tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post8448411078579672834..comments2024-03-28T14:13:51.996+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: What is a Catena Manuscript and Why should we Care?P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-51879422035047345722018-06-05T19:26:46.694+01:002018-06-05T19:26:46.694+01:00Thanks, John, for this very instructive descriptio...Thanks, John, for this very instructive description. I will use, of course with mentioning your name, a couple of your examples. Fernandez Marcos also puts the beginning of them in the 6th century. He follows the description of Deconinck who differentiates between four forms: catenae with columns, marginal catenae with biblical text in the middle of the page as you have them in the first section, text catenae, as the one you have in the section on text catenae, and margin catenae, in which the ms originally only had the biblical text and the margins were later filled up with catenae. I think the catenae of Thomas Aquinas (the catena aurea) is a good example of the first category. Now, in which ones of these do we find clear assignments of authorship? Thanks again for your work! Greetings from Salzburg, Kristin!<br />Kristin De Troyernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-62034359857194598992017-08-19T16:02:22.091+01:002017-08-19T16:02:22.091+01:00It looks like a page of Talmud.It looks like a page of Talmud.Fat Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09554029467445000453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-84463447939494631532017-08-17T18:29:19.004+01:002017-08-17T18:29:19.004+01:00And likewise thanks for the dialogue! It's alw...And likewise thanks for the dialogue! It's always great to have conversation partners on catena.Jeremiah Cooganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17072710259156107252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-89625644378258181602017-08-17T18:26:47.636+01:002017-08-17T18:26:47.636+01:00I'm happier with the latter conclusion, althou...I'm happier with the latter conclusion, although there are limitations to the evidence. We have more marginalia of other sorts appearing in those centuries—lectionary marks, secondary paratextual headings, Eusebian apparatus, Euthaliana, variant readings, glosses in another language, etc.—but virtually nothing that looks like the content that characterizes catena.<br /><br />For comparison, I think it's helpful to look outside the biblical tradition at other manuscripts from the same period. The movement from collections of running-text excerpts to the margins of a primary text, which I argue is what creates marginal catena, is also almost certainly what happens in the case of the Homeric scholia. (At least initially, although later on, multiple marginal catenae get combined, which makes everything messier.)Jeremiah Cooganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17072710259156107252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-90035662177423317482017-08-17T17:50:13.306+01:002017-08-17T17:50:13.306+01:00Very helpful, Jeremiah. It sounds like the period ...Very helpful, Jeremiah. It sounds like the period we can't give an account materially is C4/5-C6/7. Were more marginalia such as scholia being added to MSS during this time? Or are you happier with the conclusion that catenae and scholia were added all at once in the seventh century?<br /><br />This is a good dialogue. It's helpful for me to think through this matter again. Thanks for indulging.John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50971218423210043012017-08-17T17:32:12.494+01:002017-08-17T17:32:12.494+01:00Gilles Dorival makes quite a strong argument for c...Gilles Dorival makes quite a strong argument for catena (text-/Breitcatena) to at least the Psalms and Pentateuch as early as the early/mid-fifth century, and my own research tends to confirm that hypothesis, although we have only limited and debatable physical evidence prior to the C7.<br />In a sense, marginalia are a precedent for other sorts of marginalia; the Three (+friends) are certainly important. But I'm skeptical that one can draw a more-or-less straight line from isolated marginalia and variant readings to catena as it actually appears in the manuscripts.<br />Part of the problem is whether we have any significant number of 'exegetical scholia' prior to the appearance of full-fledged catena marginalis. We *might* have one at Jeremiah 17.27 in Rahlfs 817 (C4), and there are sparse annotations in Rahlfs 928 (=P. Ant. 8 + 210, C3). In neither case do these seem to be extracts or citations, such as we find in the catena tradition, but rather isolated notes made by readers.<br />That's it until we get to the C7 with Rahlfs M (=Paris, BN, Coisl. 1) and, in the C8, Rahlfs 406 (=Turin, Bibl. Naz., B. VII. 30)—and both of these are full-fledged catena marginalis.<br />Complicating the question somewhat is whether one should include the Euthaliana to the Corpus Paulinum, Acts, and the Catholic Epistles as a predecessor in format to catena marginalis. I'm still thinking about that issue.Jeremiah Cooganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17072710259156107252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-75834222912004322792017-08-16T22:21:35.022+01:002017-08-16T22:21:35.022+01:00Thanks, Jeremiah. So what is the earliest evidence...Thanks, Jeremiah. So what is the earliest evidence for catenae generally? Does it precede the mid-sixth century? It sounds like you are saying it does.<br /><br />Again, you are the expert on catenae in general but I'm a little skeptical that marginal notes of the Three and other exegetical scholia don't in some way become precedent for marginal catenae. But again, I want to see your evidence and fuller argumentation some time.<br /><br />Best,<br />JohnJohn Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-68425246427724779142017-08-16T19:42:17.399+01:002017-08-16T19:42:17.399+01:00Dear John,
Thanks so much for your further comment...Dear John,<br />Thanks so much for your further comments, and apologies for the confusing way I framed the end of my last comment.<br />I was attempting to leave open the possibility that while catena *as a way of organizing exegetical knowledge* seems to develop first in the main-text format before moving into the margins as catena marginalis, it might be possible that the Job catena *as a specific manifestation of catena* was created directly in the margins, by analogy to other catenae that had already made the jump from main-text to marginal format.<br />I don't think there's evidence for gradual development from scholia and marginalia into full-fledged catena marginalis, but once marginal catena exists, there's no reason why other catenae couldn't be created directly in the margins. Not having done a lot of work on the Job catena, I didn't want to prematurely exclude that possibility in this instance.<br /><br />Best,<br />JeremiahJeremiah Cooganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17072710259156107252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-68252407952172993152017-08-16T13:36:51.154+01:002017-08-16T13:36:51.154+01:00That's very interesting, Graeme. Scribal activ...That's very interesting, Graeme. Scribal activity didn't develop or occur in a vacuum. Does Venetus A also collect more extended commentary or comments on the text of Homer? I'm aware of the critical signs matter you referenced. Scholia were probably used as reading aids. But do you think scribes commented on this text as they did say on the text of Job or Genesis?<br />Thanks for your comment, Graeme. I'm eager to learn more.John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49512301124523285052017-08-16T04:06:56.102+01:002017-08-16T04:06:56.102+01:00Yes, thanks for this blog. I too am struck by the...Yes, thanks for this blog. I too am struck by the apparent similarities to Venetus A, the 10th century ms of Homer’s Iliad, which is furnished with a wealth of scholia of various types, including marginal, inter-marginal, interlinear, some with lemmata and some without, as well as critical signs, some referencing Aristarchus and some Zenodotus, and obeloi to indicate lines that were “athetized” (not the same as “deleted”). Also some diagrams scattered throughout, including one in book 8 illustrating the relationship between Tartarus, Hades, and the upper levels of the cosmos. Now I am curious to compare the ways in which LXX and Homeric pages are structured. Thanks again. Graeme Bird, Gordon College.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-30657353977065326422017-08-15T21:08:57.280+01:002017-08-15T21:08:57.280+01:00Thanks for this comment, Jeremiah. I wondered whet...Thanks for this comment, Jeremiah. I wondered whether I should have added that little bit at the end without being able to say more. Let me flesh it out some more.<br /><br />I don't think scholia evolved into full fledged catenae, as if we could show snapshot by snapshot how shorter comments grew into larger ones. What I'm suggesting about the oldest Job catena is that the catenist, who compiled the patristic comments sometime after Olympiodorus, probably started with a base layer that contained a bible text with Aristarchian signs, readings from the Three, and probably other anonymous scholia. To this text, he added the patristic excerpts or catenae. For Job, the earliest MSS (both marginal catenae) such as Ra 612 (8C) and Ra 740 (8/9C) already attest the revision or the Γ redaction of the Hagedorns' stemma, and therefore the date of the oldest Job catena must be pushed back before this time. The Hagedorns speculate shortly after Olympiodorus or around the middle of the sixth century. <br /><br />Tyrnavos 25 (Ra 788) or its close sister, Ra 250 (Hagedorns' G), is the most conservative representative of the oldest Job catena. Is it suggestive that these MSS which preserve the earliest form of the text may also preserve the earliest layout of the oldest Job catena? I suppose a later scribe could have transformed an earlier text catena into a later marginal catena about a century later and preserved the material conservatively. But it seems equally plausible to me that the scribe of Tyrnavos 25 and the scribes before him are simply copying the text and its layout in front of them.<br /><br />I'm a little confused by your last sentence. If the Job catenae began organizing its exegetical information in the margin, then wouldn't that mean that catena also began that way? Or are you suggesting that the Job catena is an outlier or exception within the stream of catenae?<br /><br />Thanks for chiming in, Jeremiah. I value your expertise in this area.John Meadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09258579581521365645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-73745210069982577702017-08-15T20:21:44.418+01:002017-08-15T20:21:44.418+01:00Thanks so much for this accessible introduction to...Thanks so much for this accessible introduction to catena manuscripts!<br />I wonder, though, if the gradual accretion of scholia is a good model for the development of catenae. We don't have manuscript evidence (either OG or NT) for the gradual development of scholia into full-fledged catenae, and the sorts of marginalia that we do find in earlier manuscripts don't include exegetical extracts from earlier authors—with the sole exception of the sort of marginal collation that happens with the Three (and other early revisions of the OG in some books), a quite different phenomenon. Marginal catena appears all at once, not as an evolution from previous sorts of marginalia.<br />Our first evidence for the 'chain' of extracts is instead something like what you've called the 'text catena', although the origin of this scholarly practice probably should not be attributed to Procopius of Gaza (rather, probably originates somewhat earlier). The preserved evidence suggests that the move into the margins was a secondary phenomenon in the C7/C8—coincidentally the same point that a number of other sorts of extensive marginal apparatus first appear (not least, the Masorah for the Hebrew Bible and the marginal scholia for various Greek classical authors).<br />While it's unlikely that catena as a way of organizing exegetical knowledge begins in the margins of biblical manuscripts, it's quite plausible that the Job catenae start there.Jeremiah Cooganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17072710259156107252noreply@blogger.com