If we now turn to the underlying writing on the II palimpsest, we get some startling results. Page 12 is written over a fragment of Symmachus, the rest of Symmachus being superscribed entirely by hand III. Pages 63 and 64, containing a letter of Gallia Placidia to Pulcheria, and of Valentinianus and Marcianus, are written over a fragment from Juvenal, while the verso of page 78 is not superscribed. Pages 57-62 contain various similar letters over the Gothic Skeireins. All the remaining pages of II are written over Arian fragments. Thus we find that, with the exception of two and a half sheets, all the writing of II are of Gothic origin, the superscription being by a hand trained in the Carolingian school. If we look at the structure of the parchment, we find that the Skeireins and the Arian sheets are of a decidedly different grain from the rest of the parchments. They have course markings, like finger prints, running through them, while the fragments of Juvenal, Persius, and Symmachus are of the same structure as the rest of the Codex.

It thus appears that a Spanish Goth, finding many pages of the Codex missing, rewrote the wanting pages over sheets brought with him, which had last the particular interest they may have had in Gothia or Spain, for they contained writings in which only Goths could have been interested. Two sheets, where his writing material gave out, he supplied by writing over fragments of Juvenal and Persius, apparently of Italian origin, while he utilised the unused verso of hand III to fill in a brief letter. As many of the Arian fragments have records of the Council of Chalcedon written over them, the Ambrosian Codex E. Sig. E. 147, which contains the remaining fragments of the Skeireins, under the records of the Council of Chalcedon, belongs to the same text and was obviously made by the same writer, and the reproduction of a few lines from this Codex by Castiglione (66) shows that the writing is identical with that of the Codex Vaticanus. We are entitled to but one conclusion as to the age of the Gothic text of the Skeireins, namely, that it was written before the superscribed Latin and may be of as late a date as the ninth century. We are palaeographically entitled to no other assumption.

Massmann (67) comes to the conclusion that the Skeireins is a polemic writing of semi-Arian character, because of the use of the homoousian by the side of the homoiousian formula, that is, because of the use of ibns and galeiks in the same passage. Krafft (68) is equally sure that the Skeireins is pure Arian in doctrine. But it is not difficult to show that the use of the two terms has nothing whatsoever to do with the homoousian and homoiousian formulae, and that these terms refer to the honor due Christ, in the sense in which they were taken by the Carolingian writers in the attack upon the Adoptionist heresy of the Goths, in order to establish an Orthodox, and not an Arian, doctrine.

The passage in question (page v), according to Dietrich's translation, (69) runs as follows: "But since he (specified) one as loving, the other as loved, the one as showing, the other as imitating his work---he so specified it, since he knew of the heresy of these future men, in order that one might learn from it to recognize two persons, that of the Father and of the Son, and did not repeat (what the others say). In this respect he used a clear word and said: 'Even as the Father raises the dead and brings them to life,' in order that He, who by His own will and His own power imitating the One who before had commanded to raise the dead, should condemn and overthrow the disputation of the unbelievers (with these words): 'The Father in no way judges, but has given all the judgment over to His Son.' If he were one and the same according to the teaching of Sabellius, (only designated by different names), how could He both judge and not judge? Does not the mere change of the names indicate the difference of the two persons, especially the action of one who does not judge a single man, but transfers the judgment to the Son? And Jesus, who receives the honor from His Father and executes all judgment according to God's will, said: 'That all may honor the Son as they honor the Father.' Hence, in the presence of so clear a statement, we must honor the unborn God, and recognize that the one-born Son is God, so that we may honor each according to His worth; for the statement, 'That all may honor the Son as they honor the Father,' teaches us to give, not equal, but similar honor. The Saviour Himself interceded for His disciples before His Father 'That Thou mayest love them as Thou lovest me.' Not equal, but similar, love He designated in this way."

Charlemagne called Alcuin to France to fight the Adoptionist heresy among the Spanish Goths in his possessions. The Orthodox Alcuin felt that, in fighting Elipandus and Felix of Urgel, and in attacking their dogma that Christ was an adopted son, he ran great danger of falling into the other extreme of the Eutychian heresy. Hence he tried to steer a middle course and dwelt upon the fact that Christ was in substance both the same and not the same with God, hence should have equal glory with him. The ecclsiastic writers of the ninth century had great trouble in drawing a distinction between the terms "similar" and "equal." Joannes Scottus, commenting on Boethius' De Trinitate, points out that equality exists where there are two persons, and that their relation is similar. (70) The difficulty with the Adoptionists was that they maintained that Christ's nature was dissimilar to that of God, while the Orthodox Agobard insisted that it was similar, (71) even as Hincmar distinguished between the two persons whose glory, however, was equal. (72) Similarly Alcuin pointed out to the Adoptionists that the Son was equal to God. (73)

We see from these passages that "similar" and "equal" interchange, and refer, now to the person of Christ, now to his glory. In the passage in the Skeireins the duality of the persons is proved from the fact that God is represented as loving, Christ as beloved. This is taken from Alcuin who uses the Biblical passage "Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi bene complacui" over and over again in his Adoptionist controversy, in order to prove that the two persons are separate yet similar. (74) The words in the Skeireins, "he so specified it, since he knew of the heresy of these future men, in order that one might learn from it to recognize two persons, that of the Father and of the Son, and did not repeat (what others say)," are taken bodily from Alcuin's Commentary on St. John X. 29, of which they are an abbreviated statement. (75) Similarly the rest of the Skeireins passage is based on Alcuin's Commentary on St. John v. 21, 22, 23, where it says that God and Christ do not judge in separate capacities, but as one. The Father does not judge, but Christ, in His second nature, in which He is consubstantial with the Mother. Only the Son is seen to sit in judgment. And yet, the Father is not to be judged as greater, the Son as smaller, but both by one honor. "Honor the Son as you honor the Father." (76) The point is not clearly stated by Alcuin, for it may appear, at first sight, that he wants Christ to be honored exactly as God (uno honore honoranda est), but this is merely due to an over-emphasis against the Adoptionist view that the honor should be different. Agobard, in his controversy with the Adoptionists, tried to avoid the difficulty of the emphasis, which would have taken him from Nestorianism to the opposite heresy of Eutychianism, by adhering for the orthodox dogma to Cyril, who took a middle course. (77) Hence Cyril is one of the authors most quoted by the theologians of the ninth century, even as he forms the basis of certain ideas and expressions in the Skeireins. But Cyril in this particular case distinctly says that "sicut, kaqwj" shows that Christ is to be honored, not equally, but similarly, even as the statement "let the silver shine like (kaqwj) the sun" shows that the silver has not an equal, but a similar splendor to that of the sun. (78)

While the manner of the treatment of the Skeireins passage is very much like that of Alcuin's corresponding verses, the fine distinction between aequalis and similis, which is dogmatically identical with Cyril's ideas, smacks of Johannes Scottus' "similis est relatio quia aequales sunt"; but unfortunately the fifth chapter of his Commentary on St. John is not extant, and so this identity in the same passage cannot be verified. It is significant that the Skeireins, which is an anti-Adoptionist pamphlet, is at the same time based on the Gospel of St. John. The latter was frequently commented upon by Carolingian writers, because it was theologically well adapted for the Adoptionist controversy, and Schönbach (79) has shown that the great bulk of Gospel commentaries of the Middle Ages, especially the Commentary on St. John, were based on those of Alcuin.

The passage under discussion has been used by Gothic scholars to prove its relation to Ulfilas' Arianism, of which as we have seen, not a distant trace is to be found, unless Alcuin, Agobard, and Scot were Arians. There is not a shadow of homoousianism or homoiousianism in the use of the words ibns and galeiks, because the Latin equivalents aequalis and similis have nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of Christ, but refer only to the honor due him. What the Skeireins and the Carolingian theologians were discussing is all a question of omoiotimia, not of omoiousia.

There is another passage in the Skeireins, on page i, which has been adduced by Gothic scholars as a proof that the polemic was written at an early time. The dogmatic purpose of this part is summarised as follows by Dietrich: (80) "To judge from the discussion on page i in regard to salvation and atonement, which are essentially based on Irenaeus, Christ had a double problem. In accordance with the plan of salvation, as intended by God from the start, Christ was to become man while exercising justice; for He was not to free humanity by force from death and from the power of the devil by means of His divine power. He was to be as just towards the devil in the execution of His work of salvation. As the devil had not forced anybody to commit sin, so Christ in justice could not force men to be converted to piety, but was by words and work to invite humanity that had turned away from God to follow the tenets of the Gospel, so as to please God. But men were to turn away from the devil and accept the teachings of the Saviour by their own free will. But this did not conclude His work of salvation. He had to atone to God, who was offended by the sins, by an extraordinary sacrifice. Hence Christ sacrificed himself in place of all humanity, destroyed all sin, and saved the world." Dietrich confesses that the resemblance to Irenaeus' theology is weak, because Irenaeus considers Christ's death as a ransom paid to the devil for enslaved humanity, (81) while Jellinek, (82) who also knows that the theology has no resemblance to any fourth or fifth century theology but that of Irenaeus, admits that the particular passage in Irenaeus could only be adduced if the construction "be understood or misunderstood" in the sense of the Skeireins. What an amazing performance! Gothic theology, according to these authors, is based, not on the theology of its age, but on a misunderstanding in Irenaeus! The idea is too ridiculous to need any refutation.

The idea that Christ is justice itself and has come to justify men by His death, is the usual theology of Alcuin. I give here in parallel columns Massmann's Latin translation of the Skeireins and the passage in Alcuin:

Propterea venit communis omnium salvator, omnium peccata ut expurgaret; non aequalis nec similis nostrae justiae sed ipse justitia existens, ut mactans se pro nobis victimam et sacrificium, deo mundi perficeret redemptionem......propterea igitur corpus hominis induit, ut praeceptor nobis fieret justitiae in deo.

Quod igitur videns Johannes consilium, quod perfici debebat a domino vero dixit Ecce hic est agnus dei, qui tollit peccatum mundi. Potuisset quidem etiam sine hominnis corpore, potestate sulmmodo divina libera re omnes diaboli vi; sed sciebat, tale potestate potentiae necessitatem declaratam fore, neque amplius servatum iustitiae consilium, sed necessitate se operaturum fuisse hominum salutem. Quum enim diabolus ab initio non cogeret, sed deciperet hominem et per mendacium illiceret ut transgrederentur legem, id fuisset contra convenientiam, ut dominus veniens vi divina et potestate eum liberaret et necessitate ad probitatem converteret. Nonne enim visus esset in justitiae coercitione impedire consilium antea iam initio paratum? Decens igitur erat potius, qui sua voluntate obediissent diabolo ad negligendam legem dei, ut ii iterum sua voluntate assentirent Salvatoris doctrinae et aspernarentur pravitatem ejus, qui prius decepisset, veritatis autem cognitio ad renovationem conversationis in deo proponeretur.

Omnis enim qui in Deo manet, in verita te manet, quia Deus veritas est. Si quis a vero a Deo recesserit, mendax erit, dicente Psalmographo: Omnis homo mendax (Psal. cxv). In quantum vero homo a Deo recedit, in tantum mendax erit, dum se a veritate declinaverit, et inde peccator erit: quia omne peccatum non est veritas, sed mendacium, quia recedendo a Deo non habet veritatem Diabolus vero bonus creatus est, sed per se ipsum malus factus est, declinando se a summo bono. Ideo ex propriis locutus est mendacium, quia in seipso invenit unde esset mendax. Homo vero deceptus a diabolo, factus est a diaboli, non natura, sed imitatione. Recedamus ergo a patre mendacii, curramus ad Patrem veritatis. Amplectamur veritatem ut accipiamus veram libertatem, Comm. in Joan. viii. 44, in Migne, col. 873.

Ita quippe nil in eo baptismus quod ablueret, sicut mors nihil quod puniret, invenit, ut diabolus veritate justitiae vinceretur, non violentia potestatis ipprimeretur, Adv. Elipandum epistola, in Migne, vol. ci, col. 238.

Page II of the Skeireins coincides with Alcuin completely on the dogmatic side, for both assert that the heavenly rebirth follows baptism, and both agree that water represents the carnal, the Holy Spirit the spiritual regeneration:

Propterea quoque Salvator, nunc incipiens monstravit viam sursum ducentem in regnum Dei, dicens Amen, dico tibi, nisi quis nascatur desuper non potest videre regnum dei. Desuper autem dixit sanctum et coelestem natum alterum per lavacrum patiendum. Quod autem non intellexit Nicodemus, quia tunc primum audiebat a praeceptore, quapropter dixit: Quomodo potest homo nasci, adultus existens? num potest in uterum matris suae iterum introire et nasci? imperitus enim adhuc (existens) neque sciens consuetudinem et corporalem (naturalem) ex utero existimans ortum, in dubitationem cecidit; quapropter dixit: Quomodo potest homo adultus nasci? num potest in uterum matris suae rursus introire et nasci? Salvator autem, futuro ejus judicio cognito, et in fide progressus (eum) facturum esse, interpretatus est ei, ut adhuc imperito, dicens: Amen, amen, dico tibi, nisi quis nascatur ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum dei. Necessarium enim erat et conveniens naturae, ut consilium baptismi acciperet, quum quidem homo (ex) diversis naturis compositus si (constet), (ex) anima scilicet et corpore; etiam alterum eorum ratione (vestigio) etiam duas nominavit res, suam utrique ad baptismi consilium, et visibilem quidem aquam et rationalem Spiritum, ut nempe hoc videntes.

Respondit enim Jesus, et dixit ei: Amen amen dico vobis: Nisi quis renatus fuerit denuo, non potest videre regnum Dei. Quae sententia tanto apertius cunctis fidelibus lucet, quanto constat quia sine hujus luce fideles esse nequeunt. Quis etenim sine lavacro regenerationis, remissionem peccatorum consequi, et regnum valet introire coelorum? Sed Nicodemus, qui nocte venit ad Jesum, necdum lucis mysteria capere noverat; nam et nox, in qua venit, ipsam ejus qua premebatur ignorantiam designat....Respondit ergo Dominus, et ait: Quomodo potest homo nasci cum senex sit? Numquid potest in ventrem matris suae iterato introire et nasci? Quia secundae nativitatis adhuc nescius perseverabat....quaerebat, ne hujus expers remanendo, vitae coelestis particeps esse nequiret...Et quia Nicodemus ad primam Domini responsionem sollictus, quomodo sit intelligenda diligenter inquirit, meretur jam planius instrui, et quia secunda nativitas non carnalis est, sed spiritalis, audire? respondit namque illi Jesus: Amen amen dico tibi, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum Dei....Natura spiritus invisibilis, carnis est visibilis; atque ideo carnalis generatio visibiliter administratur visibilibus incrementis...Quod ergo natum est ex spiritu, spiritus est; quia qui ex aqua et Spiritu regeneratur, invisibiliter in novum mutatur hominem, et de carnali efficitur spiritalis, Comm. in Joan. III. 3, 4, 5, in Migne, col. 778 f.

It will be observed that Alcuin, quoting the Vulgate, which speaks of a regeneration denuo, anew, none the less proceeds to consider the rebirth as desursum, upwards, into Heaven, into the spiritual sphere. (85) Alcuin was bound by the Vulgate text, while the Goths, following an old Spanish tradition, drew equally from Latin and Greek sources. Joannes Scottus, who, like Theodulphus, was not bound by the Vulgate tradition, is, therefore, in this passage in complete agreement with the Skeireins, for he points out that the Greek text distinctly shows that one regeneration is terrestrial, the other celestial, (86) which is also Alcuin's theology. (87)

The remaining passages in the Skeireins contain no dogmatic ideas of importance, and so need not be discussed. But the beginning of page II is so strikingly like the corresponding passage in Alcuin that a mere chance resemblance is excluded: (88)

Quia aquae multae erant illic. et veniebant et baptizabantur nondum missus fuerat in carcerem Johannes. Id autem dicens Evangelista ostendit, munus ei datum prope finem esse ner Herodis consilium.

Quia aquae multae erant....Nondum enim missus fuerat Joannes in carcerem. Ideo hoc dixit Evangelista, ut intelligeretur, quae ante posuit, primo anno doctrinae Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quae incipiebat a baptismo suo, acta esse, Comm. in Joan. III. 23, 24, Migne col. 785.

The writer of the Skeireins bears, in his methods, a striking resemblance to the author of the Augiensis MS. in his treatment of Alcuin. Here and there sentences have crept in almost in the form in which they occur in the original, but on the whole the wording is materially changed. The theology and the general concept have remained absolutely the same. (89) Unfortunately Schönbach gives but a brief extract from this MS., and it is not possible to determine what relation it bears to the Skeireins. But so much is certain, ---the Skeireins is based on Alcuin, hence it cannot have been written before 801, when Alcuin's Commentary on St. John first appeared. It is doubtful whether the Skeireinist utilised Joannes Scottus, for the few possible agreements with the latter have only to do with the use of the Greek original, which is not excluded in the case of Alcuin or any other Carolingian theologian. It is, however, likely that the Skeireins was not written before 813, for in that year Charlemagne demanded that homilies be written in the native tongue, and that would include the Gothic or Gothia and of Burgundy. As the Skeireins quotes passages from the Gothic New Testament with fair correctness, it is to be supposed that the Gothic Bible was written before that time. That it was not written before the end of the eighth century will appear from internal evidence.




Endnotes

66. Op. cit., 36. [Back]

67. Op. cit., p. 75 f. [Back]

68. Die Anfänge der christlichen Kirche bei den germanischen Völkern, Berlin 1854, vol. I, p. 357. [Back]

69. Die Skeireins Bruchstücke, Strassburg 1900, p. 11. [Back]

70. "Aequale ut binarius. Similis est relatio quia aequales sunt," E. K. Rand, Johannes Scottus, p. 46. [Back]

71. "Iterum post aliqua interrogando Felix quaerit: 'Utrum Christus Dominus in utraque natura similiter sit Filius Dei an dissimiliter,' et subjungit respondendo, 'non similiter, sed dissimiliter,'" Liber adversum dogma Felicis Urgellensis, in Migne, vol. CIV, col. 44. [Back]

72. "Alia est persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti: sed in deitate unitas creditur et predicatur, quia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coaeternia majestas," Migne, vol. CXXV, col. 525. [Back]

73. "Et multa talia, ubi se in divina substantia omnino Patri aequalem et Patris esse Filium non tacuit," Adversus Felicem Urgellitanum libri septem, in Migne, vol. CI, col. 143. [Back]

74. Migne, vol. CI, cols. 143, 144, 145, 146, 157, 162, 255, 256. [Back]

75. "Quibus profecto verbis non praesentem solummodo Judaeorum quaestionem, qua an ipse esset Christus interrogabant, explicavit, sed etiam haereticorum perfidiam quam futuram praevidit, quantum sit execranda monstravit. 'Conticescat Sabellius audiens Ego et Pater, qui unam personam Patris et Filii prava doctrina disseruit, nam ego et Pater, duae sunt personae. Item erubescat Arius audiens: Unum sumus, qui duas naturas in Patre et Filio astruit, dum unum unam naturam significat, sicut sumus, duas personas. Sequamur apostolicam fidem, quam beatus Petrus princeps apostolorum confessus est," Migne, vol. C, col. 893 f. [Back]

76. "Sicut enim Pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et Filius quos vult vivificat. Non enim alios Pater, alios Filius vivificat; sed una potestas unam vivificationem facit; quae etiam potestas uno honore honoranda est....Pater enim non judicat quemquam, sed omne judicium dedit Filio, ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut honorificant Patrem. Qui non honorificat Patrem, non honorificat Filium. Pater non judicat quemquam, quia Patris persona hominem non suscepit, nec in judicio videbitur: sed sola Filii persona, in ea forma quae judicata est injuste, et juste judicabit vivos ac mortuos. Nec enim Filius videbitur in judicio in ea natura qua consubstantialis est Deo Patri, sed in ea qua consubstantialis est matri, et homo factus est...Sed ne forte Patrem quidem honorifices tanquam majorem, Filium vero tanquam minorem, ut dicas mihi: Honorifico Patrem; scio enim quod habeat Filium, et non erro in Patris nomine, non enim Patrem intelligo sine Filio, honorifico tamen et Filium tanquam minorem: corrigit te ipse Filius, et revocat dicens: Ut omnes honorificent Filium, non inferius sed sicud honorificant Patrem. Qui ergo non honorificat Filium, nec Patrem honorificat, qui misit illum. Ego, inquis, majorem honorem volo dare Patri, minorem Filio. Ibi tollis honorem Patri, ubi minorem das Filio. Quid enim tibi aliud videtur ista sententia, nisi quia Pater aequalem sibi Filium generare aut noluit aut non potuit? Si noluit, invidit; si non potuit, defecit. Non ergo vides, quia ita est sentiendum: Ubi majorem honorem vis dare Patri, ibi es contumeliosus in Patrem. Proinde sic honorifica Filium, quomodo honorificas Patrem, si vis honorificare et Filium et Patrem," ibid., col. 810 f. [Back]

77. "Nestorius haereticus sic duas naturas in unico Filio Dei Domino nostro Jesu Christo dividit ac separat, ut in disputatione dogmatis sui sic de uno quasi de duobus loquatur, quasi alium suspicans Deum Verbum, alium Emmanuel, licet plerumque unam horum fateatur personam. E contrario autem Eutyches in dogmate suo sic de unici Filii Dei loquitur singulari persona quasi de una substantia. Et quanquam sempiternam divinitatis ejus nativitatem confiteatur, temporalem quoque humanitatis non neget; ita tamen utramque substantiam permiscet atque confundit, et una tantummodo praedicare intelligatur. Cum ergo utrumque, id est, Nestorium, et Eutychem, veritus fidei abjiciat, quae medium inter eos tenet locum; beatus Cyrillus, ejusdem veritatis defensor, Alexandrinus antistes, dum vellet corrigere pravitatem Nestorii, propter obscuritatem verborum, ut pote subtilissimae rei, offendit beatum Joannem praesulem Antiochenae Ecclesiae, et eos qui cum illo erant; factaque est divisio inter Antiochenam et Alexandrinam Ecclesiam. Rogatus est autem ab Antiochenis Theodoretus Cyri episcopus, ut ageret adversum beatum Cyrillum. Et mirum in modum, dum utrique essent catholici, id est, et Antiocheni, et Alexandrini, beatus Cyrillus dum putatur esse haereticus, quod non erat, inventus est a Theodoreto inter Nestorium haereticum et Cyrillum catholicum medius locus, unde idem Theodoretus pugnans pro veritate, ageret contra veritatem; qui dum istis catholicis placeret, illis displiceret; quod tamen Deo auxiliante Joannis et Cyrilli industria correctum est," Migne, vol. CIV, col. 35 f. [Back]

78. Ei dia to legesqai, fhsin. Ina panta timwsi ton Yion, kaqa timwsi ton Patera, nomizete crhnai ton Yion isometroij tw Patri kataqemnunein timaij, agnoeite thj alhqeiaj makran ton badizontej. Ou gar pantwj to kaqwj isothta pragmatwn eisferei, kaq wn an fainoito teqen, omoiwsin de tina carakthrizei pollakij, oion, fhsin, o Swthr pou sumbouleuei, legwn Ginesqe oiktirmonej, kaqwj kai o Pathr umwn o ouranioj oiktirmwn estin. Oukoun epi men twn anomoiwn kata thn fusin ote tattetai to kaqwj, ou pantwj aparallakton hmin eisferei thn isothta, omoiothta de mallon kai eikonismon, wj kai autoi prolabontej wmologhkate. Epi de twn allhloij kata panta proseikotwn eiper orwto teqen, kai isothta thn en pasi kai omoiothta dhloi, kai ei ti toutoij eteron isodunamoun eurisketai. Oion ti fhmi. Lamproj men o kat ouranon estin hlioj, lamproj de omoiwj kai o gnqen arguroj, all h men fusij twn eirhmenwn diaforoj. Noeisqw de tij tucon twn epi ghj plousiwn, toij kat oikon oiketaij, Lampetw, legwn, o arguroj, kaqwj kai o mlioj en toutw oh mala dikaiwj ouk eij thn ishn anabainein lamprothta tw nliw thn ek ghj ulhn famen, all eij omoiwsin tina kai emfereiav, kai ei feroito kat autou to kaqwj, Ermhneia eij to kata Iwannhn Euaggelion, V. 22, in Migne, vol. LXXIII, col. 366. [Back]

79. A. E. Schönbach, Über einige Evangelienkommentare des Mittelalters, in Sitzungsberichte d. k. Akad., d. Wiss., Wien 1903, vol. CXLVI, part IV. [Back]

80. E. Dietrich, Die Bruchstücke der Skeireins, Strassburg 1908, p. lxxvii f. [Back]

81. E. Dietrich, Die Bruchstücke der Skeireins, Strassburg 1908, p. lxxviii [Back]

82. Paul and Braune, Beiträge, vol. XV, p. 439 f. [Back]

83. "Ille solus liberare potest de peccato, qui venit sine peccato, et factus est sacrificium pro peccato. Qui manet in peccato servus est peccati, qui fugit a peccato, servus est justitiae," ibid., VIII. 34, in Migne, col. 869; "prima libertas est non permanere in peccato, servire justitiae dicente Apostolo: Cum servi essetis peccati, liberi eratis justitiae" (Rom. VI. 20), ibid., VIII. 36, in Migne, col. 869. [Back]

84. "Quidquid a Deo creatum est, bonum est, et omnis homo, quantum creatura Dei est, bonus est: quantum vero se subjicit per liberum arbitrium diabolo, a patre diabolo est. Bona est enim hominis natura, sed vitiata erat per malam voluntatem, et inde a patre erat diabolo. Quod fecit Deus non potest esse malum, si ipse homo non sit sibi malus. Inde ergo Iudaei dicti sunt filii diaboli, non nascendo, sed imitando," Comm. in Joan. VIII. 43, in Migne, col. 872; "si veritatem locutus sum vobis, quare non creditis mihi, nisi quia filii diaboli estis, et non veritatis, filii diaboli non natura, sed imitatione," ibid., VIII. 46, in Migne, col. 873. [Back]

85. "Nisi quis renatus fuerit denuo.....quis regnum valet introire coelorum?" See p. lviii. [Back]

86. "Notandum, quod in codicibus Graecorum anwqen legitur, ubi in latinis codicibus denuo reperitur, ut sit sensus: nisi quis natus fuerit anwqen, hoc est desursum, ut desursum dicamus pro denuo; quod et facilius intelligitur, et duabus nativitatibus, terrenae videlicet atque coelesti, covenientius.....Duae siquidem nativitates sunt, ut ait Augustinus; quarum una de terra, altera de caelo, hoc est desursum," Comm. in Joan., in Migne, vol. CXXII, col. 315. [Back]

87. "Coelestis namque est ascensio ejus ad vitam sempiternam," Comm. in Joan. III. 12, in Migne, col. 780. [Back]

88. Note the very striking resemblance of "since he knew the heresy of these future men" to "sed etiam haereticorum perfidiam quam futuram praevidit" in the identical passage. See p. l and p. lii. [Back]

89. "Für das Werk im ganzen und grossen gilt die Behauptung, dass er auf Alchuins Johanneskommentar beruht, und zwar so ausschliesslich darauf beruht, dass---ohne Übertreibung---nicht ein Gedanke anderswoher entnommen ist....der Bearbeiter hat durch einen grossen Theil seines Werkes zwar den ganzen Inhalt der Darstellung seiner Vorlage entnommen, hat jedoch den Worthalt nicht beibehalten, er hat den Text Alchuins umstilisiert," Schönbach, op. cit., p. 114. [Back]