Tag: Patristics

Gospel catenas – from Harnack

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Here is a translation into English of the interesting remarks by Harnack that I posted here.  What is striking is that we still haven’t really advanced much.

VI.  J. A. Cramer has published catenas on the NT (8 vols, Oxford, 1838 ff).  But this edition in every way represents only a very modest beginning, and it in no way corresponds to the modern requirements for a critical edition of a catena.  Compared to the Catena of Nicephorus, it is unquestionably a backward step.

Wendland has yet to publish a catena on all four gospels.  See Mss Paris. 178 (11th c.), 187 (11th c.), 191 (11th c), 230 f. 41 (11th c.) — Paris Coislin. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. (11th c.), 195 f. 10 (10th c.) — Venice Marcianus 27 (10th c.)  — Bodleian Laudian 33 (11th c.) Misc gr. 1 (12th c.) (where it seems that the names of the authors excerpted are omitted in the last two catenas.  Whether the same is true in the other mss above I cannot say.  If not, these mss would be least useful for the preparation of a text of named fragments.

On Matthew, the Catena of Nicetas, in which Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Irenaeus, Origen (Marcion, Montanus) are cited, was printed by Petrus Possinus (Tolosae/Toulouse 1646) using a ms. of the Archbishop of Toulouse, Charles de Montchal, and a portion of a Vatican ms.  Another catena was edited by Balthasar Corderius (Tolosae 1647) following a Munich ms. (including Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus).  Cramer for his edition used the ms. Paris. Coislin 23 (11th c.) and published at the end of the volume variants from ms. Bodleian Auct T. 1. 4 (10th c.).

Mss: Cod. Vatic gr. 349 (1423 AD). — Jerusalem St. Saba 232 (10th c.) — Madrid O. 62, 63 (14th c.) — Paris. gr. 188 (11th c.) f. 1 (under the name of Chrysostom) 193 (15th c.), 194 (13th c.) (Mt. & Mk.), 199 (12th c.) (Chrysostom-catena like the first). 200 (11th c.), 201 (11th c.), 202 (12th c.), 203 (12th c.) (Chrysostom et Petrus [?] in Comm. Mt.), 231 (12th c.) (Mt., Luke, John) — Coislin. 24 (11th c.) (Mt. Mark.) (see Bodl. Misc. gr. 30 (15th c.), in which only authors after 325 AD are quoted). 

On Mark, Petrus Possinus likewise gave us a catena from a ms. of the same archbishop (see above); he also used a catena under the name of Chrysostom, which Corderius took from a Vatican ms., and finally the commentary of Victor of Antioch, previously published in Latin by Peltanus (Ingolstadt, 1580).  The commentary of Victor of Antioch was edited in Greek using Moscow mss. by Matthaei (Biktwros presb. A0ntiox… e0ch/ghsij ei0j to\ kata\ Ma/rkon eu0agge/lion, Mosquae 1775).  Cramer (Cat in NT. I, Oxon. 1840) used both a longer and shorter recension, of which the first went under the name of Cyril of Alexandria (— Chrysostom?), the other under the name of Victor.

Mss. used by Cramer are Codex Bodleian Laud. 33 (12th c.), Coislin. 23 (10th c.), Paris. gr. 178. See also: Cod. Jerusal. St. Saba 263 (13th c.) — Cod. Patmos 57 (12th c.) (after Sakkelion, Patm. bibl. p. 46 different to Possinus). — Vatic. Reg. 6 (16th c.) — Cod. Paris. 188 (11th c.) f. 141, 194 (13th c.) (Cat on Mt. & Mk). 206 (AD 1307) (Victor), Coislin. 24 (11th c.) (Cat on Mt. & Mk). 206 1. 2. (11th c.) (Chrysostom et alior. patr. comm. in IV evv.).  On a Vienna ms. see Kollarius on Lambecius, Comment. III, p. 157sq. (Cod. XXXVIII) — theol. gr. 117?

For the writers named in this catena (including Clement of Alexandria, Str. XLV [i.e. V, p. 573 see Fabricius-Harl., l. c. p. 675], Eusebius Demonstratio evangelica III, ad Marinum c. XIII, epitome chronicon, canon. chronic., Irenaeus, Justin, Marcionites, Origen [including citations from the VIth tom. in Joh.: see Cramer p. 266, 12 ff. — Origen on John VI, 14 p. 215, 5-14 Lomm., Cramer p. 314 — Origen VI, 24, p. 239, 6-21 Lomm.], Valentinians) see in Fabr.-Harl., l. c. 675.

A catena on Luke was published by B. Corderius Antwerp 1628 in Latin translation only after a Codex Venice Marcianus (he also mentions mss from  [Munich] and Vienne). The Greek text is still unpublished.

A commentary based on Titus of Bostra was published by Cramer, Caten. in NT. II, Oxon. 1841 following Cod. Bodl. Auct. T. 1.4 and Laud. 33.

The far more important Catena on Luke (by Nicetas of Serrae), for which we are still dependent on the Latin translation by Corderius, can be found in the following mss:

Codex Vaticanus 1611. 759 (12th c.) see Cod. Vatic. 1270. 349. 758. 1423. 547. — Casanat. G. V. 14. — Vatic. Palat 20 (13th c.) Vatic. Regin. 3 (11th c.), 6 (16th c.) — Jerusalem St. Sabae. 263 (13th c.) — Paris. 208 (14th c.), 211 (13th c.) (Joh., Luke). 212 (13th c.), 213 (14th c.), 231 (12th c.), 232 (12th c.) — Munich 33 (16th c.), 473 (13th c.) (see 208, 10th c., f. 235). — Bodleian Misc. 182 (11th c.) f. 174b. (See Paris. 193, 15th c., which contains fragments).

For a list of authors cited (including Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius, [Gregory Thaumat.?], Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Justin, Methodius, Origen) see Fabricius-Harl., l. c. p. 687 sqq.

A catena on John was also published by Balthasar Corderius, Antverp. 1630 (after an ms. from  Trier). A shorter catena was edited by Cramer, Cat. in NT II, Oxon. 1841.

Mss: Cod. Madrid O. 10. O. 32. — Paris. 188 (11th c.) f. 203 (under the name of Chrysostom, like many of the following mss.), 189 (12th c.) f. 1., 200 (11th c.), 201 (11th c.), 202 (12th c.), 209 (11-12th c.), 210 (12th c.), 211 (13th c.), 212 (13th c.), 213 (14th c.), 231 (12th c.) — Munich 37 (16th c.), 208 (10th c.) f. 107., 437 (11th c.), Florence Laurentianus VI, 18. — Vatican Regin. 9 (10th c.) — Bodleian Barocci 225 (12th c.), Miscell. 182 (11th c.) f. 174b. — Berlin Phillips 1420 (16th c.)

Authors cited are given in Fabric-Harl., l. c p. 689 ff. (includes: Basi­lides, Cerinthus, Irenaeus, Marcion, Menander, Montanus, Nicolaus, Novatus, Origen, Papias, Sabellius, Saturninus).

Share

How big is my Migne, part 2?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I need to get an electronic text created of the polytonic Greek in Selecta in Ezechielem by Origen.  The Selecta are cols. 767-825 in PG13; but of course alternate columns are the Latin translation, so there’s only 29 columns of text.

How many words per column?  Well, it seems to be about 400 words (although columns vary a lot).  So word count might be about 11,600 words.

I’ll advertise and see what people want to transcribe this.  One could transcribe 100 words fairly quickly, I think?

Share

Armenian fragments of Eusebius on the Gospels?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’m having another attempt to locate any Armenian fragments of the Gospel Problems and Solutions of Eusebius.  There must be professors of Armenian who know where these might be found.  All I have to do is ask.  As a first shot, I’ve written to Theo van Lint, who is Gulbenkian Professor of Armenian Studies at Oxford, and asked if he can tell me:

  • What catenas there are in Armenian
  • Whether any have been published, or else where the mss are

I don’t know if I will get an answer from this doubtless busy man, but it’s worth a go. 

Some good news; I had rather despaired of ever getting the Coptic fragments completed, but the translator has sprung into life again, and another chunk arrived tonight.  If all the Coptic does arrive in a reasonable period, I might be tempted to look again at the Arabic translation of it recorded by Graf as containing material by Eusebius.

UPDATE: 22nd January, and no reply.  Oh well.

Share

Copyright, curses curses

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Printing a Greek and Latin text opposite the English translation involves me in the murky world of copyright.  One difficulty is that a work extant in fragments is liable to have bits copyright by all sorts of people.  If they all get greedy, this can render it impossible.

The major chunks and their owners are:

  • The Greek text of the epitome, edited by Claudio Zamagni, published by Sources Chretiennes, owned by Editions du Cerf.  This is the largest single chunk, and thanks to Dominique Gonnet, Bernard Muenier and co, I have permission to use this at a fee which won’t wreck the project.  So… be thankful that I didn’t give you the Migne text!
  • The Greek text of the fragments.  Mostly by Mai, or Cramer, or Migne; all out of copyright.
  • The Greek text of some extracts from Anastasius of Sinai.  There’s a critical edition of this, and it will belong to someone.  If they get all difficult I’ll reprint Mai.
  • The Latin extracts from Ambrose of Milan’s Commentary on Luke.  This I thought belonged to the SC; but in fact they reprint the CSEL 32.4 text of 1902, edited by Karl and Heinrich Schenkl (father and son).
  • The Latin extracts from Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew.  This I also thought belonged to the SC but is in fact from the Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, owned by Brepols, a massive Belgian publishing firm.  Collywobbles time!  The SC text says they got permission from Dom Dekkers, who edited that series and whose articles got me into much of my Tertullian stuff.  Sadly he died in 1997.  So I need to find a human being associated with the CCSL.  But it’s only a page; I can certainly use Mai if I need to, and just footnote the (few) differences.
  • The Syriac fragments, published by Gerhard Beyer in Oriens Christianus in 1925-6.  I can’t find anything else that Beyer ever wrote, so I have no idea when he died.  I have written to the editor of OC asking if they claim a copyright.  I can’t see how, tho.

So… what about the Ambrose?  When did the Schenkl’s die?  For that is copyright in the Euroland; life plus 70 years.  In the USA it is all public domain before 1923.

The Ambrose CSEL is online here, although only for Americans.  A google search reveals that Karl Schenkl was 1827-1900.  As for Heinrich, Wikipedia says he died in 1919.

So … another step forward.  The CSEL text is mine to use as I choose.  All I have to do is get an electronic text.  Likewise I need to get some of the Greek stuff entered; material from Cramer’s catena, etc.  I’ll have to hire someone who knows polytonic Greek to do that — anyone interested?  Likewise with typing up the extracts from the CSEL text?  Anyone?  I can’t pay much, but can pay something.  Both of these are a few pages.

Share

Abu’l Barakat update

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The translation of the 13th century list of books extant in Christian Arabic by Abu’l Barakat is still progressing.  The translator has now sent me a schedule for the remaining half of the work still to translate:

  • pp. 653-659  – Jan 19
  • pp. 660-666 – Jan 26
  • Final revision – Feb 8

This is all good news, and will go online when it is all done.

Share

The text tradition of Hippolytus “Commentary on Daniel”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A question has reached me about the Commentary on Daniel of Hippolytus, especially with regard to the passage in 4.23.3:

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the kalends of January [December 25th], the 4th day of the week [Wednesday], while Augustus was in his forty-second year, [2 or 3BC] but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years.  He suffered in the thirty third year, 8 days before the kalends of April [March 25th], the Day of Preparation, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar [29 or 30 AD], while Rufus and Roubellion and Gaius Caesar, for the 4th time, and Gaius Cestius Saturninus were Consuls. (tr. Tom Schmidt).

But what is the textual basis for this?  It doesn’t appear in the Ante-Nicene Fathers version of the text.

A look at the Sources Chretiennes (14; p. 64) edition tells me that the Greek text of the work is entirely recovered from quotations in catenas.  In a catena, each quotation appears underneath the relevant biblical verse, and is labelled with the name of the author from whom it has been taken.  So the sequence is fairly clear, even if all you have is extracts, provided that the original author wrote his commentary in the same sequence as the biblical text.

The process of recovering the commentary began with one of the great 17th century editors, B. Corderius, who printed the first fragment of the text in his Expositio patrum graecorum in psalmos, vol. 3, Anvers, 1646 on p.951.  In 1672 Fr. Combefis, Bibliothecae graecorum patrum auctarium novissimum, vol. 1, p. 50-55 printed two more important fragments, this time commenting on Susanna.  Since then various editors have accrued more and more fragments from the catenas, and are listed in Bonwetsch’s edition of 1897.  A list of mss. and editions appears on p.xxviii of Bonwetsch (p.43 of the Google books PDF).

The remains seem to be divided into four books.  The last addition to the stock was in 1911, when Dioboutonis printed new fragments from a 10th century manuscript from the monastery of Meteores.  The end result is a text which contains few obvious lacunas.  However there must still be material which is lost, especially in book 1.

The text cannot be said to be in good condition.  The manuscripts in which the material is preserved are often in a poor state, or illegible.  The most recent edition, that of Bonwetsch in the Griechische Christlicher Schriftsteller 1 in 1897 (online, thankfully) often indicates words added by conjecture or asterisks where there are gaps impossible to fill.

But one compensation is that an Old Slavonic translation exists of the entire work as it once existed in Greek.  This tells us, of course, that the Greek text must still have existed in the 10th century when these translations were made.  Four manuscripts of this translation exist, none complete, but which fortunately have their omissions in different places.  This means that we can read the whole work pretty much as it came from the hand of the author.  The most ancient manuscript is 12-13th century.  Fortunately Bonwetsch translated the Old Slavonic into German, and the translation was used by the SC editor to help with the Greek.

Our passage is extant in Greek, and appears on pp.306-7 of the SC edition.  But the SC editor queries whether part of the text –“Gaius Caesar, for the 4th time, and Gaius Cestius Saturninus” — was interpolated by a later writer.

The apparatus of Bonwetsch (p.242; p.295 of the PDF) tells us that this passage was quoted by the Syriac writer  George, Bishop of the Arab tribes.  The apparatus also refers to George Syncellus, and Cyril of Scythopolis as using bits of it.  The text is given in mss. ABP and S; A= Athos, Vatopedi 260 / Paris suppl. gr. 682 (10-11th century); B=Chalcis 11 (15-16th c.); P=Paris gr. 159 p.469f.; S=the old Slavonic.

So… the text is reasonably well established, and reasonably reliable.  The Greek for our passage seems sound, with only a couple of bits in brackets.  We have a good early witness for the text, and also a translation in a 7th century Syriac writer and a 10th century translation.

Share

A book on catenas which I can’t find

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Has anyone ever heard of or seen a copy of, or mention of Wolf, de catenis patrum graecorum (1712)? It’s a dissertation, and is quoted in older literature.  But … even mentions of it online are rare.

I’ve looked in COPAC, and in the Library of Congress, the BNF… where else should I look?

Share

Eusebius book news

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The remains of the Gospel Problems and Solutions of Eusebius of Caesarea exist in two chunks.  Firstly there is a long epitome, and then there is a mass of fragments of the original work, which together are longer than the epitome.  There is a critical text of the epitome, but not of the fragments.

People I have consulted universally tell me that they would like the Greek facing the English translation that I commissioned.  So I have asked the Sources Chretiennes, and the Editions Cerf who publish them, for permission to print a copy of their text opposite, as in a Loeb.

Good news!  I heard from them today, and they have agreed.  The price for doing so seems very reasonable.  Frankly I was prepared to abandon the idea of printing the Greek, had it been otherwise.  But there is now no reason not to proceed.

This means that I must now negotiate rights on the fragments.  Fortunately (?) most of them have never been edited since Migne, so there are no rights!  But there are three fragments of Anastasius of Sinai that I need to use.   I’ll have to find out who the publisher is and ask them.  But the total size must be about a page; and I don’t much care if they refuse and I have to use Migne.

Also there are a few pages of extracts from St. Ambrose of Milan and St. Jerome.  For these, slightly embarassingly, I find that the Sources Chretiennes are also the most recent critical edition.  I wish I had known that when I originally asked!  No matter; I have written back, thanking them, and asking if these can be included in the deal also.

Again, if not it hardly matters.  I collated the Jerome, and there was no substantive difference at all.  (The Ambrose is longer, and I ran out of puff!)  But let’s try to do things the way it should be done.

Of course this also means that I’m going to have to enter material not in Migne by hand.  I wonder if there are people who know polytonic Greek who would be willing (for money) to do this?  If so, please use this form and let me know, and we’ll talk.  I can’t pay much, but I can pay something.

Even more fun, I will have to get the Syriac text transcribed.  This was originally printed without vowels, ca. 1900; but I can hardly print an unvocalised text today.  So I will have to get back to the translator and ask for help. 

I expect the Syriac is out of copyright, tho.  I must remember to check!

Share

An introduction to Old Slavonic literature?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I have spent a couple of hours online attempting to locate some evidence of an introductory work to Old Slavonic literature.  This has been in vain, although guides to the language are common enough.  The only text I have found is an 1883 SPCK publication here.

Does anyone know of such a guide to what exists in Old Slavonic; like a patrology in organisation?

Share