14 letters of Isidore of Pelusium

Isidore of Pelusium: Letters 1-14

(PG 78, cols. 177-189)

1. To the monk Nilus.

The holy bishops and the guides of the monastic discipline, from the conflicts and struggles which they underwent,[1] established fitting terms, for activities for our instruction and knowledge. They called the withdrawal from the material world “renunciation,” and ready obedience “subjection.” And they, on the one hand, only had nature as a teacher[2]; and we, on the other hand, having their recorded[3] conduct, consider the work to be small. “Renunciation,” therefore, must be the forgetting of the former way of thinking and the refusal of fellowship[4]; and “subjection” must be the cessation and dissolution from the people on earth, just as it stands written.

2. To the monk Dorotheus.

Burning coals were set ablaze by[5]it.[6]

Burning coals were set ablaze by[7] it; namely, the saints are set ablaze by the fire from[8] God. For since our God is a consuming fire, those who contemplate God with purity are likewise called burning coals. Being set ablaze in union with him, they appear as stars in the world.[9]

3. To the scholar Neilammon[10].
Concerning an active life of good works.

Having learned quite clearly from the ancients, that to be is not to think, what then is to be? Do more, and do not just talk.

4. To the reader Timotheus.

Concerning the conflicts[11] which you undergo, excellent sir, be convinced: the present circumstances put before us are an invisible arena,[12] in which we do not wrestle against perceptible beasts, but against perceptible[13] passions. These are the very things that, if they should prevail over the strength in us, will bring on danger not just as far as the body but bring death to the soul itself. But if they should be controlled then[14] they will flee, and we will gain for ourselves great rewards and acclamation; and here we wrestle these often, but hereafter certainly we will receive rewards and acclamation,[15] since the coming age has been entrusted with rewards, just as this age has been entrusted with trials.[16] 

5. To Nilus.

Concerning the food of the Precursor[17] and asceticism[18].

Since the divine prophesies report the account accurately, the excessive debate is unnecessary for the ones reading these things intelligently. If, therefore, we have been instructed about both the food and clothes of perfect, godly[19] asceticism[20], with reference to John the Baptist, we will be content with hair[21], for example, for a covering; and we will be content with twigs[22] from herbs and plants for a little food and strength and a simple meal[23]. But if these things, because of weakness, are too intense[24], let the testing and directive of the one put forward[25] be an example for us of every need and way of life[26].

6. To Ursenuphius.

Concerning: For [there is] a cup in the hand of the Lord.”[27]

There is a cup in the hand of the Lord full of a mixture of pure wine.” The divine prophecy makes known the just recompense is a mixture, on the one hand, with kindness for repentance with respect to the ones putting away[28] sins. “For he was turning from this way to that way,” that is to say, from kindness to the one being owed punishment and just judgment for faults. But in order that we do not altogether appear to be light-hearted[29] of the punishment, it was added: “Nevertheless its dregs were not poured out.” For if they will despise salvation altogether, in the end they will not escape the punishment. “For all the sinners upon the earth,” he says, “will likewise drink” the cup of judgment.

7. To Timotheus.

Concerning the Mother of God.

The holy book of the Gospels, recording the genealogy to Joseph, who derives kinship from David, was pleased[30] to show through him that the Virgin was also of the same tribe of David; just as the divine law prophesied, the pair came from the same tribe. And the interpreter of heavenly doctrines, the great Apostle Paul, openly makes the truth quite clear, testifying that the Lord would be a descendant from Judah. Because you know these things more keenly[31], do not feign ignorance with respect to the questioning. For by doing this,[32] you are shown to be pursuing shabbiness.[33]

8. To the same.

That it is necessary that the labor of spiritual discipline[34] be moderate[35].

Just as the body that is healthy lacks a bruise, since it soothes the swelling of an injury[36], so also the body that is sick is in need of aid, and the soul that is downcast ruins the body, with the result that it must be illuminated by the divine commandments.[37] One, therefore, must take care of both. For when one of the two[38] is in want, sanctification[39] is difficult.  

9. To the same.

Concerning the appearances at night.

The appearances at night, as you have written, you who are most fond of learning, are not only echoes of associations and conversations of the day, but also the product of frivolous practice[40]. For when the mind is seized in a stupor from drunkenness, a stimulant of the passions occurs. But when one is wakefully self-controlled and preparedly waiting for the Lord, that person is neither defeated by the belly nor by the passions of the belly[41]. For you see, nothing other than this will prepare someone or bind the strength of the loins.[42]       

10. To the elder Eusebius.

That nothing is greater than love, in which one has[43] brotherly union as proof.

Thus, nothing is as greatly desired by God than[44] love, through which both man had come into existence, and is a subject of love until death. For on this account, namely, the first call of his disciples, there happened to be two brothers; thus, from the beginning the all-wise savior immediately showed that he desires all his disciples to be united in a brotherly manner. Therefore, let us consider nothing more precious than love, which unites everyone, and protects everyone in harmonious accord. 

11. To the scholar Ophelion.

That in philosophy one is frequently wronged or maltreated.

If Socrates, the lawgiver of the Athenian doctrines, was beaten and did not retaliate, why are you alone at a loss having been maltreated, as you have written? For if you should pursue philosophy, on the one hand, you will bring upon yourself the glory of Socrates, even though you have been abused less than Socrates. But this person[45], on the contrary, will be wounded as from a dart in arrogance; or, there will be a time when he will be changed from the propensity of sin, and of mind and speech – and he will thank you[46] for the cause of his change[47].

12. To Ammonius.

Although you conceal failure[48], still you show yourself as haughty, being puffed up concerning your tribe[49], strength, and worth. Therefore, either get for yourself a spirit that is in measure with you, or else be someone who is laughed at by all.

13. To the monk Lampetius.

When you were approaching the high mountain of ascetic practice[50], you cleansed[51] both your clothes and senses. And according to the report of godly opinion you prepared your[52] heart.[53] Assuredly you had been resolved to leave[54] the unspiritual things, in order that you, having arrived at the citadel of virtues, might hear God  uttering a message (the one who inscribes the old law on physical tablets) and might become a tablet made by God. And now these things are celebrated by all concerning you, that, on the one hand, they proclaim eagerly that you took hold of the plow of salvation; but, on the other hand, having lost heart, in turn, you turned back. Accordingly, does this pattern not frighten you? Namely, that although Simon[55] was baptized and followed the ministers of Christ, he, in turn, turned back to the material world (on account of which the wretched one was brought down from the height to the notorious death; that from the one calamity against that one it might be shown what sorts of calamities the deserving ones meet, namely, those who broke their word[56] about the spiritual way of life). Hold fast to the intention[57] of Simon. And if only everyone who had a share of this resolve and knowledge would avert that punishment to the enemies![58]  Fulfill the covenant[59] to the Lord, and devote yourself carefully to his vineyard. The reward is with him, which each one will receive according to their own work.

14. To the monk Patrimus.

Concerning practical asceticism[60].

You have a good disposition, as I have come to know, learning earnestly and speaking nobly. But the way of spiritual asceticism[61] prospers more from action than from speech. If, therefore, it is your concern for unfading rewards, consider speaking[62] well as trivial; pursue this so that you fare well.


[1] This is athletic imagery for events encountered in the Christian life and especially spiritual asceticism; literally it may be read: “from the games and races which they performed.” For similar imagery, see 1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 4:7; Hebrews 10:32.

[2] In this construction, the verb ἔχω takes as its object an accusative (φύσιν) and a predicate accusative (διδάσκαλον); see Bauer (=BDAG hereafter), 421. Here I take μόνην as an adverb, which is usually in the neuter case; so does the Latin translation: Atque illi quidem naturam solum magistram habuerunt.

[3] Or, “famous.”

[4] The wide semantic range of συνήθεια includes: “friendship,” “intimacy,” “practice,” “habit,” “custom,” and “tradition.”

[5] This prepositional phrase απ’ αὐτοῦ denotes agency: “by it” or “from it” (cp. Psalm 18: 8; LXX Psalm 17:8).

[6] This letters comments on Psalm 18:8 (LXX Psalm 17:8). In context, “it” in this letter refers to fire that came out of the mouth of the Lord; thus, “the coals were kindled by the fire [which came from the Lord’s mouth].”

[7] Same note 5 above for comment on απ’ αὐτοῦ.

[8] This prepositional phrase έκ τοῦ Θεοῦ denotes the source of the preposition αὐτοῦ; its antecedent is “fire.” See note 5 above.

[9] This borrows the imagery of Daniel 12:3 and Philippians 2:15.

[10] Νειλαμβωνι is the name of the recipient in the dative. This dative case either preserves a longer form or alternative spelling for the name for the name: Νειλαμμων.

[11] Or, “games”; see note 1 above.

[12] Or, “contests.” Again, athletic imagery is used concerning events encountered in the Christian life; see note 1 above.

[13] Or, “spiritual.”

[14] The conjunction here is καί.

[15] Literally: “And here, on the one hand, often, but, on the other hand, after these things, certainly.” Both subject and verb have to be supplied in both clauses. Context suggests the juxtaposition of trials now and rewards later.

[16] Or “contests.” In this sense, we now participate in contests; in the coming age we receive the rewards in full.

[17] I.e., John the Baptist.

[18] Generally, “practice,” “exercise,” or “discipline”; more specifically, “asceticism” or “monastic life.”

[19] I take κατὰ Θεὸν as paraphrasis to indicate the nature of “the perfect asceticism”; see κατά in BDAG 5.b.β.

[20] See note 18 above.

[21] Here “hair” is a reference to the camel hair that John the Baptist wore as a covering; cf. Mark 1:6; Matthew 3:4. 

[22] Or, “branches.” Here it is the food on the “twig” or “branch” that is in view.

[23] This Greek phrase reads: πρὸς ὀλίγην τροφὴν καὶ δύναμιν καὶ ἀπέριττον. I take πρὸς as governing (1) ὀλίγην τροφὴν καὶ δύναμιν and (2) ἀπέριττον. The adjective ἀπέριττον (“simple”) requires an implied noun in which to modify; so, “simple meal.”

[24] Based on context, I take μείζονα to refer to intensity; thus, “too intense” or “more intense”; it could also refer to importance; thus, “greater importance” or “more important.”

[25] I.e., John the Baptist.

[26] Or, “way of life”; or more specifically, “diet.”

[27] This letter comments on Psalm 75:8 (LXX Psalm 74:8).

[28] This use of χαίρω means “taking leave of,” “parting,” or “putting away”; see LSJ, IV.3 of χαίρω.

[29] This syntax is difficult, in part because the text does not seem certain (i.e., parentheses are around the infinitive ἐπιλησμονεῖν). And the meaning of this parenthetical word is similar to the nominative plural adjective οἱ ῥάθυμοι. It seems the infinitive is redundant and should be ignored. So, I treat the verb φαντάζω like the verb φαίνω. φαίνω can be the main verb of a clause, take an implied infinitive (εἴναι) or participle (ὄντες), and take a predicate nominative (see II.B of φαίνω in LSJ). This fits our context; and so we ignore the parenthetical verb ἐπιλησμονεῖν. It could be argued that the parenthetical infinitive ἐπιλησμονεῖν could be the complementary infinitive to the main verb φαντάζω (here, φαντασθῶμεν).  But LSJ notes that this verb should take an infinitive and an accusative; here we do not have an accusative. Instead, we have a plural nominative.

[30] Or, “satisfied.”

[31] I take δριμύτερον adverbially. It is also in the comparative state.

[32] I.e. evading questions.

[33] The Greek is awkward here. Literally it reads: “For you, pursuing shabbiness, are not hidden.” Note the Latin translation of this sentence: Nec enim mihi obscurum est, te vilitatem hic aucupari.

[34] For the meaning of ἀσκήσεως, see note 18 above.

[35] I take σύμμετρον as absolute in meaning: “in due measure,” “right-sized,” or “moderate.”

[36] Literally, “suffering.”

[37] The grammar up to this point is awkward. I rearranged the word order to show more clearly the intended parallelism between the healthy body and the sick body and soul.

[38] I.e., the body or soul.

[39] Or more generally, “completion” or “perfection.”

[40] This phrase “frivolous practice” may be translated more neutrally, i.e., “indifferent interaction”; context, however, suggests something more pointed.

[41] A feminine object is implied here. The only feminine singular antecedent which makes logical sense is “belly.”

[42] I rendered these present verbs in the future for clarity.

[43] This construction is ἔχω with a direct object and a predicate object (see note 2 above).

[44] ὡς as a comparative particle is usually translated “as.”

[45] Literally, “he.” This unidentified subject is likely the one who has maltreated the recipient of the letter. Isidore predicts calamity or a change in heart for this unidentified person.

[46] See LSJ εἲδω B.1, p. 483 for this idiom.

[47] Literally, “the change.”

[48] The Latin translation has vitium (“sin”).

[49] Literally, “tribe,” “race,” or “kind.”

[50] Or more generally, “way of life” or “conduct.”

[51] This is an aorist participle.

[52] Literally, “you prepared the heart.”

[53] I take the phrase τῶν θείων δογμάτων as modifying τὴν ἀκοὴν (“the report”); thus: “according to the report of godly opinion, you prepared your heart.” The Latin translation also follows this decision: ad divinorum dogmatum auditionem pectus adornabas.

[54] Literally, “lose thought of.”

[55] For “Simon,” see Acts 8:9-24.

[56] See ψεύω A.3; B.II in LSJ, p. 2021.

[57] The intention of Simon, i.e., not his actions.

[58] Here the Greek grammar here is awkward.

[59] Literally, “articles of agreement,” thus, “covenant” or “treaty”; see συνθήκη in LSJ συνθήκη definition II.2 and Lampe definition 4.

[60] Generally, “practice” or “discipline”; more specifically, “asceticism” or “monastic life.” See note 18 above.

[61] Or more generally understood: “conduct,” “behavior,” or “way of life.”

[62] For τίθημι plus and infinitive, see τίθημι B.II.5, p. 1791 in LSJ. Here τίθημι is a verb of thinking and the infinitive acts like a participle.

Share

Back to Isidore of Pelusium’s letters

An email reached me today from a chap volunteering to take on a commission for some Greek and Syriac (and Armenian for that matter, although I have none in mind at the moment).  I’ve written back and asked for some details.  It might be nice to get him to do a few of the letters of Isidore of Pelusium, at least as a starter.

This reminded me that someone translated 14 of Isidore’s letters during the summer, and that — as I dimly remembered — I commissioned some more, as I remarked here.  I wonder if I ever published those 14 letters online?  I certainly meant to!  I paid for them, after all, and the last revision was rather good and rather readable.  I must hunt them out.  Meanwhile I have written to the translator asking what happened with regard to the next chunk. 

There’s no lack of material to commission.  There’s sermons by Chrysostom, such as the two on Christmas.  I think I listed a bunch of Chrysostom material some time back.

There’s also material by Severian of Gabala.  That reminds me that I ought to write to two other people, each of whom was going to do a sermon and neither of whom I have heard from since.  There is such a thing as being too busy, and I suspect I probably qualify!   But it illustrates why reliability is such a virtue in a translator. 

Then there are works by Cyril of Alexandria, such as his Apologeticus ad imperatorem, explaining himself after the Council of Ephesus.  There’s John the Lydian, On the Roman Months (De Mensibus), book 4 of which is intensely interesting.  Andrew Eastbourne translated the section on December for us a while back.  Indeed John’s work might form a nice volume three in the series of translations I am publishing, although I suspect a UV photographic copy of the manuscript might be a necessary precursor.

Who knows?  The email is welcome, and let’s see if we can get something done.

Share

More on the paragraphos mark

I’m ridiculously busy, but came across — drat, I was interrupted by the phone even as I typed that! — … but I came across a very nice article online about the ancient paragraphos in — drat, interrupted AGAIN! — … about the ancient paragraphos in French here, complete with a very nice photograph of a papyrus. 

The papyrus was found in the South-West of the Fayum in Egypt in 1901-2 by a French archaeologist, reused in cartonage, and contained portions of a lost work by Menander.  The article links to the announcement of the discovery here, identified by three words in the colophon — Sikuw/nioj Mena/ndrou a)riqmo\j… — which was followed by a numeral indicating 1,000. 

Detail of the papyrus of the Sicyonians of Menander (3rd c. B.C.). Institut de papyrologie (Sorbonne). The paragraphos is placed between the replies of the speakers in the drama

 

The article is not quite correct — the paragraphos, the line in between the lines, indicates that somewhere on that line is a division marker — often a colon, or perhaps a space.  In a modern text each speaker would be on his own line.  Not so in antiquity. 

I always wonder, faced with such comments, how we actually know that this is so.  The article tells us that Aristotle mentions the paragraphos in his Rhetoric, and that it is the only punctuation mark he mentions.  I was unable to locate the passage in Aristotle, tho, as no reference was given. 

UPDATE: I have found that the reference is to Aristotle, Rhetoric, book 3, chapter 8, verse 6 (238-9), rendered here

A sentence should break off with the long syllable: the fact that it is over should be indicated not by the scribe, or by his period-mark in the margin, but by the rhythm itself.

At Perseus we get this:

 

ἀλλὰ δεῖ τῇ μακρᾷ ἀποκόπτεσθαι, καὶ δήλην εἶναι τὴν τελευτὴν μὴ διὰ τὸν γραφέα, μηδὲ διὰ τὴν παραγραφήν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν ῥυθμόν.  

But the period should be broken off by a long syllable and the end should be clearly marked, not by the scribe nor by a punctuation mark, but by the rhythm itself.

Share

Paragraphos and Coronis – the joy of the chase

After my last post, I was wondering what the paragraphos and coronis marks in a papyrus looked like.  A search on “paragraphos coronis” in Google quickly revealed that each had a Wikipedia article, albeit a pretty empty one: paragraphos and coronis.

Looking in Google books revealed much more. This page seems to be a French discussion by Catharine Barry, Zostrien (NH VIII, 1), 2000.  This seems to be one of the Nag Hammadi codices, codex VIII, text 1 (“Zostrien” — which seems to be the “Zostrianos” familiar to all those interested in these gnostic texts).  P.663:

The point of this note is to inventory the paratextual elements that are found throughout the text of Zostrien, and to specify their function.  Placed in the right margin, and lightly continued into the text, between the lines, these elements appear in two variants.  As we shall see, they correspond exactly in form and function to what the ancients called paragraphe or paragraphos (gramme), i.e. the marks of a paragraph or a unit of the sense.  In fact the paragraphos consists essentially of a horizontal line which begins in the right margin and is continued between the lines, and which can be reinforced by an oblique bit, giving what is called an “non-linear crochet”.  Furthermore the paragraphos serves most often mainly to draw attention to an indicator of division placed in the line.  This is very often a colon ( : ) followed by more or less white space.[3]

3.  The paragraphos is therefore similar in function to the coronis (korw/nij), except that this, as its names indicates, appears “in the form of a semi-circle open towards the right”, like an “anti-sigma” (D. Muzerelle, Vocabulaire codicologique, Paris, 1985, p.127, § 422.12; cf. V. Gardthausen, Griechische Paleographie, zweiter Band, Die Schrift, …, Leipzig, 1913, p.403-4).  On the difficulty of distinguishing the  two terms, see H.-M. Schenke, Matthaus-Evangelium im mittelagyptischen Dialekt des Koptischen (Codex Schiede),  TU 127, Berlin, 1981, p.20, n.33.

The article is of great interest on these papyrological terms.  Yet the signs appear in the 6th century Pliny manuscript M.

More tomorrow — those search terms seem to give such interesting books in Google books!

Share

Abu’l Makarem online?

The NASCAS list for Arabic Christian scholars contains this interesting note:

Since we discussed the work of Abu al-Makarim (Tarikh al-kana’is wa-l-adyira) a while ago, I thought you might be interested in the following website of the Dayr al-Suryan in Egypt, where the book (4 vols.) is downloadable, together with much other useful material.

http://www.st-mary-alsourian.com/Library/books.php

This is indeed a vast collection of books.  But … can some kind person who knows Arabic point me to the 4 volumes of Abu’l Makarem?

One useful trick — the links may be in Arabic, but if you hover over them, the links displayed at the bottom of internet explorer are in English!  This I find this link for manuscripts.

The monastery is of course Deir al-Suryani, the famous source of all those Syriac books brought to the UK in the 1840’s by Henry Tattam.  It is wonderful to find their website, and that they are still disseminating knowledge!

Share

Chapter divisions in Pliny the Elder

I’ve returned to looking at Diana Albino’s article on ancient chapter divisions and summaries, and I was rereading my translation of a long chunk here.

One bit caught my eye, about the use of the diple, coronis and paragraphos marks:

Already in the papyri, in fact, the various parts are often separated from each other by intervals of spacing, or through the device of protruding into the margin the first letter of the initial line of each section, or by means of special signs to indicate diplh~, korwni/j and paragra/foj. … These ways of subdivision are also preserved in the Middle Ages. Thus, in codex M (end of the 5th century, beginning of the 6th) of the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder, the chapters are marked by empty intervals or capital letters or even the sign of coronis (8).

(8) Cfr. K. DZIATZKO: Untersuchungen ueber ausgewahlte Kapitel des antiken Buchwesens, Leipzig, 1900, p. 53 and pp. 113-114; PLINII Naturalis Historia ed. SILLING, Gothae 1855 voI. VI, Proleg. pp. 18, 20, 26.

Dziatzko’s book is online at Google books here.  P.53 merely gives a general description of the manuscript ‘M’ of Pliny’s Natural History, which is a palimpsest of the Stiftes St. Paul in Kämthen Kärnten, numbered III (formerly LXXXVII), written in majuscule around the start of the 6th century.  It contains most of books 11-15.  It was first used by F. Mone for vol. 6 of his edition (Gotha, 1855; hence ‘M’).

The material in question is on p.114, and discusses the sections arising from the content, which are delimited by larger letters and gaps in the text.  The divisions, especially in the latter part of the manuscript, are marked by a new line and a disengaged letter in the margin.  But in some cases there is a large letter in the margin, for no obvious reason.  Dziatzko speculates that this is the remains of a paragraphos signalled in the ancestor copy.

Footnote 1 adds:

Hier wie sonst noch öfter steht am Ende der vorausgehenden, nicht vollen Zeile, überdies die Koronis. — Uebrigens sind, was nicht zu verwundem ist, manche Abschnitte an Stellen angesetzt, die man anders und auch besser auswählen könnte.

Here, as elsewhere more often, we find the Koronis, at the end of the previous line, not the whole line, moreover. – By the way, unsurprisingly, some divisions are in places where different and better ones could have been chosen.

I could see no mention in all this, however, of numerals in the margin, indicating that the sections were numbered and perhaps connected with the author’s table of contents in book 1.

The book is an interesting one, tho, and deserves to be better known.  I only wish my German was better!

UPDATE: I was wondering where “Kämthen” might be.  A google search leaves me still in the dark.  Might it be “Kempten” in Bavaria?  But if so, where is this St. Paul monastery? 

UPDATE2: But it turns out — thanks to JS in the comments — that I simply had an OCR error, and it is really Kärnthen, or Kärnten as it is today!

Share

Eusebius update

I’ve started working through the 6 pages of revisions to proof text the Greek and Latin text of the forthcoming Eusebius Gospel Problems and Solutions.  Most of them are indeed proof corrections, which is something — missing commas or closing quotes and the like.  I’m going to see if I can move this forward in the evenings.

Meanwhile Lightning Source have decided — after a week — that they need yet more signatures from me in order to take my money, bless them.   Apparently some more of the boxes needed them, than the ones I spotted.  You wonder how they continue to exist!  But it isn’t holding anything up.

The cover design is pretty much clear in my mind.  A company logo will appear on it, and the design company has produced some good ideas.  It looks as if a Latin motto will be required, tho.  Anyone any ideas?  Thinking of Lightning Source inevitably leads me to Illegitimis non carborundum, but of course we can’t use that.

UPDATE: I managed to process around 20% of the proof corrections into the PDF tonight.  Better than I had thought!

Share

Letter 133 in the letters of Leo the Great – Proterius on the calculation of Easter

A post in an online forum has drawn my attention to the letters of Pope Leo I (d.461).  He is probably best known for persuading Attila the Hun to leave the defenceless city of Rome alone.  Among patristicians, he is remembered for his Tome to Flavian, a letter sent to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 on the monophysite question, which was approved by the council and so committed the Roman see to supporting the decisions of that highly divisive council.

A collection of 173 letters, 30 of them by other people, is found in the Patrologia Latina volume 54.  Among these is letter 133, which is not by Leo but addressed to him. 

At that period the date of Easter was determined by a letter sent out by the patriarch of Alexandria.  In 455, Leo wrote, querying the date given as being wrongly calculated.  The patriarch was one Proterius.  The emperor Marcian had appointed him, and he was deeply unpopular among the Alexandrian monophysites.  After the death of Marcian in January 457, without bothering about Proterius they consecrated Timothy Aelurus (Timothy the Weasel) as patriarch, and on 28 March 457, during the celebrations of Maundy Thursday, Proterius was attacked and brutally lynched.

Proterius wrote back, commenting that possibly Leo had a bad copy or that a copyist had made a mistake.  He also sent a copy of his letter in Greek, to make sure that no mistranslations got in the way.  He justified the dating, pointing out that Easter was being celebrated a week late to avoid coinciding with the Jewish passover on 14 Nisan, which in 455 fell on a Sunday.

The online text of the PL is columns 1084-1094, although there are formidable notes so it’s probably about 7 columns of “normal” text. It’s long enough to be divided into chapters.  I suppose a translation would not be that expensive, although I can think of no special reason to translate it.

Few of the letters of Leo have ever been translated into English.  A selection by Edmund Hunt appeared in 1957 in the Fathers of the Church vol. 38.  (I was going to link to a preview of this, which I saw at lunchtime today, but annoyingly I can’t find it on Google Books now!). 

All the sermons of Leo seem to have been translated into German in the old BKV series, in the 2nd edition (vols. 54-55), here.  According to Quasten, the letters were translated by Severin Wenzlowsky in 1869 in the first BKV series.  The way in which the second edition left out material from the first — it applies to material by Tertullian also — has always baffled me.  But I can find no trace online of any such volume.  Wenzlowsky edited Der briefe der Papste in 1878 in this series, so it may be that Quasten was confused.  These are all in a  horrible Gothic font anyway.

I can find no information about French translations. René Dolle in the Sources Chretiennes series translated his sermons, in 4 volumes (22, 49, 74, 200) from 1947-73.  But an earlier translation was made by a certain Pere Quesnel in 1698, and another by Nicholas Fontaine in 1701. 

So … nothing, really.  It is remarkable, tho, that the letters of so important a figure remain inaccessible!

Share

The merriment of devils and the anger of the saints – the NIV saga continues

Would you like to rewrite the Moslem Koran?  Perhaps add a couple of modifying words to reflect our own views.  Maybe strengthen the bits about “protecting” non-Moslems, and, when it talks about holy war against unbelievers, add an adjective or two to make sure this is “spiritual” war?

Or maybe we could work over the Jewish bible!  Hey, if we hate the Israelis, we could “clarify” for them that the bits giving Israel the land are provisional, or “spiritual”, or something.  Or if we’re Zionistically inclined, we could make sure that all Jews know what their duty in occupying the land of Israel is. 

Would you instead prefer Barack Obama to make some “clarifications” to the bible, to reflect his political programme?  Or Tony Blair?  Or Margaret Thatcher?

Of course this is a policy that you wouldn’t do to any holy book in which you believed yourself!  If you believed that the Koran was from Allah, you’d hesitate pretty hard before mucking with it, whatever spin you put on your changes.  After all, Allah might throw you into hell.  He might get his people to kill you.  You believe in all this stuff, so it wouldn’t be good.

No, it’s something you’d do to someone else’s holy book.  You’d do it to them.  Make their book reflect your views.  And wouldn’t it be fun to do!  It would certainly show who’s boss — you — and that their god was powerless.  If you could do it to the Koran, and make the Moslems take your changed version and bow down to it, you could laugh every time you heard a minaret.  They’d be bowing down to you.

Of course this is satire.  No sensible person would want to abuse another in this manner.  You’d have to be quite a bigot to do this.

Unfortunately we live in an age beyond satire.  Juvenal remarked, “What can you do, when the man himself is more vile than anything you can think of to say about him?”  And this programme is being put into effect today. 

There is a new version out of the New International Version English translation of the bible.  Apparently, the old version has been withdrawn; if you want the NIV, you must take the new one.  The web sites have been changed.  The decision has been made.

So why is this being changed?  What are the changes?  Well, you will look on the NIV website in vain.  You will find, under the “FAQ” only words about the unspecified changes to the English language — although I must have missed these, because I don’t know of such changes in formal English.

Most translations of the bible achieve little.  But when the NIV appeared it succeeded.  It took hold in the Christian community.  It was trusted.

Ten years ago an attempt was made to corrupt it.  The text was rewritten to reflect the teachings of the contemporary political belief-system often called Political Correctness.  (Its advocates have never named their philosophy, since once you can name something you can oppose it.)   As we all know, among the principles of that ideology is a demand to remove from literature references to ‘man’ (equivalent to Latin homo, man as species) and replace them with ‘man and woman’ (Latin vir and femina).  As part of this dogma, they specify that God — these people are atheists — may not be referred to as male.  This creed has never been put to a vote and is instead advanced by the methods of backstairs politics.  This teaching is the faith of the establishment in our day, and most weeks I see some newspaper report of some poor soul who has fallen foul of its ever-shifting dogmas and lost their job.  Its proponents are not Christians, although some Christians are politically correct.

Anyway the corrupt version was issued; and US Christians resisted, for which we may be truly thankful.   Wayne Grudem listed a series of mistranslations, all designed to rewrite the bible into what — in the opinion of the PC — it should have said.  Sales of the NIV collapsed.  In a desperate attempt to remedy the situation, the old NIV was brought back and the new one renamed the TNIV.   The TNIV was a commercial failure, and failed to achieve the end of those who composed it.  Christians rejected it.  A few ministers conspicuously endorsed it, thereby indicating something about them to the rest of us. 

Corrupting the bible is a sin.  The ending of Revelation indicates as much.   The very idea of translating the bible according to the principles of some politically powerful contemporary ideology ought to horrify any Christian.  Do we follow Christ, or Caesar? 

It is easy enough to see the problem if we happen to disagree with that ideology!  Oh yes.  That isn’t a problem.  But we can kid ourselves, if we happen to agree with some potent contemporary ideology, and suppose that God must endorse it.  The classic example is “church and king” Toryism; but nevertheless, it is wrong and blasphemous to call Caesar our god and to bow before him. 

What worried me is that there was no repentance from those responsible, no acknowledgement of what an awful thing had been attempted.  As far as I know no-one was sacked.  The attitude I see is that the TNIV “failed to be accepted”, not “was wrong”.  Those who perpetrated this evil remained at their desks, to the best of my knowledge.  Today we see the fruit of their labours, in a new version.

So what is happening?  Is this an honest revision?  Or is it merely a case that the heretics, having failed to get their dogma written into the bible in one gulp, have decided to make the church eat this elephant a little at a time?  We all know how people get unpopular policies accepted; they do it one small step at a time.  Those of us enduring metrication in the UK can see this happening under our noses, undiscussed, low-visibility.  Is this the same, I ask?

A certain amount of textual corrections based on revisions to the Greek text are also included, which might otherwise be unobjectionable.   But I wonder whether it is desirable to keep revising a translation?  Each time we revise the translation, do we not give the impression that the Word of God is a moveable feast?  Textual critics fiddle endlessly, but their conclusions are never settled and may be reversed when times change.  Atheists jeer that the bible is not the Word of God because it keeps changing.  By contrast the NIV people give the impression to me of thinking in terms of an endless series of changes.

So I shan’t be purchasing this “new bible”.  The old one is fine, thanks.  I don’t need someone else’s idea of what the bible should say.  And … I hope the Lord punishes these people very severely indeed, if this is what is happening.  This is not a game.  This is the Word of Life, the only means of Salvation in a dying world.  And some creep wants to make it reflect the opinions of the Selfish Generation?

A set of lay comparisons is here.  It doesn’t look good to me, but who knows?

Share

Copyright claim on all images of Stonehenge ever

An amusing example of bureaucratic hubris has reached me.  A post here on the fotoLibra blog — a commercial picture library — reveals an email from English Heritage, claiming copyright on all images ever made of Stonehenge.

We are sending you an email regarding images of Stonehenge in your fotoLibra website. Please be aware that any images of Stonehenge can not be used for any commercial interest, all commercial interest to sell images must be directed to English Heritage.

Legally it’s nonsense, of course.  The copyright in images resides always with the photographer, not the ‘owner’ of the site, unless those rights are explicitly transferred.  Just owning something that people photograph gives you no rights (British Library take note please).

But it does show the attitude — it’s all about exploitation, as much as can be achieved.   Not a very good sign, for a world heritage site whose every penny comes from public funds.

For those unfamiliar with it, English Heritage is a quango — an organisation set up and funded by the UK government, but with establishment appointees who are then allowed to run it as they please without government interference. 

UPDATE:  I have just had to delete an abusive comment on this post. I can only suppose from its content is by an EH employee; because I can’t imagine anyone else would care enough about EH to insult me over this.  Nasty people, if so.

Share