¹ Heinrici, G., ‘Catenen,’ Realencyclopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 3 (1897) 763f. — On Cramer see the brief biography in the Dictionary of National Biography (5.4–5); also Sandys, J. E., History of Classical Scholarship III 443.Google Scholar

² This manuscript is mentioned by Karo, G. and Lietzmann, H., ‘Catenarum graecarum catalogus,’ Nachr. Gesellsch. Göttingen (1902) 602.Google Scholar

³ Gregg, J. A. F., ‘The Commentary of Origen upon the Epistle to the Ephesians,’ Journal of Theological Studies 3 (1902) 233. The present study is based upon Cramer's edition and not the original manuscript.Google Scholar

⁴ Turner, C. H., ‘Greek Patristic Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles,’ in Hastings, J. (ed.), Dictionary of the Bible 5 (1904) 493. Cf. Westcott, B. F. in Dictionary of Christian Biography 4 (1887) 118, Zahn, T., Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II 2 (Erlangen 1892) 427 n. 2 ad fin., and Souter, A., The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul (Oxford 1927) 108, 111.Google Scholar

⁵ Origen's work on Galatians includes five volumes of commentaries, a number of homilies and notes, plus the tenth book of his Stromateis (Turner, , op. cit. 493).Google Scholar

⁶ de Montfaucon, Bernard, Catalogus Bibliothecae Coislinianae … (Paris 1715) 264.Google Scholar

⁷ Cramer, J. A., ed., Catenae in sancti Pauli epistolas ad Galatas, Ephesios, Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses … (Oxford 1842) v; reprinted (as Cramer, J. A., ed., Catenae graecorum patrum in Noveum Testamentum VI) Hildesheim: G. Olms 1967.Google Scholar

⁸ Turner, , op. cit. 488.Google Scholar

⁹ Swete, H. B., ed., Theodori episcopi Mopsuesteni in epistolas B. Pauli commentarii: The Latin Version with the Greek Fragments (Cambridge 1880) xvii, xviii.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Turner, , ibid. Google Scholar

¹¹ Lampros, S. P., Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos I (Cambridge 1895) 95, no. 1062 offers this description of the codex: πεγ. ϕύλ. IX: π αξαπόστολος (ἀϰέϕαλος ϰαὶ ϰολοβός) Ὁ ϰδιξ τς μιϰ ς γαϕς (minusc). Tὸ ϰείμενον γεγαμμένον ἐν τ μέσῳ ϰατέχει 12 στίχους ἑϰάστβς σελίδος, πεὶ δ' αὐτὸ διὰ γαϕς λεπτς ϰλινούσβς π ὸς τ44ὸ ϰεϕαλαιδες σειὰ ἐμβνευμάτων διαϕόων πατέων, συνθέστεον Ἰσιδώου το πβλουσιώτου, Ἰωάννου το Xυσοστόμου σεββιανο, Διοδώου Tασο, Θεοδώου Mοψουεστίας, Ἀϰαϰίου, Ἀπολλιναίου.Google Scholar

¹² Staab, K., Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche (Münster i. W., 1933) xxvii.Google Scholar

¹³ Swete, , op. cit. 5–110, passim. He did not utilize Pantokrator 28 (Staab, , op. cit. xxvii).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Staab, , op. cit. xxxiii, xxxiv.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid. xxii.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Buytaert, E. M., L'Héritage littéraire d'Eusèbe d'Emèse: Étude critique et historique, textes (Louvain 1949) 144–151.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cf. PG 3.373CD, 981A, 1033A.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The prologue is mentioned in the Euthalian chapters (PG 85.760): Κεϕάαια τς π ὸς Γαλάτας ἐπιστολς παύλου ιβ: Μετὰ τὸ π οοίμιον, διήγβσις τς ἑαυτο μεταστάσεως ἀπὸ Ἰουδαισμο ϰατὰ ἀποϰάλυψιν ϰτλ.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Staab, , op. cit. 298.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cf. footnotes 13–16.Google Scholar

²¹ The reason for Swete's omission of this text is probably because it is not found in the Latin version of the Commentary. In Cramer's Catena, however, the quotation is given as a σχόλιον Θεοδώου, which may indicate that originally it was not part of the continuous commentary, but a separate gloss.Google Scholar

²² Eusebius is also designated ‘of Emesa’ at Gal. 4.14 = Cramer, p. 65.13 by Coislinianus 204; see Staab, , op. cit. xxii, and footnote 12.Google Scholar

²³ Bardenhewer, O., Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur ² (Freiburg i. B. 1923) III 364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Turner, , op. cit. 493.Google Scholar

²⁵ These fragments may be found in Lommatzsch, C. H. E., ed., Origenis opera omnia 5 (Berlin 1835) 261–270 (= PG 14.1293–1298); on Pamphilus' Apologia, see Quasten, J., Patrology II (Utrecht etc. 1953) 145–46.Google Scholar

²⁶ von der Goltz, E., Eine textkritische Arbeit des zehnten bezw. sechsten Jahrhunderts … (TU N.F. 2.4; Leipzig 1899) 72–74.Google Scholar

²⁷ Turner, Thus, op. cit. 493, writes: ‘… it is certain, both from Jerome's own words in the preface to his commentary and from the parallel case of the Epistle to the Ephesians … that a very large proportion of the exhaustive commentary of Jerome is drawn directly from Origen.’ Further, Souter, op. cit. 111, states: ‘There is no doubt that a very large part of Jerome's commentary on Galatians is taken direct from Origen, though he is sometimes abridged in the process.’ In an article in Vigiliae Christianae 24 (1970) the present writer analyzes the influence of Origen upon Jerome's commentary.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ On the other hand, the unpublished Catena on 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., and Eph. in Vaticanus graecus 692, s. XII (Karo-Lietzmann, , op. cit. III 692) cites Origen along with a large array of other writers. It would bear investigation whether or not Origen is cited for Galatians.Google Scholar