An Overview of the Catenae

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.

Politics and Economics

Despite the fact that Edwards never authored an extended or thorough commentary on political and economic matters, we can detect his assumptions and the general shape of his political and economic commentary scattered throughout his moral treatises, biblical commentary, miscellaneous observations, and sermons. A devoted subject of the Hanoverian monarchy, he presumed that Britain’s empire was the most laudable political system in the Atlantic world. Among other virtues, it served as a hedge against French Catholicism. He interpreted the meaning of that empire through Whig political agendas, which included a robust endorsement of Britain’s transatlantic commercial empire. Yet Edwards’s theological agendas often devalued political and commercial loyalties into contingent goods, subject to critique. He held that theological virtues had the power to minimize national identities in favour of worldwide Christian communion and universal benevolence.

Theodoret of Cyrus and His Exegetical Predecessors: A Study of His Biblical Commentary Prefaces

In this article, I examine the biblical commentary prefaces of Theodoret of Cyrus (d. 458), particularly the exegete’s presentation of his self-image in relation to his predecessors in the Greek exegetical tradition. I contend that in addition to its introductory function, the biblical commentary preface provided the context in which the exegete could rhetorically style himself vis-à-vis the prior tradition, articulating his own skills, credentials, and distinctive interpretive approach. Of Theodoret’s nine biblical commentaries, I focus particularly on the prefaces of his Commentary on the Song of Songs, Commentary on Daniel, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, Questions on the Octateuch, and Commentary on the Psalms, given that in these five, we find Theodoret remarking explicitly on the prior interpretive tradition. I demonstrate that at times Theodoret engages with the prior tradition with a critical tone, and at others, he shows respectful deference to his predecessors. In every case, however, his comments serve the rhetorical end of presenting himself as both an authoritative exegetical inheritor and curator of the prior interpretive tradition. The overarching argument of this article then is that Theodoret fashions his own identity as an exegete by making his relative late appearance on the exegetical scene work to his advantage, claiming that an authoritative interpreter of scripture is one who inherits and curates the exegetical legacy and traditions of the prior tradition. In other words, Theodoret overcomes the (rhetorical) problem that others have previously produced commentaries on the biblical book by claiming that the true authoritative interpreter is in fact one who knows both scripture and the prior tradition intimately, and that the exegete’s role at this stage in the tradition is to faithfully transmit the most fitting comments of others.