Errors in Cramer’s catena publication

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.

Share

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).

Share

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.

  1. This catena contains extracts by Chrysostom and Hesychius of Jerusalem.
  2. This is an augmented version of #1, which adds extracts from Photius.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

  1. The first catena gives no names of authors for the extracts that it includes.  The compilation is attributed to Peter of Laodicea.
  2. 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.

Share

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:

  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.

Share

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.

Share

Greek gospel catenas 1: catenas on Matthew

There are four types of catena on Matthew.

Type A:  there are four versions of this.

  1. This contains mainly extracts from Chrysostom’s sermons.  Other authors are Isidore of Pelusium, Cyril of Alexandria; the monk Theodore.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

Share

Greek gospel catenas 0: introduction

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.

Share