A curious article about an archaeological dig in Smyrna is highlighted by Mike Aquilina at Way of the Fathers.
Tag: Bible
Legends about what the Chronicon Pascale says
After Eusebius invented the idea of the “Chronicle of World History”, subsequent writers produced considerable numbers of these. As a rule these start with Adam, using the Bible and Eusebius to cover stuff up to Constantine, and then whatever continuations and paraphrases were available.
The Chronicon Pascale is an example of this genre. It’s a Greek World Chronicle, composed around 630 AD in the reign of the Eastern Roman Emperor Heraclius, just half a dozen years before the Arabs charge out of the desert and find no-one in any shape to resist them. No translation of the whole thing exists, apart from the renaissance Latin version printed in the Patrologia Graeca 92. Whitby and Whitby made an English translation of the portion from 284 AD onwards.
Bill Thayer of Lacus Curtius forwarded me an email in which someone raised an interesting query:
…in “The Story of Religious Controversy”, a book written in 1929 by Joseph McCabe. In the chapter entitled “Morals in Ancient Egypt,” he is speaking of the son of the goddess Isis–Horus–and says: “An early Christian work, the ‘Paschal Chronicle’ (Migne ed. xcii. col 385), tells us that every year the temples of Horus presented to worshippers, in mid-winter (or about December 25th), a scenic model of the birth of Horus. He was represented as a babe born in a stable, his mother Isis standing by.”
I hope we all know better than to believe the crude falsehoods about Christian origins circulated by bitter atheists online. But does the CP say any such thing? I went off to look.
Skimming over the Latin side , I find a discussion of Jeremiah’s prediction of Christ, starting in col. 383, “De Jeremia”. This starts with one of the messianic passages, mirrored in Matthew – which he quotes – and then says is also in Hebrews. Then he goes on (my own rough translation of key points):
“Jeremiah was from Anathoth, and was killed in Taphais in Egypt by being stoned by the people, and sleeps in the place where Pharaoh’s palace is, (..because he was very respected..) because when they were infested with the aquatic animals, called Menephoth in Egyptian and crocodiles in Greek. Even today those faithful to God who take some of the dust of that place can drive crocodiles away”
One may hope that no-one actually experimented with live crocodiles to verify this.
Then follows a story that Alexander, when he came to Egypt, and heard about the “arcana” which he had predicted, removed the prophet’s relics to Alexandria, for some other similar magic which I can’t quite make out. It then continues:
“This sign Jeremiah gave to the priests of Aegypt, predicting the future, that their idols would be destroyed and ? by a boy saviour born of a virgin, and laid in a manger.”
It goes on:
“Quapropter etiamvero ut deam colunt virginem puerperam, et infantem in praesepi adorant.
For which reason (?) they honour a pregnant virgin goddess and worship an infant in a manger.
When king Ptolemy asked why, they told him that they received this secret from the holy prophet handed down by their fathers. The same prophet Jeremiah, before the destruction of the temple, …” (more stuff about prophecy).
Migne quotes a note by DuCange (25) which says that this bit about a virgin comes from Epiphanius and Simon Logothetes (who?). No reference is given, unfortunately, and I was unable to find it in the Panarion.
This last bit is probably the kernel of the story that we see in highly embroidered form above.
I am objective, you are biased, he is a fundamentalist bigot; blogs and the SBL
Bill Mounce runs a Christian blog, Koinonia, and happened to mention that:
ETS is now over and many of the people have move on to Boston to attend IBR (Institute of Biblical Research) and SBL (Society of Biblical Literature), which is the largest of the three organizations. SBL is the least friendly of the organizations toward evangelicals and therefore perhaps our greatest opportunity for engagement in a non-evangelical theological culture.
For some reason Jim West decided to ridicule him for this, surely fairly banal comment:
So -what can SBL do to be ‘friendly’ to the poor, benighted, oppressed inerrantists? Formulate a statement of faith asserting biblical inerrancy and force members to sign it or be denied membership? Deny membership to anyone with a different point of view? (etc)
Phew! This is the language of hate, not reasoned discourse. Or is the SBL something Holy That Must Not Be Criticised?
James McGrath noted this exchange, and it was his comment that I found most interesting:
That post helps clarify what the issue is: at SBL we study the Bible, have to face critical scrutiny of our arguments from others, and cannot get away with simply imposing our presuppositions on the text. So indeed, those who want that should look elsewhere, but the irony is that those who do go elsewhere form sectarian groups that manage to persuade themselves that they are the ones who are treating the Bible with respect by shielding it from the honest critical investigation of mainstream Biblical scholarship.
Those of us with a habit of looking at arguments from all sides will recognise that this is open to the objection that he is merely saying that the views he agrees with are objective, “honest”, “critical”, it seems; those of others are not. But asserting it does not make it so; indeed usually indicates the reverse.
Isn’t treating the bible as NOT inspired just as much a religious position as treating it as inspired? Is there any practical difference between treating the bible like this, and treating the bible as uninspired? The latter is emphatically NOT a value-neutral position, after all. To say that “we cannot get away with simply imposing our presuppositions on the text” is the problem; that is precisely what any such gathering must do, once it decides to reject the Christian perspective as a “presupposition”.
The tendency for those who study the bible from the non-Christian point of view to treat this as if it was objective has gone on for at least a century. Christians naturally demur, and quite rightly. It’s time to recognise that, on issues of politics and religion, there is no neutrality. We Christians notice the animosity — and Jim West will help any who don’t! Instead, wouldn’t it be more constructive to manage the various biases, rather than blandly claiming objectivity for one side?
Postscript: Jim West did not comment on this post. James McGrath posted three comments, all essentially the same, attacking the ETS instead of addressing the post or engaging in dialogue. When he posted yet another, I was forced to moderate it, as he knew I would have to – brinking me, in effect (I explain this version of trolling in the comments). Then he posted a further FOUR diatribes; eight in total. He then scampered back to his own blog and attacked me personally for being “intolerant” in a further three posts. I admit to being mildly amused at provoking such a vicious rage for merely querying whether the SBL was doing the right thing!
I’m not a member of either the ETS or the SBL. But the original query was whether the SBL was as welcoming as it might be to Christians. The response of its defenders was to viciously attack the Christians in a frankly hysterical manner. Still, this indicates just why the Christians feel hostility – because, indeed, there is hostility.
Greek words in the first millennium
This post at Vitruvian Design is very timely to a man trying to write some Greek->English translation software. I can’t comment on it from behind this firewall, so will comment here.
I am delighted to see someone else interested in getting a master list of Greek words and morphologies for the first thousand years. I must look into this project that is referred to. The problem, surely, will be patristic Greek; and the answer would be to turn G.W.H.Lampe’s Patristic Lexicon into an XML file, in the same way that Perseus have done for Liddell and Scott. Someone would have to argue with Oxford, who own the copyright; but for non-commercial use, I expect a license could be negotiated. Lampe is out of print anyway.
I think that I know why Liddell and Scott give weird accusatives as an extra entry. The book is designed for manual use, and someone finding an odd word is liable to look for something in that form, rather than the unknown to them base form. But such things are unnecessary in a digital file, I agree.
Not all of the files mentioned in the post are known to me. I know that an XML file of L&S exists in the Perseus Hopper, and also in the Diogenes download. But I’m not clear where to find the “invaluable list” by Peter Heslin resulting from running the Perseus morphologiser over the TLG disk E. A morphology file greek.morph.xml is part of the Perseus Hopper download.
The issue of mismatches between this and L&S is quite interesting. I’d like to follow this more.
But one obvious omission is the New Testament. The morphology list in MorphGNT is also available; and English meanings in the XML file of Strong’s dictionary. These too need integrating into the project, I would suggest.
All this work is enormously valuable. The project is also trying to establish something shockingly fundamental; a list of extant Greek literature!
I’m not sure how I feel about this. I agree that the task should be undertaken — indeed it’s appallingly hard to find out these things, as I found out when I wanted a list of manuscript traditions — , but it seems a digression from the main IT-related task. They’ve decided to start with poets; again, a minority taste. I can’t help feeling that this task should be spun off.
The post also introduces me to Epidoc, of which I know little, in the context of converting to and from unicode. If some way to do this reliably exists, I want it! More details here. This is the ‘transcoder’.
All in all, a super post!
Fixed width Greek unicode fonts
I’ve been trying to work with the latest version of Jim Tauber’s MorphGNT text file. For those who don’t know it, it contains all the words in the Greek New Testament, one per line, each identified as noun/verb/plural/whatever, with the word itself as found in the text, plus the dictionary form of the word. No English meaning; but that can be got from using the dictionary form to look up the meaning in the XML file of Strong’s dictionary.
The Greek used to be present in beta-code, but Jim has now converted to unicode. That’s fine; except that you now need a font in which to work on it. Like most text files, you want a fixed-width font.
I suspect Jim does his magic on linux, where one is available. But on Windows there is no such free font. I understand, tho, that the new version of “Courier New” shipped in Vista will do the trick.
I came across this discussion in a typographic forum, where a Microsoft font-person lurks. It lists some of the possible commercial fonts you could use.
Harnack talks gospel catena manuscripts – in German
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).
Greek gospel catenas 4: catenas on John
There are six types of catena on John. The bulk of all of them comes from the same sources:
-
John Chrysostom’s Sermons on John
-
Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on John
-
Ammonius
-
Origen’s Commentary on John; possibly also from the Excerpta in quasdam partes Iohannis which is attributed to him by Jerome (Letter 33, 4).
Type A: This consists of four catenas, starting in the 5-6th century and running down to the 8th century, according to Reuss.
- This catena contains extracts by Chrysostom and Hesychius of Jerusalem.
- This is an augmented version of #1, which adds extracts from Photius.
- This one was compiled by Leo Patricius, and is an abridged version of #1. It adds a number of extracts without indicating the author, although in fact nearly all of them are by Chrysostom.
- The comprehensive version of type A adds extracts by many other fathers, including Ammonius, Apollinaris, and Theodore of Heraclea.
Type B: Two catenas make up this type.
- The first catena gives no names of authors for the extracts that it includes. The compilation is attributed to Peter of Laodicea.
- A more complete version of the catena contains more than 800 extracts. Most of these are by Ammonius, or preceded by the words: ἐκ διαφόρων or ἀνεπίγραφος.
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:
-
Athos, Lavra B. 113. Geerard labels this “Type G”.
-
Munich, State Library gr. 208.
-
Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale Suppl. gr. 1225.
-
Vatican gr. 349.
-
Vatican gr. 1229 (11-12th century)
-
Vatican gr. 1618 (16th century)
-
Rome, Biblioteca dei Lincei A. 300.
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.
Greek gospel catenas 3: catenas on Luke
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:
-
The basic catena
-
An extended form
-
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.
Greek gospel catenas 2: catenas on Mark
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.
Greek gospel catenas 1: catenas on Matthew
There are four types of catena on Matthew.
Type A: there are four versions of this.
-
This contains mainly extracts from Chrysostom’s sermons. Other authors are Isidore of Pelusium, Cyril of Alexandria; the monk Theodore.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.