8. Between the earlier and the later publication of Mai, Cramer was issuing the successive volumes of his Catenz on the Epistles, and thereby adding largely to our _stock of fragments from Theodore, The first or Bodleian Catena on Romans (chs. 1-8) contains 54 quotations from Theodore; but since this Catena is beyond doubt descended, directly or indirectly, from the Vatican Catena on which Mai had already drawn (see above, p. 488°), no real addition to our knowledge was thereby made. The second or Munich Catena on Romans contains no more than 10 pieces from Theodore, and those quite brief, so that it, too, hardly comes into account. But for 1 Corinthians [the Catena is taken from Paris gr. 227] there are 58 passages from Theodore ; and in the same way the Catena on the lesser epistles from Galatians ‘to Philemon [taken from Paris coislin 204] supplied Cramer with no inconsiderable number (see Just below, in connexion with the Latin version of the commen. tary on those epistles).
y. Of A. F. V. von Wegnern’s Theodori Antio- chent Mopsuestie episcopi que supersunt omnia, only the first part, embracing the commentary on the Minor Prophets (Berlin, 1834), ever appeared, But in 1847 the scattered fragments of Theodore’s work on the New Testament, as they had appeared in Mai’s Spicilegiam and Cramer’s Catena, were put together and arranged in order by O. F. Fritzsche, Theodort episcopi Mopsuesteni in Novum Testa, mentum commentariorum que reperiri potuerunt (Ziirich). Of this useful volume, pp. 45-107 belong
* The letter was really written by Pelagius’ deacon, Gregory, afterwards pope Gregory the Great.
==
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
to Romans (Facundus’ fragment, and the Catena fragments of Mai and Cramer combined) ;_ pp. 108-119 to 1 Cor. (Cramer, with corrections) ; p. 120 to 2 Cor. (one fragment on 66 from Cramer ; Mai’s Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, vii., had not then been published) ; pp. 121-172 to Galatians-Hebrews (Cramer, with corrections). Fritzsche detected some cases of incorrect attribution to Theodore made by either Cramer’s copyist or his MS; but he did not examine the MSS himself, and he worked without the help of the criterion now put into our hands by the discovery of the Latin version. Of his preface, the most interesting part is the disquisition on the unknown writer ‘ Theo- dorus monachus.’ Cramer’s Munich Catena on- Romans assigns to this author 39 pieces, but Theodore of Mopsuestia (on the authority of Mai’s Vatican Catena) claims 16 out of the 39, and Diodore (on the authority of Cramer’s Bodleian Catena) 4, while 2 are Theodoret’s. Among his- torical personages known as ‘ Theodore the Monk,’ the easiest to identify with the exegete of the Catenze would be, Fritzsche thinks, the Severianist monk Theodore of Alexandria at the beginning of the 6th cent.; but the result of Fritzsche’s analysis of the 39 fragments on Romans points rather in the direction of some unknown compiler of the Antiochene school (see below, p. 519*).
6, The edition of Theodore in Migne’s Patrologia Greca, tom. 66, is, so far as concerns the Pauline epistles (cc. 787 - 968), reprinted direct from Fritzsche, with the addition of a Latin transla- tion and of the fragments from Mai’s Nov. Patr. Bibl. vii.*
(iv.) Lhe Latin version of the commentaries on Galatians-Philemon. —More important for our knowledge of Theodore than even the discoveries of Mai and Cramer was the identification of a Latin version of the commentary on the ten shorter epistles. The Benedictine editors of St. Ambrose noticed that, of two sister MSS of an exposition of St. Paul belonging to the great library of the abbey of Corbie, near Amiens, the first contained on Romans and on 1 and 2 Corinthians the well- known commentary of Ambrosiaster, the second contained on the remaining epistles (Hebrews not being included) a commentary wholly unknown to them save that Rabanus Maurus had obviously made large use of it (Ambrosii Opera, ii., Paris, 1690, App. p. 21).+ The next scholar to concern himself with the Corbie commentary (which mean- while, since the time of the Revolution, had become Nos. 87 and 88 in the public library at Amiens) was another Benedictine, dom, afterwards cardinal, J. B. Pitra. Pitra saw that the unknown commentary was a genuine and unadulterated survival from the Patristic period, far older than the 9th cent.—the date both of Rabanus and of the Corbie MS ; and believing that he had found the true author in the person of St. Hilary of Poitiers, he published in 1852, under that F ather’s naine, the full commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, and Philemon, with brief notes on the rest (Spici- legium Solesmense, Paris, i. pp. XXVi-xxxv, 49-159). But a comparison of Pitra’s text with Cramer’s lately published Catena on the same epistles revealed the fact that in the Greek fragments which bore the name of Theodore was to be found the equivalent, so far as they went, of the
*E, Sachau’s Theodori Mopsuestent Fragmenta Syriaca e codicibus Musei Britannici Nitriacis (Leipzig, 1869) appears to contain nothing from any of the commentaries on the Epistles.
t Besides Rabanus (who, however, for Gal. and Eph. used the real Ambrosiaster, and only began his use of the unknown authority with Philippians), we can now add Amalarius, de Keclesiasticis Oficiis (Philippians and 1 Timothy), and arch- bishop Lanfranc’s commentary on St. Paul (Galatians to Philemon), as well as an isolated reference on Galatians in