Ben C Smith

On page 192 of the Greek New Testament by Constantin von Tischendorf I find the following statement attributed to Origen, commenting on Matthew 27.9:

Inter ea quae scripta sunt non invenitur hoc Ieremias alicubi prophetasse in libris suis, qui vel in ecclesiis leguntur vel apud Iudaeos referuntur. si quis autem potest scire, ostendat ubi sit scriptum; suspicor aut errorem esse scripturae, et pro Zacharia positum Ieremiam, aut esse aliquam secretam Ieremiae scripturam in qua scribitur. talis est autem textus apud Zachariam prophetam. si autem haec dicens aliquis existimat se offendere, videat ne alicubi in secretis Ieremiae hoc prophetatur, sciens quoniam et apostolus scripturas quasdam secretorum profert, sicut dicit alicubi: Quod oculus non vidit nec auris audivit. in nullo enim regulari libro hoc positum invenitur nisi in secretis Eliae prophetae. item quod ait: Sicut Iamnes et Mambres restiterunt Moysi, non invenitur in publicis scripturis sed in libro secreto qui suprascribitur Iamnes et Mambres liber. unde ausi sunt quidam ep{istolam} ad Tim{otheum} repellere, quasi habentem in se textum alicuius secreti, sed non potuerunt. primam autem ep{istolam} ad Cor{inthios} propter hoc aliquam refutasse quasi adulterinam, ad aures meas nunquam pervenit.

First question: Where does this Latin text come from? I cannot find any English translation of it in the standard online texts of On Matthew. Is this from Rufinus?

Second question: How does my translation look? It is rough and literalistic, I know, but do I have the grammar right? The italicized portion is especially questionable, and I do not think I have it right:

It is not found anywhere among those things which are written in his books, whether those which are read in the churches or those which are referred to among the Jews, that Jeremiah prophesied this. If, then, anyone can know [where], let him show where it is written. I suspect either that it is an error of the scripture, and Jeremiah was put down for Zechariah, or that there is some secret scripture of Jeremiah in which it is written. There is, however, such a text according to the prophet Zechariah. If, then, someone in saying these things manages to offend himself, let him see whether this is prophesied anywhere in the secrets of Jeremiah, knowing that even the apostle offers certain secret scriptures, just as he says somewhere: That which the eye has not seen nor the ear heard. For this is found placed in no regular book except in the secrets of Elijah the prophet. Likewise that which says: Just as Jamnes and Mambres resisted Moses, is not found in the public scriptures but in a secret book which is entitled the book of Jamnes and Mambres. Whence some dared to reject the ep{istle} to Tim{othy}, as if it had inside it the text of some secret book, but they could not do so. Whether anyone has refuted the first ep{istle} to the Cor{inthians} as adulterated on this account has never reached my ears.

Thanks in advance.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

Hi Ben

It is from the medieval Latin version of Origen on Matthew which we have discussed before http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=242230

It is online http://books.google.com/books?id=zL8...l=en#PPA249,M1

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

Excellent. Many thanks.

Ben.

mountainman

Is this not ultimately perhaps Rufinius here that we are dealing with, who is supposed to have translated Origen's greek to latin at the end of the fourth century?

Best wishes,


Pete

andrewcriddle

Hi Pete

The Latin translation of Origen on Matthew is usually dated to the late 5th century. If so it cannot be the work of Rufinus.
See http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=r...um=1&ct=result

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Thank you for that reference Andrew, it mentions Rufinus' involvement on the following page. I was actually thinking the later latin text may have been a later copyist of Rufinus, but the article does not seem to suggest this. I had never heard of this Anthonite Codex 184 B 64 before. Dont seem to find a reference anywhere at present to this. Any ideas?

Best wishes,


Pete

andrewcriddle

I think you mean Athonite Codex not Anthonite Codex.

I can't find any references either but it is presumably a manuscript from the monasteries of Mount Athos.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Agreed. That looks like a corrupt reference to me. Guessing, I'd say 184 was the page number of some reference, B was Vatopedi, and 64 was the ms. no. But this could be quite wrong. One would have to check the source used in that book. Athos mss are usually given as [Monastery name] #[ms number]; Megista Lavra 123, Vatopedi 123, etc.

DCHindley

Hmmm,

According to W A Jurgens' The Faith of the Early Fathers (pg 209), this mss is a biblical mss that contains some Greek citations of Origens' Commentary on Romans (not his commentary on Matthew):

"[listing Greek fragments ] ... and from a biblical manuscript, Codex 184 B 64, discovered by E. von der Goltz in one of the Mount Athos Monasteries. [...] For von der Goltz's Mount Athos text, see O. Bauernfiend, Der Römerbrieftext des Origenes nach dem Codex 184 B 64 des Athosklosters Lawra, in Texte und Untersuchungen, Vol 44, part 3, Leipzig 1923."

http://books.google.com/books?id=l62...um=1&ct=result

DCH

DCHindley

FWIW,

From what I can gather, Athos Codex 184 B 64 is essentially biblical ms 1739, X cent, located at Mt Athos, Catalog # Lavra B' 64, von Soden description H: Lavra B' 64 seems to contain the both the Acts and Epistles, with marginal commentary. Written by the scribe Ephraem, who also wrote 1582. Best and often the earliest member of Family 1739, although the Alands rate it Category II in Acts (I elsewhere). Von Soden classifies it as H (Alexandrian) in Paul and the Catholics; Ib2 in Acts. Along with 0243, the best and most important of the Family 1739 witnesses in Paul, but probably not the ancestor of any of the others except perhaps 0121. Furnished with a marginal commentary, mostly from Origen in Paul but from other sources elsewhere. A colophon states that the text of Romans was taken from Origen's commentary on that book, but the evidence of the other Family 1739 witnesses (which agree equally with 1739 in Romans and elsewhere) implies that there is no great shift in the text. Acts 1:1-2:6 are from a later hand; they probably were added when the gospels were cut off of an original mss.

http://www.skypoint.com/members/walt...1501-2000.html

I noted this source lists the latter citation as "Otto Bauernfiend, Der Römerbrieftext des Origens (Texte und Untersuchungen, xiv.3, 1923; includes a discussion of 1739 and its relatives, supplementing von der Goltz)". Note that the volume number is given as xiv.3 rather than 44 section 3. Codex Lavra (aka Laura/Lawra) 184 is apparently an alternate name for B' 64.

This Otto Bauernfiend is apparently different than Otto Bauernfeind who appears to write mainly on Josephus between the 1950's-80's.

DCH