SCHOLIA.
Character of Scholia (§1). Biblical and Patristic Scholia (§2). Early Biblical Scholia (§ 3). Byzantine and Other Works (§ 4). Editions (§ 5). Editions of N. T. Scholia (§ 6).
The patristic scholia on the Bible are distinguished from Biblical commentaries in that, instead of following the text continuously, they explain only such individual points as seem to require elucidation. The scholion thus resembles the gloss (see
Glosses, Biblical and Ecclesias-
i. Character tical), though in the medieval period
of Scholia. " gloss " denotes a scholion which can
not be ascribed to a definite author. In Greek philology, on the other hand, a gloss originally meant an obscure phrase or word, later being applied metaphorically to the interpretation of such a phrase or word. In such glosses the obscure words were replaced by intelligible ones, either on the margin of the text or above the words in question. Later still, the gloss comprised not only the interpretation of obscure words and phrases, but etymologies and elucidations of subject-matter in the text under consideration. Both the state of patristic exegesis and linguistic usage render it impossible to distinguish sharply between scholia and commentaries, especially as the individual notes of the commentaries possess a certain degree of independence and are thus akin to the scholion. Moreover the scholion is denned by Suidas and the Etymologicum magnum as a note placed beside the text during school instruction. It thus bore a distinctly informal character, was essentially characterized by the individuality and ability of the teacher, and was not necessarily intended for publication. The linguistic usage of patristic exegesis furnishes many examples of these meanings of the term scholion. Arethas (q.v.) terms his commentary on Revelation a " scholiastic synopsis," and the commentaries on Matthew and Mark in Cod. Laur. VI., 18 and Codex Vaticanus 1,445 are likewise designated as scholia. The author of the catena Laur. VI., 33, on the other hand, distinguishes sharply between scholion and commentary, and this distinction is still more marked in the catena on Paul in Vindobonensis 166. The catenas are the principal sources for excerpt scholia, these being notes drawn from commentaries or other writings and appended to the words of the text they elucidate. Besides these sources, the independent labor of scholiasts must be considered, in which the individuality of the author appears more prominently than in the notes proceeding from studies in schools. Such scholia are the notes and comments of a reader less intent on explaining his text than on marking and elucidating passages which especially attract his attention. The scholiast's freedom is restricted in texts regarded as sacred, of which an authoritative interpretation had early been given. In itself it is immaterial whether the scholiast made his annotations for purposes of instruction, or for himself. In Biblical scholia the latter was rarely the case.
One of the most interesting Biblical scholia is the Codex Marchallianus on the prophets, which was re-
Scholia Scholten
THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
vised according to the Tetrapla of Origen. On its margins scholia record the critical labors of Origen, and also contain other pertinent matter 2. Biblical of various periods. Especially instrucand Patristic tive for scholia literature is the Athos Scholia, manuscript Laura 184 B. 64 containing Acts and the Catholic and Pauline epistles. The scholia contain valuable critical notes, mostly with the citation of the authorities and works from which they are drawn. The principal sources are the Stromata and the commentaries of Origen, though Irenaeus, Clement, and Basil are also used. The scholia are not invariably named, however, the anonymous ones apparently belonging to the original owner of the manuscript, which has been plausibly supposed to have come from the school of xArethas of Cresarea. The character of the scholia of this manuscript clearly show that the interest of the writer was concentrated on the subject-matter and its problems, thus leading to a scientific revision of the entire manuscript. The Biblical scholia afford no certain data concerning the problem of their origin, since they for the most part presuppose the exegetical tradition of the commentary. The analogy of the scholia on the Church Fathers must accordingly be employed. Here the most important scholia are those on Clement of Alexandria, written by Baanes and Arethas, and the scholia on Gregory Nazianzen. The scholia of Baanes are primarily linguistic, though they also give notes on mythology and history. The interest of Arethas was primarily theological, though he cites the classics as well as the Bible or such Church Fathers as Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzen (qq.v.). He pays especial attention to allegorical exegesis, etymologies, definitions, figures, and similes, short rules of life, paronomasias, antitheses, and anecdotes from history and natural science. The objects of Elias of Crete, one of the scholiasts on Gregory Nazianzen, were to interpret theological, ethical, and scientific material, as well as the mythological and linguistic problems of his text.
It may be assumed that similar interests and intentions led to the writing of scholia on the Bible; but if this be true, these scholia can rightly be judged only in connection with classical philology, the methods being identical, despite the 3. Early divergence of matter and of aim. In Biblical the Hellenistic period criticism became Scholia, an indispensable element of education to protect the sources of classical training and to guard their exegesis. Thus arose the classical commentaries, collections of scholia, florilegia, and lexicons. Even more attention, however, was directed to interpretation of the language and the matter than to criticism, and allegorical exegesis was carried far (see Exegesis or Hermeneu- Tir.sj. This tendency to interpret and deepen authoritative tradition led, in ancient philology, to a special class of scholiastic literature, designed to reconcile the discrepant statements of an author. This latter type to harmonize difficulties forms an important class of Christian scholia, exemplified not only by frequent passages in the commentaries of Origen, but also by marginal notes on manu-
scripts of the Bible, as in Laur. VI., 33 and Cod. Coisl. 206. The earliest patristic collection of scholia is doubtless the Hypotyposeis of Clement, its sources being the original elders and Pantaenus, the founder of the catechetical school at Alexandria, whose object was to deepen knowledge, investigation, and interpretation of the Bible. The work, as described by Photius (Bibliotheca, cix.), was a condensation and a summary, incomplete, allegorizing, and full of repetitions. Despite the unfavorable attitude of Photius, who was theologically opposed to Clement, it is clear that the latter's book was scholiastic in character. Origen is expressly said to have written scholia, besides his homilies and commentaries. Many of these scholia are preserved in the catenas, and Jerome mentions such comments on Leviticus, Isaiah, Psalms i.-xv., Ecclesiastes, and John. The Athos manuscript likewise cites Origen's scholia on Genesis, and mentions his Stromata as a source for its own scholia. The scholia of Origen are characterized by brevity and cogency. They contain notes on the text, pertinent interpretations, and information on the subject-matter, with relatively little allegorizing. The catenas contain numerous scholia of Theodore of Mopsuestia and other Antiochian theologians, while Theodoret is also occasionally mentioned as a scholiast.
The majority of the anonymous scholia are characterized by Byzantine orthodoxy, as is shown by the scholia of Hesychius on the Psalms. Whether the scholia of Johannes Hamartolus on 4. Byzan- the same book is of a like anti-Origentine and istic spirit is problematical, but at all Other events he furnished the sole source for Works, the catena of Nicetas. Byzantine scholia are essentially of one type; dogmatic, ascetic, and allegorical interpretations prevail, rather than notes on geography, history, or subject-matter. Numerous examples of these scholia may be drawn from J. C. G. Ernesti's editions of the Glossce sacrw of Hesychius (Leipsic, 1785) and Phavorinus (1786), as well as from C. F. de Matthaei's Glossaria Grasca minora (2 vols., Riga, 1774-75) and J. Alberti's Glossarium Grcecum in sacros Novi Testamenti libros (Leyden, 1735). The oldest treatise on Biblical difficulties is Philo's Quwstiones et solutiones quw sunt in Genesi ct in Exodo, translated from Armenian into Latin by J. B. Aucher (Venice, 1828), and from the Latin into English in Bonn's Theological Library, Works ofPhilo, iv. 284 sqq., London, 1855. Of the Church Fathers Eusebius wrote on the solution of discrepancies in the Gospels, those preserved (ed. A. Mai, Nova collectio, i. 1-60, 61-189, Rome, 1825) treating respectively of the genealogy and infancy of Christ, and of his passion. A comprehensive work of similar character was written by Theodoret (MPG, lxxx. 77-856), discussing the Octateuch, Kings, and Chronicles. In like manner, the " Collection of Problems and Solutions " ascribed to the presbyter Hesychius (MPG, xciii. 1391-1448), the 446 " Questions and Answers " of Anastasius of Sinai (MPG, lxxxix. 311-824), and the Qucestiones ad Amphilochium of Photius (Mai, Nova collectio, i.) contain chiefly exegetical difficulties side by side with dogmatic and ascetic problems. To the Western Church be-