* Jerome speaks of his ‘eloquence’ again in contrasting him with Diodore of Tarsus (de Vir. Til. 119). 2
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
Eusebius, however, was the more popular and rhetorical, and, if we may judge from the ‘ten books’? which he devoted to one of St. Paul’s shorter epistles, the more diffuse writer of the two.
Jerome names Eusebius again in the preface to his commentary on Galatians (vii. 369), but no- where quotes from him by name. Cramer's Catena on the Galatians—in other words, MS Paris coislin 204—ineludes a few, for the most part very brief, citations: on Gal [2-24.11 99.18.20 323-.44-7 12, 14. 20 63. Two points are noticeable about these frag- ments. Inthe first place, the predicate ‘of Emesa is found only on two occasions out of thirteen, though there does not seem any real reason to doubt that Cramer is right in attributing all Eusebius references to Eusebius of Emesa. In the second place, nine quotations out of the thirteen are introduced anonymously in the text with the phrase dAdos (érepos) pyolv, the name Eusebius being supplied in the margin: but again there is no ground for doubting the correctness of the in- formation. The annotator shows first-hand know- ledge of particular interpretations of Eusebius on pp. 31, 90; and the only question is whether some of the anonymous quotations which have no mar- ginal ascription of authorship may not likewise belong to our Eusebius.
That the catenist should have so far relaxed the rigidity of Greek orthodoxy as to make even this tentative and semi-anonymous use of an Arian commentator, is perhaps another indication of his early date: see above, p. 488".
8. Asterius the Arian (on the Romans).— _
The literary activity of this celebrated Arian philosopher, theologian, and exegete—of whom the Dictionary of Christian Biography contains no mention—is placed by Jerome (de Vir. Jil. 94) within the limits of the reign of Constantius ;* but his history goes back to the great persecution, and he was a personal disciple of Lucian’s. A Cappadocian by birth, an Antiochene by training, he was one of those to whom the Arian movement in its earliest stages owed most. No one did more than Asterius the layman to give it its philo- sophical basis, its theological terminology, and its literary expression. In the field of exegesis Jerome records that his labours included com- mentaries on the Epistle to the Romans and on the Gospels: but he tells us nothing about these books which would involve a. first-hand acquaintance with them; and what he does say, namely, that they were assiduously studied in Arian circles, when taken in connexion with the complete absence of citations from them in the Caten, perhaps suggests that the Arian animus was-more marked in his exegesis than in that of Theodore of Heraclea and Eusebius of Emesa.
(Athanasius, Basil of Cesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa].—That citations from the great Fathers of the 4th cent., whose writings served as the authoritative standard of Greek dogmatic theology, should be found scattered here and there throughout the Catenz, is only what we should expect. The references to Atha- nasius, indeed, in Cramer’s four volumes on the Pauline epistles amount—excluding, here as else- where, the Epistle to the Hebrews—to no more than two. Those to Basil, outside the Roman epistle, are also only two: for the Roman epistle they are fairly numerous. The few quotations
* If Asterius of Scythopolis, philosopher and commentator on the Psalms (Jerome, Hpp. 1xx. 4, exii. 20: Vallarsi, i. 427, 747), were identical with our Asterius the Arian, also a philosopher and also a commentator on the Psalms (Jerome, de Vir. Ill. 94), we should have a further proof that Jerome placed him after Eusebius of Cxsarea and Theodore of Heraclea. But, even if the identification were more probable than it is, Jerome’s chronology is not infallible.
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES 499
from Gregory Nazianzen occur also mainly, those from Gregory of Nyssa exclusively, in the Catena on the same epistle. It will be remembered that Cramer’s sources are for the Roman epistle a Bodleian Catena and a Munich Catena (see above, p. 487°): for each of the Corinthian epistles a separate Paris MS: for the other ten epistles a continuous Catena in a single Paris MS, coislin 204. Of these, the second or Munich Catena on the Romans (7’-end) is responsible for all but nine of the whole number of quotations from these four Fathers on the Pauline epistles: and this fact alone is enough to create some presumption that none of them had written on any of the other epistles, since commentaries of such distinguished authorship could hardly have escaped the notice of a catenist ; and even a commentary on the Romans, had there been such a one, must have played its part in the Bodleian as well as in the Munich Catena. Further, many of the citations from these particular Fathers are introduced not only with the name of their author, but of the book from which they are taken. Thus for Atha- nasius: 1 Co 7 (Cramer, in Epp. ad Cor. 478 *= Benedictine edition, ii. 1272=Migne, Patr. Gr. 27 c. 1403), rod dylov ’A@avactov év rw Ilepl rob ceuvod yauov. For Basil: in the Munich Catena on _ Romans, é« ray ’Acknrixéy (eight passages), éx r&v
"Avrippynrixay (three), éx rod “Ori otk éorw airios Tov Kax@v 6 Oeds (two), éx Tod His rdv AB’, eis Tdv Ay’, els Tov md’, Wadudy (one each), éx Tod epi evxapiorias Aéyouv (one): on Col 1% & Trois Kar’ Bivouiov ddyos (two). For Gregory Naz.: Munich Catena on Romans, é« rod “Hrryuévov (one), é« rod Ilepi viov B’ Nébyov (one), éx 7&v Tept dirorrwxlas (two): on Col 1” év 7@ Ilepi viod devrépw Noyw: on Eph 1” év T@ Ilept viod Néyw. For Gregory Nyssen: Munich Catena on Romans, é« Tov card Hivoulov B' déyou, év T@ TéNet TOU KaTa Etvoulov éBdduov Adyov. Such passages as still remain unaccounted for show themselves on examination to be derived from sources still extant: thus the rest of the Basil quotations in the Munich Catena on Romans can mostly be traced to the adversus Eunomium and the apparently spurious Homilia de Spiritu sancto. Of Catenze other than Cramer’s, Karo and Lietz- mann’s lists (see pp. 488-489, above, a and g) show an occasional use, but no more, of the great dog- matic writers. Thus Oecumenius gives one quota- tion from Athanasius, three from Basil (one of them éx rfjs Ilpds DwforoNlras ériorodjjs), one from Gregory Nazianzen eis rév B’ Iepi viod Abyor, two from Gregory Nyssen. The Vienna Catena on Romans has none from Athanasius, but four from each of the Gregorys, and nearly 20 from Basil, the sources being generally given in the case of Basil and Gregory Nyssen. Thus for Basil: ’Ack7- rixav (five passages), Béanuepou, His roy XY papdv, His 7d Idrep judy, Ilept pOdvov, “Ore ob eorw aiTlos KaK@Y 6 Oeds, ev TH Ipods "Aupiddxvoy Ke, His 7d papriproy "Toudlrras, év Nake (2) Gur. (all one each) ; for Greg. Nyss. Els 7d Idrep judy f' ousNlas and pds Hivéuov do. Some of these references are probably identical with references noted above from Cramer: in any case the general result is the same. There is no reason whatever to suppose that any of these Fathers wrote a commentary on any part of St. Paul.+ F