(zd) Cramer’s second Catena on Romans (77 end) is drawn from Munich gr. 412, sec. xiii. ; and as this MS (apart from two late copies of itself) is again the only known representative of its Catena, we have no means as yet of supplement- ing Cramer’s edition. [K. L. ii. p. 601}.
(c) Cramer’s other Catena on Romans (chapters 1-8) is derived from a late Bodleian MS, Auct. E. ii, 20. Inexact statements have been made about this MS (see further in the fourth section of this article, p. 522*), but it is at any rate now clear that both this MS and the Paris MS gr. 227, which supplied Cramer’s Catena on 1 Corinthians, are descendants * of the Vatican MS gr. 762, sec. x5 from which Mai extracted citations of Didymus, Theodore, and Cyril; and whereas the copies only contain Ro 1-8 and 1 Cor. respectively, the original
* The Paris Corinthians MS appears to be simply a transcript,
the Bodleian Romans MS to be to some extent an abbreviation, of the corresponding parts of the Vatican MS.
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES 489.
covers the whole of the three epistles, Romans,
1 Corinthians, and 2 Corinthians. No known Catena has so wide a range of early sources; but side by side with primitive elements occurs the name of Photius. [k. L. i. pp. 598-601].
(f). How far the unpublished Catena on 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians, contained in Vatic. gr. 692, sec. xii., is independent of those already described, it is not easy to say: among the names frequently quoted is that of Oecumenius, but we find also Origen, Theodore, Cyril, Severus (7.e. Severian?), and on 2 Cor. Di(dymus?). [K. L. iii. p. 601: see below, p. 522%).
(g) The apparently imperfect Catena of a Vienna MS (gr. 166 [46], sec. xiii.) on Ro 1'-1 Co 1” cites no fewer than 24 authors ; but a considerable proportion of these are comparatively late—Ana- stasius, John Climax, John of Damascus, Maximus, Oecumenius, Photius, Symeon Logothetes. A dis- tinguishing feature of this collection is that it discriminates to some extent between the sources of its information. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Gennadius are cited é« rod tous, ‘from the text,’ i.e. direct from their respective commentaries ; while among those cited as oxo’ or ék Toi oxo’, 2.€. from Catene, are Origen, Acacius, Severian, Theodore, Oecumenius, Euthalius, Photius. One source was presumably the Photian recension of Oecumenius; butit would seem that another and much more ancient Catena must also have been employed. [K. L. vii. p. 609].
(A) ‘The last Catena is one on Romans and 1 Co- rinthians in Vatic. gr. 1270, sec. xii. It appears to bear some relation to Oecumenius, but to con- tain less matter, and, apparently, to name its authorities—John (Chrysostom), Severian, Theo- doret—more frequently. Perhaps it will be found valuable for identifying new matter from Severian on these two epistles. [K. L. viii. p. 610].
Lest attention should be unduly distracted from the main purpose of this article, further details about some of the more important MSS of Karo and Lietzmann’s lists, as well as some notice of one or two which do not appear there at all, are relegated to a later point (p. 521). These preliminary pages are meant only to serve for introduction to the catalogue of commentators which follows, and for the better understanding of the process by which their works, or what remains of them, have to be rescued and reconstructed.
iii, PATRISTIC COMMENTATORS ON ST. PAUL.—
4, Marcion.—W hether the Antitheses of Marcion, which certainly contained what amounted to some sort of theological commentary on his Gospel, con- tained also similar expositions of his ‘ Apostolicon,’* is uncertain, though perhaps probable. We have no such definite statement for the Epistles as Tertullian has given in regard to the Gospel :+ the evidence in the affirmative consists primarily of references in Jerome’s commentaries on the Gala- tians and Ephesians — taken, no doubt, from Origen’s books on the same epistles—which seem to point in this direction. Thus (4) on Gal 3” (Vallarsi, vii. 434) : ‘ Christus nos redemit de male- dicto legis, factus pro nobis maledictum ; subrepit in hoc loco Marcion, de potestate creatoris, quem sanguinarium crudelem infamat et vindicem [v./. iudicem], asserens nos redemptos esse per Christum, qui alterius boni dei filius sit.’—(0) On Gal 6° (p. 528): ‘Comnvunicet autem ws que catechizatur verbum ei qui se catechizat in omnibus bonis ; Marcion hune locum ita interpretatus est ut putaret fideles et catechumenos simul orare debere, et magistrum communicare in oratione discipulis,
* dc. his revised text of ten epistles of St. Paul, excluding
the Pastoral epistles. P + Tert. adv. Marcionem, iv. 1.
illo vel maxime elatus quod sequatur in omnibus bonis . . cetera quae sequuntur cum eius expositione non congruunt.’—(c) On Eph 5*!* (p. 659): ‘ Propter hoc relinguet homo patrem et matrem, et erunt duo im carne una: sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia . . . interro- gemus Marcionem qua consequentia locum istum, qui de Veteri usurpatus est Instrumento, in Chris- tum et in Ecclesiam interpretari queat, cum iuxta illum scriptura vetus omnino non pertineat ad Christum.’ Of Marcion’s exegesis we can at any rate say that, unlike the interpretations of the Valentinian school, it was not allegorist, or rather that it was diametrically opposed to allegory ; but the main interest with which he wrote was, no doubt, theological rather than directly exegetical.