Dimitrios Zaganas

“The ‘Hexaemeron’ of Anastasius of Sinai: its authenticity, its sources, and its allegorizing exegesis”. (XIV-289 p.) ISBN 9789004472464
The “Hexaemeron” of Anastasius of Sinai (late 7th–early 8th c.) expounds the creation account and the Adam and Eve story as foreshadowing the mystery of Christ and the Church, an idea that goes back to Origen and beyond. The commentary remained unpublished in Greek until 2007, received only scattered attention, and has been often considered as apocryphal. In this book, the first of its kind in any language, Dimitrios Zaganas firmly establishes its authenticity, investigates its genesis and date, offers detailed analysis of its numerous sources, and studies its distinctly allegorical approach to Genesis 1-3. Several emendations of the Greek text are suggested in the appendix.

“The formation of a post-Origenian Alexandrian exegesis: The ‘Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets and on Isaiah’ of Cyril of Alexandria”. (XVI-428 p.) ISBN 9789042938267 —
With Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378-444), a new period in the history of Alexandrian exegesis begins. Christian interpretation of the Bible, previously entrusted to teachers, passes now into the hands of a powerful bishop, who clearly overcomes the allegorism of the grand masters (Origen, Pierius, Didymus the Blind) and borrows elements from the exegetical model of Eusebius of Caesarea and the Antiochenes, yet retains an Alexandrian coloring. This evolution is particularly noticeable in the “Commentary on the Twelve Prophets” and the “Commentary on Isaiah”. In these works, Cyril proposes a more balanced model of interpretation, one which insists on the importance of Scripture’s historical-literal dimension. Through a detailed analysis of Cyril’s exegetical method, this study highlights the originality of the Cyrillian approach and underscores Cyril’s decisive role in the renewal of the Alexandrian tradition. After reviewing the most characteristic affinities with Origen, the grammarian and allegorist, particular attention is paid to the emergence of a post-Origenian exegesis in Cyril’s commentaries: changes in terminology, method, content, and purpose all attest his commitment to reform. Finally, the present work addresses the thorny question of Cyril’s sources by distinguishing those which merely parallel Cyril’s work from those which really influenced him.

The rich literary production of Gaza in the fifth and sixth centuries AD has received quite some attention in recent scholarship. Yet, the figure and work of Procopius the Sophist, as author of catenae, compiler, and epitomist of patristic exegesis, have remained relatively unknown and under-explored. This collection of essays delves deeply into Procopius’ exegetical work. At the outset, a strong case is made that one should distinguish between the famous orator of Gaza and “the Christian sophist” Procopius. A first large section of the book deals with the Genesis Epitome that is studied from three different angles: the limited and as a rule critical use of Origen and his tradition; the importance given to Theodore of Mopsuestia’s exegesis of Gen 1–3; and the relations between Procopius’ Epitome and John Philoponus’ “De opificio mundi”. The section on the Exodus Epitome studies the specificity of Procopius’ work in comparison to the Catena on Exodus, the way the material is organised, and the literary genre of the work. The volume further contains contributions on the connections between the Scholia on Kings attributed to Procopius, the type B catena, and the so-called “Catena Lipsiensis”; the relations between Procopius’ Catena on Proverbs and other catenae on this book; the sources of the Isaiah Epitome that show a diligent and able compiler at work; and the comparison between the characteristic features of Procopius’ Epitomes and those of the Catena III on Obadiah. As a whole, it offers a wide perspective and significantly advances research on, and our knowledge of, Procopius the Christian sophist, a still somewhat mysterious early Byzantine author and scholar.
PDF of Front Matter, Introduction and Back Matter available online: https://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/book/10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.135858

D. ZAGANAS, “Introduction”. — A. PERROT, “Un orateur modèle et ses doubles : à propos de quelques Pseudo-Basile de dom Garnier”. — D. ZAGANAS, “New Reasons to Doubt the Authenticity of the 'Enarratio in Isaiam' Attributed to Basil”. — D. ZAGANAS, “La définition de thumos et orgê chez Basile et dans l’In Isaiam attribué à Basile”. — A. LE BOULLUEC, “L'exégèse d’Isaïe 10, 1-23 dans le 'Commentaire' attribué à Basile”. — A. PERROT, “L’ennemi absent : Basile, Pseudo-Basile et Julien l’Apostat”. — C. MORESCHINI, “Pseudo-Basil’s 'Against Eunomius' and Cappadocian Theology”. — O. DELOUIS, “Theodore the Stoudite’s Scholion on Ps.-Basil’s 'Ascetic Constitutions': Edition and Commentary”.

D. ZAGANAS, J. VERHEYDEN, “Introduction”. — R. CEULEMANS, “Fact and Fiction in the Biblical Scholarship of Anastasius (CPG 7770: 'On the Hexaëmeron')”. — Y. PAPADOGIANNAKIS, “The Use of Question-and-Answer Method and Process in Anastasius’ Hexaemeron". — D. ZAGANAS, “The Reception of Origen in the 'Hexaemeron' by Anastasius Sinaita: Between Criticism and Approval”. — V. DÉROCHE, “La 'Disputatio adversus Iudaeos' d’Anastase le Sinaïte : authenticité du texte et identification des fragments”. — K. TERZOPOULOS, “Exegetical and Rhetorical Appropriations of Scripture in the Homilies of Anastasius Sinaita”. — C. HOVORUN, “Anastasius of Sinai and his Participation in the Monothelite Controversy”.

“Procopius the compiler of exegesis and Procopius the sophist of Gaza: one and the same author?”.
The article questions the widespread identification of Procopius the compiler of Christian exegesis as the renowned sophist from Gaza. I argue that the original title of Procopius’ biblical works never specifies the geographical origin of the author. His connection with Gaza (Γαζαίου) was suggested in the colophon of manuscripts by a Byzantine copyist, on the fragile basis of homonymy; it was adopted and generalized by readers, editors and translators of Procopius’ commentaries from the mid-sixteenth century. A more serious obstacle to the two Procopii being the same person is the silence of ancient sources: Choricius of Gaza says nothing suggesting that his master Procopius embarked on a vast enterprise of compiling patristic exegeses; Photius presents separately, and evaluates differently, the writings of “Procopius the rhetorician” from Gaza and the biblical commentaries of “Procopius the sophist”, as if they were by two different authors. Moreover, from the information provided by Choricius, it becomes clear that throughout his life Procopius, official sophist of Gaza, devoted himself to the practice and teaching of pagan rhetoric, not to biblical interpretation. This also explains why his known works abound in classical Greek culture, but make no reference to the Bible. Instead of assuming that at some point the famous rhetorician of Gaza was converted, i.e., reduced, into a compiler of biblical commentaries, and instead of imagining in him the coexistence of two contradictory and separate souls, one pagan, the other Christian, we should recognize two different writers with the same name (Προκοπίου) and the same qualifier (σοφιστοῦ). This solution is confirmed by a new argument which seems to be decisive: the “Epitome on Genesis” includes sources which are contemporary or posterior to Procopius of Gaza (died ca. 528), such as a refutation of the eternity of the world, a parallel with John Philoponus and an anti-Origenist florilegium. The use of such late sources provides as terminus post quem, for the compilation of this Epitome, the mid-sixth century, and necessarily implies that its author, “Procopius the Christian sophist”, was active after the death of Procopius of Gaza.

“Procopius’ Epitome on Isaiah: the work and its author”.
Procopius’ “Epitome on Isaiah” (CPG 7434) is a compilation that draws largely, but not exclusively, on the commentaries by Eusebius of Caesarea, Pseudo-Basil and Cyril of Alexandria. Preserved today in eight manuscripts, it was published in 1580 on the basis of a single manuscript, then reproduced by Migne in PG 87/2. It is by the same author as that of the Epitome on the Octateuch, who, contrary to common opinion, was not the rhetor of Gaza, and does not seem to have been active before the mid-sixth century. The method he employed consists of selecting, abridging, rewriting or summarising exegetical fragments from different sources, and then anonymising and amalgamating them in order to produce a unified text, a composite commentary on Isaiah. However, Procopius is not simply someone who arranges patristic fragments: on the contrary, he relies on an attentive reading of the sources which he does not hesitate to rework, sometimes ingeniously; he may from time to time insert a short judgement on their value; he usually compares the different exegeses that need to be summarised, pointing out several times their differences. This demonstrates how important this Epitome is for knowing Procopius, the reader of the Church Fathers.

“A stranger to history? In search of external sources on Anastasius of Sinai”. —
This article raises the question of the identity of Anastasius of Sinai, an enigmatic figure of the Byzantine “dark ages” (late 7th–early 8th c.). Although his works are generally regarded as a key source for the history of early Islamic Near East, Anastasius himself seems to have gone unnoticed in Byzantine sources. All information about him has thus so far been gleaned from his own writings. Who was in fact Anastasius and what was his connection with Sinai Peninsula and with the Chalcedonian Church of Alexandria? Did he ever emerge on the stage of history? Are there any (reliable) external sources which could shed light on his life? In lieu of an answer, this study shows that the late note on “Saint Anastasius of Mount Sinai” in the Synaxarion of Constantinople (20 or 21 April) is based on hagiographic commonplaces and on a partial knowledge of Anastasius’ works. On the contrary, an overlooked chapter “On the abbot Anastasius of Raithu” gives valuable information on a great ascetic and polemicist who may well be Anastasius, the author of the Hodegos. Besides, the hagiographical-historical Copto-Arabic sources inform us of two Chalcedonian Anastasii, one (self-proclaimed) bishop and another deacon of Alexandria, whose activity in the first half of 8th century caused concerns to the Coptic Church, and bears some resemblance to Anastasius of Sinai’s own activity in Egypt under the Umayyads. — (PDF on request.)

“The 'Commentary on Isaiah' 5,1b and 11-12 attributed to Basil: a composite exegesis”. —
This article intends to look into the literary genesis of the "Commentary on Isaiah" attributed to Basil of Caesarea. Focusing on the multiple exegesis of Is 5:1b and 5:11-12, it highlights the composite and inconsistent nature of these sections. In fact, what looks like a plural reading of Is 5:1b is a heterogeneous collection of interpretations around this verse, which draws on now lost sources, one of which is also attested in Nilus’ correspondence. As for the long section on Is 5:11-12, it consists of a heteroclite and ill-ordered mixture of interpretations and developments around this passage, which presents a notable dependence on Basil of Caesarea’s homilies, especially the 'In ebriosos', and Origen’s (lost) commentary on Isaiah. Instead of a learned biblical commentary, this is a rather second-hand exegesis, which awkwardly combines various borrowed elements, more or less reworked, with one another and with the confused voice of the Commentary’s “author”.  — (PDF on request.)

“Pseudo-Didymus’ De Trinitate and the cult of archangels: a misunderstood element for dating”. —
Pseudo-Didymus’ "De Trinitate" mentions many sanctuaries of the archangels Michael and Gabriel, finely adorned, some of which were quite famous to attract people from very far in the hope of a miracle. Although this testimony was usually considered as an ancient evidence because of its purported attribution to Didymus the Blind, it does not actually reflect the state of the archangels’ cult in the fourth century. However, it proves to be an important element for the dating of the "De Trinitate" itself, since it refers to a time when the cult of the archangels was developed in the East. The documentary and literary evidence shows that the churches dedicated to them, especially to Saint Michael, significantly multiply in the sixth century, and that their cult is being established under the reign of Justinian (527-565). It is from this period that the composition of Pseudo-Didymus’ "De Trinitate" is likely to date. — (PDF on request.)

“Traces of Cyril of Alexandria’s influence on the 'De Trinitate' of Pseudo-Didymus”. —
This article further examines the literary relationship between the "De Trinitate" falsely attributed to Didymus the Blind and the works of Cyril of Alexandria, aside from their common philosophical citations. The highlighted similarities of these two authors cannot be explained by a common source; on the contrary, they indicate a direct dependence of one author upon the other. Their analysis shows that words, turns of phrase and ideas which are typical of Cyril and often occur in his writings are each used only once by Pseudo-Didymus. This evidence weighs heavily in favour of Cyril’s antecedence. In fact, the anonymous author of the "De Trinitate" has been influenced, in addition to fourth-century doctrinal treatises, by Cyril’s "De sancta Trinitate dialogi", an anti-Arian work dating from the 420s. He also assimilated several other Cyrillian features, and was even inspired by Cyril’s anti-Arian Christology in his doctrine on the Holy Spirit. Cyril of Alexandria, therefore, has priority over Pseudo-Didymus, both chronologically and theologically. — (PDF on request.)

“The prologues of Cyril of Alexandria’s commentaries on the Prophets: a general analysis”. —
This article offers a general analysis of the prologues of Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets and on Isaiah, following the schema that J.-N. Guinot outlined for Theodoret of Cyrus. In his prologues, Cyril takes care to justify his exegetical enterprise to those who, in the 5th century, would consider it useless because of the already existing commentaries, and to define the principles which govern it, by giving priority to the historical-literal sense and by taking his distances from Origen’s allegorical method. In addition, he stresses the need to situate the Prophets in the Jewish history and to provide the historical context of their prophecy, and he identifies the main purpose of each prophecy mainly in relation to its Old Testament meaning. — (PDF on request.)

"The musical manuscripts of the Institut Français d’Études Byzantines: a detailed description". —
The library of the Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, actually in Paris, features inter alia five Greek manuscripts of Byzantine chant, which were acquired when the institute was located in Istanbul (1895-1937). The musical manuscripts (IFEB 9, 17, 21, 47, and 50), dating from the 18th-19th centuries, have been described only briefly recently. The present article offers a detailed description of the content of these manuscripts. — (PDF on request.)

“The definition of 'thumos' and 'orgê' in Basil of Caesarea and the 'In Isaiam' attributed to Basil". —
Taking as a starting point a problematic quotation of Basil of Caesarea by Dorotheus of Gaza, this article comes back to the authenticity issue of the "Enarratio in Isaiam" attributed to Basil. It turns out Dorotheus cites as Basilian a banal philosophical definition of θυμός which is found in the In Isaiam but cannot, for this reason, serve as an argument for its authenticity. On the contrary, a close comparative study of the way in which the similar words θυμός (wrath) and ὀργή (anger) are defined and exploited in Basil’s authentic homilies and in the "In Isaiam", reveals significant differences and alarming resemblances which together cause us to doubt, once again, the Basilian authorship of the "In Isaiam". — (PDF on request.)

The present article seeks to problematize the "Enarratio in Isaiam" ’s genesis, attribution and relation to Basil of Caesarea on the grounds of new evidence. On the one hand, a critical and philological re-examination of the Enarratio’s preface reveals a hitherto unnoticed textual agreement with Cyril of Alexandria’s "Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew", a number of repetitions and stylistic infelicities, and some discrepancies. On the other hand, a fresh analysis of the lacuna on Is 6:1-5 and especially the double exegesis of Is 6:6-8 strongly points to a then open and unfinished text and to rewriting processes of compilation literature. No doubt the authenticity issue of the Enarratio is more complex than it appears, and needs further critical study. — (PDF on request.)

"Basil of Caesarea and his posterity: the transformation of the homily 'In ebriosos' into a commentary on Isaiah 5:11-12". —
This article critically re-examines the textual relationship between the "Enarratio in prophetam Isaiam" attributed to Basil of Caesarea and Basil’s (genuine) homily In ebriosos. It studies how Basil makes use of Isaiah 5:11–12 in his "In ebriosos", and shows its degree of resemblance to the Enarratio in Isaiam 5:11–12. Moreover, it refutes the arguments in support of Basil’s authorship of the Enarratio as well as its anteriority and influence on the In ebriosos. The study argues instead that the anonymous author of the Enarratio made use of a certain part of Basil’s In ebriosos in his attempt to fabricate the beginning of his explanation on Isaiah 5:11–12. Finally, the article examines the process of transformation of the homily under discussion into a commentary.

This article examines Anastasius of Sinai’s complex attitude towards Origen in his "Hexaemeron" (CPG 7770). While the explicit references to Origen are all taking the form of criticism, sometimes mingled with compassion, the few indirect references point to borrowings from his (now lost) work on Genesis. Moreover, Anastasius’ method of interpretation shows acquaintance with Origen’s exegesis. It is argued that Anastasius’ approach to Gen 1-3, which consists in expounding the whole creation and paradise narrative as foreshadowing the mystery of Christ and the Church, has been based upon Origen’s paradigm of an ‘all-embracing allegory’. Origen, although regarded as heretic, was therefore one of the early Fathers on whom Anastasius actually, but tacitly, drew.

"Pierius of Alexandria’s homily 'On the beginning of Hosea': testimonies and new fragments". —
The article deals with Pierius of Alexandria’s (late 3rd c.) homily 'On the beginning of Hosea' which, like his other writings, is lost. First, it reconstructs the title, circumstances and content of Pierius’ homily on the basis of explicit references by ancient authors. Second, it presents a hitherto unnoticed witness, Cyril of Alexandria: in his 'In Oseam', Cyril criticizes the pamphlet of a renowned exegete and transmits four fragments of the purely allegorical interpretation this author, who is to be identified with Pierius, gave of Hosea’s marriage to a prostitute (Os 1,2-3). Third, it compares Cyril’s witness with Jerome’s (independent) witness in his 'In Osee'. The explicit references to Pierius’ homily, Cyril’s non explicit reference and the fragments he preserved, not previously identified, and their parallel with Jerome are all quoted and translated in the appendix.

"Cyril of Alexandria quoted and quoting. On an alleged fragment of his In epistulam ad Corinthios". — 
This article refutes K.F. Zawadzki’s assumption that Cyril of Alexandria would have committed a kind of ‘self-plagiarism’ in his "Apologia contra Orientales" by tacitly copying a so-called fragment of the fifth book of his (now lost) commentary "In epistulam ad Corinthios", preserved in the Syriac ms. British Library Add. 14529. Three main arguments are advanced against such an hypothesis: 1) The abridged version of the fragment strongly recalls the manner in which excerptors reformulated (and reused) texts of Cyril; 2) The plethora of quotations and the few self-quotes that Cyril himself inserts in his Apologia are all explicitly identified as such; 3) The short phrases reproduced verbatim by Cyril in his writings cannot be regarded as hidden self-quotes. Therefore, one should conclude that this is not a case of Cyril plagiarizing himself, but a mere mistake for the aforementioned Syriac fragment is actually just an excerpt from Cyril’s Apologia.

"Again on the authenticity of Anastasius of Sinai’s Hexaemeron". —
The article re-examines the thorny question of the authenticity of Anastasius Sinaita’s "Hexaemeron", which has been recently debated again by K.- H. Uthemann. A critical discussion of old and new arguments against the authenticity permits, on one hand, to reject the allegedly late dating and the inaccurate title appended to the "Hexaemeron", and on the other hand, to express serious doubts about the cited theological differences between the "Hexaemeron" and the two Homilies on the making of man which are securely attributed to Anastasius. Moreover, a reassessment of the undeniable connection between the aforementioned texts provides strong evidence in support of the Anastasian authorship of the "Hexaemeron".

The present article analyzes the beginning of Anastasius of Sinai’s 'Hexaemeron' and its doxographical account of divergent opinions on Gen 1:1-3 (debate over the principle[s] of the world and the elements of creation), compares it with parallel material found in Michael Psellos, and finally depicts Anastasius’ double involvement, as compiler and author of debates and aporias.

"Anastasius of Sinai between citation and invention: the "Hexaemeron" and its ‘ancient’ sources". —
This article aims to assess Anastasius of Sinai’s usage of ancient Christian sources in the Hexaemeron. Close and thorough examination of his quotations from Justin Martyr, Ireneaus of Lyon, Methodius of Olympus and Eustathius of Antioch reveals that, apart from Methodius, the citations have no analogy to any of their works. On the contrary, the cited opinions appear either to have come from different authors, or to have been faked, in toto or in part, by Anastasius. The reason for such a forgery lies in Anastasius’s attempt to rehabilitate the allegorical interpretation of Gen. 1-3, without being accused of Origenism. Anastasius’s witness to the ancient exegetical tradition is proven to be deliberately misleading, and therefore should not be taken at face value.

The purpose of this article is to highlight the problem of explicit quotations in the "Hexaemeron" by Anastasius of Sinai. Among the identifiable named sources, several ones raise questions with regard to the nature and the exactness of the quotation. Besides, there are references which cannot be identified because they allude to a lost work, they refer to an otherwise unknown work, or they are related to a group of authors. The false citations form a more problematic category: they may belong to another author than the one mentioned, they may be fictitious, i.e. forged by Anastasius, or they may only partially contain authentic elements. To be sure, one need to be very cautious while making use of Anastasius’ explicit references to patristic authors.

Whilst the "Spiritual Anagogy of the Hexaemeral Creation" ascribed to Anastasius of Sinai has been published in Greek in 2007, the fundamental issue of its authenticity and authorship has remained open and controversial. However, a critical review of the state of the art permits us both to challenge the late dating and the confusing attribution of authorship of the "Hexaemeron", and to acknowledge unhesitatingly its explicit relationship with Anastasius’ two "Homilies on the making of man". Moreover, a comparison with the aforementioned homilies and the "Hodegos" —works which are considered as authentic— reveals many similarities in wording and content and striking parallels, which point to one single author, Anastasius monk of mount Sinai.

Δ. Ζαγκανᾶς, «Ἡ σχετικοποίηση τῆς «ἑρμηνείας τῶν ἑβραϊκῶν ὀνομάτων» ἀπό τόν Κύριλλο Ἀλεξανδρείας (ἐξ ἀφορμῆς τοῦ Μελχισεδέκ)», Δελτίο Βιβλικῶν Μελετῶν 31A (2016), σελ. 19-26.
This article studies the way in which Cyril of Alexandria, on the occasion of the controversy over the identity of Melchizedek, relativizes the use of the ‘Interpretation of Hebrew Names’ as a means of obtaining an allegorical interpretation. To those who identified Melchizedek, king of Salem, with the Holy Spirit, under the guise of translating the name ‘Salem’ into Greek (‘peace’), Cyril demonstrates that the meaning of the Hebrew names (ὀνόματα) does not necessarily correspond to the biblical reality and can by no means deny their factual content (πράγματα).

In his Commentary on John 1:6, Cyril of Alexandria rejects the conjecture (hyponoia) of 'certain men' (tines) that John the Baptist was an angel, sent by God, who took a human body. The text of Origen's Commentary on John 1:6, which survives in Greek, enables us to identify 'certain men' mentioned by Cyril as Origen, and to show, for the first time, the direct access that Cyril had to that particular work of Origen. Does Cyril, however, target Origen personally with this criticism? Does he seek to condemn him in particular? No answer can be given, it seems, without taking into account the elements of Origen's arguments used by the Bishop of Alexandria, and additionally, his reference to the many (polloi) who deny John the Baptist's human nature.

“The Old Testament exegesis of Origen and Cyril of Alexandria: continuity or divergence? On the typological meaning of biblical characters”. —
This article examines the relationship between Origen’s and Cyril of Alexandria’s Old Testament exegesis, especially regarding the typological meaning of biblical characters. It compares Origen’s interpretation of the election of Jeremiah (Jer 1:4-10) and Cyril’s exegesis of the fourth vision of Joshua and Satan (Zach 3:1-9). Both Alexandrian commentators are confronted with the problem of Christological exegesis of the Old Testament, yet their interpretations are diametrically opposite. In the article, I question the reasons for their divergent views, and note that their approach seems to be “inversely proportional”. I conclude that Cyril clearly distances himself from Origen’s approach in that he limits the typological meaning of the Old Testament.

“Cyril of Alexandria against an allegorist exegete at the beginning of his 'In Oseam': Didymus the Blind or Pierius of Alexandria?”. —
The purpose of this article is to identify the anonymous commentator with whom Cyril of Alexandria is in disagreement at the beginning of his "Commentary on Hosea", because of the commentator's purely allegorical interpretation of the marriage of Hosea with a prostitute (Os 1:2-3). We present initially the position of the author "not deprived of reputation" as transmitted by Cyril, then we reexamine F.M. Abel's assumption in support of Didymus the Blind. Finally, we propose Pierius, a priest and leader of the Christian school of Alexandria, and his homily "On the Beginning of the Prophet Hosea", as possible candidates behind Cyril's attack.

“Two unpublished fragments of Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on Isaiah”. —
The edition princeps of Cyril of Alexandria’s "Commentary on Isaiah" by Jean Aubert (Paris, 1638), reprinted in J.-P. Migne’s "Patrologia Graeca" (vol. 70), was based only on two manuscripts, Paris. gr. 836 and Vatic. gr. 590, and is therefore quite defective; it has several lacunas as well as misreadings and typos. This article aims at filling two particularly important lacunas, which the examination of the ms. Florence, Laurentianus V, 6 (11th c.), one of the oldest textual witnesses, brought to our attention.