Catenae

The paper focuses on the Greek New Testament catenae and the ways Constantine of
Preslav utilised them as the main sources for his Uchitel’noe evangelie (‘Didactic Gospel’). In the second half of the 19th century, it was convincingly demonstrated that for the largest part of his homilies in the Uchitel’noe evangelie Constantine of Preslav had extensively borrowed material from the Greek New Testament catenae. In most of the cases the translated texts from Greek into Slavonic remained unaltered and, thus, formed the exegetical core of the homilies. Nevertheless, in order to present a more expressive homiletic text, Constantine of Preslav added some salutations, rhetorical questions, and
exhortations addressed to his audience to the introductory and concluding parts of his
homilies. In addition to that, the some of the homilies contain extensive catechetical
sections, e.g., the one on the significance of the Eucharist (homily fifty-one), as well as
prayer texts, e.g. the short opening prayer in the third homily, which are deemed to be
originally composed by Constantine of Preslav himself.
*

We have uploaded a new version of the data to the Open Access search platform. This means that the data in the update platform and the OA search platform are now identical again. In this newsletter we present what's new in Clavis Clavium, how to become a contributor and how to get the browser extension.

The publication presents a Russian translation of the surviving part of the «Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans» St. Cyril of Alexandria from the Greek Catenae. In the Preface the initial form of the Commentary is determinated and with the help of additional sources it is concluded that it was an exegetical commentary divided into «tomes». On the basis of the content of the treatise, the question of its dating is solved and it is indicated that the absence something notion of the Nestorian controversy means that it was written before 429, and the features of the triadological terminology allow to date it not earlier than the beginning of writing of the «Dialogues upon the Holy Trinity» (412 or 423). Examines the hermeneutical principles of the Saint and an overview of the content of the Commentary. It is noted that it is devoted almost exclusively to the issues of soteriology.

En 1929, Joseph Lebon a signalé l’existence d’un fragment arménien du commentaire de Cyril d’Alexandrie sur 1 Corinthiens. Ce fragment, conservé dans le Florilège dogmatique arménien Sceau de la foi, datant du VIIe siècle, représente le seul texte du commentaire qui nous soit parvenu traduit dans l’ancienne langue arménienne. Cet article présente la première étude complexe de ce texte pratiquement inconnu. Il offre le texte du fragment arménien et sa traduction allemande. Elle est suivie d’une analyse philologique détaillée du texte qui compare le fragment arménien, tant sur le plan lexical que syntaxique, avec l'extrait correspondant de la version grecque existante du commentaire de Cyrille. En outre, des commentaires sont proposés sur l’intégration formelle du fragment dans le commentaire ainsi que sur son contenu. L’article se termine par quelques remarques sur la réception du commentaire de Cyrille dans la littérature orientale chrétienne.

Draft translation. One of the thirty-seven homilies which Sever J. Voicu has ascribed to an anonymous Cappadocian who was active in Constantinople around the very end of the fourth-century or beginning of the fifth. The opening section (only published in a Latin translation to date) describes animals and natural phenomena as silent witnesses and servants. A short section later in the homily which explains Christ's divine-human nature, parallels catenae on Ps 96 ascribed to Origen.

The paper introduces a hitherto uninvestigated piece of Slavic translated literature: a catena on the Psalms preserved in six copies of 15th - 16 th centuries (including three copies as parts of Metropolitan Macarius’ Great Menaion Reader). The exact Greek archetype of the piece is unknown; the original volume of the translation is also unclear since surviving copies break off after Ps. 76 or in the middle of Ps. 84. The catena consists of fragments of four writings: Commentary on the Psalms by Theodoret of Cyrrhus (CPG 6202), On the Titles of the Psalms and Great Commentary on the Psalms by Hesychius of Jerusalem (CPG 6552, 6554), Brief Commentary on the Psalms by Pseudo-Hesychius (CPG 6553).  Notably, the Great Commentary is presented by a nearly complete text of the exegesis of Ps. 51–84, which obviously should be considered in investigations of this important tractate, since its Greek original has been preserved only in few fragmentary copies. Analysis of the text demonstrates that the catena was translated by Russian bookmen in the late 11th or early 12th century. Its language is similar to that of other Old Russian translated exegetical writings, first and foremost to the Commentary on the Gospels by Theophylact of Bulgaria (of Ohrid) and to the Apostolos with Commentaries.

The paper presents the newfound fragments of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s «Commentary on John» translated into Russian. The fragments in question were discovered after critical edition of this Commentary by Ph. Pusey was published in 1872. The Introduction reminds 7–8th books of the Commentary had been lost. It provides the brief overview of earlier publications containing fragments of the lost books by J. Aubert, A. Mai, J.-P. Migne and Ph. Pusey. The latest publications of J. Reuss (1944, 1966), A. Alexakis (1996) and K. Zawadzki (2018) who complemented the Commentary with new fragments are mentioned as well. The overview of content of the newfound fragments is presented. Basing on specifics of triadological terminology, the assumption is made that the two fragments of the Cod. Paris. gr. 1115 published by Alexakis do not actually belong to St. Cyril of Alexandria. The statement of Zawadzki who dates the fragment of Cod. Athon. Pantocr. 28 (discovered by him) to the times of Nestorian controversy due to occurrence of the expression «God-bearing man» (ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος) in it is criticized. It is suggested that the abovementioned expression had been circulating long before the controversy, and criticism of dualism in christology is also encountered in the early works of St. Cyril. The conclusion is drawn that occurrence of the expression «God-bearing man» in the St. Cyril’s Commentary does not provide grounds to reject its traditional attribution to the period before 428/429.

The central message of the Bible focuses on the Incarnation of Jesus and on this occasion talks about the miracles he performed, the sacrifices he made for humanity, and the new revelation he unfolded about the nature and meaning of life. These early texts, referred to as the Gospel, are basically the four Gospels. In addition to these, the new congregations that Paul formed through his travels and the letters he wrote to these congregations became a part of the Bible. None of these texts were dictated by Jesus himself. On the contrary, these texts were shaped and finalized by a few mortal writers inspired by the Holy Spirit in the historical process. Contradictory statements appear from time to time in the Bible. How these contradictory expressions should be understood finds its answer in the tradition of tafsir in the history of Christianity. Over the centuries, many commentators have written monumental works and interpreted the Bible. Bible interpretations have historically been divided into five categories. These can be listed chronologically as Jewish Commentaries, Patristic Commentaries, Medieval Commentaries, Modern Catholic Commentaries, and Non-Catholic Commentaries. In this way, Jewish Commentaries basically include the works of Jewish religious scholars who interpreted the Old Testament from within the Jewish tradition. Patristic Commentaries, on the other hand, refer to the period up to the 7th century, which includes the works of the early Greek and Latin Church Fathers. The period of Medieval Commentaries is a term used to describe the period from the 7th to the 16th centuries and is considered the golden age of the Christian Tafsir Tradition. Modern Catholic Commentaries, on the other hand, is a term used to express the works of the leading writers of the Jesuit order. Interpretations of Non-Catholics is a term used to categorize tafsir books written by prominent clergy of other denominations, especially Protestant denominations. In this study, the main commentators of each period, their works, the methods they used while interpreting and their position in the tradition of tafsir will be mentioned.

Τhe Supplementum aims to offer an insight into my doctoral work on Catenae and Commentaries on Paul, within the ERC Catena Project, lead by Professor Hugh Houghton from the University of Birmingham. My contribution to the project will offer the first-ever critical edition of the Catena of Oecuemnius on Romans, including a detailed analysis of the paleographical and philological aspects of the manuscripts selected for the edition.

Pseudo-Chrysostom’s commentary on Jeremiah is here presented as an example of a Greek exegetical work facing up to the clear discrepancies between the Hebrew text of the biblical book and its Old Greek translation. A comparison with one of Photius’s Amphilochia (no. 152) strengthens the attribution of this commentary to Polychronius of Apamea, already suggested by L. Dieu. The comments to Ier 38 (MT31), 2 are particularly focused and offer an opportunity to investigate the hypothesis that the source therein mentioned as ὁ Ἑβραῖος might refer to a Greek rendering of an Aramaic (and potentially Targumic) version of the Hebrew text.

This article provides a fresh evaluation of evidence on manuscript GA 304 (Paris, BnF, Grec 94). This manuscript is often quoted in critical editions of the New Testament as one of the three main Greek witnesses to the short ending of Mark. As part of the MARK16 project, the author provides a close examination of the manuscript’s content, with a focus on Mark 16. Afterwards, a closer look into the possible literary connection between GA 304 and the Gospels commentary of understand the background of Mark’s short ending in this manuscript. Against recent assessments that downplayed its significance in the debates of Mark’s ending, this article argues that GA 304 stands as a good case for the author’s preference of the short ending, which must have been based on an authoritative source that shaped his decision. The manuscript’s complex relationship to Theophylact’s commentary shows how it should not be presumed that the former is posterior to the latter, and therefore it does not owe its ending to a redactional act of Theophylact’s catena. Therefore, this article opens the door for further literary examination of GA 304 against the wider pool of the tradition of Greek catenae.

On examine les quatre chaînes dites de Jean le Droungaire sur les Grands Prophètes. La datation et le milieu d'origine sont réévalués à neuf à partir du traitement réservé à Sévère d'Antioche. L'article propose l'hypothèse que les chaînes du Ps.-Droungarios sont l'oeuvre d'érudits pro-sévériens, et que d'autres chaînes pourraient être dans le même cas.

In the second letter of his exchange with Julian of Halicarnassus in the 520s, the exiled patriarch Severus of Antioch devotes an inordinately long section to demonstrating that there is no inconsistency between Paul and James as to the relative importance of faith and works. This letter is to be found both in a translation into Syriac by Paul of Callinicum and in an independent Syriac translation in the ‘Miscellaneous History’ of Pseudo-Zachariah of Mytilene (ix.13). A very similar discussion of this passage is also to be found in the Catena in epistolas catholicas, ed. J.A. Cramer (Oxford, 1840), where it is left unattributed. We show that it represents a hitherto unidentified fragment of Severus’ work in Greek.

Новото издание на Учителното сказание на Константин Преславски, излязло наскоро под редакцията на Мария Тихова, представя пред нас възможност за цялостен нов прочит на известния още от XIX век старобългарски текст. В редица случаи то допълва и обогатява нашата представа за стария български книжовен език като ни открива нови езикови особености или ни предоставя данни за вече известни лингвистични феномени. Една от най-интересните области за проучване ни предлага лексикалния състав на паметника. Редом с вече известни старинни народни думи, навлезли в книжовния старобългарски език откриваме редки и дори уникални думи и съчетания, които безспорно ще бъдат тепърва предмет на задълбочени изследвания.

The article presents the Greek text of sermon 20 from Constantine of Preslav’s Učitel’noe Evangelie (UE) based on the standard Cramer’s edition of the Greek Catenae, yet, extended by the text of ten other manuscripts. The Greek text is juxtaposed to the Old Bulgarian one and the text of the relevant John Chrysostom’s Homily. A detailed analysis is provided for all passages where the newly adduced variant readings correspond better to the UE’s text. Often, the UE’s compiler seems to have used the text of the Homily. In other instances, however, it appears that the Catena and the Homily texts were used simultaneously by him. Cramer’s text is further rechecked after the primary source of the edition (Cod. Coisl. 23) together with the witness used by Cramer for the Supplementum to its edition – Bodl. Auct. T. I. 4. Thus, the Greek text corrects some misprints in Cramer’s edition while at the same time providing new readings that stay closer to UE’s text. In conclusion, some observations are drawn regarding the relations between the witnesses of the Greek tradition that might be useful in a future critical edition of UE’s Greek Vorlage.

Настоящая статья посвящена одному из экзегетических произведений святителя Кирилла Александрийского — «Толкованию на Послание к евреям». Этот труд святителя сохранился только во фрагментах, катенах, флорилегиях и цитатах у других писателей. В начале статьи указывается проблематика текстов, дошедших в косвенной традиции, и приводятся свидетельства позднейших авторов, доказывающие существование «Толкования на Послание к евреям» святителя Кирилла. Затем дается обзор существующих изданий произведения с указанием рукописей, использованных учеными при каждой публикации. Приводятся мнения исследователей о датировке сочинения, единодушно относящие его к антинесторианскому периоду творчества святителя (после 428 г.) В статье упоминается о ценном открытии П. М. Парвиса, обнаружившего в произведении фрагмент полемики святителя Кирилла против антиохийской экзегезы и христологии Феодора Мопсуестийского. Также рассматривается гипотеза Ф. Э. Пьюзи о двух сочинениях святителя разных жанров, составленных на Послание к евреям, и мнения других исследователей по поводу данной гипотезы. Приводятся результаты изучения армянских фрагментов сочинения Ж. Лебоном. В заключение автором статьи выдвигается гипотеза о структуре произведения.

In the present article the author studies one of the exegetical works of St. Cyril of Alexandria, his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. This work has been preserved only in fragments contained in catenae, florilegia, and quotations by other authors. The author identifies the texts that have survived to our day and the testimonies of later authors, who confirm that St. Cyril had written a Commentary on Hebrews. The author then provides an overview of the existing publications of this work with an indication of the manuscripts used by scholars of each edition. The author provides the opinions of different scholars about the dating of the work, all of which date it to the anti-Nestorian period of St. Cyril’s life, after 428 AD. The author comments on the valuable insight by P. M. Parvis, who found in this work a fragment of St. Cyril’s polemics against the Antiochian exegesis and Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The author also considers the hypothesis of P. E. Pusey, who believed that two works of different genres were composed by St. Cyril commenting on Hebrews, as well as the opinions of other scholars about this hypothesis. The author comments on the Armenian fragments of this work studied by J. Lebon. Finally, the author provides
a hypothesis about the structure of the work.

The rediscovery of a new fragment of Severus of Antioch’s Contra testamentum Lampetii allows us to get new information about the heresy of the Lampetians (V sec. CE), which was somehow connected with the Messalian heresy. The article discusses the ancient sources regarding Lampetius and his doctrines, and contains a new edition of the fragments of Contra testamentum Lampetii.

This article deals with the anonymous scholia of the catena commentary on 1 Corinthians that survives in Codex Pantokratoros 28. These texts without attribution are presented and examined here for the first time. The special focus of this examination is on the question of authorship of the anonymous scholia. The result of this investigation shows that there are two primary sources: Pseudo-Oecumenius’ Commentary on 1 Corinthians (CPG C165) and John Chrysostom’ Homilies on 1 Corinthians (CPG 4428). The article concludes with some reflections on the value of the examined scholia for patristics, exegesis and philology.

The exegetical texts of Alexandros of Nikaia – a Byzantine bishop living in the 10th century – were hitherto completely unknown to scholarship. Although some catena manuscripts contain several scholia attributed to Alexandros, they have never been the subject of scientific examination. The present article provides the first edition of one of these scholia that survives in the catena commentary on 2 Corinthians in Codex Vaticanus Graecus 762. The edited text is translated into German and extensively commented on. The linguistic and content analysis of the edited scholion allows to say that there is no reason to doubt that the text was originally written by Alexandros who here shows himself a quite conscientious biblical commentator. The article concludes with a list of all catena scholia that are attributed to the Byzantine bishop. The existence of these texts makes clear that the exegetical activity of Alexandros of Nikaia may no longer be ignored.

The paper held at the EABS Annual Conference in Warsaw, 2019, concerns an initial description and analysis of the manuscripts of the Pseudo-Oecumenian Catena on Romans. The paper aims to investigate the scholia of the Oecuemenian tradition and describes the different stages in the formation of the text of the Catena: an initial stage of numbered scholia, a secondary addition of extracts from the commentaries of the Greek Church Fathers on the Romans (Corpus Extravagantium) and ultimate exegetical extracts from the byzantine cardinal Photos of Constantinople (Scholia Photiana).

The article deals with five other scholia attributed to Clement in Vat. ar. 452 and 410, with respect to the Coptic version of the catena. It is argued that two scholia are attributed to Clement mistakenly: the scholion on John 14:3-7 is an abbreviated paraphrase of Cyril of Alexandria's Commentary on John and the scholion on John 14:21-3 is an abbreviated paraphrase of John Chrysostom's Homilies on John. In contrast, the source of scholia on John 1:37 (both versions) and John 2:1 has not yet been identified. Since their style is similar to Clement's Adumbrationes and to Clement's scholia on John 1:8 and 1:11 (fragm. inc. 17 and 18), it is suggested that the scholia on John 1:37 and John 2:1 be included into a list of Clement's fragments of uncertain origin.

Inscription à la visioconférence obligatoire avant le 30 juin 2021 (cf. lien dans le programme)
Chef-d’œuvre du livre byzantin, le Psautier de Paris est une des créations les plus célèbres de la « Renaissance » macédonienne du Xe siècle. Le présent colloque est la première entreprise de recherche consacrée exclusivement à ce manuscrit exceptionnel. Le but est de réunir dans une perspective interdisciplinaire des tardo-antiquisants et des byzantinistes, spécialistes de codicologie et de philologie, d’exégèse biblique et de théologie, d’histoire de l’art et d’esthétique. Cet effort collectif vise à replacer le Psautier de Paris dans son contexte, pour étudier de manière approfondie sa genèse et ses sources, son mode de fonctionnement interne ainsi que l’influence qu’il a pu exercer sur l’art byzantin.

La chaîne vaticane sur l’Épître aux Romains (CPG C 160) est à première vue une chaîne sans complications, si l’on en croit Karl Staab : un seul manuscrit bien conservé, le Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 762 (en laissant de côté ses copies récentes), des extraits d’une grande fidélité aux sources et pour la plupart correctement attribués, une datation pouvant remonter au viie siècle pour la partie la plus ancienne[1]. Pour ce qui est de l’édition, certes, celle de John Anthony Cramer repose sur un manuscrit récent et abrégé, mais les extraits tirés d’œuvres non conservées en tradition directe sont éditées[2]. Conditions apparemment idéales pour entreprendre l’étude de la chaîne pour elle-même, entre autres comme objet littéraire. À ce sujet, autant dire que les recherches sur la chaîne vaticane sont à l’état embryonnaire[3].

Quel auteur mieux que Jean Chrysostome peut nous aider à comprendre comment les extraits sont sélectionnés, transformés et intégrés dans la chaîne ? En effet, cet auteur est à la fois le plus souvent cité et le seul, avec Théodoret de Cyr, dont l’exégèse est entièrement conservée en tradition directe. C’est donc également sur lui que se fondent les jugements précédemment cités sur la qualité de la chaîne. Or, en m’attelant à la première étape de l’investigation sur les extraits de cet auteur, à savoir le recensement des extraits, je me heurte déjà à des difficultés inattendues qui touchent aussi bien la transmission des homélies de l’évêque de Constantinople sur l’Épître aux Romains que la genèse de la compilation, et qui remettent en cause bien des préjugés sur cette chaîne prétendument parfaite. Ces difficultés seront présentées à la discussion lors de la séance du 2 juin 2022.

The first part of the paper concerns manuscripts transmitting catenae on the Gospel according to Luke. In particular, this part reflects on how the study of the structure of catenae on Luke based on the selection and arrangement of excerpts culled from earlier sources as well as of other paratextual features could provide a means of organising catenae manuscripts on Luke into groups. The examination of such features as well as the study of selected text passages may help us establish how catenae manuscripts on Luke relate to each other. The second part of this paper considers the earliest extant representative of the catena on Luke, the so-called Codex Zacynthius. The study of the catena text in Zacynthius may shed light upon the issue of the origin and development of the catenae on Luke

This study shows that the argumenta to the Pauline letters attributed to Theodoret in the catena of Oecumenius are without doubt summaries of John Chrysostom’s argumenta to these letters, and that they relate to those handed down in the catena of Theophylact. First, we will draw up a list of testimonies of the summaries attributed to Theodoret—manuscripts of catenae and Pauline epistles—and state the hypothesis of a link with the transmission of Oecumenius’ catena. After proving the dependence of John Chrysostom and the link with Theophylact, we will bring forward several hypotheses about the precise relations between the three series of argumenta. We will underline the importance of these texts as testimonies of the transmission and reception of John Chrysostom’s text, as well as of the technique of summary in Late Antiquity, and we will indicate some directions for further research.

Description et mise en contexte du manuscrit IFEB 1 (a. 1743). Son copiste est Mikes/Macaire Bouros de Chios. L'IFEB 1 est un fragment d'une Chaîne sur l'Octateuque dont la partie finale est conservée dans le ms. Constantinople, Metochion du Saint-Sépulcre 1 (actuellement à Athènes).

This essay deals with the biblical exegesis of Severus, who was bishop of Antioch between 512 and 518 and was the leading theologian of those Christians who refuted the Chalcedonian definition of the natures of Christ. The mail goal is to show that Severus was influenced not only by the Antiochene exegesis, but also by Origen and the so-called Alexandrian exegetical school. First, the author traces all the explicit references to Origen and Didymus the Blind in Severus’s works, and analyses the method Severus used in reading Origen. Then he focuses on three allegories, which are found in Severus’s Greek fragments: these metaphors were firstly developed by Origen and the Alexandrian school and were probably mediated by Cyril of Alexandria and the Cappadocian fathers, such as Gregory of Nyssa.

The notion of catena was introduced originally to represent the syntactic structure of multiword expressions with idiosyncratic semantics and non-constituent structure. Later on, several other phenomena (such as ellipsis, verbal complexes, etc.) were
formalized as catenae. This naturally led to the suggestion that a catena can be considered a basic unit of syntax. In this paper
we present a formalization of catenae and the main operations over them for modelling the combinatorial potential of units
in dependency grammar.