his fame, of whom such great and clear testimonies existed in the family, or finally, that he alone was ignorant of his own duty? For Zacharias had said of him: *And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest. For thou shalt go before the face of his [Lord] to prepare his people.* But if he did not know him before the sign was exhibited from heaven, why did he say before that: *He who comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire*? And why before the sign: *I have more need to be baptized by thee*? All of which things precede the sign. Which, although they refer to the revelation, yet they stick on this point, that he was unknown by sight. But our [poet] can no longer be tolerated, who renders these things paraphrastically thus: "I did not know him by sight; but that he, as one who to all was unknown by face, and had been predicted by no one, might become known to Israel, I came; so that I might baptize an ignorant people who were unlearned in this matter." For this is what those lines mean, unless we ^C are ignorant of Greek: By my eyes, I knew him not before, but that, Having his visage unknown to all, He might appear to the children of Israel, I came as the precursor of his silent path. These things are incongruous and inconsistent, nor do they hold together in any way. For they are mere contradictions. Which we shall now leave, and [proceed] to the passage itself. The Syrian is good, who used here the verb which the Targumists use. Wherefore because the Chaldeans would say what the Greek version renders as "he was not manifest to me," or "before me," our evangelist said: *I knew him not.* Which is indeed something far different. 326 For he speaks of his office: for the preparation of whom [men] to Christ, he himself had been sent. Therefore he did not know him in this respect, because it had not yet been revealed to him. "I did not know him," he says, "thoroughly and as I ought." Which happened also to the apostles themselves: who, although they were with him daily, yet, as appears from the confession of Peter and others, ^D *they did not fully know him.* And therefore even Chrysostom, who struggles with this place, yet put it in this way: "He did not say, 'I do not know him,' but, 'I did not know him.'" And so we commonly say, "I did not know him," concerning him whom we did not have fully perceived. Such is that *litotes* of the Theocritean shepherd: "Now I know what love is": not that he did not know before, but that he had not yet fully perceived her cruelty. But the Chaldeans say it far more fully, which is what I want: "He had not yet been revealed to me." By this part, of course, [it is intended] that it be signified that the great man progressed gradually and *katà pros-kophēn*—by way of stumbling/advancement—in the knowledge of the Lord and of his own duty. That, indeed, is certain, that he was the one who was to confer baptism in the Spirit, from the revelation of the Spirit itself, and that sign so illustrious, which he spoke of in his baptism. Augustine, *In the Consensus of the Evangelists*, Book II, chapter 15: "From which it appears, although he already knew him (for he even leaped in his mother's womb when Mary came to Elisabeth), yet he learned something in him which he did not yet know at the descent of the dove. Which was, that he himself was to baptize in the Holy Spirit; by a certain proper and divine power, so that no man who had received baptism from God, even if he should baptize someone, could say that it was his own which he was delivering, or that the Holy Spirit was given by him." And Bede [speaks] very well: "It is certain that John knew the Lord, to whom he was sent to bear witness, whom he kept predicting as the judge of all who was to come, saying: *Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor.* By whom he testified that the Holy Spirit was to be given. *He shall baptize you,* he says, *with the Holy Spirit,* by whom he desired to be washed himself, saying: *I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?* How then does he say: *And I knew him not?* Unless because he recognized more perfectly him whom he had known before, when he was being baptized? Whom he had known as the Savior and judge of the world, he recognized more deeply the power of his majesty, with the Holy Spirit descending upon him." Theophylact: "That he knew him indeed that he was the Christ, but that he himself was the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, he then learned, when he saw the Spirit descending. Saying therefore, that *I knew him not*, this gives one to understand that he did not know that *this is he* who baptizes in the Holy Spirit; that, however, he is above the many, he knew. Therefore also according to Matthew he was hindering him, as one knowing him to be greater than all. But when the Spirit came down, etc." For he expressly says both. But it is one thing [to say] *that he should be made manifest*, as in that other passage, *and showed forth his glory.* For he intended this, that he should explain his majesty and the prerogative of his baptism. Chrysostom [wrote] well, who significantly said: that the office of John was to "pave the way for the other remaining ones to faith in Christ," so that by his baptism he might prepare the way for all to faith in Christ. It is a wonder how this passage has exercised Erasmus among the rest. Therefore, *I knew him not*, "He was not yet fully known to me, because that which was most important had not yet been revealed to me. For I was ignorant that he was the one who would baptize in the Spirit." Follows verse 37: *And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.* Which our [poet], when he did not follow [the meaning], rendered too weakly: And hearing the sacred word of the truthful man, The two undeviating lights... For *hearing* does not mean to hear in that place, but, when one gives faith to the hearing: which is so customary to the Hebrews, that examples are not needed. Euthymius on this place: "With the ears of the soul, of course; when others had heard with the ears of the body." I confess, and indeed I profess, that I do not find a just reason, with which I myself might satisfy myself, why concerning those words: *Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, Peter*, verse 43, he should so speak concerning the name of Simon: And thou art Simon, worker of the pontus. But I do not ask what Simon had in common with the pontus, who was fishing in a lake (for this error of his is perpetual, that he calls the lake of which he speaks, everywhere, and salty, and sea, and pontus, because the same, the sea for the Hebrews, is spoken of not by nature, but by the custom of language), this I ask, what is common between Simon and a fisherman. For in the word, unless we are mistaken,

^A he was skilled in Hebrew, he persuaded others to whatever he wished. And Arator perhaps had found some such thing. But look at the foolishness. Greeks and Latins derive their word from Hebrew, and the Hebrews themselves from Latin: just as Elias, who confesses that it is a Roman word in Thisbi. But even some of the Chaldeans, when they express what rock denotes to the Greeks and Latins, use an Italian word, which flowed from hence. For from *petra* came *pierre* for the Gauls, *pereda* for the Italians, whence *peredin*, *petræ*, to the Hierosolymitan interpreters.

331 But our author comported himself much better when he called ^C *Petros* a "monument or sign of firm faith." Because it denotes the same as *Cephas*: which Elias says in very many places denotes fortitude, and hence the name was imposed upon the disciple; for this is good, although circumcised. In verse 48, it follows: *Behold truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile*. In which, if I am not mistaken, an Israelite is understood in such a way that he is usually opposed to the priests and Levites: who, while they claimed all holiness for themselves, and often were nothing less, Israel alone remained. The people themselves, that is—who alone, without pride, kept the remaining praise of innocence and probity. Whence that saying: priests, Levites, Israel. The Lord, weary of the arrogance of the Levites and priests, with whom he always struggled, bestowed this eulogy upon a most simple and most candid man, but one who brought forward no external thing, no legal holiness, and no arrogance nor empty appearance from it, and who claimed nothing for himself: *A true Israelite, in whom there is no guile*. In verse 45 it follows: *Philip was from Bethsaida, from the city of Andrew and Peter*. By which words the evangelist did not mean that this was the fatherland of Philip in which Peter and Andrew lived, but that those three had the same fatherland, or were born from the same city. Wherefore, instead of them: ^D *Philip had Bethsaida as his fatherland, where Andrew dwelt, where bold Simon lived,* he would have expressed himself better if he had said: *Philip had Bethsaida as his fatherland, together with his disciple Simon and Andrew, in Galilee.* In verse 49 it follows, *Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.* By which words 332 it seems that, while partly doing something else, he alluded to the most sweet and most gentle nature of Nathanael, who, having left Jerusalem, a great city, having left all the clamor of the priests and scribes, having left all popular breath and annoyance, was enjoying his leisure under the fig tree (although undoubtedly intent upon the thoughts of great things). There he received that auspicious message about the Messiah having been found and exhibited: whence also follows that famous and excellent confession. Partly, he seems to have looked toward the very time of the Messiah, which both Isaiah and others had promised in peace. For this sign of peace is posited, as in that passage: *And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon*, 1 Kings iv, 25. Which also happened in the time of that true Solomon. But it is customary for the Hebrews to note the names of places, which are not sufficiently certain or distinct, from trees. Thus Rebecca is said to be buried *under the oak* (ὑπὸ τὴν δρῦν), which to the Hellenists is *under the terebinth* (ὑπὸ τὴν βάλανον). So a little before Jacob hid the idols of foreign gods *under the terebinth that was in Shechem*, Genesis xxxv, 4: of which mention is made again, as some will have it, in the last chapter of Joshua. From which places themselves the name also comes: whence the Valley of the Terebinth, 1 Sam. xvii, 2, and elsewhere not once. Thus God is said to have first appeared to Abraham at "the high oak" (τὴν δρῦν τὴν ὑψηλὴν), as the Hellenists say; or "at the oak of Moreh," as the Hebrews say. For indeed, in such matters the Hellenists use...

^A a cochlear as a measure. For the term *metreta* 335, which he puts in its place here, signifies nothing. What, then, will you conclude from it?

CHAPTER XVIII.

Nothing, unless you learn it from the Evangelist. For who would know what *metreta* is here? But if you add the six hydrias, and how many *metretae* each might hold separately—and even mention the *litrae*, yes, and even the ounces—it will be settled. Therefore, for *metrētēn* (μετρητήν), he said *metron* (μέτρον). This we now concede to him, although nothing compels us. At verse eight he deserves indulgence, because he did not keep the word *architriklinos*, as it was not permitted by the numbers. Therefore he said *oinōpēn* (οἰνώπην), which is what the Evangelist calls *architriklinos*. The great Scaliger read ^B *oinoptēn* (οἰνώπην) in this place, although no one can be ignorant that there were other "wine-servers" (οἰνόπται) than the one the Evangelist describes here, as they had care not so much of the wine and the entire service as of the drinkers, so that the guests might drink on equal terms. Nevertheless, because it concerns the care and inspection of the wine, where that word can be transferred, we also, when we rendered this chapter into Greek, have used the same. I am surprised at the Syrian, who for the "prefect of the feast," does not rather say "prefect of the triclinium," when before our paraphrast, we noted with an obelus that at that place in the second chapter, *Kai etheasametha tēn doxan autou* (Καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ), he changed the word which denotes the essential majesty of God—that is, the mark of essence (*tēn ousias*)—into a mark of dignity ^C (*tēn axias*). This he admitted again in that most illustrious place which is read in the second chapter. Where those words, by which the Evangelist indicates that first and most divine miracle of the eternal Son of God at the wedding, *Kai ephanerōse tēn doxan autou* (Καὶ ἐφανέρωσε τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ), he expressed thus:

336 *Ἑβραίοις δ' ἀνέφηνεν τὴν ὑψαύχενα τιμήν.*

The passage exists at the eleventh verse: where I would wish it to be noted again, what I said already before: that nothing is so familiar to our author as silently and most urbanely hinting at the Chaldean. In Isaiah, in that illustrious prophecy concerning the Messiah and His advent, it is said: *The germ of Jehovah shall come in magnificence and majesty.* The passage is in the fourth chapter, the second verse. Where the Hellenists say: *In that day God shall shine forth in counsel amid glory upon the earth, to exalt and glorify what is left in Israel.* Where, for the "germ of God," they have "Messiah Jehovah." Elegantly, therefore, the holy author denotes this first miracle with the same word, and adapts this mark, which is always assigned to Jehovah, to the Lord exhibited in the flesh. As if he meant: What Isaiah predicts happened then. *Meta doxis* (Μετὰ δόξης) the Messiah then shone forth, or as he himself speaks: *Ephanerōse tēn doxan autou* (Ἐφανέρωσε τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ). For these things mean the same.

Now, just as this was the majesty of the Messiah, so it was predicted that the arguments of His majesty would be signs and future miracles. Whence Exodus 33, 16: *And whence shall we know, I and thy people, that we have found grace in thy sight, unless thou walk with us, that we may be glorified?* Where the Hellenists have: *And I and thy people shall be glorified above all the nations that are upon the face of the earth.* Which the Chaldean expressed as follows: *Unless thy majesty shall have walked with us, as miracles are done.* In which place *endoxazesthai* (ἐνδοξάζεσθαι) is to be distinguished by miracles from other nations; just as miracles are the indications of the presence and majesty of God. Whence also the word *doxēs* (δόξης) for miracles themselves [is used], chap. 11, 40, of our author: *Did I not say to thee, that if thou believest, thou shalt see the glory of God?* concerning the miracle by which Lazarus was raised from the dead. So that no one should doubt, from the Chaldeans, whose 337 interpretation they were using at the time, he shows that *tēn tou Theou doxan* (τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ δόξαν), the very majesty of God, proven by such an illustrious miracle, was present at the wedding, the master of which he seals with this illustrious mark. This, therefore, he first published, *Kai ephanerōse tēn doxan*

^A αὐτοῦ, that is, the majesty of the Messiah, the presence of the Messiah, now so often predicted, he thus confirmed. Now since [*doxa*] is attributed to Him, to whom the tetragrammaton name is attributed, and whom the Jews—before they would betake themselves to food—would celebrate by that name (prayers exist even to this day), and most fittingly attribute to Him, calling Him the Creator of the Vine; the eternal Word of God could surely not have testified more opportunely to His own majesty and presence than if He were to testify, amidst the banquet, to Jehovah—the true Vine, whom they invoked at the table—as the Creator, whom in the banquet they named [...] [*Piri ha-Gefen*], the Creator of the Fruit. For since He Himself was present in person, he thus *ephanerōse tēn doxan autou*, that is, He made His majesty and the presence of such a one manifest to all at this wedding. Away, therefore, with that *hypsauchēna timēn*, which has no place here. Better are the theologians of the Greeks, who, although little skilled in Hebraisms, unless they had perhaps imbibed something from Origen and his interpretations, have interpreted it as [*parousian*]. Damascenus, a man of extensive erudition, and who had surveyed almost all others, in his *De orthodoxa fide* says: "For we know that the Lord sanctified the wedding by His *parousia*." Therefore *tēn parousian autou* is His divinity, to which the masters have given a place, [*doxē*], above the tenth sphere, as Kimchi notes from Aben Ezra on the eighth Psalm, which they call [...], the throne of glory. Nor is anything in the writings of the same Rabbi so frequent as that saying about Zion [...], that is, "that there the glory shall tabernacle." He shows, therefore, that he is the one to whom the *kataskēnōsis* and glory would belong, as above: "And he tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory," of which [we spoke] before. These things belong uniquely to Jehovah, which is, as the Masora says, the memorial of God. Observe now that interpretation, ^B [*Hebraiois d' anephēnen tēn hypsauchēna timēn*]. It follows, in verse 18: [*Apekrithēsan oun hoi Ioudaioi kai eipon autō*]; "The Jews answered and said to him," although the Lord had said nothing to the Jews. For it had preceded, "And he said to those who sold the doves." Therefore *to apokrinesthai* according to Hellenistic usage, which they have from the Hebrews and Chaldeans, is nothing else than "to speak." Thus in Deuteronomy xxvi, 4: "And the priest shall take the basket from thy hands, and shall place it before the altar, of Jehovah, thy God. And answering he shall say," that is, he shall say [simply] speaking. Such is that passage in Daniel iii, 13: "And they were brought before the king, and the king answered," although no one had spoken to them. And thus not once [only] do Daniel and Job, who thus use [...], occur. Thus King Balthasar; thus the queen in chapter vi is said to "answer" when she speaks. What follows, and which the evangelist records as being said by the Jews, "What sign showest thou to us that thou doest these things?" regarding which the interpreters contend, is a strict and Hebraic mode of speaking. For it should be understood as [...], that is, "that thou art he who doest these things: that thou art the Messiah, who doest these things." By now thou hast claimed authority for thyself, and thou hast not yet proven that this is owed to you. [*Hoti sy ei ho tauta poiōn*]; "That thou who hast claimed this authority for thyself, art the Son of God: or, that promised Messiah." A very similar place is Judges vi, 19, where Gideon, God speaking, says: "And thou shalt do for me a sign, that thou art he who speaks with me." Where in the Hebrew there is the same defect, [...]. That thou art Jehovah, who speakest with me. Therefore, [*hoti tauta poiēis*] is: "that thou art he who doest these things," ^C 339 [that thou art] the Messiah who doest these things. The Attics would say: "What confidence having [this] authority, do you happen to be doing this?" Which our author interprets not badly: [*Hotti sy tauta telessas*]. Except that it is obscure enough, and perhaps does not depart from that brevity which the paraphrast ought to have illustrated. Nor were they doubting the fact, which they saw before their eyes, but they were seeking a sign. For what reason? Lest they doubt the authority of him who was claiming these things for himself. So that it might be established that he is the one whom he himself presented as being, and whom they were expecting. For it was not of a simple prophet...

^D to claim for himself to purge the house of God, and to claim authority for himself. Whence not without cause some among the ancients call this the greatest miracle, that, unsupported by any authority, as it seemed, he claimed for himself divine authority with prosperous success. Now what the evangelist said, [*Ti sēmeion deiknyeis*]; but ours, [*Poia par' Hebraiois eterotropa sēmata deixeis*]; understood a sign, such as the incredulous were seeking, or rather were demanding. Such as the Hebrews call [...], the Chaldeans [...], the Hellenists *peirasmon*. Whence that [passage] in Deuteronomy vi, 19: "The *peirasmon*, the great [ones], which thine eyes have seen; those great signs and wonders." Therefore to *peirazein* is, for the confirming of faith, which is accustomed to be *proskairos* in these cases, to demand some portent or miracle: the true character of which is here. Such is that in Exodus vii, 9, almost word for word, which is read here: "And if Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying: Give us a sign or a wonder," which they demanded as a pass in war. And the Queen of Sheba is said to have come to Solomon [*tou peirasai auton en ainigmasi*]. It follows in our evangelist: "The Jews therefore said: Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days?" where there is a great piece of *parhermēneia* by our interpreter and a very confident one. For he so accepts the passage as if the former temple were being discussed here, while even children understand that the latter is in question. For he says that Solomon was forty-six years in building the temple, while not more than seven are set by the Holy Scriptures, 1 Reg. vi, 38: which is a round number, although some set seven years and six months. Those who set twenty years conjoin the time of the temple and the palaces: which is called the "house of the king and the house of the forest of Lebanon." Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Euthymius, and others begin the calculation in this way. Among whom there is no one who refers these things to Solomon or the structure of the former temple. Chrysostom: "They said forty years, indicating the latter building: for the former was finished in twenty years." Theophylactus: "It must be known that, when the temple was built by Solomon at the first, in twenty years everything was finished without defect; but later, after the captivity, the Hebrews having received authority to build it, they began to build in the reign of Cyrus, then, being hindered by those who envied them, they extended the building until the reign of Artaxerxes. Under him, having enjoyed all freedom, they were able with great zeal to complete it." Euthymius: The former structure was indeed completed in twenty years by Solomon: but the latter in forty-six by Zorobabel. And then he renders an account of the years, from Cyrus to Darius Hystaspis, by whom Zorobabel was sent. But Bede, "What, however," he says, "the temple, built in forty and six years, signifies, not the first, but the second building of it. For Solomon, the first, finished the temple in the greatest peace of his kingdom, with a work of six years, most fitting. Which, having been destroyed by the Chaldeans, etc." An illustrious anachronism, therefore. What [of the fact] that it is added, [*ho naos houtos*], lest anyone should doubt. To verse 22 when he said:

341

Ἀλλ' ὅτε δὴ μετὰ κόλπον ἀναστήτοιο

^A This, then, on beholding, the disciples remembered,

[It was written] on holy tablets long ago, [that] zeal for Thy house was consuming me within.

While he was passing through the sacred city by himself, ^B many believed in his name, seeing with their eyes many deeds of wonder. But he, for his part, did not trust his own intent to any man; for he knew all, and lacked not at all any other testimony to learn the human mind—for he alone knows clearly what is in the minds of anyone. ^C

Chapter XIX.

not sufficiently correct in the place where it occurs, as an example for Nonnus. *Mastiches* [lashes] for the punishments inflicted on account of sins, by the ancient theologians, and whether it is correct. The passage which Nonnus expressed when he said: *to lash the senseless wrath of God*.

In that which occurs at the beginning of the third chapter, ^B *But there was a certain sacred blood of the Pharisaic wandering-goats*, most have supposed that this word *gooplanéon*, which is nothing, was used for the Pharisees. Among them is also the great Scaliger. Nor do I dissent, unless you refer it to *skuthropos* [sad-faced], which is mentioned in Matthew vi, 16, especially since the Syrian renders *skuthropos*, "darkened," in that place; 346 and indeed with that habit which the Hebrews attribute to the worshippers of idols. The Pharisees, who are called hypocrites there, and used to be in *asceticisms and fastings*, commonly used such garments in mourning. By this appearance, perhaps, since they wandered about and walked around for show, they could be called *gooplanéis* [earth-wandering/deceit-wanderers]; for it is known in what words they usually delight. Otherwise, I do not object to *gooplanéon* being read. In the third verse of the same chapter, in that divine dissertation of the Lord with Nicodemus, it is said among other things, *Unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God*. In expressing which, when our author used the word *tiktisthai* [to be born], he spoke no less crudely than Nicodemus responds, who says: *Can he enter into his mother's womb a second time and be born?* Nay, if the Lord had spoken in this way, he would have himself given Nicodemus the opportunity to respond in this manner. For since it is a question of a new generation, which the Greeks commonly call regeneration, the Greek theologians even *ktisma* [creature], and *anaktisin* [re-creation], or *anagennēsin* [regeneration], the Lord here says *anōthen gennēsin* [birth from above], while he [Nicodemus] posits a new birth with those words: ^C *Unless a mortal man were born a second time through the goads of a child-bearing labor, he cannot have an eternal beginning for this court of the ether.* Therefore, he was not thinking that it was the question of regeneration now, which Nicodemus drags toward childbirth from a woman. To whose ignorance he not only assents in this way, but also leads, as we have already said. In the thirteenth verse it follows, *And no one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven*. Which place he took up negligently, just as it has not a little exercised both our people and the ancients. For both the prophets ascended into heaven in their own way, and the Jews pronounce this daily in their confessions concerning Elijah, 347 and the righteous are said to have ascended into heaven, and it is said of David in Acts ii, 34.

Our author, in his own way, rather clumsily dissolves this knot when he says: *anipnēmiou poda pallon*, which is, *no one ever arrived in heaven with feet*. As if it were a question of the ascension of the body, or as if it even applied to Christ Himself, who had never ascended into heaven in body when he said this. And what is this discourse? No other man ever trod heaven with feet, except this divine one (for so he delights to speak), who, when he joined with the flesh as with the divine form, descended from heaven: the only Son of Man, etc. For who says, no one ascended into heaven with feet, except this one, does he not say this, that only the one of whom he speaks ascended into heaven with feet? Let the words be seen, which are thus: ^D *But no other mortal, ever moving a wind-borne foot, trod the unreachable rim of the heavenly circles, except this divine one; who, joining his immortal form from heaven to unaccustomed flesh, the only Son of Man; who, holding the paternal soil in the starry house, dwells in the eternal ether.*

For in *anabebēken* [he has ascended], both he and other learned men torture themselves. As if the Hellenists rarely used the past tense after the manner of the Hebrews. Furthermore, he was very unconcerned about the Syriasms, nor did he admit into his mind the ambiguity of the word *ouranou* [heaven], any more than that of *anabebēken*. For the *N'*, the *Tô* of the Syrians, God, or divine things, no beginner surely is ignorant of, who has even glanced at these studies. Now *anabainein* [to ascend], in mind (or rather, as the Greeks say, *tē dianoiai* [in the intellect], or the Hellenists *tous logismous* [the thoughts] or *dialogismous* [reasonings]), is often referred back to the Chaldeans and Syrians, as in Daniel ii, 29, *Thy reasonings 348 ascended upon thy bed*, although the learned note the peculiar ellipsis of the language there, so that the sense is: And do not doubt, perhaps, that he understands the divine things, O Nicodemus, who is now speaking with thee: know that no one penetrates to God or divine things, except him who has now descended from heaven, truly, and as it is proper; for he expressed the *rê* [thought]. Therefore, away with that *anipnēmiou poda pallōn*. Which, since it is placed in the former clause, must be continued in the latter, as he said. Nor did the evangelist say, *no other man*, but *no one*. *And no one has ascended into heaven.* Why? Because the *Son of Man*, as Cyril rightly said, the Word of God descensus from heaven, not concerning the flesh, but is to be accepted of the whole, he says the Son of Man descended, lest after he has become incarnate, he be divided into two persons. But also for the sake of Apollinaris and others, it was necessary to speak circumspectly here. Concerning which the ancients noted at that place. And these things cohere excellently: If you do not understand common things, and those taken from the custom of men and the earth, when I deal with them with you, how, if I propose arduous and truly divine things to you, will you grasp them? I can affirm to you that no one, O Nicodemus, penetrates to those things which are divine and transcend man, except him who descended from heaven. For the *kai* [and] is *bebaiōtikon* [confirmatory]. Now, that he usurped that *morphēn* [form], concerning the divine nature, when he said: *Except this divine one, who, joining his immortal form from heaven to unaccustomed flesh*, he did it in his customary way. And thus above, chapter i, verse 14: *Yoking the divine, human-seeming consort form—* And chapter xiv, 10: *Do you not yet have faith that I am the consort of the Father, and that the Generator accompanies me, joined with one form?* And elsewhere perhaps not once. In which places he clearly 349 said *morphēn* [form] for *tēn ousian* [the essence].

Concerning the use and progress of which word I once consulted a most learned theologian: who, when he thought it was a word full of danger, and, as the Greeks better say, *parakekindunēmenēn* [risky], in theology, I, in my own way, thought more diligently about it. For I think it is most safe in these matters to betake oneself to antiquity: which those who neglect, or have little regard for, have little authority among us. Therefore, something must be said of it. It is certain that no place is more often cited than that most noble one, *Who, existing in the form of God, did not account it a robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man*. To the Philippians ii, 6. In which place I see no reason why heretics place a foundation of *kakodoxiōn* [evil-doings/heresies] and perversions. The Apostle, out of the use of language which he had in mind, positioned synonyms. Which are, *form of God, likeness of men, equality of God, and fashion of a man*. Now, however, lest anyone doubt what *morphē theou* [form of God] is, he expressed it clearly when he adds, *did not account it a robbery to be equal to God*, which is said so effectively that there is no language that can sufficiently represent its force. For he did not say *ison Theō* [equal to God], but *isa* [equals/equally], so that he might manifestly represent the essential equality. Indeed, *morphē* is *ousia* [essence]. Which is *to einai ti* [to be something], or *to einai tinos* [to be of something]. In which way the Latins also not rarely speak. Thus the *forms* of the gods are the gods. As when Ovid, in his illustrious work (which elsewhere St. Jerome calls the books of Transformations), when he deals with the division of the individual things, either of places or of the elements after creation, he called the gods themselves *forms*.

"Lest any region be bereft of its animals, 350 The stars hold the heavenly realm, and the forms of the gods: Thence the waters were yielded to be inhabited by shining fish: The earth received the wild beasts, the movable air the birds." He assigns the heaven or the heavenly realm to the forms of the gods no differently than he assigns the water to fish, the land to wild beasts, and the air to birds. For he could have said "the forms of birds and of wild beasts," and no one would have doubted what he meant. Thus, the "forms of the wolves" in Maro are wolves. Book VII of the Aeneid: "Hence may be heard the groans and the rage of lions, Resenting their chains, and moaning in the late night, And bristling swine, and bears in their stalls Raging, and the forms of great wolves howling." Here you have swine, bears, lions, and the "forms of wolves." For those who take this otherwise, on account of Circe, are quibbling, however great men they may be. Thus *homoiousthai* in Hebrew is *einai*, as in that passage of Isaiah (1:19): "And if the Lord of Sabaoth had not left us a seed, we would have been made as Sodom, and we would have been likened to Gomorrah." Where *homoiousthai* like Gomorrah is "to be as Gomorrah"; for the Hebrews heap up synonyms. Such is, "Man is likened unto vanity" (Ps. CXLIV, 4), which is Psalm XXXIX, 6: "Surely all things are vanity, every man living." Nor is it otherwise in Hebrew, where you have the word. When the Syrian metaphrast understood this, he expressed *morphe* and *homoioma* with the same word, namely [Syriac]. As if he had found in the Greek: "He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of man." What of the fact that *homoiousthai* for the Hellenists is the same as *exisousthai* (to be made equal)? Whence the incomparable glosses of Hesychius, which for the most part—as we have often observed in our emendations to that author—interpret Hellenistic words, *homoiousthai*, as *exisousthai*.

351 And furthermore, he interprets *homoios* as "standing in the same," so that it is not strange that the Arians have long deceived people under that scheme. What of the fact that *homoioma*, elsewhere among the Hebrews, is called God himself by the opinion of the highest interpreters? Indeed, in Psalm XVI, at the last verse, where our modern Hellenists read, "I shall be satisfied when thy glory appears," the holy language uses the word *homoiosis*, so that the majesty of God and *homoiosis* are the same. Nor did the ancient Hellenists translate that place any differently. Aquila: "In the being awakened of thy likeness"; and another: "awakening of thy likeness." Where, learnedly, in the Nebi edition it is expounded in the margin as "in thy awakening thyself," when you yourself shall awaken. Therefore, *homoiosis* is *Theos*, God himself. Which the Seniors intended, when they translated here *doxa*, which is the essential majesty of God, or the divinity itself, as we showed above with many proofs. And how could the Lord and Prince of eternity have "emptied himself" unless he were more than man? And therefore the Apostle used *morphe*, *homoioma*, and *schema* concerning man, not without cause; which last terms sound to the Hellenists like something neglected and despised; and in this sense, if I am not mistaken, it is used in the Old Covenant. Which perhaps was the reason why the Syrian, because he did not have a matching word at hand to signify it, used a Greek word. From which the force and efficacy of the individual words in this place appear; which, as they demonstrate a true man, so they demonstrate God *kat' isoteta* (by equality). For if there is something imaginary in God, there will also be in man. And thus it will be neither, but instead will be the *Icelus* or *Morpheus* of the poets, he who is truly both, and of whom the ancient Church of the Greeks sang:

In equality with the Father and God we glorify Him.

352 But let us come to the usage, with which we began, of *morphe* in the ancient Church. When the most holy Fathers often adduced this passage, first they opposed *morphe Theou* and *morphe doulou* to one another, which was safest, because they spoke with Scripture. Nor is there anyone who more frequently speaks so from that passage than Leo the Great, a man highly practiced in the controversies of that age. Whose object Photius notes, because he used the word *morphe* absolutely for *ousia* (substance), although some took it for a person, saying that two Persons were posited by him. For he said, "Two persons," and proclaimed the energies separately. Idem. But others again attack the words of the man, in which he says, "For it works in each form according to the communion of the other." Which words, since Ephraimus himself also had used [them], he defends both the word and the mind of Leo. Which is surely wonderful, since so many before Leo had spoken in this way. And after him no one abstained from this word. And therefore Photius confirms it with examples. Who, among other things, [says]: "But that *morphe* is not understood as subsistence or person, but as substance, Basil, the bright herald of the Church, clearly teaches in his discourse against Eunomius." The same from Basil: "The 'in *morphe*' is 'in the substance of God'; for the *morphe* of God is not one thing and the substance another, lest He be composite." And from Nyssenus against Eunomius: "What *morphe* is struck in the passion, and what *morphe* is glorified from eternity?" But no one, as I was saying, later abstained from that word. For Cyril [does so] everywhere. Elsewhere: "Therefore he is not a mere man according to us, but rather God in human *morphe*." Idem: In Questions and Answers, "So as to be substance, nature, *morphe*, one and the same thing." Book 13, On the Trinity: "Accordingly, we dogmatize one *morphe* of the Godhead." And elsewhere in the same book not once. And Anastasius says, 353 "Substance, nature, *morphe* to be one and the same thing." Idem, "Nature, and substance, and *morphe* are one and the same thing." Nor does Damascenus speak otherwise. Who speaks thus several times in the book On the Orthodox Faith, and in the hymn on Theogony: "God mingled in human *morphe*." But also [writing] to Michael Comnenus, Psellus: "Of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one principle, one nature, one *morphe*, one substance and power." Idem on the SS. Fathers: "The holy Fathers therefore assign to the same thing the name of substance, and nature, and *morphe*." *Morphe* is therefore used of both natures, as the truth of the nature of both, as Leo speaks in the Epistle to Flavian: "For," he says, "speaking emptily, he would say the Word was made flesh so that Christ, born from the Virgin's womb, would have the *morphe* of man and not have the truth of the maternal body." To whom the ancients, which may seem wonderful, oppose *figura* (form), just as St. Augustine opposed *figura* and *species*. If therefore (he says to this very evangelist) the *figura* of the sea was so availing, what will the *species* of baptism avail? Just as a little later [he opposes] *figura* and truth. If what was done in *figura* led the people through the passage to manna, what will Christ exhibit in the truth of baptism, with his people passed through [it]? Clearly as the Greek theologians, *typon kai aletheian*. When the evangelist in the same truly heavenly dissertation to Nicodemus said, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent," he was unaware of what that "lifting up" meant. Following his custom, therefore, he preserved the word. But he expressed the Syriac *[Syriac]*—*hypsoun* (to lift up) and *stauroun* (to crucify)—which signifies both, and *hypsoun* and *stauroun*. And [Syriac] *stauros*. Whence the ancients wish this serpent to have been affixed to a cross. And Chrysostom wrote a Homily concerning the serpent according to Moses, which he crucified in the desert. And so the thing from which the serpent was suspended, some called *semeion*, 354 others *stauron*, others the *typos* of the cross. As Justin [in] Apologia 2: "And according to the inspiration and power called [to be] from God, Moses took bronze and made a *typos* of the cross." Also a standard. Our writer is wonderfully liberal (who is usually so restricted and tenacious, that he generally preserves both the words and the Hellenistic modes of speaking, not without no small fraud to the reader) in the interpretation of that passage which follows in verse 18: "He that believeth not is condemned already." For to keep it from being taken [merely] as "to hold," was his great care. And surely that seems to be the mind of the evangelist, that, as the Greek theologians speak...

^A they were being washed in baptisms; and henceforth, the punishment for sins that lead to death is death. The sin, of which the evangelist speaks, is what the Hellenists call *the [sin] in hand*, pride, or more truly "a high hand," or "with a high hand," as the Latin interpreter says, because they contrast this sin with that of one who has erred unintentionally. For so they speak of one who has sinned through ignorance: from whom he differs much who sins with an elated mind, or, as the Hebrews rightly put it, through impudence, just as the Chaldeans do, and sins petulantly. For he who sins in this way is said to sin with head uncovered, clearly, as the Greeks would say, "to sin with head bare." Indeed, the Hellenists call this sin *blasphemy*, which our poet, not well understanding, expressed thus:

*But if a man,* *Casting a straying eye upon the form of a woman,* *Dares to lift up his god-speaking chin,* *That man is judged.*

For he thought *blasphemy* was always taken by them as it is by his own Greeks. Whereas *to blaspheme* for them is what it is for the Hebrews: to sin arrogantly, presumptuously, and with uncovered head. Such as Luke in the Acts of the Apostles 355 eruditely said to be "to oppose God." Which the Truth Itself attributes to the Jews not once. Thus, he who blesses an idol is said to "blaspheme" in Isaiah LXIII, 3. Not because he curses God, as our poet thought, but because he plainly and presumptuously falls away from Him. And hence that [saying] from the shrine of divinity: *If you were blind, you would have no sin.* For it follows, *But now you say, "We see": therefore your sin remains.*

It remains, then, that the *sin*, which he now says *remains*, is that which is at other times called *to death*. Well, therefore, Procopius, who explains *the [sin] in hand*, pride, in no. 15, 30, as *sin unto death*. Nonnus, when he interpreted this place, had fallen into a scholion which would interpret this passage in a Hellenistic or similar manner: *But he who has turned ^B his eyes to the flesh, and has blasphemed, is already judged*, which the Greeks would say as: *But he who has fallen into sin intentionally, and opposing God, is already condemned.* You see how great is the difference between the two languages, which interpreters in this age confuse and treat as one. A moment later, in verse 25, it follows: *There arose therefore a questioning on the part of the disciples of John with the Jews about purification.* It might have seemed wonderful that he joins the *katharmos* [purification] with the *katharismos* [purification], when he interprets the passage thus:

*And there was a certain strife ^C about purification* *Among the disciples of John, followers of mysteries.*

Certainly a *katharma* is a piacular offering, or a piacular victim, which is also a *katharmos*. Whence that passage, not yet sufficiently understood, if I may judge, *Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world*, which is read at the beginning of this evangelist's work. For the Lamb is the *katharmos*. From which the *katharismos*—which is the subject here, and which was performed by the washing away of filth—is far different. Of which there were very many species in use among the Jews. Another thing apart from them is 356 the *hagnismos* [purification/consecration]. Thus the Jews, when they had defiled themselves, first employed an *hagnismos* by custom; in place of which John instituted a repentance. But that *katharismos* followed it, which the Hellenists also called *baptism*, to which the ancient Christians owe almost all their names, one and all. After this *katharmos* or *katharma* (which was the victim for sin), it was offered. Whence the Greeks drew this custom, and the Hellenists the name from them. John, therefore (for this passage, as far as I can judge, is little understood) after the *hagnismos*, after the *katharismos*—which he had instituted and practiced at the same time—when he looked upon the Lord, says that there is now no need for any other *katharmos* according to the custom: because the Lamb of God was present, who once for all would expiate the sin of the whole world. Eulogius in the Excerpts of Photius: *For the race of the Hebrews, when they sinned, were first purified; then they offered sacrifices for the things in which they had sinned*: from which the Apostle leads them away, and brings upon them a terrible threat. *For it was necessary that the true sacrifice, once offered at the end of the age for sins, that is, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, having been slaughtered, nothing more should be left, but that the many ^D and typical sacrifices offered for sins should cease.* For that lamb was an *expiatory sacrifice*. Wherefore [it should be] *katharmos*, not, as it has here, *katharismos*. Which is the true interpretation of that passage, this is: the people of the Hebrews, to be sure, were accustomed to be purified first, then to be washed by ablution, or baptism, when they sinned. Then they offered victims for the sin. From which, that the Apostle might turn them away, he even terrifies them with vehement threats. For it was necessary that in the consummation of the age, the true victim having been offered once for all for sins, nothing at all should remain over, but that he should impose an end to the 357 victims once for all on those many and figurative ones that were offered for sin.

Sacred critics note that that young animal which is called the sin-offering, was first called *katharismos* by the Hellenists, which, when Aquila and Theodotion thought it had been wrongly rendered, they themselves [used] *exilasmou* [propitiation], and St. Jerome used the word *expiationis*. For in the text is the *expiationis* [expiation]. Certainly on the tenth day of September, which is called by the same name by the Jews, no one was *purified*, nor did anyone wash, nor did anyone anoint; but by a victim the *expiation* was made by the priest. Wherefore, no one did anything like it; truly the *katharmos* by the high priest, as I have said, seemed that it could have been wrongly and confusedly called *katharismos* and *katharmos*. Yet there are not wanting ancients, and indeed men of great stature, whose authority can be defended here. And among them, the greatest, Chrysostom, in his Catechetical Oration, who says, *If you wish, let us first discuss the nomenclature of the mystical purification.* On the other hand, the Greek Menologia, so that they might use the term *katharsis* [purification] for the mystery of baptism, sometimes said the thing itself, *katharsin*, not *katharismon*. As, behold, *Again Jesus, my [Lord], is purified in the Jordan, or rather, He purifies our sins.* A little later, *Why do you hinder the purification of the many?* If anyone, however, should seek the cause of that questioning, which the evangelist mentions here, it must also be sought from the rites of the Jews. The Jews baptized often and throughout their whole life. But also by baptizing, they thought that lighter offenses—*things*, says Justin, a most ancient author, *which neither contributed to the injury of the policy, nor were they harmful to the life of men*—that is, which neither brought disgrace upon the republic nor harmed the common life of men—could be removed. Thus they had various baptisms, or ablutions and *katharismous* [purifications]. But most holy John, as Josephus notes, exhorted first to true piety, and to the amendment of life, and to justice; but he baptized only those who had first purified their soul along with their body, and then at last: not for the excuse of certain sins, as the Jews, but he conferred baptism for repentance and true amendment of life, that is, to take away I know not what crimes or stains. The Jews, therefore, were dealing with the disciples of this most holy and supreme man, concerning the end of his [baptism], which John had brought in, [different] from the old [usage]. This, therefore, is that *questioning* [syzetesis], namely, about the old use and this new one. Euthymius well interprets *zetesin* as "disputation," and *katharismon* as "baptism." But our poet did not understand the passage, which is in all ways most sweet and of truly wondrous elegance. I mean the one which exists in the twenty-ninth verse: *He who has the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices with joy because of the voice of the bridegroom: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.* In which *hestekos* is he who stands at the *chuppah*, while, according to the custom of the Jews, the bridegroom with the bride, under the veil which is called *chuppah* by them, converses: which is the first *daristus* [nuptial embrace] of the Jews, or, nuptial congress. From which, when the bridegroom emerged, with greatest joy of those who heard the voice of him who was exiting,

he would come forth. Which they might then consider a ratified union. To this also the royal Prophet, as the masters clearly note, looked when he sang: *And he himself, as a bridegroom, coming forth from his bridal chamber [pastos], shall exult as a giant to run his course.* There ^A *pastos*. For just as the bridegroom exhilarates his friends with joy when he comes forth from that secret place of his, speaks, and shows his face, so the sun, *from his chamber*, that is, the earth, drenches with joy. Which to that true and most beautiful bridegroom of the Church, 359 He himself the sun of justice, his precursor in the most sweet manner, John the Baptist, accommodates. To express which sense one might poetically render the passage itself thus: Each one having a bride is a bridegroom; but the companion Stands by the hidden one in the nuptial chamber, as is our custom, And having received the voice of him coming from the sanctuary, In his gladness his dear heart rages. This is the poetic, and if I am not mistaken, paraphrastic character. I have said ^B *paston*, because the masters sometimes attribute this *chuppah* to the bride for the sake of modesty. As when they say that Sarah, during all that time in which she did not bear children, stood under a *chuppah*, where matrons, as if to a bride, came to congratulate her, just as Elias noted from Bereschit Rabba. When at the end of this chapter it is said: *He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who disobeys the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him*, our author rendered the latter words: But whoever, a man of pride, disobeys the Son of the living God, The wrath of the most high God comes, the avenger, Scourging the fool. Which, when he was writing, he could have had in mind the observation of the ancient theologians, who warn that the sufferings of the just are called *thlipseis* [afflictions] by Scripture, but those of the wicked are called *mastigas* [scourges]. ^C That the calamities of the just are called *thlipseis* by Scripture, and those of the impious *mastigas*, is because it is said: *Scourges are prepared for the unruly*, Prov. xix, 29, or that other from the royal Prophet, which I prefer, *Many are the scourges of the sinner.* Which, however, is not altogether true, as those who are versed in Hellenistic [Greek] studies, and no less those who know Hebrew, are aware. For the same prophet declares that *mastigas* [scourges] sent divinely upon himself are not once, nor always, used in the same vocal sense. For it is always used variously. But it is known how the evangelist uses that word. But our author had in mind that saying, *Scourge [mastix] for the fool*, Prov. xxvii, 22. Although it is something else in the Hebrew. You see an illustrious example of parody from the Septuagint, by which one of the things we said regarding Nonnus's Hebraisms is proven. And yet, as I said, something else is read in the Hebrew.

CHAPTER XX

Not without reason, at the beginning of the fourth chapter, specifically at the fifth verse, in the history of the Samaritan woman, the evangelist makes mention of Joseph, when he says, *which Jacob gave to Joseph his son.* For from him and his sons the Samaritans deduced their origin, and they were wont to glory in this greatly. Josephus, where he deals with the Samaritans: *And from the sons of Joseph they genealogize them, from Ephraim and Manasseh.* Whence also he places his sepulcher in that spot, Benjamin. It follows in the same chapter to the sixth verse: *But Jesus, having grown weary from the journey, sat thus by the fountain.* Where he did not say what the evangelist intended. For thus: And there the Christ, having rested from the long-travelled path, Sat. For it is one thing, *having grown weary from the journey*, and另一*having rested from the way*. For the former denotes being fatigued by the way, the latter that one has ceased from the way. And so always for Homer. Just as in the third Iliad, *having ceased from the war*, the elders are spoken of, who no longer waged war, that is, who had already retired by age. What follows, *sat thus by the fountain*, is a most pleasant idiotism, and clearly a schema for pleasure, as the grammarians speak. For he wishes to say that the Lord sat by the fountain that offered itself on the way without any care or choice, and just as the Greeks say, *as it happened*. By which he notes the wondrous *adiaphoria* [indifference/detachment] in 362 our Lord and King, who, afflicted by the heat, did not seek a place, but found it. So that I might omit the economy of him which is clearly to be admired here, who from this humble sitting found an occasion for so divine a disputation; by which he shows that it would come to pass that the Samaritans, a despised race, would on an equal footing with the Jews, who would not reject him, be admitted to grace. Wherefore not inelegantly Theophylactus, who explains *thus* as *as it chanced*, and *without a throne, upon the ground*, simply, as the situation allowed, without a seat, and on the earth. And not much otherwise has Maro used this word when he said of his Jupiter: And now there was an end, when Jupiter at the highest ether Looking down upon the sea, the ship-bearing one, and the lying-low lands, And the expanses, and the peoples far and wide, thus stood on the summit of heaven. For the grammarians babble wondrously at that place. Shortly after, at verse 7, the interpreter sings: There a Samaritan woman, lifting through her bosom A pitcher, which she was having, travelled to the neighboring fountain. Where it seems erratic that he says the Samaritan woman was *carrying it through her bosom*, which her language, nothing less than truly or in Greek, indicates, that she carried a hydria in her bosom, when Rebecca in the twenty-fourth chapter of Genesis, *in her hand*, as the Greeks rendered it, carried it. The evangelist adds that the woman came *to draw water*. Which was done by her for the use of the midday meal, there is scarcely a doubt. Whence also the disciples arrive later with food. Just as the time of supper, from the Hebrews, the time, in which for drawing…

^A water the women proceed, is wont to be called, as in that same chapter of Genesis, which I have already praised. Which, as Hellenists are wont to do, they elegantly expressed as *to pros opse*, when the water-carriers go forth: which is, when the time of supper drew near ^B. Just as Theocritus says concerning Hylas, who at the time when heroes were about to dine, goes out with his water-jar: *Hylas the fair departed, to bring water for the evening meal.* Just as also in Apollonius. On which occasion even Abraham’s servant is said to have waited for Rebecca in that same place: which could not have escaped him, whom nothing escaped. For, just as with Rebecca there, so here, from the occasion of time and place, round about the hour of *drawing water*, the Samaritan woman comes. Which illustrates the *circumstance* of this famous passage—mirifically, as the rhetoricians say.

Commate 9, which follows: *How do you, being a Jew, ask drink of me, being a Samaritan woman?* is spoken most sweetly, according to the custom of those who, when they were strangers or had been of another mind, tasted each other’s food and drink to win over spirits: which was forbidden to Jews with Samaritans. Thus in the covenant of Jacob with Laban. Thus the Israelites eat of the Gibeonite provisions, Jos. ix, 14: *So the men took of their provisions.* And then: *And Joshua made peace with them, and struck a covenant with them, to let them live.* And the Greeks set down *asking for a little water* among the tokens of familiarity. Which Apollonius Alexandrinus relates concerning Pherecydes: "But as for matters concerning Pherecydes, such things are related: That once on the island of Scyros, being thirsty, he asked for a little water from one of his acquaintances; and he, having drunk, said that there would be an earthquake on the island after the third day." And the Lord had already said before, *Give me to drink*, which is ^C to ask for a little water. And that He was truly thirsty, and that by this occasion He might find a handle for conversation with the woman, which He did not know whether she would answer, nor even that she was a Samaritan. Such as it is when the same Lord sends the disciples to the fig tree: in which, what He did not know, there were no figs. And when God asks, where Adam was. Which and similar things are said, to be an occasion of conversation, that I may speak with Rabbi Solomon.

Commate 12 follows: *Are you greater than our father Jacob?* From whom the twelve tribes had sprung, as from one tree. And so the Samaritan woman [describes] this grace in him with whom she was speaking: whose character the author depicts mirifically from the custom of her nation: who, for the sake of the Jew, derives her origin from Jacob. Which was customary for Samaritans, so that in adverse matters—namely, for Jewish affairs—they said they had nothing in common with them; in prosperity, or if they thought they had need of it, they would immediately betake themselves to Jacob, Ephraim, and Manasseh: all of which [is] most sweetly *in character*, from the person of the little woman, as I said. Who, having now confessed the Jew, derives her origin from the Jews. What the custom of that nation was, Josephus shows elegantly, *Antiq. Jud.* xi: "For the Samaritans are by nature such, as we have already shown at some point. For when the Jews are in misfortunes, they deny that they are their kinsmen, then acknowledging the truth; but whenever they see anything brilliant concerning them, they suddenly, out of chance, leap into fellowship with them, saying that they belong to them, and they derive their lineage from the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh." That is: The Samaritans are of such a disposition (which we have also noted before), that in adverse matters (and then indeed they rightfully do so) they refuse to acknowledge the Jews as joined to them by blood. But as soon as they see some prosperity happen to them, straightway from the profit of fortune, they leap as it were into their communion. Indeed they call them their own kinsmen, and derive their nation from the descendants of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. And observe human nature here. Which, having neglected the fountain of all goods, ascribes its own to men, as when she says of Jacob: *who gave us* ^D *the 365 well*, who in the solemn stipulation of the Repetitive law, chapter twenty and six, from a calamity, lest any man attribute anything more to him, is called Obed, that is, *a lost man*. And you speak, and you say...

Furthermore, that we may return to Nonnus, it cannot be said how the place where these things are expressed has wearied the learned: *What common speech [is there] for a Samaritan woman and your kin, That you might drink from me, and even if your ordinance hinders?* [the Samaritan woman] calling you a Jew with a pleased mouth. Where Stephanus [has] *kalesso*, with no sense, so far as I know: the great Scaliger, *azomenois* or *aidomenois*, from the same reading with an interrogation mark was writing. I do not doubt but that the same thing happened here which the same greatest man notes throughout in his *Dionysiaca*. That, namely, the verses are transposed, which are to be established thus: *What common speech [was there] for a Samaritan woman and your kin, [the Samaritan woman] calling you a Jew with a pleased mouth, That you might drink from me, and even if your ordinance hinders?* In this sense: What has the Samaritan in common with your people, who by the manifest token of speech calls you a Jew (this is, she bears witness), so that, against his custom, you ask for a drink from me?

Commate 17, distinguish the passage about the Samaritan woman thus: *She said: and not knowing, about the many-seeded couch The Samaritans, falsely, the true voice rang out.* Not as commonly. Commate 20, it is said by the Samaritan woman, *Our fathers worshipped on this mountain.* In which words, if we believe Chrysostom, such will be the Hebraism, just as in that [verse], *And the disciples, seeing [it], were indignant*, Matthew xxvi, 8. Which John, *But one of his disciples*, and concerning Judas alone, ch. xii, 4, interprets. For he wants Abraham to be understood: who on that mountain also offered up his son. *Speaking of those around Abraham*, he says, 366 *and they say that he offered up his son there.* But the Hebrews hold that all the Fathers from Adam offered sacrifices on the same mountain, in which it is said that Abraham offered [his son] when born. Levi, and the grammarian, as they are often wont, by the argument of a single letter. But Scripture teaches that this deed was in Moria: which [was] not only in Judea, but also in that place where the holy city was afterward. Here, however, concerning Garizin, and the cult which was wont to be performed in it, which, in truth, is manifestly opposed to that of which Chrysostom [speaks]. For it follows, *And you say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship*: for there Abraham is said to have sacrificed: to which this is here opposed. It does not go forward, therefore, nor does the interpretation which is brought by the author for that place satisfy: *You worship what you know not, we worship what we know.* Where our [author] [says]: *Ye indeed with a froward rule of fickle heart, Which you did not learn in your minds, you revere only by hearing.* You worship by hearing, whom you do not know by mind. Which perhaps even he himself did not grasp what it meant. For both the Samaritans worshipped God, and were expecting the Messiah. For they admitted the writings of Moses. But the Jews worshipped one God; they, besides this one, worshipped also idols—unknown and found on Mount Garizin: a crime, which the Jews note with two letters, *TY*, and branded upon the Samaritans as with a cautery. Whence that same supreme man Chrysostom excellently said they *mingle things unmingleable*. Among which was a dove: in the name of which the Samaritans themselves were circumcised: most different from that one, under whose form the Lord confirmed His own baptism. Nor is it unknown that their temple, which they called a sanctuary, the Jews called idolatrous. When our Savior, shortly after, in commate 367 23, repeats the word of the Father. *When the true worshippers shall worship the Father*, item, *for the Father also seeks such to worship him*, there is no doubt but that in this most sweet dissertation, He is gradually drawing the little woman, not only to the true cult of God, but also to the true God; who,

in order that the Son might not be excluded, not without cause is ^A figuratively called "Father"; so that He might show Him to be—not merely the Messiah, as she says a little later, but—the Son of the Father, of whom He speaks. Therefore, I cannot agree with our author, who here either suppressed the word "Father," or used the word "God" in its place. The longer we dwell on this preeminent author, the more we observe things which, though they cause difficulty for us, for most others (which we marvel at) do not even arouse suspicion. Least of all, however, for Nonnus, who, being quite carefree, committed to paper whatever first pleased him. Let that passage in the thirty-fifth verse of this chapter serve as an example: *Οὐχ ὑμεῖς λέγετε, ὅτι ἔτι τετράμηνόν ἐστι, καὶ ὁ θερισμὸς ἔρχεται; ἰδοὺ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐπάρατε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν, καὶ θεάσασθε τὰς χώρας ὅτι λευκαί εἰσι πρὸς θερισμὸν ἤδη*. They interpret this passage as if the meaning were: "Do you not say that the harvest is four months away?" And thus the Syriac explicitly states, so that the meaning might mark the Hebrew. The Hellenists might say otherwise: *Ἔτι μῆνες τέσσαρες καὶ ὁ θερισμὸς ἔρχεται*. And this, as most certain, our author accepted with the rest, except that for *θερισμός* (harvest) he carelessly substituted *θέρος* (summer). But the chronologers have so eagerly embraced this in their Harmonies as to assert that this occurred in the month of December. But who would not wonder that this conversation with the little woman was held in the summer, if we follow Nonnus, when, as he now explicitly speaks, it had been held four months before summer? 368 For thus he interprets this place. Moreover, he said that it was the sixth hour, and indeed a summer one (for so I take *διψιός*), when the Lord approached the Samaritan woman. For so he said above: * Ἑκτη δὲ πτερόεσσα διέτρεχε δίψιος ὥρη.* Concerning this time, Alcaeus: "And the hour is grievous; and everything thirsts under the heat." And Horace: "Nor has such heat of the stars ever settled On the thirsty Apulia." Where "thirsty" is like our *διψιος*. At which time the earth is scorched by Sirius. Such heat was in the month of Nisan in Canaan. And indeed the fatigue of the Lord, the approach to the well, the thirst, and other similar things persuade us of summer. For the Evangelist himself says, "There was [he] there the well of Jacob. Jesus therefore, wearied from the journey, sat thus by the well: it was about the sixth hour," which is the hour at which the Hebrews place the heat of the day; for what is done at that time is said to be done [in it]: at which those in the East used to seek shade or springs or hide in tents, as [is said] of Abraham in Gen. XVIII, 1. That this is said of summer (although I know that the reason for Egypt and the neighboring Canaan was different) the very rationale seems to prove. And the interpreters confirm this, who favor the idea that the holy man sat there in order to welcome and refresh those exhausted by heat and labor. But ecclesiastical writers seem to have thought nothing different about this time. Juvencus: "The Savior had sat here, breathless in the rapid heat, etc. Coming from his hands, the Samaritan woman arrives." Sedulius: "He had contracted a human thirst in the burning heat." Now, how plausible is it that the Lord said four months earlier, "Behold the fields, for they are white 369 to harvest already"? For although the harvest of which He speaks is figurative, who yet does not know that this seems harsh, when there are most sweet allegories which approach closely to the signified, that is, to the truth? What then? Robertus Stephanus testifies that in some codices the word *ἔτι* does not exist. And Camerarius affirms that, in his codex, he found: *Οὐχ ὑμεῖς λέγετε, ὅτι τετράμηνός ἐστι, καὶ ὁ θερισμὸς ἔρχεται*, and I have not found it otherwise in the most ancient Rutgersian manuscript. It is therefore a Hebraism, which the Hellenists would express word-for-word as: *Ὅτι τετράμηνός ἐστι, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ θερισμός*, which is, *Τετράμηνός* ^B ἐστιν, ἐν ᾧ θερισμός, which the Evangelist said: *Τετράμηνός ἐστι, καὶ ὁ θερισμὸς ἔρχεται*. Camerarius also saw the difficulty, but he stuck in the discourse, as he could not but see, being also cautioned by Theophylact, the error of the received opinion. Who [says], "For you, he says, say instead of 'you think' that the harvest comes in this four-month period." So that not without cause the *τετράμηνος* (four-month period) is called the harvest's, in which two Royal feasts, Passover and Pentecost, used to concur: in the one of which the harvest began, and in the other ended. Just as the *ἑορτὴ θερισμοῦ* (feast of harvest), Pentecost (just as here the *τετράμηνος θερισμοῦ*, that part of the year whose beginning is Nisan), is called by Moses in Exodus: but at that month these things happened: for on the fourteenth day the Passover, on the fifteenth the sheaf of new fruits was offered, so that this is said to be fifteen, or thereabouts, days before the Passover. In which way those things that are said about the harvest agree perfectly. But that it might conflict with the Passovers, the mention of which is made by John, [ *בעלי תקופת* ] let others see; we do not think so. His wonder at the place which follows at verse 43 and onward, *ἀκολουθία* [the sequence]: "And after two days he departed from there, and went into Galilee. For Jesus himself 370 testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country." Jesus went into Galilee; for he shows that honor is not exhibited to a prophet in his own country. For what is this etiology, "He went into Galilee; for he shows that there is no place for prophets in their own country"? Nonnus understood it as if it were written that Christ did indeed seek Galilee, yet did not go to Capernaum, which is called his city in Matthew IX, 1. And therefore he said: *Μούνην δ' οὐκ ἐπάτησεν ἐὴν ζηλήμονα πάτρην.* With whom Chrysostom also seems to agree, yet in such a way that he somewhat hesitates. But it does not hold regarding Nazareth. For Luke explicitly adds in this history, "And he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up." Wherefore if our author understood this, the argument fails. The excellent interpreter and man of the greatest judgment, Theophylact, thinks that this was said for this reason, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ἀεὶ ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ, ἀλλ' ἐκ διαλείμματος (which words are his) ^C ἐπεδήμει αὐτοῖς; that He was not always in Galilee, but dwelt among them at intervals. The reason is to be sought from the Hellenists alone, who sometimes interpret *ἀπελθεῖν* and sometimes *διελθεῖν*, and not rarely [use them] in the same sense. Thus Ps. CV, 13: "And they went from nation to nation." Judg. XI, 18: "And he went through in the wilderness, and encompassed the land of Edom." Or *ἀπέρχεσθαι*, which is an interpretation of the same word, sometimes [means] nothing else than to travel. And thus, by the advice of the Syrian interpreter, it should be rendered in Latin, just as in this whole chapter he describes nothing else than the *κυκλώσεις* (circuits) of the Lord and His *ἐπιδημίας* (sojournings). For He crosses from Judea through Samaria; from Samaria into Galilee, and from it He immediately returns to Judea. But as to *ἀπελθεῖν*, in which the whole difficulty lies, it means at times to go and to return, as in that of Matthew VIII, 21: "Lord, suffer me first to go away and bury my father." And in ch. XIII: "Who, having found one precious 371 pearl, went and sold all." But, as I said, here it is to travel. The most excellent theologians, who were seeking the difficulty of the passage in the word *ἐμαρτύρησε*, were doing something else, unless I am mistaken. Now, as to those words of the Evangelist at verse 46, "Jesus came therefore again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine," our Nonnus said: *Ἰησοῦς μὲν ἵκανε, καὶ ᾤκεεν αὐτόθι μίμνων* *Ἦχι πέδον Καναναῖον.* How, however, can it be true that He lived in Cana, when He departed immediately after the miracle? And yet, as this is false in Greek, so it is most true in the Hellenistic [idiom], in whose language *οἰκεῖν* is said of one who fixes his tent in some place for a few days, and soon changes place. Whence that: "And he dwelt with him some days," Genesis XXVII, 44. ^D Much con-

- demned by the ancients, and by those after them, is the term *basilikos*, which the evangelist mentions when he said: "And there was a certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum." That it was said imperfectly by the evangelist, "And there was a certain nobleman," ^A is manifest. Nonnus expressed this completely: "And there was a man guiding the army, a kingly man." To me, the Syrian seems to have expressed this learnedly, who said: "a servant of the king." And so, first, soldiers are called commonly by the Syrians and Chaldeans as they are also "slaves of war." Whence Homer, who owes not a little to them, said *therapontas Areos* (servants of Ares) to the letter. Which is also not rare among the Hebrews, as II Sam. ch. 11, v. 50, 31, where the *douloi David* are the soldiers of David, the *paides tou David* to the Hellenists. Sometimes, however, they are governors, who are supreme under the king. Just as Joab ^B is called, to the Hellenists *pais basileōs* (servant of the king). See II Sam. ch. xv, 20. Thus Nahaman is called. Whence sometimes *ebed*, and sometimes *sar tsaba melek*, it passed into a proper name, or is accepted for it, as when the royal eunuch is called *Abdemelech* by the Hellenists, and that eunuchs were governors of kings in the East, no one so ignorant of these things is unaware. Therefore the *basilikos* is a royal governor. Thus the same Nabuzardan is called the governor of the Babylonian king, sometimes prince of the army, sometimes *ebed*, *doulos basilikos*. Which things are sometimes conjoined. Which Nonnus seems to have learned from the Greek interpreters, who were ^C many at that time. For *ithuvōn stratiēn* is prince of the soldiers: whom the common people called master of the butchers, the Seniors *archimageiron*. But what follow in Nonnus, *basilētos anēr*, is he who is next to him, or his vicar. Who *hestēkōs enōpion tou basileōs* is learnedly called by the Seniors, just as in IV Kings xxv. For our author here conjoins these two. Therefore, the *basilikos* is the king's vicar, *ho tēn prōtēn* (as Gregory the Theologian says) *apo basileōs diēpōn archēn*, who, according to Sulpicius Severus, is the royal prince. To whom Nabuzardan, who is also called *basilikos* ^D *doulos*, is called the royal prince. When he says Nabuzardan the royal prince was leading him captive with the others. The same Nabuzardan, however, is called prince of the army, and "servant of the king of Babel." The one is prince of soldiers, or master of the militia: the other is the prince from the king. Which is the *doulos basilikos*. But the *doulos basilikos* is said there, "he who stands before the king." And Nabuzardan was both; who is called master of the militia by Jeremiah, according to the interpretation of Jerome. Whence it happened that learned men often confuse these two. Therefore the *basilikos* is the *doulos basilikos*, who is the *basilikos archōn*, 373 to which the Syrian learnedly looked. All which things, unknown to the commoners, the Hellenists, most learned men, teach us. And who was thinking of them? But Erasmus, how much he exerts himself in his *Basilioxos*! And yet, in the same sense as *Basilioxos* pleases him, the Hellenists would have rather said *basilikon*. Or *tyrannikon*, the tyrant, which is customary for them. But few are those who understand this language. In the following comma concerning this very "basilico" it is read: "This man, having heard that Jesus had come from Judea into Galilee, went to him, and asked him to come down and heal his son; for he was about to die." Where our author did not understand the force of the word, when he rendered that passage thus: "And the near-appearing one asked Jesus, that he might save his son." Nothing is so customary to the Hellenists, as that they use one for the other meaning of a word, which denotes two things. And yet *erōtan* and *deisthai* denotes to ask just as it denotes to beg. Our author, ignorant of this custom, used *ereinen*, when the Greek language demanded *edeito*. For he was doing nothing less than asking, who was begging and imploring. But children know what *ereinein* is to the Greeks. But what happened to others in this time, happened to Nonnus. That, as I have often noted, he did not distinguish between different languages, the Hellenistic and the Greek. Just as we see happening to many today and we lament, that when they interpret the New Testament, because they once learned something in Greek, they do not understand that the language whose interpreters they profess themselves to be, they have never learned. Euthymius is right: "Again *erōta* means, he was begging."

374 CHAPTER XXI

^A *those descending, [having] moved the water of this pool*. He signified that the sound of this motion meant that they were present to sanctify the water. Since that poor man, at *this season*—which we have already spoken of—had not been brought down, he is restored by Him who alone can provide water *leaping up into eternal life*, 378 as the evangelist spoke above. There follows *and troubled the water*, which the common translator rendered "moved." Why Erasmus and later scholars changed this, there is no cause other than neglect of the Hellenistic language. By which the ancients interpret *tō* now as *kinēsis* (as in Jeremiah xxix, 18), now as *tarachē* (as in Ezekiel xxiii, 46). But the evangelist meant nothing other than *kinēsis*. Wherefore, wisely, the Syrian used the very same word that our author expressed. Furthermore, Nonnus omitted all this which is about the angel. And perhaps it can come to pass that what the most holy evangelist said about the angel denotes nothing else than the divine power to which he attributes this miracle, because God does very much on earth through angels. Whence also the Hellenists, in place of "angel," not rarely put "God": to confirm which, the passage among others in Ecclesiastes, chapter v, verse 5, stands forth most clearly. Where, for that which the Hebrews have *before the face of an angel*, the Hellenists rendered: *And say not before the face of God that it is an error*. See the great Mercer upon this. Gregory, the paraphrast of that book, followed the Hellenists, who said: *One must by all means avoid the outpouring of improper words, as if God were about to hear*. Where the Chaldean has: *before the cruel angel, who will exercise power over you*. For it is customary for the Chaldeans, as I have not rarely observed, to assign divine works to these ministers. Nor is anything in their writings—which our evangelist often expressed—as frequent as this, for example, when they speak of the angel of death. Whence also the Jews drew their own trifles about the fury of the angel who presides over death, and others of a not unlike nature, as when they treat of the righteous Benjamin. Unless one wishes to refer these to the eternal angel. 379 Who not rarely prefigured himself and the mysteries which he later exhibited: of which many ancient theologians are full. And it is wonderful that without an angel, without any instrument of water, the very Angel of the Great Counsel shows himself here as a physician. That there was a *paralytic*, most of the ancients, among whom are Theophylact, Chrysostom, Gregory, and others, supposed. But if our author also believed this, he did not speak quite properly when he said, ^C *He held his knees bound with an untreatable disease*, which is, that his knees were bound by sickness, since paralysis is *paresis*, that is, a resolution of the nerves. Whence those who are restored from this illness are said to be *sphyggesthai*, that is, bound. But what happened here to Nonnus also happened to Chrysostom, who says that this same sick man lay *dedemenos* (bound), who, when he was being healed, was *sphyggestai*; forgetting himself, or through a custom of speaking, he said it. The passage is truly elegant: *But here he first tightened the body, and then concerned himself with the soul*. But we most willingly grant these things to those who were intent upon greater matters. With his fourth verse [of the same chapter], he said; *For an angel at a season would descend into the pool*. It seems that by *kata kairon* he expressed the *lamoed* of the Hebrews, so that *kata kairon* is put for that which is usually said by the Hellenists as *kata kairon touton*, and it is understood that these waters were moved and sanctified yearly on the feast of Pentecost itself, or some other. Which Cyril confirmed by his own opinion and judgment. Who observes: *We believe that angels came down from heaven at the time of Pentecost: because on these days, as also at new moons, they were accustomed to consult them—the ones from whom they awaited help—at that season*. We have an example of this matter in 2 Kings, chapter iv, verse 23, and indeed a most illustrious one. Where the husband of the Shunammite, whose son Elisha raised from the dead, when he saw his wife hastening to the prophet because of the son, says, *Today is neither new moon nor sabbath*. Which 380 opinion, when it was among the common people at that time, and the common people themselves testified by this very fact that the man of God—which is said there of Elisha—seemed to them to be our Lord and Savior, the violence of the priests was the more irritated, so that…

^A they should consider that cold and utterly inept remark regarding his "not working on that day." They pressed the point: and they transferred this even to the salutary miracles and works themselves, which are truly worthy of God. This was an extreme and intolerable blindness. Hence also that truly most foolish saying, "It is the Sabbath, it is not lawful for you to take up your bed." For superstition, where it has once begun, generally knows no limit. Nor does it stop where it began, but just as it began, being ignorant of reason and of itself, burdensome to others, and heavy to itself, it exceeds all bounds. Regarding the verse of the same seventeenth chapter, which is stated by our Savior, "My Father is working until now, and I am working," our author interpreted it thus:

"Even now the Begetter works in the habit of the world, In reciprocal patterns, and I, the Son, weave the work."

Which passage is without doubt to be distinguished thus:

"Even now the Begetter works in the habit of the world, In reciprocal patterns, and I, the Son, weave the work."

Although he expressed what he wanted with great difficulty, to say nothing of risk. He would have spoken much more clearly, as befits an interpreter and paraphast, as follows:

"For just as my Begetter works, ruling over the world even now That it has been created, so I again weave the work."

And this is the true sense of the passage: Just as the Father not only founded this world, but also after it was founded and completed, continues to act always, while He sustains and rules what has been created—and this without any regard for the day on which you forbid divine works to be done—so the Son exercises divine works, which exceed the institution of the Sabbath, by authority and where it seemed good. "To work" and "not to cease" are, according to the custom of the Hebrews, tautologous 381.

Although therefore the Lord rested on the seventh day from the work of creation, which they urged, they rightly do not mean that He ceased because of that, nor even on that day on which He is said to have ceased from creating. Neither is God a "Sabbath-keeper," nor is His Son. Neither is subject to the Sabbath. When the evangelist says in the same chapter, in the following verse, "That not only did He break the Sabbath, but also said that God was His own Father," if I understand the Greek correctly, he meant: "That along with the breaking of the Sabbath, He also called God His own Father." But this is: "That He not only violated the Sabbath," but also claimed God as His own Father. What, therefore, came into his mind when he said:

^C "But because he called God, the self-begotten, The Father-Source, after the course of the dawn?"

Which is as if you were to say in Latin: "Because after the seventh day, he called God his own Father." But the author wanted to say that he had both violated the seventh day and, which is a second crime, had called God his own Father. I have not seen a man who is less concerned about the sense or speaks more negligently. And who before him has spoken thus in Greek? The passage is most noble, and one that has agitated very many and has been vexed by them, which is read in verse 19: "Amen, amen, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it; for whatever He does, these things also the Son does in like manner." In which passage, since there are almost as many idioms as there are words, there is hardly a word that the learned seem to have understood as they ought. But how much they have tormented themselves over it, their own writings show. They ought to have thought, first, what the sense itself is, and then what each word is; which they could not do, because they were inexperienced in the Hellenistic language. Our author rendered it thus:

"The Son will be able to accomplish nothing in His own power Unless He sees the Father accomplishing it."

382 When the simple sense is that the Son does not do anything other than the Father, just as He is one with the Father. Which he opposes to those who would take offense at his saying that He called God his own Father, ^D as if the sense were that the Son acts nothing of His own will unless He sees the Father acting. What this meant for him, neither do I know, nor did he understand. Unless it seems to follow: If He does nothing of His own will unless He sees the Father acting, then He does by His own will that which He sees the Father acting. And so he concluded in what follows that the Son imitates the Father in acting. But if this is true, then there will be two different wills; which will conflict plainly and simply with the intent of the author. Therefore, as if there were no difficulty here, when he found *ap' heautou* in the text, he substituted for it *en heautou*—"by His own will." And yet, in the first place, *to ap' heautou* is what the Hebrews say *chophshi*, and the Hellenists call *kath' heauton*, whom the Hebrews explain thus rightly. Which neither takes away the will, nor makes it different, but joins it with the Father, just as it joins the nature. For "*en" is "one," the will is one, the nature is one, as Damascenus rightly says. And as the Son is the same, so He acts the same. Augustine says excellently: That which Christ does with the Father, the Father does, and that which the Father does with Christ, Christ does. Neither does the Father do anything separately without the Son, nor does the Son do anything separately without the Father. Inseparable charity, inseparable unity, inseparable majesty, inseparable power. According to these words which He Himself set down, "I and the Father are one." Then: "What is that, The Son does nothing unless...?" etc. He does nothing separately, unless He sees the Father acting. Wherefore that which has so greatly tormented the theologians 383, because they think it should be separated from the preceding, is in vain. As if what follows were an interpretation of the former. This persuaded them to express it thus: "Amen, amen, I say to you, the Son cannot operate from Himself; that is, unless He sees the Father operating." They were not considering that *me* is often used not after the manner of the Greeks, but of the Hellenists and Hebrews. To whom *lo* has the force of an adversative in speech, as in Genesis xxxii, 26: "I will not let you go, *unless* (ean me) you bless me," which others say, "*but* you bless me." For it is so in the Hebrew, and thus the Hellenists speak. Deuteronomy xvi, 5: "You shall not be able to sacrifice the Passover in any one of your cities, which the Lord your God gives you; *but* (all' e) in the place which the Lord your God shall choose." Which the Syrian understood, and put *alla* for the Hebrew *ella*. Which is also customary to the rabbis, as when they speak of one who is useless, "He reaps nothing, but wind," which is to say, "not but wind." The Syrian, therefore, expressed the latter parts thus: "But this, that He saw the Father acting." Which is the true sense of the words: "He cannot do, but [what] He sees the Father doing." But even that "cannot," although I know it to be true, as theologians observe, even if it is taken properly, to denote no weakness, nevertheless, just like the other things I have already noted, I think it should be taken in the Hellenistic manner. For them, "cannot do" is the same as "does not do." Thus Genesis xliii, 32: "For the Egyptians could not eat bread with the Hebrews," where, as to the word in the Hebrew, "could not eat" is "did not eat," they were not accustomed to eat. Just as if he had said above, "The Jews cannot associate with the Samaritans," for which he said, "The Jews do not associate with the Samaritans." Thus in the twelfth chapter, verse 30: "For this reason they could not believe, because Isaiah said again," 384 "He has blinded their eyes." Where no *adunamia* (inability) is noted according to the view of Chrysostom. For they did not believe, he says, not because it was said by Isaiah, but because it was said by Isaiah because they were not going to believe. Nor did He say "He cannot do *of Himself*," but "He cannot do *from* Himself," which misled some from antiquity, who disturbed the order here, which the following things maintain. Therefore "He cannot do" means "He does not do," which is both simple and expresses effectively what He wanted. But also those things which...

follow, ^A *“These also the Son doesos in like manner,”* our author understood very poorly. As if the Son were doing things, or did not do the same things, or—as he speaks later on—thoughtlessly, that the Son were a copyist of the Father. Here [ομοίως] (in like manner) is the same thing as [ὁμοῦ] (together) or [ἅμα] (at the same time). Euthymius says: “The expression ‘in like manner’ is placed first not in an ordinary way, but so that we may learn that He does things with equal knowledge and authority, as was said before.” And Augustine says excellently: “It is not that when the Father has done something, the Son does something else in like manner; but whatsoever He [the Father] has done, these same things the Son does in like manner. If the Son does these things which the Father has done, then He does them through the Son. If He does through the Son what the Father does, then the Father does not do one thing and the Son another, but they are the same works of the Father and the Son.” So that the sense of the whole passage is: “That the Son does nothing without the Father, but does that which He sees the Father doing: for both do the same things together.” What then (alas!) impelled our author here, provided that he had managed the matter correctly up to this point, to render the subsequent verses thus?

“For all things which my Father does, these the Son, imitating the God Begetter, performs.”

By which words he wishes the Son to imitate the Father; and thus he makes the Son a mimic of the Father. No one who has even a mediocre acquaintance with the writings of the Fathers can be ignorant of how long ago this doctrine was condemned. Cyril, on this passage, says: “But the Father, they will say, is prior in operating, because perfection of virtue and knowledge is in Him. The Son, however, first sees; and then operates out of imitation of the Father: and so He is called God from the similarity of operating.” Which he himself taught us, when he said: *“He can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father doing.”* What are you saying, most audacious of men? Do you imagine that the Son gathers certain figures of the Father’s operation, and think that He is called God in this way? Thus God will appear to be a certain doctrine, not a nature, and He will imitate the Father by a certain science and art, in a human manner. Likewise in the same place: “But those who say that the Father operates first, and then the Son imitates His works, labor under remarkable ignorance.” And many other things which are brought forward by him on this subject. For the Arians were strangely urgent about this passage. Let those things be seen which the brother of the Theologian, Cæsarius, wrote at great length about it. Who, among other things not few, in the third Dialogue, at 150 interrogation, says: “It is of all folly to be disposed thus concerning the Son of God, the only-begotten God; for it will follow that the whole creation is thought to be twofold. One, of the Father, already completed; the other, of the Son, still being done, and introduced in parts, being fabricated according to the imitation of the paternal work. Let them show us, therefore, those of the madness of Arius, two suns and two moons, and let them distinguish for us which is the Father’s and which the Son’s; and which is the moon of the Father, and which is of the Son.” It surpasses all insanity to think thus concerning the Son of God, God the only-begotten. For it will follow to think the whole creation twofold. One of the Father, already completed, and another, which is still being perfected and progress ^D ing gradually, of the Son, which is woven together according to the imitation of the Father. Let them show us, therefore, who follow the madness of Arius, two suns, two moons, and let them distinguish for us which sun is the Father’s and which the Son’s; which is the Father’s moon, and which the Son’s. And at the end: “And to speak briefly, the Son is not accustomed to look at anything when He does what is said. For He neither, when fashioning Adam, and from him creating Eve, saw some other rational male or female that had come into being under the Father, to be fashioned according to that own model; but existing as a sovereign creator, and autonomous, God of all things, He was able to do all things before the incarnation and after it, as He was the same.” That is, to be brief, there is nothing at which the Son looks when He performs the things of which we have spoken before. For, when He was making Adam and from him Eve, He did not see some other animal, male or female, endowed with reason, which had been made by the Father, so that He might fashion His own correctly and with art, but—

“And judging whatever He wills, He honors with high authority, because the life-bearing Son hears the Father;” and then to those words, [“Do not wonder at this,”] which Chrysostom connects with the foregoing, about which others at length, he subjoins these things:

[“And do not have fear, and whatever wondrous report I spoke of as coming.”]

For what does that gloss, [“And whatever wondrous report I spoke of as coming,”] mean in this place? He has followed those who accepted “the judgment has been given to the Son from the Father, because He is the Son of man,” word for word, that He is the Son of man, not as others [do], insofar as He is the Son of man. Which, when it seemed harsh to those very people who followed this, 387 they joined it to the preceding, *“Amen, amen I say to you, that the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God,”* so that they might show Him to be the same Son of God. He seems, therefore, to have wished this by very obscure words: “Do not marvel if I ascribe divine works to man: because the hour comes, etc.” For which, being very diluted, the passage demanded this or a similar interpretation by the law of paraphrase: “Do not marvel that I ascribe those things to man which you judge to be of God. Know that He is the same God: know that He is the same whom I have already called the Son of God.” And he has spoken improperly. For [θαυμάζειν] in the words of the evangelist does not denote [θάμβος] (fear), but [ἀπιστίαν] (unbelief), which others also have seen. Although the will of Christ is the same as that of the Father, and the same one always seeks this will who seeks the glory of the Father, who will concede that [“to seek the will”] and [“to seek the honor”] are the same? Why, therefore, when he had found in the sacred author at verse 30 of the same chapter, *“That I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me,”* did he put in its place: [“For I do not suffice to perform my honor, but the Father’s;”] And what theology persuaded him that [“honor”] and [“will”] are the same here? Very urbanely, it is said by our Savior concerning John: “He was the burning and shining lamp; and you were willing to rejoice for a time in his light,” at the thirty-fifth verse. Which neither our author nor the interpreters have understood as they ought. Thus, indeed, Nonnus:

“But you, into the whirlpool of one swiftly-spinning hour, rejoiced in the testimonies of him who appeared.”

As if the meaning were, *pros horan mian*, that is, for one hour, which is a very short time, 388 you took pleasure in his preachings and life. But, because the Greeks sometimes say [εὐκαιρίαν] (opportunity) and the Hellenists [καιρόν] (time) when they express the Hebrew [ny], the same people also say sometimes [καιρόν] and sometimes [ὥραν]. Thus in that Ecclesiastes, *“To everything there is a time, and a season to every matter under heaven,”* Symmachus had said *pasas hōra* (the season of all). And so elsewhere not once have the accepted interpreters [done so]. John, he says, was a lamp, in which, while the time lasted, you deservedly took pleasure. For lamps used to burn in the temple until the morning hour for the use of nocturnal light. Whence that in 1 Kings 3:3, *“Before the lamp of God was extinguished,”* is such as if you were to say, “before the dawn.” This, therefore, he wants: John preceded me, as a lamp

and you were willing to rejoice for a time in his light. But a greater is here. For the day is present, he himself has risen. And this is what he adds: ^A *“But I have a testimony greater than John’s.”* Therefore, *πρὸς ὥραν* (for a time) is *πρὸς καιρόν* (for a season), that is, as long as the time endured. The Hellenists render this *κατὰ καιρόν*, or *ἐν καιροῖς*, or *ἐν εὐκαιρίαις*. And it is a parody of that most noble passage, *“I have prepared a lamp for my Christ,”* Ps. cxxxi, 17. For here it follows, *“But you were willing to rejoice for a time in his light,”* whereas there it preceded, *“And his saints shall rejoice with joy.”* Which things argue for and demonstrate the urbanity of the parody, such as most greatly illustrate the sacred author—in which, however, our own author is always asleep. Who, here, would have spoken better according to the law of paraphrase:

Divine John, scattering intellectual sparks, A lamp to me, a forerunner, was appearing to men, That lamp was mine, which the prophet-song described. ^B

389 There follows in a verse of the same chapter, xxxvi: *“And you do not have his word abiding in you.”* Certainly, nothing more clears the sons of God than if they not only hear the word of God (for the hearing perishes), but also store it up and preserve it in their mind: which ought especially to have place where it concerns the Messiah, as in this passage. For he excellently said *μένειν* (to abide), which, as we noted before, is generally used among the Chaldeans for the presence of the divine Spirit. What, then, did our author want for himself when he refers these things to the ears? For he says: *“Neither do you keep the saying in your wandering ears.”*

For that the Jews had the law and the prophets, who had said so much about the Messiah, no one is ignorant; but they gave them no heed beyond their ears. They also heard each thing that the Truth said, but they did not admit it into their mind. And Theophylact here elegantly says: *“‘You do not have his word abiding in you’; that is, you do not know the Scriptures that bear witness concerning me.”* ^C

CHAPTER XXII

The twenty-second chapter is examined. *Βασιλεύειν* (to be king), *ποιεῖν βασιλέα* (to make a king), after the manner of the Hiphil of the Hebrews. How the kingdom was transferred to the Lord. Kings were anointed long before. Anointing for the kingdom. Epiphanius’s opinion, which we hold, concerning the kingdom offered to the Lord. The name of Messiah, a name of power. The name *βασιλεύς* (king) placed for it. Anointing as a substitute for a crown, and the display of it was also the usual form among the Jews. The anointing of the Messiah instituted by private persons. The passage of the evangelist was very poorly grasped by Nonnus. The *ἀκολουθία* (sequence) of that passage, and the series of the narrative, were very poorly understood by Nonnus. The miracle, and where the blessing of the loaves occurred. Ziegler’s error. A brief delineation of those passages, mention of which is made in the sixth chapter, and in which Nonnus hallucinates remarkably: *Ἐληλαχότες ὡς σταδίους εἴκοσι πέντε* (Having rowed about twenty-five stadia). How *ἐλαύνειν* (to row/drive) is accepted by the Greeks when it has a space attached. Nonnus’s error. *Εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ Κυρίου* (The Lord having given thanks). 390 The Lord’s *Εὐλογία* (blessing), considered by the ancients as the cause of the multiplication. *“Be fruitful, multiply, and fill.”* The interpretation of that passage, *“Work for the food, not which perishes,”* etc. What *ἐργάζεσθαι* (to work) means in that passage. The interpretation of that passage, *“For him the Father, even God, has sealed.”* What the *σφραγίδα τιθέναι* (to set a seal) means to the Hellenists. *Γλυφή δακτυλίου* (the engraving of a ring) from the Greek language among the Chaldean Targumists. A passage amended by Scaliger. The interpretation of that passage, *“And one of you is a devil.”* What *διάβολος* (devil) means in that passage. The word *Satan* interpreted differently by the Chaldeans in Job and other books, and differently in Zechariah. That the evangelist alluded to that interpretation. *Διάβολος*, among Zechariah, is ^D the apostate. And that this conforms with the observation of the Chaldeans. The seventh chapter is examined. A passage amended by Scaliger. The Lord called *Όσιος* (holy/pious). *Ὁσίου χαίροντες ὀλέθρῳ*. Jerusalem called by Nonnus *ὁμοτέρμων Ἰουδαίοις* (neighboring the Jews). Concerning the holy city, to which tribe it belonged, a controversy among the Jews. What *ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι* (to be in boldness/openness) means. The word *παρρησία* commonly used by the Hebrews, of which Nonnus was ignorant; and in the interpretation of the passage, his error on that account. Interpretation of that passage, *“And on the Sabbath you circumcise a man.”* Nonnus’s ambiguity concerning circumcision and its day. *Κρίνειν κατ’ ὄψιν* (to judge according to appearance). *Προσωποληψία* (respect of persons) in the law. *Δυσωπεῖσθαι πρόσωπον* (to be put to shame by a person) in the law. The passage of the evangelist is expounded. *Εἶπον πρὸς ἑαυτούς* (They said among themselves). *Λαλεῖν ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ* (To speak in the mind). Nonnus’s *παρ-ερμηνεία* (misinterpretation) from ignorance of Hebrew idiom. The *διασπορά* (dispersion) of the Greeks. Hellenists, and who they are. They were wrongly called *Πανέλληνες* (Pan-Hellenes) by Nonnus. Interpretation of that passage, *“And on the last day, the great day of the feast,”* etc. The custom of the evangelists, who sometimes compress certain things. *Haphiara*, which the Lord interpreted in Isaiah. The *ανάγνωσις* (reading) of the passage of Isaiah done by the Lord in the temple, and his *ἐξήγησις* (explanation). Interpretation of that passage, *“He who believes in me, as the Scripture said, rivers shall flow out of his belly,”* and the final words being the Lord’s. *“For Christ was to be glorified,”* and Nonnus’s interpretation of *ἐδοξάσθη* (was glorified). *Δόξα* (glory) concerning the cross, or the Passion of the Lord. *Δοξάζεσθαι* (to be glorified) or *τελειοῦσθαι* (to be perfected) regarding the same: the word *δόξης* used in the same way, namely, concerning martyrdom, also by the Hebrews. That passage, *“Where David was,”* poorly understood by Nonnus.

In the sixth chapter, verse fifteen, when it follows: *“Jesus therefore knowing that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him a king, he withdrew again,”* the evangelist said *ποιεῖν βασιλήα* (to make a king), which 391 the Hebrews express by their Hiphil, [Hebrew] (to make reign). Which, since the Greeks cannot, they confess their own poverty with the verb *βασιλεύειν* (to be king): which the Hellenists, otherwise quite ingenious in forming words of this kind, use more than once, as when they devised *ἀκουτίζειν* (to cause to hear) and similar things. So Nazianzen, *Stelit.* 1, says that Constantine *βασιλεῦσαι* (made king) [about] him who was badly and saved and made king, regarding Julian. Where you see this defect. But it is a marvel what confidence the populace had, that in this wicked and adverse time they would dare to make the Lord king. I have always referred it to the anointing. For *τὸ χρίειν* (anointing) also designated the royal institution, certainly, just as it preceded by a long time. For example, in David, not a few at that time, even among the common people, confessed his Son as Lord, as the Messiah. Just as not rarely, both by this evangelist and by the others, the name of king and of Messiah, or anointed, is confounded, as also in the Jews’ calumny concerning the affected kingdom: concerning which, perhaps, in its proper place. And in the Chaldean writings, by whose interpretation most people used to use the Scriptures, in infinite places they had read that this supreme king is so called: just as for the most part King Messiah is called by certain interpreters. Which later, when the Lord attributed it to himself, the Jews, fearing for their kingdom, from the ambiguity of the word and their own opinion—who dreamed of an earthly kingdom—accused him seditiously before Pontius. Thus, by the force of the miracles, and especially of the food which he had provided to those who were astonished, they, enthralled, hasten to snatch at the *χρίσμα* (anointing). Which opinion Epiphanius confirms *κατὰ Ναζαραίων* (against the Nazarenes). “For they came,” says the Gospel, “to anoint him as king; and knowing, he withdrew, and hid himself in Ephraim, a city of the desert.” Whence the great author, who—which is to be noted—confuses the history which in the sixth chapter, 392 this verse records, with the other which exists in the eleventh chapter, verse fifty-four, having slipped in memory, I suppose, wishes this anointing to be referred to the throne of David, and both dignities, of King at once and of supreme pontiff. Known is that of the Jews, [Hebrew].

^A His connection of the preceding clause with the parenthesis means nothing at all. As if the evangelist meant that the people had seen the disciples crossing alone without the Lord, who had embarked on the ships elsewhere near Tiberias. And so he speaks of the people, and [Nonnus] of the disciples; one wishes for the disciples to have boarded the ship near Bethsaida, the other at Tiberias. But if this were true, either the miracle happened at Tiberias—which those who believe this do not correctly understand the evangelist—or the disciples, while being at Bethsaida, from which place they crossed to Capernaum, were at the same time at Tiberias. But our author says that the disciples came to the place where the miracle was performed, a thing no one would believe if the words did not exist. If this is true, it is necessary that they returned to the same place from which they had come, when it has already preceded, "and embarking into the boat, they were coming across the sea to Capernaum." As this negligence cannot be excused, it is so manifest that it cannot be denied, so that it is not without reason that the great Scaliger wrote in the margin of his book—by which benefit of the most illustrious Gerard Vossius I have made use—that these lines were very poorly rendered. Ziegler notes that this miracle, according to John, was performed near Tiberias. I do not find this. And if it were true, how does he say that the ships came there from Tiberias? Nor did the evangelist say anywhere that they were near the place where they had eaten the bread, but that the ships arrived near the place where they had eaten the bread, that is, that they had set sail from Tiberias: but they arrived not far from the desert of Bethsaida, where this miracle had occurred: which deceived Ziegler. And this is true. Nonnus says that the disciples set sail from Tiberias and came to the place where the miracle had been performed. Therefore, he distinguishes between Bethsaida and Tiberias. And yet, if we follow him, the miracle was performed at Tiberias, which was performed near Bethsaida; for it is certain that the disciples set sail from that place. I, however, deny that in the whole of Homer's *Odyssey* greater miracles could be found than those which our author committed in this ^B journey, from one bay of the Lake of Gennesaret to another, through ^C geographical ignorance. For to a man who is unversed in geography he undoubtedly imposed this, because all the places in question here are as near as they are distinct. In this way, ^D indeed:

For where A A A is, the Lake of Gennesaret, flowing down from the Jordan—which our author incorrectly calls a rush of salt [E] and the sea, and I do not know what else. Where B is, is Tiberias; where C, the river Cison; where D, Magdala; where E, Bethsaida; where F, Capernaum. The Lord, the disciples, and the people are staying near Bethsaida, where E is; the disciples, while the Lord still remains there, cross the lake and head for Capernaum, where F is. The [F] little ships, which are in question, come from Tiberias, where B is. But they arrive not far from the desert of Bethsaida, or from that place where the Lord had performed the miracle: where, indeed, E is. From which place the people also cross to Capernaum, where F is. When the evangelist said there, "near the place where they had eaten the bread, after the Lord had given thanks," it does not seem to be doubted that in these words the term "having given thanks" (which, in that case, often denotes a cause to the Greeks) includes the cause of the miracle: for from the blessing of the Lord the loaves were multiplied. And therefore the other evangelists also say this, because the most ancient—as the Hebrews have rightly observed—in the creation and after the flood, the *eulogia*, or blessing, was contained in the word, that is, "be multiplied." For these three, "increase, and multiply, and fill the earth," according to the prescription of the Hebrews, they join [continuation]

^A into one voice by the Hellenists. Thus, in the blessing of the Fathers: "I will bless him, and he shall be for nations." Likewise: "I will bless him, and I will multiply him." For all the blessings are said by the ancient Hebrews to be amplifications of good, all the curses to be diminutions of good. For this word, the evangelists, and our author here, sometimes use "to give thanks." Nowhere, however, is it more manifest than in this place: "Where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks [εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ Κυρίου]," that is, after He had blessed. This, by Greek usage, implies the sense: When, through the blessing of the Lord, they were 397 fed by the multiplied bread. Indeed, that this is said most appropriately, the matter itself proves. For those five loaves, as he says, were as if they were seeds; not indeed committed to the earth, but multiplied by Him who made the earth. By a blessing, of course, or by a word. Our author, therefore, is too shallow, who here understood nothing other than a bare act of thanksgiving. Hence he said: "Giving thanks to Christ, the all-ruling Begetter." And it is in accordance with the majesty of Him who had created all things with the Father, and with the Father had long ago blessed all generated things, that He, in this blessing, should make prayers to the Father. He did not understand the Hellenistic language, which follows in the same sixth chapter, verse 26, the discourse: "Work not for the food which perishes, but for the food which remains." Indeed, "to work" [ἐργάζεσθαι] in that place means nothing other than the Hebrew ָפּעל [po‘al], which, when it stands for ָעשָׂה [‘asah], is used for "to prepare" [παρασκευάζειν]. So in Psalm VII, 24: "His arrows he prepared [ἐξειργάσατο]," that is, he prepared for himself arrows. The whole passage is: "He bent his bow, and made it ready, and in it prepared the vessels of death; his arrows he prepared [ἐξειργάσατο] for those who burn." Apollinaris: "He prepared bitter shafts for those being scorched." In the same Hebraism that we have here. What then did our author mean when he said: "And rather strive for that lasting banquet of the ever-living table"? For which he certainly would have done better to say: "But seek rather that lasting banquet." For since he said "strive for the banquet," he neither spoke in Greek nor expressed the Hellenistic sense. In verse 27 of the same sixth chapter, when it follows, "for the Father has sealed Him, even God" [398 γὰρ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐσφράγισεν ὁ Θεός], where "to seal" [σφραγίζειν] seems to us to be what is called by the Hellenists "to set a seal" [σφραγῖδα τιθέναι]. By which the Hebrews are accustomed to express the highest and almost ineffable love; such as the Father follows toward the Son whom He begat from eternity, of whom he treats here. In the last chapter of the Canticles: "Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm." Which no one interprets better than Haggai, who, when he spoke of Zorobabel, as a type of Christ, to whom perhaps the Lord looked in this place, said: "And I will set you as a seal," he immediately adds: "because I have chosen you" [διότι σε ᾑρέτικα]. In both places, the Targumists explain it by the Greek word for "engraving of a ring," or what is derived from this. Therefore, "to seal" [σφραγίζειν] here is to confer a token of excellent love upon him whom you have chosen: such as is the seal of a ring, which he who is preferred before the rest wears and carries about on his breast, as with Solomon, or on his arm, as a mark of singular love, where it follows: "For love is strong as death, jealousy is hard as the grave [sepulcrum]." To which passage the Chaldean says: "For love as strong as death is the love of thy divinity." Which things express vehement love, and signify election as well as confirmation. Even for this reason, that things which are approved are accustomed to be signed with a ring. Such are letters, which are proofs of our will and the character of our mind. Which fittingly applies ^B to Him who is the "radiance" of the Father, and the "character of His substance," that true "seal of the living God," as the Apocalypse speaks. For, as it is in the Megilla, what is written in the king's name, and sealed with his ring, is not revoked. In the same chapter at verse 40, it is corruptly read: "When the last light of the early-born shall come" [ἐππότε κείνης / Υστάτιον ὅτε φέγγος ἐλεύσεται ἠριγενείης·] 399 for which the great Scaliger read: "When the last light of her, the early-born, shall some time come," etc. Verse 70 follows: "Did I not choose you twelve, and one of you is a devil [διάβολος]?" Regarding which place I do not change what he said concerning the devil and slanderous things, he seems to note some change in Judas; we have written of the infamous Judas. Moreover, because I do not change "I chose" [ἐξελεξάμην], which in the Greek "devil" [διάβολος] does not appear at first glance. How studious our evangelist was of the prophet Zechariah and the Chaldean interpreters, we have often noted. However, the critics of the Hebrews observe that the word נָשִׂיא [nasi’], when it occurs in Job and elsewhere, is rendered by the Chaldeans with the same word, but with the letter samech; in Zechariah alone, with the word נְשִׂיא [nesi’], which what it is, Elias confesses in his *Thisbi* he does not know. But what it is, no one who is learned in Chaldee is ignorant, and it is known from the Meturgeman of the same author. Indeed, the devil, who stands by the high priest Jesus in Zechariah, is thus called by the Targumists, from the sin into which he had cast himself: which is "an apostate" [ἀποστάτης]. Whither also our author should have looked, so that the sense might be: "Did I not choose you twelve, and one of you is an apostate?" Our author, however, did not know where to turn himself, as is his habit, when he said "devil" [διάβολος]—as if about the evil spirit himself. What if the Hellenists, whom the evangelist saw, used the word "devil" [διάβολος] in Zechariah? "And the devil stood at his right hand." Not far from the beginning of the seventh chapter at the first verse, where it now reads: "That the sons of the Jews plotted to destroy him by guile of arrogance, rejoicing in a holy destruction," ^C that same incomparable man also read: "rejoicing in a holy destruction" [ὁσίῳ χαίροντες ὀλέθρῳ]. Most excellently, so that "the holy one" [ὁ ὅσιος] may be the Son of God Himself. I do not understand 400 why, in the third verse that follows, he persuaded the brothers of the Lord to leave Galilee, and to seek the land bordering on Judea, that is, to betake himself to Jerusalem. If the evangelist had made mention of this, someone of the learned might have thought that he had alluded to the controversy which exists concerning the city of Jerusalem, which some attribute to the Jews, others to the Benjaminites: which cannot have a place here, because the evangelist stated clearly "into Judea" [εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν]. Why then did he say "of the land bordering on Judea" [Ἰουδαίης ὁμοτέρωνα γαῖαν]? To verse 4 of that chapter occurs that place, "For no one does anything in secret, and seeks himself to be in openness [παῤῥησίᾳ]." To which the ancient theologians, among whom are Cyril and Chrysostom, note that the members of the sentence in our evangelist must sometimes be transposed. That this happens in this place. For he wished, they say: "For no one, wanting to be in openness, does anything in secret." Add that our author did not understand the locution used at that time. He certainly said nothing when he said: "For no man of mortals weaves a secret work, a work covered by the unapproachable mist of silence, but wishing to be bold, he desires to be in the open." For the evangelist intended nothing of the sort. There is no doubt that those who spoke this were noting some carnal affectation of vainglory and ambition in the Lord. Their mind was this: To no one who is held by a desire for fame, or who demands to attain to it, should it be hidden; since, especially for such a one, all things must be done in public and in the light of men. The Greeks would say this: "For it is not necessary for anyone who wishes to be made famous to do anything in secret." Our author, therefore, ridiculously, since the evangelist used the Greek word not in the manner of the Greeks, but in the manner of the Chaldeans and Syrians, twisted this toward the Greek signification, for whom [παρρησιάζεσθαι] means "to speak freely" [ἐλευθεροστομεῖν], or "to speak boldly" [θρασυτομεῖν], to speak audaciously or prematurely. But at 401 [נָשִׂיא], as Rabbi Elias notes, with a serving letter [servili] which is prefixed, to…

^A *in abscondito* ("in secret"), which is in the Rabbis and Chaldeans [*b'tish'in*], is opposed: he who ridiculously derives that word from the Orient. Some of the Rabbis interpret *bepombi*, which is "with pomp." Our author, like one who never saw the sun, or has been constantly moving in darkness, rarely raises his eyes to the mind of the author, because he had not learned his language. Or if by chance he does raise them, he blinks, or is dim-sighted.

In the same seventh chapter, v. 22, to those words: *And on the Sabbath ye circumcise a man*, he has spoken not only obscurely but improvidently, when he said:

*And with an ancestral custom* *When the light of the accustomed dawn of the seventh [day] comes,* *Ye circumcise the new-born with the labor-pains’ iron.*

For if it is understood simply of circumcision, it is false. For although it was done on the Sabbath, the circumcision was not performed on the seventh day. It was not, I say, performed on the seventh day from birth, but on the eighth. But because it fell to the seventh—not of life, but of the week—it was permitted. Hence the Lord’s argument. And therefore not without cause does the holy author add, *that the law of Moses might not be broken*. By reason of necessity, therefore, on the seventh, not by institution. Nor does the force of the argument lie in the seventh [day], but in the Sabbath. For if the Sabbath, which is the seventh day of the week, was the eighth of his life, even he who was born was circumcised, on the Sabbath itself, I say, so that the law of Moses, which had ordered it to be done on the eighth day, might not be broken. And thus, on a day on which it was not lawful for anything to be done, the circumcision took place. For which our author, when he spoke of the seventh, made more of the verse by which he was pressed than of the thought.

In the same chapter, verse 24, it is read: *Judge not according to appearance, but judge 402 righteous judgment*. A most elegant passage, and which, if I am not mistaken, is not sufficiently understood. Moses, he says, permitted you to circumcise on the Sabbath day. I have healed a man on the Sabbath. That you approve; this you condemn in me, as if it were against the law. This is that *prosōpolēpsia* (“respect of persons”), which is called *prosōpolēpsia* *in the law* by the prophet Malachias, ch. II, v. 9. Where *elabete prosōpon en nomō* (“ye have accepted a person in the law”), the elder Hellenists say elegantly: which Symmachus, *Epeisēkeite prosōpon en nomō* (“ye have brought in/admitted a person in the law”), had expressed obscurely. St. Jerome: They accept the face [person] in the law, so that they look not to the causes but to the persons; and despising the just poor, they receive and honor the wicked rich. The mind of the passage, however, is: Judge not as you are accustomed; for if the same poor man does [something] according to the prescription of the law and the rich man [does the same], you praise the latter, you accuse the former. Which is that which the ancients called *prosōpolēpsia*, the [respect of persons] in the law. Our author renders the passage as if they were serving the eyes of others, which is the mark of those whom the Hebrew Hellenists commonly call *hypokritēs* (“hypocrite”). I would that the learned, as they have done with not a few others, had weighed this passage more diligently. But readers will grant pardon if, in such a heap of facts as occur here spontaneously, I now and then interpose something small, without which, however, the rest cannot be understood. For we are not doing this so that we might interpret all the places of the evangelist in order (although learned men have left us a rich harvest), but so that we might annotate the *paraphrase* of the ancient Nonnus. And as for those who object to these things as trifles to St. Jerome and others, I shall wonder if they can provide the twentieth part of the erudition that was in him. ^B Most interpreters have not understood the Hellenistic mode of speaking, who generally confuse those phrases, *eipein pros heautous* (“to say to themselves”) or *pros allēlous* (“to one another”). Thus when the most holy evangelist, in this same 403 chapter, verse 35, said, *The Jews said therefore among themselves*, they thought it was the same as the Hebrew *amar el libbo*, “to speak,” and in Homer with a similar Hebraism, *eipein pros plēsion allon* (“to speak to another neighbor”), as someone is said to do. Whence more recent interpreters said, *The Jews said among themselves*, which the old interpreter, as in not a few other things, rendered very well as *ad semetipsos* (“to themselves”), for in Hebrew he who thinks, and does not speak, is yet habitually said to speak. For *el leb* (“to himself”), or, “with his heart,” which even boys should have already known, they understand in such matters: which is called *lalein en tē dianoia* (“to speak in the mind”) among the Hellenists. And the Syrian noted this excellently here, who rendered it *pros tēn autou psychēn* (“to his own soul”). Whence also the Lord, who alone is the *kardiognōstēs* (“knower of hearts”), often responds to the *theoprepōs* (“befittingly divine”) thoughts of men. Which miracle, since it is among the first, is passed over. This thing is so common to those who did not understand Hebrew, that it was often a snare to our [interpreter] too, as with this passage, which the evangelist had said, *The Jews said therefore among themselves*, he thus expressed:

*And the crowds there spoke to one another in their conversation.*

There follows in the same chapter, *Does He intend to go to the dispersion of the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?* Concerning which passage it is disputed by the ancients, what is “the dispersion of the Greeks,” of which he speaks. For some understand the Greeks, others the Romans. But it is not to be doubted that the Hellenists are intended, who, though they were Jews by race, spoke and knew Greek. Which, like not a few other things, they owe to the great man Joseph Scaliger, an expert in these letters. Who shows that the *diasporan* (“dispersion”), which was European, [is that known] by the Greek version, which is now attributed to the Seniors [the Seventy]; but that which was in Asia, by the Chaldean paraphrase, formerly in use. How, therefore, did our author call these *Panellēnas* (“All-Greeks”)? For he said thus:

*Where the scattered groups of the Panhellenes, gifts and the law of their own wisdom, [He] may teach the Hellenic children.*

404 Assuredly, if they are *sporades* (“scattered”), they are not *Panellēnes*; if they are *Panellēnes*, they are not *sporades*. For by the word *Hellēnōn*, as ancient witnesses testify, only the Thessalians and Argives were meant by Homer, and all other Greeks are named so [by later usage]. But these were neither all Greeks, nor the chief of the Greeks, but neither were they Greeks at all, but Jews. Eustathius: *But the Panhellenes must not be interpreted according to Zenodotus, but Homerically according to the ancients; saying, the Panhellenes and Achaeans, instead of, the Thessalians and Argives; so that he may distinguish from the whole of the Argives those who were under Achilles, specifically called Hellenes according to some [custom].* But that they were Hellenists, Jews, even Chrysostom observes: who also adds the reason why they cannot be understood as Greeks. Nor was he more diligent here, since he called them *tekna Hellēnia* (“Hellenic children”). And indeed, whether you speak in Hebrew, “sons of Israel,” or born from Israel or from the Israelites; or in Greek, these *Achaioi*, not only Greeks, but born of Greeks. Here, however, *Hellēnes*, and Jews, and born of Jews, that is, they are Jews, but *Hellenistai* (“Hellenistic”). There follows in verse 37: *In the last and great day of the feast, Jesus stood, and cried, saying: If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.* There is no doubt ^C but that the evangelists often compress certain things in their narrations. We know from Luke IV, 17, that the Lord publicly expounded the prophets to the people, where, he says, *he stood up to read*, for the reading, or he proposes the prophet's words at length; just as, however, he there recounts the summary or the beginning of the reading, so our author here on the contrary omitted *tēn anagnōsin* (“the reading”), and placed the *exēgēsin* (“exposition”) without it. The *anagnōsis*, as it seems, was: *All who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat*, Isaiah LV.

Which *parascha* or rather *haphtara*, quite many and at that time especially adapted, concerning the Messiah, are contained [therein]. Such as that: *Behold, I have given him as a witness to the peoples, a leader and instructor to the peoples*; and that: *Seek the Lord while He may be found; call upon Him while He is near.* Which clearly agree with those things that precede: *Ye shall seek me, and shall not find [me]. And, Whither I go, ye cannot come.* This, therefore, is the *anagnōsis*. To which the *exēgēsis*, or exposition, which follows, clearly agrees: *If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth in me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers.*

of living water.* To which the Hebrews might annex that ^A note of theirs. It is, indeed, an excerpt or a fragment of interpretation, not whatever he said. Which is familiar to the evangelists, as in that place I have already mentioned, where out of the whole discourse only those words, *This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears,* are set down. The occasion for the interpretation, as well as the reading, is contained in those words, *In the last day, that great day.* Since on that day, especially, although they were indeed sharing in the rest of that feast (so that Plutarch says it was dedicated to Bacchus by the Jews), he proposed to the people with wonderful urbanity those words, *Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters,* which are referred by the Chaldeans to the desire for learning. For just as he invited the Samaritan woman from earthly water, to which she attributed much, by the occasion of the well to which she was approaching, to spiritual water; so now he invites the Jews, from drunkenness and wine, to that same [spiritual water], by the occasion of this ^B lesson which he himself adapted to the time, so that he might seem to have publicly read a part, or the whole, of the *Haphtarah* of the prophet to whom the evangelists have given place. From which the interpretation of that passage or verse, *Woe unto them that thirst, come ye to the water,* is placed here by the evangelist. It follows: *He that believeth in me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.* It cannot be told how much this passage has exercised the noble intellects of both this time and of antiquity. For even St. Jerome said it was one of the four Scriptures which are cited in the New Testament, and are not found in the Old. When the great man Chrysostom saw this, he added ^C a note: *And where has the Scripture said that rivers of living water shall flow out of his belly? Nowhere.* That is to say, where did Scripture say it would come to pass that rivers of living water would flow from his belly? Nowhere. And therefore he also adds: *What then is it, "He that believeth in me, as the Scripture hath said"? Here one must place a punctuation mark, so that the "Rivers shall flow out of his belly" may be of his own pronouncement;* that is: What then is, *He that believeth in me, as the Scripture hath said?* Here one must distinguish, so that what follows: *Out of his belly shall flow rivers,* may be the Lord's words. And no person of sound mind indeed doubts that the whole Old Testament most richly foretold the Lord and commended faith in the one who was to come. Yet I think that it looks to a certain ^D passage, contrary to what he supposed. But no one, I think, designates the Lord more clearly in the Law, and commands that men believe in him, than the one whom the evangelist always presses, namely Deuteronomy XVIII, 15 and 18, where the *prophet* is promised. Nor was there any passage that was at that time more deeply inscribed upon the minds of all. Whence also in chapter I, 21, those who are sent to John ask: *Art thou the prophet?* Likewise, *If thou art not the Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet,* and in VII, 14: *That this is of a truth the prophet that should come into the world,* they sufficiently show what they judged concerning him when they treat of the coronation. Peter urgently presses this same passage in his divine discourse in Acts III, 22, so that everywhere the writers of the New Testament love this one above the rest.

But to what purpose are these? When in this very place it follows: *Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.* What, however, is said there? *Believe in him,* or, what is the same thing from the Hebrew manner of speaking, *Hear him.* The passage is thus: *The Lord will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;* so that he means: I am that prophet, and he who believes in me, as the Scripture hath said, that is, has commanded, he is about to receive that illustrious gift of the Spirit, which he so often promised. It remains, therefore, that those words, *Rivers shall flow out of his belly,* and what follows, are the words of the Lord. And indeed, so in chapter IV, 14, almost word for word, with no mention of Scripture made, he spoke: *Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.* Although, therefore, elsewhere the prophet speaks ^A almost (such is the famous passage of Zechariah XIV: *And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem,* and to which the Lord himself alluded in the upper clause, *All you that thirst, come to the waters*). However, the evangelist himself indicated that they were his words, who adds the interpretation: *But this spake he of the Spirit, which they should receive.* For not the Scripture, not Isaiah, not Zechariah, but *this he* [he] said. Who? The one who is speaking, who promises the Spirit in these words. The same one who, when he praises the words of the prophets, unless it be a parody, adds this. Such as that in the twelfth, *These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory.* Our man, however, thought nothing of these things, who renders them thus: *For every one who has faith shall be saved.* Which is not said here. And then:

*The primordial word of God, from the mind of that same fountain, sends forth from within, by his own gushing stream, the divine water flowing back again.*

Now I omit that, when the evangelist speaks about Scripture, he calls it, irreverently and in his own manner, the ^B *word of God*, when *As the word of God said* was at hand. How badly the same man accepted that passage, *For the Holy Ghost was not yet given,* we showed above, who indeed interpolated those verses for the interpretation of that passage: ^C

*Not yet was Christ the King rooted in mortal desires, having appeared near the seat of the Creator.*

But now, because he refers *was glorified* to the ascension of Christ and his final glorification, that is not sufficiently provident indeed. He says the Spirit had not yet been given (for thus the ancients interpret, and especially Chrysostom, who, when the holy author said, *For the Holy Ghost was not yet given*, he understands *given*, because Christ had not yet been glorified). And yet, before the ascension, according to this very evangelist, the Spirit was given, chapter XX, on the day of Pentecost, yet he was given. Therefore Chrysostom is otherwise, who refers it to *the saving passion*, or the death of the Lord. *For not yet, he says, was the Holy Ghost given, because Jesus was not yet glorified, calling the cross glory.* And thus indeed the ancients. Eulogius against the Novatians: *So long indeed as Jesus had not yet been glorified by the cross, the baptism was perfect; but after this, no longer.* But if they say that it was only that insufflation and gift, let them prove that the essence is in question here. But it is used everywhere also in the same manner in the Martyrologies and Menaea. Where *to be glorified* and *to be made perfect* have the same value. From which I do not see that even the Jews abstained. And so that brother ^D of the seven, whom Antiochus took off with bloody torture, says, that he was led by the Lord *into this glory*: by which he understands martyrdom. And not long after, the same author used the word [Hebrew], which signifies this same thing. Chapter 42, when the evangelist says, *Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?* just as a little before he had said, *For the Holy Ghost was not yet given*, when he meant, *For the Holy Ghost was not yet given*, now he says, *Where David was*, born, of course. Wherefore our man did not satisfy, when he said, *where he went*, since he did not even always live there, but either wandered or reigned. Nor did Christ dwell there as a type of David, although he was born there. This therefore is such a thing, as if one should say that the Lord lived in Bethlehem, because he was born there. Or if one should name the place where Christ lived, and understand Bethlehem.

CHAPTER XXIII.

the familiar interpretation of Augustine and Bede. ^A *To lift up* used for the cross as a euphemism. Nonnus's strange interpretation of how he received the term *to lift up*. The place of the evangelist mutilated by him. The Syriac word which the evangelist, having spoken thus, expressed. Explanation of that passage: *We were never in bondage to any man.* The free who are Jews, who are servants. The paradoxes of the Pharisees. The paradox concerning liberty. Opposed to this is another from the Son of God. *They which believed,* and how poorly these were accepted by Nonnus. The diverse opinion of Chrysostom and Augustine concerning them. What the faith of the Jews is, from Rabbi Maimonides, or Rambam. The sin which reigns, and is properly caused by him as servos. The sense of that place, *We were not born of fornication*, poorly received by Nonnus. ^B The word *fornication* taken by others incorrectly in that place. Whoredom among the Hebrews, rabbis, and targumists, in sense. Servitude and whoredom objected to by the Jews against the Samaritans; and why. The Lord secretly called a Samaritan by the Jews; and how. *Hysteron proteron* noted by Augustine. That place concerning the devil: *For he is a liar, and his father*, badly understood by Nonnus. The same accepted concerning Cain, who is commonly believed to be of the devil's lineage. *To have lineage*. An idiom of Nonnus. Blind, profane, and sinners held, and from that is the place in chapter nine explained concerning the blind man. The place of Maimonides. The place concerning the blind man very poorly understood by Nonnus. *Eisoke* for *hina*, in that place very poorly placed by him. ^C *The neighbors* near the evangelist, *the bystanders*, and that from the usage of the Hebrews and Hellenists. Poorly understood by Nonnus. Synagogue and temple used for the same by Nonnus. What the cause might be, why the ancients conjectured the blind man's eye was created, to whom sight was restored. How *to create* is used by the Hebrews. *Ktizein ktisma*, concerning the miracle. Interpretation of that place in chapter ten, *That they might have life, and might have it more abundantly.* A circumlocution being turned about. The word *to be turned about*, not used in one way. *To have abundantly* what it is, and a dispute concerning it. Nonnus's *meteoria* (high-mindedness/error) and misinterpretation. What *to have life* is in that place. The difficulty of the Hellenists in expressing the Hebrew noted. *To quicken*. *To provide*. Nonnus's misinterpretation. The place concerning the hireling shepherd not correctly expressed by Nonnus. *Not a shepherd*. ^D The place concerning the Dedication very poorly understood by Nonnus. The first and third Dedications confused by him. Nonnus's *meteoria*. *To renew a house* and *to renew the ordinance of a feast* are far different. *Ordinance of a feast* for the feast itself. Ridiculously said by him *to renew the ordinance of a feast*, instead of what is *to keep the dedication*. Dedications private and public. Both confused by Nonnus. In the time of the *dedication*, an error by Nonnus. *To do something in the name of the Father or God*. The absurd exposition which Nonnus brings forward. Proved by many reasons. "Although he did not always call the Father Lord, yet he did all things in his name." Interpretation of that place: *If he called them gods*. Nonnus's misinterpretation of a most noble passage. Various types of prophecies among the Hebrews. A burden. *Lemma*, *lemna* of a judgment, *lemma* of a word, *rhenna* of a word, *logion*, *rhenna* against someone, a vision against someone. *Logos* absolutely. *Rhenna* absolutely. *Logos* of prophecy, *logos* upon someone, *logos* towards someone, towards whom the *logos* came, who they are. Three things to be considered in prophecy. *In your law*. *Nomos* used in the Hebrew manner. *Thesmos* wrongly placed for it by Nonnus. The place in Nonnus's interpretation is mutilated. 411 There exists a simple and orthodox interpretation of Chrysostom on that place in the eighth chapter: *"When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself."* Which is such: "When you have lifted up the Son of man, do you not then most of all expect that you will be rid of me and will kill me? But I say that then you shall most of all know that I am he, by reason of the signs, and of the resurrection, and of the destruction." Which sentiment Theophylact also expressed. Therefore, "You shall know," he says, "afterwards, that I am the Son of God. You shall know me to be Christ." ^C The time now at last came, when the peak stands almost, that the wise Son of man might be lifted up. And in the same chapter, comm. 32, which the evangelist said, *And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me*, thus he: And when I am lifted up from the broad earth, I shall draw all of you to myself into the wide heaven. As if it were said, And I, if I ascend from the earth to heaven, will draw all unto myself, when the evangelist himself clearly adds the interpretation: *But he said this, signifying by what death he was about to die.* Which interpretation, perhaps lest he might be refuted, he himself passed over. For as to another, as we said above, ^D there is no doubt they are these: 413 "Thus he spoke, signifying by what life-restoring fate the gatherer of the people, Jesus, was about to die." But what astonishment it was, that when he was warned by the plain speech of the sacred author concerning the interpretation, he should yet, a little later (for about the upper place it could still be doubted), bring forth the contrary more manifestly? For thus he says distinctly: "Being lifted up from the earthly chambers and having come to the heavens, I myself shall draw all of you from the earth to me, that the wise Son of man might appear lifted up." Augustine well says: "For the exaltation is the day of the passion, not of glory, of the cross, not of heaven, because he was also exalted there, when he hung on the wood. But that exaltation was a humiliation. For then he became obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross." And from that Bede: "For he speaks of the exaltation of the passion, not of the glorification: of the cross, not of heaven." Nor otherwise

which Cyril accepted as concerning death. But as I said before, there is no doubt that he has expressed here the Syriac word *n-p-qa*, which denotes the punishment of the cross with lifting up. This the Hellenists, as is their custom, have elegantly expressed with the word *ypsoun* (to lift up). The words of the most holy evangelist in the same chapter, verse 33, seq.: *We are Abraham’s seed, and have never been in bondage to any man*, which immediately follow those things which precede them: *Then said Jesus to the Jews which believed on him*, so that it might be a response of those whom he had said had already believed. Whence also most interpreters testify that they wonder at a lie so manifest and arrogant. Nor indeed could that solemn formula, which is so often repeated, *And thou shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt*, have slipped from their minds, as they could not deny either the ten words which were fixed in their minds, nor the Babylonian servitude, nor the Roman, in which they were still living. Whence also Chrysostom, Theophylact, Augustine, Bede, and others wish it to be the character of an inflated and arrogant man. ^A Nor does our author seem to have judged otherwise. But to me it does not seem doubtful that those who said these things were looking to the covenant and to the law, to which those who adhered were called free by a customary paradox. For such a son of nobles, or of free men, that is, a free man, was called *ben-horin*. Whence that saying in the Chapters which they commonly call the Fathers: "No one is held as a free man except him who exercises himself in the study of the law." Yet those could not be such who were outside the covenant, who embraced an *allophulon douleian* (foreign servitude), which is commonly called by them *aboda zarah*. This servitude the Jews threw in the faces of the Samaritans, whom they detested, to such an extent that they would not admit even water or wine from them. Therefore, *we have never been in bondage to anyone* refers to worship, namely, as the Samaritans did to Antiochus. Which is the true mark of the race of Abraham. And this is true from the school of the Pharisees, as we were saying, who, as Josephus testifies, approached the Stoics most closely, [sharing the] paradox: "No one who is not entirely occupied in the law is free." Of such sort is, "He who observes the law is a king," and other things of the same kind which are read in the Chapters. ^B Moreover, that the formula which I have now set forth was used by them at that time is apparent even from the Targumists. Just as in Isaiah thirty-four, verse 12, where the Hellenists have: *Her princes shall not be*, the Chaldean has, "who say," that is, "We are free," which the evangelist [renders as]: *We have never been in bondage to any man*. Not that they denied they had ever been in servitude, but that they sought to show that by the prerogative of the covenant and the law, they were free. Plainly, as in the writings of the Stoics, that the wise man is free, and that Epictetus never served, is referred to choice, or *proairesis*. Just as the Stoics deny that the wise man serves even when he is a slave. Since they claimed such liberty for themselves, hence such rotten boasting. To which the Son of God opposes another thing: *That whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin*. Which the Stoics themselves urged, yet our author did not understand. But it is not at all to be endured that, while both Chrysostom and others ascribe this most putrid arrogance to those whom he had called "believed" a little before, our author says that they themselves firmly and plainly believed. For he clearly interprets those words in the thirty-third verse, *Then said Jesus to the Jews which believed on him*, thus: *These things, while he proclaims them, various mortals,* *To the unbreakable bonds of faith have bowed.* That is, he impressing these things upon them, various mortals submitted themselves to the most firm and unbroken bonds of faith. Who could bear that? When the same persons, if we believe Chrysostom, were those who a little later oppose themselves to the Truth. ^C Certainly Chrysostom thought they were the same, for he writes: "They believed indeed, but not as they ought; but simply and as it happened, moved and resting upon the humbleness of the words; for that they did not have perfect faith, the evangelist shows from [the following] words, by which they again insult him." But indeed, just as Augustine said some were those who believed, others those who responded, so he thinks. They answered him, he says, not those who had already believed, but those who were in the crowd not yet believing. Furthermore, regarding the faith of the Jews, one will not desire judgment from their own writings, even in that most accurate interpreter, Chrysostom. The greatest doctor Maimonides, whom they call Rambam from the contraction or first letters of his name, shows this excellently elsewhere. The meaning of his words is this: He who possesses indubitable faith should discern by reason and ^D thought what he believes, such that he says he believes one thing because he received it from his ancestors: which is faith from tradition; another thing, because it agrees with common sense; another finally, because it rests on evident proof, which is from knowledge. Whoever, however, believes something that is not contained in these three, of him, he says, it is truly said, "The simple believe everything." Thus, therefore, they believed, so that they themselves overthrew individual things, and especially the written law by the law of the mouth which they called: which, like other things which he treats, detracted from the written. Whence faith is various and uncertain from interpretations: nay, often concerning the same subject [they say] one thing and then another. When it follows in the following verse, *That whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin*, he speaks of that sin which they say commonly reigns, and which is committed by those who will it. Which, when it reigns, cannot be but that it makes them slaves. Whence he said *hamartian* (sin), not *anomian* (lawlessness). Between which the theologians of the Greeks distinguish. Whence that of Basil in the Catena on Isaiah: "There are lawless ones indeed, who are entirely disobedient to divine laws, or who have stood apart from them, or who have not approached [them] from the beginning; but sinners are those who sin voluntarily, after having received knowledge." In verse 41, when the Jews say, *We are not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God*, it may seem a wonder that those who before had called themselves the sons of Abraham, now say they are God's: so that they prefix that, *We are not born of fornication*. Where, when theologians and indeed great ones send us to the place in Matthew 15:19, where there is talk of common whoredom, they were undoubtedly doing something else. And Chrysostom, Theophylact and others, who are too diffuse on this place. For when they say "from whoredom," they speak of that which, having abandoned the Lord, is called "whoredom" in Hosea. Which neither Greeks nor Latins express sufficiently conveniently. Therefore they deny *tekna porneias* (children of whoredom), as the Hellenists speak concerning the same Hosea, that is, that they are idolaters, because the Father is He who is worshipped. Whence that: "To the wood I have said, That thou art my Father, and to the stone, Thou hast begotten me," in the manner of the Hebrews. And nothing is more customary in Scripture or the rabbis. The people of the Lord, says Rabbi Kimchi, likened the prophets to the false prophets: which was whoredom; and Jonathan the Chaldean almost always uses the word "whoredom" for idolatry. Therefore our author is foolish: *We are not born of a bastard bed of a harlot.* As if it were a matter of furtive coitus, when it is a question of the *noete porneia* (intellectual whoredom), just as Cyril speaks toward the second [chapter] of Isaiah. But so that the genius of the place may be understood, first they object to the Lord secretly and bitterly what they soon pour out from indignation: *We are Abraham's seed; we have never been in bondage to anyone*. Then, *We are not from whoredom: we have one Father, God*. The Jews threw both, both the servitude and such whoredom, in the faces of the Samaritans. Because they were idolaters, they were whoremongers, and, because they were whoremongers who had abandoned the Lord, so to express it—for I cannot [express it] otherwise—they had another father besides God. These things [they said] secretly against the Samaritans, and bitterly against the Lord. Which, when He—whom they did not once touch as a Samaritan—bravely ignored, they themselves finally interpret these things. For it follows below: *We do not say well...*

^A regarding the 44th verse, when it speaks of the enemy of the human race, *And he stood not in the truth, because there is no truth in him*, this is a clear case of *hysteron-proteron* (the latter first), if we believe Augustine, who in the twelfth book of *De civitate Dei* says: "The phrase used is less common. For it seems to sound thus: 'He stood not in the truth, because there is no truth in him,' as if 418 that were the cause, that he did not stand in the truth because truth is not in him; whereas the cause that truth is not in him is rather that he did not stand in the truth." This way of speaking is found also in the Psalms, where he says: *I cried, for Thou hast heard me, O God*, when it would seem it should have been said: "Thou hast heard me, O God, for I cried." The same follows: *When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.* Which words our author interprets in such a way that the evangelist attributes the father to the devil, ^B saying: *He himself was born a liar, from a lying father.* This carelessness other critics have also noted, since the sense is: *When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it* (namely, of the lie). I have observed, however, among the ancients, that some have interpreted this passage as referring to Cain, as if he were their father, begotten of the devil as his father; and perhaps our Lord intends this now. Suidas: "It has been said by some that Cain was born of the seed of the devil, and having hated his own brother Abel, he slew him." For there is also cited regarding this matter the Lord's use in the Gospels to the Jews: *Ye are children of the devil; your father was a murderer from the beginning, as his father was.* Cain, from whom you are descended, was a murderer just like his father, namely, the devil. At verse 58, it is said: *Amen, amen, I say unto you, before Abraham was made, I am.* Concerning which passage Augustine says: "He did not say, 'Before Abraham was, I am,' but, 'Before Abraham was made,' who would not have been made except through Me, I am." But what did our author mean when he said: *Before Abraham possessed a race, I was*? To *possess a race* is certainly one thing—which here either means nothing or is entirely idiomatic—and to *be made* is another, which is what the evangelist said. And perhaps he said *possessed a race* 419 as when the Greeks say *genei hysteros*, that is, by birth, or *hysteron-genetos* (born later). Or perhaps he used *race* idiomatically, instead of *form*, so that it might mean before he had form or species, just as he also called *substance* (ousia) by the name of *race* (genos) in another place. ^C In the ninth chapter, when the disciples ask about the man blind *from birth*, *Who hath sinned, this man or his parents?*, there is no doubt they were looking at the opinion that held sway at that time regarding the blind, who were held to be profane and sinners. But I think they had in mind the place in Samuel: *The blind and the lame shall not come into the house of the Lord*; or that they had learned that nothing happens in vain, especially concerning the punishments for sins. Whence that saying among the rabbis, Moses Maimonides: "And thus our truly wise teachers have said: 'There is no death without sin, and there are no chastisements without offense'." Where he deals with chance and fortune. But the state of the question to which the Lord responds is formed by these words, *that he should be born blind*. From which the Lord's reply also depends, as Theophylact rightly notes. For they do not ask whether this man sinned or his parents, about which no one had any doubt. Just as it is not answered: *Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents*; but something is understood *a communi* (as a common matter), so that he was born blind. Which Chrysostom, as well as Theophylact, wish to be expressed again by the Lord: who says that *this does not absolve them of sins; for He did not say simply, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents," but added, "That he should be born blind."* Which in our manuscripts is read only in the former place. Nonnus took the passage most poorly, when he changed the *hina* (that) into *eisage* (he brought in). For he takes away the cause; he acknowledges the *consequence* (to symbebekos), with which they were not dealing. Of the same ninth chapter in the eighth verse, when the evangelist said: ^D *The neighbors, therefore, and they who had seen him before, that he was a blind man*, 420 said, etc., he did not understand what it meant. For the *neighbors*, just as those who *observed* him, are what the Greeks would call *theoremenous*. The *neighbors*, therefore, are those who are called *engizontes* (drawing near) or *eggys ontes* (being near) among the Hellenists at other times. Thus, Luke 15, *And they were drawing near to Him*. Hesychius: *Geiton* (neighbor), *eggys* (near). But our author took it as if he had to translate the Hebrew word, when he explained them as *aliens* (epelydes). And thus poets speak. But in explaining this word, the Syrian uses a word. And in Luke 19:11, *near to Jerusalem*. Therefore, the neighbors are those who are near. Nor did he err here by straying from it. For he accepted it as if it were dealing *with neighbors*, that is, *sojourners*, as the Hellenists often speak, when it is actually a matter of a beggar, and, as is likely, a homeless man, who do not even have neighbors. Whence by Kimchi, such men are gracefully called in other places *dwellers in the streets*: to whom the ancient Siculus agrees: *He who lives nowhere, is dead without a grave*. Therefore *neighbors* is taken literally from the usage of the Syrians and Chaldeans. It is clearly vulgar and idiomatic, just as it so often confuses the synagogue with the temple. As in that 22nd verse of the same ninth chapter: *That if any man should confess Him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.* Where he says: *So that whoever might accept him with his mind and confess Christ, might not touch the holy house called by God.* And this is especially ridiculous, because above in the sixth chapter, at verse 59, where the Lord is said to have taught *in the synagogue at Capernaum*, he yet says that He taught in the temple, as if at Jerusalem. Wherefore, if we believe him, the Syrian is one thing, which is Hebrew for another. There follows in verse 32: *From the beginning of the world it hath not been heard, that any man hath opened the eyes of one born blind.* Above we warned in many places that most of the ancients thought 421 the eyes of this blind man were created by the Lord. The reason for which is contained in these words, which you might marvel at. For it is evident from them that it was taken for the highest and most excellent miracle. But regarding such things, the Hebrews used the word for creation: to whom to perform anything new or unusual is called *to create a creature* (ktizein ktisma). So Num. 16:39: *If Jehovah shall create a creation (creaturam creaverit), and the earth shall open her mouth*, concerning the unusual opening of the earth, as here concerning the unusual opening of the eyes. In which passage, what is likely is that, since the ancient Hellenists, who do not exist now, would render *ktisma ktisei ho Kyrios* (the Lord shall create a creature) word for word, it seems to have been used by some ancient for this passage, who, concerning a significant miracle, would note *the Lord again creates a creature* (palin ktisma ktizei Kyrios); and that this persuaded them of creation, so that when Chrysostom spoke of the *creation of an eye*, and Asterius said that *the eyes were created and formed*, it was because he who performs a thing not seen, as I have already said, or heard, *creates a creature*. Whence what you have here, *From the beginning of the world it hath not been heard*, which in Hebrew terms would be *to create a creature*, and it befits Jehovah. Whence also these very works, and the praise of them, irritated the Pharisees more. This passage is most noble, and has been examined not a little by, in part, the ancients, and in part our own theologians: *I came that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly*, which is read in the following, the tenth chapter, at the tenth verse. In which, between the thief and that one true shepherd, who is He Himself, our Savior places a *distinguishing* (diakritiken) mark. He, He says, as he steals, so he slaughters the sheep and destroys. And for this reason He came. *I, that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly.* For so the old interpreter renders these words. But what is that *more* (perisson), or what is it to have *more abundantly*? When that greatest man Chrysostom had seen this difficulty, he learnedly 422 annotated: *And what is more abundant than life, tell me? The kingdom of heaven; but He does not yet say this. But He turns around the name of life, which was known to them.* He meant this, if I am not mistaken: That nothing can be called *more* than that life, than which nothing can be called m-

- ^A ore than that life; and yet, the term is used here as a homonym, just as the Lord uses it, in such a way that the word is the same, but its definition is not one and the same. Hence arises the ambiguity—if I am not mistaken—which is noted here ^B as *peristernophia*, or as theologians sometimes use it with a slightly different sense in sacred matters. For example, when they say using one word *peristrephomenos*, they mean that the same word is repeated, although it does not differ in definition. Theophylact and Chrysostom use this very frequently. Theophylact, indeed, is an excellent interpreter of Chrysostom in this passage: "Those were destroying and killing those who followed them; I have come so that they might have life, and might have something 'more'—the participation of the Holy Spirit, which ought also to be understood as the kingdom of heaven." And he adds then: "All men indeed live in Christ, just as in Christ they rise again. But the just have something preeminent, the kingdom of heaven." He is right to establish the homonymy in the word, as is Augustine, who also posits a twofold life here: namely, that which they call life through faith—which the Scholastics, from his expression, later called the life of grace, or that which is had through grace—and that which we have said will be in the future when we shall see Him in whom we believe, as he is accustomed to speak. Our author shrewdly understood this in the former member. Wherefore he notably elevates it, while adding: ^C

*That they might have something more, [something] superior.*

For what greater [gift] can be given than that life, which is the first in blessedness, and the last and most supreme in human hope? Nor did the Evangelist say *that they might have more*, 423 but *that they might have something more*. For he does not disconnect these, but subordinates them. He might at least have said—what could be said here, though in a different sense—*and that they might have something more*.

*So that they might acquire with a guileless honor* *The life to be, which time has not seen perish, 425* *And that they might have something more, superior.*

But our author did not understand even what follows: *And the hireling, and not being a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees*, which are read shortly after in the twelfth verse. For he conceived these things with little regard for the sense, ^D *But the hireling is not a shepherd!*

Which I do not think entered the author's mind. Moreover, he undoubtedly alluded to the passage in Zechariah XI, 17, where the hireling and worthless pastor is called *ro`i ha’elil*, a pastor of nothing. This is what the Hellenists call *not a shepherd*—not that he is not a [nominal] shepherd, but that he is a shepherd of vanity, and as follows, *abandoning the sheep*. For the common people translated it "idol shepherd," because *elil* [means] idols, because they are of nothing. Just as the Apostle, when he said, *We know that an idol is nothing in the world*, did not mean this, that an idol does not exist, or that an idol is nothing at all, but that it is what it is called: that which is of nothing and of no account. He joins, therefore, the mercenary and the "nothing" shepherd: not that he is not a shepherd, but that he is nothing less than a true and faithful one. The things that follow, *he sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep, and flees*, represent exactly that which follows in Zechariah concerning the deserter, *and [they] having abandoned the sheep*. The same author of ours, when he interprets those words in the twenty-second verse, *And it was the dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter*, became entangled in a great error indeed, which others have been able to note. He understands this about the first dedication—or those which were accustomed to be celebrated in memory of the temple dedicated by Solomon. Regarding this opinion, Theophylact says: "Some say that on the day on which the temple was built by Solomon, they celebrated the dedication on that same day." Which 426 were the first, whereas they are understood as the third, in memory of the altar which was erected by the Maccabees after it had been profaned by Antiochus. But that is more worthy of note, which he says concerning Solomon: *He renewed the ancient custom of a marvelous festival.* For there is no doubt that he looked to that passage in I Kings VIII: *And the king, and all the sons of Israel, dedicated the house of the Lord.* But our author, for what he had found—*he dedicated the house*—said clearly something else, that is, *he renewed the custom*: which, if I am not mistaken, he either did not understand, or [it is] something else. For to *renew a custom* is to change something in the manner or rite of a festival: but to *dedicate a house* is to initiate the house, that is, to celebrate and institute that festival which to the Jews is called *encænia*. Now, since he has called the festival itself, or the *festival*, *the custom of a festival*, what [could be] more absurd?

^A than to "renew the feast," which is the *encænia* itself, since, forsooth, he intended to say "to observe the *encænia*"? And when he adds "the ancient," if I may judge, he confuses the private *encænia*, which are mentioned in the titles of the Psalms, with the *encænia* of the Temple. Just as these are confused by the word amongst the Hebrews, so they are distinguished by the Hellenists. Apollinarius:

*The twentieth and ninth holy song he sang,* *David, having bestowed a new house.*

Solomon, therefore, as our author confesses, *renewed* by building the house. He celebrated the beginnings of the house he had recently built, whereas this passage concerns the temple: which is undoubtedly something else. What of the fact that he said these things were celebrated in winter, which it is agreed by all were celebrated in autumn? These things he confuses most negligently. In the same tenth chapter, verse 25, since it is written thus, *The works which I do in the name of my Father, these testify of me*, it is worth the trouble to see what our interpreter brings from his own store; who renders these things thus:

*The works which I accomplish, calling the ancestral might.*

As if "to act in the name of the Father" were the same as "to invoke the Father": which if it be true, then he who ^B *came in his own name* will be one who invokes the name of God. But it is said of false prophets: *We have prophesied in thy name*. Furthermore, when the Lord, in the fifth chapter, opposes himself to the false prophet (whom Juvencus called *dyscolon* elsewhere), he says that he has come in the Father’s name, but that the other will come in his own. By which words, as Chrysostom witnesses, he opposes himself to the Antichrist. And what do these have to do with invocation? But that Christ did all things in the Father's name, as he himself testifies, does not mean that he always invoked the Father, as so many miracles testify. For, as it is excellently noted by Chrysostom on the sixth chapter, he did not invoke the Father when he was healing the paralytic, or when he was raising someone from the dead, or when he was about to impose a bridle upon the sea as if by his own power. Let us hear his words: *But why is it that, when about to raise up the paralytic, or raising the dead, or bridling the sea, he does not pray; yet here, in the case of the loaves, he does this?* And finally he infers: *But he who did those things by his own authority, it is clear that he did these things also by way of condescension.* Wherefore he found one thing, but expressed another. ^C Since it is one thing to act *in the name of the Father*, and another to *call upon the Father*. For if these are the same, the greatest things he did, he did not do in the name of the Father, if one is to trust Chrysostom, for he did not always—not even in those cases—invoke the Father. Wherefore one must distinguish those things which he administered *authentically*, as the same writer rightly speaks, from those which he administered *by condescension*. Which distinction has room in many places 428 which are poorly understood without it. I confess that among those passages which have exercised us most in this sacred author, it is that which is read in the thirty-fifth verse: *If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken*. Upon which the greatest Chrysostom says: *If those who received this by grace are not accused of calling themselves gods, how could he who has this by nature deserve to be blamed?* If they who received this by grace are not accused when they call themselves gods, how does he who has this by nature deserve to be accused? Which I do not understand. For it does not concern those who call themselves gods, but those who are so called in the sacred Scriptures. For it precedes, *I have said, Ye are gods*, from the most noble passage of the LXXXII Psalm. Therefore, they do not call themselves gods there, but are so called. ^D For even in the first verse this name is attributed to them, when it is said: *God hath stood in the assembly of the gods*. And then again in the seventh: *I said, Ye are gods*. Nor do I indeed understand that of Theophylact, who interprets the words *unto whom the word of God came* thus: *That is, I; for I am the Word of God; and having dwelt in them, I bestowed upon them the adoption.* If therefore they are gods, much more I [would be] free from all blame, calling myself God; which I also bestow upon others by nature. If *the word which came unto them* be the Word which was in the beginning. With whom Hieronymus, if I am not mistaken, elsewhere agrees. I marvel at this, that there are found those who do not weigh the difficulty, which Erasmus saw, but dissimulated. For what do those words mean: *If God himself imparted the dignity of his name to those to whom the word of God came*? For this is the very thing concerning which the inquiry is made in this place. For who are they to whom the word of God came? 429 In which lies the entire force of the passage. Our author, however, so entangles himself that one can scarcely understand what he says:

*And if of the race of earthly men* *To whom then only came the word of God like a dream,* *He called them gods by your ordinance.*

From which interpretation you can extract nothing solid. Unless his meaning appears to be this: If they, to whom the word of God came lightly, and as if through a dream, are called gods by your prophet. For thus he speaks below of Lazarus, who after his passing was present at the feast:

*And Lazarus was still among the feasters, like a dream,* *Manifest to all.*

Which has no place here. For it is the Psalm that is in question, and one which is especially vehement, and truly, as masters are accustomed to say, a *mâshâl*, that is, a very bitter reproof. Therefore, something else must be sought. The Hebrews have made various kinds of prophecies, which are for the most part reduced to two. For they proclaim either auspicious or adverse things. The latter, because it usually threatens, is called a *mâshâl* by the prophets. Which word you may find in almost infinite places in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the others. To the Chaldeans it is *onus*, to the word, and sometimes the *burden of the curse of the cup*. To the Hellenists it is called now *lemma*, now *lemma of a judgment*, now *lemma of a word*, sometimes *logion*, sometimes *word of a word*, sometimes *word against someone*, sometimes *vision against someone*, sometimes absolutely *word*, sometimes *reason*. And the Hebrews, when it is taken thus, are not rarely accustomed to express it simply as *dâbâr*, that is, word. There is none more vehement and more bitter than that of Micah, which is called nothing other than this, *dâbâr*, by the prophet. See the first chapter, where it is called *word of prophecy* by the Chaldean. Whose sign, when it is used simply thus, the Hellenists generally translate as *against*. Thus: *word against the Moabite, word against Damascus*. 430 In which, however, they often vary. Thus in Zechariah 11:1, *the burden of the word of the Lord upon Israel*, which is, *against Israel*, as the evangelist speaks here. And so the elegant Greeks. Indeed, to the prince of philosophers, *The Oration of Iphicrates against Harmodius* is inscribed in the second [book] of rhetoric, who elsewhere also speaks thus. And also Demosthenes inscribed *The [oration] against Leptines*, *Toward Leptines*. Therefore *unto whom the word came*, is *against whom the word came*, against whom that prophecy is directed. Now to the matter. The Psalm of which he speaks is a very grave prophecy against those who were established in dignity. Which the Chaldeans note as *by the hand of Asaph*, which is the sign of such a prophecy. In which, for the most part, three things are considered: from whom, to whom, against whom. From whom is God: to whom, through whose hand the prophecy is said to be delivered: as in Haggai 1:1 and 2, and elsewhere not once; against whom, as Israel, Nineveh, Damascus, Babylon, who are those *unto whom the word comes*, against whom the prophecy is directed. The *from whom*, in this prophecy, is expressed by these words: *God hath stood in the assembly of the gods*. The *to whom*, is expressed in the title, *A Psalm of Asaph*, for so the Hellenists express the genitive case. The *against whom*, who are those *unto whom the word came*, are the magistrates. The *word* therefore is *mâshâl*: which is the *onus* of the Chaldeans, the *mashal* of the rabbis. The Hellenist writer, because it was nothing less than unusual to them, was content to have said *word*. As in that of Jeremiah 23:33:

"The word that the Lord spoke against Babylon and against the land of the Chaldeans by the hand of Jeremiah." In the like manner, Isaiah 11:1: "The word which came to Isaiah the son of Amoz, concerning Judah and Jerusalem." Which Procopius renders from the version of others "against Judah." This passage 431 is clearly double to ours, so that the ancient inscription might be: "The word which came by the hand of Asaph from God unto the rulers."

Therefore, "unto whom the word of God came" are the magistrates, the *archontes*, who are there vehemently and sharply rebuked. Such as those: "How long will you judge iniquity, and accept the faces of the wicked? Selah. Judge the needy and the fatherless. They do not know nor understand; they walk in darkness." And yet it follows: "I said, you are gods." The sense, therefore, is this: If God, then, is speaking against those whom that whole passage, that whole prophecy addresses—those whom He nonetheless vehemently and sharply warns regarding their neglected duty, nay, rebukes—if He called them "gods" for the sake of their dignity, because magistrates represent God; do you judge him to be a blasphemer who, separated from the Father from eternity and sanctified, was sent into the world, because he says he is the Son of God? "Whom the Father sanctified," is the true *aph?rismenos* [set apart], being at once king and priest. For the Hellenists render that *777* in this way: which the evangelist, not without cause, also draws to the name of his country, *kat' oikonomias logon*. But he indeed understood what "in your law" meant in this place. For "law" means all the sacred books, the *enkrinomenoi*, as the ecclesiastical critics speak, that is, those they admitted as trustworthy. For the same word designates both law and doctrine to the Hebrews. And the Hellenists use one signification for another (as when they say, "the book of the generation of Christ": where the same word denotes both the series and the book). Which our author ineptly interpreted as *thesmos* [ordinance] *hymeteron* [yours]. And he even mutilated the other part of the passage, when he could not extricate himself. For thus:

"You have uttered a foolish tale in your madness, That I am the Son of the living God."

As if it had been written: "Whom the Father sanctified, and sent 432 into the world, do you say that I am the Son of God?" Whether this was done by him, or whether something has been lost, I do not argue. Those who most closely approached the sense of the passage thought the whole difficulty lay in the words, "unto whom the word of God came." Because they could not escape this, they said that it should be understood as the magistrate, to whom the office of commanding others has been entrusted. And that this is a Hebraism. I was of the opinion that the one to whom the word of God comes is a prophet; against whom, he who is rebuked. And this is true. But to other things.

CHAPTER XXIV

The eleventh chapter is run through. *Pyr* [fire] for a violent fever, and it is customary for Hippocrates. *Pyr* for fever, among the Syrians and Chaldeans. *Astheneia*, whether it is rightly called *pyr* by Nonnus. *Arrostein*, *enochleisthai*, *malakizesthai*, what they mean to the Hellenists. The word *isthenis* is used by the rabbis. And if anyone is so called by them. The passage, "from the village of Mary and Martha her sister," was discussed. How the Syrian translator read that passage. The reading of the passage represented according to his opinion. Bethany is a *kome*. Most illustrious cities are called *chorai*. The Hebrew word which is expressed when they speak thus, and hence the error of Nonnus and others. The notable *paregermeneia* [mistranslation] of Nonnus. The passage mutilated by Nonnus. The notable inconsistency of Nonnus. Thomas is ineptly called *didymos* [twin]. Nor was he called *didymos*. *Didymos* interpreted means *Thomas*. Christ is ridiculed and ineptly excused by Nonnus for the fact that He wept. An explanation of the most noble passage: "He groaned in the spirit, and troubled himself." *Emerimäe tini*. An error in the interpretation of his passage by Chrysostom and others. *Pneuma* [spirit/breath] is very poorly accepted in that passage for the Holy Spirit, and for right reason. The passage mutilated by Nonnus. The spirit of the Father alone believed by Nonnus. *Pneumati patrōō* ^A 433 rendered badly. How "spirit" is accepted by the Hebrews: the spirit of someone, for the person himself. The interpretation of the passage is also taken from the evangelist himself. *Embrimasthai en heautō*. Matthew and Mark, in the manner of the Greeks; John, the *embrimasthai* of the Hellenists. The passage truncated by Nonnus. The interpretation of that passage, "Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me." *Ēkousas*, in the manner of the Hebrews, instead of "you are accustomed to hear." *Sudarium*. That word is according to the opinion of Nonnus, Syrian, and yet ineptly deduced from sweat. The passage of Nonnus amended by transposition. Innumerable Greek and Roman words were once in use among the Syrians, Chaldeans, and rabbis. And some examples of them. The ineptitudes of the rabbis in the origin of words, especially Greek or Roman ones. *Apulia*, *aphul*, which denotes a bean, ineptly deduced. *Napodikion*, and how ineptly an origin was assigned to it by Elias. The use of *sudar* in the burial of the Jews. *Phoibazein*, *phoibanai*, *phoibazein demas*. Whence that word is taken. Nonnus has not used it rightly. The translation of children through fire in honor of Moloch, and why it was instituted. Most poorly confused by Nonnus is *phoibasmón* and *hagnismón*, of which the evangelist makes mention.

At the beginning of the eleventh chapter, when he spoke of the sickness of Lazarus to those words in the first clause, "Now there was a certain man sick, Lazarus of Bethany":

"Now there was a certain man, Lazarus, languishing with a diseased fire, a man from within Bethany,"

he seems to have thought of the observation of Galen, who frequently observes in Hippocrates that fever is called *pyr* [fire] violently, as in the *Epidemics* and elsewhere, *pyr elabe*, where he says: "Thus he is accustomed to name the fever when it is most violent," and elsewhere: "I know that he calls the most feverish fever *pyr*." And thus, everywhere *pyr oxy*, *pyknon*, and similar things in Hippocrates. Which seems to have originated from the Syrians and Chaldeans, by whom *ish*, that is *pyr*, is called fever. Therefore, he erred in that he called *astheneian* [weakness] as the evangelist said, which at the beginning was not unto death, according to the witness of the Lord who speaks thus. He expressed, however, that which the holy author of the Hebrews says. Which is urbanely called *arrostëin*, or *enochleisthai*, and sometimes *malakizesthai* by the Hellenists. For if the disease is more severe, *l`h* is added by the Hebrews, and this is what the evangelist said later, 434 "This sickness is not unto death." Which is called by the Hellenists *arrōstein heōs thanatou* [to be sick unto death], as concerning Hezekiah, 4 Kings xx, 1: "In those days Hezekiah was sick unto death." What if the masters derived their word *isthenis* from this word, which was undoubtedly in use among the Jews at that time, as not a few other Greek words were? But they speak thus of him who is tempted by *anorexia*. And as they themselves speak, *shwly hwlh b-npsh*, who is ill in spirit, so that he does not admit food. Therefore, just as they commonly, "our Rabbi was *isthenis*," so he was ours, when he was tempted by something here. When it follows, "from Bethany," I confess that I have always agreed with those who think that nothing in the sacred text should be changed without the authority of codices or the certainty of the ancients. Although we could be absolved by the single example of the great man, D. Jerome, who, as often as he argues about the corruption of some passage, so in that Isaiah XLII, 3, as it is cited by Matthew, he wishes some things to have been omitted by the scribes, not to mention here Nyssen, who, as I remember observing, adduces the comma elsewhere complete, which is missing in our editions. In this passage, indeed, there are some things which not unjustly could have moved some suspicion in an acute man regarding the negligence of the scribes. For when he says that the friend of the Lord and of our God originated from Bethany, why does he say that he originated "from the village of Mary and Martha"? For who doubts that Lazarus was well known at that time? So that it was not necessary to borrow this light for that country, or for him, from his sisters; since these rather, the sisters

^A of the journey, not of the arrival: "He found," not that he was already present, but that he understood that Lazarus, from Martha who happened to meet him, and from others, had long since expired. From whom, before this digression, Bethany indeed, yet not yet *the village* which they imagine, he could be seen to have arrived at. But what is one to make of our author, who to the place itself, where it is said, *Jesus, therefore*, added on his own *to the village*? For he expressly said there: *Coming then, the King, late-born, to the village renowned,* *Found Lazarus breathless, strewn in the poured-out dust.* By which words, unless we do not understand Greek, he said that the Lord had arrived at the village. And yet, afterwards, he again denies what he said. For at those words in verse 30: *And Jesus had not yet arrived at the village*, he renders the passage thus: *The King had not yet arrived at the village.* He has therefore arrived at the village, and he has not yet arrived. He was present, and he was not yet present. Again, in the first verse of this chapter, he expressly distinguishes Bethany, misled by a corrupt reading, from the village. But at the beginning of the twelfth [chapter], when it was not necessary, he himself called Bethany a village also: *He entered the renowned village.* *He entered Bethany.* ^B

Lazarus [words] should have been addressed. For those who thought another village was to be understood here, they should have added at least which one it was. But if they cannot 435 do so, they will not be able to deny that what they think is clearly stated is said more obscurely. At the very least, therefore, the ancient codes are better—which it is certain the Syrian paraphrast used—which for those things, "from the village," read nothing other than "of the village," and for the others, "of the sister," read nothing other than "the brother." With this precedent, there is nothing to prevent us from conceiving the whole passage thus: *Now there was one sick, Lazarus, of Bethany, the village, brother of Mary and Martha.* And then: *This was Mary who anointed the Lord.* For the final word, where the verse now ends, the Syrian also omits. Which we have no doubt was changed during the invention of the verses. For it clung to the previous one, which ought to have been joined to the following. Examples of this fact, indeed, we could bring forth, and other illustrious ones. Now, because they deny that this hamlet was Bethany—which undoubtedly gave the greatest cause for this alteration—they should have at least considered, what they have forgotten in more than one place, that he whom they are interpreting spoke in Syriac, but wrote in Hellenistic Greek. And that he expressed this word in Hellenistic, as many others, here. In which usage it is common to transfer proper meanings to improper objects, as what is said in Syriac about a hamlet is transferred in Hellenistic to a city. No one, as far as I know, denies that Damascus was a very great city. Yet, it is agreed that it is called this "village" by the Hellenists. Thus, when Jeremiah said, *Damascus has been let go, it has turned back*, it is added, *How did she not leave the celebrated city, the beloved village* (ch. xlix, vv. 24 and 25)? And why? Because the prophet had used the word. But Bethlehem, indeed, was a city, and of the lot of Judah, to be sure. And that city, although small, yet of all that the sun sees, both on account of David and of Him who was 436 greater than David, is very illustrious; yet it is called a "village" by our author: *Did not the Scripture say that from the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village, where David was, the Christ comes?* To omit that word, which properly and customarily denotes a city to the Hebrews, it is expressed by that word by the Hellenists. Therefore, I sometimes grieve, and sometimes am almost indignant, that the learned have not taken greater care regarding the Hellenistic language, especially in the New Testament, where it was most required. And yet the Syrian understood this perfectly, who used the word here. But this also strangely confused our author, who wants Lazarus to have been sick indeed in Bethany, yet originating from the village of Mary and Martha. Or rather, he did not himself understand what he was saying. For he speaks in a perplexed and involved manner: *And there was a certain man, Lazarus, suffering from a fevered fire,* *Within Bethany, sung of as a village* *Of Martha and Mary.* But even what follows, *of her sister*, because he saw it was most corrupt and could not extricate himself, he omitted. This schema he used more than once. But he persists not a little in [the matter of] Bethany. And so he says it, festive and *sung of*, and because he thought it was celebrated, he made it a different place from that village of which he thought the author was speaking. As if Bethany could not be called a "village," or in this very chapter, where it is said, *Jesus had not yet arrived at the village*, Bethany is not understood. Therefore, it is surprising that some do not even believe the evangelist. Indeed, there are many things that have placed burdens upon learned men here. First is the very long colloquy with Martha. For before the Lord arrived there, it is said that Martha met him. And she then precedes [him] to Bethany again, to summon her sister, of course, where at length 437 the evangelist, verse 30, says: *But Jesus had not yet arrived at the village, but was in the place where Martha met him.* Although he had stated a very long digression and a colloquy with Martha in verse 17, *Coming then, Jesus found him having spent four days in the tomb*, as if, of course, he had already arrived at Bethany. ^C And yet, in the same chapter, verse 12: *Hearing the rumor that from the sacred village* *Jesus would come to the abode of Jerusalem.* 438 Finally, no servant on stage played the games that this one of ours has played here. See what great waves ignorance of languages stirs up; for if that happens to him whom they wish to have been a bishop and most erudite, what will become of the unlearned? A great and primary occasion for whom the learned would have removed if they had read with us: *Now there was a certain man sick, Lazarus, of Bethany, the village, brother of Mary and Martha; this was Mary who anointed the Lord.* Our author, who did not see or did not follow that reading which exists, but even truncates that very thing. For which fact he pays the penalty in the entire chapter. When the evangelist of the same chapter, in verse 16, said, *Thomas, therefore, who is called Didymus*, he errs twice, since he called Thomas—contrary to the mind of him he is interpreting—a *didymon* (a twin), which even the great man Angelus Caninius warned against with a word, and wanted it to be called *Didymon*: *And hearing, the twin-named [one] spoke, Thomas,* *Whom they call Didymus.* He gave opportunity to both because he did not know what the evangelists mean when they append that *'who is called'* to Hebrew or Syriac names, which is *'which translated into Hellenistic is called Didymus'*; that is, if you express it in Greek, it signifies the same thing that Didymus signifies. Thus Peter was called Cephas, *'who is called,' in Hellenistic, 'Peter,'* that is, which if you interpret into Greek, denotes *Petros*. Thus in chapter 1: *You shall be called Cephas, which is translated Peter*, where more is said on this matter. Therefore, in this place also, *'who is called Didymus'* is as if he had said, *'which is translated Didymus.'* Nor is it true that Thomas was called Didymus, just as Cephas was called Peter. For the *'translated'* adheres to Peter, which cannot be said of Thomas. This is as ridiculous as if I were to say that Adam is 439 binominal because his name denotes earth. For both this would be false, and it would be false that Adam is called Earth. But more on this elsewhere. The shortest verse exists in this chapter: *Jesus wept.* Regarding which place, our author excused the Lord too superstitiously, saying that he wept *with tearless eyes*. Yet he ought to have remembered that he truly wept, and that what is noted by the holy Fathers is true: that no one more willingly and effectively expressed the properties and all the most humble things of human nature than that evangelist who spoke most illustriously concerning his divinity—who is this one of ours. Whom...

^A even when moved, the Savior was not tearless, as he confirms that he truly, and not by mere appearance, wept; which is rightly noted by the theologians. Nor in these matters, as is well observed by them, is the rationale of the higher nature and the dispensation to be confounded. The divine nature raised Lazarus; the human nature wept. And, as Damascene well says, "The human nature does not give life to Lazarus, nor does the divine power weep." No less elegantly does Leo say to Flavian: "It is not of the same nature to weep for a dead friend out of an affect of pity, and to raise him, when the barrier of a four-days' burial is removed, at the command of a voice, to renewed life." Wherefore our author, who either diminishes or deletes this condescension, is not far from the error of those whom Epiphanius mentions in his *Ancoratus*: those who were removing the most noble passage of Luke, chapter xix, where the same Lord of ours is said to have wept for the sake of the holy city, because they did not understand it correctly. Wherefore these things and others like them afford no great progress in theology, nor do they exhibit a judgment sufficiently schooled in the Scriptures. ^B Regarding that place at the 440th verse of the same eleventh chapter: "He groaned in the spirit, and troubled himself," I never read what our author brings forward without thinking that it is most certain that no scruple in sacred matters is so light or trivial that it will not easily lead into the greatest error those who have not distinguished the Hellenistic usage from the Greek language in these books. Which happens not only to ours, but not seldom to the ancient theologians as well. Who was more expert in Grecism than the unique Chrysostom, or more observant in his writings among Christians? He, since he knew that the Greeks spoke in such a way that if someone were to be called *embrimasthai* [to groan/charge] someone, it was understood as *epitiman* [to rebuke], followed that usage in this place. Just as the ancient Greeks also interpreted the passage. And Hesychius, who preserved the glosses of many terms not only of the Old Covenant but also of the New, interprets *embrimōmenos* as "threatened with malediction." It was added that, by Greek usage, Mark and Matthew had used that word, for which the word means nothing else than "to command with a threat," as we have now heard. That great author and theologian, therefore, notes thus on this passage: "Then, having rebuked the passion (for the 'he groaned in his spirit' is, he stopped the confusion), he asks thus." To whom the spirit, or *pneuma*, of which this evangelist makes mention, is the perturbation itself: for he thought that "in the spirit" (*tō pneumati*) here was said in the dative case. Euthymius, having followed this, says: "He groaned in the spirit, that is, he curbed his affect, repressing it himself: he looked grimly and austerely on account of the perturbation, so as not to ask with tears." For spirit is said here to be the affect of perturbation: although a little later he adduces another opinion. It seems therefore that which the very learned Jansenius noted most aptly, that he did not look at what follows, "and troubled himself." For who could say that he 441 simultaneously curbed his affect and let it loose? Or in what way do these things agree: He rebuked the perturbation, and he himself was vehemently perturbed?

The second opinion which Euthymius adduces is that of those who took *tō pneumati* for the Latin sixth case (ablative). Some, indeed, he says, understanding the Spirit, interpret it as his divinity: that he sternly threatened his human nature through his divinity, and shook it, terrified by the minatory threat. But who would say that the Lord imposed a measure upon his own perturbation by means of his divinity, when he soon adds, "and he perturbed himself vehemently"? For what could be more vehement than the voice he uses? The interpretation of Theophylact also falls into the same; he takes *tō pneumati* here of the Holy Spirit, who curbed the human nature here: unless he dilutes the absurdity, but in vain. This nature, he says, conscious of its own weakness, when it could not bear this, was vehemently moved. For he was seeing what would not cohere with the former, "and troubled himself." Now by Cyril, *tō pneumati* is taken for right reason, with which leading, just as he groaned, ^C so too was the Savior perturbed, so that these two are joined. For he did not dare, as was done by Nonnus, to confess the Holy Spirit as the author of this perturbation. Which, since it did not satisfy our author entirely, he omitted the things that follow, "and troubled himself," not so much in good faith as by judgment, not to mention a third error: that when he speaks of the Holy Spirit, he called him *Patrōō* [Fatherly], as if he proceeded from the Father and not from the Son. Which, although we have noted elsewhere to be customary for some Greeks, although they also, or some of them certainly, who said that he proceeds from the Father through the Son, nonetheless profess that [he is] not only of the Father but also of the Son. But what need was there 442 for so many contentions in a matter so slight, and which boys ought to have known from Hellenistic locutions, except that, in order to understand these, many did not even think it worth the effort? Hebrews, when they say spirit and soul, they understand the very thing about which the conversation is. And this is so known that there is no one who would doubt it. "Into thy hands I shall not deliver my spirit," [Ps. XXX, 6], this is "myself," for which *psuchēn mou* [my soul] they say without any distinction. And that is in all persons: "his spirit," is himself. This, therefore, the evangelist intended: "He groaned in himself and troubled himself." *Tō pneumati* is "in the spirit" (*en tō pneumati*), the Hebrews would say, this is "in himself." "He groaned in the spirit, and troubled himself," are clearly *tautodunama* [synonymous], and are said in the same sense. Which since the Syrian understood, he rendered the one, namely *tō pneumati*, and the other, namely *heauton*. These they constantly conjoin, as if you were to say in Greek: "He groaned in his spirit, and troubled his soul." For both designate *heauton* [himself]. But why do we doubt, when the evangelist a little later explains himself? For what he said here "he groaned in the spirit," at the thirty-eighth verse he said "groaning in himself": "Jesus therefore again groaning in himself." And just as in that place, "groaning in himself," so again in chapter xiii, 21, he said "he was troubled in the spirit," that is, "in himself." "Having said these things, Jesus was troubled in the spirit." Just as in this place, after "he groaned in the spirit, and troubled himself," he appends [the explanation]. Matthew therefore and Mark spoke in the Greek manner. For the one said: "Jesus groaned at them," chapter ix. The other: "And having groaned at it [i.e., at his spirit]," chapter xi. Likewise: "And they were groaning at it," chapter xiv, John spoke in the Hellenistic manner.

443 While these things are not distinguished, they deceive many daily, especially when they translate these locutions into common languages and idioms. Nor do we doubt that there will be some at some time who will prove that many errors have been committed in the interpretation of the New Testament in this way. Provided only that there be candor, and that they think modestly of themselves, and excellently of those who have interpreted many things excellently. Think now what our author has said, who ascribes to the Holy Spirit, but the "Fatherly" one, [this action], lest he be said to be also of the Son. Which [is] customary for him, as we have shown more than once. For thus: "Strengthened by the Fatherly spirit, he uttered a voice." For the rest, when he saw himself held, he omitted it. Those words, 41: "Father, I thank you that you have heard me," who from our author would understand, when he writes: "Thanks be to you, as you heard me, Father; I know, as I am always crying out, that you hear the Son." For he has spoken according to the manner of the Hebrews, by whom [the past] expresses the future: *ēkousas* [you have heard], that is, *akouseis* [you will hear], or "you are accustomed to hear." Which Tertullian has remarkably expressed in another way, who translates: "Father, I give you thanks, because you always hear me." For when the future denotes continuation, the Hellenists designate it by the past [tense], Job 1, 19. That which is, "thus therefore Job was doing." That which follows in that long digression concerning the resurrected Lazarus up to the forty-fourth verse.

^A and from foot to head Enveloped in bindings the whole body he held, Having warm sweat of his covered face; And with a linen cloth he had thickened the circular brow, A sudarium, which the mouth of the Syrians has called...

By what name I shall call it, I do not know. For I admire the simplicity and the ignorance of the father. No one is unaware that the Syrians at that time used Greek as well as Latin words. ^B But among them, and the Roman *sudar*, the reason is the same as for *lention*, which he uses shortly hereafter. This was the difference: that those things generally usurped by them changed their native use, which we showed before concerning the word *parrhesia*. Among these is also *sudar*: or *soudarion*, as it is called here: which both the Syrians and the teachers of the Hebrews use. And these usually use it differently than those others. For with the Syrians it is almost always *sudar*, which the evangelists call *lention*. And thus in the Acts according to the Metaphrast. And in almost the same way Benjamin used it, when he places a *cydari* (turban) as a sudarium. For concerning its use, especially in the contracts of the Jews, Elias Thesbites has many things; and after him, others in this age. Our author speaks ridiculously, and says it is a Syriac word: and yet he undoubtedly deduces it from sweat (*sudor*). ^C For this is what that *sudor* marks, which he puts forward, *Having warm sweat of his covered face*; so that, if we are to believe him, Lazarus was wrapped in a sudarium because of the sweat. Who, therefore, can sufficiently admire these absurdities? For if dead men sweat after death, they even live after death. And if it was for the sake of washing away sweat, which he seems to imply (for I can find no other occasion for him to mention sweat here), if he was covered by a sudarium and bandages while dead, it was necessary for those who had applied these to fear the sweat in the dead man. It is a wonder, moreover, that when heat is posited as the cause of sweat, dead men should sweat. Not even this can I persuade myself, that Lazarus sweated immediately after death. For who is ignorant that the native heat has been completely extinguished, and only gradually returns? Therefore, much better did Martialis, the Bishop of Limoges, in his *Epistle to the Toulousans*, call it the sudarium of the dead. So that only for its word he might immediately rise from the monument, bound with the sudarium of the dead. ^D Therefore: outside the use of a sudarium: but in this whole digression he wished to have nothing in common with the author whom he interprets. He seeks Lazarus, and indeed at Lethe. The dead man is warm. And *idronta echei*, that is, he sweats. One line, however, must manifestly be transposed. For who could say that these things cohere? *Enveloped in bindings the whole body he held,* *Having warm sweat of his covered face.* For who would say that the head is bound, just because the limbs are bound? This is *anakolouthon* (inconsistent). Then there is no reason why he should mention the sweat, unless it is because of the mention of the sudarium. And yet, nothing so far has been said about it, but in the things that follow. Therefore, I think the whole passage should be ordered thus: *And having dragged his stiffened knees after his feet,* *Having his blind, straight-directed gaze,* *The corpse was speaking; and from foot unto his head* *Enveloped in bindings the whole body he held;* *And with a linen cloth he had thickened the circular brow,* *Having warm sweat of his covered face,* *A sudarium, which the mouth of the Syrians has called—* And this is what the evangelist said: *Bound his feet and hands with grave-clothes; and his face was bound about with a sudarium.* Which, being disordered before, are now read in the same order. For *keiria* is attributed to the limbs, the sudarium to the face. But to what end are these things so laboriously argued? Since the evangelist says nothing of the sort. He, always mindful of his plan, says that the dead man was raised. And lest anyone doubt it, that he performed the duties of life before everyone; nay, that he walked. The grave-clothes, the sudarium, and other things hindered him from walking freely. Those on his feet and hands, this one on his eyes. These, therefore, the Lord ordered them to loosen. Now, as to what he adds: *A sudarium, which the mouth of the Syrians has called—* whom will he persuade? For if that word is Syriac, and *sudor*, from whence this is derived, will be a Syriac word. And if this is Syriac, because the Syrians would use it, then *nomos* (law), and *archon* (ruler), and *cophinos* (basket), and *stadion* (stadium), nay even *denarion*, *glossocomon* (money-box), *sindon* (linen), *paracletos* (advocate), *lampades* (lamps), *chiliarchos* (commander), *praetorion*, *stratiotai* (soldiers), *spongos* (sponge), *litrai* (pounds), are manifestly Greek words or Roman, which the Syrian metaphrast uses in the Gospel of John alone, they will be words of the Syrians. But if that is true, what will prevent *angelos* (angel), and *doron* (gift), and whatever else occurs in the Targums, from being words of the Chaldeans? Finally, that we must concede that all words—not only Greek and Roman, but also Spanish and Gallic, which occur in abundance in the writings of the rabbis—are Hebrew words. Which exceeds all astonishment and all ignorance. Nor would those who have been even slightly versed in the reading of these admit this: who know by how different a method, as I have already said, both the Chaldean and the rabbinic writers used that word. Indeed, in the Jerusalem Targum, the veil with which Moses covers his face after his conversation with God is called *sudra*: nor is it for that reason not a Latin word, especially since they have noted that it is full even for the Latins. Among others, Elias. What of the fact that the *mappa* with which they strangled criminals, from whom, however, there is no danger of sweat, if I am not mistaken, they called a *sudar*? But who could bear that it is a Syrian word, as I have already said, and yet that it is said to be from *sweat*? Which is as true as that *Apuliam* is said to be from *fabis* (beans), which Benjamin wants, because *phul* among the Hebrews denotes a bean: or *naphthon* from *ner*, which denotes the sun, which Elias also desired. And 447 not a few other things which we read to our nausea in the books of the masters, as often as they deduce either Greek or Roman words most ineptly from the Hebrew. In which our author surpasses everyone: he who wants the *sudarium* to be Syrian, and yet to be named from *sudor*: which is Latin, but Greek in origin. But to conclude what we have begun: why the Jews would use a *sudarium* on corpses, ought to have been sought from their own writings: which teach that it was customary for them, especially at that time, to wrap the dead in mostly vile wrappings. But also the wise sometimes used a *sudar* worth a single denarius. But also, why they would cover the face with a sudarium in particular, the cause is there given by the same ones, so that we may not hear our own thoughts here. In the fifty-fifth verse of that same chapter, which the evangelist said, *And many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the Passover, to purify themselves,* our author expressed it thus: *So that they might bring forward their bodies with holy purifications.* As to this standing, it should be known that the place which is now read in Deuteronomy XVIII, 10, *There shall not be found among you one that purifies his son,* Chrysostom quoted far otherwise from another interpreter concerning those words of John, *And of his fullness have we all received*: *You shall not purge, you shall not purify your children.* From which passage our author departed not far in taking this word. Unless you seek judgment. For he, whoever he was, adapted the profane Greek word to the profane custom of the Canaanites: Hesychius: *Phoibonai*, to cleanse, to divine, to adorn, to purge, to purify; which to the Hebrews, which was their lustrative offering, and *phoibasai* likewise. Also *phoibasthai*, to be cleansed, who, lest their sons or daughters be taken away by an untimely death through the fire, were brought 448 by the prescription of the priests of Moloch, whom they called *chomerim*. Which the learned interpreters have identified as *phoibazein*; for the Greeks also interpret *phoibazein* as to cleanse by fire or by the sun. Hence also Aeschylus called the *phoiben floga*, the fire of the sun. See therefore the judgment. For first, he [speaks] of that *agnismos* (purification) of the Jews, which he treats here, and which they even today observe wonderfully, [which] was accustomed to be accomplished by water and washing. Then, it was done also to the Lord. He, however, [mentions] *phoibasmos*, both by fire, and to Moloch. Whence also in Leviticus XVII, verse 21, and Deuteronomy XVIII, 10,

it is very strictly forbidden. Indeed, it is called ^A *bdelugma*, that is, abomination, in the Law.

CHAPTER XXV

The twelfth chapter is examined. The interpretation of that passage: *Taking a pound of ointment of nard opistike, of great price.* Whether it should be read as *Opistikes* with the learned theologian. Hartung’s emendation of *nardou pisteōs*. *Pistos* [is] used by the Hellenists for *alēthēs* [true]. It is noted in passing concerning the Hebrew word which indicates this. *Oikos pistos* [faithful house] concerning the temple of Solomon. *Prophētēs pistos* [faithful prophet] in the books of the Hasmoneans. *Pistikon* instead of *piston*, the *pist* of the Syrians, *pistico*, the head of the ointment, nard *capitata*, and something other than the head of the ointment. Nard *apseudēs* [unfeigned]. Unction after dinner or luncheon is called by the rabbis the second waters. *To piston tōn hydatōn*. *Machlas chaitē*, which to our poet [Nonnus]. The discussion and controversy of the Fathers regarding those things which anointed the Lord. *Hamartōlos* of St. Luke. The word by which the Chaldaeans express such a one. *Machlas chaitē*, for that which is, of her own *machla*. The custom of women of ill repute of growing their hair. *Alabastron* [is] alabaster. *Hypagein*. Nonnus, through ignorance of the usage of that word, [commits] a *parermēneia* [misinterpretation]. That palm leaves carried the form of a scepter. The encounter of the people with them before the *sōtērion pathos* [saving passion]. The *stoibades* [branches] of Mark. Nonnus’s carelessness when he said *orpēkas* [shoots] or *korymba* [clusters], which by the Hellenists are called *chlōra* [green stuffs]. *Hellēnes* means gentiles, as said by the Syrian interpreter, and elsewhere Syrians. The interpretation of that passage: *The crowd said there was thunder.* The custom of the Hellenists ^B *phōnē, brontē*. *Phōnai kai hietos* [voices and rain] in the books of Samuel. *Doxa Theou* [glory of God] in the thunder. A daughter of a voice, and the judgment of the Jews concerning it. That it is applied to almost every sacred history according to the judgment of Jewish interpreters. A voice distinct from the thunder and articulated. *Antitypos brontēs phōnē* [a voice as a countertype of thunder], devised by Nonnus, who is ignorant of Jewish rites. The interpretation of the passage: *I will draw all men to myself.* Nonnus’s *parermēneia*. Still one little thing, a Hebraism; what the evangelists mean by *eti mikron*. An elegant passage of Haggai. Nonnus is noted. ^C Nonnus, how carelessly he translated the passage of Isaiah. Another passage of the same prophet, very poorly translated by Nonnus. *Timē* [honor] concerning the majesty of God is poorly placed by him. His error in the same passage, which he takes concerning the majesty of God, [rather] than concerning the humanity of the Son and [His] incarnation. Wherefore John used the latter passage of Isaiah to demonstrate the divinity of the Son of God. The cause of it is set forth from the Chaldaean interpreter of the passage of Isaiah.

The twelfth chapter follows, in the third clause of which that passage occurs: *Mary therefore taking a pound of ointment of nard opistike, of great price, anointed the feet of Jesus, etc.* Regarding which, how much one word has stirred up factions of learned men, I do not believe there is anyone who does not know. And their writings are in the mouth of all. There is surely no one who has not attempted something. Among whom, that [interpretation] of the learned theologian recently pleased many, who judged that it should be read as *Opistike*. And he was Hartung, a man most learned and of the highest candor: who, because he saw that not indeed an *Opistic* ointment—of which there is no mention among them—but a Babylonian [ointment] is commended, and because *Opin*, a Persian city not far from Babylon, is praised by Strabo and Herodotus, he amended [it] thus, though timidly and modestly. Which conjecture of the good and truly learned man some accepted as an oracle. If, however, they had diligently scrutinized the Hellenistic writers and their custom—which we solely desire in learned men, and especially in those who have applied themselves to the books of the New Testament—they would not have judged so rashly ^D about many things: although the principle of our institute will always hold for us, God willing, that before all things we should have regard for candor. That which is called by the Greeks *apseudes kai alēthes* [unfeigned and true], it is known that it is expressed in Hebrew by the word with which the Lord confirms His speech. For *to MN* denotes [it]. But the Hellenists, as we have often said, are wont to use [words] of the same origin. Thus, what is *omn*, by them is called *pistos*: because the word of origin denotes *tēn pistin kai to piston* [faith and that which is faithful]. And so *to piston* for them, which is excellent and excels among other things. Thus the temple of Solomon, that famous and excellent edifice, is everywhere called *oikos pistos* [faithful house] by them, as in that [verse]: *That making, my Lord will make a faithful house [oikos piston].* Or, *I will build for myself a faithful house [oikon piston],* in the book of Kings, and so always. Thus the prophet, of whom John makes mention everywhere, who is that true and only Messiah, the head of the prophets, is called *prophētēs pistos* [faithful prophet], in the first chapter of the Hasmoneans: *Until a faithful prophet should arise.* And this is the cause why they—the Hellenists—sometimes expressed *amun*, which denotes excellence. But now, that *pistikon* and *piston* are the same in later Greek, Isaac Casaubon, a man of stupendous erudition, proved from Cedrenus and others: who once, as he himself confesses, thought it had to be deduced *apo tou pein*. And not even in his latest writing, when he deals with it, did he satisfy himself. For, as I said, the interpretation of the evangelical language must be sought from the Hellenistic [usage]. But that he used that word, as well as nearly infinite other Greek ones, at that time, is made certain by the fact that they made *to MN*, *pistos* or *pistis*, their own. ^A From which they derived many words, and especially *aphel*. Therefore, whatever the Greeks express by *amun*, they derived from that word. Thus in that [passage] of Matthew XXVII, 20: *The chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds,* they [the Syrians say], *AMN*. Nor do they express that most noble passage of Paul, *not in the persuasive words of human wisdom*, as foreign to this word. For *peithois* [persuasion] there [is] *pistois*, and, as Aristotle is not once wont to speak, *pistikois*. Wherefore, it is not even to be doubted that the evangelist had *pistico* in his mind. Which he used in such a way that, as already before, *parrhēsia* [boldness] or *paraklētos* [comforter], and not a few other [words], which the Syrians and Chaldaeans used at that time in their own mode and signification. Wherefore it is particularly worthy of admiration, because the Syrian interpreter, who not rarely did not change words which were by their first signification Greek, but preserved [them] according to the usage of his time, changed it. Yet he expressed the sense rather than the word. Indeed, he interpreted what the evangelist intended; for he said *head of the ointment*, by which he signified preeminence. Which wonderfully deceived the learned, who from that passage imagined their *nardum capitata* [headed nard]. For that nard which he expressed is not *capitata* [headed], but *capitalis* [chief], as must be said with Marcus Tullius: preeminent, namely, and excellent, even as to the Hebrews *W'N MN* [is] ointment of the head, which is the head of the ointment. The Greeks, when they had not seen that the same word denoted both *piston* and *alēthē*, tormented themselves much. For who, according to the custom of the Hellenists and by the usage of his language, speak often, nowhere however found more delays and difficulties than in that language. Ingeniously Theophylact, having followed Origen, I suppose, interpreted [it] as *adolon* [guileless]. Because he remembered that pure nard was called *apseudē* by the ancients. And indeed concerning the adulteration of nard, or *peri tou doloun tēn nardon*, ^B 452 which is opposed to *tē pisti* or *alēthei*, Dioscorides dealt with [it] in book II, chapter 6. But the Hebrew word itself denotes both *to piston* and *to alēthes*. But that is the reason why it is so called, which we have brought. But it is necessary that those who depart from the Hellenistic language and its custom should always fluctuate. Wherefore not even those who by conjecture came closest to the meaning either understood or rendered the reason why it was so called. The teachers of the Hebrews are wont to call that anointing, the second washing, and the second waters, although it was done with ointment, which after food was in place of a washing. They would call the ointment itself *MN*, the office of anointing *MN AMN*, *to piston tōn hydatōn*: for thus they call irrigation. The learned ask, who wrote to this author, why Mary who wiped the feet of the Lord, *chaitē*

chaitē* ^A *pachladê* bestowed upon her by the poet. For thus he says at the fourth ^B of his chapter, *ektadē de / ikmada pialēn apemaxato machladi chaitē*. And without doubt they are mistaken when they refer this to the delicate softness of the hair. That there were three women who anointed the Lord is evident from the evangelists. The Fathers have argued much about them. For some, like Theophylact and Origen, hold them to be different women; some hold them all to be the same. Chrysostom separates this one from them. Jerome separates not this one, but her who is called *hamartōlos*, from the others. The passage is in Luke VII: *And behold, a woman in the city, who was a sinner, when she knew that He sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and standing at His feet, wiped them with her tears and the hairs of her head, and kissed His feet, and anointed them with the ointment.* Augustine wishes them all to be the same, except that he thinks this one of Luke's 453 performed this office twice. Furthermore, that this *hamartōlos*, whom our author mentions here, was the Magdalene, most Greeks and almost all Latins who have followed Gregory believe. Nor is there any doubt that Nonnus was also among them. Indeed, *hamartōlos* is a euphemism for a woman who in Chaldean, whose euphemisms of this kind are specific in this matter, is accustomed to be called [original-script column: see facsimile]. For the origin of the word denotes *hamartanein* or *aphamartein*. Therefore, when he said *machladi chaitē*, he meant the hair of this very *machlas*, which had been sinful, or that of a harlot. Moreover, that it was a custom, even among the Greeks, for harlots to nourish and grow their hair long, is shown by that passage in Callimachus' *Hymn to Demeter*: *Mē pais, mēde gynē, mēd' hē katecheusato chaitan* (Not a boy, nor a woman, nor she who lets down her hair). Lest anyone doubt that Nonnus had this *hamartōlos* in mind, the fact that, just as Luke has *alabastron* for her, Nonnus has given *marmaron* in its place, also argues this. For where he says *komisasa alabastron* here: *Marmaron ēertaze, bebysmenon, anggos eersēs.*

Commate eleven follows: *Hoti polloi di' auton hypēgon tōn Ioudaiōn.* Where, although there is no word in more frequent use among the Hellenists than *hypagein*, which they use of deserters or runaways, such as apostates are, our author nevertheless interpreted it as if they, upon whom the evangelist is acting, had betaken themselves to Bethany for the sake of seeing Lazarus. Who would deny this, who reads those lines: *Touton helein meneainon anaition; hotti di' auton / Laos Ioudaiōn metaneumenos endia kōmēs / Paidi Theou pisteuon, alexikakō basilēï?* Which is to wander as far as heaven from the earth. For *hypagein*, as in that 454: *Mē kai hymeis thelete hypagein?* (Will you also go away?), must be understood here: Do you also contemplate defection? In that, our evangelist excels above the others, that whoever honors unto the Lord and our God—*kat' oikonomian* and [by] an occult providence of God moderating all things for Himself and for our salvation—were exhibited, he notes and observes them. Such is what was said above regarding the royal honor shown, such is what we have below regarding the inscription of the Nazarene: for which our author substitutes the Galilean. Thus he now warns that as He came to Jerusalem, before ^C the *sōtērion pathos* and the final cruelty of the Jews, the people had met Him, who in their hand *bata phoinikōn*, that is, palms, were carrying before them. Moreover, the Hebrews and Chaldeans wish for the palms and palm-branches to be carried before them in the form of a scepter. Whence clearly here, as in the feast of Tabernacles, occurred the concourse of the people with that solemn acclamation, concerning which our author indeed thought no less than he [Nonnus] did. But what did Nonnus intend when he said: *Kai chloerous horpēkas es ēera laos helissōn?* For he was transitioning to another sort of religion, that is, ^D those were shaking thyrsi covered with foliage. But there is nothing of the kind in Mark or Matthew, who say they cut branches, *hina strōnnyōsin en tē hodō*. Whence that same Mark elegantly called them *stoibadas*. Much less John, who acts concerning the *oikonomia* of the occurrence. And indeed he says nothing less than accurately, what John called *baia*, [Nonnus called] *horpēkas*, and in his custom said *korymba*. Better would have been, following the Hellenists, to have said *kalynthra*. Hesychius: *Kalynthra, spathai phoinikōn*. Nor does it carry conviction, when he says they were taken from gardens; so frequent is the tree in this East that it is accustomed to serve the function of plaster for walls. More circumspect is Juvencus, who says they were plucked from palm-trees; who nevertheless clearly distinguishes these branches of palms from the others: *Tum populus stratis praetexunt vestibus omnes, / Quaque iter est Christo, subnexa fronde coronant. / Proxima tunc alii spoliant palmeta virore, / Conclamantque omnes Davidis origine creti: / Osanna excelsis sit gloria laeta tropaeis.* Our author (I believe because he did not trust that the word was fitting) omitted the acclamation itself.

Commate 20 follows: *Ēsan de tines Hellēnes ek tōn anabainontōn, hina proskynēsōsi en tē heortē.* What he said, *tines Hellēnōn*, [is] erudite in Syrian, *Noy*. From the nations, which indeed *Hellēnas*, according to the custom of the Jews, is interpreted elsewhere as Syrians. Chrysostom said *ethnē* here, and that the meaning was that they were becoming proselytes. In the twenty-eighth commate of the same chapter, the evangelist speaks thus: *Ēlthen oun phōnē ek tou ouranou: Kai edoxasa, kai palin doxasō.* After which voice sent forth from heaven, the same evangelist adds: *Ho oun ochlos ho hestōs kai akousas, elege, brontēn gegonenai: alloi elegon: Aggelos autō lelalēken.* Understand *brontēn* as that from which the divine voice had proceeded. We have often said that it is customary to the Hellenists that they place the meaning for the meaning of the same word. Thus *hēp* [sic] is voice, and especially, or excellently, thunder. That is, the voice of God. And because the thunder, or, a mighty wind, was accustomed to accompany the "daughter of the voice," as the Hebrews are accustomed to speak, that is, oracles, they rendered it *brontēn*. *Brontē*, therefore, is a heavenly voice, not articulated, but which follows or accompanies such. For the articulated [word] in this place is: *Kai edoxasa, kai palin doxasō.* The one is *hēp*, the other is *hēp na*. Concerning which the learned should be consulted. A 456 illustrious passage on this matter, and one that miraculously illustrates this, exists in 1 Samuel VII, 10: *And Samuel cried unto Jehovah, and Jehovah gave voices and rain in that day: and all the people feared the Lord exceedingly and Samuel.* And then adds that the people prayed that he would not die. Where the cause of fear is not the thunder, but the voice joined with the thunder, a witness equally of the divine presence and majesty. Nor is that 1 Kings XIX, 11 to be understood otherwise: *Behold, Jehovah passeth by, and a great and strong wind, and rending the mountains, and breaking in pieces the rocks before Jehovah: but Jehovah was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake; but Jehovah was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire; but Jehovah was not in the fire: And after the fire a still small voice.* Which the Greeks miraculously [translated] *kai meta to pyr phōnē auras leptēs*. Nor content with this, they added, *kakei Kyrios*, that is, not in the others, but there, or, in the voice, is the Lord. Which they were accustomed to express otherwise, *kakei hē doxa tou Theou*, the majesty or divine presence: of which that voice is the witness. Thus clearly in this place it had preceded: *Doxason sou to onoma.* It is answered: *Kai edoxasa, kai palin doxasō.* How? By my presence and majesty, which I exhibit by this voice and testimony. And thus Moses, when he seeks the divine presence in Exodus XXXIII, 16, in leading out the people, adds: *Kai endoxasthēsometha egō te kai ho laos sou.* But our author, in his manner, understood nothing less than what the *doxa Theou* was. Therefore, he finished [his task] in his own manner.

^A "And formerly I honored you, and I again honor you now." And, having forgotten that the Lord said: *"Glorify your name,"* instead of that, he said: "And I honored you." Verily, what is said—*"Then a voice came from heaven"*—is almost what the teachers say: *A daughter of a voice went forth.* Though they wish for this to have succeeded the prophecies, yet they are accustomed to accommodate it to histories of almost 457 [years], even before the first temple, although there is no mention of it in the sacred writings. For example, they say that when Saul had spared Agag, it was indicated by a voice: *Do not be too righteous;* and when he sacked the city of Nob, *Do not act too impiously,* he heard. Likewise, when he cast out the sorcerers and betook himself to the Pythoness. From these, the evangelist is most different, who, out of truth—and especially in confirming the people—notes that this voice was applied. There is therefore a voice with speech: which would be called [a bath qol] by the Rabbis. Which was distinct from thunder, and could be revealed without it. Wherefore our author, concerning what Augustus once pronounced about Claudius, *In strictly important matters he was very unfortunate,* when he said:

*An antitype of thunder came the voice to the ears of the people.*

The voice about which the evangelist speaks, the Lord himself—a voice, some of the people [said it was] thunder, that is, [a bath qol]—they said, due to the ambiguity of the voice, and from the fact that they thought these voices were exhibited with thunder. While others judged otherwise; namely, concerning an angel. Wherefore our author, when he saw [it] called now "voice," now "thunder," that is, [bath qol], and being ignorant of the Jewish rites, he devised *an antitype of thunder voice*: which had no place here; nor did he himself understand what he was writing. Concerning that passage of the evangelist, at the thirty-second verse, *And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all to myself,* Chrysostom excellently [explains it], meaning *even those from the nations.* And Euthymius, *all from everywhere who have received the faith.* And Cyril, *all generations of men,* just as theologians observe that *all* is often accepted. Being little mindful of which, our author preferred to refer this to the Jews standing around: which he shows even by this, that he imprudently added *yumeas* (all you) to the words of the most holy author:

"All you I shall draw to myself into the wide heaven."

458 Follows verse 35: *Jesus therefore said to them, Yet a little while the light is with you.* Where Nonnus [writes] obscurely:

*There shall be yet only for a time the ethereal light.*

Among the formulas which are most elegant, and by which the prophets point to future events a little later, especially that one is [found], which Haggai used concerning the advent of the Lord in the flesh: [a little while, and I will shake the heavens]. By which an altogether hyper-exiguous time is designated: as if you were to say, *yet one little while.* The evangelist expressed the meaning rather than the efficacy, when he said *yet a little while,* or *yet a little time.* Such are: *Yet a little time I am with you. And a little while, and you do not behold me, and again a little while, and you shall see me.* For the [Hebrew word], which is marvelous here, he passed over. The Hellenists attempted this, who, in that passage of Haggai we have already mentioned, rendered it *yet once.* *Yet once I strike the heaven and the earth.* Especially obscure. For to the Greeks this would be something else entirely. Word for word, you would say: *Yet one little while.* For which our author said *only.* And hence both the obscurity and the reason for that passage: *There shall be yet only for a time,* etc. For as he endeavored to express the other, namely [the once], which is peculiar to the Hebrews and certain others, so he omitted *the little while*: which the evangelist most especially kept in view. Not well—indeed, nothing less than in Greek—he expressed the passage of Isaiah that follows at verse 38: *Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?* For who that is learned in Greek would understand those [lines]:

^B O King, who after these things believed your hearing, Or to whom was the arm of God the creator bared?

Which if he had expressed it thus, any one learned in Greek would have understood: Who, O God, believed our words of mortals; Who in his own mind knew the power and strength of God?

459 For the one was conceived by Hebrew custom, the other by Greek. And indeed, he negligently weighs or renders the passages that are brought forward from the Old Covenant by the sacred author, as also indeed that passage, which a little later, namely at the forty-first verse, is brought forward from Isaiah the sixth: *These things Isaiah said when he saw his glory.* For Isaiah [spoke] nothing there concerning the advent of the Lord in the flesh, but concerning the majesty of the God of Sabaoth whom he saw; nor of the future, but of the past. That he saw [it], after the death of king Uzziah—under which king the glory of God is noted by the Greeks to have left the city—under his successor Jotham his son, a pious prince, [he saw] the divine majesty. Which again must be sought from the Chaldean. For the Chaldean, whom he follows there, [says]: *I saw the glory of the Lord.* Also, *And by the splendor of his glory the temple was filled.* The latter of which the Greeks also expressed: which two passages he contracted, when he said: *When he saw his glory.* Nonnus, besides the fact that he changed the word of essence into [citi] according to his custom, interprets the passage far otherwise. For the one describes the majesty of the Lord from its adjuncts, which he says he saw, *as far as possible for a man,* when he says he saw the Lord, whom he calls Jehovah, whom he calls the God of hosts, to whom he attributes the Seraphim and their acclamations. The evangelist, as Cyril and Eusebius rightly noted at that passage, vindicates those things for Christ: so that no one might doubt his divinity. Who at that passage, as not rarely at others, is called the Word of the Lord by the Chaldean. What then did our author want, when he wrote thus:

Isaiah recorded all these things with prophetic voice, That he beheld the foreordained honor of Christ God, With the all-seeing eye of the heart, and his grace He prophesied as a future forerunner of the divine [voice]?

460 Why *foreordained*? Why *future*? If he saw the present, if he relates a past matter, not a future one; if he treats of nothing concerning the advent of Christ and his humanity, but of his majesty, as all confess? Why, finally, if it is treated of the advent in the flesh, did he say *of Christ God* himself? Eusebius at that passage: *I think that by these things it is also demonstrated who that Lord Sabaoth was, who throughout all prophecy is manifested; and who this only-begotten Son is, who is in the bosom of the Father.* Cyril: *That the prophet has beheld the Son in the glory of the God and Father, no one can doubt.* He says that the prophet [has beheld] the Son in the glory of the Father. And shortly he brings this passage forward. Our author, indeed, was occupied with something else. And he follows: *And he spoke concerning him.* But one might wonder why, when such illustrious [passages] are found everywhere in that prophet and others concerning the majesty of God, the evangelist interpreted this one concerning the Son. I think the reason is that he was bringing forward those words from the Jews, *He blinded their eyes,* etc., which words, which I would especially like to be observed, are attributed to the Word of the Lord by the Chaldean, whom John always follows. For at that passage he [says]: *And I heard the voice of the Word of the Lord saying: Whom shall I send to prophesy? and who will go for us? And I said: Behold I, and send me. And he said: Go, and say to this people: Who hearing hear, and do not understand, and seeing see, and do not know, and what follows.* And it is a wonder that Euthymius did not accept this otherwise. These things, that is, [he accepts] concerning the blindness and induration, and the rest. But he calls his glory that glorious vision, when he saw the Lord sitting upon the throne high and lifted up; and the things which were about him were terrible and magnificent. For then he saw the Son: and he said and spoke these things afterwards about him, when then he had heard these things from him. From him, that is, from the Word, which the Chaldean expressed.

CHAPTER XXVI.

What is read in our author concerning the Lord, after he had washed the feet of his own, in the thirteenth chapter, verse 12:

When he was changing the circle of the twelve guests, Holy Jesus washed the feet of his companions, Having reclined, again he put on his garments.

It appears that this is not correctly read from the Evangelist: for he said of Christ, "having reclined again." When therefore he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, having reclined, he said to them: ^A Noster ergo scripsit sine dubio: ^B *Having reclined, again he put on his garments*, that is, having reclined again, he took his garments. For he signifies that, the duty of washing finished, he had reclined at the table again. In the twenty-first verse of the same chapter, the Evangelist speaks thus: *Jesus having said these things, was troubled in spirit*. But what *to be troubled in spirit* is, we have explained above, from the common Hebraism which was neglected. It is such a thing as *he groaned in spirit*. Therefore, our author errs, when he ascribes this perturbation, which ought to be referred here to the *economy* and *condescension*, to the Holy Spirit: who also, in the place where we have already spoken, is not rightly said by Euthymius ^C to be affected by perturbation, which appears at 463. To that passage of the Evangelist, which is read immediately in the twenty-sixth verse, *He it is to whom I shall give the sop, when I have dipped it*, and the things that follow, our author writes thus:

With the hand having dipped Into the wine the bread that he wet, I pass it, He himself betrays me.

And afterwards he adds:

And having dipped the bread into the cup full of wine, He gave the last bread to the shameless Judas, The bread, the herald of the killer of him who possesses wealth. And after the divine bread, sowing desire into Him, the attendant of sin, the demon entered him entirely.

Where indeed, since he both said *the last bread*, and not content with this, said *divine bread*, he seems to have done this studiously, that he might persuade his reader that the distribution of the morsel which he describes was a continuation of the Lord's feast. But it is clear also from his words that it is to be understood according to that opinion which the ancients called the *Intincta* [dipped element], who thus celebrated the remembrance of the Lord in bread and wine. Moreover, just as it is certain that the Egyptians, in comparison with the rest of the peoples of the earth, were especially ensnared in and attached to the worship of idols and superstitions, so they, when the mystical rites of our religion were translated to others, of whose number our author also was, almost always departed into factions, both in other things and in the celebration of this mystery. Such is what Sozomenus notes concerning them: that they communicated in the mystery after having dined and toward evening. ^D *But with the Egyptians in many cities and villages, contrary to what is customary among all in common, assembling toward evening on the Sabbath, having dined, they already partake of the mysteries, and with prayers and hymns of the same kind, or by readings at the same time, it is not possible to find 464 that all have used them.* It was, however, far greater that they offered the bread dipped in wine. Which, since the ancients permitted it in times of necessity, as is proved by the example of Serapion, which is not unknown to anyone, by Eusebius, the Egyptians converted it into a custom and practice, until it was abolished by Pope Julius: concerning which matter he wrote a letter to the Egyptian bishops. Micrologus, chap. 19: *But it is not authentic that some dip the body of the Lord, and distribute the dipped body to the people for the completion of the communion. For the Roman order contradicts it, because it orders that wine not consecrated should be consecrated on the day of preparation, with the Lord's Prayer and the commingling of the Lord's body, so that the people might be able to communicate fully. Which it would surely command superfluously, if the Lord's body dipped on the previous day were preserved, and thus it appeared that the dipped body would suffice for the people to communicate.* Julius also, the thirty-sixth pope in order, writing to the Egyptians, also prohibits such dipping, and teaches that the bread and the chalice are to be taken separately, according to the Lord's institution. Which opinion flowed without doubt from a poorly understood passage *concerning the bread*. Since they thought that what this Egyptian of ours said openly was *divine* or *holy* bread, which the Lord offered to his traitor.

^A

Just as he clearly distinguishes this same morsel from the offering of the Lord’s body in Tractate 52 on John, Augustine notes: "But not, as some who read carelessly suppose, did Judas then receive the body of Christ." For it must be understood that the Lord had already distributed the sacrament of his body and blood to them all, where Judas himself was also present, as St. Luke most clearly narrates; and then it came to the point where, according to the narrative of John, the Lord quite openly, by means of the dipped morsel furthermore handed to him, identifies his traitor: perhaps signifying by the dipping of the bread the deception of that man. For not everything that is dipped is washed, but some things are dipped precisely so that they may be stained. But if the dipping here signifies some good, the same good is deservedly a damnation to the ungrateful. From this our author here departs, so that while he establishes that the dipped bread—which was sacred, nay, which he deems to have been a sacrament, which Augustine denies there—nonetheless also hints at the mark of the traitor. For he clearly calls it: *Bread of the herald of the lover of possessions …* ^B This matches the preceding words of the evangelist, which he cannot evade, and the inquiry of our evangelist. And yet he called it *bread* in the 14th chapter, when in verse 5 the evangelist said, *And Thomas said to him*, he was, in his own way—as is customary for him everywhere—too loosely liberal. For he says: *And the dual-named one, he whose name is Thomas, whom parents named Didymus, since the eighth course of the sun had risen for the boy.* ^C 466 Here there are some joking and ridiculous things. Such as the one of which we spoke a little before, as others also have, that he called Thomas "double," as if either "Thomas" signified being double-named, or Thomas himself were double-named because he is called so: that is, because *Didymus* is called "twin" in Greek. And, if we call him double-named for that reason, because he was a twin by birth and had a twin brother, this would be the same as if we called Castor double-named because he was the twin brother of his twin. Indeed, the Masorete teachers say the words which occur twice in the same verse in Scripture, *theomim*, are "twins." If anyone on that account calls them "double-named," he deserves nothing but laughter: which our author did not avoid, but—to speak with the Latin comic poet—summoned upon himself with his own beast of burden. To this add his ignorant and most inept error, that he desires this name *Didymus* to have been imposed at the *mila*, or circumcision: whereas it is not a name of the fathers or a personal name, but an interpreted one. What of the fact that *Thomas* will not signify *Didymus* if he was therefore *dionymos*, that is, double-named, because both *Didymus* and *Thomas* were said to be the same thing? Add that, if this was his name, it was surely *Didymus*, as he clearly says here, and this name was imposed by his parents; then *Didymus* will be a Hebrew name. For he says *Didymus* was spoken by his parents at his circumcision. What a remarkable absurdity this is! For thus *Isaac* would be *Laughter* (*Gelōs*), because Eusebius and others interpret it so, and this name would have been imposed on him by his parents on the eighth day. Which those ridiculous people note: ^D *Eighth course of the sun had risen for the boy.* Nor is it simply true that parents imposed the name, since that matter pertains to the Fathers. Just as is apparent from many things in the Old Testament, 467 as well as from the history of the Baptist and his father Zacharias, who, when he could not express the name of his son, and as it had to be sought from the received custom from the father (although in that case the mother had already supplied it by the inspiration of the Spirit), he conceived his opinion in writing; and by this very argument, the great man, when it is said in Isaiah chapter seven: *A virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel*, is believed by the prophet to deal with the Messiah. For he did not have a father on earth, and therefore that was committed to the mother. Although I am not ignorant of what others have noted concerning that passage. But I marvel at the judgment; the evangelist mentions the Hebrew name. He says *Didymus* was spoken by the parents at circumcision, and yet, because he was called *Thomas*, which is the same as *Didymus*, he says he was double-named. Cyril interprets what the evangelist wrote in the same chapter, in verse eleven, *That I am in the Father, and the Father in me*, as indicating the modes of the divine nature. From these, *isourgia* (equal-working) is not excluded, which itself also notes unity. And therefore, also when it is said, *My Father works until now, and I am working*, equality and unity are proved *through the equal-working*. And he introduces *isourgia* here, when he says: *But if not, believe me for those very works.* Why is it irrelevant what he adds here: *I speak, but he acts*? As if it were the proper and peculiar office of the Word of God *to speak* only, but of the Father without the Son *to work* only. Because without doubt he had read among the ancients that in creation the Father had worked through the Son: and whatever the Father does, he does by the Word: but this Word is the Son. Augustine, to that place of our evangelist which I already mentioned: "Do you attend to the works of God? Through me all things were made. The Father wrought light. But he said that it should be. If he said it, he wrought by his word; and I am his word. 468 My Father both worked then when he made the world, and now works when he rules the world. Therefore, he made through me when he made, and rules through me when he rules." This had no place here. For he is not arguing here about the mode *of the workers*, but *concerning being equal in honor and consubstantial*, as Chrysostom testifies on this passage. But he proves this *from divine things*. And these are miracles. Therefore *through equal-working* he proved the *consubstantiality of nature*. To what purpose then now that: *I am united to the Son; I speak, but he acts.* When he meant this: *I am consubstantial with the Father; therefore believe me; but if not, for this reason believe me; believe for the divine works; for you see the equal-working in the Father*; which is the simple sense. And he is compelled to infer this selfsame thing afterward: *If you do not believe me, believe the wise works alone, through which you may know also the undivided union of the constraint, of the Son remaining in the Father, and of the Father being in the Son.* Where again he used the word *syzygia* (union/yoking) for the persons, yet not alone, since it is evident that the ancients before him spoke thus. Justin Martyr, or whoever is the author of the *Exposition of the Faith*: "He does not include in this doxology the Son and the Spirit, as joined to the divine nature, evidently. Item: But also separated from the created substance, and joined to the uncreated. Item: It would be absurd for them to be partakers of that substance, to which they were everywhere joined." Whence also it is clear that it is said in this way most especially in respect to the substance, in which one and three are one. In the seventeenth verse it follows: *The Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive.* Where again our author is stuck in his mud, in which he sticks in chapter eleven and elsewhere not once, as if the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone, and not also 469 from the Son. Which is the error of the little Greeks.

^A and others in different ways based on the time of his ^A, among whom some confessed that he proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father, and in this manner—in the mode of existence—is distinguished from the Son, but otherwise does not proceed (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Son, as he does from the Father, but rather is imparted or communicated (μεταδίδοσθαι), they said. Our author does not even admit that he who is of the Father is also of the Son. For if he had said "the Spirit of God," it could have been admitted and borne. For thus he would have included the Son as well: how many passages of the ancients are not excused by the orthodox? Such is that passage in lib. 2, cod. tit., *De Trinit. et Fid. Cath.*, which is brought forward by the learned in this matter: "Whoever does not violate the Holy Spirit, whom we hope for and receive from the highest Parent of things." Where the Son could have been called the highest parent no less than the Father. But here, the personal noun is relative (σχετικόν), and it is hardly to be doubted that it excludes the other. For he called the Spirit common and paternal:

That a mortal never beholds So great a primordial light in human eyes, The Spirit of the begetting God.

Not long after, in verse 19, it is read thus: "A little while, and the world does not see me; but you see me." Regarding which place—how variously it is accepted—I shall say nothing here. Theophylact refers it to those forty days during which the Lord remained on earth after the resurrection; and Augustine does not conflict with this interpretation, who says it can be referred to the flesh, which he wished to prove to his own to be equally capable of being seen and being touched. And indeed, if it is referred to the contemplation of deity, the world had never seen it. For, as Augustine himself testifies, it saw the man, it did not see God: it saw the garment, it did not see the wearer. But what 470 did our author intend, when he mentions a divine form here:

A brief time yet, when my divine form The unbelieving world will no longer see, But you alone shall behold me.

^B This means: "A little while longer, when the unbelieving world will no longer see my divine ^C form. But you alone shall see me." Yet, that "form" (μορφὴ) denotes substance, in the case of all the ancients and Nonnus, we have already proved at length in its proper place. By what reasoning, therefore, will the world no longer see what it had not seen; nor had those [others] seen, whom he prefers to the world in this part? And not even Moses himself, or Isaiah, or Paul, unless by a peculiar opinion—from which others dissent—of Augustine. For that [saying] is known: "No man has seen God at any time," of such a nature, that is, according to essence (κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν), according to the divine form (κατὰ τὴν θείαν μορφήν), as the ancients speak with our author. Theophylact on that passage: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father. But many think they see me, yet do not see the Father; so that they do not see me according to the divine nature, but according to the human." Add here that "to see" (θεωρεῖν) is used by the Hellenists for bodily vision. Such are: "to see signs," "to see works," and "to see the linen cloths lying," just as no one ^D saw the divine form of Christ. This was also well understood by those who refer this "contemplation" (θεωρίαν) to the second advent of Christ with Cyril. Be that as it may, he spoke thoughtlessly, as always, who either refers these things to essence, or used a word by which he expressed the divine essence thus far. For if he intended this, [he meant] that these things should be referred to the "energy of the Spirit," of which Cyril likewise says: "After he departed from here, invisible to the wise of the earth, he is visible to the saints; for the Spirit implants in their minds a divine and intellectual brightness, and a knowledge fitting [to them], and illuminates the eyes of the heart in a wonderful 471 way." Just as he said of the world: "A little later, the world will no longer see me." For with John, "the world" (ὁ κόσμος) is almost perpetually "the unbelievers," certainly in this place, where "the world" (ὁ κόσμος) is contrasted with the saints. And if we should doubt, he himself called it "the unbelieving world" (κόσμον ἄπιστον) here. Wherefore, that we may settle the matter with him most effectively, he has spoken inconsistently and incoherently (ἀνακόλουθα καὶ ἀσύστατα) in this place. Not unlike this place is that which stands in the verse after: "And I will love him, and I will manifest myself to him." On which passage the great man Chrysostom noted: "As the Father manifests himself, so also do I." By which words he sufficiently implies what he means. Thus, indeed, after this life, the Son will be seen, just as the Father will be seen. Augustine says: "He will show himself with the Father as one God, not as he was seen in this age in body and in sufferings." Cyril says: "I will manifest myself to him." To the worlds, the vision of God is certainly the highest reward; in whom Christ will shine through the Spirit, illuminating each thing, and raising their minds to the knowledge of himself with ineffable splendor. Those who reach these things will be truly blessed. What, then, did he mean, when he refers this to the body, and added "the now" (τὸ αὐτίκα), which he had not found:

And I will straightway show the divine form of myself to him?

By which words he undoubtedly expressed the apparitions that took place after the resurrection. And Theophylact is of this opinion: who called what Nonnus termed "the divine aspect of the body" (θέσκελον εἶδος χροός), a "more God-like body" (σῶμα θεοειδέστερον). "Because," he says, "after the resurrection he was about to appear to them with a more God-like body." Euthymius is a little different: "Sometimes indeed in a human manner, at other times in a divine splendor." In whatever way you take it, that "straightway" (αὐτίκα) is curious. But because it had been said before, "a little while yet," which those who understood that passage of the second 472 advent thought could also be referred to the length of time, because they say "a thousand years, before God, are as one day": it seemed to him to speak in this way in this place too. In which I desire judgment, as always. In the following chapter, in the second verse, in that passage, "Every branch in me not bearing fruit, he takes away," the Fathers have judged "in me" (ἐν ἐμοὶ) to be of the greatest efficacy. For this is what he meant, says Euthymius: "He who has germinated from me, and is engrafted into me by faith, yet produces no fruit." Which words our author has passed over neither in order nor correctly. Forgetful of everything that follows in the night: "Abide in me, and I in you; as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it remains in the vine." It follows in the same verse: "And every branch that bears fruit, he purges it, that it may bear more fruit." Where our author: "knows how to purge with newly-sprung leaves" (οἶδε καθαίρειν Ἀρτιφύτοις πετάλοις). What this might be would have to be sought out of that passage. For he expressed what he meant neither ambiguously, nor in Greek, nor according to the usage of farmers. How much better is Chrysostom, who says: "For to purge (καθαίρειν) is to prune (περικόπτειν); which makes the branch more productive," who seems to have read (καθαίρει) just as our author. For also a little earlier: "Therefore he says: 'That which bears fruit, he purges it.'" Yet that word deceived our author, by which he envelops, [and] does not interpret, what the evangelist said. The same man most effectively notes that all things said here are to be understood of the branches. "And every branch that bears fruit, he purges it," he says, "that is, he makes it to enjoy much care." Although the root requires care before the branches, being dug around and stripped; but he says nothing here about it, but everything is about the branches, showing that he himself is sufficient for himself; but the disciples require much help from 473 the husbandman, even if they be very virtuous. Therefore he says: "That which bears fruit, he purges it." For the one, because it is fruitless, is not even able to be in the vine; the other, because it bears fruit, he renders more productive. Therefore the matter concerns pruning. Hence the same great man learnedly refers it to calamities. But it is one thing to prune, and another quite different thing to strip the leaves, which is what our author wanted. Chrysostom teaches that it should be referred solicitously to the branches; our author, who was occupied with something else, took it of the leaves. I cannot admire enough how much he sometimes sticks in trifles. Such is that which the evangelist said: "Unless one abides"

^A in me, he is cast out like a branch, and is withered, and they gather them and cast them into the fire." Our author, being apparently completely unskilled in Hebraisms, because he had found συνάγουσιν καὶ βάλλουσιν [they gather and cast] according to Hellenistic usage, thought that something had to be understood. Therefore, he supposed that angels were intended: "And having changed him, they cast him into the fire, / The celestial ministers." But those who have even tasted the Hellenistic idiom know that the evangelist intended nothing else than what is set forth most simply: καὶ συνάγεται καὶ βάλλεται [and it is gathered and is cast]. For the Hebrews understand "the one who happens to be" [as the subject]. So in Ezekiel fifteen, where it treats similarly of the vine: "If they shall take a branch from it to make anything for work," [it means] men, or anyone. Nor in that place does the Chaldean [interpreter] speak otherwise. And everywhere [the author] is a child when he touches upon the Hellenistic idiom. To which even this, in the same chapter and verse sixteen, would beget faith: "Not you chose me, but I chose you, and I set you, that you should go and bring forth fruit." Where Chrysostom interprets ἔθηκα [I set] as ἐφύτευσα [I planted]. Truly and elegantly, as he is accustomed. And what follows: ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑπάγητε καὶ καρπὸν φέρητε [that you should go and bring forth fruit], 474 [the author] explains correctly, that he used the metaphor of the vine, that is, because he still adheres to the translation of the vine; which observation is undoubtedly true. Our author has correctly expressed neither. And the things he adds from his own store are beside the scope of the proverb and the manner of speaking. See the passage: "I received you all from the cities with an intelligent mind / As strangers, and I set you, so that coming / You might increase fruit, and your seed might be / Fruitful unto eternity."

And it is shameful to note such trivial things. Such is the fact that he added "coming," as if that, "that you should go and bring forth fruit," were anything other than "that you should be fruitful," by a most common pleonasm of his language. Had he never, then, read: "Go and reprove him"? Likewise: "But go, show thyself to the priest" (Mark 1, 44). And others of that kind are, among the Hellenists, "as the dust." It is strange, however, that he was so negligent that he did not learn from any theologian, in the passage that follows, what "to be scandalized" meant: "These things have I spoken to you, that you should not be scandalized." If he had understood this, he would never have rendered it "incredulous fury." The passage is at the beginning of the fourteenth chapter. But no one expressed this better than Basil, who says in *De baptismo*: "Scandal is, as I conceive, being led by what is written, everything which either leads to some apostasy from the truth according to piety, or causes an invitation to error, or builds up toward impiety, or generally hinders anyone from obeying the commandment of God, even to the very point of death." Than which nothing clearer, nothing more accommodating could have been said: just as he puts the scandal in terms of death and persecution. If I wished to recount how often our author has tripped in the use of particles, there would be no end, no limit. But one must proceed gently. You have an example in what follows: "They will make you 475 excommunicated; but the hour comes that everyone who kills you," etc. Which he rendered: "But this is the swift time, when every mortal man / In his mind / Who might kill you with an iron reaper," etc. ^B And yet *alla* [but] in that passage of the Hebrews [in truth/Hebrew: *in veritate*] is indeed a strong affirmation. And thus the Hellenists are wont to speak. You have an example in Job 31, 8: "And I said, Is not the time of the speaker [the time when the mind speaks]? And in many years they do not know wisdom. But there is a spirit in mortals; and the breath of the Almighty that teaches." It has no less efficacy in that place than if he had said *amen, amen* in the accustomed manner. "They will cast you out of the synagogues. Amen, amen I say to you, the hour cometh, that he who shall take you away," etc. Which the Chaldean has expressed excellently, who in that passage of Job ^C and not badly as learned men, to whom the *quinimo* [nay rather] please: which, as less effective, thus ties these things best to the preceding. There follows: *δότη λατρείας, προσφέρειν τῷ Θεῷ* [to offer service/sacrifice to God]. ^D By which words he affirms that it will be such impiety of wicked men after the death of the Lord, that he who shall be about to subject any of the saints to a dire punishment, will think that he is offering himself as a sacrifice grateful and acceptable to God. Where he undoubtedly looked to that word, which does not so much designate a sacrifice, as it contains it. Now that word is *corban*, which also pleased the Syrian here. For that word, as it signifies a gift, so it embraces a sacrifice. And according to the word, the Lord predicted what was to be. For at this time the wicked circumcised, the homicides of our Lord and God, who dare to assert that there is no need of penance for him who has killed a Christian, do not hesitate to add the very words which interpret this place, nay, fulfill the prophecy: that it is a transgression, *corban* [they have offered], as if he had offered a *corban*. Which 476 sacrifice these men understand to be the crime itself. Although, however, to the Hellenists *corban* is for the most part *latreia* [divine service], yet because those same Hellenists, as many of them were interpreters at that time, used the word *douleia* [slavery/service] in expressing it, he was such an infant that he thought *douleia* was the same in this place as *latreia*. But who has progressed so little in Greek learning as to think that *douleia* to offer, or *douleia* to perform, could be said when the matter concerns a sacrifice? By the same evangelist, in the same chapter, verse 14, it is said: "He shall glorify me, because he shall take of mine, and will declare it to you." There preceded, however: "But all things that he shall hear he will speak, and the things that are to come he will declare to you." On which passage Augustine says: He calls the hearing, which is attributed to the Spirit, eternal, because the knowledge also is eternal. To which knowledge he undoubtedly looked when he said, "he shall take of mine." *Lēpsis* [taking], indeed, for the Hebrews is *da'ath* [knowledge], is doctrine. And *lambanein* [to take] for *manthanein* [to learn], just as sometimes *hypakouein* [to obey] for the Hellenists. From which it is clear how clearly [the act of] hearing and [the act of] taking are linked here with Isaiah 29, 24: "And they who err in spirit shall know understanding, and they who murmur shall learn 477 to obey." Where, which you may marvel at, in the Hebrew there is *lēpsis*, which the Hellenists called *hypakoēn* [obedience]. Jerome rendered it as the law. This *lambanein*, and this *lēpsis*, the ancients thought so proper to the Holy Spirit that they accommodated it to the mode of subsistence. And hence their opinion, who while they said the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, also distinguished this. For they said: "to proceed from the Father, to take from the Son." How Epiphanius has not spoken once, when that same man admits it not once, in which Nonnus hesitated, that the Son is from God, the Spirit from both. Against the Pneumatomachi: "If however Christ is believed to be God from God, and the Spirit of him from Christ, being from both, as Christ says, 'who proceedeth from the Father'; and 'He shall take of mine'; and Christ [comes] from the Holy Spirit." And immediately in the beginning: "For the Spirit of the Lord is named, both proceeding from the Father, and taking from the Son, and granting the gifts variously as he wills." Our author, who perhaps had heard nothing about this opinion, and maintains the worse one, did not preserve the word, but changed it; for everywhere he used *tō dechesthai* [to receive]. In which same way almost the Hellenists sometimes use it, as in Proverbs 2: "Hear, O Son, and receive my words," that is, "Hear, and learn." Where the Chaldean [uses] *lēpsis*, whence the Jewish Cabala, word for word. Furthermore, that we may bear everything (for to err is human), what is not to be borne, whether it be of supreme audacity, or of supreme rashness in this place, to say it most lightly, is not to be borne. For with the word of wickedness, which expresses this which I wish, I abstain however from evil. For not when concerning the Spirit...

^A he speaks, did he find it sufficient to add what he did not find; as when he sometimes said above of the Spirit that it was "of the Father" or "of the Progenitor," when nothing of the kind existed, except now this:

*This one, going from the Father,*

firmly adding to his own heterodox dogma, unless he were to change those very things which had been dictated by the Holy Spirit. For since it was written, *He shall take of mine*, he substituted instead of it, *of the Father of mine*. And so, when he had found in the Evangelist, *This one shall glorify me, because he shall take of mine, and shall announce it unto you*, he dared to introduce these things:

*This one from the Father shall exalt me, honoring me,* *Because, having received from the Progenitor,* *He reveals beforehand to you the mixed mysteries,* etc.

There was no need for this mutation, since the subject is not the procession ^B of the Spirit, as he imagined, but the unity of the Son and the Spirit: for as to how he understands *He shall take of mine*, the great Chrysostom says: "The *of mine*, from what I know, is from my own knowledge; for there is one knowledge of me and of the Spirit." The same says, "Just as therefore, when speaking concerning himself, he says *I do not speak this of myself*, because nothing is outside those things of the Father, nor is anything his own, distinct and alien from him; so also in the case of the Spirit." Just as, he says, the Son, when he speaks of himself, claims nothing for himself, ascribes to himself nothing—even in that which he is saying—takes to himself nothing proper which is not equally the Father’s: so now he deals here concerning the Spirit, so that he may show himself to be one with the Spirit. Cyril says, "Since the Spirit is of the same substance with the Son, having all his power, he therefore says: *Because he shall receive of mine*." From which communion, so that he might not exclude the Father, he adds: *All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine*. Whatever is the Father’s, is the Son’s; whatever is the Son’s, is the Spirit’s. From which again he carries it over, what he had already said before: *Therefore I said that he shall take of mine*, because that which is the Father’s is the Son’s. But I cannot sufficiently admire either the rashness or the license of the interpreter. What Christ said twice, he changed twice. For he said once: *He shall glorify me, because he shall take of mine, and shall announce it unto you*. And again: *Therefore I said that he shall take of mine, and shall announce it unto you*. Our author, ^C with shrewdness, not in one but in both places, introduced what he had found, and in place of it put his own error. For in place of what is said by the Savior, *of mine*, he amended it to *of the Father*. By which, as nothing is more true, so nothing is more imprudent. For in the former place:

*This one from the Father, shall exalt me, honoring me,* *Because, having received from the Progenitor,* *He reveals beforehand to you the mixed mysteries.*

In the latter place, ^D *479* *For which reason I said to you, that from the holy Progenitor* *Having received, he announces beforehand the end of works.*

He did not see how ridiculous the argument is, since he keeps the same reasons by which the contrary is proved. The Evangelist said: *He shall glorify me, because he shall take of mine*. Nonnus said: *He shall extol me, because he shall take from my Father*. The Evangelist said: *Whatever the Father has, the Son has: and therefore I said that he was to take of mine*. Nonnus said: *Whatever the Father has, the Son has: and therefore I said that he was to take from my Father*. Never have I seen greater license and at the same time greater *akrisia* [lack of judgment]. And this is a wondrous method of both interpretation and argument. For he changed the *problēma*; but he kept the *lēmma*, with which he proves it, as the dialecticians say. Nor did he understand what *doxazein* [to glorify] means in this place. For what the Evangelist says in chapter 25, *to speak with boldness* [parrhesia], Nonnus elegantly said to speak *with a white speech*:

*I shall speak of the angels, diverse matters with a white speech.*

In which way not rarely the ancient theologians speak, who call clear and perspicuous speech *leukada* [white/bright]. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 12: *And [saying] that he says thus, And in the days of those kings, God shall raise up the kingdom of the heavens*. And a little after: *But we still seek a brighter proof of the presence of the times*. So Caesarius: *Concerning which I shall discourse a little later*. And so he said that the same *leukainein* [to make white] declares the intent, the mind. In the seventeenth chapter, verse 12, when it is read: *Those whom thou hast given me I have kept, and none of them is lost, except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled*, I will not say what seems to us concerning the place, unless that it may seem wonderful that the place from the Psalm, which is cited in the first chapter of Acts concerning Judas, is understood here. For nothing is there *concerning the perdition of Judas*, ^B 480 used with the mind with which it is seen to be brought in here. But the *to plērousthai* [to be fulfilled], often used by parody, when one word touches upon another, has [a sense] in the sacred books. It treats here of the eternal destruction of Judas, who, because he had sinned—as the Hellenist theologians say—with a *naked head*, had plunged himself into eternal destruction. And yet in the following chapter, the Evangelist applies it far otherwise to what is said here: *Jesus answered, I said unto you, that I am he. If therefore you seek me, let these go; that the saying might be fulfilled which he said, That of those whom you have given me, I have lost no one*. Here he speaks of the destruction of the soul, there of the laying on of hands, from which he had them immune. Theophylact: *The Lord indeed called perish the destruction of the soul, which none of those who were taught by him underwent; but the evangelist took this concerning this bodily [safety]*. Although I am not least unaware what is brought forward here by the theologian concerning temptation beyond one's strength. But if you understand the place which I have already mentioned, our author does not escape the *carozelia* [jealousy/zealotry]: who, because he remembered above that the Psalms are called *nomon* [law], and did not think how, from Hellenistic usage—concerning which we said some things above—that occurred, he wished to imitate it, when Hebraisms, if they occur anywhere, are rather to be removed than, where they do not occur, applied. And this seems to be the principal task of the paraphrast. It is a stubborn and constant error, that everywhere he interprets the word *doxa* [glory] most poorly. Example again, that we may not go far, in the twenty-second verse you have: where when the evangelist says, *And I have given them the glory which thou hast given me, that they may be one even as we are one*, he used, in his own fashion, our word *kydos* [honor/glory]:

*And to them I gave the honor which you afforded me, that among us* *All, joined together, may be perfected and they themselves are* *Yokefellows.*

But how much better Nyssenus, who understands it as *to pneuma* [the Spirit], ^D 481 who is the Spirit of God himself, who in the explanation of that place: *Then the Son himself shall be subjected*: "But also the following parts of the Gospel agree with those things which have been said. *The glory which you given me, I have given to them.* For I think that he calls the Holy Spirit 'glory' here, which he gave to the disciples through the breathing; for it is not otherwise possible for those who are separated from each other to be united, since the Spirit of Christ is not, is not in them. For the Spirit is the glory; just as he says elsewhere to the Father: *Glorify me with the glory which I had from the beginning with you before the world was.* And from Hellenistic usage, that the glory and the indwelling are joined in the Chaldean manner, and that it is sometimes used when speaking of the same thing as the majesty of God, we have shown already before."

CAPUT XXVII.

The eighteenth chapter is gone through. The wondrous idiosyncracy of Nonnus, *charin ergou*. *Ergon* [work] for *nomisma* [money]. *Those doing the work*, money-changers. *Having worked for hire*. Peter’s sword. Why, in Theophylact’s opinion, Peter had a sword at hand. *Machaira* [sword] as a cultriform knife, a dagger. Pascha as *thyēpolia* [sacrificial rites], the slaughtering of the lamb. Whether *machaira* for Nonnus is correctly *aor* [sword], *xiphos* [sword], or *aossētēr* [helper] of iron. That for the use of slaughtering, the *machairan* for Agamemnon is attributed by Homer. *Dorides* [spears], and their use among the Greeks. To warm the hearth of the wise [men], an ancient [saying] of the Hebrews...

and that the evangelist appeared to have alluded to this. Caiaphas ^A and Annas were supreme priests, and in what way. In this, the error of Nonnus is noted. Concerning the robbers, with whom the Lord was joined on the cross, and why He was joined to them, it has been discussed. Barabbas is a murderous robber (*λῃστὴς θανατηφόρος*), [and there are] seditionists (*στασιασταί*) [and] rebels (*ἀντάρται*). Men guilty of diverse crimes, affected by diverse punishments by the Jews. The charge or title of the Lord. The word *λῃστὴς* used by the Syrians and Chaldeans in a slightly different manner than by the Greeks at that time. The same who are *ἐνεδρεύοντες*, evildoers (*κακοῦργοι*). To Theocritus, *κακοῦργοι*, and the same as those who are *κακοῦργοι* to Thucydides and Luke. A cave of robbers. Concerning burglars. How they are spoken of in Hebrew. That the word 482 is drawn also to false prophets by the Jews. *Ἄγορον* in prophecy in that sense concerning the robbers crucified with the Lord. *Listin* armed. *Λῃστὴς* with a spear (*καθοπλισμένος*), *gaisa* or *gasa* from a Syrian word. The use of a stylus or graphium among the Romans was forbidden. Committing a common crime to the Lord with two robbers. That it was *majestatis* (treason). But a *peculiar* rebellion (*ἀνταρσία*), or the crime of a feigned kingdom. Sedition (*στάσις*), seditious (*στασιασταί*). The judgment in the punishment of the Lord was that of the Romans. A club (*ῥόπαλον*), *fustuarium*. *Ἀχάρακτος*, un-notched. The punishment of the holy martyrs ^B was taken by the club.

It is learned, but nothing less than Greek elegance, what is said in the next chapter, verse five, concerning Judas, that for the sake of a fleeting task (*μινυνθαδίου χάριν ἔργου*) he betrayed the Lord. Where *ἔργον*, perhaps, or money, if I am not mistaken, he calls it. But who speaks Greek in such a way? Therefore, this passage exercised us not a little in the beginning. But that it must have belonged to the Hellenists who existed at that time, I have no doubt. Indeed, in Esther ch. III, those who *ποιούντες τὸ ἔργον* are called money-changers. Whence that: "into the hands of those who do the work (*ποιούντων ἔργον*)." Where the Jerusalem Targum interprets it as money: "through the hands of those who make money." And hence perhaps in ch. II, those whom the evangelist called *κερματιστάς*, or money-changers, our poet called those "having a base task (*ὤνιον ἔργον ἔχοντας*)." For I do not believe he was so inept as to think that *ἔργον* is the same as *χρῆμα*, so as to confuse *χρῆμα* and *χρήματα*. Which is hardly to be expected from trivial people. And yet we pass over some things in it, which no one truly learned in the Greek language would tolerate in a beginner; for today there are not a few who think they know Greek because they have learned the rules of grammar. There are many things in this evangelist which, while they seem of no importance, have sometimes caused no small scruple among the Fathers and among us. For you would seek 483 help from Nonnus in most things in vain. Our most holy evangelist says, verse 10, with others, that Peter, when the Lord was led away by wicked men, bore a sword (*μάχαιραν*): which some of the ancients admit they wonder at, because the use of the sword was already forbidden to them before; among whom are two most excellent interpreters, Chrysostom, and Theophylact, who speaks from his mouth very often; who ingeniously wills that he had taken it for the sake of the lamb that had been sacrificed, and for fear of the danger soon impending. The words of Theophylact are: "Learn that for the sake of the lamb he needed this [sword], and he was flaying it, and after supper, or even fearing the attack, he had prepared himself again for this." The interpretation of Theophylact which I mentioned undoubtedly refers to that passage which is read concerning the father of all the faithful, to whom, about to sacrifice his son, a sword (*μάχαιρα*) is attributed by the Hellenists. Although I have often wondered that nothing about Luke came to their minds when they wrote that it was forbidden: "Lord, behold, here are two swords; and He said to them: It is enough." Be that as it may, in this place, Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, according to their opinion, the sword being undoubtedly a *cecespita*, or the slaughtering knife of a butcher. The Glossary of Henry Stephens: *μάχαιρα*, the sheath-knife (*παραμήριον*), a dagger (*sica*). The same interprets *μαχαιροποιόν* as a maker of knives. Among the Hebrews elegantly *מַאֲכֶלֶת*, in Chaldean ^D *סַכִּינָא*. The Syrian used a peculiar word. 484 *And Simon, having a blade, boldly drew it, and having pierced the man, the servant-minister of the high priest, with iron steel, he cut off his right ear.*

Yet, as we have said, *μάχαιρα* is something else from their usage, the meaning of which he ought to have expressed in Greek, which Homer could have taught him: who, as a Hellenist, attributes a *μάχαιρα* to the Father of the faithful, just as he does to Agamemnon for sacrifices and victims. For the passage is known. Where you have this usage of the Hellenists. Just as they either had those they called sacrificial knives (*ἀορτίας*) prepared for sacrifices, or wore them attached to their side. Hesychius, who left us the treasures of all Greece that would have been lost: *ἀορτῆρες*, butcher knives (*μάχαιραι μαγειρικαὶ*), and those for skinning victims are *ἐπιτήδειοι*. It is proper for the evangelists to allude secretly to the sayings of the wise which were current at that time. Among which is that: "To warm oneself at the fire of the wise." Which reminder is so ancient that it appears in the chapters of the Fathers: in which many sayings or idioms of the ancient Hebrews exist, to which the Lord and the evangelists everywhere allude. But by them they signify that the company of the wicked, for the most part, provides the primary cause and occasion for sinning. Which happened to Peter, who, while he was standing in the middle of the rogues, or, as others say, was sitting, on this occasion, which our evangelist will soon note, being interrogated by them, denied the Lord. To verse 24: *Then Annas sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest*, our poet writes thus: *But Annas, having kept Jesus, bound in a yoke-bond, his hands restrained against his back, sent him to his cousin, the high priest, being carried to another high priest.* 485 By which he indicates that Annas and Caiaphas were colleagues in office and associates. But John clearly shows that Caiaphas was then the supreme priest. For in this same chapter it is read: *And they led him to Annas first, and sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. For he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was the high priest of that year.* What then? No doubt the passage in Luke ch. III imposed upon Nonnus: *In the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the desert.* That both existed, therefore, is true. But so that they succeeded one another, not that both were supreme priests at the same time. In the same chapter, in the last verse, not badly did he call Barabbas a murderous robber (*λῃστὴν θανατηφόρον*), rather than [just] a robber. Although I know these are confused. But as it is commonly understood, it was not necessary that the person whom he called a robber he should also call a murderer, since they do not consider any to be robbers unless they have committed murder. But two crimes are clearly attributed to Barabbas by the other evangelists, sedition and murder, even if by Luke he appears joined to the other two whom Scripture called *λῃστὰς* (robbers). Although I know the Jews did this, so that they might join the Lord with the most wicked, so that from the common punishment a greater infamy might accrue to the innocent, yet often I have wondered with the learned why He was joined to two robbers on the cross, since especially, both from the accusation of the Jews, and *ἐκ τῆς αἰτίας*, or the title of Pilate, it is manifest that He was punished as a seditious person and one guilty of a feigned kingdom: such are they who generally are called by the word *στασιασταί*, and specifically *ἀντάρται*.

ἀντάρται*. ^A Added to this is the custom and usage of the Jews, who, unless they caught someone in the same crime, would not condemn him to the same punishment; 486 and they would also sometimes distinguish punishments according to the days, so as not to punish different things with the same penalty. Furthermore, those who were convicted of homicide, like Barabbas here, were punished by them in a very lenient manner, or if capital, as they say, by the sword. To this refers the word of the Lord: *For all who have taken up the sword will perish by the sword* (Matt. 26:52). I am not unaware of how the learned attempt to evade this, who, along with the Sanhedrin and its power, even wish for this to have been snatched away from the Jews at that time. And when they cite from Luke that the other robber said to his fellow, while mocking the Lord, *Do you not fear God, since you are in the same judgment?* (Luke 23:40), they do not yet prove what kind of judgment that was. And by this very fact they teach us that a common cause of death, no less than the death itself, was intended for the three. And yet they call them robbers: by which name they accuse the Lord, though they do not prove it. And let us suppose this punishment was Roman and adopted by them, which the cross itself proves; yet they will not deny that the same punishment is required for the same crime, since the Romans in this respect were most equitable, as they would affix the title of the crime or set it before the guilty parties. That the latter was done in the case of the Lord is attested by sacred history. Wherefore there is no doubt that the cause, at least in part, was common. These men, whom the Greeks call *λησταί* (robbers), were known among the Syrians at that time by the same word, with a slightly different meaning: such are those whom the Greeks call *ἐνεδρεύοντες* (those who lie in wait) and not infrequently *κακούργους* (evildoers). Such were those Egyptians, regarding whom Theocritus says (Syracusae): ^B *No one is an evildoer* *He sneers at the passerby, in the Egyptian manner,* who armed themselves and disturbed the public peace. This, he says, was restored when they were removed by Ptolemy. Thus Thucydides 487 understood it when he said: *For those evildoers from the islands were removed by him.* Hence Luke also called them *κακούργους*: *And there were two others, evildoers, led with Him to be executed* (Luke 23:32). And: *There they crucified Him and the evildoers, one on the right and one on the left* (Luke 23:33). And: *But one of the thieves who were crucified mocked Him* (Luke 23:39). Indeed, what is called [σπήλαιον ληστῶν] (a den of robbers) by the Hellenists in Jeremiah, is called by the Hebrews the den of house-breakers or ravagers: [פּריצים]; by which name they also metaphorically called false prophets who often broke the law. Nor do these circumcised ones call us Christians otherwise, even today, out of a hollow sense of honor, *Apella*. Hence also the passage in Daniel, chapter 11: *The children of the robbers, or, as others say, of the thieves of your people, shall exalt themselves*, they drag down to us and to that blessed seed. In which passage you have [פּריצים], as above. With which the prophecy agrees most excellently: *He shall be numbered with the wicked* (Isa. 53:12). For [ἄνομοι] (the wicked/lawless) are the breakers of the law. There is no doubt, however, that both Barabbas and the other two were *ἐνεδρεύοντες*: who had taken up arms to disturb the public peace. Such men, as enemies of the state and for this very reason guilty of treason, no one is ignorant of. Of this kind are those who are called armed [listin] by the Rabbis. Elias says: [קורין לגזלן ליסטים וכן בדברי רזל ליסטים מזויין], that is, they call a robber *Listes* in the Greek language: which our Rabbis of pious memory also use when they say an armed *listis*. Such a one the Lord understood when He said: *Have you come out as against a robber with swords and clubs to take Me?* (Matt. 26:55). For He understands *armed*, and that he had taken up arms to disturb the public peace, which the Syrians would express by saying, as they conjoin it to the Greek *ληστής*. The Syrian interpreter, however, has learnedly expressed it there by one word, [גייסא] (*gajoso*): by which name he also called Barabbas; whence *gaisa*, or *gasa*, among the Latins. Or [it is derived] from the troop and the gathered rabble 488 with which they made their raids. Such men the Romans, even if they do not commit slaughter, call public robbers, as Cicero did not once speak of Catiline. For the state claims weapons for itself: against which to use them is the act of a marauder and a seditious person. And it is the truth of the greatest politicians that the republic belongs only to those who possess arms. So much so that, under the Romans, to write with a stylus was sometimes forbidden, and caution was taken that no one should have a stylus. How much more so arms, which someone might snatch up for the sake of crime or sedition: such as, even on the venerable days of Easter, Honorius and Arcadius ordered to be led to punishment. Wherefore it is certain that sedition was equally intended against all. For all three, as *στασιασταί* (seditionists), and as guilty under the law of treason, were nailed to the cross: the Lord, in a particular way, as an *ἀντάρτης* (rebel), for *ἀνταρσία* (rebellion) is the crime of aspiring to the kingdom. But the punishment of the cross, as Theophylact rightly notes. *Because*, he says, *the Romans execute rebels on the cross*: the Romans afflict the guilty with the cross. Nor did they act differently toward armed robbers, and those who publicly usurped the sword. For it is known regarding L. Domitius, or from Valerius and others: who, when he was governing Sicily as propraetor, and was completely intent on suppressing robberies, after he had issued an edict that no one should possess a weapon, it is said that he crucified a man who had killed a boar with a hunting spear: although [he also did this to] robbers. But here we are dealing with a common cause, which was *στάσις* (sedition). But *στάσις* is not just sedition, but also a meeting of such people. The most learned Hesychius, most learnedly, as in everything: *Stasis, position, dance, conspiracy*. They themselves are called *στασιῶται*. The same [author]: *Stasiotai, those of the same party*. Just as Saint Mark intimates that Barabbas and the other two were *στασιασταί*, that is, of the same order, when he says: *And there was one named Barabbas 489 bound with the seditionists, who in the sedition had committed murder* (Mark 15:7). Whose leaders, those who *had organized the band of robbers*, Josephus, *Antiquities of the Jews*, book xx, chapter 2, calls them. Who often, and especially around the feasts, observes that robberies of this kind were stirred up in Judea. That the judgment, under the title of *στάσις* and *ἀνταρσία* (sedition and rebellion), was the Romans', there is no doubt at all. And this is demonstrated by Josephus, who attributes to the Jews the *ἔνδειξιν* (evidence/indictment), or rather the accusation and examination: than which nothing more confused or foolish could be devised. Wherefore, whether you look at the Jews, he was counted among the [פרושים] (Pharisees) and the [צדוקים] (Sadducees), to use the words of prophecy; for he was accused by them of impiety, or of breaking the law, and of creating new things: or whether you look at the Romans, as a rebel and guilty of aspiring to the kingdom, he paid the penalty with the seditionists, as he himself was such a one. But let us return to Nonnus. With the first verse of the following chapter, he notes along with the Evangelist that Barabbas, a murderer, was released by the common voice and judgment of the Jews, who at the same time were attacking the very sanctity and justice with monstrous examples; it is not strange in a murderer: whom the Jews often let off with light punishments, on the condition that they would proclaim and confess their crime in public everywhere. But here, as I said before, *στάσις* concurred: although what the Evangelist sets forth would be quite a serious crime in itself: namely, the slaughter itself. Our author, who did not ineptly connect the following chapter with this one, added in the same history that *ἀχάρακτον* (unscarred) *ῥαπίσμασι* (with blows). In which words he seems to understand the *fustuarium* (clubbing) or stripes, which were usually used for this punishment among the Jews. And *ἀχάρακτον*, not *charassatus*, as the ecclesiastical Latins would say: not marked by any claws or scourges. Prudentius: *Scars both cheeks with claws while writing,* *And cuts the face with bloody marks.* 490 Hesychius: *Rhopalon, stick, rod.* Although *ῥόπαλα* usually brought death. Thus in Photius, Timotheus, Bishop of Ephesus; among others, others are said to have been *killed with clubs*.

CHAPTER XXVIII

^A *colaphizein* (to strike with the fist) in essence mean giving blows to the face. *Patassein palame* (to strike with the palm); *rhapisma* (a blow) is an injury of the legal profession, of a fortunate prayer. *Rapidis*, or the plucking of a beard. *Rapis* for a sandal or slipper. The place in Isaiah, to which the evangelists looked, is to be considered. How *marat* and *calaph* in the passage of Isaiah are to be understood. What *keleph* means to the teachers of the Hebrews. How *kalpha* is to be understood in the Jerusalem Targum. Whence *alapa*. *Colaphus* from *kalaph*. A certain pedant *Kolaphos* named by Epicharmus. *Rhapizein* and *colaphizein*, used indiscriminately by the sacred interpreters. Nonnus is noted for having said *akron pareidos arassein* (to smite the tip of the cheek). *Haima kochlou* (blood of the mussel/shellfish) wrongly called by Nonnus the juice of purple. The interpretation of that passage. *Ide ho anthropos* (Behold the man). That passage taken from the prophecy of Zechariah. Nonnus’s *adoleschia* (loquacity). The interpretation of that passage: *According to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.* The perversity of the Jews in accusing the Lord. And how, in the manner accustomed to the time of Tiberius, He was accused by them of *majestas* (treason). How *eudogein* was used by the Hellenists. By what law the Lord was accused in that place. That same passage little understood by Nonnus. *Onomazein* and *eponomazein to onoma Kyriou* (to name and surname the name of the Lord), what it means in the law of Moses. The name revealed and expressed. What kind of crime. And its penalty. The cavil of the Jews and the perverse *paradeuterosis*, or interpretation of the law, which they brought against the Lord, is noted. That the Jews were accustomed to use entangled expressions, and that they commended these to their own. A passage badly mangled by Nonnus. *Bematikai hemerai*. The right of the bench, the right of the tribunal. *Mythos* for *lexis* (word). Nonnus concerning the Syriac word [for] judgment. Who are called *paphlaein* by Hippocrates. *Epilambanein* in speaking. *Gabbatha*. *Phlaein*. *Plattein*, and 491 what that is. To pant for one thing, to *phlaein* for another. Concerning the hour at which the Lord was affixed to the cross. That passage most audaciously changed by Nonnus. The inept redundancy of Nonnus is noted. Concerning the hour in which the Lord suffered. *Tritene*. *Hektene*. *Parasceve*. And the careless security of Nonnus noted therein. The abuse of the word *tōs*. *Eōs nykta agousa* (until it brings night), improperly. *Lachos hemeras*. *Stephain basilea* (to crown a king), used regarding the Romans. *Egraphe* used by the evangelist in the manner of the Hebrews regarding Pilate. The error of Nonnus regarding the title. *Graphe*. *Titulus*, the tablet upon which the writing is. *Pinax* for title. *Elmia* in Syriac. *To ektetypōmenon tēs graphidos* (the impress of the stylus). Christ’s tunic reaching to the feet, of which St. John [speaks], what it was like. It was of woven work, like that of Aaron, of whose type [it was]. The error of Nonnus concerning it. *Dichron chiton*, why it is called the same by Nonnus. *Hyperthe kai entherphe phortos*. The *epistomion* of that tunic and the mouth through which one was clothed in it. The interpretation of that passage: *Let us not tear it, but let us cast lots for it.* How the most holy author observed the economy of God, even in the least things. *Meil ephod*. *Mē schisthē*: the prophecy concerning the Lord’s garment. The violence that was applied in the flagellation: in which garments were usually torn. *Lachmos*, accepted by Nonnus from the casting of lots with fingers. *Pleistobolyndia*, and that the soldiers appeared to have used it in casting lots. *Psallein en kithara* among the Hellenists. The same *kithara* or *psalterion* to the same people. *Kithara*, an instrument properly destined for triumph among the Jews, not for mourning.

[LATIN COLUMN] Just as above 492 when he says that Caiaphas interrogated the Lord *amphi sophōn hetairōn*, concerning wise disciples, since Caiaphas thought the Lord was convening a group, and therefore inquired about His disciples as seditious ones. Often great men delay us, to whom things not so great [bring] great and frequent annoyances, and sometimes errors, because they did not look to the Hellenists, as I have often said, they have objected. Let the passage in chapter xix, verse 3, be an example: *And they gave Him blows (rhapismata).* In which most learned theologians, thinking themselves to have deceased most excellently, who interpreted it as having struck with a rod: [think] that the others are not a little mistaken, and especially the ancient interpreter, who suggested "the slap" (alapa) to others. Which cannot be resolved unless the matter is repeated a little further back. It is clear that the holy men who conceived these histories gave the greatest effort; so that, when they wrote in Greek, they might adapt the oracles of the prophets which they noted to have happened to the Lord. That they might be able to do this, they very often used the *Seventy*, who were in the hand of most people then, rather than the Hebrew words; more concerned with the matter than with these: but of those whom they were instructing, and who attributed great authority to those books at that time, they were very careful. The passage of Isaiah, which the holy writer looked to, has it thus: *I have given my back to the scourges, and my cheeks to the blows; and I have not turned away my face from the shame of spitting.* That each of these things happened to the Lord is known from other evangelists. Who, like ours, expressed the words of Isaiah, not as they were in Hebrew, but as they were read among the Hellenists; for they said *rhapizein* and *rhapismata*. And in the same way also certain Latins, not what was in the Hebrew, but what they then thought it was permitted to say, brought forth: *I gave my back to the scourges, and my cheeks to the slaps.* Not that *rhapismata* 493 was this, but that they saw *siagonas* (cheeks) added. Just as the same elders [did] in Hosea: *I will be to them as one striking a man upon his cheeks,* when it is read not a little differently in the sacred text today. Matthew, when he had those same interpreters in mind, alluded here to the same passage of Isaiah: *And they struck Him with the fist (ekolaphisan), and others also struck Him with the palm (errhapisan).* Where *rhapisai* [is] to strike with the flat palm: which the ancients used to call *depalmare*. Nor is *colaphisai* and *rhapisai* any more the same in that passage than *to strike with a flat palm* and *to strike with a fist* is in that of Juvenal: *I forbid you to strike the chest with fists,* *nor to strike the face with a flat palm;* although it is spoken there with a different sense. Nevertheless, the one of which Matthew [speaks] is with the flat hand, the other with the contracted hand. Suidas, *Rhapisai*, to strike the jaw with the simple hand: which they also say *epi korrēs* (on the ear/head). Write, *which they also say to strike on the cheek (epi korrēs)*; just as also in Jeremiah, in the same prophecy: *He shall give [his] cheek to him that strikes him.* Therefore, *rhapizein*, not in the manner of the Greeks, but of the Hellenists, [is] to strike with the simple hand, which the ancients [called] *expalmare* and *depalmare*. The incomparable Glosses of Stephanus [say], *rhapizō*, I *expalmo*, I slap. For *palma* is *cheir haplē* (the simple hand), the hand spread out, just as the knuckle is contracted into the fist, whence *kondylisai* and *kolaphisai*. And therefore most learnedly, Tertullian rendered the passage upon which all these things rest, [from] Isaiah, thus: *He gave my back to the scourges: my cheeks to the palms.* And the old interpreter, whose learning we cannot admire enough in many places, what that evangelist said, *And they struck Him with the fist, but others struck Him with the palm*, he rendered: *And they struck Him with blows of the fist, but others gave palms to His face.* Than which, indeed, nothing more learned can be said. Juvencus: *Then they pollute the holy face of Christ everywhere with spittle,* 494 *And [they insult Him] frequently with the palm on the cheeks and blows of the fist on the head.* Sedulius: *Finally, not everywhere* *To strike the head with fists, or to strike with palms.*

This is what Nonnus meant by ^A *with a palm*. For *a palm* is a simple palm, which he interpreted as *a blow with the palm* in accordance with all antiquity, not in the Greek fashion, which the learned insist upon so strongly, but according to Hellenistic usage. *With a bold palm he struck the sacred cheek.* For thus he wrote above, when he had found *He gave a blow with the palm to Him.* But here: *And one after another, / Striking with alternating hands the tip of the cheek.* Nor is this, in truth, the "hand-sending blow" (*manumissio*) of the jurists, which the witty poet Claudian called a "wrong to one's happy vow," and which he said caused the cheeks of him who was in such a condition to redden like a citizen's. If it is the cheeks, then it is *epi korphēs*, not with a knuckle or a fist, but with the palm. Much less with a rod, as some think; for a "tooth-breaker," a wound, or "torment" was not what was sought in that part, but it was the final mark of servitude and a memory inflicted, which was like a *paigma*, a mockery. But in the passage of Isaiah, to which the evangelists looked, a different *empaigma* appears to be placed: namely, that which is mentioned as *tilmos geneiou*, the plucking of the beard: which is sometimes joined with this. Dio: *Some struck Him with the palm, others pulled at His beard.* In which mockeries *to rapizein* is sometimes used, to strike the face with a sole or sandal, which is the custom for Persius to rebuke. For *rapis* is a sole, or a sandal. Hesychius: *Rapis, footwear.* And *Rapis, a rod, a sandal.* And he says He *offered His cheeks*: which ^B is *relinquentibus* (to those who strike), if we believe the learned. But if this is true, it will be like that of Flaccus, among whom wanton boys pluck the beard of the Stoics, except that this was violent and involved depilation.

Yet a certain difficulty remains even so. For why, when they had expressed the passage from the prophet Isaiah, did no one describe this mockery? Concerning which something must be said; for here the matter sticks. There are two words which signify both depilation and the pulling out, or skinning, of the surface: *marat* and *kalaph*. And indeed in the latter way, namely, the second manner, in Ezekiel xxix, 18, *marat* is used, although the interpreters have used the word for depilation. And *kalaph* also denotes depilation, as it signifies skinning properly in plants. Whence also *keleph*, which is a thinner membrane where the hairs are, of which the masters often make mention when they deal with the description of the law. And in the Jerusalem Targum, an impetigo which removes hair is called *kalpha*. Now, just as from *alaph*, which is "to learn," they have said *alpha* and *alapa*, I believe it is because this chastisement is familiar to those who are teaching, so from *kolaph* ^C the Greeks made *kolaphon*, and the Latins *colaphum*: and because those are likewise in use for teachers, a certain pedagogue was called *Kolaphos* jokingly by Epicharmus. The word which Isaiah used, *marat*, is not placed in the meaning they want, but in the sense of *kalaph*, which some signify by *kolaphizein*, while others (as many ancient interpreters were, among whom we also place Matthew and Mark) have said *rapizein*. Indeed, in the passage of Isaiah, the most learned interpreter Theodoret used the word *kolaphizein*, who in the Catena not yet published on that place says: *All these things the history of the divine Gospels teaches: for the servant of the high priest struck Him on the cheek, while others struck Him with the fist.* ^D For it is certain that these are sometimes confused. Hesychius: *Kolaphizomenos, rapizomenos*, except that the one denotes the mockery of blows and the slapping of cheeks simply, while the other denotes the result as well, that is, the wound or the drawing off/tearing of the skin. Wherefore there was no need for that interpretation of the passage in Isaiah: which the Hellenistic elders, like the remaining evangelists, as I have said, expressed; just as it was not necessary that they should be anxious here about rods. Which perhaps might be true in Greek usage, of which neither the interpreters of the prophet nor the evangelists who express it took any account. Our translator, just as he perhaps did not handle the matter badly here, so he did not well say *the tip of the cheek*: for he did not express the violence. There follows at verse 5:

*And He had a sharp-haired crown woven of thorn,* *And a purple garment soaked in the blood of the shellfish.*

Where there is a popular error, that he called the flower of the purple—as some of the others among the authors—blood: which Plinius much better called "juice"! as also "dew": which he himself and Aristotle believed to be contained in the throat. But that juice is no more blood than the ink of the cuttlefish, as the same Plinius excellently says, who for this reason called those things "analogous" to blood, that is, as the Greeks, and generally the great doctor Aristotle, called them. Closely following that passage are these words: *And He says to them: "Behold the man."* We have often said that this is proper to the evangelist, to allude to the places of the Old Covenant, often indeed secretly, but always most sweetly. Zechariah, whom our author loves everywhere, in the seventh chapter, had been ordered to crown Jesus the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, with this greeting: *Behold the man*, which is to him *Hinne Zemach*. But Pilate produced the true Jesus, of whom this place is expounded by the ancients, as the high priest 497 with crown and purple, as a king, by divine dispensation, from which all things were governed.

The evangelist, directing his finger to this prophecy, notes that he used the same words *kat' oikonomian*, and said *Behold the man*, or *even the man*. In that of the prophet follows, *His name is the Branch*: for which the Chaldean, to whom the evangelist almost always looks, says *His name is Christ*. Most sweetly and gracefully, therefore, he shows that Pilate, just as above with Caiaphas, although he was doing something else, spoke of Him economically, who was both Joshua and Zerubbabel, of whom mention is made, that is, leader and priest at the same time, so that the Jews might no longer dream of the son of Jehozadak or of Shealtiel. Such is that line of Maro: *This man, this is He.* Our author has so corrupted the place with his fatal *adoxian* that it cannot be recognized. For what does that have to do with the matter? *And Pilate again distinguished with a jealous people / ...Behold, the blameless man stands with spotted back.* The true interpretation of the passage, as I said. At verse 7, the evangelist speaks thus: *The Jews answered him: We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God*—which words, whether our author correctly expressed, we shall see later. Yet there is in this a cavil most worthy of the time of Tiberius: in which, by the interpretation of the laws, all men of note in the republic were being removed, with that monster conniving and rejoicing. For any saying, however most innocent, was generally turned by informers against some head—that is, on a charge of majesty: which was lethal to the accused, since, as Tacitus excellently observes, the laws defined nothing. And so these men seize upon some head of the law: which the perverse expand and extend before the ignorant. Just as they soon 498 level the crime of majesty when they say: *Everyone who makes Himself a king speaks against Caesar.* Where *to speak against Caesar* is what they might call *to praise Caesar*, as when they say *to praise God*. Which two crimes were so commonly joined that by this formula the wicked Jezebel destroyed Naboth, an innocent man, 1 Kings xxi, 10, no otherwise. Whose words are present there: *And set two men, sons of lawlessness, opposite him, and let them testify against him, saying: You have cursed God and the king*, to express what the Hebrew, which is taken in the opposite meaning, signifies: just as the Attics used *euphemein*. Where the Chaldean uses that word by which the Syrian expressed blasphemy in the New Testament. We believe with the learned that the law which they understand was the law concerning blasphemy. Blasphemy is a species of impiety, of which the genus is *asebeia*, which our author, with the poets, called *dyssebien*. Wherefore whoever *blasphēmei* is impious, not the contrary. Therefore he did not say it with sufficient caution:

^A This man ought to have died by a vengeful fate, On account of *dyssebien* (impiety).

For there were also idolaters *asebeis*; concerning whom Exodus chapter xx, Leviticus xix, Deuteronomy xviii. Nothing, however, is less worthy of an interpreter than to object the genus to the reader when the species is at issue. And here the species is certainly being defined. Only the case is sought in the law. But the law, which is concerning blasphemy, both posits the case and with the law posits the punishment, albeit one other than the cross. The passage stands in Leviticus twenty-four, 11, where one guilty of the law is said *eponomasas to onoma* (having named the name), and a little later, *onomazon to onoma Kyriou* (naming the name of the Lord). And so he was said to be one who uttered the expressed name. But the name of God, which it was wicked to pronounce, since it is for the most part expressed by the same word by the Chaldeans, Onkelos the Chaldean uses that very word in that place. For he said, *shem*, which the Hellenists called *eponomasas onoma*.

^B From which it indeed appears that the Jews of both the Diaspora, that is to say of Europe, as also the Asiatic [Jews], interpreted this blasphemy concerning the divine name, which they deem it wicked to utter, as meaning that he is the one concerned in that passage who, by using this name, had sworn or had wished evil upon another. But there is nothing of the sort in this case, unless we imagine that the Lord could not call Himself the Son of God, unless—which is ridiculous—*eponomazonta to onoma*, that is, unless he were adding the name that was not to be uttered: which is inept. Therefore, when they say, "We have a law," they intend the law concerning blasphemy. When they say, "According to this law of ours he ought to die," they intend the interpretation: to which also the case belongs that follows: "Because he made himself the Son of God." Concerning which no law exists. For if any such law existed, by which he who was about to call himself the Son of God would be condemned to death, that law would have been manifestly passed against the Son of God himself, who was the legislator himself and was about to come in time. Which certainly could not happen, because the legislator himself knew what was to come at the time when he gave the law. Therefore they were thoroughly constrained. There only remained for the unskilled in the law a quibble: there only remained the interpretation which they produce from their own minds. You have, therefore, the interpretation, or *paradeuterōsin*, which is wicked. You have truly bloodthirsty interpreters. And this is the meaning of this passage. In which our author understood nothing. And see the intricate speech, which the great author describes as coming from their mouths. For they do not say: "We have a law that everyone who calls himself the Son of God ought to die." For that would have been false. For that law does not exist. But they craftily involve the speech: "We have a law." Which is the law concerning blasphemy: "And according to our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." Which is the wicked interpretation of wicked men, and, what is more, an involution and intricacy of words. Which was always highly commended to them. Whence Uziel used to say: "He who speaks in a perplexing manner, let him who can, speak well; if not, let him be silent." Which they commonly call *le-dabber be-milotham le-phathhel* (to twist with their words). Such teachers, such disciples. See by what means and with what candor the truth itself was then opposed. Nor did our author correctly omit those words in comm. 13, "And he sat on the judgment seat," concerning Pilate, when it shows that the power of the sword had then been transferred from the Sanhedrim. Whence also *bēmatikai hēmerai* (court days) in law. To omit this, [he shows] the dignity of Pilate, from which the jurisdiction depends, [is] neither correctly nor in order concealed, to whom belonged the right of the tribunal, not of the bench. When at that same place he writes the same: *en dapiō dē Gabbatha paphlazonti Syrōn kiklēsketo mythō*, he professes himself a critic in the Syriac language. In which he seems to need checking, although he does not convict the Syriac language as a whole, if I understand anything, but traduces this word in particular. And yet not even those learned in Greek will concede that he speaks in this way. For there is a great difference between *mythos* and *lexis*. But let us dismiss this. But what *paphla* might be to Hippocrates,

^D or known from Galen by those who have read in him [of those] *tous epilambanontas en tō dialegesthai*, who in speaking repeat syllables, especially vowels, is said to be such. And especially that which in order is the first. Which appears to happen in the word Gabbatha; for the same is pronounced thrice, although it is one thing to pronounce and another to repeat when you hesitate. But the Syrians *platya-zousin*, which is something entirely different either from *phlazein* among the king of medicine, or *phlazein*. And so as the Sicilians are said to *platyazein*, because they coarsely utter that vowel of which I spoke, so the Syrians. In Theocritus, Sicilians are said to *platyazein*, as when they [say] *eorta, nympha*, they coarsely utter it when they pronounce the first vowel as if it were the last, like Boeotian *opistos*, and the like. But the Syrians so utter the *kamets* as the Greeks [utter] the last, as *aloho*. But in what way can you call them *paphlazein*, when from the Hebrew words they either take it away or diminish it? As also in this word if you write it with a Syrian, all *paphlasmos* will perish. But there is also another [meaning for] *anhelare*, which Jerome attributes to the Hebrews, another *nachazei*, which this our [author attributes] to the Syrians. But concerning these perhaps at another time. It is known how much interpreters are troubled in the hour when the Lord was fixed to the cross, who in our passage 14, *hē ōra hōsei hektē*, in Mark, *ēn de hōra tritē* read: so much so that some of the ancients, among whom is Theophylact, say that the number of the *gamma* (3), was changed into the mark of the *stigma* (6). Such as I easily admit sometimes happened by the negligence of scribes. Our author simply expressed *tritatēn hōrēn*, or found it in his own codex. Who, since he did not understand the force of the highly illustrious passage, had enough [to do] to patch it up. For what he had found in the evangelist: *ēn de paraskeuē tou Pascha, hōra hōsei hektē*, he thus expressed; *hektē d’ hēn enepousi prosabbaton, epleto phōs / ēn de titainomenē tritatē thanatēphoros hōrē*. For concerning the day [he says] nothing, but concerning the hour the most holy evangelist: who knew that by the part of the day, or as the ancients used to say, by the weather, *tēn paraskeuēn* is defined. For the Parasceve began with the evening, or *ereb*, that is, the ninth hour. This, therefore, our evangelist notes to have happened a little before, that is, the *paraskeuē* being at hand. Whence it is plain how little curious our author was, who several times defines the *pōs*, or dawn, as the Parasceve. For as nothing is more usual for poets than that dawn should be put for the whole day, so dawn and evening—how can they be confused? Which, even if it might perhaps be borne here, because they sometimes improperly called the whole day by a part the Parasceve, who can bear what is read at comma 42 of this chapter: *geitona nykta pherousa prosabbaton estrechen [pōs?* For who would say that the dawn inclines into the evening? But he spoke thus, because he had undoubtedly heard that *paraskeuē* begins with the evening. Concerning which matter let those things be read which our hero, greater than all commendation, the genius and splendor of all learning, Joseph Scaliger, noted in the sixth [book] of his divine work *De emendatione temporis*. We would understand what he intended when he said *hōrēn titainesthai*, if he had spoken in Greek. Now we understand it thus far, that we understand him to have looked to the parts of the day with the learned men of this time. According to the Greek manner, the third part of the day is *deilē*, evening, between which and the dawn, *meson ēmar* intervenes. Wherefore he would have expressed himself much better in this way: *ēmar gar tod’ ēen proeor-tion, ēnyto d’ pōs / ēdē de tritaton lachos ēmatos, engthi d’ hōrē hektē*. Just as at the third hour, according to the Hebrew manner, the sixth is conveniently referred, because it closes the third quadrant of the day and begins the fourth. Nor did the evangelist say, *ēn de hōra hektē*, but *hōsei hektē*. But that *hōra hōsei hektē* refers to the third part, or *lachos*, it is plain. But these things by the way. And unless I am mistaken, we have well expressed the meaning. *Ēmar anymenon*.

^A And the day which preceded the Passover, *ēmar anymenon*, that is, evening, or inclining toward evening. From the former evening the Preparation began; from the sixth hour, or properly the ninth. And thus, by doing something else, he would have reconciled the evangelists. To escape which, he has boldly—unless he relied on the authority of a manuscript—expressed this otherwise: *Now the third, death-dealing hour was being stretched out.*

Regarding the fifteenth verse, when he wrote: ^B

And with deceitful mouths the high priests cried out: "We know no other ruler, we have no ruler, a self-appointed ruler, whom Rome has not crowned, except Caesar alone, the endless shepherd of the world."

When the evangelist in the same chapter writes: *And Pilate wrote also a title*, etc., he used the word *graphein* just as the Hebrews used the *piel* of that word when it is placed for the *hiphil*: to express which *hiphil*, 504 some of the Seventy have searched: though they are lacking here. Just as also in Isa. x: *writing wickedness*, they took care to be written. There is added in the same place by our author:

A letter which they call in the Latin tongue a title, *Iōē*.

It follows to the twenty-fourth verse of the same chapter:

Let us not rend this garment, accustomed to the color of wine.

Which, being entirely both from above and from below, the garment 506 was seamless, woven, reaching from the neck to the ankles.

Therefore, by the word *phyrhoos*, for which there was no need here, he has very badly obscured the meaning. Such a tunic, moreover, since it nowhere except above and below was open, through that mouth which the Hebrews [called] *peh*, and the Hellenists called the *epitomion* of the tunic, it was necessary for the head to be inserted when it was worn. About which more must now be said. It follows in the next verse:

They said therefore to one another: Let us not rend it.

[^A] they have referred the movement of the fingers, because here it was seen to be said by our poet: *And letting fall the fingers of the hand, far-darting symbols of victory,* *Let us all see, by lot unconquered, whose it shall be.* In the *Dionysiaca*, moreover, they had read concerning the movement: *The lot was of one changing the various fingers of the hands,* *And some they held up straight, but with the wrist* *Of the hand it was bound fast with a joint knot.* Which is a manifest lack of attention. For how is the movement of the fingers understood, when it has been said by the prophet, "They cast lots upon my garment"? Which the Hebrew text also confirms more fully; in which the verb for casting is clearly expressed. It is not, therefore, to be doubted that, as the Roman soldiers ^B used the *pleistos* [majority/most], which Suetonius wishes Augustus Caesar also to have used according to the interpretation of the learned; and concerning which the incomparable and greatest man Isaac Casaubon has written accurately there in particular. For in it, *ho ton pleiston ballōn arithmon*, he who surpassed the others in number, took away that which had been agreed upon, by the pact. And the prophet, 508 who foretold of this, used a word indeed very common, but one which has nothing to do with the movement of fingers: in which the thing is managed by fingers, not however by a throw. What of the fact that not even our own poet dragged the place of the prophet anywhere else than to a throw? *And they cast lots with a garment-loving lot.* And when it is read in the glosses, *mikare* [to play at dice], *lachein*, the species is clearly explained by the genus. Lest anyone should think the evangelist wished this, when he said: *Alla lachōmen peri autou tinos estai* [But let us cast lots for it, whose it will be]. Nor do I see why he called them *ekēbola daktyla* [far-darting fingers], if he had the movement of fingers in mind. In the same verse, after the passage from the royal prophet, which the evangelist, according to his custom, has here accommodated *tō klērō tou himatismou*, concerning which the prophet had spoken, our author adds: *Which a God-inspired woman singing with the lyre proclaimed.* Which he drew from the Hellenists, among whom *psallein en kitharē* [to play on the lyre] exists not once, to say nothing of the fact that *psaltērion* and *kithara* are confused by them. For thus they interpret *zmr* elsewhere. So that *kitharē psallousa* [playing the lyre] may be *kitharizousa* [playing the lyre]. The Psalm, however, concerning which he now treats, is not referred to citharic music, which is peculiar to them, but to *zmr*. For it is lamentable and full of exclamations. Such is the beginning, which the Lord used on the cross, since the lyre was destined for praise and triumph, as is manifest from the passage in I Chronicles 16, which Kimchi cites for Psalm 4. But, as I have said, because David often makes mention of the *kithara*, and the Hellenists had used this kind of speaking, he speaks thus. 509 CHAPTER XXIX. The second part of the nineteenth chapter is traversed. Consideration of a most vexing passage: *Plēsantes spongon oxous, kai hyssōpō perithentes, prosēnenkan autou tō stomati* [Having filled a sponge with vinegar, and having put it on hyssop, they brought it to his mouth]. Nonnus’s negligence in explaining it. The juice of hyssop supposed by Nonnus. That the same passage was filled out by him from Matthew. And how he read it. *Perithentes hyssōpō* [having put it on hyssop], how badly explained by Nonnus, used for the evangelist's *peritheis* [having put on]. The Hebrew word which he expressed. The same word, how variously [^C] it has been expressed by the Hellenists. *Dein*, *katadein*, *symplekein*, *peritithenai* concerning the same thing. *Kalamos* [reed] for the Hebrews for a stick. The vessel of vinegar put near the cross, and the sponges placed to it. And what use they had. The peculiar use of sponges. Woolly substance and its use. *Esypus*, woolly substance. The word *æsypi* in Pliny, Galen, Trallian, Celsus, and others is corrupt, and for it the word *hyssōpos* has been substituted. Attic *hyōpon*, for *oisypa*. The *Ezoph* of the Hebrews, the *zupha* of the Syrians and Arabs, put for *æsypo* by the Arabs. The passage of John corrupted by scribes, its emendation. The mockery of *æsypi* added. *Oispa*, *oisypa*. *Strouthizesthai*, concerning [^D] *æsypo*. *Skelokopia*. *Polyodous sidēros*. And the same *dor* said by Nonnus. The inconsistency of Nonnus in the same matter. The greatest *periergia* of Nonnus, and in a thing of no value, a vain curiosity. His inconsistency in another matter noted. *Longchē* and *machaira* placed concerning the same thing. *Nyssein*, *ekkentein*. The passage of Zechariah, *Opsontai eis hon exekentēsan* [They shall look on him whom they pierced]. The interpretation of the Seventy interpolated. And that it can be proven even from the evangelist's passage. *Otaxein*. The interpretation of that passage: "And there came also Nicodemus, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes," etc. In his interpretation Nonnus is often noted. *Migma smyrnēs kai aloēs*. The mummy of sepulchers. *Aloē Indōē*. *Palatina*. *Erythraiou kēpou aloē*. The Erythraean and Indian sea. And whether they are different to geographers. Aloe to be born in Indian gardens, by the author Nonnus. The juice of aloes, not the plant itself, used by Nicodemus. Aloe arundinosa according to Nonnus, or *dendrotrephēs* [tree-nourished]. The same *ernos* [scion] said by the same. And whether rightly. *Xylaloē*, *agallochos*, aloe for *agallochos*. *Alō*. Trees of aloes, in the Chaldean paraphrase of Onkelos. That passage examined against the opinion of a great man. Trees planted by God, a Hebraism: which is also used by the Chaldeans. The word *litre* seems to Nonnus to be foreign. Which also, according to the opinion of the Hebrews, is Greek. *Zathē* hundred, and whence. What the sepulcher of the Lord is like. A ditch and a cave in the sepulcher. A double cave. The passage concerning the 510 cave of Abraham, explained as double. Ridiculous things, which Nonnus wrote *peri pammabou*, when he treats of the sepulcher of the Lord, or crypt. The wonderful thoughtlessness of Nonnus. In the same chapter, in the twenty-ninth verse, when it follows, *Skeuos oun ekeito oxous meston; hoi de plēsantes spongon oxous, kai hyssōpō perithentes, prosēnenkan autou tō stomati* [A vessel therefore was standing full of vinegar: and having filled a sponge with vinegar, and having put it on hyssop, they brought it to his mouth], there is no fear that one who reads St. Jerome and the other ancient critics might admire either such impudence or ignorance, that in the sacred writings something might be either omitted, or neglected, or corrupted by the scribes, especially in the words, and which do not convey the main point. For which this passage may be the evidence. Which has so exercised all the ancients, all the recent writers thus far, that our truly great and incomparable friend said that we must await the coming of Elijah, so that something certain might be determined about it. And that there is no place here for hyssop, among all the truly learned it has thus far been agreed: whose reasons Casaubon among others explains. Our author, having boldly imitated the great Alexander, did not solve this knot, but cut it. For from hyssop, he made hyssop juice, which he mixed with vinegar in an unusual way, and then filled in the passage from Matthew, as do most people. As if it had been written, *Hoi de plēsantes spongon oxous kai hyssopou, perithentes kalamō, prosēnenkan autou tō stomati* [And having filled a sponge with vinegar and hyssop, having put it on a reed, they brought it to his mouth]. Therefore, to omit the rest, *perithentes hyssōpō*, will be, to fill with the juice of hyssop. Which thing proves the incredible ignorance of that language which we call Hellenistic: which those who have tasted it even never so lightly know it to be proper to it, to shift meanings in equivocal terms, or to substitute one for another. Of which kind we note not a few things here and there. Therefore the word *perithentes*, which he expressed, when in that 511 passage it is nothing else than *peridein*, to wrap around or impose, they have, to be sure, expressed this same word now by *peritithenai*, now by *katadein*, now by *symplekein*. Which pertains especially to this passage, as anyone sees. There is also where they have used *peritithenai* more than once. Which word, according to their way of thinking, is to be taken for the preceding ones. *Spongon* therefore, which is said by Matthew *peritithenai tō kalamō*, is nothing other than *peridein* or *symplekein tō kalamō*. For Matthew: *Kai eutheōs*, he says, *dramōn, heis ex autōn, kai labōn spongon, plēsas te oxous, peritheis te kalamō* [And immediately, one of them running, and taking a sponge, and having filled it with vinegar, and having put it on a reed]. John indeed: *Hoi de plēsantes spongon oxous, kai hyssōpō perithentes, prosēnenkan autou tō stomati* [And having filled a sponge with vinegar, and having put it on hyssop, they brought it to his mouth]. Therefore, that the sponge was [put] on a reed

^A fixed, the others testify. According to the manner of the Hebrews, as I think, by which [p], that is, *kalamos*, is called a shaft, when they speak of soldiers. Our [poet] saved *kalamon*, and reads it as if it were written: *plēsantes spongon oxous kai hyssōpou, peritithentes kalamō prosēnenkan autou tō stomati*. For he understood that it was impossible that what the other evangelists attributed to a reed (*kalamō*) should be attributed to the very small plant hyssop. Since also that which was to be placed on the cross had to be moved, and not just to the cross, but to the lips of the one hanging; and the cross itself, as the ancients testify, was both high and lofty. Furthermore, great men of this age have rightly admonished that the vessel which the evangelist mentions was one brought there by those standing near, or those who were moved by compassion for those on the cross, to soothe, as far as could be done, their welts, bruises, and wounds. Which our poet also ^B hints at, when he said: «And ready near by/ A vessel full of vinegar.»

512 And regarding the vinegar and similar things it is already known. Next to him without doubt lay the vessel and sponges, and others of that kind, not so much as a vehicle for the vinegar, as the learned have noted, but because they had their proper use here for wiping blood and mitigating the pains of wounds: and this [was done] with *posca* (sour wine) or vinegar, Pliny, book xxxi, ch. 11: "Sponges are applied to the swellings themselves soaked in *posca*: from vinegar for headaches." For the rest, the moderns discuss [them for] dissolving, softening, and mitigating. The ancients use them for conglutinating wounds; their use is for wiping, fomenting, [and] covering from the heat while something else is applied. To which the same writer immediately adds *lana succida* (greasy wool). In the curing of wounds they fill the place of greasy wool, sometimes with wine and oil, sometimes with the same. *Posca*, of course, or vinegar with water. And then: "This is the difference, that the wool softens, [while] sponges constrict and take up the impurities of ulcers." Of the same in book xxix, c. 2: "Greasy wool provides very many remedies from oil and wine or vinegar, according to what needs to be softened or bitten," etc. Throughout the whole subsequent chapter. Since, therefore, some lived and survived on the cross for several days, there was nothing else that those who were moved by fine sensibility and ultimate compassion could provide, except that they might bring whatever emollients could be devised. That the soldiers abused these in mockery, if anything else is, is manifest from this narrative. The vinegar, indeed, was ridiculously and primarily applied to the mouth of the dying [man], it is certain, just as the other was far fouler to the taste. Such was the *succida*, whose use, as we heard from Pliny, was clearly the same in such cases as that of the sponge, namely, that when the wine ran out, soaked in *posca* or vinegar, it would provide an emollient. Whence that of Juvenal: "Wine that the greasy wool does not want ^C of the cloth." There is no one who does not know that this, by Greeks and Latins, is called *oesypum*.

That is also known, that there is hardly any place in Pliny, Galen, Trallianus, or Celsus in which *oisypē*, *oisypēros*, and other things are not read that derive from this word *hyssōpos*, or *hyssōpos*, or *hyssōpon*, or *hyssōpēron*. Concerning which Hermolaus [writes] at length in Pliny, not once. Such is *Attikon hyssōpon* in the Method of Galen, for *oisypon*, and similar things in [various] places, of which there is no number. That is more admirable, that when from the Hebrew *ēzōb* (אזוב) they had made *ēsop* (אזוב) in Syriac, which the Arabs use in almost the same way, [the doctors] use that very word not only for the herb, but also for *oesypum* not once. I read therefore: *Plēsantes spongon oxous, kai oisupon peritithentes, prosēnenkan autou tō stomati*. Where *peritithentes* is *prosplēkontes*, *prosdĕontes*. He says that they took a sponge and greasy wool, and both, when they were in that place for a different use, they filled with vinegar in their military insolence, and applied them to the mouth of the one already dying. For as *oesypum* primarily soothes, and does not constrict wounds, as the sponge [does], but mitigates, as they were rightly ^D applied, so a greater mockery of *oesypum* than of the sponge [there was], since *oesypum* is wool properly, which is found near the seat of the sheep and the anus infected with filth: whence *oisma* and *oisymata*, the filth of such wool: which are called *strouthiōtha* by physicians when they are cleansed. So that it may appear how foully those Roman camp-followers mocked the Lord, who so abused the piety of others. The word *peritithesthai* is expressed most excellently by the word *an* (ἀν); nor is there any difficulty in this. This is my suspicion regarding this place, which for so many years has exercised great souls. Those who have read the ancient ecclesiastical writers, and primarily the Martyrologies, know 514 that the legs of those suspended were accustomed to be broken with a mallet or iron bar, which the Greeks call *skelokopia*. Since our poet has followed this, who called it *polubounta sidēron*, why does he say that the same was done with a sword, or *aori*? For even if we grant what is noted by the learned, that it might sometimes be done with a sword, why does he say one thing and another about the same thing? For at the thirty-first verse, "In order that their/ Christ’s divine legs, and of the two late-dying ones/ Threefold, [their] much-suffering feet might be cut with iron." But at the thirty-second verse, he said *podes aori kopsas* (feet cut with a sword), as if it were done with a sword, when in both places it is called *crurifragium* (leg-breaking) by the evangelist: "But he having bound on the cross The other night-lurker’s twin feet having cut with a sword, Secondly he laid flat the one struck with a sharp fate." Now, indeed, nothing in poetry [is] like *to alogon* (the irrational) and *to apemphainon*, or manifest absurdity, that is to be avoided, [as] the greatest of men as well as of critics, Aristotle, taught. From which there was no danger to ours, nor even the slightest, if he had stuck to the words of the greatest author, by the duty of an interpreter. Now who will absolve him from that, who wants the Romans to have been so circumspect that they would break the legs of the repentant thief first, and then move on to the other? For so the whole passage, in which we are now engaged, holds: "Upright/ First he cut with iron mallet/ The gentle one’s two feet; but having bound on the cross/ The other night-lurker’s twin feet having cut with a sword/ Secondly he laid flat the one struck with a sharp fate."

I, to say what the reality is, do not think that this dregs of Romulus was much concerned with that method, nor that they had flexed their eyes toward that repentance, in fact that stupendous and incomparable [repentance]. Much less do I think that they placed any importance on the fact that he who had done penance should undergo the *crurifragium* first, especially since nothing, as I have said, [is said] about these [matters] in the sacred codex: for concerning the Lord and our only salvation, it was certainly a different matter. In which the cause of the prophets, all things are observed minutely. That the cross of the same Lord was very high (whence also by the author of *Christus Patiens* it is called *ouranodromon xylon*), as well as from the customary usage, and then also by other arguments, the learned have proven. Just as *hyssoōsthai* (to be lifted up) is said by our John and the Syrians, who hangs on this wood. But also many things in this matter have been devised by the pious Fathers. I ask, therefore, in what way the impious soldier, who is dealt with in the thirty-fourth verse (*all' eis tōn stratiōtōn lonchē autou tēn pleuran enuxe*), is said by our [poet] to have done it with a *machaira* (sword)? Which I do not understand, as [I do] not a few other things. Indeed, *machaira* among Polybius and others is called the *ensis* (sword) in the Roman militia; a short weapon, and therefore usually assigned to the *velites* (light-armed soldiers). But I would like to know how the *machaira* could reach to that [part], how the one who used it could have penetrated so deeply that he pierced the pericardium, which is commonly believed, the seat of the fluid which is now discussed? But, to omit the rest, did he forget *lonchē* (spear) from the evangel-

evangelist? Or did he forget the mention he himself made in the verse above? Or ^A should he have said *anemōdei* (windy)? By which name missiles are wont to be noted by the poets. Although there is nothing of the sort in the evangelist, who implies that a spear driven by the hand had penetrated. The reader will never be able to sufficiently admire how that which became 516 *lonchē* is the same as that which became *machaira* (sword). And yet the passage reads thus:

But the fearless man, leaping up, with a windy spear Pierced the side, anxious for all, with a relentless sword.

That *noun vússein* (to pierce) is used by Homer even for very serious wounds or blows is well known; the evangelist used this word here. And thus the ancients understood it. Augustine, in tractate 120: He used the vigilantly chosen word of the evangelist, so as not to say "he struck his side" or "wounded" or something else, but "he opened," so that in a certain way the door of life might be opened from thence, from which the sacraments of the Church had flowed, without which one does not enter into the life which is true life: which is ^B *ekkentein*, by which the Hellenists translate the Hebrew word. But this is to pierce the whole body. Which was necessary so that that liquor might come forth, of which the author of the *Christus Patiens* wrote:

The side having been pierced, a wondrous stream At once flowed down, mingled with blood.

Or "blood and [water] not mingled," as it is emended by great men. But if he called *machaira* the *lonchēs to sidērion*, the very point of the spear, I ask for the authority. For this very word *lonchē*, not *machaira*, sometimes designates it. Hesychius: *Lonchē, the iron of the spear*. But let us go to other things. The passage of Zechariah, which is cited by the evangelist in the thirty-seventh verse, "They shall look on him whom they pierced," our poet has rendered thus:

And another word is brought, which the divine man uttered, "They shall look upon him whom they pierced."

Furthermore, that the interpretation of the Seventy, which is read in Greek, is a rare and invaluable treasure, no one who is not a stranger to all erudition can be ignorant. In very many places, however, it has been interpolated with the interpretations of others, and learned men have warned of this, 517 and the most holy evangelist manifestedly teaches this here, when he does not, as is now commonly read among them, *Kai epiblepsontai pros me anth' hōn katōrchēsanto* (And they shall look toward me for those things which they danced against), but brings in, "They shall look on him whom they pierced." On which passage *D. Jerome* triumphs not without cause; he says that John, in regard to that passage of Zechariah, did not care much what the letters contained in Greek, but expressed word for word what he had read in the Hebrew. Our author, whether he did not know what *ekkentein* meant to the Hellenists, and thought that it would be too diluted here if used in the Greek fashion, or whether he was consulting the convenience of the meter, changed the word. But truly *ekkentein* is one thing, and *outazein* is another. To which I appeal to his Greek erudition and the reading of the poets, without which so many things in this ^C genre could not have proceeded from him. In Homer, Diomedes to Venus:

He pierced the tip of her hand;

which wound is later compared by the same most great poet to a prick by a needle. *Tō ekkentein* by the usage of the Hellenists is the same as the Hebrew *d-q-r*, which is to pierce through and penetrate with iron. And thus I Sam., last chapter, v. 4: "And Saul said to him who bore his armor, Draw thy sword, and pierce me through with it." Jud. 9:54: "And his attendant pierced him, and Abimelech died," and elsewhere not once of a wound unto death. In the fifty-ninth verse of the same chapter it is read: "And Nicodemus also came (who at the first came to Jesus by night) bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight." To which passage our author:

Bringing fragrant myrrh, and of an Indian garden The aloe, a reed-grown sprig of the field. ^D

In which verses there are many things which should not be passed over without note. First, the most holy evangelist describes 518 a mixture of myrrh and aloes, not separately, myrrh or aloes, as our author does. For the mummies of the sepulchers, for the anointing of the bodies of the dead, were made from myrrh and aloes. Then, why did he want it to be *Indikēn* (Indian) aloe, since it was also produced in Palestine? Regarding which matter also Pliny, who records that it is also found above Jerusalem. And rightly so indeed, if this is understood of that which they were then wont to use in the anointing of bodies, to which they were then accustomed to be applied, as that incomparable ornament of erudition, Joseph Scaliger, has clearly warned. But why "of an Erythrean garden," if it is born in India? Since not even the Erythrean Sea is by itself Indian, and these two are distinguished by the ancients? "The ocean of the east," says Eustathius to the *Periegetes*, "is called the Indian; but that toward the south is called both Erythrean and Ethiopian." Did he therefore have in mind Dionysius himself, who named the Erythrean reed, because, as Eustathius notes there, India reaches as far as the Erythrean?

Else elsewhere Rejoice, green with the Erythrean reed.

And yet he understands the aromatic reed: which Priscianus there called red: why this has nothing to do with Erythrean gardens. And who before him said that aloe is born in the gardens of India? How much better are our contemporaries, and among them Garcia, who reported that it grows in the deserts and maritime regions of India? For truly it is certain that Nicodemus brought *ernos* (a shoot), who did not bring a plant at all, but, as I have already said, its juice, or a mixture, that is, *migma*; to omit that *ernos* is applied very improperly to a herb. For it is a *blastēma* or a flourishing tree, as the grammarians and physicians correctly say. But who ever heard or understood that aloe is a reedy plant? For he calls the 519 *ernos* *donax-trephes* (reed-reared). But if this is true, it is necessary that he had or saw a peculiar aloe, which no man has handled. For I do not believe he was so foolish as to call those minute thorns, into which this herb ends, by that name. And indeed, there is little lacking for me to think that the tree is confused by him with this herb. For he also calls it *ernos*: and from India *xylaloe* is brought, or agallochum, which itself is a Hebrew word, which the Greeks slightly changed from *ahaloth* into *agalloch*, without a doubt. The Hellenists, however, expressed the herb which the evangelist mentions, and the agallochum, regarding which, mention is made elsewhere in sacred scripture, especially in chapter xx and iv of Numbers, by the same word *aloēs* (though they followed a different reading there); it is also sometimes [*alo*] contracted. Garcia laughs at those who wish this aloe to grow only in the earthly paradise: just as they also commonly call it the wood of paradise. Which opinion, how a divine man who wrote brief notes on it thought could be proved from the interpretation, I see. The passage of Numbers, of which we have already made mention, of the Chaldean paraphrase, does not read thus: "As torrents are extended, as gardens beside the river, as trees of aloes which the Lord hath planted." Where the trees which God is said to have planted are undoubtedly excellent and distinguished, which are said by them to be trees of God. For that it may be understood otherwise, there is no need. He adds: Therefore the Chaldean paraphrase, to that passage of Numbers, interprets: to the Euphrates, as to that which God planted. Therefore in this place they can defend themselves who say that aloe trees were planted in the paradise of Adam. But in what way? The Greek has nothing here about the garden of Eden: for what is said, *hōsei paradeisoi epi potamōn* (like paradises upon the rivers), is *hōsei kēpoi* (like gardens), and similarly the Hebrew. Nor did the Chaldean put those trees of which 520 it is spoken in paradise, but places the paradise, or garden, of which it makes mention, at the Euphrates for the sake of fertility. As a watered garden, which is beside the Euphrates: as aromatics which God planted. And yet God is said to have planted the cedars of Lebanon, and not for that reason is Lebanon in...

paradise, or are cedar trees of paradise. "He fills the trees of God; the cedars of Lebanon, which He planted." Where the Chaldean says, "The trees which the Lord created." But why do we dispute about a known matter? For the trees which He called God’s, in His usual manner, He says were immediately planted by God, with a Hebraism and Chaldaism that are similar. Therefore, these things are those tautologies, which I think scarcely anyone could be ignorant of. Our author undoubtedly did not know what kind of plant he was dealing with when he described it as aloe. But I cannot omit what came to mind while we were busy with other things here. I daresay that he also confused agallochum with aloe—that is, the tree, as they might have it, of paradise—with the herb aloe, whose juice Nicodemus used at that time, and with which not only the bodies of the living, but also of the dead, are preserved. For it is wonderful how broad and tenacious that "dream," as a certain botanist rightly calls it, concerning agallochum as a tree of the earthly paradise, has taken root in the minds of men. *Paradeisos* is *gan* to the Hebrews: our author said *kepon* (garden) literally. And because he had heard something about Eden, he confused Eden with *Edum*, because it is written *Edem* and *Edom* by the Greeks, though these are written far differently by the Hebrews. *Edom* is *Erythraios* (the Red), hence the land of Edom, from which also Idumaea. *Kepos Edom* is *kepos Erythraios* (the Red Garden), from the Erythraean (Red) Sea, *thalassa Edom*, about which the Greeks have trifled in such an impossible manner! Whence that *Erythraion* and *kepou*. But he said "of India" because he had heard that both the herb aloe and the tree *xylaloen*—which he calls *ernos* (scion/branch)—are customarily imported from India, and then, because he had learned from the Greeks that the sea of the East and the Indian sea is called *Erythraion*. Concerning which, it can be proven even from Arrian’s *Periplus* and those things which the learned have annotated upon it.

That also is known, how everywhere that color, which the Greeks call *Erythraion*, is applied by the Greeks to the *to soterion pathos*, or the passion of the Lord, and those things which accompany or follow it. That passage is well known, Genesis XLIX, 11: "He shall wash his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of grapes," which, as we said before, they interpret here. And to this end the passage of Isaiah LXIII, 1, is relevant, "who comes from Edom; the redness of garments from Bozrah"; where you have *Edom* and *erythema* (redness). Meanwhile, we have no doubt that the things we have said concerning agallochum and paradise are true. Whoever considers the greater things which occur everywhere will not wonder at these trifles. When he adds *Litras tas kaleousi phatizomeno tini metro*, he seems to have thought that *litran* is a foreign word, which even the Greeks acknowledge, and the prince of grammarians ascribes to the Sicilians, nor do the masters of the Hebrews deny it, in fact they affirm it to be a word clearly Greek. And when it follows: *Achri mias zathees hekatontados*, I know indeed that the sacred number *the hekatontada* (hundred) is meant; it may, however, be possible that it should be referred to *ten smyrnan*, that is, the myrrh itself, which he called *thyrosan*. Most learnedly, as in everything, Hesychius says: *Zatheon*, "highly divine, fragrant." I have observed that this happens to our author not once, that when he intends a diligence that is too curious and unnecessary, he sometimes falls most severely. In particular, however, because he did not distinguish between the Greek and Hebrew rites, he confused them not very happily, as when he writes thus regarding the first comma of the twentieth chapter, which he tried to amplify with all manner of pigments:

*Hopê baryphortos Iosêph* *Iêsoun oligê psamathôdei thêke chameynê.*

For he did not understand what rite of burial was in use at that time, much less what the Lord’s sepulcher was like. For in the sepulcher there were two things, a fossa (trench) and a spelunca (cave). Therefore, the masters of the Hebrews, when they make mention of *pulveris* (dust), or, as our author now speaks, *psamathou* (sand), in the sepulcher, it must be referred to the fossa, unless they are speaking of the ground in general. But the cave was excavated not from earth, but from rock. In which, not in the dust or sand, as our author thought, the Lord was buried. This could have been taught to him by Matthew, who, concerning Joseph, of whom our author here speaks, says, *hoti elatomêse mnêmeion en tê petra*, that he hewed the monument out of the rock. Or Mark, who says *lelatomêmenon ek petras*, or Luke, who called it *laxeyton* (hewn). And is he himself not about to say below:

*Tymbos adômêtoio bathynomenês apo petrês,*

and the things which follow? Which cave, instead of the fossa, seems to have been double in the houses of the great. Such as I believe that of Abraham to have been, which, in the sacred writings, is said to have been double. Concerning which it is wonderful how much both the Hebrews and others have trifled, as the great Mercerus showed quite excellently some years ago. Who, nevertheless, as he himself confesses, satisfied neither himself nor us in this. Since, therefore, there was both a fossa and a cave, the approach to the cave was given through the fossa; in the cave, the dead man lay. Such is the sepulcher that is shown at this time, which is fashioned according to the rite of the East, for the Lord’s, to those who have approached it. Among whom is Brocardus the monk. Who, "And note," he says, "that before the cave of the Lord’s sepulcher 523 there is another crypt, of the same magnitude and shape, separated from the former by a partition wall in the middle; and one descends into this first. Then through the door of the partition wall one comes into the cave of the Lord’s sepulcher." And that door was closed, when the women, at the time of the Lord’s resurrection, said: "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the monument?" He called it a *crypt*, which the Jews call a *fovea* (pit) or *fossa*. The place in which the sacred body lay, *porea*(?), was a cave. A place *psamathôdês*, such as Nonnus describes here, is called by the masters of the Hebrews. But whether it was a fossa and a cave, or a double cave, he did not say. And it is ridiculous that he said the place was small, when Mark said of the stone *hoti ên megas sphodra* (that it was very great). But who would think the door of a small sepulcher was large? Which, at that time, without doubt, did not come into his mind. No more than the fact that he himself called Joseph, who carried the body of the Lord, *baryphorton*, as if the body were large, and therefore heavy. Why then *oligê chameynê*?

CHAPTER XXX.

^A we have said, used to bury their dead in excavations? They are accustomed to call a cave *spēlaion*. To this, Matthew also refers when he speaks of this sepulcher: *And he laid him in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock*. He speaks rather improvidently, then, who says that he was buried *chytēs psamathou tychein*. For the Greeks and Romans performed this rite even for the unburied. Thus, the shipwrecked and unburied Archytas in Flaccus asks passersby to *chytēs psamathou tychein*. But the East also carefully buried their own: those who were unaware of all this, except that after the burial they would heap soil and earth onto the tomb, and then pronounce, "Go in peace." Returning home, they would throw behind them a clod of earth with grass plucked up, with the solemn formula, "Remember that we are dust." And in particular, the Fathers note carefully that the Lord was buried not as a man 525 condemned and guilty, lightly and perfunctorily, but, *as was the custom among the Jews, sumptuously, as one great and admirable*, according to Jewish custom, as someone great and worthy of admiration. Nor was there any dust, but a *sēmantron* [signet/seal] that had been placed and closed, according to the reason of divine dispensation, so that it would be clearly established that he was dead, and no one would dare to cavil over the resurrection: *Lest anyone be minded to damage the account of the resurrection*, he says, as always, most elegantly, Chrysostom. Wherefore there was no place here for inept ostentation, whether from Roman or Greek learning. In the following chapter, verse 8, John says of John—that is, of himself—truthfully, that after Peter he had entered the Lord's sepulcher and *saw and believed*; the ancients interpret this to mean that he believed what he had heard from the women: not, indeed, that the Lord had risen, but that he had been taken from the sepulcher. For when he subjoins: *For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead*. Theophylact: *He believed, not that the Lord had risen, but that he had been stolen; for he believed the word of Mary, who said that they had taken away the Lord. But why did he believe Mary, and not consider that he had risen? For they did not yet know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. And for this reason they believed Mary, suspecting a theft and a moving of the body*. Some think that John believed this, because Jesus had risen. But what follows does not indicate this. *Then he saw the monument in the morning, and believed what the woman had said*. For it follows: *For as yet they knew not the Scripture*. Our author has interpreted the passage as if it had been written: *And he saw and believed; for before this, they did not know that he was about to rise from the dead after three days*. Although he has expressed this quite conveniently, when he said: ^B 526 *And he believed, that from the depths of the earth the airy corpse flew up to the petals [feet/coasts]. For the two disciples of Christ did not yet know that, quickly after their returnless voyage, he left the soil, and only for three nights he slept a rising sleep*. For he speaks rather to the contrary and inconsistently: that John believed that the Lord had risen, or that he had already ascended into heaven, because they did not know he was to rise on the third day. Who can understand this? Unless he wishes to say that he knew he would rise, but was ignorant of the specific time. Yet the evangelist says clearly: *For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead*. And he has also most ineptly belittled the Lord's death, which he called a *rising sleep*, whereas it matters to the point of faith that he was truly and entirely dead. That the evangelists were just as concerned about demonstrating this as they were about the resurrection, Chrysostom shows excellently: either because this was the time for confirming it, or because if he had not truly died and it was not established, there could be doubt even about the resurrection. *Therefore*, he says, *the disciples make great effort concerning this, so as to show that he died. For the time that followed was to confirm the resurrection. But if that [death] had been obscured at that time, and had not been made very clear, it would have been destined to damage the account of the resurrection*. Because it is peculiar to the other evangelists, as I have noted several times, ^C that he might utter it in the words of some prophet, so that nothing rash or *anoikonomēton* might be thought to have been said by them. At verse 28, when it is said by Thomas: *My Lord and my God*, he seems to have usurped the words of Zechariah, whom he loves deeply; he used those words, *Lord my God, you*, in chapter xiii. Which words our author has wonderfully interpolated: *Our sovereign and my God*. 527 Those things which precede a little earlier, in which Thomas is commanded by the Lord to believe for the future, *And be not faithless, but believing*, our author interprets thus: *But more faithful to me, be twofold, both seeing and touching*. To which place a critic, although a great admirer of Nonnus, not badly noted that *dichōs* [doubly], or something similar, should have been said. But rather, it was to be inquired whether he had rightly expressed the meaning. For when the Lord said, *Be not faithless, but believing*, if we believe him, he was urging Thomas to nothing else but that he should believe in the future by seeing and touching, or at least believe with a double reasoning, because he had seen what he wished and had touched. This conflicts with the definition of faith, which is the *evidence of things not seen*. If anyone doubts, does he not rather rebuke the disciple's incredulity by this reasoning, who had believed very late and poorly? And this is manifested by the things that follow: *Blessed are they that have not seen and have believed*. Euthymius rightly says: He says this in indignation, as if he had spoken against him not out of diligence, but out of incredulity. But, if we believe Nonnus, he ordered him to believe, induced by those two arguments. But this was something else. But without doubt childishly, when he said *diplooos esso*, he alluded to the name Didymus, or Thomas. Which matter is not a common joy to him. It cannot be said how many disturbances at chapter xxi, 7, at those words of his: *Simon Peter then, hearing that it is the Lord, girt about the over-tunic*, so that from that garment—whether it be an *attribula* [tribute/garment] or other—you may see that he wove together some diverse garments. For first, in general, he called it *eima*. For if he means a cloak-mantle (*himation*), he did not understand what the *ependytēs* is, namely an under-tunic. Since the *himation* is a *gyman*, an outer or exterior garment. But that he was naked when he took 528 the *ependytēs*, the evangelist says, so that it is necessary that it concerns that which is closest to the skin, or that garment which is next to the skin. But he also says he girded himself *with the loins*, or flanks. The loins are in the lower belly, and so the physicians speak correctly. Add that he also said *daidaleon*: which grammarians explain as *polyteles* [sumptuous] when it is used of a garment, and which they restrict for the most part to women. Eustathius: *The chiton girt and feminine; but the masculine is a chitoniskos, which some call an ependytēs; and the short one, chitoniskarion. And the chitonion and chitonarion is a fine feminine, sumptuous garment*. Just as with the *peplum*, which he employs here in describing that same garment: for he also called it a *peplon lineon* [linen peplum]. But even the *chiton* covers the entire body, as does also the *chitoniskos* which is the *ependytēs*; both garments are interior and cover the entire body. But much more so the *peplus*, which is a *syrtos chiton* [trailing chiton], which is an appendage of women, and is dragged behind. Whence also *helkesipeploi* [train-bearing] matrons, and in particular the Trojan, luxurious and barbarous women, are called. What about the fact that the same is called *lineos* [linen], and, what is more wonderful, also *polytretos* [many-holed]? And how *polytretos*, if it is *daidaleon*? Indeed, if he said *ton diktyoeidē* [the net-like one] thus, he would have better said *poluōpon* [many-eyed/mesh-like]: as nets are also called. For *polytretos* is far different, which the prince of poets attributes to the sponge alone. And how, if he drew it over the entire body (for he says *hoti chroa pepytokasto* [that he had covered his skin/flesh]), does he not envelop anything beyond that? It seems, therefore, that he has joined or confused the garment: the *peplum*, namely, and the *zōnē* [girdle] or *mitra*. But if this is true, why does he again mention *tōn gloutōn*, and *tōn mērōn*, and *tēs aidous*? For after he made mention of the *peplum*, again *peri gloutoisin elixas*, and *kechalasmenon es ptycha mērōn*, and *athētou skepas hēs*, in...

^A which he suggests that it is a sort of garment that covers the loins, he immediately says it is a *derma* (skin). But what necessity was there to call a garment, if it were indeed a *peplum*, a skin? He seems to have done what a cook does who confounds many rules; for when he has read various things about various garments, whatever comes into his mind, he says of the tunic. He had read in Sophocles: *He weaves together pepla and linen-woven under-garments.* He had read in Homer: *Which covers the privies,* which is the *anaxyris*, which later writers have called *braca* (breeches). Yet that a *peplos* or an *ependytēs*, or *brakia*, or *bracae* are things entirely different, no one is unaware. But that he calls it *derma* (skin), I believe he did it because he had read in the Hellenists: "That the Lord God made for Adam and his wife coats of skins, and clothed them." Why? As he himself indicates, *athētou skepas aidous*. These are not garments: whence the Greeks made their *chitōniskon* (short tunic). But what has this to do with the matter? For John intended nothing else than that Peter had suddenly cast about him an *ependytēs* (outer garment). He described him in such a way that if anyone were to go out in public in such a garment, he would yield to no monster in strangeness. For it is as follows: *If a painter should wish to join a horse’s neck to a human head, and induce various forms.* For it is one and the same, and yet various, and torn, and linen, and a skin: it is the same and yet loose, and restricted: and it is a peplum, and a covering of the body, and a veil of the privies, and what not? The idea of which ought to be such 530 as no tailor has ever expressed. The passage is as follows: *And he, rushing roughly near,* *With a crafty garment, Simon girded his flanks,* *And had covered his skin with a manifold linen peplum,* *Having wrapped a sea-garment about his glutei,* *A skin, which, loosened into the folds of his twin thighs,* *Fishermen wear as a covering for the shameful parts.* From which, as from the rest, both the youth and the learned will learn with what judgment our author has been versed in the writings of the ancients, both sacred and profane. Also what they themselves ought to apply; whether one must judge of antiquity, or whether something worthy of eternity is to be committed to writing.

CHAPTER XXXI

I can affirm, when we were applying our mind to this kind of writing, that without any ambition or desire for ostentation, three things were set before us above the rest. Partly, that we might note those things which pertain to the interpretation of the greatest and most holy author and to sacred matters. Partly, that we might show in what, and to what extent, the wits of the sophists have departed from that neat, pure, and graceful antiquity, in which Homer especially reigns: then also how much they have harmed the youth, who, while they profess skill in the Greek language, and write against these authors, do not introduce nor demonstrate those things which are falsely said, so that the youth might follow what is approved and accepted; and might flee the rest with care, and avoid them as rocks in the open sea. Nay, even where the training of the judgment of the youth is concerned, they rank them with others of good note. Wherefore, some other things, as each shall come to our mind, taking account indeed of the chapters and passages, especially barbarisms and solæcisms, and those most especially which we have omitted above, we shall incidentally cast into this chapter, so that those who have not learned to be wise by themselves, being warned by us, may observe these and other things in such writers. Let them distinguish them in the vocabularies from the others: let them consult the diligence of the youth, but especially imitation, which is a great part of education, in this way. For he who of his own accord does not see these things, or does not grasp them, it is the next thing that he should learn to believe and to obey those who warn him. Such things, not a few, can be noted in the books of the Dionysiacs: which, as if they were riches or treasures of Greek, those who do not understand what is Greek, what is sophistic, what is corrupt, what is emended, are accustomed to refer to: just as the excellent Petrus Cuneus has clearly shown the outstanding ornament of these letters also. For as the philosopher says rightly from Hesiod: *He who himself understands everything is best:* *He is also noble who obeys one who speaks well.* For of the rest, as the same man rightly adds, it is to be despaired. What the evangelist said in the first chapter, verse 15, "John bears witness of him," our author said: *Hagnos Iōannēs pistōsato martyra phōnēn* (Pure John confirmed the witness voice), and that not in Greek and inaptly. For he did not understand the force of the word which he was using, as do Chrysostom and others who speak purely, when they say: John [attests] the manifestation of the Word and the truth concerning him to the

^A point of rendering testimony. But our author, wanting to mean, "to establish the testimony," uses *pisteuo* ["to believe"] as if it were synonymous with *keisthai eis ti* ["to be positioned/fixed towards something"], and *einai keklimenon ten marturian* ["the testimony being inclined"]. There is nothing more un-Greek than this. But perhaps something has already been said about this before. Therefore, I desist. Regarding what the evangelist said in the same chapter, verse 42, "We have found the Messiah, which is translated, the Christ," our author expressed it thus:

"We have found the wise Messiah; ^B the God-man Christ is heard [called] among the Jews in the Greek tongue."

At least he should have said *akouei* [as "is called"]. "We have found the Messiah, who is called Christ," which is Greek, or so it is said. For *akouei* in this place is that which Severus the theologian, in reference to Isaiah, says is "translated into the Greek language." Common usage would say, "translated into Greek, it is Christ," or "it is called." Surely, if one were to say *akouetai esthlos* ["he is called noble"] in Greek, or *akouetai Christos* ["he is called Christ"], unless one is utterly ignorant of Greek, one would never escape the mark of the grammarians. And yet, he speaks this way more than once, as in chapter 8, verse 20: *gazophylax hothi choros akouetai* ["the treasury where the place is called"], he said: to omit other passages. But the whole passage is most intricate: *Christos Ioudaioisin akouetai Helladi phone*. For why does he say it is so said by the Jews, yet why does he place [that which is] the translation, which is not Hebrew, but Greek? As if you were to say, "He who to the Jews is Christ, is called by a Greek word." This is doubtless most inept. Nothing is less Greek than what is read in the same chapter at verse 46:

"Having found [him] beneath the broad-leaved oak,"

when he meant *hupo drui* ["under the oak"], which, because of the Hebraisms that they use in this way, could be referred to the idioms. And what follows in the same verse is also as far from Greek as can be. For when the evangelist had said, "Of whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote, we have found Jesus the son of Joseph," 534 he, that wise man:

"Moses, of primal origin, wrote in the inspired book, 'We have found'."

As if *epigraphein* ["to inscribe"] the Messiah in the book were the same as *graphein peri tou Messia* ["to write about the Messiah"], when to say "to inscribe the Messiah" means that he who is about the Messiah, and with this inscription, edits the book. Nor is what you have in the same verse Greek: *hosioio boomenon huion Ioseph* ["the son of Joseph, touted by the holy one"], just as he speaks not once elsewhere, as in chapter 21, verse 1:

"Peter was, who before was dubbed by the name Simon."

For *boomenos* is not for the Greeks *ho kaloumenos* ["the one called"], which is utterly ridiculous, but rather he who is *periboeitos* ["renowned"] or *poluthryllētos* ["much-talked-of"]—that is, he who is famous and known. And thus Nazianzen, in *De vanitate vitae*:

"Among cities, the greatest, touted by the common tongue."

The evangelist says, "That a marriage took place in Cana of Galilee," chapter 2, verse 1, that is, that the nuptials were celebrated in the city itself, which he places in Galilee. He says the nuptials were *amphi pedon Kananaion* ["around the Canaean plain"]. As if this occurred not in the city, but in the district, or around the Canaean fields, or in a part of it, not in the city. For who would say *amphi pedon Kananaion* for what is "in the city of Cana"? To omit that *Kanaion* should have been said, as noted above. Saint John in the same chapter, verse 6, says: "There were set there six stone water jars according to the purification of the Jews," by which he implies that the jars were destined there for the washing of the Jews. For that *to keisthai* ["to be set"] is commonly used this way, no one is ignorant, unless he knows not how to write or speak Greek. Our author expressed this thus, as if the water jars 535 were lying down, or were ruined by a wall, or lay cramped:

"On the mutual wall, placed in rows, the twin-yoked amphorae were six, holding three measures."

*On the wall.* If someone were to say *einai epi nēō* ["to be upon the temple"], wanting to be understood as *en tō nēō*, which is "to be in the temple," I would imagine that he was committing a solecism in good faith. Nor do I change my opinion, even if our author, chapter 2, verse 23, said:

"Upon the God-built temple He was, and distributed seats in Jerusalem."

For he who explains it as *para tō naō* ["beside the temple"] is washing a brick [wasting his time]; nor is anyone ignorant that the Lord did in the temple what the Jews reproached him for. David was *epi oikō* ["at the house"] when he saw Bathsheba: for the Jews used to walk on the roof. The Lord was *epi naō* ["at the temple"] when he was carried by the devil to the pinnacle of the temple. He was *en naō* ["in the temple"] when he cast out the money-changers. Of which the evangelist treated; Nonnus speaks here. And what was the reason why our author, in place of what the evangelist said, "he was in Jerusalem," said "he was *epi naō*"? Rightly, as a solecism, nay, as he himself speaks, most ineptly, the great Scaliger ^B noted, because in that chapter at verse 12 it is read:

"The King did not linger, hearing [of] the Canaean plain,"

since an ellipsis has no place here. For who would say *dethunein Hellada* ["to linger in Greece"] for what is "to dwell or tarry in Greece"? How differently speaks the king of poets:

"Nor did Paris linger in the high-roofed houses."

Who four times never used this word in this way. For *dethunein* is *enchronizein* ["to tarry"], as is explained by the grammarians. 536 Therefore, *dethunein en pedō*, "to tarry in the plain," the Greeks say. And he did not understand that some things are used by the tragedians, the greatest part of whose splendor is constituted by the *soloikophanē* [things that look like solecisms], the *huposoloika* [things somewhat incorrect], the *soloika* [solecisms], the *anarmosta* [unfit], and the *anakoloutha* [inconsistent]; which are wisely avoided by the rest. Which he never avoided: and of what sort many words and structures are, I could note here. It is a solecism when, in chapter three, verse 16, he said:

"Thus God loved the world, that he... the Son,"

when it should have been said, *hōs porein*, *hōs didonai* ["as to give"], or *hōste edōke* ["so that he gave"], as the evangelist said: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son," which is Attic. For which he [Nonnus]:

"For thus the scepter-holder on high loved the manifold wandering world, that he gave his only-begotten Word as a helper of lights to the four-yoked world."

In chapter four, verse 9, he did not say what he wanted, and less than he ought, when for the evangelists' "For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans," he put instead:

"For the Jews, mongrels, did not associate with law/custom, To live with one another, or Samaritans."

For who would say, "For the Jews or Samaritans did not associate with one another," when he means, "For the Jews and Samaritans did not associate with one another"? Which also Scaliger had noted. For the critics who excuse this from other places in Nonnus do nothing. In the same chapter, verse 40, when he said:

"And the King rested by the neighboring spring, And quickly he went to the city,"

he wanted this: "And having rested by the spring, afterward he went to the city." Truly most ineptly. For to omit other things, who would say *pauein* ["to cause to stop"] for *anapauesthai* ["to rest"]? For *pauein* of the comic poets is something far different. Therefore, I shall say *epausato tou poreuesthai* ["he stopped going"], or *poreuomenos* [was going]. *Pauein para pēgē* ["to stop by the spring"], meant as *anapauesthai* ["to rest"], 537 I shall not say. And he errs around the principles, he who is ignorant of this. The critics who saw this substituted *pāsin*: "And to all the King [rested] by the neighboring spring." And since they saw nothing less than the passage from this emendation, they added a verse of their own. That one, namely:

"To those gathered and praying, he granted their prayer."

So gladly did they show off their poetry to us, to whom it was new that Nonnus did not speak Greek; concerning which not even beginners ought to doubt. And so that they may not doubt, we think it is their interest to [be careful] in every matter.

For as age has its own proper season, so too does it have its own maturity in man, which the Latins sometimes call *statan*, a term the Latins use to describe one who has reached that stage of life in which, as it is stated among the Rabbis regarding the Psalm [note: Ps. 117 or 118, typically considered in this context], a man reaches the stage of standing in learning, because he can then distinguish between good and evil. The Evangelist calls this maturity *hēlikia* (age). And he understands this when in chapter 9, verse 23, he says: αἰτία τούτῳ οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ εἶπον, "He is of age (*hēlikian echei*), ask him." He inappropriately and incorrectly applied the term *perimēketon* to this age, as if one were to say in Latin "very long." Poets use this word to express continuous quantity or length. For it is written there: *She has ripe measures now, grown very long.* First, how can this describe age? Why apply to it a word for *measure*? Does this word not always signify excess? It is ridiculous that in the same chapter, verse 39, the holy Scriptures say: *But they lie turned in the tablets, crying out my witness to the interpreter of my myth.* As also in the same chapter, verse 45: *Another accuser convicts you in the tablets.* This is as if someone were to dare to call the scripts of the Romans, in which 538 they were accustomed to use *graphis* (styli), *graphia*. For what the Hellenists meant when they said that the calf which Aaron made was done *en graphidi* (in or by a style), not even our own people understood. Nor does this have any place here; it is an idiom, but clearly an absurd one, and alien to the Greek language, as when in chapter 6, verse 2, he said for *charin teinein*: *Always stretching grace to the Begetter of life,* instead of what Greeks would say: *charin legein* (to speak grace). But because he had read *cheira teinein* (to stretch out the hand), by which they offer thanks or pray, he said *charin teinein* (to stretch out grace) instead, although the Evangelist means something else; on which see above, if I am not mistaken.

It is absurd that when at chapter 7, verse 2, it is said by the Evangelist, *"Ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἡ σκηνοπηγία"* (the feast of the Jews, the *skēnopēgia*—that is, of the tabernacles, which the Hellenists so elegantly named thus), he called it *pēgnumenais skēnēsin epōnumon* (named after the pitched tents). ^B If this were true, the feast itself should have been called *klisias pēgia*. Although *klisia* is sometimes explained by grammarians as *skēnē* (tent), it does not follow that every *skēnē*, and especially that from which *skēnopēgia* is derived, is a *klisia*. The first mention of the pastoral tent, which is historically a Chaldean word, is in Genesis 4:20, where Jabel is said to be the first to establish that which is called *pater tōn en skēnais* (the father of those who dwell in tents). Where the Hellenists prudently rendered it, *en skēnais ktēnotrophōn* (in tents of cattle-breeders). In the Chaldean, the traces of the Greek word are expressed. Moreover, mention of such a tent is made in Deuteronomy 16:16 and elsewhere, where you find this feast.

Such a tent among them is called *succa*, not *skēna*. For *succa*, which used to be made from the fronds of those trees which the Hebrews describe specifically, is now known to all. Plutarch thinks they were woven from palm branches and ivy, because, in his opinion, those days were consecrated by the Jews to Bacchus. For *sub succa*, that is, in a tent woven of branches, that race was also accustomed to celebrate among the Greeks: just as his orgies were also wont to be observed *sub succa*. Whence that saying of Flaccus: *I will not, fair Bassareus, shake you unwillingly:* *Nor will I snatch you [from beneath] the open sky, covered in various fronds.* Indeed, the Greeks, who had transferred all foreign things to themselves, especially from the East, and were ignorant of their origins—and had received the Bacchic feasts in particular from Cadmus—when they did not understand the word *Bacchus* itself, which they celebrated *sub succa*, formed it from the fig; and from this they created the *Sykinos Dionysos*. ^C Concerning this, Herodotus and others should be consulted; we, however, God willing, will say more about Horace later. They thought, therefore, that it was so called *apo tēs tychēs*, though it was undoubtedly 1192 so called from *chag hassuccoth*, that is, *tēs skēnopēgias*, because he was worshiped under a tent. Hence the scenes of the comic and tragic poets, which were initially woven from fronds for the sake of that god. For what else but *succoth* did the ingenious poet describe when in his books *On the Art of Love* he said: *The branches which numerous palaces once bore,* *Simply placed, the scene was [a booth] without art.* Add that the custom of drinking *sub succa*, or *hypo skēnas*, flowed down from Syria and the East to the Greeks, as did other things. Let the King of Syria be an example, Benhadad, who, in the first book of Kings, chapter twenty, is said by the Hebrew to have been drinking *sub succoth*. Which the Hellenists call *en skēnais*, or *en sokchōth*. *“He was drinking, he and all the kings who were with 540 him in the tents.”* And then, *“And the son of Ader, drinking and getting drunk in Sokchōth, he and the kings.”* Nor is there doubt that Homer, who owes much to the Chaldeans and Syrians, but especially regarding words, derived his *thalas* hence. For the feast of Tabernacles is called by them *chana demetlayya*. And Benhadad himself is said to drink *hypo thalias*, under arbors.

It is absurd and unworthy of a learned Grecist that at chapter 7, verse 22, he called the iron which those who circumcised used, *thesmophoron*. ^D *For which reason Moses, as the law-bearer, gave the cutting of iron,* When God Himself, as the author of circumcision, is the *thesmophoros*, the iron which they used in circumcision was *tou thesmou* (of the law). And it was not always even iron, since they used stone blades, as is known from the history of Zipporah and Joshua. So much so that the Greek translators of Joshua, chapter 21, 42, call them *machairas petrinas* (stone knives), and in the same book, chapter 1, 24, 50, when they wish to speak of Joshua being buried. Concerning which, the edition of the great Masius should be consulted. But how many things there are that we cannot digest! In the same place it is said: *And by a certain primeval law,* *When the light of the seventh day comes, of the familiar dawn,* *You circumcise the newborn, o Word, with iron.* For what is more ridiculous? He says, *peritemnete phōta*, that is, *andra* (a man), which is a male of mature age. And yet he calls the same one *artigene* (newborn), that is, recently born. I omit that he speaks of the circumcision of those who had completed the seventh day of life. For the Lord speaks here of that circumcision. And from this comes the force and weight of the argument: which he himself expressed no less. And yet he says *phōta*. As if *arsen* (male) and *anēr* (man) were the same, when the one 541 signifies sex, and the other a finished stage of age.

Therefore, the Evangelist is cautious: *“And on the Sabbath you circumcise a man.”* For which, if he had said *boy*, it could be endured. For that he be a man who has completed the seventh day, and that he be a man whom he himself calls *artigene* (newborn), that is, recently born—whom [he] persuades—who in full age, in the forum, and elsewhere, performs the duties of life, although they prattle about his origin! And the usage of speaking teaches this. He committed a solecism, to be excused by no color or oratorical art, when, at chapter 6, verse 12, he said: *But whoever shall keep faith with me, having a sound mind, never walks* *With wandering feet in the shadowy cone of mist.* *But let them shine, having within him the companion* *Of the unwavering light of Life, firm.* So that not without cause the mark of highest indignation has been written by the great Scaliger in the manuscript of that most learned man, Gerard Vossius. For who is such a beginner in Greek that he does not know *kataugazein* is the same as *photizein*? Hesychius says: *Kataugasas*, that is, *photisas* (having illuminated). Wherefore that which the Evangelist said: *“But he shall have the light of life,”* [Nonnus] said most incredibly in an absurd way: *“But let them radiate,”* which

^A is as if it were *schedazein* (to scatter), which is used concerning a routed enemy, and *diasporizein*, which corresponds to the children of God who were scattered and divided into all parts of the earth. This so displeased Scaliger that he placed a note of indignant spirit in the margin, which I omit for the author’s sake. Let us illustrate this with an example: Epiphanius, when he deals with the Essenes, says that the Jews lived scattered (*diesparmenous*) in the borders of Judea and Samaria, yet at the same time they came together to Jerusalem 544 to celebrate the feasts. If anyone here were to say they lived *eskedasmenous* (scattered), he would surely say nothing, nor would he be speaking Greek. It is likewise inept that he said *perësai es heortën* (to pass into the feast), when he could have found *elthein* (to come). *“What do you think,”* says the Evangelist in the same chapter, verse 56, *“that he will not come to the feast?”* For which our poet says: *“Will this mortal be unable to pass into the festal assembly?”* Which is a Homeric cacozelia (bad affectation); in Homer he had read *pylas Aida perësai* (to pass through the gates of Hades). For it is another matter concerning the tragedians, who use many words that an epic poet must avoid. And who would deny the solecism committed in that passage, *“And for the inhabitants before Pascha to come, before the altar to kindle”* [text refers to line numbering], when he meant *anaptesthai* (to be kindled)? For *anaptein* (to kindle) is something quite different, which even boys do not ignore, or at least ought not to ignore. Surely an altar *anaptetai* (is kindled), a priest *anaptei* (kindles). Antipater was not ignorant of this, when he said concerning a torch: *“But if having kindled it, he prays, I will shed a divine light.”* And what did he mean in the same chapter, verse 12, *“And having leaned the elbow of his hand, back-turning, about the uttermost circle of the table, he said”*? For we thought ^B *palamën* meant the palm, and *agkōna* the part of the arm, or lower leg or foot? For *agkōn* (elbow) is what both Hippocrates and the Latins call *cubitum*. And Galen says, *“Cubitum, the olecranon, which is also the agkōn,”* whence *kyditizein* in Epicharmus, *“to strike with the agkōn,”* as the grammarians observe. I think, however, that he has abused it, as a Hellenist is wont to do, who in the penultimate chapter [of the Old Testament], in that place: *“And his arms were strengthened,”* had rendered it *brachionas cheirōn autou* (the arms of his hands), for which today we have *neura brachionōn* 545 *cheirōn* (the sinews of the arms of his hands). As if it were a new thing for the arm to be put for strength and power among the Hebrews. And had he not read that passage of Isaiah above: *“And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”* In chapter XIII, verse 24, when the Evangelist said: *“Simon Peter therefore beckons to inquire who it might be of whom he speaks,”* for this our poet said: *“Who was he for whose sake he spoke,”* which seems to be an idiom of a deficient language. Thus in chapter VII, verse 12: *“But of the wandering ones, if I said any tale for the sake of earthly works,”* for *epichthoniōn peri*. So now, *“Who was he for whose sake he spoke,”* instead of *peri hou eipen* (of whom he spoke). Inept and anacoluthon is that which he said in chapter XV, at verse 22: *“If I had not come by the life-sustaining journey of the Father, to all I should have told a path of godliness, they would not have had blameworthy sin.”* When it should have been *ei më ikanon egō* (if I had not come), or *ei më ikanon kai enne pon*. For the Evangelist said: *“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin.”* What of the fact that it pleased him to say *megalon* (great [adverbially]) when he meant *megan* (great)? For thus in chapter XVIII, verse 22: *“To him, speaking to him, dost thou answer, great one, the High Priest?”* Perhaps because he had understood the dictum from Aeschylus, *megale Zeu* (Great Zeus). As if many things were not permitted to tragedians which do not befit an epic poet. I too, if it were necessary, might say *ō megale Zeu*, yet I would not say *megalon* in an epigram. And so the Peliades prophets, more ancient than Phemonoe, according to Pausanias, sang: *“Zeus was, Zeus is, Zeus shall be, O great Zeus.”*

^A That is, *ho on, ho en, ho erchomenos*, as the divine John expressed the name of the three times, Jehovah. But he likewise said it twice. For he who says *archierea, megalon hierea* says: and he who says *megan archierea*, says it in the same way. And the Hebrews are satisfied to have said *cohen hagadol*, that is, great priest. Nor is *ameibesthai tina* to answer in Greek, but to speak in myths. Wherefore he would have said it better: *Tois d' enepon su megan moi ameibeai hegemonia;* For although *hegemon* is one thing, and *hiereus* is another, nevertheless among the Jews today, when they speak of the Roman pontiff, *hagadol*, he is called *hegemon megas* by a Greek word, as with Benjamin and others. And very ineptly, regarding verse 29 of the same chapter, when the evangelist had simply said: *“Then Pilate went out to them,”* instead of that, he says: *Kai Pilatos tachuergos tes exelase aules.* For he said *exelase* when the poets would say *podas exelase*. As Apollonius: *E proterose tachus podas elasen hippos.* Just as he drives *apenen*, from the chariot. As the most refined Periergetes: *Alla gar elaskousin hupozeuxantes apenen Choren eis heteren.* For, placed absolutely, it is a solecism. Certainly, no one who understands Greek would dare to use *Pilatos exelase* to mean that Pilate had gone out or departed. Furthermore, unless all reason and usage of writing fail me, no one should say *kukloun stephanon kephale* [to encircle the crown on the head], but on the contrary *kukloun kephalen stephano* [to encircle the head with a crown]: he who speaks of a crown placed on the head, or to be placed on the head. And yet, in the following chapter, comm. 2, he said: *Stemma nothon basileos ekuklosanto karenō.* But no greater fault can be committed by an interpreter than if he says something other than what he is interpreting: just as it is inept if the author conceives one thing in his mind and expresses another in his speech. Hence *axuron*, in which our author blunders so often, ^B a shameful fault, and truly a scab of language, whether it arises from ignorance or from ambition. You have a noble example of this in chapter nineteen, comm. 31. Where the evangelist says: *“For that day of the Sabbath was a great day.”* But what *megale hemera* is, two of the greatest geniuses of this age have already taught, as one who says *megalen hemeran* in that sense, and *proeortion* and *proparaskeuen*, or *prosabbaton*, because the Passover here includes both the Sabbath and itself. For all these things were required for that *megale hemera*, on which the Passover and the Sabbath concurred. Our author, because he had read in Homer that *athesphaton* sometimes denotes an intensification of time (as when nights are long, such as winter nights are called *athesphato*), sometimes denotes an abundance (as when a great abundance of food or wine is called *sitos e oinos athesphatos* by Homer), used such judgment that he thought *athesphaton hemeran* was the same as *megalen hemeran* here. And so, for those words of the evangelist which we have already mentioned, he substituted: *en gar ekeine Pasin Ioudaioisin athesphatos ennomos eos.* Than which nothing less appropriate to the mind of the author could have been said by him. For who would understand from that the first day of Unleavened Bread, or the great Sabbath? What Jew, learned in Greek, would understand *gadol*, or a feast thereby? Why at least did he not say: *en gar ekeino Emar, to mega pasin Ioudaioisi kaleitai.* For *ennomos eos* can be said of any Sabbath, any feast: but no Sabbath is called *megale hemera* by itself. *Athesphatos*, however, is something else entirely! And, as I said, it cannot even be said of a feast in Greek. It is clear that, when our Lord rose, he had triumphed over his enemies and ours, over the devil, over the pains of the cross and hell, and finally over death itself. He who wanted to say that Mary Magdalene had come to anoint the Lord, who would not appear in the tomb, as he was after the triumphal resurrection, called him *nekun phuxelin*, that is, a fugitive. Of whom, as of some others, he should have spoken among his attributes. Thus, however, he says: *eremaies de chameunes Hapsato, masteuousa nekun phuxelin aleipsai.* But that which the Latins called a deserter of his ranks in battle, the Greeks called *phuxelin*, and indeed, as Porphyry wished, *para to pheugein tas phax*, [along with fleeing the ranks]. See therefore, with what judgment he called the Lord *phuxelin*—after all the mockeries, the terrors of death, and finally, after having courageously conquered death itself—because he did not appear in the tomb! Hesychius: *Phuxelin, fugada, deilon, phugopolemon*. And *phuxelidas*, cowards, to omit not only that, but the sense in which he intended it, is false. ^C For he had not come to anoint an absent one, but a present one. For the purpose, or the intent, of the most holy woman, indicates *to masteuein*, although I do not use this word here. Therefore he again introduces something other than what he intended. How much better, however, he would have said: *speudousa maten nekun endothi tumbou, Edē anegromenon thanatou kruoentos, aleiphein!* Some things exceed all measure and reason. For who would say *hupo ten trapezen dainusthai*, when he wants to say to eat food at a table, as is usually done? For nothing of the sort happens under the table. Where, as it is in the Gospel, the dogs possess the kingdom. And yet our author in chapter twenty-one, comm. 13: *Eois d' ekeleue mathetais, Deute palin, dainusthe mies hupo kukla trapezes.* Of which kind many things, as they are throughout, and especially in the first part, have been observed by us, I will refrain from the hand. For it is enough to have paved the way for the youth. But neither did he take much account of time in the syllables. In which he sometimes did equal things to the Christian Latin poets, as when he lengthened the middle syllable in *Ierosoluma*: when *Ierosoluma* can be said comfortably. Which, however, we may grant him. Such is, chapter 5: *En de tis eupoiētos en endrō probatikē, etc. Eurutēs asaminthos.* 2: Such is in chapter six, comm. 1: *Ennepe· kai metepeita perēn Tiberiados halmes. Nel poluklēdi tamōn antōpion hudōr.* Such is in the same chapter, comm. 13: *Summigeōn eplēse dōdeka kukla kophinōn.* For as necessity sometimes demands that such things be borne in foreign words. But regarding the word *kophinos*, Aristophanes and others could have taught him. For in Greek it is *kophinos*, which is *formie* to the Latins. The most noble Glossary of Stephanus: *Formio, kophinos; parektē de apo tou Hellenikou, hōs Hesiodos*. Such is in the same chapter, last commate: *Diabolos neos allos en opsigonoisin akouōn.* Where I prefer to hear the excuse of the critics than to follow their judgment or the poet's. Such is in chapter twelve, comm. 3: *Pistikēs tria metra phatizomenēs apo nardou.* For that it was a foreign word, although he did not know it, he did not believe, as I suppose. Be that as it may, the Greek time must be preserved in it, so that there is not even a doubt. And in chapter nineteen, commate 17: *550 Phatizomenoio kraniou.* In which he might be seen to have followed the accent, which is usual in Latin words of Greek origin. As when Prudentius said: *Tamen paterno in pectore Sophia callebas prius.*

not idols by war could they be compelled to yield. ^A If this were not neglected in other matters. But it is time now to join it with our own, the last verses of which are thus:

Wherever in order a man might inscribe for mortals So many newly-wrought books, Not even the shapeless, boundless world Do I suppose could contain them.

In which passage, who that is even moderately learned in Greek will concede that *aeirai biblous* ("to lift up books") can be used in the sense where S. John said *choresai ta graphomena* ("to contain the things written")? For what he said, "nor do I suppose the world itself could contain the things written," is the same as if a Hellenist would say *ouch hikanon ton kosmon tois graphomenois* ("the world is not sufficient for the things written"): as in Joel, chapter two, "Who shall be sufficient for it?" which the Syrian here has followed word for word. But the Hebrews express *to choreisai* ("to contain") in this sense with their own word. For the evangelist with great urbanity and in his own manner alluded to Amos, chapter vii, comm. 10: *lo tuchal haarets lechul eth-kol-dibraw* — "the land would not be able to bear all his words," although there the word is a little bit different from *choresai*. Hence the Hellenists have said *hypenenkai* ("to bear"). But the Jews, when they write familiarly to their own people, use the Hebrew word thus: as when it is said *a cunt, hlk, membrana non caperet* ("a place, a container, would not hold," that is, *ouk an choreseie*), "my love," or anything similar. But the Targumists, to whom the evangelist always looks, had used the word *kuhl* in the place of *chul* in Amos; which word denotes "to conclude" or "to embrace." Elegantly, therefore, did he say *choreisai*, unless he referred this to the capacity of the mind: whence Theophylact also said *noesai* ("to understand"). But what has this to do with *aeirai*? Or who would understand, if I should say in Greek, *Kosmos tas biblous aeirai ou dynatai* ("the world is not able to lift up the books"), when I wish to be understood as saying that the world is not sufficient for containing books? But I will say what the fact is. I do not doubt that the interpreters who had applied to this place that which is in the Gospel, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear (*bastazein*) them now," as this same locus is cited by Theophylact. Because, therefore, *bastazein* is sometimes the same as *aeirai*, but in Hellenistic usage it is used for *katalabein* ("to comprehend"), not in Greek: he wished *aeirai* or *katalabein* to be the same to the Greeks. In which, in my judgment, as for the most part heretofore, he was deceived. But enough of these things. And this is our opinion regarding the ancient author, removed from all bitterness of words or spirit. In which matter others have extolled the interpretation and the very things themselves with the highest praise; others have deemed the genus of speech close to or equal to Homer. How far I depart from them, lest anyone hereafter be deceived, I have shown thus far, inflamed by the sole love of truth and antiquity, as much regarding the speech as the things.

TO THE READER

I have always thought that it matters for the praise and estimation of a noble and upright man that no one should be ignorant of those through whom he has progressed, or by whom he has been aided. We have therefore used two of Scaliger's codices; the one from the edition of Henri Estienne, the other from that of François Nans. In these, that great man had annotated certain things in his own hand, of which we have mentioned almost all in their proper place. One of these was supplied to us by the most noble and most illustrious Janus Rutgersius, our most pleasant kinsman, ^B *ho makarites* ("the blessed one"), whose memory no joy, no grief, will erase from our mind. The other [was supplied by] the most celebrated man and of diffuse erudition, Gerard Vossius. What we have found in them, although we have already said we have referred the most important parts to their own places, lest anyone complain that we are unmindful of the benefit, and that we might gratify the learned in this way also, we have deemed it right to set forth here.

In the Stephanus codex chapter ii, comm. 7, to that verse *hydatos akretoio phileutios epleen aure*, it was annotated in Scaliger’s hand *epleen*. And in the following verse, for *Oinōpē d' ekeleseu Anax semantori phōnē*, *Oinōpē*. Which two were annotated in the Nansian codex in a different hand. In the same Stephanus, chapter ii, comm. 1, for *yostlaneōn Pharisaiōn*, it was emended to *noostlaneōn*. Chapter ibid., comm. 7, for *kai mē thambos echēte*, *kai mē thambos echē se*, which Nansius had himself annotated in the margin of his own codex. Ibid. cap., comm. 12, for *peiseontes eppareiēs*, in both. Comm. following *peisesthe*. In the following comm., for *aēthei sarka synaptōn*, *aēthei*. Chapter iv, comm. 9, for *adomenois stomatessin*, *azomenois* or *aidomenois* was written, which were annotated thus in the Vossian Nansianus. Chapter ibid., comm. 12, for *pedotrophes horkion hydōr*, *pedotrephes*. Chapter v, comm. 4, for *hopē kekaymenos anēr*, it was written *kekakōmenos*. Chapter ibid., comm. 9, for *epōmida lektron aeirōn*, *epōmidi*, in both codices. Chapter ibid., comm. 16, for *ekteleon ergon akanthais*, *ahtais*, in both codices. Chapter ibid., comm. 28, for *pantothen aissousi*, *aixousi*, in both codices. Chapter vi, vers. 1, for *peran Tiberiados halmēs*, *Tiberitidos halmēs*. Chapter ibid., comm. 14, for *kai polys allothen allos eniache*, *aniache*, in both. Chapter eodem, comm. 22, for *ei mē nēs mia mounon anemploos*, in the margin *anekploos* was written in both. Chapter eod., comm. 25, for *alloi nēas elontes*, *alloi nēas helontes* etc. Chapter eod., comm. 40, for *Hystatiēs hote phengos*, it was written, *Hystatiēs pote phengos*. Chapter eod., comm. 55, for *Zōē gar pelen eidar etētymon*, as it was read in the Stephanus edition, it was written, *Zōēs gar pelen eidar etētymon*, etc. Chapter vii, comm. 1, for *hosie chairontes elethrō*, in both it was so written in the margin *dolou*. Ibid. cap., comm. 3, for *Ophra metastrepsantes*, *metastrepsantos*. Ibid. cap., comm. 22, for *Artiyene dochliō*, as it was read in the Steph. cod., *Artiyene dochliū* was written, as, according to the author's mind, others read. Chapter vii, comm. 24, for *homilēsēte parethōrō*, which was read badly in that codex. *homilēsete*, it was emended: for which others have *homilēsē*. Chapter cod., comm. 48, for *Hotti theos poiētos alexēthēs Samareitais*, *"Hotti neos poiētos* ^C *alexēthēs Samareitais*, in both. Comm. following *pro Dais-monos ou methepei melaniphronos*, *Methepei me daiphronos*, it was emended. Chapter ix, for *parast-eichōn de keleuthou*, *parasteichōn de keleuthon*, in both. Chapter cod., comm. 7, for *Hydōr stellomenoio pro-ōnymon ek seo pompēs*, it was emended *pros-ōnymon*. Chapter x, comm. 3, for *Pōta poimainein prokalizetai*, *poimainōn*. Chapter xi, comm. 36, for *Kai tines athrēsantes eniachon*, *aniachon*, in both. Chapter xii, comm. 11, for *epe paros ēde thymō*, it was written *hōde*, in both. Ibid., comm. eodem, for *katharon neon iste kai autoi*, *katharoi noon este kai autoi*. Chapter eodem, comm. 17, for *Hērios, kaiper ephute*, it was written *kai ken ephute*. Chapter eod., comm. 20, for *oinōpi rathamingi*, *oinōpei*. Ibid., comm. 27, for *daēmoni neymata pempōn*, *daēmona neymata*. Chapter xv, comm. 2, for *touto diatimēsei*, it was emended, *diatimēsei*, in both. Chapter eodem, comm. 6, to that *Ampelēn mimēma*, in the margin it was inscribed, *imo klēmatóen*. Chapter eod., comm. 10, for *Desmon emēs philotētos hypo phrenas aien aejei*, *Desmos emēs philotētos hypo phrenas hymeas* et, in both; and in the following verse, for *Hōs ken*, *hōs kai*, in both. Chapter eod., comm. 22, to that, *Ei*

not of the Father [it was] capable, [but] of the Father capable, Jews, the mixed multitude, were joining by law. To live with one another, from the air, He sends [it] Himself, He sends Himself. Pregnant of voice, pregnant of voice. I wish for all to be in one, into all those, they consulted about the myth, [or] in mind. Where the widely-scattered nations of men dwell, [it is] being sailed into, of the rose-fingered, [or] rose-fingered. Beyond the brine of Tiberias, beyond the brine of Tiberias. Simon went up, [or] went up. Near his own, within. And God dwelt with men, [as] He tabernacled. He came before me, he was before me. This lamb of God, who is in heaven, walks [as] lamb of voice. Having found beneath a leafy oak. The King did not delay, hearing the Canaanean ground, following the fashioned shape of wood [as] thorn, of brass. For they were not conversing, or Samaritans, the Samaritans to the Jews. Neither do you have a vessel, from which--from which to draw, vessel. Having brought the self-voiced finger to the silent nose. How do cities bristle with white vine-yards? Gray, vineyards. Cities allegorically. And to all the King, the King paused. That someone may say, They denied the genuine, and received the spurious that appeared. Having taken other ships. And the bold one wishes to be openly. Where the scattered verses of the Panhellenes, in which the peoples used to perform an annual remembrance. And with clubs, unbranded. He offered bitter vinegar mixed with hyssop. Indian aloes. ^A

GREEK INDEX TO DANIEL HEINSIUS’ SACRED EXERCITATIONS

(The numbers indicate the columns where they are expressed in larger type in the text.)

A Abaccheuton (unconsecrated), what it is 113. Agathosyne (goodness), grace 305. Agapetos (beloved), Monogenes (only-begotten), in which name the Lord was baptized 135. Angeloi (angels) wakeful 29. Angelos (angel) in Malachi 87. Angelos, that is, prophet 515. Agenor (manly), a middle term, but which generally draws praise 193. Hagiasma to Kyrio (sanctification to the Lord), inscription of the crown of holiness 198. Hagios (holy) of God, Hebraism 226. Hagios (holy), proper name of the Holy Spirit 202. Ankon (elbow) 544. Hagnismos (purification), what it is 356. Hagnoi (pure) who are 203, 204. Aeiresthai dia kolpou (to be lifted through the bosom), ^B little grammatically spoken 362. Athestatos emera (boundless day), Nonnus for “great day” 547. Athena, when used 26, 27. Aiboi (alas), 8. Aithos (fiery), color 159. Aithos, Bacchus; ibid., who is so called 160. Aithiops (Ethiopian), color 160. Aima kochlou (blood of the shellfish), Nonnus erroneously for “juice of purple” 490. Aimata (bloods), what it is 217. Aitiai (causes), or titles of the wicked 485, 486. Aion (age), for “world” 191. Akantha (thorn), for “serpent” 128; for “crown” ibid. Akersekomoi (unshorn) who are 109. Akeryktos (unproclaimed) of the Messiah 85, 86. Agroypnia (wakefulness) of the Pharisees 93. Anchithronos (near the throne) and synthronos (co-throned) differ 172, 174. Anchithyroi (near the doors) wickedness and virtue 173. Anchiporon asty (near-paved city), imperitably 162. Adelphotheia (brotherhood), condemned by the ancients, expressed by Nonnus 459. Aidomena (matters sung), of the philosophers, what it is 115. Adynamia (weakness), in those who do not believe 384. Aeirai biblous (to take up books), to go toward, to ascend 550; to seize 551. Akolouthia (sequence), by Nonnus neglected; in the first chapter 283, 284; place in the sixth chapter, the series of whose narrative is very poorly understood and explained by Nonnus 393. Akouein (to hear), to be; or “to perceive” 327. Anti tou (instead of that), “to believe” 327. Akouetai (is heard), Messiah; akouei (hears); akouetai (is heard), Messiah; akouei (hears); akrisia (indiscrimination); akron pareidos (tip of the cheek), Nonnus what, and wrongly 496. ^C Alabastron (alabaster), or marble 455. Alapaos omichle (vacant mist), whether correctly 180. Alexikakos (averting ill), epithet of Hercules 92. Aletheia (truth), as ambiguous 215. Aletheia, in double speech 439. Aletheia, and atrekeia, whether they are the same 218, 308. Aletheia and dikaiosyne (righteousness), in the Hellenists the same 213, 219. Aletheia and typos (type), opposite 353. Aletheia and charis (grace), what it is 300. Alethes (true), what it is 214, 219. Alethes and apseudos (true and unlying), faithful 450. Alke (strength), power, authority 543. Alla (but), the voice among Syrians and Rabbis how used 383; for amen amen 475. Allelendeta (interconnected) and perallēla (parallel) names, what they are to the Theologians 190. Allelouia, whence 12. Aloe, Indian 518, 520; of the Red Sea ^D ibid.; whence agallochon 519. Alsos (grove), whence 22. Aloth, ibid. Hamartein gymne te kephale (to sin with naked head) 554. Hamartia (sin), iniquity 416. Hamartia menousa (remaining sin); toward death 354, 355; that in the hand is pride 354, 555. Hamartolos (sinner), euphemism of the woman who anointed the Lord; and what it is 455. Hamartolon pathe (sufferings of sinners), scourges which are called 359. Ameibein (to exchange), what it is 39, 40. Ameibesthai tina (to exchange with someone), if “to be exchanged” is what is meant…

GREEK INDEX

^A 546. ἀμειφθέντα, *quid* 39, 40. ἀμὴν, ἀψευδὲς καὶ ἀληθὲς, πιστόν, 450. ἀμνὸς ἐχέφρων 105; λάλος, *ibid.* ἀμπελόεν πεδίον, *quare Jacobo tribuitur* 148. ἀμφὶ πέδον Καναναῖον, *pro*, in urbe Cana, *perperam* 534. ἀμώμητος, *de Deo male* 91. ἀναβαίνειν, *quid* 347. ἀναγέννησις, *regeneratio* 346. ἀναγνῶναι, *pro unde* 30; *pro*, εἰδέναι 542. ἀνάγνωσις, εἰ ἐξήγησις 404, 405. ἀναδυομένη, *regeneratio* 346. ἀνάκτισις, *regeneratio* 346. ἀναξυρὶς, βράκα 529. ἀνάψαι, *pro* ἀνάπτεσθαι, *solacismus* 544. ἀνειμένος, *sermo, virtus paraphraseos* 239. ἀνηγμένα, *scripta quæ* 273. ἀνθερεὼν, *quid* 251. ἀνθρωπότης, Adam 196. ἀνιπτόποδες ἱερεῖς 94. ἀνομία, *aliud ac* ἁμαρτία 416. ἄνομοι, λῃσταὶ 487. ἀνάστητοι κόλποι, *male* 118. ἀνάστητον βέρεθρον, *male* 117. ἀνταρσία, *quid* 488. ἀντάρται 485, 488. ἀντιτάσσεσθαι τῷ Θεῷ 355. ἀντίτυπος βροντῇσι, *Nonno excogitatum* 457. φωνὴ, *qua* 113. ἄρινα 483. μάχαιρα 483. Κυρ, *Nonno* 483. οἱ πολυόδους σίδηρος, *Nonno* 483. ἀοσσητὴρ σίδηρος, *Nonno idem* 514. μάχαιρα 483. ἀπ' ἀρχῆς 65. ἀπελθεῖν, εἰ διελθεῖν, *digredi, ire, redire* 370. ἄπνευστον, *pro* ἀπνεύματον, *male* 99. ἀπνοίᾳ, *laborare ibid.* ἄπνους, *Galeni et Heracliti ibid.* ἀποδοχὴ, ἡ πίστις 289. ἀποκρίνεσθαι, *Hellenistis quid* 358. Ἀπόλλων, *unde dictus* 19. ἀπόλοιπα, *quid* 375. ἀποστάται, *qui* 187. ἀποστάτης, διάβολος 599. ἀποφαύσεις, *quid* 375. ἀποχωρήσεις, *quid* 375. Ἄρης, *unde* 24. ἀρνοφάγοι ἱερεῖς, *parum caute* 123. ἄροτρον, *Nonno quid* 79. εἰ ἀροῦν, *verbi, fœda et obscana translatio* 222. ἀροῦν, *ibid.* ἄρουρα, *male de urbe et regione* 94. ἀῤῥωστεῖν 433. ἀρσενόπαις Ἰάκωβος 150. ἄρτι 182. ἀρτιχόρευτος, *quid* 150. ἄρτοι κριθώδεις, *pro* κρίθινοι 167. ἄρτος ἐπιούσιος, ὁ ἐπαύριον 316, 317. ἄρτος ὕστατος, ἔνθεος, θέσκελος 464, 465. ἀρχέγονον βάπτισμα 76. ἀρχὴ, *origo* 159. ἀρχηγὸς θεολογίας, *quis* 273. ἀρχιερίας ἀναιδέας, *Nonnus quod dixit, notatus* 195. ἀρχιμάγειρος 572. ἀρχιτρίκλινοι οἰνόπται 535. ἄρχοντες Ἰουδαίων 124. ἄρχοντες τοῦ ναοῦ, *et Seniores* 125. ἄρχων βασιλικός 372. ἀσάμινθος, κολυμβήθρα, *pro male, et quid* 237, 375, 376. ἀσαρχία, *quid* 144. ἀσθένεια, *usu Rabbinorum facta* 249; *male a Nonno dicitur* 433. ἀστὸς καὶ πολίτης 76, 94. ἄστυ καὶ πόλις 76. ἀτρεκίη καὶ ἀλήθεια, *num eadem* 218, 308. αὐδή, ὁ λόγος, Orpheo, et theologis 73; *unde vox ista* 74. αὐτογένεθλος, εἰ αὐτογενὴς, *de Deo male* 67, 87, 30. αὐτόγονος, *de Deo* 69, 90. αὐτολόχευτος Θεὸς, *male paganis* 89. αὐτοπάρακτος, *de Deo male* 88. εἰ αὐτοποίητος, *de Deo male, et quid* 68, 89, 90. αὐτοτελὲς τῆς ὑποστάσεως 81. αὐτοτέλεστος 80. αὐτόφυτος, *quid* 382. αὐτοὼν 68. ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ, *unde* 50. Ἀφροδίτη, *unde* 50. Ἀφροδύτη, *ibid.* ἀφωρισμένοι, *qui dicantur* 109. ἀχάρακτοι, *quid* 178. ἀχάρακτος ὀπωπή, *caligo cur* 161. ἄχρονος 65. ἄχροος, *B ex errore Hellenistarum confusa* 184. ἀψευδὲς καὶ ἀληθὲς, πιστὸν 450.

^B Βάδ, *ex errore Hellenistarum confusa* 184. εἰ βὰρ, *ibid.* βαδδὶν, βύσσινον ἔνδυμα, *Nonnus absurde appellat, et Hellenistis ibid.* βπΐα, *id est, quid* 96. ὄρπηκας κόρυμβα 454; κάλυνθρα, *ibid.* βάκχος, κλαυθμὸς 9. βαπτίζεσθαι, *ex errore Hellenistarum confusa* 184. βαπτισμὸς, εἰ καθαρισμὸς 356. βάρ, *οἱ βάδ* 184. βασιλέως, *nomen pro Messia* 391. βασιλεύειν, ποεῖν βασιλέα 590. βασιλήτος ἀνήρ, *quis* 372. βασιλικός, *cujus meminit evangelista, quis* 371; *ibid.* τὴν πρώτην ἀπὸ βασιλέως διέπων ἀρχὴν 372. βασιλικὸς ἄρχων, *et in eo Erasmi hallucinatio* 375. βασιλίσκος, *in interpretatione* 256. βάσις, *quid* 551. βαστάζειν, *quid* 150. βερσαβεὲ, *in jure* 500. βηματικαὶ ἡμέραι, *quid* 271, 431. βίβλος, *Hebraismus* 226. βίβλος ἀμοιβάς, *quod peccatum* 354, 355, 498. βίβλος θεμίστων 507. βλασφημεῖν, εἰ βλασφημία, *qui* 20. βορεασμοὶ, *Hellenistarum ibid.* βορρᾶς, *Hellenistarum* 23. βουνὸς, *Hellenistarum* 23. βοώμενος, *pro καλούμενος, male* 534. βράκη, *quid* 529. βραχίονες χειρῶν 544. βροντᾷν θεολογίαν 275. βροντὴ 455, 157. βροντῆς παῖς καὶ υἱὸς, *Joannes ita dictus, et* 1202 et *quare* 275, 276, 277. βροντόπαις, *et* βροντόφωνος, *Syris quid* 192. βροτοειδὴς, *unde desumptum* 85. βρῶμα, *unde* 252. βυκτάων ἀνέμων, *unde* 23. βωμοὶ, *et* Γαῖα Ἰουδαίων, *et* Hierosolyma 138.

Γαιήοχος, *Neptuni epitheton* 92. Γαλιλαῖος, οἱ Ναζωραῖος, *promiscue Nonno usurpatum* 110. γείτονες, *evangelista qui* 420. γενέσθαι, οἱ γένος ἔχειν, *pro Patre* 308. γενέτης, *illud Filio proprium, hoc commune* 189. γεννᾶσθαι καὶ ἐκπορεύεσθαι, *diversa* 189. γέννησις καὶ ἐκπόρευσις, *regeneratio* 346. γέννησις ἡ ἄνωθεν, *idiotismus* 418, 419. γένος ἔχειν, *quid* 290. γεραίρειν, *et* γῇ Ἰουδαίων, *et* Hierosolyma 138. γλυφή, οἱ γραφὴ, *ex Græcorum lingua apud Targumistas Chaldæos* 199, 504. γλυφή δακτυλίου, *quid Hellenistis* 504. γοοπλανεῖς Φαρισαῖοι 545, 546. γράφειν, *quid* 199, 504. γραφὴ, οἱ γλυφὴ 199, 504. γραφίδες 537; Γραφαὶ ἅγιαι; ἐν γραφίδι, *factus vitulus* 558. γυμνοῦσθαι, *de amphoris, Hebraismus* 227.

Δαῖς, *quid Græcis poetis* 192. δέειν, καταδέειν, συμπλέκειν, *de eodem* 511. περιτιθέναι, *de eodem* 511. δεῖνα 7. δεξαμεναί, κολυμβήθραι 376. δέρμα, *et* δέῤῥις τριχίνη, *et* linea vestis 529. δέχεσθαι, *perperam Nonno pro λαμβάνειν* 477. δηθύνειν Ἑλλάδα, *incongruum* 535. διὰ Μωσέως ἐδέθη 304; δουλικόν 306; διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο, *authen-ticum* ibid. διαζώννυσθαι, *vox Nonni interpretatione interpolata, et qualis* 240. διάβολος, ἀποστάτης 399; ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, *cum ratione a Domino, Nonno absque ratione dictus* 193. διάβολος, *Judas quomodo dictus* 170. διασκορπίζειν, εἰ σκεδάζειν 545. διασπορὰ Ἑλλήνων, *Europæa, Asiatica, Hellenistis eadem* 207, 405. διελθεῖν, εἰ ἀπελθεῖν 370. διηγεῖσθαι, καὶ ἐξηγεῖσθαι 213, 219. δικαιοσύνη, *et* ἀλήθεια, *Hellenistis eadem* 213, 219. δικαιοσύνην, χάριν, ἔλεος, ποιεῖν, *isodunounta* 305. δικαίων πάθη, θλίψεις, *quibusdam dictæ* 359. Διόνυσος, *unde dictus* 10; *Aigyptios theos* 123; *unde dictus* 123; *Syncinus* 559. διορίζοντα, *quid* 375. διπλᾶ, *qua* 41, 46.

διψαλέα, a Satyr epithet 115. διψάς, a Satyr epithet ibid. δίψιος ὥρη, 368. διώνυμος, ineptly attributed by Nonnus to Thomas 438; διώνυμος Thomas 466. δοκησισοφία, of a certain person 265. δόμος Θεοῦ, for the temple of the Holy Spirit 188. δόξα, what it is 215, 292. δόξα, or honor 243, 459. δόξα Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου, 293, 295, 296, 297; in thunder, in a voice 456; by Cyril, divinity 294; εἶπεν ἡ δόξα, a formula of the Rabbis 294; the ineffable name ibid.; the presence of God, ibid., and κατασκήνωσις concerning divinity 293, 297, 323, 324, 337, 338; the Cross 408; one in martyrdom 409; the presence and majesty of divinity 293, 336, 337. δόξα Υἱοῦ, a passage concerning it 291. δόξης, the worst interpretation of the word 336, 480; the true, ibid. δόξῃ, or divine majesty, a location assigned by Hebrew teachers above the tenth sphere 337. δοξάζεσθαι, a homonym 215. δοξάζεσθαι or δόξα, concerning miracles 356. δοξάζεσθαι, to be perfected 408. δοξασθῆναι, posited concerning the Son of God 297, 298. δορά, what it is among the Hellenists 142. δορὰν ἐκδέρειν, to strip off a skin, ibid. δορίδες, what they are 484. δουλεία ἀλλόφυτος, what it is 414. δουλεία, service (latreia) 476. δουλείαν προσφέρειν, in a non-Hellenic way, concerning sacrifice, ibid. δοῦλοι Δαβίδ, soldiers of David, from the Chaldean usage 371. δοῦλοι πολέμου, in the Syriac and Chaldean, ibid. δοῦλος βασιλικός, in the Syriac and Chaldean, ibid.; royal prefect 372; royal prince, ibid. δουρατέη ἀκάνθη, what it implies 128. δράκων, the apostate 21. δύναμις, authority, might 545.

Ε Ἐὰν μή, in that passage, "The Son can do nothing of himself," etc., how much it has vexed theologians 382, 383. Ἑβραῖοι, sojourners in Nonnus, Jews in John 197. ἐγγίζοντες or those who are near, evangelists are neighbors 420. ἐγγύς for εἰς, incorrectly 220. ἐγκαινισμοί, private and public 426. ἐγκλεισταί, who they are 109. ἔγκλημα καθοσιώσεως 298. ἕδρη or throne 173. ἔθηκα, I have planted 473. εἶδε καὶ ἐπίστευσε 525. εἶδος, what it is in Nonnus 201. εἶδος ἄμβροτον, concerning the body of the Lord 200, 201. εἰλαπινάζειν, what it is 217, 218. εἶμα ἄμβροτον, what it is in Nonnus 202. εἰ μή, in the passage, "The Son can do nothing of himself," etc., how much it has vexed theologians 383. εἶναι or to hear 221. εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, or its efficacy 349. εἶναι κεκλιμένον ἐπὶ τοίχῳ, instead of lying for something, absurdly 335. εἶναι ἐν μορφῇ 349. εἶναι or to grow 68. εἰπεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτούς, and toward one another 402; toward another neighbor 403. εἶπεν ἡ δόξα, formula of the Rabbis 294. εἷς, of the Hellenists 29. ειραφιώτης 14. εἰρήνη, ambiguous 215. εἰς, incorrectly translated as ἐγγύς 220. εἰσόχε, Nonnus for ἵνα 419. ἐκκεντεῖν, of the Hellenists 517. ἐκπορεύεσθαι καὶ γεννᾶσθαι, the former common, the latter proper to the Son 189. ἐκπορευτῶς καὶ υἱικῶς, a note of distinction, ibid. ἐκπόρευσις καὶ γέννησις, different, ibid. ἐκτετυπωμένον γραφίδι 504. ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων, what it is 124. ἐκφράσεως, a species of paraphrase 239. ἐλάσσων, for χείρων, Hellenist usage 145. ἐλαύνειν, what it is 392. ἐλαύνειν ἀπήνην 546. ἐλέγχειν, ambiguous 216. ἐλελεῦ ἴακχε, whence 12. ἔλεος, justice, grace, to do, all equivalent 305. ἐλεύθεροί ἐσμεν, οὐδενὶ δεδουλεύκαμεν 414. ἐληλακότες ἐς παιδείαν 392. ἐλίσσειν, what it does not mean 529. ἐλλελειμμένη, ellipsis in speech 312, 358. Ἕλληνες, Syrians, nations, Gentiles 404, 455. ἐμβριμᾶν τινι, what it is 440; John used this word in the Hellenistic sense, the other evangelists used it properly 449. ἐμβριμᾶν τῷ πνεύματι, or to trouble oneself, equivalent, ibid. ἔμπρακτα ἴσια, what it is 272. ἐν, of the Hellenists 30, 31. ἐν ἀῤῥήτῳ ἀρχῇ, what it is 60. ἐν ἀρχῇ, what it is 6. ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, not rightly understood 59, 60. ἐνδοξάζεσθαι, concerning miracles 356. ἐνεδρεύοντες, robbers 486. ἐν, used in Nonnus for ἐπί 575, 335. ἐν εὐκαιρίαις, Hellenistic 388. ἐν καιροῖς, Hellenistic, ibid. ἐν κρυπτῷ 401. ἔννομος ἕως 547. ἐνοχλίζεσθαι 433. ἐν παρρησίᾳ εἶναι, what it is 400. ἐνσαρκωθῆναι 81. ἔντερον, belly 31. ἐν χειρί, Hellenistic 304. ἕνωσις σχετική, of Nestorius 291. ἐξ αἱμάτων, what it is 217. ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ μηροῦ 15. ἐξηγεῖσθαι καὶ διηγεῖσθαι 312; what it is 313. ἐξήγησις or reading 404, 405. ἐξηγηταί, who they are among the Athenians 311. ἐξήλασεν, for "he drove out the feet," non-Hellenic 546. ἐξηρεύξατο ὁ Θεὸς τὸν αὐτοῦ Υἱόν, Tatian and Theophilus 126. ἐξιλασμός, sin-offering heifer 357. ἐξιλαστικὴ θυσία, sacrifice 350. εἶναι ἐπὶ νηῷ, for in the temple, inconveniently 535. ἐξουσία, power, might 545. ἑορτὴ τῶν θαλίων 540; of harvest 369.

ἑορτῆς θεσμός, for feast 426. ἑορτὴν καινίζειν, for to celebrate the dedication, absurdly, ibid. ἐπαναφερόμενος, concerning the Holy Spirit, among the Syrians 323. ἐπαύριον, after these things 320. ἐπενδύτης, what it is 527, 528. ἐπήλυδες, Nonnus erroneously for neighbors 420. ἐπί, for ἐν 375, 435. ἐπιγράφειν τῇ βίβλῳ, wrongly instead of writing about something 554. ἐπιδημία τοῦ Κυρίου, the saving presence 288. ἐπιδήμιοι, who they are 197. ἐπιθυμία, for homicide and similar things 176. ἐπιλαμβάνειν, in discussing 500. ἐπιμοιρᾶσθαι 524. ἐπιούσιον, what it is 317. ἐπιστόμιον, tunic 506. ἐπισυμβεβηκότα, of God 213. ἐπιφέρεσθαι 322. ἐπιχέειν γῆν 524. ἐπονομάζειν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου 498. ἐπωμίς, or shoulder 164. ἐπώνυμος, or namesake 197. ἐργάζεσθαι, what it is 380, 397. ἔργον, coin 482. ἐργοπόνος, incorrectly of the Son 71; epithet of Minerva, ibid. ἐρεείνειν, or to need, what it is 373. ἐρέπτειν, what it is 217, 218. ἐρεύγεσθαι λόγον, a Hebraism 228. ἐρευθοῦν ῥέεθρον, a Hebraism 228. ἐρημοπολίτης, John 75. ἑρμηνεῖαι, a species of interpretation 232, 233. ἔρνος, what it is 518. ἐρυγή, the Son of God, said 127. ἐρυθραῖος, Edom 520, 521. ἔρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσμον, what it is in Hebrew 288; ἐπὶ γαῖαν, that it is not Greek, ibid. ἐρωτᾷν, what it is in Euthymius 373. ἑσπέρα, evening 31. ἑστηκὼς ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασιλέως 577. ἐς φύσιν οἴνου ποιεῖν, a Hebraism 227. ἐτάραξεν ἑαυτόν 248. ἐτήτυμα, which are 195. ὅτι ἅπαξ, ὅτι μικρόν 458. εὐάζειν 8; pagan usage 92; concerning the feast of Pascha, imprudently 192. εὐεπίφοροι, Nonnus and Euripides regarding certain words 191. εὐντος, whence Bacchus is named 8. εὐκρόκαλος, and other things that are appropriate to the sea, concerning the lake 168. εὐλογεῖν, of the Hellenists 498. εὐξάμενοι, who they are 109. εὐοῖ 8. εὑρίσκειν, what it is 241. εὐφημεῖν, of the Attics 498. εὐχαριστία, for blessing 396. ἐφύμνιον 295, 296. ἔχειν ἀλκήν, for to have power, worthless 542. Ζάθεον, what it is 521. Ζεύς, whence 14. ζῆν, whence, ibid. ζητεῖν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ ζητεῖν τὴν τιμήν 387. ζήτησις, a disputation, among the judges

^A and the disciple of John concerning baptism 358. ζωῆς, of life, it revolves 422. ζωὴν ἔχειν, to have life, what it means 421, 424. ζώνη (girdle) 528; skin-girdle 140, 141; another garment and tunic ^B ζωοῦν (to vivify), what it means 425.

H Ἡ πρὸ καὶ, incongruous 536. ἤθη περιμήκετος (custom long-drawn-out), erroneously 537. ἡγεμονικὴ γενεά (sovereign generation) 277; ἡγεμών (leader), or priest 546. ἡγιασμένοι (sanctified) 109. ἠθοποιία (characterization) of paraphrase 259; ἦθος of paraphrase 259; which was taken from Nonnus ibid. ἤκουσας (you heard), in the manner of the Hebrews, for 'you are accustomed to hear' 433. ἡλικία (age), what it means 60, 537. ἡμεροβαπτισταὶ (day-baptizers), Pharisees 96. ἦν (was), what it means 65. ἡνίοχος (charioteer), Christ 102. ηὐγμένοι (shining), who they are 109. ἦχος (sound), misuse of the word 502.

Θ Θαλίαι (banquets), feasts 540. θαλύσια, a pagan word 92. θαυμάζειν (to wonder), what it means 387. θεάνδρος 82. θεάνθρωπος (God-man) ibid. θεηγόρος (God-speaking), ^C regarding the Son of God, used wrongly 127; regarding John, correctly 127. θεῖος (divine), regarding the Son of God 127; θέμις (custom/law), whence 307; θέμις or law 307, 308. Θεογενὴς (God-born), what it means 183. Θεοδέγμων (God-receiver), used erroneously by Nonnus 163. Θεοειδής (God-like) 83. θεολογεῖν (to theologize) 274. θεολογία (theology) of the Only-Begotten, as the beginning of the Gospel of John, so called 274, 275. θεολογία καὶ οἰκονομία (theology and economy) 275, 274. Θεολογίαν βροντᾶν (to thunder theology) 273. Θεολόγος (theologian), why John is 265, 273, 274. θεοπρεπῆ, divine works of Christ 183. θεοπρεπῆ, writings, which ones 273. θέορτος (God-feast), something other than θεοπρόπος 182. θεοσυνέργητος (God-cooperating), John is so called 278. θεότης σωματική (bodily deity) 300. θεοφόρος (God-bearer), wrongly regarding Christ 127. θεόφυτος (God-planted), regarding the Son 69. θεράποντες (servants) of Ares, in Homer 371. θέρος (summer), for 'harvest', carelessly 367. θέσκελος (divine/wonderful), regarding the Son of God 197. θεσμός (law/ordinance), for 'law' 431. θεώμενοι, or θεωροῦντες (those viewing), the evangelists are called 'neighbors' 420. θεωρεῖν (to view), commonly used by the Hellenists 470. θλίψεις (tribulations) or scourges, what they mean 359. θρασὺς (bold), regarding Peter and John, as regarding Jude, used through 'lack of judgment' 187. θρόνος (throne), or seat, unequal terms 173. θύα, θύειν (to sacrifice), θυάρπαξ (greedy for sacrifice) 16. θυά; a pagan word 92. θυγάτηρ Ἰερουσαλήμ (daughter of Jerusalem) 183. θυηπολίη (sacrificing), Pascha 183. θυιὰς ἑορτή (maenad festival), regarding the feast of Pascha, imprudently 122.

I Ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος (Behold the man) 496. ἱεούδ, among the Phoenicians, 'only-begotten' 135. ἱερὰ τράπεζα (holy table), what it means 354. ἱερεῖς καὶ Λευΐτας (priests and Levites) 314. ἱερεὺς, or ἡγεμών (leader) 546. ἴκανον μὲν ἱκάνων, incoherent 545. ἱκανὸς τοῖς γραφομένοις (sufficient for the things written) 550. ἱμάς (thong), what it means 93. ἱμάτιον (mantle/garment), concerning the body of the Lord 202. ἱμάτιον, what it means 547. ἵνα (that), in [the phrasing] εἰσόκε, changed in Nonnus 419. ἰσότης Θεοῦ (equality of God), form of God 549. ἰσουργία (equal-working) of the Father and the Son 467. ἰσοφυὴς (equal-natured) 65. ἰχθύες ὀπταλέοι (roasted fish), very ineptly 167. Ἰωσὴφ θεοειδής (Joseph God-like), not rightly said, while he is despised 170. ^D

K Καθαίρειν (to cleanse), regarding baptism 557. καθαρισμὸς (cleansing), something other than καθαρμός 355; why they are confused 357; baptism is 356; 'juvenile' of sin 357. κάθαρμα or καθαρισμὸς 555, 556. κάθαρσις (purification), regarding baptism 357. καθ' ἑαυτὸν (by himself), ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ (from himself) 382. καὶ (and), confirmatory 348. καινὴ ἐντολὴ (new commandment), which one and how said 185. καινίζειν ἑορτήν (to renew a feast), for 'to celebrate the inauguration', absurdly 426. καινίζειν θεσμόν (to renew an ordinance), what it means ibid.; οἶκον ibid. καινὸν (new), from the Hebrew manner, what it means 185. καιρὸς (time), in Hellenistic, for 'opportunity' 388. κακοῦργοι (evildoers), robbers 486, 487. κάλαμος (reed), in Hebrew, what it means 511. καλὸς (good), for 'agathos' (virtuous), Hellenistic 115. κάλπιν διὰ κόλπου ἀείρειν (to lift the pitcher through the bosom) 150. καλύνθρα, palm branches 454. καμεῖν (to toil/make), for 'to do', a pedagogism 542. Καναναῖον πέδον 155. Καναναῖον, for Καναῖον (Canaanite), incorrectly 531. καταβαίνειν (to descend) 116; regarding the Holy Spirit 323; εἰ μένειν, the word for divine majesty and presence 323, 324. καταδέειν, δέειν, συμπλέκειν, περιτιθέναι (bind, tie, entwine, put around), concerning the same 511. κατὰ καιρὸν, for κατὰ καιρὸν τοῦτον (at this time) 577. κατὰ καιρὸν, Hellenism 388. κατασκήνωσις (tabernacling), what it means 291. κατασκήνωσις καὶ δόξα (tabernacling and glory), to which they belong 337, 338. κατασκήνωσις, the 'shekhinah' of the Chaldeans 297, 293, 295; joined with 'glory' 293, 297, 323, 324. κατασκήνωσιν καὶ μονὴν (tabernacling and dwelling), the Jews attribute to the prophets 324. κατάστικτος (dappled/spotted), spotted 120. καταυγάζειν (to shine down), for 'to have the light', a solecism 541. κάτω δρυός (beneath the oak), wrongly for ὑπὸ δρυΐ 533. κατελθεῖν (to come down), in Hellenists, what it means 117. κατεσκήνωσεν (he tabernacled), and 274. Κέδρος and Κεδρὼν (Kedron), confused by Nonnus 194. κεῖσθαι (to lie), translated incongruously by Nonnus 535. κειρίαι (grave-clothes), what they mean 445. κεκοπιακὼς ἐκ τῆς ὁδοιπορίας, εἰ πεπαυμένος ὁδοῦ (having labored from the journey, if he has ceased from the way) 361. κένωμα (emptiness), in Aquila, the same as 'void' in Theodotion 179; assigns both to the earth 179. κεχαλασμένος ἐς πτύχα μηρῶν (loosened into the fold of the thighs), what it indicates 529. κιθάρα (lyre) and ψαλτήριον (psaltery) 508. κίνησις (motion) and ταραχὴ (disturbance) 378. κλαυθμὸς (weeping), that is, Bacchus 9. κλέος (glory/fame), for 'glory', incorrectly 292. κλῆμα (vine-branch) with cluster, confused 191. κλισία (couch/tent) 538. κλισιοπηγία (tent-pitching) ibid. κνήφ, what it means to the Egyptians 20. κοινόβιοι (coenobites), how called among the Jews 109. κολαφίζειν (to buffet) 495, 495. κόλαφος (buffeting), whence named 495; a certain pedagogue ibid. κολυμβήθρα (pool), what it means 237, 375, 376. κονδυλίσαι (to knuckle), κολαφίσαι (to buffet) 495. κόνις (dust), what it means 179. κόρυμβα (clusters), Nonnus: palm branches 454. κόρυμβος (cluster), what it means 191; 'polyptorthos' (with many pods), is it rightly so called? ibid.; confused with the 'vine-branch' ibid. κόσμος ἀέναος (ever-flowing cosmos), so called by Nonnus 190; and 'aeon' for the same 191; John, what he means 471. κόφινος (basket), 'formia' 549. κρανίου τόπος (place of the skull) 196, 198. κρίνειν (to judge), ambiguous 216. κρίνειν κατ' ὄψιν (to judge according to appearance) 401, 402. κρίσις (judgment), ambiguous 215. κρότος (din), a pagan word 92; regarding the feast of Pascha 122. κτίζειν κτίσμα (to create a creature), regarding a miracle 421. κτίσμα (creature), generation 346. κύαθος (cup/ladle), instrument of libations 152. κυβιτίζειν (to tumble) 54. κύβιτος (tumbler) ibid. κυκλάδες ὧραι (cyclic hours) 114. κυκλίσκος (little circle), ring 172. κύκλος (circle), to physicians, 'period' 171. κυκλοῦν κεφαλὴν στεφάνῳ, εἰ στέφανον κεφαλῇ (to encircle the head with a crown, or a crown on the head) 546. Κύριος δόξης (Lord of glory) 246. Κύριος ὁ Θεός μου σύ (You are the Lord my God) 526. Κυρίου δόξα (Glory of the Lord) 295, 296, 297. κώλα σχοινοτενῆ (rope-like limbs) 256. κώμη (village), to Hellenists, what it means 435. κῶμος (revel), a pagan word 92.

Λ Λαγόνες (flanks/loins) 528. λάϊνον (stony) or λαϊνεον 121. λαλεῖν ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ (to speak in the mind) 405; to one's own soul ibid. λάλος (talkative), for 'audieis' (vocal), wrongly 103. λαμβάνειν (to take), Hebrew, what it means 476. λαμβάνειν εἰ πορεύεσθαι (to take to go), regarding the mode of existence of the Holy Spirit 476. λαοσσόος (people-moving), John, wrongly 77. λάσιον (shaggy) or 'hairy' 144. λατρεία (divine service), δουλεία (slavery/service) 476. λαχμὸς (lot/destiny), Nonnus, what it means 507. λάχος ἡμέρας (lot of the day) 502. λέγειν (to say), instead of 'to think' 72. λειποθυμοῦντες (fainting), breathless 99. λεκάνη (basin), bath 377. λέκτρον (bed), epomis (shoulder-piece), wrongly by Nonnus 164. λέντιον (towel/linen cloth), 'sindon' in Syriac 184. λέξις (diction) and μῦθος (fable), confused by Nonnus 500. λέξιν περιστρέφεσθαι (word turning around), what it means 499. λεπτολάχανον (fine herbs) 145. λεπτοσκευασμένα (finely fashioned) ibid. λεπτοφυὴς (fine-grown), garment 142, 145. λεπτοφυὴ qua (fine-grown) 145.

^A Levites and priests 314. To speak with a white [λευκάδι] voice, what it means 179. To whiten the thought 479. To speak or say things most white, ibid. Thieves: who they are in the Syrians 486; lawless ones 487; false prophets, ibid.; a word whose usage became current among the Chaldeans 229. A soldier armed 487. Flasks [λήκυθοι]: correctly omitted by Apollinaris in his interpretation of the Psalms 257; accustomed to being received with laughter 240, 241. Flask [λήκυθος], what it means 258; not distinguished from a paraphrase by Nonnus, ibid.; examples 238, 240, 241. Lemma, a species of prophecy 429. Taking [λήψις], what it means for the Hebrews 476. Stony 121. Stony [λιθῶδες], what it means, ibid. Pools, swimming pools 376. Sea of Tiberias, called "Sea," by Hebrew usage 176. Libra, what kind of word 521. Spear [λόγχη], what it means 546. And spear [λόγχη] or dagger [μάχαιρα] confused by Nonnus 515. Oracle, prophecy 429. Word [λόγος], what word this is 274. Word [Λόγος], Son of God, previously called by the Chaldeans 72. Word, that prophet 289. Word, prophecy 429. Libation [λοιβὴ], erroneous sense of 154. To loosen the sandal, what it means 98.

M To be effeminate 433. Marble or alabaster 453. To seek 548. Scourges or tribulations, what they mean 359. Peter's dagger 483. Dagger attributed to Agamemnon by Homer 484. Dagger [μάχαιρα] or spear confused by Nonnus 515. Dagger, what it is, ibid. ^B Wanton hair [μαχλὰς χαίτη], which our poet 452, 453. Great Zeus 545. Great day, what it means 547. Great [μεγάλον] for "great" [μέγαν] 545. Magnanimity, wrongly used by the Greeks for majesty 293. High priest [μέγαν ἀρχιερέα], ineptly said 545. Interpreted in place of names 329; examples, ibid. Interpretation [μεθερμηνευόμενον] of Didymus, not a proper or family name 465. Word "drunkenness" [μέθης], how used by the Hellenists 111. Those who transfer 186. To be drunk, what it means 111. Wedding songs of drunken fall 114. Temple of God, for the temple of the Holy Spirit 188. To remain, property of the Holy Spirit 187, 188, 323. To remain, ambiguous 212, 213; what it means 389. Articulate [μέροπες] 105. To change, what it means 39. Offices of the changer 58, 217. Change 57; what it means 38; what kind of interpretation method 236; example, ibid. Metabolic, a species of interpretation 247.

Those who remove 186; who they are among the geographers, ibid.; among the astrologers, ibid.; among the theologians 187. A foreigner, imprudently applied to the Holy Spirit 186. Those who depart 187. Translations, a species of interpretation 232, 233. Translational, a species of interpretation 247. Sojourners, who they are 186. Measurer or measure 334. Sheepskin, what it means 140, 141, 142. "Let us not tear," interpretation of the passage 507. Measures 528. Dwelling and tabernacling, the Jews attribute to their own prophets 324. To make a dwelling, to remain, to inhabit 188. Only-begotten, an attribute of divinity 295. Only-begotten, a word odious to Arius 136; in all symbols, councils, and synods concerning the divinity of the Son, maintained against the theory of "brother-gods" 132, 133; Ieud among the Phoenicians 135. Only-begotten and beloved-child 150, 136. Form, what it is 348, 349, 352, 471. Form and figure, opposed 355. Form of God, equality of God 349. Myths, dogmas of the heretics 74. Myth, a word used through Hebraism 227. Myth and diction, confused by Nonnus 500. Myth instead of "Word" regarding the Son of God, wrongly 71. Myth impiously used for "Word" 192, 220, 408. Myth-maker [μυθοτόκος], Greece; not so the Heart of the Lord 192. Mysteries of Bacchus, imprudently applied to the feast of Easter 122.

N Nazarene or Galilean, used interchangeably by Nonnus 110. Nazirites, who they are, ibid. Nazirite, who he is 198. Nazoreans, who they are 109. Nazorean, mystical inscription 198. Stream of wine, for wine 157, 158. Spikenard 451. Casket [ναρθήκιον], from whence R. Elias derives it 446. Corpse [νέκυς], the fugitive, concerning the resurrected Christ 548. Newly dancing 182. Intelligent and intelligible 102. Illegitimate citizens 186. Law and justice 307, 308. Law, the Greek word used by the Syrian and Targumists 308; what it means 451. Law, of the Psalms 480. Mind-wandering Pharisees 346. Disease [νοῦσος], circular, Nonnus's term for paralysis 171. Periodic diseases, ibid. To pierce, to stab 516.

1208 Way [ὁδὸς], far-reaching, wrongly 150. To inhabit, to remain 188, 571. Habitation [οίκησις], wrongly used for tabernacling 291. House and tent 147. Economy and theology 273, 276. House, "eternally guarded," a Hebraism 226. Faithful house, concerning Solomon's temple 450. House, wrongly for tent 291. Wine-tasters or head-waiters 335. Wine or strong drink 148. Wine-colored tunic, why Nonnus calls it so 505. Oispai, what it means 513. Gadfly, Nonnus denotes it as "stumbling block" 219. Oisypai, what it means 513. Omens 18; to consult omens, ibid. "My Lord and my God" 526. To howl 7. Coeval and co-evality, what it means 66. Homilies, a species of interpretation 232. Co-throned and fellow-throned 173; indicates connaturality 174. Similar, what it means 351. To be made similar, to be [God], 350; to be made equal, ibid. Likeness, form, ibid. Likeness of man, shape of man 349. Likeness of God, God 351. Similarly, what it means 384. Homousion and homoiousion 17. Conterminous with Judea, Jerusalem so called by Nonnus 400. Homophoitos, wrongly used of the Son of God 92. Noun and verb, what they mean to Plato 57. To name the name of the Lord, what it means in the Law of Moses 493. To store behind, what it means 107. Opisthanomion, what it means 111. Those who carry behind 107; whom Nonnus has understood 109. Younger, what it means 184. Where David was, i.e., born 409; the prophet 515; the error of the Jews concerning him 316. Vision, knowledge 309. Vision against someone, a species of prophecy 429. Orgies, pagan word 92. Orgies, loud-clapping, imprudently applied to the feast of Easter 122. Shoots [ὄρπηκες], Nonnus's word 454. Orphic poems, when they were written 42. Holy [ὅσιος], called Lord 399. Ossa, what it means 251. When then he was raised from the dead, explained by Nonnus as the ascension 341. "That" [ὅτι] for "as" or "so that," a solecism 536. "That my first he was," a Hebraism 248. "That you do these things," an elliptical discourse 338. We have served no one, that is, we are free 414. He cannot do, what kind of Hellenism 383. He did not entrust himself to them 541. Yellow, what it signifies 160; proper color of wine, ibid. Sword, Nonnus uses "dagger" 485.

Yellow [Ξανθόν], what it signifies 160; proper color of wine, ibid. Sword [ξίφος], Nonnus's "dagger" 485. O Metabolic, a species of interpretation 217. Oaristys, the first of the Jews 358. No man [Οὔτις ἄνθρωπος], to whom no one his own [looks], Hebr. proverb 113.

^A thus, "he sat thus by the spring" 361. Dead creatures (ὄρεις) which 128. Creation of the eye 179. Apsigonos, "late-born" 154, 155. Opsimos (late) ^B as "late-born" 131. Opson (relish) what 244. Opson and optaleon are confounded 167. "He who is, who was, and who is coming" 545.

II. Passions of the just, tribulations, so called 359; of sinners, scourges ibid. Childish miracles of Jesus 243. Sons of David, soldiers ^C of David, to the Hellenists who 371. Son of the king, royal official 571. Elbow of the palm (hand), ineptly 544. Palinora (wandering back) stars 187. Panhellenes, Nonnus calls the Hellenists, incongruously 403. All (partes), for "all races of men" 457. Derivatives, which 55. Paradises, that is, gardens 519, 520. Paradise for the place of the blessed 128; "well-wooded," wrongly 129. Paraclete, the word's use among the Chaldeans 229. To take, to obey 289; what [it means] in Matthew 290. Paramerion (near the thigh), a dagger 483. Time of the Preparation (paraskeue) 501, 502. Plucking of the beard 494. Paraphrases, a species of interpretation 252. Paraphrastic kind of interpretation 247. Assessors (paredroi), gods 173; magistrates sitting together 174. Paraboli (digression), a kind of interpretation 247. Sojourner (parepidemos), who 188. Sojourners (paroikoi), who 197, 420. Dwellers nearby, who 197. Present ones (parontes), the evangelists are called neighbors 420. Boldness (parrhesia), the word's use among the Chaldeans 229, 400. To speak boldly, what 400. Paronyms, which 53, 55. Bridal chamber (pastos), what 358, 359. To strike with the palm, by Nonnus, what 494. To cause to rest (pauon), in very inept fashion, "to rest" 556. To bubble over (paphlozein), what 500, 501. Penos, pistos, pistikos, ibid. To tempt, what 339. Temptations, to the Hellenists, which 451. Dove (peleias), a species of dove 119. Having ceased from the way, "that is, having grown weary from the journey" 361. Believers (pepisteukotes), a word wrongly accepted by Nonnus 415. Veil (peplos) 528. To pass through (peresai) for "to arrive," inept 514. Peridromos, what 108. To circle the rim of the head 107. To acquire (peripoiein), what 423. Superfluous (perisson), what the evangelist [means] 422, 424. Dove (peristera), a species of dove 119. Turning around, the word 422. Turning of the word "life," ibid. To put on (peritithenai), by the Hellenists, what 310, 541. Peter, being interpreted 528, 529. To be naturally (pephykenai) or to grow 68. Spring and well 149. Table (pinax) for a title 504. Those believing (pisteuontes) or those who have believed argue a difference of faith 174. Pistikos or pistos 450. Faith (pistis), the acceptance 289. Temporary faith 539, 541. "Tested (piston) by the waters," what to the Hebrew teachers 452. Tested, true, and unfailing 450. To test (pistoun) the witness, for "to bear witness," wrongly 533. To wander (planasthai) 15. To speak broadly (platyazein), what 500, 501. Devices of breadth 55. Pleistobolinda (dicing game) 507. Plexeidion, what 108. To be fulfilled, how the Scripture is sometimes said [to be] 480. Small boats by which they crossed the lake of Tiberias, how termed by the Syrians 166. Ambiguity of the word "Spirit" (pneuma), the cause of error 212. Spirit (pneuma), "having groaned in the spirit" for perturbation 440; for the Holy Spirit, ibid. 443; for reasonable mind 441; for himself 442. Holy Spirit, passage: "For the Holy Spirit was not yet" 124, 408; why by Nonnus [called] "paternal" 411, 443; and wrongly "pure" to him 220. "Swift-footed" (podas okus) of Homer, whence borrowed 51. Pothoblēta (desired) works, what to the Silentiary 175. Pothoblētoi (desired) cares, wrongly 175. To do something in the name of the Father, or of God 427. To do into the water, wrongly 158. Created (poiētos) god, not God 176. Created (poiētos) Samaritan, that is, apostate 177. Poikilos (various), what 120. Poikilophanes (of various appearance), what 120. To shepherd (poimainein) for "to feed" (boskesthai), a solecism 542. Shepherd not being [a shepherd] 425. City (polis) and town (astu) 76. Politeia (citizenship), what 75. Many believed 541. Polyklēeis (many-keyed), ineptly concerning a small boat 166. Many-formed universe, wrongly 130. "Many-toothed" (polyodous) iron and dagger (aor) to Nonnus the same 514. Polysema (of many meanings) 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215. Polyspereis or many 47. Polytrētos (many-holed), who 528. Polytropos (many-turned) is a neutral word indeed, but generally drawing [to itself] praise 193. Polyōpos (many-eyed), who 528. Pompimoi (those who escort), who are so called 46. Pontos (sea) for a lake, wrongly 395. Voice of fornication, wrongly accepted by the theologians 416. To travel on the earth, what 288. To travel or to take, concerning the mode of existence of the Holy Spirit 476. Practical (praktikē) generation of Christ 272. Things (pragmata) or deeds (praxeis) 50. Deeds or things 50. Sheep-gate (probatikē), what 375. Provoker (proboleus), in respect to whom God the Father himself can be called [so] 189. Forerunner (prodromos) or general, [concerning] related 87. Proeortion (pre-festival) 547. Preparation (proparaskeue) 547. Before the Sabbath (prosabbaton) 547. According to time, according to an hour 388. Prossymbebekota (things that have come to be besides) of God 213. Respect of persons (prosōpolēpsia) in the Law 402; "to fear the person" in the Law 402. According to an hour, according to time 388. Prophet with a riddle 315; error of the Jews concerning him 316; "tested" (pistos), of that great one 450. John the first-angel (protangelos), wrongly 85. First of me (prōtistos mou), a solecism 300, 305. First or first-appearing 47. First 501, 502. Ptorchos (shoot/scion), what 191. Basin (pyelos), bathtub (asamins) 237, 376. Last hour (pumatē hōrē) 114. Puxion (writing tablet) for a title 504. Fire (pur) of violent fever 433; yellow (xanthos) 159.

P Rapis (sandal), sole, footwear 494. To strike (rapisai), what 493, 494, 495. Rapisma (slap) to the jurisconsults, what 494; to Claudian, ibid. Rethron erethison (stream stimulating), for wine 157, 158. Rhema (word/utterance), a genus of prophecy 429. Pouring of salt (rhous halmēs) for a lake, wrongly 595. Rhopalon (club) in the fustuarium (military punishment) 489, 490.

S Salem (peace) deep-waving 139. Samaritan place, that "he is a Samaritan" 176. Sunides (syneidēsis) to the jurisconsults, what 505. Flesh (sarx), a word used in many ways 211. Meanings (sēmasiai), a species of interpretation 252. Sign (sēmeion), from which the serpent was suspended 353. Iron-bearing nails (sidērophoroi gomphoi) 48. Sikera (strong drink) or sikēs, what 148. Silioi (flat-nosed), or blind 528. Simon, what 520; thence Simon to Nonnus 328. Sisoē to the Hellenists which 107, 108. To be scandalized, by Nonnus wrongly returned 474. Scandal (skandalon) to Nonnus, called "oistros" (gadfly) 219. Skedazein (to scatter) or diaskorpizein 543. Skelokopia (leg-weariness) 514. Tabernacle (skēnē) 147, 538. Tabernacles (skēnōpēgia) 538; as called by the Syrians 540. Days of the Feast of Tabernacles consecrated to Bacchus 539. To tabernacle (skēnoun), what 290. Skenōsis (tabernacling) or "glory," concerning the divinity, joined 293, 297, 323, 324. Hard fabric 185, 184. Succoth, in Succoth, under the tents 559. Wise (sophos), the word used by Nonnus without usage 491. Band (speira), for the army of the temple, how it is said by Nonnus 194; wrongly "band of chief priests" 195; "of the captain of the temple" 195. To sow (speirein) flaws (elattōmata), concerning Christ, what 114. Spondeion, an instrument for libations 152. Libation (spondē) 152.

^A Statistasai 485, 488. Stasis, what 488. Statisintai 488. Stavros and stavrou typos, from which the serpent was suspended 354. Stavroun, and hypsoun, the same in Syriac 353. Steichein chthona, a solecism 545. Stephane, what 108, 111. Stephein basilea, concerning Roman usurpation 503. Stiktai melessi peleiades, incorrectly 119, 120. Stikton, what 120. Stichos, what 256. Stoai, what in Hellenistic 375. Stoibades of Mark 454. Stole, what 144. Stratēgoi tou hierou, elders 194; use of the word 195. Stratēgos, the usage of the word with the Chaldeans, facts 229. Stratiē, ho ithynōn stratiēn, who 372. Stratos ouranou 126. Stratos, what in Nonnus 194. Strouthizesthai 513. Synkathedroi, magistrates 174. Syzygia, concerning the Persons 468; syzygiai, what 85. Sykinos Dionysos, why he is so called 539. Symballesthai, heurein 241. Symbebekota, what they are 50. Symplekein, dein, katadein, peritithenai, concerning the same 511. Symphyes, whence it is proved concerning the Person of the Son 174. Synadelphos and monogenēs, contradictions 189. Synthronos and anchithronos, different things 172, 174; the same as homothronos 173; it indicates symphyes 174. Synthronos hedrei, incorrectly concerning the Son 69. Sphairōtēr, what 98. Sphingesthai, concerning those who are healed of paralysis 379. Sphragida tithenai,2 what it means for Hellenists 398. Sphragizein, what 398. Schēma anthrōpou, omoiōma anthrōpou 349. Schēma, something neglected and despised by Hellenists 351. Schēmata endeias 243, 284, 285. Schēmata parabolika 264; by critics anexergasta 244; example 244, 245. Scholia, a species of interpretation 232, 233. Sōmatikē theotēs 500.

T. Tameia, what 375. Tachyplokamoi, who 109. Tarassein heauton, and embrimasthai tō pneumati 442. Tarassesthai tō pneumati 462. Tarachē, or kinēsis 378. Tekna porneias, idolaters 417. Teleiousthai, doxazesthai 408. Temachia, to aid the memory of some work 260. Tetramēnos therismou, which part of the year 369. Tē epaurion 316, 319.

^B Tēlygetēs, regarding man only 134, 136. Tēlygetēs as monogenēs 130, 136. Ex te tē tritē, the words of chapter 2, to what they refer 520. Tiberētis limnē, not grammatically 168. Tiktesthai, what 346. Timē, for doxa and majestatis Dei, incorrectly 243, 292, 459; for exousia, an idiom of Nonnus 228. Tokeus, for pater, erroneously 220. Trephesthai en skēnē, what 147, 148. Trērōn, whence 121. Tribōn, what kind of garment 142. Trisagion 294. Tropoi tēs hyparxeōs, not to be confused, as Nonnus does 189. Trochēlatēs, comic 107. Trōgein, ambiguous 217. Typos and alētheia, opposites 353.

Y. Hydation aitein 363. Hydōr leukon 159; xanthon, incorrectly 158, 159; orkion, arkion 150. Hyetos kai phōnai 456. Hyies Achaiōn 404. Hylikōs kai ekporeutōs, a note of distinction 189. Huiothesia entelestatē 221. Huios gērous, for a wise man among Hellenists, why 134. Huios doxēs 297. Hypagōn, what 453. Hypagoreuomena 271. Hypagoreuein, what 270. Hypakouein, what in Hellenistic 476. Hypakoe, lēpsis 476. Hypagoreuseis 271. Hypenengas, what in Hellenistic 550. Hyperthe kai enerthe phoreos, inept 504, 505. Hypanemion, ineptly concerning the Holy Spirit 101. Hypnos egersimos, for the death of the Lord 526. Hypokritēs 402. Hypomnēmata, a species of interpretation 232; their authors 233. Hypo tēn trapezan dainysthai, anellēniston 548. Hypourgos, concerning the Son 70, 127. Hyssōpos, for ōissos, corruptly 513. Hysteron proteron, noted by Augustine 417. Hypsoun, concerning the cross 355, 411; concerning glory, Nonnus 412; hypsousthai 215, 515.

Φ (Phi). Phagein, ambiguous 217. Phaneis, for ōn, incorrectly 174. Phelmouni, whence 7. Pherallēla kai allēlendeta onomata, things which theological [works] 190. Pheredeipnos, to whom this epithet is due 167. Pherōnymoi, who 195. Pherōnymon, ineptly for epōnymon 197. Phthora, the use of the word by Andrew the monk 206. Philakrētos, a satirical epithet 113. Philalēthēs, who is so called particularly 239. Philos epistēthios, that is John 278. Phlazein, what 501. Phoibazein, what kind of word it is, and whence it is derived 447. Phoibasmos and hagnismos 148. Phoitan, what 92. Phoitētēres, who are so called 92. Phōnai, places where [the sounds] are committed 181. Phōnios olethros, the sickness by which Lazarus died 181. Phonos, to ek phonou haima 181. Phonoi, homicides 181. Phrear ilyoen 149. Phrear kai pēgē 149. Phrear horkismou or horkou 150; horchion 151. Phyesthai and einai 68. Phyesthai and pephykenai 68. Phyxēlis, concerning the resurrected Christ 548; who is properly so called ibid. Physas, Father 69. Physis, ousia 68. Physis and opsis, opposites 155. Physis hydatos, pyros, etc. 155. Physis chionōtos, for water, incorrectly, ibid. Phytourgos, what 146. Phōnai kai hyetos 456. Phōnē, what in Hellenistic 277; tonitru 455; vox Dei, vox excellens ibid.; filia vocis 457. Phōs, concerning the three divine Persons 287. Phōta artigenea, ridiculous 540; for arsena 541.

X. Chairete, what in Hebrew 215. Chaitē machlas, which [it is] to our poet 453. Chalannē 106. Charin anti charitos 305. Charin, eleos, dikaiosynēn, poiein, equivalent 305. Charin, sto, peri, an idiom of deficient Hellenism 545. Charin titainein, for charin legein, anellēniston 558. Charis kai alētheia, what 500. Cheein gēn 524. Cheir aplē, palm 493. Chernips 152. Chionoun, nivare 156. Chitōniskos 528, 529. Chthonios keneōn, to which the blind eye is carried, what in Nonnus 179. Chitōn lasios 142; different from the garment made of camel's hair 143. Chitōn polytrētos 528; daidaleas 528. Chionōton hydōr, what 156. Choē 152. Choros, en chorostados hēmar heortēs 227. Chous androgonos 180. Chrēma and ergon 482. Chrēma or chrēmata 482. Chrisin, it also designated royal institution, and long preceded 391. Chysis 152; gapotos 152. Chysis oinou, for oinos 158. Chysis, concerning the stars 158. Chysis phyllōn 158. Chutēs gēs ē psamathou tuchein 524.

1213 χώρα Ἰουδαίων [country of the Jews], and Hierosolyma 138. Χωρῆα, what this is among the Syrians 550; Theophylact 550. χωρὶς, [apart] from itself 382. χώρος, concerning the treasury, an inept Hellenism of Nonnus 228.

INDEX LATINUS. Ψαλτήριον καὶ κιθάρα [Psaltery and lyre] 508. ψιλὰ, what this is 145. ψιλοκομμένα, what this is 145. Ω Ω of the Greeks, of the Syrians, kametz 501. ὠλέκρανον 544. ὥρα, [opportunity] 388. 1214 ὥρα τρίτη καὶ ἕκτη [third and sixth hour] 501, 502. ὥρην τιταίνεσθαι, unclear 502. ὥς, from this particle [arises] the heresy 297, 298. ὡς σοφὸς εἶπε [as the wise man said] 7.

INDEX LATINUS TO THE EXERCITATIONS ON DANIEL HEINSIUS’S SACHAS

A Abaddon, that is, Apollo 19. Abba, father 38. Abdemelech, what it is 372. Ablution, baptism, among the Syrians 376. Ablution’s place, κολυμβήθρα [pool] 370. Abolla, what garment this is 142. Abraham, a sojourner (παρεπίδημος) and a stranger (μετανάστης) 188. Where he sacrificed 366. Abstract nouns, use of, instead of concrete 53. Abundantly to have, what this means 421. Accidentia [accidents] 52. The name of accident among the Hebrews 53. Aceti vas [vessel of vinegar] applied to the cross, what use it had 511, 512. Actions, which are described by the poet in an epic poem, division of 34. To the fire of the wise to warm oneself, an old Hebrew saying 484. Adam, a word used by the Hellenists 196. Ἄνθρωπος [man] 196. Addereth, what garment this is 143, 145. Again once, yet a little while 458. Adjectives in -ώδης or -ενος 167. Adon, the sun 31. Adoni, salutation of the sun, ibid. Adonis 8. Why he is a companion of Venus 31. To adore and to sacrifice 151. Field at the pool (κολυμβήθρα) healed, of what kind 379. Egyptians’ custom in exhibiting the unbaptized 463. Age, about which a man is said to stand in knowledge 537. Aeon, concerning eternity 66. Agallochum, whence named 519. Dreams concerning it 520. To act authentically (αὐθεντικῶς) and condescendingly (συγκαταβατικῶς) 427. Lamb, laolxh Ouyla [?], 356. Alapa [slap], whence named 495. Alaph, ibid. White dove in the East 120. White color, suffused with light 160, 161. To allege, the custom of citing parts of books, customary among Hebrews 259. Alogi, heretics 319. Alpha and alapa, whence named 495. Altar, what it is 334. Ambiguities of John 240, 241. Ambiguities of words, a property of the Hellenists 210, notable examples 210, 211. Distinction of ambiguous words 206. Ambire, χωρεῖν [to hold/contain] 551. Ambrosius’s hallucination 228. Friend of the bridegroom, he who stands (ὁ ἑστηκώς) 358. Andreas, brother of Peter by the same womb (ὁμογάστριος) 201. Andronicus Rhodius, an old paraphrast 233. Angels instead of God, because they are his ministers 378. Hellenists place angels in the stead of God 378. Angel of death 378. Angel, what it is to the Chaldeans 277. Anhelare and to seethe (παφλάζειν) 501. Soul and spirit instead of itself 442. Annas and Caiaphas, in what way preeminent priests 483. Ring, κυκλίσκος [small circle] 172. Year, cycle, ibid. Antonius Augustinus’s opinion on Ulpian examined 225. Antonomasia, next to apposition 55. Aonia, whence 22, 27. Apollinarius, his marvelous brevity in rendering the Psalms by paraphrase 256. Apposita or attributes, what they are 40, 41, 42. Their definition examined 48, 49. Wrongly restricted to substances alone 48, 49. A heap of attributes is inept 64. Audaces [the bold], that is, braggarts 137. Aurora and evening, confused by Nonnus 502. Aroi 8. Axiom, what it is to the Stoics 57. The foundation of dialectic, by the same 55.

B Baal Shamayim, sun 31. Baca, what it is 7. Bacchus’s epithets 43. History 6, etc., name, nativity 13. Arms, from the East 14. Priests from the same 15. The same as Osiris 8, 123. Celebrated under the booths (succah) 539. Bacchic [elements] of Nonnus 6, 34. Bacchic words concerning the feast of Passover, imprudently usurped 122. Baal-Zaphon, God of the Egyptians 123. Baptism of John the Baptist and of Christ, what difference the ancients established 100. Baptism, in whom it was first used by John; and what use it had among the Jews 358. Baptism of the Lord, not described or commemorated in order by John, but touched upon by John the Baptist 318. Baptism, called a cleansing (κάθαρσις) 357. Baptists, in what way the Lord [is ignorant of ...], 325, 326. Beard plucking 494. Bariach, what it is 21. Barabbas’s crimes 483. Bassarides, bassareus, bassaru, basser 16. To strike the mouth with a sole or slipper 494. Beelsames, lord of heaven, the sun 51. Benedictions 396. Bethlehem, called a village (κώμη) by the Hellenists 435. Bethsaida, fatherland common to Philip with Simon and Andrew 331. Not correctly expressed by Nonnus 331. Drinking custom under the booths (succah) 539. Binaria, what they are 41. Bir, a Hebrew word 38. Twice dead, who they are 190. Boanerges, whom they are so called, and why 276, 278. Bom, what it is 23.

LATIN INDEX

^A Boeotians, Sicilians, Syrians, on the term *to platynsein*, in what vowel it consists, 501. Boraach, what it is, 20. Bordati, the supplement of, is examined, 250, 251, 252, 253. Boreach, a Hebrew word, 20. Boreas, its left-hand omen, 20. Boriach, a Hebrew word, 21. Brachium (Arm), what it is to the Hebrews, 545.

C Cabiri, whence they are so named, 25. Cadam, what it is, 25, 32. Cadmelus, whence named, 25. Cadmus’ arrival in Boeotia, 7; his name, 7; the origin of things and sciences in Greece from him, 6. Cadmon, 7, 32. Cadmoni, *he deina* (such a one), 7. Cadmoni, what it is, 7. Caecae (the blind), considered as profane and sinners, they said he was created from conjecture, what the cause may have been, 421. A passage concerning him, 178. The blind man healed was a beggar, 420. Born without eyes, according to the opinion of the ancients, 178. Calatura (engraving), how it is said by the Hellenists, 504. Caiaphas, is he rightly called *theopropos* (prophet), 181. Caiaphas and Annas, how they were supreme priests, 485. Cain, the son of the devil, 418. Calais, whence, 21. Calami (reeds), the word, 199. Calceatus (shod) or discalceatus (unshod), how the Lord walked, 98. Calceum (shoe), servants used to loosen it for the Jews, 98. Camar, what it is, 25. Camerarius (chamberlain), 369. Camil, a Hebrew word, 25. Camillus, whence, 25. Camiri, whence named, 25. Cana of Galilee, 155. Concerning its miracle, the doubts of the ancients, 213. Canaf, what it is, 20. Cananaea, what it is, 7. Cananaei, who they are, ibid. Cananas, used wrongly for Canaeus, 155. The Chapters of the Evangelists, how many they are for the ancients, 257. Their division and modern distinction, unknown to the ancients and Nonnus, 255. These are different from theirs, 257. That of Suidas and Theophylact, 258. That of Cyril, Prodromus, 259. That of Gregory, 258. That of Cyril, 260. That of the Syrians, 260. That of Bede, 262. The distinction of the chapters of Acts, 262. Epistles to the Romans, 262. Galatians, Apocalypse, 263. The division of the sixth chapter of John according to the Syrian method and the Catalogue of Theophylact, 258. Its *akolouthia* (sequence), rendered by poetic paraphrase differently than by Nonnus, 342. The head of the ointment, 451. The word Carnis (flesh), how variously used, 211. Casaubon, 280, 507, 510. Casmilus, whence, 25.

Casti (chaste), who they are, 203. Casum (case), how the Hellenists express it, 430. Catalogus, *biblos*, 271. Catena (chain) in Greek on the prophet Isaiah, not yet published, 295. Catena of Theodoret, not yet published, 195. Cecespita, what it is, 483. Cedem, 7. Cedron, the torrent as described by Nonnus, 194. It could be crossed by a ford, 194. How it is named in Syrian, 194. Cemarim, what it is, 25. Cepha, whence, 331. Cephas and Peter, 329. Chaiim tobim of the Jews, 115. Chalana, a city, 106. Chalne, a city, 106. Character of the Father, scripture, 314. Charassare (to engrave), 489. Chares, an Eastern word, 24. Charisius, definition of attributes, 48, 49. Chasida, a Hebrew word, 24. Cherub, what it is, 102. Chomerini, priests of Moloch, 448. Chrysostom noted, 292, 365, 366, 379, 384, 428, 440. The name of Christ, imposed by his mother, to argue that he is *apatōr* (fatherless), 407. The author of *Christus Patiens*, corrected, 516. Christ, the charge of crime common with robbers attempted against him, 488. Christ. Why John used a passage of Isaiah to prove the divinity of Christ, 460. Whether and how he wept. The ineptitudes of Nonnus, 459. In what name he was baptized, 135. Why he was joined with robbers, 485. Christiani, *hoi tēs theias aulēs* (of the divine court), 105. Chuppa (nuptial canopy). He who stands at the chuppa, the friend of the bridegroom, 358. Cilci, what it is in Chaldean, 145. Cinyra, who he is, 32. Cingulum (girdle) of mortification, what it is to Jerome, 141. Circumcisio (circumcision). The ambiguity of Nonnus regarding its day, 401. Citare (to cite). The method of citing parts of books used by the Hebrews, 259. Coelum (heaven), what it is to the Syrians, 317. Cogitare (to think), Hebrew, 72. Cogitatio mala (evil thought), *alymata*, 217. Color *alōgos* (irrational), what it is, 159. Color of water, and it is separable, 156. Changed into wine according to the opinion of Nonnus, and confused with [the concept in] the Latins, 161. Especially by the Hebrews, 161, 162. Columba (dove), worshipped by the Samaritans, and circumcision celebrated in its name, 366. Composita (things compounded), that is, *dipla*, 41, 46. Concertatio (contention) of two regarding the name of *theologos* (John), 265. Concludere (to conclude), *chōrein*, 550. Condylus, what it is, 493. Contemplatio (contemplation) of names, the beginning of learning according to Epictetus, 206. Corban, 475. Corona Sanctitatis (crown of holiness), what it is, 198. Corpus Domini (body of the Lord), the term sometimes used by Nonnus and the ancients, 202. Cranium Adami (skull of Adam), 196. A fable of the Hellenists, 196 and 197. Crastinus (tomorrow). The custom of the Hellenists when they speak of the morrow, 316, 317. *Aoristos* (aorist) used by the Hebrews, 319. Creare (to create), how it is used by the Hebrews, 421. Crimen majestatis (crime of treason), 298. The perversity of intending the crime of treason in the time of Tiberius, 497 and 498. Crinis (hair) cut in the shape of a wheel, what it is to Sidonius, 108, 109. Votivus, what it is, 108. Critice (criticism), what it is and of what kind, 5, 126. What its study is like, 164. The contempt of critics, 265. Diligence in distinguishing ambiguities, 206. Princes in theology, 279. Crux (cross). The size of the cross to which the Lord was affixed, 511, 515. Crux from which the serpent was suspended, 353, 354. Crux, the peculiar punishment of the Romans, 488. Crurifragium (breaking of legs), *skelokopia*, 514. Cultellarius, 483. Cultri (knives) in circumcision, 540. Victimarii, 483. Cum corde suo (with his heart), Hebr., for *secum* (with himself), 403. Cum pompa (with pomp), used by the rabbis, 401. Cunaeus, 532. Cyclus (cycle), a year, 172. Cynicorum vestis (garment of the Cynics), what it is, 142. Cyrilli error (the error of Cyril), 441.

D Damascus, called *kōmē* (village) by the Hellenists, 435. Dei majestas (majesty of God) and presence, by what word it is expressed in Chaldean, 187. Depalmare, what it is to the ancients, 493. Deus (God) put by Nonnus for the Father, and wrongly, 367. For an angel, by the Hellenists, 378. The Chaldeans assign his miracles to angels, 378. God in thunder, in voice, 456. Diabolus (devil), the father of Cain and the lie, 418. Dialectica (dialectic) of the Stoics, 206. Its parts, 206. Dicere ad cor suum (to say to his heart), what it is, Hebrew, 72. Didymus, 329, 438. Diei partes (parts of the day) according to the Greeks, 502. Dii (gods) unknown to Homer, 43. Dionysiaca of Nonnus, 6. Their disposition, 34. Disputed regarding it, and how, 88, 89. Dioscoridis epigramma (epigram of Dioscorides), not yet published, 203. Dioscuri, who they are so called, 10.

LATIN INDEX

Disciples of the Lord, 117. Disputation, ζήτησις (inquiry), concerning baptism, between the Jews and the disciples of John, 358. Divinations from serpents, 18. Divinity of the Son. Passage concerning it, 291. Signs of divinity, 300. They said among themselves, that is, to one another, 403. The circuit-journeys and visits of the Lord, κυκλώσεις καὶ ἐπιδημίαι, 456. House of doctrine, 147. Definition of the attributes of the Gift, 49. Arctic dragon, 21. Dryads, whence so called, 22. Dyscolos (difficult or ill-tempered), false prophet in Juvencus, 427.

E Eden and Edom confused by Nonnus, 520. Edom, ἐρυθραῖος (red), 520, 521. Effatum, what it is to Apuleius, 57. Breakers-in, λησταί (robbers), 486, 487. To wail (ejulare), 7. Ela, what it is, 22. Eleleus, whence so called, 10. Hallucination of the Elijah rabbis, 18. Ellipsis, σχήμα ἐνδείας (figure of deficiency), 245, 244, 215. Dedications (Encaenia). Passage concerning dedications very poorly understood by Nonnus, 425. Statement (enuntiatum), what it is to Cicero, 57. The praise of epic poetry, in what it consists, 35. The license of epic poets is not the same as that of tragic poets, 544, 545. Epigram of an old poet not yet published, 195, 196. Epiphanius’s fatigue in the passage concerning the baptism of the Lord, 321. Epithets, attributes, appositions, 41, 42, 48, 52. Erasmus’s ignorance of Hebrew letters led him into error, 271. His error, 373, 428. Errors of the learned, 381, 438. To be (esse) in God, what it means, 60. Evan, 8. Evangelist the virgin, 411. The custom of the Evangelists, who sometimes condense certain matters, 404. Gospel of Paul, 270. Of Peter, 270. Of Mark, Luke, 270. Summary of the Gospels, from the Florentine Manuscript, 266. [1218] ^A Empress Eudocia’s poetic paraphrase, την ἐξαήμερον (of the six days of creation), 246. Praise of the same from Photius, 246. Euphemisms, 411, 453. Euthymius’s error, 440, 441, 460, 463. Evohe, evoi, 8. To palpate (expalmare), what it meant to the ancients, 493. Ezof (hyssop) of the Hebrews, 513.

F Diversity of crimes, punished by diverse penalties, 485, 486. Falckenburgius, editor of the Dionysiaca, 1, 36. False prophet called dyscolos in Juvencus, 427. False prophets, λησταί, 487. Fariotus, a soothsayer (hariolus), 31. Fas, what it is, 308. Fever (febris), what it is, 433. The injury of a happy vow, in Claudian, what it is, 494. Women who anointed the Lord, how many, 452. Thigh (femur), an obscene part to the Hebrews, 13. Fen, what it is, 30, 51. Iron, σιδηροφόρον (iron-bearing), inept, 540. Fig tree. Under the fig tree, what it means, 332. That the protoplasts sinned, the opinion of the Hebrews, 333. Why Philip was acknowledged by the Lord and called, 333. Fir, what kind of tree it is in Egypt, 333. Faith, what it is, 527. Faith from the Kabbalah, 527. Evil figment (figmentum malum), αἵματα (bloods), 217. Figure and μορφή (form), or species and truth, opposed, 553. Daughter of the voice (filia vocis), 277. Daughter of the voice, what it is, 455, 456. Son of the free, 414. Of the noble, 414. Son in the Father, the exposition of the principle refuted, 62, 63. Sons of Israel, 404. Fircus, a he-goat (hircus), 31. Flagellation. The violence that was employed in it, 507. Yellow (flavus) color, 159, 160. Barley (hordeum), for fordeum, 31. Form of the gods, gods, 349. Of wolves, wolves, 350. The name of form, 53. Basket (xóφινος), formio, 549. To prune branches (frondes stringere) and to lop, 475. Frutinal and Fruti, 30. The fugitive Christ, Nonnus reborn, 548.

G Gabbatha, 500. Gæsa, 487. Gaisa, ibid. Galilee, that is, the time between the Passover and the Ascension, 154. The Galileans, ταναπλόκαμοι (with long-flowing hair) and ἀκερσεκόμοι (with unshorn hair) according to Nonnus, 109, 110. Philochristoi, or lovers of kindness (φιλόστοργοι), according to the same, 155. Galilean, for Nazarene, in Nonnus, 198, 454. Garizim and Moria, the mountains confused, 365, 366. Cheeks (genae) blushing into a citizen, of whom it is said in Claudian, 494. Nonnus puts the genus for the species, 498. Germ of God, that is, the Messiah Jehovah, 336. Golgotha, what it is, 198. Gladiolus in circumcision, 540. Stoned along with Joshua, 540. Glory of God in the thunder, in the voice, 456. Gorionides, a Hebrew writer, 193. Couch (grabatus), 164. Grace, Θεοτόκος (Mother of God), 26. Greece, the names of places, mere names of the East, 7. The most learned of the Greeks, Origen, 279. Deliria of the jacks (graculorum), 18, 26, 28, 468, 469. Grammarians noted, 52, 53, 89, 151, 307. The use of the stylus and pen (graphium) formerly forbidden to the Romans, 488. Footpad (grassator), a robber (λῃστής), ibid. Grace and truth, what they are, 500. Gregory of Nazianzus in interpreting βάσις (base/foundation), 236. Gregory of Neocaesarea (Thaumaturgus) in Ecclesiastes, the most laudable paraphrase, 255. Which is now inscribed as a Metaphrasis, 255. Noted however, uselessly ascribed, 256.

H Inhabitants of the streets, who they are according to Kimchi, 420. For God to inhabit, what it means to the Chaldeans, 187. Many voices of heretics removed, 127. Hallelu-iah, Hebrew voices, 12. Haoni, what it is, 22, 27. Haphiara, which the Lord interpreted in Isaiah, 405. Harmon, what it is, 24. Harmony, whence derived, 24. Hares, a voice of the East, 27. Hartung’s emendation, 449. Hatthanaa, 27. How much the ignorance of Hebrew letters imposes, 271. Hebraisms noted in Nonnus, 226. Helilu, what it is, 20. Hellenisms of the first chapter, 223. Idiotic error of the Hellenists, 169. Who are called Hellenists, 207, 403. Hellenistic language, different from Greek, 210. Hellenistic in canon law, 225. Hermenopulus’s interpretation against Arius, 302. Heros, a voice of the East, 27. Hesychius, what kind of author, 116. Yet noted, 89, 131, 184. Emended, 108, 375, 376. Hexapla of Origen, 208. Jerome, the most learned of the Latins, 279. Yet noted, 428. Jerusalem and the region of the Jews, 'Ιουδαίης (of Judaea), called by Nonnus, 400. To which tribe it pertained, a controversy among the Jews, 400. Homer’s division, 260. Comparison of Homer and Nonnus, 551. Homer’s death from the indignity of riddles, 221. Homonyms of John, 210, 211. Distinction of homonyms, 206. Homonymy of words, a property of the Hellenists, 210. Notable examples, 210, 211. Hour of heat, what it is to the Hebrews, 368. The hour at which the Lord was affixed to the cross, 501. Horace, about to be produced by Heinsius, 539. Hymn of Cosmas on the Nativity of the Lord, 298, 296. Hyssop. The passage concerning hyssop most vexing, 510.

I Iacchus the mystic of the Athenians, 11. Iah, a Hebrew voice, 11, 12. Idioms, 418. Idols, what they are, 425. Idolater, children of fornication (τέκνα πορνείας), 417. Fornicators, ibid. Fire for fever, in the Syrians and Chaldeans, 433. The wicked twice dead, 190. Tamer of the Indians, Bacchus, 11. Inscription of the sacred work of Nonnus, 37. Inscriptions of books from the beginnings, 60.

Inscriptions, method of, used by the ancients, 35. Inner sense, called by the Hebrews [that which] is left to the interpreter, 244. Interpreter, what sort he ought to be, 118. His duty in explaining the notions of words, 212, 219. The greatest vice, 546. He must be careful not to put the genus for the species, 498. An axiom of critics concerning him, 247. Interpreter errors, and *parermēneiai* (misinterpretations), whence, 210, 369. Interpretation, types of, 247. Confused by Nonnus, 247. Method of interpretation which the ancients used, 232. And its various types, 232. The purpose of interpreting the Sacred books, especially of the New Testament, 229, 230. Neglected by Nonnus, 229, 230. Interpretation, what it is, 57. Interpretations of certain passages, 244, 245, 271, 277. Intincta, what is meant by [the term among] the ancients, 463. Wine, its exhibition removed, 464. Invinis [sacred], 113. Ir, of the Chaldeans, 29. Iris, 27, 28. Whence, 29. Isaac, where he was offered, 366. Isaiah the prophet, [regarded] by the ancients as among the evangelists, 405. Isthenis, a term used by the rabbis, 434.

J James, the apostle, called Boanerges, 276, 278. James and Esau, 146. Why mention of the former is made in the Samaritan history, 364. Minister of learning, 147. Boys, 150. Jansenius, 440. Jehovah, what kind of name, 338. A name of three tenses, 545. Job, what kind of writer, 312. John the Baptist, an imitator of Elijah, delicate [in the style of] Nonnus, 140. "Angel," in the Menoeceus, 86. Voice, 388. His testimonies, 284, 185, 286. Times divided by the evangelists, 285. John the evangelist, leader of theology, 275. Thunder, 276, 277. Son of thunder, 275, 477. Loud-voiced, son of thunder, 276, 277. Boanerges, 276, 278. Friend of the heart, 276, 278. True [one], called, 239. That he constantly looked to the Chaldean interpreters and the Targumists, 61, 289. How observant he was of the divine economy, 504. In how many ways he saw God, 310, 311. Called *thrasys* (bold) and at the same time "friend of the heart," absurdly, 137. The sequence of John neglected, 308, 311. The inscription of his Gospel among the Syrians, 266. How that which is preached is said [to be], 269, 270. Called Theology, 275. Begun by some at the second chapter, 320. How its beginning is mentioned, 274, 275. The beginning and the concise brevity, 274, 275. Periods, what kind, 276. Virtues in John's discourse, 230. Praises, 264, 265. Passage compared with a passage of Job, 312, 313. Text defended from corruption, 435, 438. Truth, 311. Joseph, why his mention is in the Samaritan history, 561. Judah, the bread extended to him, whether the same as the sacred [bread], 465. To Nonnus, sacred and a sacrament, 464. Judah [the] traitor, how considered, 170. Bold, bold-handed, headstrong, 137. Jews, among them communion of drink and food, 363. Used to using perplexed locutions, 500. Jews and Samaritans, 414, 417. Jews who Judaize in the name of the Son of God, 297. The cavil of the Jews and the perverse interpretation of the law which they brought against the Lord, noted, 499. Error concerning the prophet "the one called by eminence," 316. Faith, what kind, from R. Maimonides, or Rambam, 425. Custom in weddings, 358. In burying and after burial, they are placed before God, 378. Wicked words concerning the murder by which they kill a Christian, 475. Sycophancies, *kakoscholia* (bad-spiritedness) and ineptitudes, whence, 210. Notable examples, 211. Judgment in the punishment of the Lord, whether it was [held by] the Romans, 489. Judgment of things, what it is, 56. Julian the Apostate's malignity, 283. Justice [of the tribunal], not of the bench but of the judgment seat, of Pilate, 500. Justice and judgment, what they are in a most obscure passage of John, 216. Young ox of sin, *katharismos* (purification), 357. *Exilasmos* (expiation), 357.

K Keleph, what it means to the rabbis, 495. Kalaph, Hebrew, what, 495. Kalpha, how it is accepted in the Targum, 495. Kametz of the Syrians, Greek omega, 501. Kitin Mizri, what, 184.

L To labor, what [it means], 71. Basin, *asamithos* (tub/bath), 576. Tearful god, Bacchus, 8. Tearful poem, tragedy, 8. Greasy wool and their use, 512. The most learned of the Latins, Jerome, 276. Thieves, a discussion of them and the custom of the Jews in punishing them, 485, 486. Who [are meant] by the Latins, 488. Higher washing, what [it is] to the Hebrews, 576. Lecythi, 317, 319, 393. Embassy sent to the Baptist, 314. Of the Pharisees, regarding them, the error of Nonnus, 93. Law, 306, 307. Law given on the mountain, 22. Excluded from bringing the law, 305. Law, *lepsis* (taking), *hypakoē* (obedience), 476. The hinges of the law, 305. Studious, how it is said, 414. Nonnus states that it was given not by God but by the Father, 306, 308. Libation and victim, 152. Children, who [are they] to the Jews, 414. Liberty, regarding it, paradoxes, 414. The purpose and scope of this book, 551. Sacred books, *nomos* (law), 451. *Engrinomenoi* (those judged fit), ibid. Illicit license, 220. Wood of paradise, 519. Linen garment and skin, 529. Who are the linen-clad priests, 184. Linen cloth with which the Lord girded himself, *skleron hyphasma* (hard fabric) [in] Nonnus, 183. Garment of Osiris, 183, 184. Linen of Egypt, what, 183, 184. Listin armed, 487. Livia, who, 119. Passage on the divinity of the Son, 291. Obscure passage of John, 216. Another, corrected, 513. Passage concerning the heavenly and earthly things, not correctly understood by Nonnus, 125. Opinion of the ancients concerning it, 125. Passage concerning the Holy Spirit omitted, 249. Passage which heretics abuse against the Holy Spirit, 282. Passage of the Holy [Spirit] with the Father and the Son, which Nonnus accepts regarding the procession, 477. Passage [in] Numbers ch. 24 examined, 519. Passage of Zechariah, "They shall look on him whom they pierced," 516, 517. [Passages] returned, 65, 91, 99, 103, 130, 153, 164, 223, 242, 245, 252, 291, 317, 329, 331, 342, 359, 380, 388, 393, 397, 408, 423, 458, 502, 546, 547, 548. Passages of Isaiah negligently rendered by Nonnus, as also other passages from the Old Testament, 458, 459. Passages explained and illustrated by interpretation, 244, 245, 300, 324, 356, 401, 402, 405, 406, 411, 416, 418, 419, 424, 440, 468, 506. Ignorance of passages and regions noted, 139. Second washing, what it is to the Hebrew teachers, 452. Lamps in the temple until the morning time, 388. Superstition of groves to be abhorred, 21. Light illuminating and the illuminated, 79. Purification of children by fire, *pyrizein* (to burn/purify by fire) 447, 448.

M Magdalene, the sinner, 453. Master of butchers, who, 372. Militia, 372. Majesty of God, 456. *Homoiosis* (likeness), 351. Ill rendered, 459. Majesty, for God himself, king, emperor, 298. The Greeks lack the word for majesty, 298. Maimonides, rabbi, 415, 419. Curses are diminutions of the good, 396. Manzer, who, 225, 226. Error of the Manichaeans, 85. Manna, *artos aphthitos* (incorruptible bread), rather incautiously, 168. For it rotted, 169, 170.

Manus excelsa, sin, unto death, 354. Manus passa, *cheir haple* (simple hand), 493. Manuscriptum Florentinum, and excerpts from it, 226. Rutgersianum, 369. Maran, what it is in Syrian, 17. Marat, what it is, 495. Maron, Marom, whence, 17. Marcus, interpreter of Peter, 270. Mare, what it is to the Hebrews, 328. Erythraeum and Indicum, 518. Maris attributed to the lake, negligently added, 168. Marianus, poet and paraphrast, 233. And his varied paraphrase, 233. Masius, 540. Error of the Massalians, 309. Mebaccoth, Bacchantes, 9. Megil ephod, 506. Melota and zone (sheepskin and girdle), 140, 141. Memallelin, memallelon, whence, 15. Memento that we are dust, 524. Mendici, called inhabitants of the streets, 420. Meretricum proprium to wear one's hair [long], 453. Messiae, name of power, 592. Messias and king are often confused, 336. Metanastae Iazyges, 186. Patriarch, 188. Micatio of fingers, in Nonnus *lachos*, 507. Milites regis, as said by the Hellenists, 371. Mimallonides, whence named, 15. Minister of erudition, Jacob, 147. Miracles, why more often performed by the Lord on the Sabbath, 379. Miracle of the loaves, where performed, 394. Delineation of places, 395. Moloch priests, *chomerim*, 448. Money-changers, 482. Moran, what it is in Syrian, 17. Morbus of him who was healed at the pool, of what kind, 379. Morbus of Lazarus, called by Nonnus *astheneia*, 181. Moria mountain confused with Mount Gerizim, 365, 366. Mors Domini extenuated by Nonnus, 482. Moses, a man not insignificant (*aner ou tychon*), said by Longinus, 230, 231. Motus of the dove, in the passage concerning the Holy Spirit, in what words expressed and with what success, 322. Mulieres who anointed the Lord, how many, 452. Multiplication, cause and formula, 596. Mumia of sepulchers, 518. Mundus, called eternal by Nonnus, 190. Musae, whence named, 22, 23. Musar, Hebrew word, what it is, 22, 23. Myrrha, what it is, 32.

N. Nachas, what it is, 18. Nansius supplemented what was passed over by Nonnus, 249. Judgment, 253. Nardus spicata, whence thought of, 451. For *spicata*, 451. Nathanael, how a true Israelite, 531. Sub ficu (under the fig tree), 235. Natura rei, as essence, 155. Natura puerpera, as corrupt, 222. Nazaraeus coma, *opisthokomion* in Nonnus, 11. Nazarenus, confused with Nazarenes by Nonnus, 109. Nazarenus, for it Nonnus puts Galilaeum, 454. Nechasim, what it is, 18. Ner, sun; hence *narthikion* of Elias, 446. Nesec, 152. Error of Nestorius, 291. Nezer, what it is, 198. Niches, what it is, 18. Nicodemus was not a priest, 124. Opinion of the ancients concerning him, 125. Nin, Hebrew word, 38. Noga, Venus, 31. Nomen of accident, Hebrew, what it is, 55. To do in the name of the Father, and to call upon the name of the Father, are different things, 427. To pronounce the name of God, what a crime, 498. Nomen *doxes*, *dedoxasmenon* (glorified), wonderful, ineffable, 297. Nomen formal, what it is, 53. Nomen ineffable, *doxa*, 294. Nomen into which the Lord baptized, 135. Nomen *per se*, 53. Naming in circumcision, proper to the Fathers, 466. Non noram eum, formula, 326. Nonna, what it is, 38. Nonnus adds what he did not find, 471. Conversely, he passes over what exists, John, 5, 378. Many things he omitted because he could not grasp them, 248, 436, 441, 443, 455. And for other reasons, 248, 249. What he omitted, these were supplied by Nansius, ibid. What he does not omit, he mutilates, 412, 431, 436, 441, 443, 455, 499, which he himself does not understand, and explains badly, 114, 244, 245. What he says, he does not understand himself, 382. He brings in something other than what was intended, 548. Nonnus emended, 150, 163, 178, 199, 200, 282, 335, 346, 365, 377, 380, 399, 445, 462. Nonnus *eu-onicopos*, lapsed, 246. He interpolates the text, joins things that the evangelists joined, 518. *Sullamtinus* critic in Syriac, 500. Nonni *acholasia* (intemperance), 238, 239, 240, 242, 243, 246, 247, 258, 392, 497. *Akrasia* (incontinence), 111, 118, 153, 199, 203, 204, 222, 237, 238, 328, 346, 376, 511, 542, 546, 547. *Alogistia* (unreasonableness), 110, 121, 152, 199, 466. Ambiguities, 245, 401, 472. Anachronism, 539, 540. *Anakoloutha* (ungrammatical sequences), 471, 535, 545. *Anarmosta* (incongruous things), 325, 288, 303, 307, 362, 381, 397, 472, 500, 502, 527, 532, etc., 542, etc., 544, 546, 548, 550. *Asistata* (inconsistent things), 325, 367, 471, 503, 526. *Atonemata* (errors), 444. Insolence and audacity, 462, 477, 478, 501. Cucozelia, 173, 174, 201, 222, 252, 253, 257, 258, 396; errors, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 57, 58, 60, 114, 128, 158. Errors, 168, 169, 171, 175, 184, 191, 194, 197, 237, 241, 314, 328, 339, 340, 341, 354, 369, 384, 393, 394, 397, 400, 409, 415, 418, 419, 425, 426, 433, 436, 437, 438, 462, 463, 465, 466, 468, 469, 485, 496, 504, 521. Errors in quantity of syllables, 349, 550. Comparison with Homer, 551. Heretical locution, 384. Hebraisms, when none in the evangelist, 224, 307, 482, 533, etc., 538, 545. Ignorance and lack of skill, 6, 10, 26, 116, 168, 292, 303, 304, 314, 375, 425, 443, 457, 476, 477, temerity and imprudent locution, 186, 192, 194, 200, 287, 288, 324, 401, 408, 477, 478, 524. Hallucination in the number of disciples, 117. Absurdities and ridiculous things, 393, 431, 439, 443, 466, 467, 504, 505, 528, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 540, 542, 544, 545, 546. Negligence in filling a defect of discourse, in a clear matter luxuries, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247. Intemperance regarding commas or verses, 256. Shamelessness, 80. Lapsus, 369, *metaballein* error, and how badly the ratio of interpreting succeeds for him, 237. *Metempla*, inconstancy and vanity, 422, 425, 437, 514, 515, 523, 528. Negligence, 199, 200, 238, 242, 245, 249, 256, 282, 307, 308, 315, 324, 346, 367, 379, 381, 387, 388, 394, 395, 418, 454, 458, 459, 474, 502, 504, 507, 510, 511, 527. Nomen, 37, 38. Obscurity, 221, 222, 401, 418, 499. Works, 6. Pedagogisms, 541, 542. As in words, so in the complexity of discourse, *parelermeneiai* (misinterpretations), 220, 223, 241, 304, 306, 309, 311, 328, 339, 354, 403, 422, 436, 458, 469, 472, 474, 525, 527. Ratio of interpreting by the same words, 215, 216, 217. Pleonasms, 474, 477, 503. Rusticity, 347. Security and lack of thought, 104, 165, 182, 190, 306, 308, 315, 324, 375, 377, 381, 502. Solecisms, 242, 532, etc., 536, etc. Tautology, 241, 545. Verses which are missing, whether lost, 243. Refutation of vices in interpreting, 224. Note by which the masters of the Hebrews distinguish the testimonies of others, 286. Nunc scio, what formula, 326. Nowhere dwelling, mendicant, 420. Nysa. Fables about it, 11. Error of Nyssenus and Optatus from the ambiguity of a word, 212. O. Ob, that is, Apollo, 19. To chide usually, 494. Octapla of Origen, 208.

LATIN INDEX

Odyssey, how far preferred to the Iliad, 35. Œsipus, 512, 513. Offa of Judah, ^A whether it is the same as the sacred, 465. Sacred and sacrament in Nonnus, 464, 465. Oni, what it is, 22. Onomacritus, called Orpheus, 42; later than Homer, 43. Onus, a class of prophecy, 429. Divine works ascribed to angels, 277. Works ^D θεογενῆ (god-born), incorrectly called the Lord's miraculous works, 183. Τὰ θεοπρεπῆ, 183. Opis, a city, 449. Opistice, what it is, and whether it should be so read in the Evangelist, 449. Error of Optatus and Nyssenus arising from the ambiguity of a word, 212. Oratio ἐλλελειμμένη (elliptical), 319, 338. Orgia, of Bacchus, under the booth (succus), 539. Origen, most learned of the Greeks, 279. Origo, what it is, 159; for sapor (savor), 279. Corrupt origin in man, ἁμαρτία (sin), 217. Hymns of Orpheus, that is, of Onomacritus, what they are like, 42, 43. Osiris, who he is, 8, 123.

P

Pædagogismus, what it is, 541. Paganism, to be dismissed, 92. The dangerous imitation of pagans, 173, 174. Palma (palm/hand), χεὶρ ἁπλῆ, 493. Spathe of palms, bore the form of a scepter, 454. Paradoxa of the Pharisees, 414. Paradox concerning liberty, 414. Paralysis, what it is, 379; twofold, 171. How stated by Nonnus, 171, and for what reason, 172. Paralytics, δεδεμένοι (bound), 579. Paralytic healed at the pool, 379. Paranymph, ὁ ἑστηκώς (he who stands), 558. Paraphrase, to what end, 243; to be distinguished from a lekythos (oil flask), which Nonnus neglects, 238. It is a species of ἐκφράσις (description), 239. Its virtues, 239. Most noble method of interpreting, 39; ^B and μεταβολή (transformation), 39. Paraphrase on the Ethics of Aristotle, 256. Parascha, 405. Parnas, pastor, governor, 424. Parody of the Evangelist, 388. Parschiol, smaller ones, 259; larger, 259. Paschal feast, what sort, 122. Θνησίμη (deadly), 483. Pastor (shepherd) of nothing, 425; of vanity, 425; of an idol, 425. Pathar, what it is, 330. Pater (Father). To act in the name of the Father, and to call upon the name of the Father, are different things, 427. Father is the eternal [Father] of the Son, 61. First person, 69. Male γενεῆς (of birth), 308. How he is named with respect to the Holy Spirit, 189. Why the Lord mentions him in the dissertation with the Samaritan woman, 567. Patriarch, μετανάσται (emigrants), 188. To sin arrogantly, presumptuously, with a haughty mind, with head uncovered, 554. Γυμνῇ κεφαλῇ (with bare head), 480. Pentecost, ἑορτὴ θερισμοῦ (feast of harvest), 369. At the feast of Pentecost, the waters of the bath were troubled at Jerusalem by Bethesda, 377. Perada, peredin, an Italian word used by the Jerusalem Targumists, 330. Periods, μονόκωλοι (single-membered), περιωδευμέναι (periodical), συνεστραμμέναι (compact), 276. By the hand, a Hebraism, 301. To be perplexed with one's own words, 500. Perplexity, a proverb of Uziel concerning it, 500. Persons of the Trinity, tria ἐμπρακτα (three realized things), 272. Pethar, what it is, 330. Pethen, a Hebrew word, 18. Sword of Peter (μάχαιρα), 483. Name, 329, 330. Pharisees, ἀγρυπνοῦντες (watchful), 93. Given to ablutions, 93. Ἁμαρτωλοί (sinners), νουπλανείς (misled in mind), 124. What kind of sect, the nearest to the Romans, 414. Pharisaic σκυθρωπία (gloominess) and affectation, 545. What the dress of philosophers is, 142. Phul, a bean; hence Apulia, 446. What the right of Pilate is, 500. Pirnus, ἡ ζωή (life), 424. Pis of the Syrians, what it is, 450. Piscina (pool) superior, what it is among the Hebrews, 576. Pithron, what it is, 330. Pito, which is the word of Elias R., 18. Ploni almoni, ὁ δεῖνα (such a one), 7. What kind of poet one ought to be, 118. Poets unskilled in the Greek ^C and Hebrew languages, Ἑβραΐζοντες (Hebraizing), 225. Poets and judges of poets are not made, but born, 254. Political verses, among the later Greeks, which are they, 182. Positive for the comparative among Hellenists, as καλός (good) for κρείσσων (better), 115. Predicate, how the Gospel of John is to the Syrians, 269, 270. Prefects of the people, how they were called, 194, 195. Presence of God, 456. Prayers of the Jews at table, 12. First of the unleavened bread, 547. Primus (first), what it is for the Latins, 301. Prince of the army, 372; of the soldiers, 372. Beginning of erudition, according to Epictetus, what it is, 206. The Father as the beginning of divinity to the Son, 62. Error of Priscian, 52. Prophet, that is, ὁ λόγος (the word), 289. Who is a prophet, 432, 316. How they are said to have seen God, 309, 510. Prophecy of the οἰκονομία (dispensation), 182. Verses of the Hebrews about it, 182. Classes of prophecy, 429. In it, three things are to be considered, 430. Purpose of this book, 531. Properties, what they are for Hebrew masters, 42. Proteus, who he is, 329. Nearest to the King, how so called, 372. Explanation of Psalm LXXXII, 431. Purple, as used by Nonnus, 491, 496; by Pliny, 496. Purple garment, Horace's λήκυθος (flask), 258. To prune (putare) and to strip branches, 473. Pythian Apollo, 19. Whence Pytho, 18.

R

Rabbinical ineptitudes in the origin of Greek or Roman words, 446. Rambam, Rabbi, 415, 419. Raptores, ἁρπακταί (snatchers), 487. Realist, 237. Regalim, or two feasts in one four-month period of the year, 369. Regeneration, 546. Kings anointed long before, 391. Kingdom, how it was transferred to the Lord, 391. Requirements for sacred studies, 279. Division of things into ἄπνοα (inanimate) and πνεῦμα (spirit), 70. In this, the negligence of Nonnus, 70. Resurrection. A passage concerning the resurrection explained by Nonnus from the ascension, 341. Rex (King), in the Chapters of the Fathers, who is called so, 414. King and Messiah are often confounded, 391. Ros (dew), a word of the Orient, 27. Use of rubellium (red) wine in the Orient, 115, 116, 226. Praise of Rutgersius, 236, 250.

S

Saba, an ambiguous word, 11. Whence Sabasius is named, 11. Sabbath. "And ye circumcise on the Sabbath," etc. Interpretation of the place, 401. Great Sabbath, 547. Patriarchal sackcloth, 144. Christian priests, because they cut around the corners of their heads, how they are called by the Jews, 109. Priests, Levites, Israel, what they are, 331. Priests of Moloch, chomerim, 448. To sacrifice and to adore, 151. History of the Samaritans, 561. Samaritans and Jews, 414, 417. Whence the Samaritans derive their origin, 361. Their foreign cult, 366. Custom, as regards their origin, 364. Sammael, an evil demon, 14. Sanchuniathon, a theological writer of the Phoenicians, 31. Sara under the chuppa (bridal canopy), 359. Use of the word Satan, 399. Whence Satyrs, 16, 17. Scaliger, 280, 377, 502, 510, 518, 535, 536, 541, 443. Scandal, what it is, 474. Whence comedies took their rise, 539. Pastoral scene, 558. Schaddai, an ineffable name, 297. Schecar, a Hebrew word, 148. Schecina, what it is, 188, 292, 293, 295; Scina, 538. Scope of this book, 531. Whoredom and servitude objected against the Samaritans by the Jews, 417. Whoredom, for the Hebrews, rabbis, and Targumists, what it is, 417.

Scourgers, idolaters, 417. Scribal method, 199. Sculpture, as termed by the Hellenists, 504. Sear, what it is, 145. Secina, 538. "With him," i.e., with his own heart, 403. Sedition, a crime common to Christ and the robbers, 488. Seirim, gods, what kind, 123. Semala, Semal, Semel, and Semele, 14. Elders of the people, how designated, 194. Septenary verses, to Varro, which, 182. Septentrio, what it denotes in Hebrew, 20. Septuagint translation, 207. A fable and vanity detected now for the first time, 207, 208. Septuagint translation interpolated in the passage of Zechariah, 516, 517. Burial rite, 522, 524. The law of the Athenians concerning it, 522, 524. The nature of the burial and sepulchre of the Lord, 522, 524, 525; of Abraham, 522. Sequence of what is said by Fabius, 41. Series, βίβλος, 271, 272. Discourse, ἀνειμένος (relaxed), the primary virtue of a paraphrase, 239. The word of God, to whom it is made, the prophet, 432. Serpent of Moses, of what kind, 128. That from which it was suspended, as stated, 353, 354. Serpents, οἰωνοί, 18. Worshipped by the ancients, and above all, by the Phoenicians, 19. Servant of the king, 372. Servants, who they are for the Jews, 414. Properly, regarding the sin reigning, 416. Servitude, and the whoredom objected against the Samaritans by the Jews, 417. "Thus, thus he stood on the summit of heaven," Virgil, 362. "He was set thus at the spring," 361. Sica, μάχαιρα (dagger), 483. Sichar, whence, 148. Of the Sicilians, Boeotians, and Syrians, the *platyasmos* (broadening of speech), in which vowel it consists, 501. Signs requested by the incredulous, how they are designated in Hebrew, Chaldean, and Hellenistic, 339. Silentiarius, an elegant poet, noted, 175. Simple, he believes all things, 416. Sin and Zin, two deserts, 169. Sinear, what in Hebrew, 144, 145. Situlosa (droughty) Apulia, 368. Salutation of the sun, 31. Drowsiness. Defenses against it, 95. Soph-pasuk, 255. Species and figure, opposites, 353. Spirit and soul, for himself, 442. Holy Spirit, of the Son of God, incorrectly stated, 127. From the Father, how, 189. "Proceeds from the Father, and receives from the Son," 476. The Father's, or of the Father, Nonnus's pleonasms, 441. Heretics against the Holy Spirit, error, 468, 469. Holy Spirit, that is, prophetic, 324. The gift of the Holy Spirit is *ametameletòn* (irrevocable), and anything but *metastatikòn* or *apostatikòn* (changeable or apostatic), 180. His presence and constancy, how expressed in Chaldean, 187. Proper name, which, 202. Force and invasion, expressed in various ways, 323. Spirit over the waters, a type of baptism, 76. Sponges applied to the cross, for what use, 512. To stand, concerning age, 537. Concerning intransitive verbs in Hebrew, 543. Thomas, ineptly called *diōnymos* (two-named), 438, 466. Thrasones, whence, 137. Thyades, whence called, 16. Thyrsus, whence, 14. Thysius, 269, 293, 294. Titles, or *aitiai* (causes) of the criminals, 485, 486. Title, what it is, 564. Why the title of the cross is called *tripictus* (thrice-painted) by Prudentius, 199. Thunder, 277. Thunder, φωνή (voice), 455. Passing children through fire, 447, 448. Tonsure, *kyklōdòn* (in a circle), 107. Stoic diligence in the notation of words, 206. Strato, the comic poet, 106. Use of styles and writing forbidden to the Romans of old, 488. Substance, how called according to Varro, 49. Their division, 49, 50. Succa, a stage/scene, 538. Sudar, a term used by the Syrians, 444, and Hebrews, 444, 446. Use of the object in the burial of the Jews, 447. Sudarium, what it is, 445. Sudra, what it is, 446. Suidas noted, 89, 102, 131. Summa genera (highest genera), 50. Summus, for *summate*, 304. Synagogue and temple confused by Nonnus, 249, 420. Of the Syrians, Boeotians, and Sicilians, the *platyasmos*, in which vowel it consists, 501. Tabernacle, a type of whose, 147. Targumin, the term that the Jews use, 233. Targumist. That John looked perpetually to these, 289. Tatian, an ancient writer, 126. Tecupha, Hebrew, what it is, 114. Temples of the spirit, a mark of constancy, 188. The army of the temple, the *speira* (band) of the high priests, 194. Temple of the Jews, of what kind, 163. Temple and synagogue confused by Nonnus, 249, 420. Time, *diōion*, 368. Time, *hinika ekporeuontai hai hydreuomenai* (when the water-drawing women go forth), Nonnus errs regarding the Ascension, 426. Times of J. the Baptist, divided by the evangelists, 285. Land of the Jews, called a hostel/homestead for the Lord, 138. Third person plural of verbs, how used in the Hellenistic manner, 473. Testimonies of John the Baptist, 284, 285, 286. Tetrapla of Origen, 208. Thammuz, who, 9. Thasi, color of an animal, 162. Thenaa, 27. Thea, or *theas*, what it is, 15. Themistius, an ancient paraphrast, 233. Theodoret, a work not yet edited, 495. Theology, what it is, 263. Theomim, which words are so called, 466. Theophylact noted, 428, 441. Thirza, a Hebrew word, 146. Thomas and Didymus, 329. Tragic license, 544, 545. Tragedy, a tearful poem, 8. To translate. Jerome's advice on translations, 247. Tribe, for race, a Hebraism, 227. Triclinium, a term used by the Syrians, 335. Tripudium, in the singular meaning, 227. Tunic of skin, and the rough garment, 143. Tunic of Christ, reaching to the feet (talaris), 504, its border, 504. To howl, 7. Anointing of the Messiah, instituted by private persons, 392; anointing after supper, as expressed by the rabbis, 452; anointing for kingdom and crown, 391, 392. Head of the ointment, what it is, 451; ointment of the head, what it is, 451; how ointment was accustomed to be applied to a king, 392. Universe, what it is, 80. Most illustrious cities, called *kōmai* (villages), 455. City, what it is, 400. Utenhovius, commentator on Nonnus, 1. As the proverb of the ancients says, 7. "Go in peace," 524. Woe, 8. Veil of the face of Moses, *sudra*, 446. Ven, what it is, 31. Venus, whence named, 30; *syndromos* (companion) planet of the sun, 31. Venus of Lebanon, 29. True measure, that is, just, 219. Intransitive verbs are said to "stand" in Hebrew, 543. Words and voices of Horatius, what they are, 57. Truth and figure, opposites, 353. Truth and grace, what they are, 300. Versions, what they are, 39. Bucolic verses, 251. Verses of the heads (chapters), that is, *commata* (sections), 225. Verse, *logoeidēs* (word-like) of what kind, 251. Verses, *holodaktyloi* (dactylic throughout) frequent in Nonnus, 250. *Spondiazontes* (spondaic verses) everywhere excluded in Nonnus, 250. *Versus supoleti*. Judgment concerning them, 248, 249, 250. Distinction of verses is not necessary, nor to be superstitiously observed, 263. Evening and morning, confused by Nonnus, 502. Garments rent in the flagellation, 507. Garment of Elijah, John, Peter, Paul, 140, 141, of the prophets, 142, of those repenting (*metanoountōn*), of philosophers, Stoics, 145, *metanoētikē* (of repentance), *askētikē* (ascetic), 145. Standard, from which the serpent was suspended, 354.