ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 38x book-length rather indicates that the abbreviation which is shown up by the Latin translation in Books XII-XVII, but would seldom be readily discernible without its independent evidence, is present also in Books X-XI. Interest in the merits of the Latin translation has tended to focus attention on those books where it is extant. The present article will discuss some examples of corruption in Books X-XI, where we have the Greek manuscripts only. These are two cases of insertion requiring deletion, the second case involving examination of evidence from the catenae and Jerome; then some omissions, and finally a transposition, which raises questions of page size in archetypes of our Origen manu- scripts. I. INSERTION AT X. 3 At X. 3 the words ¢as 70d xdopov (p. 3. 21") from Matt. v. 14 seem superfluous. Origen here is commenting on Matt. xiii. 43 (ré7€ of Bixatoe Adysbovew «bs 5 #htos) and the point he has emphasized is that after the harvest described in the parable the just will all shine as one sun in the kingdom of their Father, and no longer in different ways as they did previously (p. 3. 9-10: rére uddora of Biscator Adupovow odxént Biagdpws, tbs Kard ras dpyds, dMd rdvres ds efs spktos and 18-20: oby ds 7d mpsrepor Siaddpas Adpupovow of Sicatot, AN aovrat of wdvres abs els #dos). He then supports the statement that they previously shone Scagépws with references to Daniel xii. 3 and x Cor. xv. 41-2. The relevant sentence, omitting das rod xdopov, makes sense as follows: ‘It seems that it was knowing that the understanding and the majority of the just differ in glory that Daniel said, “And the understanding will shine out like the brightness of the firmament, and from the majority of the just like the stars, .."’. The construction taken by émorapa: is accusative (rods cunévras Kal rods moAlods rv Sixatwy) and participle (S:agépovras). gas rod xéopov inserted before émordpevos interrupts both sense and syntax. It is conceivable that it might have a place in apposition to Tous ovévras etc., but not introduced in this abrupt way; in this case we should expect at least that it should follow rods o. Kal rods 7. rev Sexaieay and be included in some suitable phrase such as rods $as TG xéapov Aeyopévous. I should prefer to delete the words, assuming that they are © References are to page and line in the edition by Klosterman in the Berlin Corpus, G.C.S., Origenes, X (Leipzig, 1935)- 2 ‘The translation by R. Girod in Sources Chrétiennes 162 (Paris, 1970) ignores the train of argument in the context, and that by J. Patrick in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, additional volume (ed. A. Menzies, Edinburgh, 1896), is also unsatisfactory.382 c. P. HAMMOND an intrusion from the margin into the text. The word ¢ds is in fact used later in the section several times (p. 3. 29 and 32, p. 4. 3 and 5), and at the end of the section (p. 4. 7-12) a triple interpretation is given of Matt. v. 16. Any of these might have inspired a reader to write the familiar words from Matt. v. 14 in the margin.! II. INSERTION AT X. 5 AND Marr. xiii. 44 1N THE CATENAE AND JEROME The second deletion would presuppose a similar intrusion, but the case here is more complicated. In Book X. 5 (p. 5. tt ff.) Origen discusses the treasure hidden in the field of Matt. xiii. 44, and suggests two possible ways of interpreting the field and the treasure. Either (p. 5. 15-20) the field is the field of scripture planted with the ‘obvious’ meanings of the historical books, ‘the law, and the prophets etc.,? and the treasure hidden in it is the treasure of its hidden meaning lying beneath these, or (p. 5. 21~4) the field is to be interpreted as Christ, the field which the Lord has blessed (Gen. xxvii. 27), and the treasure is that spoken of by Paul when he says of Christ, “In whom are hid the treasures of wisdom and knowledge’ (Col. ii. 3). The first interpretation is supported by an allusion to x Cor. ii. 7 (cod codiay ev puornpie, viv drrorexpujipevmp), the second by the allusion to Gen. xxvii. 27, as well as the direct quotation from Colossians. In this sequence of thought the words Kal 7 XprorG, &v ¢f ela of Onoavpoi ris aodpias Kai yreicews dx dxpugor atp. 5. 20-1 forman awkward interruption. As part of the first interpretation of the treasure in the field they are superfluous and also somewhat confusing, since it is not clear how the dative 7@ Xptor@ should be taken. Klostermann (app. crit. ad loc.) suggests supplying é and even if we do not supply it in the text we must presumably supply it mentally (cf. note on p. 5. 20 in G.C.S., Origenes, XII. ii, p. 53), 80 as to take 7G Xpiors as parallel to 2 puornpie. This gives rise to the difficulty that, whereas éy porgpiy standing alone can be understood as ‘secretly’ or ‘mysteriously’, if the parallel <é> 7G Xpior@ is added, the phrases are naturally taken as indicating the place where # codéa is hidden and therefore provide a second equivalent for év rg dypd. This, however, would be a confusing 1 Tt may be noted that whereas the quotations used by Origen from Daniel and 1 Cor. refer explicitly to the resurrection, the context of Matt. v. 14-6 is quite different and it requires a special explanation to apply it to the resurrection; this is a further argument against its premature introduction at p. 3. 21. 2 yonpdtwy in 17 is emended to vorjzaow by Friichtel (G.C.S., Origenes, XII. ii, p. 53).ORIGEN’S COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 383 semi-anticipation of the interpretation to be given at Il. 21-4. Koetschau felt that there was a difficulty and suggested adding davepwOelons after dréxpugor (G.C.S., Origenes, X, app. crit. ad loc,), but this would bring in anew idea which is totally irrelevant in the context. We are concerned here with a treasure ‘which a man found? (8v espdw dvOpwmros ..., to be elucidated by Origen on the next page) and talk of its revelation here would be merely confusing. Another objection to the text as it stands is the fact that the quotation of Col. ii. 3 at Il, 23-4 is introduced as if it ‘were a new one—its effect would be spoiled if it were a mere repetition from Il, 20-1. Moreover the rest of the section is based on the double interpretation of Il. 15-20 and 21-4 and contains frequent back- references to the other details but none to the offending words in Il. 20-1. I would therefore delete cal 7 Xpior, ev d claw of Onoavpol ris oodias kat yraicews daéxpudgor as an intrusion from the margin similar to that posited above for X. 3. It is not impossible that some user of an ancestor of our manuscripts copied the quotation at |. 24 into the margin and that the words later got into the text and were emended to the form in which they now appear. At this point, however, we have to ask whether we are dealing with a simple insertion or an insertion which replaced the original text. That further material originally followed 1. 20 might appear to be suggested by the parallel passages from the catenae and Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew (cited by Klostermann in his footnotes ad loc.). These require examination in detail. i, The first is from JZ, the compilation ascribed to Peter of Laodicea (ed. Heinrici, Beitrdge zur Geschichte u. Erkldrung des Neuen Testamentes, V (Leipzig, 1908)), which consists of a patchwork of extracts from different sources (according to Heinrici* about ¥; from Origen, & from Chrysostom, and #; from elsewhere); these are neither ascribed to their authors nor divided off into separate extracts, so the task of disentangling them is not easy. The section on Matt. xiii. 44-6 (op. cit., pp. 157-8) seems to be a combination of material from Origen’s commentary with extracts from elsewhere. The opening words are clearly based on Origen, p. 5. 15-20 (words underlined are taken from Origen): dypds dow 4 ypadh morxidny eyouoa ev 7H snr gurelav, Onaavpds rd Sroxelpeva arf ris copias vorfpara. ¥ Op. cit., introduction, p. xxix; for some corrections to Heinrici on the character of this compilation cf. J. Reuss, Matehdus-, Markus- und Johannes Katenen (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, xviii. 4-5, Minster, 1941), Pp. 72-8