Thoughts on Antiquity, Patristics, putting things online, information access, and more
Wanted: people who know Coptic and would like 10c a word to translate it! There are quite a few fragments of Eusebius in the coptic catena of De Lagarde, and I’d like to get them all translated into English. A friend has just completed the second one — which was 134 words long. But there’s plenty more to do.
Interestingly the same catena has a fragment from Apollinaris, on Luke 1. Clearly the fact that a writer was a heretic was not that important in the catenas.
Few will be aware that there is a passage in Cramer’s catena ascribed to Apollinaris of Laodicea which quotes from the fourth book of Papias on the fate of Judas. Indeed there are two passages; one from the catena on Matthew (on ch. 27), and another from the catena on Acts (on ch. 1), although in fact it is the same passage quoted at different lengths. The text of one can be found here.
Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before choking. And this the Acts of the Apostles makes clear, that falling headlong his middle burst and his bowels poured forth. And Papias the disciple of John records this most clearly, saying thus in the fourth of the Exegeses of the Words of the Lord:
and then one of two versions:
Judas walked about as an example of godlessness in this world, having been bloated so much in the flesh that he could not go through where a chariot goes easily, indeed not even his swollen head by itself. For the lids of his eyes, they say, were so puffed up that he could not see the light, and his own eyes could not be seen, not even by a physician with optics, such depth had they from the outer apparent surface. And his genitalia appeared more disgusting and greater than all formlessness, and he bore through them from his whole body flowing pus and worms, and to his shame these things alone were forced [out]. And after many tortures and torments, they say, when he had come to his end in his own place, from the place became deserted and uninhabited until now from the stench, but not even to this day can anyone go by that place unless they pinch their nostrils with their hands, so great did the outflow from his body spread out upon the earth.
or
Judas lived his career in this world as an enormous example of impiety. He was so swollen in the flesh that he could not pass where a wagon could easily pass. Having been crushed by a wagon, his entrails poured out.
The Greek of both may be found on pp.22-30 of Lake’s The Beginning of Christianity (thanks to Andrew Criddle for the reference). Lake comments that further research in the catenas would probably allow the text to be improved; one may wonder whether anyone has done so since. He continues:
It will be seen, however, that these versions differ in one very important point. In the catena on Acts the whole story is attributed to Papias; but in the catena on Matthew the quotation from Apollinarius which contains the extract from Papias ends with the statement that Judas was crushed by a wagon, and a new extract from Apollinarius then begins and gives a more elaborate and gruesome account of the swelling up and death of Judas. These two versions do not agree; in one the wagon is the cause of death, in the other it is part of the comparison and only mentioned to show the extent to which Judas was swollen. The question is whether the crushing by a wagon or the longer version ia really that of Papias.
The matter cannot be settled with certainty, but J. Rendel Harris has tried to bring the balance of probability to the side of the attribution of the longer version by pointing out in the American Journal of Theology, July 1900, p. 501, that Bar Salibi in his commentary on Acts quotes the passage about the [Greek], and definitely ascribes it to Papias. It is extremely improbable that Bar Salibi used the catena of Andreas, so that this is independent evidence that the passage was taken from Papias by Apollinarius.
If so, Papias described Judas as living after the betrayal, and dying from a disease so terrible that his estate remained unoccupied. Among the symptoms mentioned was extreme swelling, so that a place where a wagon could pass was too narrow for him. This comparison gave rise to a secondary form of the story which represented Judas as crushed by a wagon. …
On the other hand, general probability would perhaps suggest that the shorter version is likely to be original If so, the gruesome details and the changed form of the longer version is due to a desire to pile up horrors and to make the death of Judas similar to that of other notoriously evil men, such as Herod the Great or Nadan in the story of Ahikar. To me this seems somewhat the more probable hypothesis. Whichever view be taken, Papias clearly represents a tradition different both from Matthew and from Acts.
Lake continues, examining a lot of early and interesting witnesses on the various explanations of the death of Judas, and how these were harmonised.
It would be nice to know what Dionysius bar-Salibi says. Note that here again we have a 12th century Syriac author being used as a witness to an ancient text!
The translator for the Origen homilies is really doing an excellent job. He ‘s been looking into the issue of why the excerpts from catenas printed by Baehrens in the GCS are shorter than those printed by Migne (reprinting the Delarue edition).
Translating some of the latter reveals that they contain material evidently not by Origen; indeed disagreeing with the Origen material that they quote. Baehrens gives a reference to Faulhaber, Die Propheten-Catenen nach rom. Hss. (= Bibl. Stud. 4, 2.3 [1899]) , which is actually online at Google books (for US readers). Biblische Studien IV is here.
Faulhaber lists the 233 fragments by Origen on Ezekiel on pp. 153-5, and states that these are taken partly from the Homilies, and partly from Origen’s scholia on Ezechiel. He also notes (p.154) that the material in Migne is often plainly from the Homilies, but needs further study. It seems that Delarue had a catena manuscript rather different to the others.
All of the Latin of homily 1 on Ezechiel is now translated into English, and pretty much finalised. But an issue has arisen. Extracts of Origen’s original Greek exist in the medieval Greek commentaries, comprised as they are of chains (catenas) of extracts from the fathers. These are printed where relevant at the bottom of Baehrens’ edition in the Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller edition. But we have discovered that the extracts printed in the older Patrologia Graeca edition are fuller. What do we do?
Do we just translate what Baehrens printed, presuming that he rejected the rest as inauthentic; or do we use the longer text? We need to find out what Baehrens thought he was doing, if he tells us.
One thing that would help would be to consult the full text of the catena. But of course this is very difficult. Catenas do exist in print, but in general we just don’t have proper accessible editions of the major catenas. This is a barrier, not merely to patristics, but also to biblical studies.
To edit one of these sprawling monsters must be difficult; but why don’t people have a go?
I’ve made use of the medieval commentary published by J. A. Cramer for fragments of Eusebius, but some of the attributions have seemed a bit odd. Quite by accident today I was skimming through volume 6 of the Journal of Theological Studies, when I came across an article by Claude Jenkins on p.113-116 about the Origen citations in the portion of Cramer from 1 Corinthians.
The author notes that Cramer was dependent on copyists for access to the manuscripts, which he could not inspect himself. Comparison of Cramer with his source, Paris Cois. gr. 204 (a copy of Vat. gr. 762, unknown to Cramer) reveals that Cramer’s text routinely assigns passages to Origen which are clearly assigned to Chrysostom in the manuscript. The article assigns the blame for miscopying a very clear 16th century manuscript to the scriba Parisinensis whom Cramer was obliged to use.
Some of the fragments assigned to Eusebius in the catena on the gospels that I have had translated have looked very like portions of Chrysostom. So this is probably a general problem.
What this means, of course, is that we cannot depend on Cramer. We urgently need someone to correct the text and reissue it.
I’ve now discovered that Harnack listed manuscripts of the gospel catenas in Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Teil 1, Halfte 2., pp. 838-40. Here’s what he says (although all those abbreviations make it very hard for any non-specialist not already familiar with the literature!):
VI. Catenen zum NT. hat J. A. Cramer veröffentlicht (8 Bde. Oxon. 1838 ff.) Aber diese Ausgabe bezeichnet nach jeder Richtung hin nur einen sehr bescheidenen Anfang, und sie entspricht in keiner Hinsicht den Anforderungen, die man heute an eine kritische Ausgabe einer Catene zu stellen berechtigt ist. Gegenüber der Catene des Nikephoros bedeutet sie sogar ohne Frage einen Rückschritt.
Eine Catene zu den vier Evv. ist m. W. bisher noch nicht gedruckt S. Cod. Paris. 178 sc. XI. 187 sc. XI. 191 sc XI. 230 f. 41 sc. XI. — Coislin. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. sc. XI. 195 f. 10 sc. X. — Venet. Marc. 27 sc X. — Bodl. Laud. 33 sc. XI. Misc gr. 1 sc. XII (wie es scheint, sind die Namen der excerpirten Autoren bei den beiden letzten Catenen ausgelassen. Ob auch bei den anderen in den genannten Hss. befindlichen, vermag ich nicht anzugeben. Wäre das nicht der Fall, so würden die Hss. immerhin für die Textherstellung der die Namen nennenden Catenen zu verwerten sein).
Zu Matth. ist eine Catene des Nicetas. in der u. a. Clemens Al., Euseb., Gregor. Thaumat., Irenaeus, Origenes (Marcion, Montanus) citirt werden, von Petr. Possinus (Tolosae 1646) nach einer Hs. des Erzbischofs von Toulouse, Ch. de Montchal, und der Abschnitt eines Cod. Vatic. herausgegeben worden. Eine andere hat Balth. Corderius (Tolos. 1647) nach einem Cod. Monac. edirt (u. a. Clemens Al., Iren.) Cramer benutzte für seine Ausgabe den Cod. Coislin. 23 sc XI und teilte am Ende des Bandes noch die Varianten des Cod. Bodl. Auct T. 1. 4 sc X mit.
Hss: Cod. Vatic gr. 349. 1423. — Hieros. S. Sab. 232 sc. X. — Matrit. O. 62. 63 sc XIV. — Paris. gr. 188 sc XI f. 1 (unter dem Namen des Chrysostomus) 193 sc. XV. 194 sc. XIII (Mt. u. Mc.). 199 sc. XII (Chrysost.-cat ebenso die flgdd.). 200 sc XI. 201 sc XI. 202 sc. XII. 203 sc XII (Chrysost et Petrus [?] in Comm. Mt). 231 sc XII (Mt. Lc. Joh.) — Coislin. 24 sc XI (Mt. Mc.) (vgl. Bodl. Misc. gr. 30 sc XV, in der nur Autoren citirt werden, die nach 325 fallen).
Zu Marcus hat ebenfalls Petr. Possinus eine Catene nach einer Hs. desselben Erzbisohofs (s. o.) herausgegeben; dazu hat er noch eine Catene unter dem Namen des Chrysostomus benutzt, die Corderius einem Cod. Vatic. entnahm, und endlich den Commentar des Victor Antioch., der bereits vorher lateinisch von Peltanus veröffentlicht worden war (Ingolstadt 1580). Der Commentar des Victor Antioch. ist dann griechisch nach Moskauer Hss. von Matthaei (Biktwros presb. A0ntiox… e0ch/ghsij ei0j to\ kata\ Ma/rkon eu0agge/lion, Mosquae 1775) edirt worden. Cramer (Cat in NT. I, Ozon. 1840) benutzte eine längere und eine kürzere Recension, von denen die erste unter dem Namen des Cyrillus Alex. (— Chrysost?), die andere unter dem des Victor steht.
Die von Cramer benutzten Hss. sind Cod. Bodl. Laud. 33 sc. XII, Coislin. 23 sc X, Paris. gr. 178. Vgl. ferner: Cod. Hierosol. S. Sab. 263 sc. XIII. — Cod. Patm. 57 sc XII (nach Sakkelion, Patm. bibl. p. 46 von Possinus verschieden). — Vatic. Reg. 6 sc XVI. — Cod. Paris. 188 sc XI f. 141. 194 sc XIII (Cat in Mt. et Mc). 206 a. 1307 (Victor) Coislin. 24 sc XI (Cat in Mt. et Mc). 206 1. 2. sc XI (Chrysost et alior. patr. comm. in IV evv.). Über einen Cod. Vindob. s. Kollarius zu Lambecius, Comment. III, p. 157sq. (Cod. XXXVIII) — theol. gr. 117?
Die in der Catene genannten Schriftsteller (darunter Clemens Al. str. XLV [lies V, p. 573 s. Fabricius-Harl., l. c. p. 675], Euseb. dem. ev. III, ad Marin. c XIII, epitom. chron., canon. chronic., Irenaeus, Justin, Marcioniten, Origenes [darunter Citate ans dem VI. tom. in Joh.: s. Cramer p. 266, 12 sqq. — Orig. in Joh. VI, 14 p. 215, 5-14 Lomm., Cramer p. 314 — Orig. VI, 24, p. 239, 6-21 Lomm.], Valentinianer) s. bei Fabr.-Harl., l. c. 675.
Eine Catene zu Lucas hat B. Corderius Antverp. 1628 nur lateinisch veröffentliche nach einem Cod. Venet Marc (er nennt ausserdem einen Cod. [Monac] und Viennensis). Der griechische Text ist leider noch immer nicht veröffentlicht.
Einen Commentar, der auf den des Titus v. Bostra zurückgeht, veröffentlichte Cramer, Caten. in NT. II, Oxon. 1841 nach Cod. Bodl. Auct. T. 1.4 und Laud. 33.
Die weitaus wichtigere Catene zu Luc. (von Nicetas v. Serrae), für die wir noch immer auf die lateinische Übersetzung des Corderius angewiesen sind, findet sich in folgenden Hss. Cod. Vatic. 1611. 759 (von c. 12 ab) vgl. Cod. Vatic. 1270. 349. 758. 1423. 547. — Casanat. G. V. 14. — Vatic. Palat 20 sc. XIII. Vatic. Regin. 3 sc. XI. 6 sc XVI. — Hierosol. S. Sabae. 263 sc. XIII. — Paris. 208 sc XIV. 211 sc. XIII (Joh., Luc). 212 sc. XIII. 213 sc. XIV. 231 sc. XII. 232 sc XII. — Monac. 33 sc. XVI. 473 sc. XIII (vgl. 208 sc X f. 235). — Bodl. Misc. 182 sc. XI f. 174b. (Vgl. Paris. 193 sc XV, der Fragmente enthalt).
Ein Verzeichniss der Autoren (darunter Clemens Al., Dionys. Al., Euseb., [Gregor. Thaumat.?], Hippolyt., Irenaeus, Justinus, Method., Origenes) s. bei Fabricius-Harl., l. c. p. 687 sqq.
Zu Johannes ist eine Catene ebenfalls von Balth. Corderius, Antverp. 1630 herausgegeben worden (nach einer Trierer Hs.). Eine kürzere edirte Cramer, Cat in NT II, Oxon. 1841.
Hss: Cod. Matrit O. 10. O. 32. — Paris. 188 sc XI f. 203 (unter dem Namen des Chrysostomus, wie viele der folgenden Hss.). 189 sc XII f. 1. 200 sc XI. 201 sc. XI. 202 sc. XII. 209 sc. XI-XII. 210 sc. XII. 211 sc. XIII. 212 sc. XIII. 213 sc. XIV. 231 sc. XII. — Monac. 37 sc. XVI. 208 sc. X f. 107. 437 sc XI. Laurent. VI, 18. — Vatic. Regin. 9 sc. X. — Bodl. Barocc. 225 sc. XII. Miscell. 182 sc. XI f. 174b. — Berol. Phill. 1420 sc. XVI.
Die citirten Autoren nennt Fabric-Harl., l. c p. 689 sqq. (darunter: Basilides, Cerinth., Iren., Marcion, Menander, Montan., Nicolaus, Novatus, Origenes, Papias, Sabellius, Saturninus).
There are six types of catena on John. The bulk of all of them comes from the same sources:
Type A: This consists of four catenas, starting in the 5-6th century and running down to the 8th century, according to Reuss.
Type B: Two catenas make up this type.
Type C: This catena is mainly from John Chrysostom, and dates from the early 10th century. The attributions are not always reliable.
Type D: This consists mainly of extracts from Ammonius, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Heraclea and Theodore of Mopsuestia. It is found in Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana gr. E. 40.
Type E: This catena also is mainly from John Chrysostom, and was compiled in 1080 by Nicetas of Heraclea. Macarius Chrysocephalus’ λογός 16 uses material from this catena.
Type F: This consists mainly of extracts from Ammonius, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Heraclea and Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Others: There are also catenas on John in the following manuscripts:
The Curzon Coptic Catena published by de Lagarde and its Arabic descendant also contain a catena on John.
Editions: J. Reuss, Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, Berlin (1966).
Studies: R. Devreese, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement 1 (Paris, 1928), pp. 1194-1205, on the John catenas. M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum 4, pp. 242-248. Karo and Lietzman, (as in intro), pp. 143-151.
There are five types of catena on Luke, according to J. Reuss.
Type A: This is the earliest catena-type. It is attributed to Titus of Bostra. Reuss divides it into three groups, composed between the 6th and 8th centuries:
Most of the contents are from Cyril of Alexandria’s 156 Sermons on Luke. They also contain matter from Chrysostom’s Sermons on Matthew, Titus of Bostra’s Commentaries on Luke, and Origen’s Commentary on Luke and Sermons on Luke.
Type B: This is a different catena, attributed to Peter of Laodicea. It too is divided into three groups in the same way, and containing material from much the same sources as A.
Type C: This very valuable catena contains almost 3,300 extracts from almost 70 authors. It was compiled by Nicetas of Heraclea between 1100 and 1117. The contents are very reliable; the authors quoted are correctly labelled and the extracts given are faithful to the originals.
The following authors are quoted once:
There are also extracts from Latin authors (in Greek translation):
Some 50 extracts on Luke 1 are labelled “Him of Jerusalem”, and probably are from Hesychius of Jerusalem.
There are many manuscripts of this catena. These may be divided into three classes. The best codex is Vatican graecus 1611, dated 1116-7 AD.
The catena of Macarius Chrysocephalus is mainly of type C; the few extra extracts are marked with a chr-rho between an alpha and omega.
Type D: This catena was compiled in the 10th-11th century, but is earlier than that of Nicetas (type C). It contains only a few extracts, which it abridges or paraphrases but does not alter.
Type E: This catena only covers Luke 1:1-11:33. It is found in a manuscript of the British Bible Society, ms. 24 (codex Zacynthius rescriptus). This dates to the 7-8th century; possibly after 750, and is the earliest witness to a catena on Luke.
Others: There are some anonymous catenas on Luke which contain extracts in the following manuscripts:
The Curzon Coptic Catena published by de Lagarde, and its Arabic descendant, also contain catena materials on Luke.
Editions: J. Reuss, Lukas-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. Berlin (1984).
Studies: R. Devreese, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement 1 (Paris, 1928), pp. 1181-1194, on the Luke catenas. M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum 4, pp. 237-242. Karo and Lietzman, (as in intro), pp.132-143.
Links: A thesis on Ms. Athos, Lavra 174 (1274 AD), which contains a diplomatic edition of a catena on Luke related to that of Nicetas, is here.
Continuing our series, we reach catenas on Mark.
Victor of Antioch composed Commentaries on Mark. Two versions are known. The fragments come mainly from:
There are also some extracts from:
Other catenas include:
Editions: Reuss did not publish a catena on Mark. Instead we have rather older editions of Victor’s catena.
Recension 1:
Recension 2:
It is unclear from the Patrology whether the Curzon Coptic Catena (and it’s Arabic descendant) are also classified as a recension 2 text; perhaps someone could clarify this point.
Studies: R. Devreese, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement 1 (Paris, 1928), pp. 1175-1181, on the Mark catenas. M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum 4, pp. 235-237. Karo and Lietzman, (as in intro), pp.131-132.