Some years ago there was discovered in the monastery of Iveron on Mount Athos a curious paper manuscript of the sixteenth century, “filled with all kinds of theological extracts.” It was catalogued by Lambros, as the work of “Matthew a monk” (Mατθαíου μονάχου). Rendel Harris, to whom New Testament students are indebted for many valuable and penetrating judgments, questioned the justice of this identification. The Matthew referred to was, he held, not an obscure mediaeval monk: he was none other than Matthew the apostle.

Modern critics understand by ‘The Book of the Covenant’ the miscellaneous collection of laws found in Exodus 20, 22—23, 19 and its appendix (23, 20–33). This title is taken from 24, 7, a verse that is manifestly redactional and post-exilic. We may surmise that this verse and, indeed, the whole account of the ratification of these laws (24, 3–8) were inserted here very shortly after the code of laws was placed in its present context.

The contribution to christology made by Leontius of Byzantium (fl. 520–543 A.D.) lies in his doctrine that the manhood of Christ is ‘enhypostatic’ (ἐνυπόστατος)—the doctrine of Enhypostasia or Inexistence. The Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the person or hypostasis of Christ as consisting in the union of two perfect natures, the nature of God and the nature of man, without division or confusion. On the principle laid down by Aristotle and accepted by all disputants, that there can be no such thing as a nature or substance without hypostasis (ϕύσις, οὐσία ἀνυπόστατος), the question arises of how it possible to avoid the conclusion of two hypostases, corresponding to the two perfect natures, in Christ. Such was the problem set by the definition of Chalcedon and the logic of Aristotle.

The importance of determining the type of text used by patristic writers in their New Testament quotations is universally understood, and the difficulties due to the tendency of copyists, especially in the lemmata of commentaries, to substitute readings familiar to themselves have often been stated.

Armenian dogmatic literature is rich in creeds, some of which remain unpublished. The two which follow have a claim on general interest because one bears the name of Athanasius, and is an Armenian counterpart to the famous Latin spurium, while the other is a curious commentary on a well-known text.