14. [This word (adopted into Syriac from the Latin, probably through the Greek legew&n) seems to be used here in its secondary sense of an evil spirit or demon, derived from the incident related by St. Mark,v. 9, St. Luke, viii. 30; in which sense it is found in Ephraim Syrus, iii. 115, 141 (Payne Smith's Thes. Syr., s. v.)].
15. I have to repeat here what I have said in my former Paper (Hermath., vol. vi., p. 399, note t) that Barsalibi cites both Old and New Testament without regard to verbal accuracy. Hence the form in which many familiar texts appear in my rendering of this extract from his Commentary. In the New Testament texts he blends the Peshitto with the Harkleian version, and often deviates from both. In texts from the Old Testament, I am now of opinion that when he deviates from the Peshitto he translates for himself from the lxx. I find no clear evidence that he used the Syro-Hexaplar at all: and in particular I regard it as certain that he was unacquainted with the Syro-Hexaplar Daniel, and the [so-called] lxx. version of that book (the Chisian), which the Syro-Hexaplar follows.
16. The Syriac @@@ 'that sprang up' (p. 147, line 9), seems to represent the ἀναφυόμενον, ἀναφύον , of Hippolytus in these passages. It is not from the Peshitto of Dan. vii., 8 or 20, nor does it render either the original Chaldee @@@ or Theodotion's τὸ ἀναβάν . The Chisian [lxx.] Daniel has ἀνεφύη, τὸ προσφυέν : but througout the De Chr. et Antichr. Hippolytus quotes exclusively, and at great length ( e . g. ss. 19-22), from Theodotion's version, and it has been proved that he nowhere shows any knowledge of the other. (Salmon's Introduction to the. New Test., 3rd ed., p. 593.)
17. It is worth noting that in my extract (p. 148, line 32) Hippolytus seems to have read ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας in 2 Thess. ii. 3 (with B, n, &c.); whereas in the De Chr. et Antichr. he cites that verse with the common reading ἁμαρτίας .
18. This note, however, may perhaps be intended to be attached to the words 'in the Gospel'; and if so, they are probably to be regarded as only the attempt of a not very intelligent scribe to correct the text by substituting, ' in the interpretation of the Gospel' for those words. There is but one MS. available of this part of the Commentary (Rich, 7185). The Bodleian copy (Or. 560) has lost the leaves which contained it.
19. The short vowel of the penult of Κορὴ is no difficulty. So the name Ῥόδη is transliterated Rhode in the Peshitto (Acts xii. 13).
20. I take this opportunity of correcting the error by which the name Ebediesu is given as Ebediasa, ib. p. 399, line 1, and elsewhere. [ Corrected in the online text ]
21. This is stated by Gregory Barhebraeus in his Chron. Eccl. [Sect, 1., Coll. 543, 559 ; ed. Abbeloos & Lamy; see also Assemani, Biblioth. Orient., t. ii., pp. 208-211].
22. The Commentary itself, being part of the ' accurate interpretations' on the New Testament ascribed to him by Barhebraeus (559 ut supra ), was, no doubt, a work on the same scale as his very copious Commentary on the Gospels, of which many MSS. are extant. A catalogue, cited by Assemani ( ut supra ), mentions 'a great book of interpretation of the New [Testament], and of the Revelation of John the Apostle.'
In the Paper to which this is a sequel, I had called attention (p. 410, note +) to the peculiar arrangement of this Commentary, by which the Apocalypse is placed before the Acts and Epistles, and I had shown that such is the order of the Books in the only known example of a complete Syriac New Testament of any antiquity, the
Earl of Crawford's 'Syr. No. 2,' and also (probably) in Welstein's MS., Amsterdam, before it was mutilated. From a monograph recently published by M. Samuel Berger ( Le Palimpseste de Fleury, Paris, 1889), I have just learned the interesting fact (p. 12) that the fragments of the Paris palimpsests, 6400 G (Bibliothèque Nationale) prove on examination to belong to a volume which, in its original state, was arranged in the same remarkable order, containing----(1) the Apocalypse, (2) the Acts, (3) the Catholic Epistles. The MS. being of the sixth or seventh century, seems to be the earliest instance yet found of this arrangement, which (so far as I know) has not been observed in any other Latin MS., or in any Greek MS. whatever.
The Fragments of the old Latin version preserved in this version were for the first time published in a complete form by Belsheim, Appendix Epp. Paul. (Christiania, 1887).
23. An edition of this work is in course of preparation, under the direction of Dr. Rendel Harris.
24. Here the British Museum MS. breaks off. The first page is very defective, and even where whole, difficult to decipher.
25. 2 Cor. xi. 13. ψευδαπόστολοι, δόλιοι ἐργάται .
26. i.e. in the millennium.
27. i.e. Gregory Naz.?
28. i.e. the mention of John's name in Rev. xxii. does not disprove his identity with the fourth Evangelist.
29. Referring to Carpocrates, the last heretic with whom Epiphanius has dealt.
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2005. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using the unicode Palatino linotype font. Note that the extracts have been reformatted with additional line feeds and indentations for readability, and bold Roman numerals inserted at points to make it easier to find the words of Dionysius. In the original article the text is all inline.