Quately published ms material

The aim of the present section is to point out the lines along which it is likely that the labours of the next generation of scholars could be most prolit- ably directed, with a view to our further know- ledge of the Patristic writings enumerated in this article. The material groups itself naturally under four headings: A. Anonymous Catenz ; B. Catenze of known authorship; c. Original commentators as preserved in the Catene; D. Commentators whose text is preserved independ- ently of Catenz. Thus three of the four headings of the section are concerned, directly or indirectly, with Catenze; and that fact is enough of itself to foreshadow the predominant part which will belong in the immediate future to this branch of research. To a large extent the following paragraphs will do no more than focus the results of preceding sections, and bring into one comprehensive scheme the isolated points that have already been indi- cated at various stages of the inquiry: but fuller details will be given here than was possible above about the more important Catena MSS; and, ina few cases where for one reason or another there had been no previous opportunity for introducing it, the matter is entirely new (see A 4 and 5, py o22)) andi 1, p. 523"). A. Anonymous Catene.— 1. The most ancient of the Pauline Catene, to judge by the limitation of its sources, is the Paris MS, coislin 204, sec. x. (311 folios), from which Cramer published his Catena on the eleven epistles, Galatians-Hebrews (Karo and Lietzmann’s No. iv.). The Fathers regularly cited are Origen (on the Ephesians), Eusebius of Emesa (on the Galatians), and, throughout, John Chrysostom, Severian, and Theodore of Mopsuestia: while Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Cyril are quoted once each on the Colossians. Putting aside the Epistle to the Hebrews—the Catena on which may perhaps have had a separate origin and history— there is nothing later than the first half of the 5th century, and, if we except the one passage from Cyril, nothing later than the first years of that century. Cramer employed a ‘scriba Parisiensis’ to copy out the MS for him, and expresses in his preface the fear that the copyist ‘non semper codicis lectionem vere repreesentaverit.’ How well justified his fears were, the re-collation of the Origen comments on Ephesians for Mr. Gregg’s edition in JZAS iii. (1902) abundantly demon- strated. The Theodore, too, was re-collated for Dr. Swete’s edition ; but for the remaining Fathers, and especially for Severian, Cramer’s edition is still our only authority, and for critical purposes it is quite valueless. See, for previous references to this Catena, pp. 487° (Cramer); 488° (Karo- Lietzmann) ; 493°, 4942, 495», 496 (Origen) ; 498° (Eusebius of Emesa) ; 499 (Basil and Greg. Naz. on Col 15); 507” (Severian) ; 510-», 511 (Theodore of Mopsuestia); 515° (Cyril); 518 (absence of Theodoret and Gennadius). 2. Next perhaps in antiquity of origin, and not inferior in the importance of its contents, comes the Vatican Catena, gr. 762, sec. x., an enormous MS of 411 folios; the Catena for Romans commencing on fol. lw, that for 1 Corinthians on fol. 218, and for 2 Corinthians on fol. 340a. The handwriting is very fine: the blank spaces left, e.g., on foll. 343, 350, show that the exemplar of that part at any rate of the MS could no longer be deciphered, and was probably, therefore, already an old MS when it was being copied in the 10th century. For many new details about the Vatican Catenw, and for an important reference in the case of Oecumenius, the writer is indebted to the unwearied kindness of his friend Dr. Mercati, of the Vatican Library. 522 PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES —_—— {n Karo-Lietzmann it is No. i. ; their list of the authors cited is divided, according to their custom, into two classes: the first (at least 10 citations apiece) includes Apollinaris, Cyril, Didymus, Dio- dore, Gennadius, John Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Origen, Photius, Severus of Antioch, Severian, Theodore, Theodoret; the second consists of Acacius of Cesarea (4 times on Romans), Basil (3 times on Romans), Clement (twice on 1 Corin- thians), Dionysius the Areopagite (once on 1 Co- rinthians), Gregory Nyssen (once each on Romans and 1 Corinthians), Isidore (5 times), Methodius (once on 1 Corinthians), Theodulus chorepiscopus (once on Romans). This account is, however, not quite exhaustive, and omits, for instance, a scholion on fol. 4036, written in smaller characters but by the original scribe, under the heading ’A\efdvdpou émicxémov Nixalas. Alexander of Nicza lived in the first half of the 10th cent., and may conceiy- ably have been the editor of the Catena in its resent form. Both Oecumenius and Photius are aid under contribution: the passages taken from the latter are considerable both in number and length. Where both of them are cited together, Oecumenius always comes first. Of the two late MSS of parts of this Catena which alone were at Cramer’s disposal—Paris gr. 227 and Bodl. Auct. E. ii. 20 (=Miscell. gr. 48)— the latter, on the ground of its rather curious history, may claim a few words here. MS Bodl. Auct. E. ii. 20, containing in a 16th century hand a Catena on Ro 1-91, was presented to the Library in 1659 by S. Cromleholine, master of St. Paul’s School in London; at an earlier date, in 1601, it had been given to Dr. G. Ryves, warden of New College, by John Lloyd (Johannes Luidus), rector of Writtle in Essex. Lloyd’s inscription on the fly-leaf is headed ‘Ex manubiis Gaditanis,’ indicating that the MS was part of the spoils of the Earl of Essex’s Spanish expedition in 1596; but whether it was taken in the sack of Cadiz itself, or formed part of the library of bishop Osorio of Algarve, which is known to have fallen into Essex’s hands on the homeward journey,t cannot be said for certain. At the end of the text on the last leaf is the word Aelwec ; and on the following guard-leaf, in different ink but perha}:: in the same handwriting as the body of the MS, are epitaphs by John Lascaris (see above, p. 485°) on himself and on his wife Catherine. These two epitaphs were actually inscribed on Lascaris’ tomb in the church of S. Agata dei Goti at Rome; and since, in the MS, they are separated by a floriated cross, such as one might expect on a tombstone, it looks as if they had been actually copied in situ. If so, the presumption is strong that the MS itself was written in Rome, and that Vat. gr. 762 was its direct exemplar. See above, for these MSS, pp. 487 (Cramer and Mai); 488> (Karo-Lietzmann) ; 492, 4938 (Origen) ; 499° (Didymus) ; 501° (Diodore) ; 510 (Theodore of Mopsuestia) ; 514%» (Isidore) ; 515° (Cyril) ; 517° (Gennadius) ; 520 (Photius) ; 521% (Clement). 3. More importance than the brief account in Karo-Lietzmann (No. iii., op. cit. p. 601) would suggest seems to attach to the Catena on the Corinthian, Galatian, and Ephesian epistles con- tained in Vat. gr. 692, foll. 1-938. These scholars attribute the MS to the 12th cent., and name Cyril, John Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Origen, Severus, Theodoret, Theodore, and (on 2 Corin- thians) £ Ac,’ as the writers more frequently cited ; If this is correct, and not really a confusion with Severian, the last note on p. 507> above should be modified. But, in the case of the Catena next to be mentioned, Karo and Lietzmann have wrongly expanded 2:v into Severus instead of Severian. ¢ Of the many books which came by gift from Essex to the Bodleian in a.p. 1600 a considerable number were printed in Spain and Portugal. PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES Clement, Gennadius, Isidore, and Gregory Nyssen as cited respectively three times, twice, twice, and once. But the date should be moved back to sec, x.-xi.; the names of Nicolas, Methodius, Basil, Eusebius, Photius should be added to the list of Fathers cited ; from Clement of Alexandria not three only, but at least five quotations are made ; Di(dymus) is very common on 2 Corinthians ; Severian is once named in full (fol. 59a), and the substitution of this Father’s name for Karo and Lietzmann’s Sev(erus), proposed on p. 489 above, is thus amply justified. On many occasions the catenist compares expressly the views of different authors—e.g. Clement, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gre- gory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Severian, Theodoret, Cyril—and sometimes adds to his authors’ names precise references to their books. On comparing this Catena with the last, Vat. gr. 762, for the Corinthian epistles, it results that the quotations common to both are briefer in 692 than in 762: and this is what the relative bulk of the two MSS would lead us to expect. See above, pp. 4898 (Karo-Lietzmann) ; 507° (Se- verian) ; 521 (Clement) ; too little was known of this Catena for full use to be made of it in the foregoing pages. 4. The most important addition that has to be made to Karo-Lietzmann’s list of Pauline Catene is a MS that has once been mentioned above (p. 515»), in connexion with Pusey’s edition of Cyril of Alex- andria— Athos Pantocrator cod. 28. Accordin; to the catalogue of Sp. Lambros (i. 95), the is of the Yth cent., and contains the (Acts and) Pauline epistles, the names most frequently cited being Isidore of Pelusium, John Chrysostom, Se- verian, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Apollinaris. Photographs of eleven pages of this MS, covering 1 Co 74-11", were taken Prof. Kirsopp Lake, and are now in the Bodleian (MS gr. th. f. 8): the principal authors in these pages are Chrysostom, fet kes Cyril, and Theo- dore of Mopsuestia. The absence of Theodoret is noticeable ; and as all the eight writers known to be used in the Catena are earlier than Theodoret, it is possible that its origin goes back to the period anterior to the publication of his commentary. If that is so, it ranks with our earliest Catenz ; but a serious drawback to its value is that the evidence of its Cyril texts (see above, note on p. 515>) seems to suggest that the catenist may have not only abbreviated but otherwise re-cast the passages he extracted from his sources, 5. Patmos céy’ (= No. 263, p. 127 of Sakkellion’s catalogue), sec. x., is described as containing, on foll. 1-119, not a continuous commentary, but a series of notes on the Acts and some of the Catho- lic and Pauline epistles (2 Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., 1 and 2 Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., Titus), with an un- usually extensive range of authorities: Athanasius, Ambrose, Anastasius of Antioch, Apollinaris, Ar- chelaus the bishop, Basil, Czesarius, Cyril of Alex- andria and of Jerusalem, Eusebius, Gennadius, Gregory Nazianzen and Nyssen, Hyp(atius ?), Irenzeus, [Isidore] the Pelusiote, John Chrysostom, John [Damascene], Josephus, Leontius the Monk, Maximus the Monk, Methodius of Patara, Origen, Severian, Theodore, Theodoret. From the speci- mens given in the catalogue it would seem that the quotations are, for the most part, so brief asto | promise little in the way of profitable result. Of other anonymous Catenz, the editing of Cramer’s Munich Catena on Romans appears to be a much better piece of work than that of his Paris Catena on the shorter epistles: to Karo-Lietzmann’s account of their No. vil. Catena, from Vienna, the present writer has nothing to add: of their No. viii. something will be said below, at the end of the account of Oecumenius, p. 524. os! Se oR te es Sa Le Soe a a Og. Eee ee Fae a ee et ee PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES 523 ——<—— ee " B. Catene of known authorship.— 1. Those who have followed down to this point the argument of the present article will have thered that the origin of the Catenz in general is to be looked for in a more remote age than it has been customary to ascribe to them. In par- ticular, the Catena of Oecumenius (see pp. 485, 486, 488») is to be placed not, as hitherto, after the time of Photius, but before it. Recent investiga- tions tend still further to accelerate this backward movement, and make it probable that the true date of Oecumenius is about 600 A.D. In a 12th cent. MS at Messina, cod. S. Salva- toris 99, a complete commentary on the Apoca- lypse under the name of Oecumenius has been lately found by a German scholar, Fr. Diekamp of Miinster (see a paper by him in Sitzungsberichte der k. preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Ber- lin, 1901, pp. 1046-1056) ; and the internal evidence of the commentary is sufficient to establish roughly both the date and the theological standpoint of the writer. The comment on Il! év rdye. states that ‘a period of more than 500 years had elapsed ’ since the date of St. John’s vision. The Christ- ology is Cyrilline or even Severianist rather than Chalcedonian: @ spécwrov kal wlavy irdcracw Kal play évépyecay is the nearest approach to a formu- lated doctrine of the Incarnation. The writer was therefore, if not actually a Monophysite, at any tate one of those who still sought for a common ground with Monophysitism. Diekamp somewhat hastily concludes that his discovery is fatal to the genuineness of the Oecu- menian Catena on St. Paul, in which he would see only the work of a later compiler excerpting Oecumenius in precisely the same way as he ex- cerpted other ancient authorities. But neither of his reasons will stand examination. a. ‘ Photius is used in the Oecumenian Catena ; but Photius lived in the 9th cent., and the real Oecumenius cannot therefore have quoted him.’ But it has been shown above (p. 488°), following Karo-Lietzmann, that it is not the original Oecu- menius, but a later recension only, which makes use of Photius. 8. ‘Oecumenius’ work on the Apocalypse is a commentary, not a Catena; but the so-called Oecumenius on St. Paul is a Catena, not a com- mentary.’ The argument is specious rather than sound. For, in the first place, Oecumenius on St. Paul is not quite a Catena on the ordinary model : see p. 485" above. In the second place, Diekamp sufficiently answers himself when he shows that Oecumenius is the earliest of the Greek commen- tators on the Apocalypse : if there were no com- mentators before him, it is difficult to see how he could have compiled a Catena. Of the two other ancient Greek commentators known to us, Arethas of Cappadocian Czsarea wrote about A.D. 900, Andrew considerably earlier. That Arethas is found by Diekamp to make use of both Oecumenius and Andrew, is only what we should expect of a scholar as Pinfourdty versed as Arethas in Patris- . 4927, above); but Diekamp also makes it clear, first that Andrew and Oecumenius are not independent of one another, and secondly that it was Andrew who used Oecumenius, and tic learning (cf. not vice versd. In his comments on 4° 6} 9 Andrew introduces the explanations of tivés or ms Toy mpd yuav ; and in every case the explanation so introduced is found in Oecumenius. Especially cogent is the case of pufvas wévre in 9°, because there Oecumenius, after balancing the ‘ apocata- stasis’ doctrine of the Origenist Evagrius with the more rigid eschatology of other writers, compro- mises on a doctrine of punishment which should be eternal indeed in duration, but after the ‘five months’ modified in intensity (vpeuévws). When, then, we find Andrew quoting with the formula tives ébyoav the very conclusion at which Oecu- menius had painfully arrived by way of compro- mise, it would be unreasonable to doubt that Oecu- menius is the source on which Andrew draws. But if Oecumenius on the Apocalypse quotes no predecessors for the simple reason that he had no predecessors to quote, he does as a matter of fact approach the method of Oecumenius on St. Paul by not infrequent references to the Fathers gener- ally. Cyril is quoted four times ; Gregory Nazi- anzen and Eusebius, twice each ; Aquila, Josephus, Clement (the Stromateis), Gregory Nyssen, and Evagrius, once each. The commentator on the Apocalypse and the commentator on St. Paul are equally versed in Patristic literature, and employ it equally in the measure appropriate to the two works. It may be added that, while the former is, as has been seen, rather Cyrilline than -Chal- cedonian in the expression of his Christology, the latter too appears to have worked on anti- Nestorian lines ; for the Catena on St. Paul never once cites Theodore of Mopsuestia, and, consider- ing the number of names adduced in it, this omission can hardly be accidental. On internal evidence, therefore, there is no reason at all to question their identity. The external evidence to the commentary of Oecumenius on the Apocalypse is confined to a single quotation in a Syriac Catena Patrum of the 7th cent. (Brit. Mus. Add. 17214 = Wright cod. decelv., fol. 726). In this MS, which is a collec- tion of explanations of Bible passages, the prin- cipal authority employed is Severus of Antioch, and Theodore of Mopsuestia is cited as ‘ Theodore the heretic’: its Monophysite leanings are there- fore clear, and we are not surprised to find that Oecumenius, in the phrase with which the quota- tion from him is introduced, is brought into close connexion with Severus: ‘Of Oecumenius, a dili- gent man, and one who is very orthodox, as the letters of the patriarch Mar Severus which are written to him show: From the sixth book of those composed by him about the Revelation of John the Evangelist.’ If the Syriac writer is correct, Oecumenius the commentator on the Apocalypse was a favoured correspondent of the great Monophysite, and must therefore have been of mature age before the death of Severus, circa A.D. 540: so that the internal evidence of the com- mentary, both as to date and as to the theological affinities of ita author, would be carried somewhat further by the Syriac catenist. But among all the extant correspondence of Severus the only person bearing the name of Oecumenius is a Count to whom Severus addressed two dogmatic letters before A.D. 512: and it is probable, therefore, that the Syriac writer has blundered in identifying the commentator with the correspondent, for the interval of ‘more than 500 years’ since the vision of the Apocalypse is inconsistent with anything earlier than the second half of the 6th century. At the same time, the fact that the mistake could be made suggests that the commentary was not quite a new thing when the Syriac MS was written. We shall hardly err in placing the com- mentary on the Apocalypse about 600, and the Catena on St. Paul within the limits 560-640. Of the original non-Photian form of the Oecu- menian Catena on St. Paul the following MSS in Karo-Lietzmann’s list (op. cit. p. 605) are attri- buted to the 10th century : i. Paris coislin 95, foll. 348. ii. Vatic. gr. 766, foll. 249. iii. Oxford Bodl. Roe 16, foll. 255. iv. Venice Marcianus 546, foll. 59-205 (but foll. 134-173, Gal 32-1 Ti 4”, are a later insertion). 524 PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES v. Milan Ambros. C 295 inf., foll. 190. vi. Florence Laurent. plut. x. 6, foll. 286. i. Paris gr. 224, foll. 1-222 (contains also the Apocalypse). i. Paris coislin 224, foll. 151-328 (contains also Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc.). ix. Vatic. gr. 1430, foll. 267. x. Vatic. Palat. gr. 10, foll. 268. xi. Athens 100, foll. 377 (1 Co 157°-He 11°), Of these eleven MSS the first five are, so far as can be gathered, homogeneous in the matter which they contain. No data are given about the last two; the remaining four, Nos. vi.-ix. (save that No. viii. perhaps contains only excerpts), while agreeing with the first five for all the anonymous citations in Oecumenius, differ from them with regard to the (in number much fewer) named citations, which they either transpose or, more rarely, omit. Both classes of MSS give the anonymous citations in one and the same con- tinuous series marked by Greek numerals; and the choice appears to lie between the hypothesis that the named citations, though they entered into the Catena long before the Photian matter, are yet no part of the original Oecumenius, and the more probable hypothesis that in the original form of the Catena the named citations were separated in some way from the continuous series of the anonymous citations,—perhaps by being written in the margin,—and so were exposed, in the course of the propagation of the text, to special danger of either transposition or omission. Another Catena, Vatic. gr. 1270, which is treated as an independent Catena in Karo-Lietzmann’s scheme (op. cit. No. viii. p. 610), should perhaps, as was suggested on p. 489%, above, be treated as belonging to the Oecumenian group. This MS, which was written in southern Italy about A.D. 1100, contains the Acts and Catholic epistles, and on foll. 79-164 a Catena on Romans and 1 Corin- thians. From Karo-Lietzmann it would not be possible to deduce more than that the names of Chrysostom, Severian, and Theodoret were found in it; but Acacius, Cyril, Gennadius, and Oecu- menius also occur, and once at least Basil éx rod mpos Xwfdrodw émrodfs (sic). It is significant that a similar reference to this last appears in Oecu- menius; see above, p. 499°. 2. On the need for a new edition of the com- mentary on the Pauline epistles by John of Damascus, and on some of the MS material for it, enough has already been said on p. 519°. 3. Cod. Vatic. gr. 1650, A.D. 1037, is a commen- tary on the Pauline epistles written by Nicolas, archbishop of Reggio in Calabria. Ehrhard (in Krumbacher’s Geschichte der byzantinische Lit- teratur, p. 1383), who mentions the MS, gives no details of its contents, so that it is impossible to say whether it contains ancient elements. C. Original authorities as preserved in the Catene.— It is obvious that not much can be done under this head until the Catenz themselves are made accessible in trustworthy texts; and how far that is from being the case at the present date it has been the business of the preceding paragraphs to demonstrate. But, as soon as this preliminary work has sufficiently advanced, it would be the turn of definitive collected editions of the more important writers. Since the Catenz are mainly on the longer epistles (see especially p. 518% above), the results to be anticipated from this line of research will be, in the case of the majority of writers, most marked on the Roman, or on the Roman and Corinthian, epistles. Origen.—The work has already been done tenta- tively for the Ephesians (pp. 493-495, above) ; but it still remains to be done for the Romans, and for the First at any rate of the Corinthian epistles (pp. 492, 493°). Didymus: p. 499.—It does not seem likely that much can be restored for any other epistle than 2 Corinthians; but Mai’s text (from Vat. gr. 762) will need re-editing, and the Didymus material of Vat. gr. 692 (see pp. 489%, 522) will need to be tested, though it may turn out to be not independ- ent of the other MS. Diodore: p. 501.—The evidence here rests wholly on Vat. 762, and a separate edition might probably wait for Harnack’s promised undertak- ing of a ‘Corpus operum Diodori’ (see his ‘ Diodor von Tarsus,’ Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F. vi. 4, 1901, p. 68). Severian : 2 507. —Severian is perhaps the author for whom most is to be expected from a careful cross-examination of the Catenz: on the Romans (unless Oecumenius should here come to the rescue) less has been preserved from him than from several other writers; but for 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and probably for the other shorter epistles as well, a rich harvest should be yielded. Theodore of Mopsuestia.—For the shorter epistles the work has been done by Dr. Swete (p. 5114): for the longer epistles the texts of Mai and Cramer (p. 510%) would need revision, and for Theodore, as for Didymus, the Catena of Vat. 692 an or may not add new matter. yril : p. 515.—The only source from which any additions to Pusey’s collection could be hoped for would be a re-edited Oecumenius. Gennadius: p. 518.—Oecumenius and the various Catenze on Romans ought between them to add something, though perhaps it ar! not be much, to the fragments put together by Migne. Photius: p. 520*.—Here again a separate edition, for which the Photian recension of Oecumenius would supply the main material, is an imperative and probably a not really difficult task. D. Authors preserved independently of Catene.— In this department, as was to be expected, more work has already been done; but something still remains todo. ‘The commentaries of Chrysostom (p. 506”) and Theodoret (p. 516°), and the Latin version of Theodore (p. 511°), have been adequately edited by English scholars: Rufinus’ version of Origen on the Romans is to be expected in the Berlin series of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: with regard to the letters of Isidore of Pelusium, the need for a new and better edition, and the material which would make such an edition feasible, were pointed out with sufficient emphasis on p. 513. And besides the many Fathers who expounded the Epistles there were some also who edited them. It will be seen in the course of the next (and concluding) section that patient investigation may hope ultimately to restore, with approximate cor- rectness, the text and apparatus of these early editions of St. Paul. vy. PATRISTIC EDITORS OF THE PAULINE