Tag: Bible

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:

1. The basic catena
2. An extended form
3. A very extended form

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. 

• More than 870 extracts are from the works of Chrysostom.
• 3 extracts from Cosmas of Maiuma (not Indicopleustes, as Geerard states)
• 2 from Cyril of Jerusalem
• 2 from Justin Martyr

The following authors are quoted once:

• Alexander the monk, on Luke 2:1
• Anastasius – either the presbyter or a disciple of Maximus the Confessor – on Luke 2:20.
• Andrew of Crete on Luke 1:3
• Flavian I of Antioch on Like 1:35
• Phosterius on Luke 23:32 f.
• Gennadius of Constantinople on Luke 6:3
• John the Carpathian on Luke 8:56
• Julius Africanus on Luke 3:24
• Josephus against Luke 6:3
• Ignatius on Luke 3:21
• Isaiah of Scete on Luke 14:26
• Methodius of Olympus on Luke 11:32
• Paul of Emesa on Luke 23:33
• Synesius of Cyrene on Luke 11:4
• Theodore of Heraclea on Luke 10:13

There are also extracts from Latin authors (in Greek translation):

• Ambrose of Milan, 4 times
• Cyprian on Luke 23:40
• John Cassian on Luke 18:10
• Pope Sylvester on Luke 23:33
• Pope Leo I on Luke 23:33

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.

• Theodore of Mopsuestia
• Cyril of Alexandria
• Photius
• Modestus of Jerusalem on Luke 24:40
• Caesarius on Luke 6:1

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:

• Vienna, National Library, theol. gr. 301 (11th century).  Reuss classifies this as type F.
• Munich, State Library, gr. 208 (9-10th century), containing extracts on Luke 1:1-2:40.

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:

• Chrysostom, Sermons on Matthew
• Origen, Commentary on Matthew
• Origen, Commentary on John
• Cyril of Alexandria, Sermons on Luke
• Titus of Bostra, Commentaries on Luke

There are also some extracts from:

• Basil of Caesarea, on Mark 9:50.
• Gregory of Nyssa, on Mark 15:29-32.
• Ambrose and Augustine (in Greek translation), on Mark 14:34.

Other catenas include:

• An anonymous catena in Vatican gr. 1692, which also contains the Ambrose/Augustine material.
• 180 extracts are present in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale gr. 194.
• A few may be found in Rome, Palatinus gr. 220; Vatican gr. 349; Biblioteca dei Lincei A. 300.

Editions:  Reuss did not publish a catena on Mark.  Instead we have rather older editions of Victor’s catena.

• T. Peltano, Victoris Antiocheni Commentarii, Ingolstadt (1580).  There is no indication which recension this is.

Recension 1:

• C. F. Matthaei, Βίκτωρος πρεσβυτέρου Ἀντιοχείας καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἐξήγησις εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον ex codicibus Mosquensibus, 2 vols, Moscow (1775)
• S. Markfi, Codex graecus quatuor Euangeliorum e Bibliotheca Uniuersitatis Pestinensis cum interpretatione hungarica, Pestini (1860), pp. 125-201.

Recension 2:

• P. Possinus, Catena Graecorum Patrum in euangelium secundum Marcum, Rome (1672)
• J. Cramer, Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum, Oxford (1840).  Various versions of this edition exist.

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.

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.