Should we blame our sins for plague? Or blame God for not preventing it?

The Ris melle or Brief world history of the East Syriac (Nestorian) monk John bar Penkaye was written ca. 690 AD.  It contains in memre (=chapter or book) 15 a harrowing description of the famine and plague of 686-7.  It describes the bodies left unburied, people fleeing to the mountains and then being robbed there by bandits, and many other details.

John attributes all these misfortunes to the sinfulness of the church.  The latter he describes graphically. 

It is quite tempting to see this as medieval superstition.  God is the ultimate author of all, true; but to say this without qualification is to omit a substantial portion of the truth.  God made the world in which we live; but the process contained many more elements than God snapping his fingers.  The world contains both you and me.  God is responsible for this, in a way; but my parents might have something to do with it also.  Any account of my origins that mentions God but does not mention my parents would be more than a little misleading. 

Similarly the world contains disease, and no doubt this is a consequence of the Fall.  But that is not to deny that poor sanitation may be a more immediate cause.

Then John goes on:

Those who were alive, wandered in the mountains, like sheep without a shepherd. They wanted thereby to avoid the plague, which continued like a harvester, using dogs and wild beasts to gather them like sheaves, and (what was more distressing) they were constantly hounded by thieves to deprive them of everything and keep them away from their hideouts.

In this way, they were stripped of everything and as naked, and yet they did not think that it was impossible to escape God without repentance and without returning to him, the heart filled with repentance. They beat harshly any that reminded them of this and told him: “Go away from here; for we know that flight is much more beneficial than prayer; we have already repented, but we have not been helped, we can’t even do that any more.”

Men were reduced to despair because of their many sins; such pain came down upon them, and they did not repent at all…

My first impression, on reading this passage, was to sympathise with the fugitives.  “We’ve tried repenting, and the plague did not go away, so what’s the point?”  Indeed faced with such a disaster, some superstitious cleric admonishing them that it is all their own fault, and that they should ‘repent’, rather than helping them in practical terms, sounds like the very epitome of priest-craft, of the kind of monkish superstition that we are all taught to abhor.  Would that “repentance” involve money for church funds, we would naturally ask next.

But then I thought about this some more.  I can’t quite imagine the state of mind that says, “I’m going to try to repent to make the plague go away.”  What is that about?  And “I don’t believe in God, then, because I did repent and the plague did not go away.”  There’s something odd here.

There is always a temptation for the clergyman in a superstitious age to make Christianity seem like theurgy — a set of rituals designed to invoke a greater power in order to obtain material benefits.  This kind of “religion” is what paganism was, and in a way is more akin to an atomic power plant than a church.  Doing this and that will make the sun come up, reasoned the pagans.  Pray and the Lord — whoever he may be — will bless your lawsuit.

An clergyman, faced by an ignorant populace that cannot understand any appeal to anything but the most elementary benefit, may find himself preaching thus.  I know nothing about what is called “Prosperity theology”, but it is attacked in terms that suggest its foes believe that it is a superstition of just this kind.

We can see, from John’s own account, that the tendency to attribute every misfortune to lack of praying was definitely present in the Nestorian clergy.  He more or less writes as if he takes this view himself, although the odd phrase suggests that he is well aware of the limits of such a position.

Because … this is not the Christian view.  “Go to church and God will make sure nothing bad happens” is not a Christian view.  The life of St. Paul by itself is a refutation of this.  The world is a nasty place.  Bad things happen all the time, mostly to the better sort.  A scumbag Prime Minister triumphs, and marches off, loaded with honours and riches, while a humble gospel preacher is held in a cell for seven hours, fingerprinted and his DNA taken, because an agent provocateur demanded to know whether he endorsed sodomy or not.  This is life.  It has always been thus, and always will.  To the strong the spoils; to the weak… well, the Romans had a saying which epitomised their culture.  Vae victis! or “Stuff the losers”.

Those who have come to know Christ, however, have discovered that this picture of the world is not all true.  They have discovered that Christ is out there; that there really is someone who can help.  It’s not like discovering you’ve won the lottery.  Misfortunes do not go away, or diminish, but the reverse.  But they find that the Lord is there to help them along the road.  That is the Christian way, and  it is a  million miles away from the kind of complacent journalism — we’ve all seen it — that pretends with a snicker to ask someone accustomed to a life of comfort, who has somehow stubbed their toe, “Has this caused you to lose your faith?” 

So I find myself much less sympathetic to the victims after this.  To them, “God” was just a tool to get what they wanted.  Repentance they did need.  They did need God, and John — improbable as it seems, on first sight — was right to make this point.

Of course they also needed medical care.  They needed good sanitation, which good government could provide, and proper law and order, which a good government should provide, and many other things.

It’s a warning that we must not be led astray by our instincts.  Let’s look carefully, before we condemn.

Share

Manuscripts of the history of John bar Penkaye

The seventh century Syriac writer John bar Penkaye wrote various works, according to Ebed-Jesu, most of which have perished or are extant still only in manuscript.  One that has attracted attention is a chronicle in fifteen chapters.  The last of these deals with the rise of Islam, and, since it was written within the century, is nearly contemporaneous.

Today I had an email from a researcher working for the BBC asking about the manuscripts of the work.  I must say that I don’t know!

At BYU there is a copy of Mingana’s edition of the last 5 chapters, in Sources Syriaques.  From this I learn that Mingana edited the text with French translation from two manuscripts, one in his own collection, truncated at the end, which he labelled M; and one from the Chaldean Patriarchate in Mosul, written in 1840 but copied from a manuscript written in 1262.  

Searching for “John bar Penkaye” in vol. 1 of the catalogue of the Mingana collection, I find that his copy is now Mingana Syriac 179, completed 22nd September 1928 and written at Alkosh.  In the catalogue the text is called The beginning of words, but Mingana refers to the Sources Syriaques publication.

Apparently there is a review of the manuscripts in T. Jansma, “Projet d’edition du ktaba dres melle de Jean bar Penkaye”, OS 8 (1963) p.96-100.  (I would imagine that “OS” is “L’Orient Syrien”!) Sebastian Brock translated the end of book XIV and most of book XV into English.

Steven Ring has a list of manuscripts here:

  • Baghdad, formerly Moul Chaldean Patriarchate Ms 26 dated 1875 AD from an exemplar dated AG 1573 = 1261 or 1262 AD, [74], p. 13
  • Alqosh Ms 25 dated 1882, [66], p. 489
  • Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican Syr 497
  • Birmingham University Library, Mingana Ms 179 dated 1928
  • Manchester, Rylands 43, a fragment c. 1915, [56], p. 167 f.

He adds: “See also, Anton Baumstark 1922, pp. 210 – 211 who lists other Mss in note 14 on p. 210.”

kjhkhk

Share

How the works of the elder Seneca get to us

Seneca the elder has left us two works, the Controversiae in 10 books and the Suasoriae in 2 books.  Both are textbooks on how to address a Roman court.  A supposed case is proposed: e.g. a priest is burned rescuing the image of Minerva from a burning temple.  Now because a priest must be whole in body, some say he cannot be a priest.   Seneca states the case, and then gives arguments that an orator might make, first for one side, then for the other.  He isn’t concerned with the “right” answer, so much as showing how to argue the case.  Each book of cases is given a preface, in which Seneca talks about orators of the past.

The works do not reach us intact, although they travelled down the centuries together.  In fact we have two kinds of manuscript.

Firstly there are manuscripts which contain the complete text of the Controversiae, plus the two books of the Suasoriae.  Unfortunately none of these manuscripts gives all ten books of the Controversiae.  They give books 1, 2, 7, 9 and 10, complete.  And they only include the prefaces to books 7, 9 and 10.

Three manuscripts are important for this form of the text.  First there is Antwerp 411 (=A), from the end of the 9th or start of the 10th century, and written in eastern France.  Brussels 9594 (=B) is slightly earlier, from the third quarter of the 9th century and north-eastern France.  Both manuscripts have suffered damage, and contain superficial corruptions but a basically sound text.  Then there is Vatican latin. 3872 (=V), of the same date as B and from Corbie, which is independent of A and B.  The text seems to be the result of ‘correction’, either in late antiquity or the middle ages.

Fortunately we have another line of transmission.  At some point down the years, probably in the 5th century, someone made extracts from all ten books of the Controversiae, and included the prefaces.  We have manuscripts of this edited version, although once again prefaces have been lost.  But this gives us prefaces for books 1-4, 7 and 10, filling the gap for prefaces in the first family. 

The most important manuscript of this family is Montpellier 126 (=M), again written in the third quarter of the 9th century, partly in hands with the distinctive letter-forms of the abbey of Reims.  There are numerous later manuscripts, all derived from M.  But there are also four leaves of a manuscript written around 800 AD, Bamberg Msc. Class. 45m, which is close in type to M.

The end result is that we get the prefaces for books 1 and 2, which we have in the full text form, plus prefaces for books 3 and 4, where the text is extracts; books 5 and 6 and 8 just the extracts; and books 7, 9 and 10 complete.

When  thinking about how manuscripts reach us, it is  always useful to see what is normal.   Most of the general public are not familiar with this, and consequently invent their own imaginary standards of “reliable transmission of texts”.  It is unfortunate that a professional text critic, Bart Ehrman, has published several books which encourage this tendency to suppose that books do not reach us from antiquity.  Only this weekend I had to respond to a post by one of his idiot disciples, who had decided that the bible could not possibly reach us because … there are different textual families!  It is difficult not to feel that Ehrman deserves such an audience, the natural consequence of publishing books that lead the public to suppose that textual criticism is pointless.

Share

Updates to the list of online CSEL volumes

I’ve held a copy on this blog here of Stefan Zara’s list of CSEL volumes.  A correspondent writes that he has detected some errors in the links, and sent me a couple of corrections already.  I’ll add these in today as they come in.

I’ve been intending to download the CSEL volumes for a while.  Maybe I will get to it today!

It’s 8:57am.  The temperature is already unbearable here, and they are forecasting temperatures over 90F.  Naturally, then, today is the day when I have a job interview.  In half an hour I must put on a heavy interview suit and go off to be, erm, grilled.  Probably in more senses than one!

Share

Wolfenbuttel do something original with manuscripts

This press release (Google translate here) is rather unusual.  The Herzog August library in Wolfenbuttel hold quite a collection of manuscripts and rare books.  They’ve just introduced a new service to allow you to look at these, via a webcam, in real time.

What you do is book an appointment with the library to look at a book.  Then when you telephone, a library staff member holds the book under a camera, and the page image is sent via a web cam.  In this way you can tell him to go back/forward, look at this page/that one, and consult the book remotely.

The party identifies using the catalogue (http://www.hab.de/bibliothek/kataloge) the signatures and titles of the books he wants to see, and then agreed with the information provided by the library for an appointment (Tel: 05 331 / 808-312, E-mail auskunft@hab.de:). At the agreed time, he accesses the page on http://www.hab.de/bibliothek/sprechstunde and dials the number +49 (0) 5331/808- 118th

The library honestly admit — what some German libraries will not — that for a researcher to fly over from Australia or Japan to see if a book contains anything of interest is “hardly possible.”  This is an alternative.  The article includes an  image of what is happening, which illustrates the process.

It is a very imaginative idea.   Well done Wolfenbuttel for thinking laterally on this one.

 

Share

Q. Haterius and the “duty” of a freedman

The elder Seneca compiled ten books of controversiae: possible legal cases, with the arguments for and against.  Each came with a preface.  I quoted a phrase from one a little while ago, attributed to Haterius, an orator of the time of Tiberius:

impudicitia in ingenuo crimen est, in servo necessitas, in liberto officium.

Unchastity is a disgrace for the freeborn, a necessity in a slave, and a duty for the freedman.

It’s a  very odd phrase, and it does reflect something nasty about pagan society.  But I have seen too many quotations, which turn out to be misleading, to be comfortable without knowing the context.

I’ve since obtained the Loeb edition of the works of the elder Seneca.  This mentions various orators, and one of these is Haterius.  The material is in the preface to book 4, sections 8-11 (the end).  Here it is:

How great these men are, who do not know what it means to yield to fortune and who make adversity the touchstone of their virtue! Asinius Pollio declaimed within three days of losing his son; that was the manifesto of a great mind triumphing over its misfortunes. On the other hand, I know that Quintus Haterius took the death of his son so hard that he not only succumbed to grief when it was recent, but could not bear the memory of it when it was old and faded. I remember that when he was declaiming the controversia about the man who was torn away from the graves of his three sons and sues for damages, Haterius’ tears interrupted him in midspeech; after that he spoke with so much greater force, so much more pathos, that it became clear how great a part grief can sometimes play in a man’s talents.

Haterius used to let the public in to hear him declaim extempore. Alone of all the Romans I have known he brought to Latin the skill of the Greeks. His speed of delivery was such as to become a fault. Hence that was a good remark of Augustus’: “Haterius needs a brake” — he seemed to charge downhill rather than run. He was full of ideas as well as words. He would say the same thing as often as you liked and for as long as you liked, with different figures and development on every occasion. He could be controlled–but not exhausted.

But he couldn’t do his own controlling. He had a freedman to look to, and used to proceed according as he excited or restrained him. The freedman would tell him to make a transition when he had been on some topic for a long time–and Haterius would make the transition. He would tell him to concentrate on the same subject–and he would stay on it. He would tell him to speak the epilogue–and he would speak it. He had his talents under his own control–but the degree of their application he left to another’s.

He thought it relevant to divide up a controversia — if you questioned him; if you listened to his declamation, he didn’t think so. His order was the one his flow of language dictated; he did not regulate himself by the rules of declamation. Nor did he keep a guard over his words. Some the schools avoid nowadays as if they were obscene, regarding as intolerable anything rather low or in everyday use. Haterius bowed to the schoolmen so far as to avoid cliche and banality. But he would employ old words that Cicero had used but that had later fallen into general disuse, and these caught the attention even in that break-neck rush of language. How true it is that the unusual stands out even in a crowd!

With this exception, no-one was better adapted to the schoolmen or more like them; but in his anxiety to say nothing that was not elegant and brilliant, he often fell into expressions that could not escape derision. I recall that he said, while defending a freedman who was charged with being his patron’s lover: “Losing one’s virtue is a crime in the freeborn, a necessity in a slave, a duty for the freedman.” The idea became a handle for jokes, like “you aren’t doing your duty by me” and “he gets in a lot of duty for him.” As a result the unchaste and obscene got called “dutiful” for some while afterwards.

I recall that much scope for jest was supplied to Asinius Pollio and then to Cassius Severus by an objection raised by him in these terms: “Yet, he says, in the childish laps of your fellow-pupils, you used a lascivious hand to give obscene instructions.” And many things of this sort were brought up against him. There was much you could reprove–but much to admire; he was like a torrent that is impressive, but muddy in its flow. But he made up for his faults by his virtues, and provided more to praise than to forgive: as in the declamation in which he burst into tears.

What a picture this gives us of Haterius!  What a splendid translation by Michael Winterbottom!  But to return to the quotation.

As ever, context is all.  The word rendered “duty” here is officium, which carried a world of solemnity and piety in the Roman mind.   Haterius, like many a politician, had a gift for a striking phrase.  But in defending his client, accused of vice, when he attempted to suggest that sodomy — a vice, if a common one — was almost a pious duty for a freedman, he mis-spoke.  In carrying his rhetoric on the duties of a freedman to the very height of duty, he tripped over and became absurd, and consequently produced snickers of laughter, and the consequent jokes.

For the Romans, as for everyone, vice was vice.  Society might tolerate it, it might be practised by emperors.  But everyone knew it for what it was, and laughed at those who solemnly attempted to colour it with piety for their own, short-term, threadbare ends.

The Controversiae seem to be an interesting work, full of the colour of Roman life.  The only English translation is that of Michael Winterbottom in the Loeb series, in two volumes.  I’d like to read them, but to borrow them from my local library will cost $15, half the price of the books.  Not that I would object to buying a Loeb.  But at $30 each, aren’t these little books expensive!

Share

The exegesis of Polychronius

It looks as if the Lord is going to answer my prayer for another contract rather sooner than I had expected.  If so, I shall  have money once more, and one of the items on the slate for translation is the remains of the commentary on Daniel by Polychronius.

“Who he?” I hear you cry.  Andrew Eastbourne has drawn my attention to a review in the 1880 Dublin Review, 3rd series, volume 3, p.535-6 of a book by old Bardenhewer on just this author.  The review is short and so I post it here.

Polychronius, Bruder Theodor’s von Mopsuestia und Bischof von Apamea. Ein Beitrag eur Geschichte der Exegese. Von Dr. Otto Bardenhewer. Freiburg. 1879. (Polychronius, brother of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Bishop of Apamea. A Study on the History of Exegesis. By Dr. Otto Bardenhewer. Friburg. 1879.)

DR. BARDENHEWER, a young professor of the University of Munich, draws attention to one of the greatest ornaments of the school of Antioch. His book contains an account of the life and works of Polychronius, his views on canon and inspiration, and his hermeneutic principles, to which is added a translation and explanation of some portions of his commentaries.

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus,[1] praises Polychronius as a successful ruler of his diocese of Apamea, and as a man of graceful eloquence and virtuous life. This is about all that is known of his life with any degree of certainty. According to Cardinal Mai,[2] Polychronius seems to have written commentaries on almost the whole of the Old Testament. There are, however, only fragments of them preserved, and these chiefly belong to his commentaries on Job, Daniel, and Ezechiel.

Polychronius (says Dr. Bardenhewer, p. 5) has happily avoided the extravagances of his brother Theodore, though not quite all his faults. In real exegetical accuracy and conscientiousness he has surpassed all Antiochean interpreters; in knowledge of history and languages not one amongst them wasjequal to him, nor has any one entered with such love and keen understanding into the depth of the Biblical text, nor made such correct allowances for actual circumstances.

Of all his works, the best preserved are his very valuable scholia on the book of Daniel (published by Mai, l. c. P. ii. pp. 105-160). It is strange that he, like S. Ephrem, explains Daniel’s prophecy of the four empires to mean, besides the Babylonian, Median, and Persian, the Macedonian (and not the Roman) empire. But he believed in the canonicity of all the deutero-canonical pieces of Daniel, perhaps with the exception of the Hymn of the Three Children in the fiery furnace. Bardenhewer gives us (pp. 63-65) some arguments for his opinion that Polychronius really denied the canonicity of Dan. iii. 25-90, Vulg. They rest on the passage : ” This hymn is not found in the Hebrew and Syriac text. It is said to have been afterwards added by some one, and founded upon what is narrated in the book. I shall, therefore, abstain from explaining this part, in order to keep exclusively to the interpretation of the book.” Granted, that Polychronius has written these words; but they only mention the doubts of others as a reason why Polychronius did not interpret the hymn.

It is clear from Dr. Bardenhewer’s book that Polychronius is worthy of the greatest consideration. Dr. Bardenhewer is well able to appreciate him, and shows a well-trained judgment in handling critical questions, and a great taste for patristic and exegetical studies.

May the author continue to encourage, and to facilitate the study of the Fathers, and the interpretation of the Scriptures, by works similar to the one mentioned here.

1 Eccl Hist., v. 40. 
2 Scriptorum veterum nova collectio. Tom. I. Romae, 1825, praef. p. xxxl.

I must say that I hope we manage to go ahead with this.  It seems clear that Polychronius has interesting things to tell us!

Share

From my diary

Busy today with Adam’s curse, so I haven’t managed to get to posting about the Controversiae of the elder Seneca.  But I will!

Another correspondent asked if I knew where all the volumes of the Oxford Movement Library of the Fathers translations might be found.  I’ve been looking for them and downloading them.

Share

More on Eusebius on the Psalms

Alex Poulos is starting to translate portions of the commentary of Eusebius on the Psalms.  Catch the English and the Greek here.

Alex modestly deprecates his work, but frankly everyone seems scared to translate stuff from this huge work.  So whatever he does, however he does it, he’s a pioneer in an unexplored land.  Well done!

Share

Sir Henry Savile and the perils of editing Chrysostom

The best edition of the works of John Chrysostom (including sermons by Severian of Gabala) remains that made by Sir Henry Savile in the 17th century and published at Eton college where Sir Henry was provost.

On Monday I went into the second-hand bookshop Treasure Chest in Felixstowe in search of something literary to read, and came out with an edition of John Aubrey’s Brief Lives.  This is not a book, so much as a collection of gossip and memoranda in preparation for a book, and contains a section on Sir Henry Savile.

He was very munificent, as appears by the two chairs he had endowed of Astronomy and Geometry. … He had travelled very well, and had a general acquaintance with the learned men abroad; by which means he obtained from beyond sea, out of their libraries, several rare Greek MSS., which he had copied by an excellent amanuensis for the Greek character.

Someone put a trick upon him, for he got a friend to send him weekly over to Flanders (I think), the sheets of the curious Chrysostom that were printed at Eton, and translated them into Latin, and printed them in Greek and Latin together, which quite spoiled the sale of Sir Henry’s.

It would be interesting to know which the pirate edition was.  Savile’s edition was printed without a Latin translation.  Because of this, Migne printed the Montfaucon edition instead, and the Savile edition has remained relatively unknown.

UPDATE: A correspondent writes:

On Savile & the “pirate edition” (of Fronto Ducaeus): The Critical Review, 4th series, vol. 2, pp. 92ff. http://books.google.com/books?id=9BMFAAAAYAAJ

The review is a little odd; the Montfaucon edition is said to be inferior to the Savile one by Quasten.  But all very useful!

Share