Category: Bible

Greek gospel catenas 1: catenas on Matthew

Posted on by Roger Pearse

There are four types of catena on Matthew.

Type A:  there are four versions of this.

  1. This contains mainly extracts from Chrysostom’s sermons.  Other authors are Isidore of Pelusium, Cyril of Alexandria; the monk Theodore.

  2. This is an expanded version of A.1.  In addition to the material in #1, it contains fragments of Photius, Basil the Great, Athanasius, Origen, Maximus the Confessor, and Gregory Nazianzen.

  3. This is an abridged version of A.1.  It contains mainly chunks of Chrysostom, but not identified as such.  This version was compiled in the time Leo VI ‘the wise’ (886-911).  Some late manuscripts identify Leo Patricius as the compiler.

  4. The most extensive version is also based on A.1.  Additional authors quoted include Severus, Theodore of Heraclea, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Type B: there are six versions of this, extant in multiple manuscripts.  This catena is attributed to Peter of Laodicea, but probably falsely.

Type C: this catena was compiled by Nicetas, Metropolitan of Heraclea in Thrace.  He was the last great catenist.  It was composed before 1080 AD.  The catena contains numerous extracts, mainly from Chrysostom.  The author attribution against each extract is unusually reliable.

Type D: this catena was composed in the 11th century, and contains mainly extracts from Chrysostom.  The catena can be found in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, graecus 194.

Unclassified: the following manuscripts also contain a catena on Matthew, which does not fit neatly into the above catefories:

  • Athos, Lavra B. 113.  This is an 11th century manuscript, and classified as type E by Geerard.

  • Vatican graecus 349.  11th century.

  • Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Suppl. gr. 1225.  11th century.
  • Rome, Biblioteca dei Lincei, A. 300.  12-13th century.

Macarius Chrysocephalus, Metropolitan of Philadelphia, also composed a catena on Matthew.  This made use of additional material, and not merely of earlier catenas.

A Coptic Catena is also known as the Robert Curzon catena, from its discoverer, was published by Paul de Lagarde.  It contains a catena on all four gospels.  This was translated from a now unknown Greek catena, which was more of a dogmatic anthology than an exegetical catena.  An Arabic Catena was made from it in a monophysite monastery in Egypt early in the 13th century.  The portion on Matthew was published with a Italian Spanish translation by F. J. Caubet Iturbe, La Cadena arabe del Evangelio suo Mateo, Vatican 1969-70.  Neither version has any relationship with any of the known Greek catenas.

Editions: J. Reuss, Berlin 1957 published material on Matthew, although this only scratches the surface.

Studies: R. Devreese, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement 1 (Paris, 1928), pp. 1164-1175, on the Matthew catenas.  M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum 4, pp. 228-235.  Karo and Lietzman, (as in intro), pp.119-131.

Share

Greek gospel catenas 0: introduction

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’m going to write a little series, on the various medieval Greek catenas on the Gospels.  This is because I detect in myself (and others) a deep ignorance about what classes of catena exist, and I need to mine these things for quotations from Eusebius.  These contain extracts from many now vanished works by the Fathers on the bible. 

For the newcomer, each catena gives a passage of scripture, followed by extracts from earlier patristic works on that text.  The compiler might abbreviate the text; or paraphrase it.

There is some exceedingly terse material by Maria Antonietta Barbarà in Di Berardino’s Patrology (tr. Adrian Walford), pp.645-9.  This material is good, but quite unreadable because of its over-condensed language and formatting.  This in turn arises because the book has to be in that form in order to contain so much material.  I have myself read those pages several times and emerged none the wiser! A clear academic English language study of the catena would seem to be overdue.

But a pencil is a powerful thing.  Tonight I sat down and drew a line at the end of each couple of sentences dealing with a type of catena, and written A, B, C or whatever in the margin.  To save everyone the effort of doing the same, here are some notes.  To take this further, with what few editions exist, consult the Patrology.  Errors, omissions, corrections are all very welcome of course.

Classification systems: The one used here was drawn up by J. Reuss, Matthaus-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, Berlin 1957 (also similar editions on Luke and John).

M. Geerard follows his classification, in the articles in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum vol. 4, pp.228-248.

There is also the system of G. Karo and I. Lietzmann, Catenarum Graecorum Catalogus, published in the appallingly difficult to obtain Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 1, 3, 5 (1902).  In pp. 119-151, they instead classify catenas as types I-VII, following a scheme drawn up by E. Preuschen.

Studies: R. Devreesse published articles on the catenas for each gospel in the Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement vol. 1 (Paris, 1928), “Chaînes…”, pp.1164-1205.

I see that Nicole Petrin has a useful working bibliography on her blog here.

Share

Portion of John’s gospel ca. 200 AD for sale

Posted on by Roger Pearse

From the PAPY-L list I learn that P.Oxy 1780 and 1924 are being offered for sale by Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania at Sothebys, and expected to reach ca. £300k.

http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=159503126

The Sotheby’s site gives details of the Ms.

Share

Erich von Daniken rides again!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Jim Davila of Paleojudaica tells us that the old man is back on the road and still asking, “Was God an astronaut?”  The answer was always ‘no’, of course; but he made quite a bit of money asking it.  Compared to all those dreary “God is dead but I’m going to stay a bishop anyway” books of the same period, he was a breath of fresh air.  And the artwork was better too…

There are any number of people trying to sell books falsifying Christian origins.  Most are forgettable.  They have their day in the sun, attract some dimwitted disciples, and then perish utterly. 

I suppose that most of them are just chancers in it for a quick buck.  Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, if you think it’s all rubbish.  Indeed I remember many years ago getting a CD of a couple of UK newspapers, and doing a search for “Jesus”.  What I got was book reviews; one after another, each peddling “the real Jesus”.  Each and every one of them used the same method; find excuses to ignore what the historical record says, then invent some story which is agreeable to comfortable people in the period in which they were writing.  Of course the final fairy-stories varied wildly.  But each was solemnly reviewed, apparently without the reviewers ever saying to themselves, “Hang on.  Didn’t we have another one of these last month?  And the month before?  They can’t ALL be true!”

Then there are the haters, drearily whining about how evil the Christians are, repeating the same old “Well look at the crusades” tosh.  These tend to be less literate than the conmen, and less readable, and less honest.  Hate is a bad guide to anything.  There’s some absurd ex-priest in Canada peddling some whopping lies.  Apparently he was once an episcopalian, but found even that lax organisation was too principled for him.  A couple of writers stopped writing sex books and started writing “Jesus was really Osiris” books.  I’d have thought too many people knew about ancient Egypt for that to sell, but apparently I’m wrong.  There used to be some guy who called himself Roman Piso and asserted that Jesus was actually one of the Calpurnius Piso’s.  Another one says Jesus was Julius Caesar.  Yet another claims that Christianity was made up in the 4th century.  Another one prefers some indefinite date in the late 1st century.  Not all have published, but all have tried!

Yet Erich was different.  He wasn’t a hater, but an enthusiast.  It has always been quite possible to believe in his sincerity, if not entirely so.  Let’s face it, he’s made too much money to listen very hard to his critics. Yet his books are fun!  Tosh, but fun. 

Apparently the Old Testament Apocrypha have now attracted his attention.  Well, I bet the contents are probably about as valuable as a good deal of the low-grade throwaway scholarly work on them.  Hey, I’m waiting to see the cover art.  It’s got to be better than Clarendon Press version of the Revised Standard Version, with hard covers.

Von Daniken asks if the gods are aliens.  Maybe we can get him to ask if certain biblical scholars are aliens.  We’d have to conduct test-tube experiments, repeatable trials.  We want to be scientific, right?

Let’s see if we can get Bart Ehrman in a test-tube, and add some water and see if he turns blue.  If he does, he must be a witch!

The power of nonsense is great, but every fraud gets found out in the end.

Share

If you want to get ahead, get a hat.

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The linen which he spreads on the crown of your head denotes the freedom to which you have been called. You were before standing bareheaded, as this is the habit of the exiles and the slaves, but after you have been signed he throws on your head linen, which is the emblem of the freedom to which you have been called. Men such as these (=freemen) are in the habit of spreading linen on their heads, and it serves them as an adornment both in the house and in the market-place. — Theodore of Mopsuestia, Liber ad baptizandos.

While scanning the English translation of Theodore’s sermons to those awaiting baptism (now online here), I came across this interesting statement, that during the ceremony of manumission the ex-slave’s head was covered; and thus that being bare-headed was a mark of a slave.

I wonder how this relates to the oft-mocked injunction of Paul, that women should cover their heads, particularly since female slaves and prostitutes could be interchangeable.

Share

“αιρετικον ανθρωπον” (Titus 3:10)

Posted on by Roger Pearse

How should we translate “αιρετικον ανθρωπον”, in Titus 3:10?  Looking at the Bible Gateway site, I find an interesting range.  Greek;

  • KJV: “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject”
  • NIV: “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.”
  • NASB: “Reject a factious man after a first and second warning”;
  • ESV: “As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him”;
  • Darby: “An heretical man after a first and second admonition have done with”
  • NRSV: “After a first and second admonition, have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions“
  • Vulgate: “hereticum hominem post unam et secundam correptionem devita”

The term here is “hairetikon anthropon”, singular and masculine and accusative. 

The most natural English usage would appear to be ‘heretic’ or ‘heretical man’.  Why don’t we say so?  How would we translate this in a patristic text? The Vulgate does not hesitate to say “haereticum hominem” – “heretic man”.

A heretic is not necessarily a “divisive person”, after all.  The Greek word, surely, will relate more to the variety of belief in the philosophical schools (haereses) than to modern ecumenism, or indeed even to 4th and 5th century doctrinal debates?

Perhaps someone with the relevant tools at hand would care to do a word-study on this.  What really is meant here?

Share