Commentary Manuscripts

Contents: Introduction* Noteworthy Commentaries* Noteworthy Commentary Manuscripts
Introduction
Most manuscripts of the New Testament are straight-text manuscripts.The price of books being what it was, anything unnecessary was carefullyeliminated, since additional text required more writing material and morescribal time.
But while manuscripts with commentaries are not common, they are notrare, either. Many commentaries, such as those of Oecumenius (and hisimitator the pseudo-Oecumenius) andAndreas of Cæsarea, were intimately linked to the Bible text.Anyone who wanted to read those commentaries would need the textat hand. Why not combine them in a single volume?
The result is that some 20% of all New Testament manuscripts --nearly 600 all told -- include some sort of regular commentary. Somecontain commentaries from only one author (e.g. the dozens ofmanuscripts of the Apocalypse which also contain Andreas's commentary.)Others contain a catena, or chain commentary (from theLatin word for "chain, fetter"). Catena manuscriptscontain comments from several sources linked into the text;hence the title. In addition, a number of manuscripts are fittedwith commentaries which are not so closely associated with the text.An example is 1739,which has hundreds of comments from various sources in the margin.
The earliest commentary manuscript is the uncialΞ,while the most important textually (and one of the most important for itscommentary) is 1739.
Von Soden was of the opinion that commentary manuscripts formed aspecial class of manuscripts, and classified commentary manuscriptssolely on the basis of the commentary, without examining the text.Maurice Robinson, based on his examinationof manuscripts of John in the vicinity of the story of the Adulteress,agrees in part: "The interspersed type ofcommentary in my opinion should never be considered in the same ballparkas a 'continuous-text' MS, simply because it is not such, even if thecomplete biblical text can be extracted therefrom. Such interspersedcommentaries also stem directly from their archetype in almost allcopies, and the only item of text-critical importance is recovery of thearchetype text of that commentator... ([e.g.] Theophylact,Euthymius Zigabenus, or Niketas), and the many MSS of such a commentatorsay nothing much beyond what the patristic archetype was, so thus theyare not really 'NT' MSS even though counted as such in the list.
"Commentary MSS in which the catena or commentary surroundsthe biblical text are a different matter, and these should be counted ascontinuous-text MSS. In fact some of this category were in unfinishedstate as I examined them on microfilm, and it was clear how the processoperated: the biblical text was copied first in a centered portion of thepage; the complete biblical book was finished; and only then was thecatena or commentary added, often from another source MS in which thetext reflected in the commentary often differed from that in the biblicaltext of the new MS...."
Nonetheless, no detailed check has been performed on von Soden'sthesis (Wisse, e.g., did not profile commentary manuscripts).
Noteworthy Commentaries
Although almost any Father could be consulted for a commentarymanuscript, certain editions, such as those of Andreas and Oecumenius,became peculiarly linked with the Bible text. These text-plus-commentarymanuscripts seem to have circulated in their own special editions. This,at least, was the view of Von Soden, who created several special symbolsto for groups of commentary manuscripts. These include (some minorcommentaries are omitted):
The Antiochene commentary on the Gospels. In Matthew and John, it was based on the work of Chrysostom; in Mark, on Victor of Antioch, and in Luke, on Titus of Bostra. Von Soden identified dozens of manuscripts of this type, which he symbolized by an A with a superscript number (e.g. A³ is the uncial X). Noteworthy manuscripts of this group include Ξ, X, 053, and 304.
Andreas the Presbyter's commentary on the Acts and Catholic Epistles. Symbolized by A^πρ (e.g. A^πρ1 is K^ap). Noteworthy manuscripts of this group include K, 36, 307, and 453.
Andreas of Cæsarea's commentary on the Apocalypse. In terms of frequency of use, probably the most widespread of the commentaries, found in perhaps a third of the Apocalypse manuscripts. Symbolized by Αν (e.g. Αν² is 051). Noteworthy manuscripts of this group include 051, 052, 1^r, 94, 2059, and several others. Associated with this (as the two were sometimes combined) is the commentary of Arethas; Von Soden's Αρ⁷⁰ is 2116.
The so-called "anonymous catena" on the Gospels, symbolized by C^ι (e.g. by C^ι1 is 050). Von Soden separated this by books (Matthew, John, and Paul). Noteworthy manuscripts of this type include 050, 0141, and 304.
Zigabenus's commentaries on the Gospels (Z^ε) and Paul (Z^π). This group does not contain any noteworthy manuscripts.
Theophylact's commentaries on the Gospels (Θ^ε) and Paul (Θ^π). Although both of these groups are large (over a hundred of the former and several dozen of the latter), few if any of the manuscripts of this type have received much critical attention.
Theodoret's commentary on Paul (Θδ). This group does not contain any noteworthy manuscripts.
John of Damascus's commentary on Paul. (I, i.e. I¹ is K^ap). This group contains only two manuscripts: K^ap and 2110.
Cyril of Alexandrian's commentary on John (K^ι). This group does not contain any noteworthy manuscripts.
Nicetas's commentaries on John (N^ι), Luke (N^λ), Matthew (N^μ), and Paul (N^π). These groups do not contain any noteworthy manuscripts.
Oecumenius's commentaries:

On the Praxapostolos (O, e.g. O⁷ is 056); contains 056, 0142, 424, 441, and 442. This is actually the work of the pseudo-Oecumenius.
On the Apocalypse (O^α, e.g. O^α31 is 2053); contains 2053, 2062.
On Paul (O^π, e.g. O^π3 is 075); contains 075 and 1908 (though the marginalia of 1908 are also associated with 1739). As noted, this work is believed to be pseudepigraphal.
On the Acts and Catholic Epistles (O^πρ). This group does not contain any noteworthy manuscripts. As noted, this work is believed to be pseudepigraphal.
Oecumenius on the Acts and Catholic Epistles plus Theophylact in Paul (ΟΘ, e.g. ΟΘ²⁸ is 103). The most noteworthy manuscript of this group is 103.
Chrysostom on Paul (X, e.g. X² is 0150). Noteworthy manuscripts of this type include 0150, 0151, and 1962.
Noteworthy Commentary Manuscripts
Von Soden's detailed summary of commentary manuscripts is,of course, badly out of date. So at present we can only list which manuscripts have commentaries(Von Soden's description of the commentary, where known, follows themanuscript name). Uncials with commentary include:
K^ap/018 (Andreas on Acts/Cath) and its near-sister 0151 (Chrysostom on Paul)
Ξ (Titus of Bostra on Luke)
050 (Anonymous)
051 (Andreas)
052 (Andreas)
053 (Antiochene)
(055 -- commentary with only partial text)
056 and its near-sister 0142 (both Oecumenius)
075 (Oecumenius)
0141 (Anonymous)
0150 (Chrysostom)
0151 (Chrysostom)
0256.
Minuscules with commentary are too numerous to list, but in the Alands' listof manuscripts of Category III orhigher, the following are commentary manuscripts:
94 (Oecumenius, Andreas)
103 (Oecumenius, Theophylact)
(218)
254 (Oecumenius, Theophylact)
307 (Antiochene -- but 307 does not contain the Gospels!)
441 (Oecumenius)
442 (Oecumenius)
453 (Andreas on Acts/Cath)
610 (Andreas on Acts/Cath),
(621 (Oecumenius))
623
720 (Oecumenius, Theophylact)
849 (Cyril of Alexandria)
886 (Theophylact)
911 (Oecumenius; Andreas)
1424
1506 (Theophylact)
1523 (Oecumenius, Theophylact)
1524 (Oecumenius, Theophylact)
1678 (Theophylact, Andreas)
(1739 -- notlisted as a commentary manuscript by the Alands)
1842 (Oecumenius)
1844 (Oecumenius)
1908 (Oecumenius)
1910 (Oecumenius)
1942 (Chrysostom)
1962 (Chrysostom)
2053 (Oecumenius)
2062 (Oecumenius)
2110 (Antiochene)
2197 (Theophylact)
2351
2596
2812

A single column of a Latin commentary manuscript, Scheyen MS. 258,folio 128r, second column, described as Peter Lombard's Great Gloss on the Psalms. TheBiblical text is in red, the commentary in black. Observe the marginal notation showing thesource of the commentary -- in this case, mostly Cassiodorus, with a few from Augustine.