Catenae appeared in Judaea/Palestine at the beginning of the sixth century. They consist of commentaries, homilies, scholia of the past centuries, and any other literary form in which Scripture verses are explained. Ecclesiastical writings are quoted in the form of extracts, sometimes literal, sometimes rewritten, according to the order of the verses of each Biblical book. Each extract is normally preceded by the name of its author in the genitive case. With time, the catenae were formed not only from commentaries, homilies, scholia, and other patristic writings, but also from pre-existing catenae mixed with these sources. After the sixth century, catenae became the most important media of biblical commentary until the end of the Byzantium Empire (1453). Many debated issues remain. Is Procopius of Gaza (470–530) the father of the catenae? Maybe the two-author catenae predate him, even if this form is better connected with the Byzantine humanism of the ninth and tenth centuries. As for the multiple-author catenae, it is not certain if any of them do are prior Procopius. The compilers of the catenae began their project with the Old Testament, as it was considered to be obscure and foundational to the New Testament, whereas the New Testament was considered to be clear and explicative of the Old Testament. The identity of the compilers of the catenae is shrouded in mystery. Only a few names are known: chiefly, Procopius of Gaza in Palestine and Nicetas of Heraclea in Constantinople. Other names have been proposed: the patriarch Photius, Peter of Laodicea, John Drougarios, but without any persuasive arguments. A final issue concerns Monophysite (or Miaphysite) catenae: were some catenae Monophysite? Or was this literary form indifferent to questions of orthodoxy? In some catenae, Severus of Antioch is called ‘saint’, which may indicate a Monophysite origin. Finally, despite recent progress, many catenae still await publication. For instance, Nicetas’ catena on the Psalms is a monumental work of Byzantine scholarship and it deserves to be available to modern readers.
Polarizing crowds: Consensus and bipolarization in a persuasive arguments model
