Tag: Eusebius Commentary on the Psalms

Testing the catenas – Carmelo Curti on Eusebius on the Psalms

Posted on by Roger Pearse

We all know that medieval Greek commentaries on the bible were compiled by chaining together extracts from commentaries on the book in question by the Fathers. Often these catenas continue to exist, when the original works are lost.  They are therefore a valuable source for retrieving early Christian comments on biblical verses.

But … to string these quotes together, the compilers had to adapt the quotations, if only slightly; they had to add bridging words, tweak tenses.  They had to abbreviate, very often.  So the question before us is whether we can rely on the quotations.

Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a monster commentary on the Psalms.  Unusually, a third of it still exists, preserved in ms. Coislin 44.  This means we can compare the original text with the catenas, and get an idea of the value of each.  Carmelo Curti wrote an interesting article on this [1], from which I have translated a couple of passages:

Of the famous “Commentarii in Psalmos” of Eusebius of Caesarea, about a third, Pss. 51-95,3, has been transmitted to us directly in the manuscript Coislin 44, saec. X [1] and the rest of the work, Pss. 1-50 and 95,4-150, came to us through the catenas, i.e. a path which, as is well-known, is among the least easy for the editor of Christian texts in the Greek language. The importance of the Coislin manuscript does not end in giving us a text genuine, complete and, in principle, correct of one part of the commentary of Eusebius. The manuscript also allows us to determine through appropriate comparisons, the value of those catenas that, together with other fragments of the Eusebian commentaries, contain some passages related to Pss. 51-95,3, i.e. that part attested by Coislin 44. This is the case for two catenary codices, Patmos Monastery St. John 215, saec. XII-XIII and Ambrosianus F 126 sup. century. XIII, deriving independently from a common original and, according to the classification of Karo-Lietzmann, Catena-type XI [2]. Together with fragments of other exegetes of the Psalter, the first one transmits fragments of the commentary of Eusebius on Pss. 78,5-150, the other,  fragments of the same comment that referring to Pss. 83,4-150 [3].

In my study published in 1972, comparing the text of these manuscripts with those witnessed by Coislin 44, I have demonstrated: first, that the compiler of the base catena, from which directly or indirectly our two witnesses derive, used a copy which belonged to the same branch of the tradition as the Coislin manuscript and secondly, that this compiler, while often omitting the comment of entire entries, has worked on the text under his eyes generally by abbreviating …, i.e. removing words or phrases or even whole periods not deemed essential to the meaning …. It follows that from Ps. 95.4 — as has been said, with Ps. 95.3 the Coislin manuscript unfortunately stops — the editor of the Eusebian commentary can be  certain that the text given by the two catena codices is usually genuine, though mutilated and spoiled by the omission of words or phrases or even whole sentences in the passages relating to verses for which they have preserved the comment.

By contrast, the contribution of the two catenas for the constitution of the exegesis of the Eusebian text on Pss. 51-95,3 — for this section, as we have said, we are aided by Coislin 44 — is of course not as relevant but still not entirely negligible. They in fact, as we will show in this chapter, in many cases allow us to improve the text offered by the Coislin manuscript, some correcting obvious mistakes, others filling gaps, others attesting variants which may deserve more consideration.

As documentation of what we have stated above, we give some examples. We quote the text of Coislin, which generally corresponds to that reproduced in PG 23, noting the variations  between the two catena manuscripts in parentheses. …

In conclusion, for the constitution of the text even in that part of the Eusebian commentary that is preserved in Coislin 44, the manuscripts Ambrosiano F 126 sup. and Patmos S. John Monastery 215 can not be ignored. They in fact, as we believe we have demonstrated, correct obvious errors in Coislin 44, restored to Eusebius words (or phrases) missing in this codex — both attributable to the copyist of the oislin ms. or that of his source –,  and also offer alternative readings that are worthy, in some cases, of some attention. The mistakes of Coislin in truth are mostly of the sort that could easily be corrected by the action of a prudent, unhurried editor (but all those mentioned in the course of this chapter are found in the edition of de Montfaucon reproduced in PG 23). It is a different matter for omissions, which are always difficult to divine and are risky to infer in any text and, more importantly, in a text of prose. For these the testimony of the two catenary manuscripts becomes extremely important and irreplaceable.

It is always good to test our theories about what is happening in catenas.  It is a relief to learn that they really do have value to the editor.  That lesson should be applicable well beyond the specific case of Eusebius on the Psalms.

1. C. Curti, I “Commentarii in Psalmos” di Eusebio di Cesarea: tradizione diretta (Coislin 44) e tradizione catenaria.  In: Eusebiana 1, 2nd ed, 169-179.

Share

More on Eusebius on the Psalms

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I got curious as to what else might be found using Google books. about Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary on the Psalms.  Apparently Syriac fragments also exist, mentioned in Wright’s Catal. Syr. MSS. Brit. Mus. pp. 35 sq., 125.  A certain Robert Leo Odom, Sunday in Roman Paganism: A history of the planetary week and its “day of the Sun” in the heathenism of  the Roman world during the early centuries of the Christian Era, writing on the transfer of the Sabbath to Sunday repeats the quotes we saw before, but with a Migne reference and his own translation:

He appears to be the first ecclesiastical writer to spiritualize and accommodate to Christian thought the very pagan name of the day, saying that “on it to our souls the Sun of Righteousness rose.” 7 And he speaks of seeing “the face of the glory of Christ, and to behold the day of His light.” 8 Indeed, he is the first Christian writer to maintain that Christ Himself transferred Sabbath observance from the seventh to the first day of the week. On this point he said: “Wherefore, being rejected of them [the Jews], the Word [Christ] by the new covenant translated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the dawn of light, and handed down to us a likeness of the true rest: the saving and Lord’s and first day of light.” 9

It is interesting to note, also, that in the very same discourse he unwittingly reveals who the real authors of the change were, saying: “All things whatsoever it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as being more appropriate, and chief, and first, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath.” 10

7 Eusebius, Commentary on the Psalms, Ps. 91 (Ps. 92 in A. V.), in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Gratia, Vol. 23, col. 1172, author’s translation.
8 Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, book 4, chap. 16 (comment on Ps. 84:9, 10), translation by W. J. Ferrar, Vol. 1, p. 207.
9 Eusebius, Commentary on the Psalms, Ps. 91 (Ps. 92 in A. V.), in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 23, col. 1169, author’s translation.
10 Ibid., col. 1172, author’s translation. 

Of course by “us” Eusebius means “the Christians”, not himself personally!

The Odom book is very interesting, and full of hard factual data.  Looking at the overview, we see instantly that he reprints all the images of the pages of the days of the week from the “Chronography of 354”.  I’d like to read it; but who can read such a book on-screen?

Moving on, apparently Eusebius also refers to the finding of the cross.  Lardner seems to be one of the few to use this work by Eusebius, and did so from Montfaucon’s publication; and indeed, what else could he use?  Again, how we need someone to edit this work!

Share

A stray quotation from Eusebius, “Commentary on the Psalms”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Quite by accident I came across some supposed quotations from the Commentary on the Psalms by Eusebius of Caesarea.   Since this work has never been critically edited, and never been translated into English, I thought it might be interesting to see what he has to say. This first link gives a reference:

” All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these {the Church} have transferred to the Lord’s day.”

Source: Eusebius, Commentary on the Psalms, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 23, cols. 1171,1172.

Like all these ‘quotes’ you never know how accurate it is.  But I have looked, and the sentence is indeed found in col. 1171A (the Latin) and 1172A (the Greek).

An expanded version from Johns D. Parker, “The Sabbath transferred”, 1902, pp. 93-94:

He says on the ninety-second Psalm :

“The Word by the new covenant translated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light and gave us the true rest, viz., the saving Lord’s Day.”

“On this day, which is the first of light and of the true sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbaths, even all nations redeemed by him throughout the world, and do those things according to the spiritual law which were decreed for the priests to do on the Sabbath.”

“And all things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s Day as more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath.”

Another link refers to Robert Cox, “The literature of the sabbath question”, Edinburgh (1865) vol. 1, p.360-1, which (blessed be Google) is online here, and I suspect is the source for most of the other material. But he is quoting a certain Moses Stuart:

In another work—his Commentary on the Psalms—there are several passages about the Lord’s Day which were brought to light by the late Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary of Andover, Massachusetts. They are partly quoted in his work on the Apocalypse (vol. ii. p. 40), and are appended to the American and later English editions of Gurney’s Brief Remarks on the Sabbath (see below, ii. 386).

The Eusebius material is as follows (minus the excitable capitalisation and italicisation that moved even Cox to apologise):

In commenting on Psal. xxi. 30 (xxii. 29 in our English version), Eusebius applies the verse to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper every Sunday.

…on Psal. xlv. 6 (xlvi. 5), he says, “I think that the Psalmist describes the morning assemblies in which we are accustomed to convene throughout the world;”

… on Psal. lviii. 17 (lix. 16), he declares that “By this is prophetically signified the service which is performed very early and every morning of the resurrection-day throughout the whole world.” (Comm., in Montfaucon’s Collectio Nova Patrum, pp. 85, 195, 272.)

But then he discusses a large chunk of the commentary.  This I find is at Migne col. 1169/1170B:

… on Psalm xci. (xcii.), which is entitled, A psalm or song for the sabbath-day. He begins his commentary by stating that the patriarchs had not the legal Jewish sabbath; but still ‘given to the contemplation of divine things, and meditating day and night upon the divine word, they spent holy sabbaths which were acceptable to God.’

Then, observing that the Psalm before him has reference to a sabbath, he refers it to the Lord’s day, and says, that ‘it exhorts to those things which are to be done on resurrection-day.’

Then he says Eusebius quotes the commandment, that it was addressed to the Jews, and that they often violated it. Then Eusebius continues:

Wherefore as they rejected it [the sabbatical command] the Word [Christ], by the New Covenant, Translated and transferred the feast of the sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the symbol of true rest, viz. The Saving Lord’s Day, the first [day] of the light, in which the Saviour of the world, after all his labours among men, obtained the victory over death, and passed the portals of heaven, having achieved a work superior to the six-days’ creation on this day, which is the first [day] of light and of the true Sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual sabbaths, even all nations redeemed by him throughout the world, And do those things according to the spiritual law, which were decreed for the priests to do on the sabbath; for we make spiritual offerings and sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise and rejoicing; we make incense of a good odour to ascend, as it is said, ‘Let my prayer come up before thee as incense.’ Yea, we also present the shewbread, reviving the remembrance of our salvation, the blood of sprinkling, which is of the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, and which purifies our souls. . . . Moreover we are diligent to do zealously, on that day, the things enjoined in this Psalm; by word and work making confession to the Lord, and singing in the name of the Most High. In the morning, also, with the first rising of our light, we proclaim the mercy of God toward us; also his truth by night, exhibiting a sober and chaste demeanour; And all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the sabbath [Jewish seventh day,] these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as more appriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank and more honourable than the Jewish sabbath. For on that day, in making the world, God said, Let there be light, and there was light; and on the same day, the Sun of righteousness arose upon our souls. Wherefore it is delivered to us [paradodotai, it is handed down by tradition,] that we should meet together on this day ; and it is ordered that we should do those things announced in this Psalm.

Note the reference to “the Sun of righteousness”, Sol Iustitiae, as a title for Christ, doubtless in rivalry to Sol Invictus.

Somewhat later Eusebius mentions the title of the psalm and adds that it is not about the Jewish Sabbath but …

…it signifies the Lord’s Day and the resurrection day, as we have proved in other places.

His final quote is this:

This scripture teaches, [that we are to spend the Lord’s Day,] in leisure for religious exercises (twn theion askisiwn,) and in cessation and vacation from all bodily and mortal works, which the scripture calls sabbath and rest.

These are interesting comments, and go to show that this work must contain interesting sidelights on the practise and thinking of the early church, just as so many of Eusebius’ works do.  Surely it is time that this work was edited properly?

Share