Month: June 2011

“I have outflanked these miserable insects…”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

An interesting email came to me today from David Wilmshurst, discussing the problems that a scholar has in editing Wikipedia, with a very nice turn of phrase in it:

No agreement will ever be possible in a democratic forum like Wikipedia, because Assyrians and Chaldeans cannot agree on the basic premises.  Instead, I have outflanked these miserable insects – as the Nestorian patriarch Elisha  (524-39) amiably termed his opponents – by writing my own book on the subject, in the hope that after it is published I can bludgeon them into submission by citing it as an authority.  I confess, though, that I am not optimistic of success.

The phrase “miserable insects”, for the dogs in the manger, is a delightful one.  My correspondent also kindly sent over a translation of the passage in which Elisha said this.  It comes from the Nestorian Chronicle of Seert, Part II, Chapter 25, apropos of the schism of Narsai and Elisha.  Elisha has suppressed Narsai’s supporters in most of Mesopotamia, and only Kashkar in Beth Aramaye still openly defies him.

Elisha, on his return to Seleucia, reached an agreement with the metropolitans and bishops who supported him to take his revenge on the inhabitants of Kashkar.  He then consecrated a bishop named Barshabba in place of Samuel.  This bishop, who was rejected by the people of Kashkar, returned to Elisha. 

Thanks to the doctor Biron, who obtained for him a royal edict aimed at giving him support, and to the militia commanders, who were ready to act upon his orders, Elisha resolved to attack the people of Kashkar to take his revenge on them.  They, having got wind of his plan, prepared to defend themselves, to fight, and to repel whoever attacked them.  They were supported by many men from Beth Huzaye and Beth Garmai, who opposed Elisha. 

The latter was extremely angry at this.  ‘How,’ he said in the presence of the people of Seleucia, ‘do those those miserable little insects, who claim to have rejected and humiliated me, think that they can get the better of me, since I have been victorious everywhere else?’  This speech reached the ears of the people of Kashkar, and inflamed their anger. 

Elisha returned to his residence, holding the royal edict in his hand.  One of the people of Kashkar approached him in the middle of the crowd to kiss his hand.  When the catholicus held it out to him, the man of Kashkar seized the edict from him and gave it to someone else.  A strict search was made for this man, but he was never found. 

The quarrel worsened.  One group of supporters would tear the clothing from their opponents, or the two sides would come to blows.  Elisha was mortified to have lost the royal edict, which had cost him so much to obtain, and to have been the object of the offensive mockery of the people of Kashkar.

I fear that the Chronicle of Seert is not a pro-Elisha source!  But the impatience of a great man with foolish opposition is apposite.

The text was published with French translation in the Patrologia Orientalis series by Addai Scher, who was done to death in 1915 as part of the massacres of Christians by the Turks.  I don’t know of an English translation, however.

Share

Papers on Eusebius at the SBL, 2009-11

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Aaron Johnson added a comment to a previous post which is most interesting, and liable to provoke separate discussion.  Here it is!

Here’s the list of past and upcoming papers on Eusebius delivered at the SBL (2009-2011).  Sections 5-6 below are the ones slated for this November (in San Francisco).

“Eusebius and the Construction of a Christian Literary Culture in Late Antiquity”
Organized by Aaron P. Johnson, Lee University
SBL Consultation Group, 2009-2011

1.  Christian Literary Culture and Eusebius

“Constructing Christian Literature in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History”
       Enrico Norelli, University of Geneva

“Christians and the Library of Edessa”
       William Adler, North Carolina State University

“Christian Literary Culture in Practice and Theory: The Case of Eusebius”
       Megan Hale Williams, San Francisco State University

“Christian Literary Culture in Late Antiquity: A Response”
        Elizabeth A. Clark, Duke University

2.   Eusebius and Biblical Scholarship

“Eusebius and Biblical Scholarship : Soundings Back and Forth (And Back Again)”
       Joseph Verheyden, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

 “Eusebius, the Psalter and the Creation of Christian Literary Culture”
       Michael Hollerich, University of St. Thomas

 “Eusebius, Isaiah and Empire”
       Jeremy Schott, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

 “Eusebius of Caesarea and the Biblical Text”
       Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

3.  Eusebius the Historian and Biographer

“Through the Lens of Hegesippus: Eusebius on the Jews and Judeo-Christians”
       Oded Irshai, Hebrew University

“Eusebius, Porphyry, and the Testimonium Flavianum”
       Ken Olson, Duke University

“Eusebius and images of truth in the Life of Constantine”
       Peter Van Nuffelen, University of Ghent

“Revisiting Eusebius’ use of the figure of Moses in the Vita Constantini”
       Finn Damgaard, University of Copenhagen

4.  Eusebius and Origen

“Origen as an exegetical source in Eusebius’ Prophetical Extracts”
       Sebastien Morlet, University of Paris – Sorbonne

“The History of Caesarean Present: Eusebius and Origen Narratives”
       Elizabeth C. Penland, Yale University

“Quotations from Origen and the Theologies of Textuality in Eusebius’ Apology for Origen, Against Marcellus, and On Ecclesiastical Theology”
       Jeremy Schott, University of North Carolina – Charlotte

 “Origen, Eusebius, and the Doctrine of Apokatastasis” 
       Ilaria L.E. Ramelli, Catholic University, Milan

5.  Eusebius the Theologian

“How Binitarian/Trinitarian is Eusebius’ Theology?”
       Volker Drecoll, University of Tuebingen

“Eusebius of Caesarea’s Defense and Critique of Asterius the Sophist in the Anti-Marcellan Writings”
       Mark DelCogliano, University of St. Thomas

“The Selective Use of Numenius in Eusebius’ Theology”
       Jon Robertson, Multnomah College

“Eusebius and Lactantius: Rhetoric, Philosophy, and Christian Theology”
       Kristina Meinking, Elon College

6.  Eusebius and Literary Culture

“Eusebius’s Harnessing of Saintly Charisma in his Treatment of the Martyrs of Lyon”
       Candida Moss, University of Notre Dame

“Tampering with Tradition: How Eusebius Manipulated the Tradition of Papias”
       Timothy Manor, University of Edinburgh

“Profiles in Brilliance: Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and the Construction of a Christian Intellectual Heritage”
       David DeVore, University of California, Berkeley

“Reading Rome: Irenaeus and Eusebius on the Early Christian Urban Vision”
       D. Jeffrey Bingham, Dallas Theological Seminary

“New Perspectives on Eusebius’ Questions and Answers on the Gospels”
       Claudio Zamagni, University of Lausanne

I think we can all say that there is a tremendous amount of interesting material in there.  I wish I could be at the SBL to hear the forthcoming papers, particularly that by Claudio Zamagni!

Thank you, Aaron, for making this better known to us all!

Share

British Library to digitise all its Greek manuscripts

Posted on by Roger Pearse

An announcement on the British Library manuscripts blog here tells us:

Phase two of the British Library’s project to digitise all of its ca. 1,000 Greek manuscripts is now well under way. This phase — also generously funded by the Stavros Niarchos Foundation) — will digitise and make publicly available a further 250 manuscripts, adding to the 284 manuscripts digitised in phase one. We are currently about half way through this second phase and plan to publish the digitised manuscripts in batches during the rest of this year on our Digitised Manuscripts viewer.

A new batch of manuscripts has now been published online, and contains 24 manuscripts ranging in date from the tenth to the nineteenth centuries.

Most of us would rather have PDF’s, of course, than this awkward “viewer”.

But it is excellent news indeed that the BL has decided to digitise all its Greek manuscripts, and SNF deserve considerable thanks for making it possible.

There doesn’t seem to be a list of the new mss available, tho.

Another interesting announcement of the same kind is that medieval and early modern “scientific” mss will be digitised:

… the British Library has embarked on a project to digitise some of its most prestigious medieval and early modern scientific manuscripts. Funded by a generous private donation, the project will supply complete coverage of selected items from the Harley collection, augmented by revised catalogue records for the books in question.

Medieval and early modern manuscripts are vital for transmitting ancient scientific thought to the modern world.

Evidently not by the same donor, but this too is welcome.  For many ancient technical works remain unpublished and inaccessible.  This may help quite a bit.

Share

The Vlatadon library in Thessalonika

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I have had an email back from Veronique Boudon-Millot today, giving the story of how the lost text by Galen, Peri Alupias (On consolation for grief) was found.  It’s very interesting, and I have asked for permission to translate it and place it here. 

She also mentions that Vlatadon 14, the manuscript that contained the new work, also contains the first complete copies of Galen’s On my own books and On the order of my own books, the two works most interesting to non-medical specialists, as evidence for the transmission of texts in the 2nd century AD.  The only previously known copy of the Greek was the Ambrosianus Q 3 sup. in Milan, which has many gaps in the text.  Those gaps previously had, perforce, to be filled from Hunain ibn Ishaq’s Arabic translation, itself extant only in a single forgotten manuscript in the obscure library of Mashhad in Iran.

A key factor in the discovery is that the Vlatadon collection catalogue is itself very obscure and little known.  It was published by S. Eustratiades in 1918.  There is no copy in the United Kingdom, but there is a copy in the French National Library in Paris.  It’s about 136 pages, but ms. 14 is the only medical text.  The remainder are patristic.  And that is exciting!  For if the collection is that little known, who knows what it might contain?!

Share

Montanus in the Chronicle of Zuqnin

Posted on by Roger Pearse

After my last post, I realised that I had a copy of Amir Harrak’s translation of parts 3 and 4 of the Chronicle of Zuqnin, which, for the section about Montanus, is based on John of Ephesus.  Here it is (Harrak, 1999, p.123-4):

549-550 The year eight hundred and sixty-one: Concerning the flood of the river that runs in Tarsus of Cilicia.

Most of Tarsus, a big city in Cilicia, was carried away, submerged and utterly destroyed by the water of the flooded river that runs through it. The other villages of the region, covering a vast area, were also swept away. Fields, vineyards and the rest of the plants were ruined; they were uprooted, dried up, and covered by earth.

At this time, the corrupting heresy of Montanus—the story of which and how it emerged was written down for us at the time of the Apostles—was ridiculed and uprooted.[3] For through the exhortation of holy John, Bishop of Asia, the bones of Montanus—he who said about himself that he was the Spirit Paraclete—Cratius (his associate),[1] Maximilla and Priscilla, his prophetesses, were found. He set them on fire and razed their temples to their foundations.

3 Michael, IV 323-325 [II 269-272] provides more information.
1 Addition based on Michael

“Michael” is, of course, Michael the Syrian, and the numbers are the volumes of the Chabot edition; Syriac in vol. IV, French in vol. II.  Here is the French, from book 9, chapter 33:

Dans le pays de Phrygie, il y a un lieu appelé Pépouza, où les Montanistes avaient un évêque et des clercs ; ils l’appelaient Jérusalem, et ils y tuaient les chrétiens. Jean d’Asie s’y rendit et fit brûler leur synagogue, sur l’ordre de l’empereur. On trouva dans cette maison un grand reliquaire de marbre scellé avec du plomb et lié par des garnitures de fer. Sur le dessus était écrit : « De Montanus et de ses femmes ». On l’ouvrit et on y trouva Montanus et ses deux femmes, Maximilla et Priscilla, qui avaient des lames d’or sur la bouche. Ils furent couverts de confusion en voyant les ossements fétides qu’ils appelaient « l’Esprit ». On leur dit : « N’avez-vous pas honte de vous être laissé séduire par cet impudique, et de l’appeler « Esprit »? Un esprit n’a ni chair ni os.» Et on brûla les ossements. —Les Montanistes firent entendre des gémissements et des pleurs. « Maintenant, disaient-ils, le monde est ruiné et va périr. » — Ou trouva aussi leurs livres honteux et on les brûla. La maison fut purifiée et devint une église.

Auparavant, du temps de Justinianus Ier (Justin), quelques personnes avaient informé l’empereur que Montanus, au moment de sa mort avait ordonné à ses ensevelisseurs de le placer à cinquante coudées sous terre « parce que, disait-il, le feu doit me découvrir, et dévorer toute la face de la terre ». Ses partisans, par l’opération pernicieuse des démons, répandaient faussement le bruit que ses ossements chassaient les démons; ils avaient suborné quelques individus qui, moyennant le pain de leur bouche, affirmaient qu’il les avait guéris. — L’empereur écrivit à l’évêque de l’endroit. Celui-ci fit creuser profondément et retirer les ossements de Montanus et ceux de ses femmes, pour les brûler. Alors, les Montanistes vinrent trouver l’évêque pendant la nuit, et lui donnèrent cinq cents dariques d’or; ils emportèrent les ossements et en apporce que les corps avaient été retrouvés tèrent d’autres; et au matin, sans que personne s’aperçût du mystère, l’évêque brûla ces ossements comme étant ceux de Montanus et de Crites (?) son associé. Mais ensuite, l’archidiacre dénonça l’évêque qui fut envoyé en exil.

Apollon, le compagnon de Paul, écrit que ce Montanus  était fils de Simon le mage; que quand son père périt, par la prière de Pierre, il s’enfuit de Rome, et se mit à troubler l’univers. Alors Apollon, (poussé) par l’Esprit, alla où il était, et le vit assis et prêchant l’erreur. Il commença à l’invectiver en disant : « O ennemi de Dieu, que le Seigneur te châtie ! » Montanus se mit à le reprendre, et dit :« Qu’y a t-il entre toi et moi, Apollon? Si tu prophétises : moi aussi ; si tu es apôtre : moi aussi ; si tu es docteur : moi aussi. » Apollon lui dit : « Que ta bouche soit fermée, au nom du Seigneur ! » Aussitôt il se tut et ne put jamais plus parler. Le peuple crut en Notre-Seigneur  et reçut le baptême. Ils renversèrent le siège de Montanus qui prit la fuite et s’échappa. — Ce récit est fini, ainsi que l’autre.

 In English:

In the country of Phrygia, there is a place called Pepouza where the Montanists had a bishop and clergy; they called it Jerusalem, and there they killed the Christians.  John of Asia went and burned their synagogue, on the orders of the emperor. In this house there was found a large marble shrine, sealed with lead and bound with iron fittings. On the top was written: “Montanus and his wives”. We opened it and found Montanus and his two wives, Maximilla and Priscilla, who had gold leaf on their mouths. They were ashamed of seeing the fetid bones which they called “the Spirit”. They were told: “Aren’t you ashamed to be seduced by this shameless wretch, and to call him ‘the Spirit’? ‘A spirit hath not flesh or bones. ‘” And the bones were burned.—The Montanists were heard wailing and crying. “Now,” they said, “the world is ruined and will perish.” — Their disgraceful books were also found and burned. The house was cleansed and became a church.

Previously, in the time of Justinianus I (Justin), some people had informed the emperor that Montanus, at the time of his death had ordered those who buried him to place him fifty cubits underground “because,” he said, “fire shall discover me, and devour the whole face of the earth”. His supporters, by the pernicious work of demons, falsely spread the rumor that his bones could cast out demons; they had bribed a few individuals who, for the bread in their mouths, claimed that he had healed them. — The Emperor wrote to the bishop of the place. He dug deep and removed the bones of Montanus and those of his wives, and burned them.  Then the Montanists came to find the bishop during the night, and gave him five hundred darics of gold; they took away the bones and ensured that the bodies recovered belonged to others; and in the morning, without anyone realising it, the bishop burned the bones as those of Montanus and Crites (?) his associate. But then the archdeacon denounced the bishop who was sent into exile.

Apollos, the companion of Paul, wrote that Montanus was the son of Simon Magus; that when his father died, by the prayer of Peter, he fled from Rome and began to disturb the world. Then Apollos (led) by the Spirit, went to where he was and saw him sitting and preaching the error. He began to curse him, saying: “O enemy of God, may the Lord punish you!” Montanus began to rebuke him, and said: “What is there between you and me, Apollos? If you prophesy: I do too; if you are an apostle: so am I; if you are a physician: so am I.” Apollos said: “Let your mouth be closed, in the name of the Lord!” He immediately fell silent and could never speak again. The people believed in our Lord and were baptized. They overthrew the seat of Montanus who fled and escaped.—  This story is finished, like the other.

 Interesting details indeed.  But it is hard not to feel sorry for the poor Montanists, plainly simple rural folk following the traditions of their families since the second century.

Share

The pagans at Constantinople in the time of Justinian

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Vivian Nutton’s paper From Galen to Alexander, Aspects of Medicine and Medical Practice in Late Antiquity,1 continues to give interesting pieces of information.  On page 6 he discusses the relationship of antique medicine to Christianity at the opening of the Byzantine period, and tells us:

… John of Ephesus denounced in the persecutions of Justinian an indiscriminate collection of grammarians, sophists, lawyers and, finally, doctors. 

The reference is to the Revue de l’Orient Chretien vol. 2 (1897) p.481 f.  Fortunately this very valuable series was digitised and made available, thanks to the generosity of George Kiraz of Gorgias Press, so we can consult it at Archive.org.

The article begins on p.455, and is by Francois Nau, Analyse de la seconde partie inedite de l’histoire ecclesiastique de Jean d’Asie, patriarche jacobite de Constantinople (d. 585).  This consists of material from the Chronicle of Zuqnin, book 3, which is mainly derived from the lost second book of John of Ephesus.  The article comes with portions of the Syriac text and a French translation of them.  Here is the French, and an English translation of that.

(Folio 200v) En ce temps, on découvrit des Manichéens à Constantinople et on les brûla.

A cette époque un grand nombre d’hommes adhérérent à l’erreur funeste des Manichéens; ils se réunissaient dans des maisons et écoutaient les mystères impurs de cet enseignement. Quand ils eurent été pris, l’empereur les fit comparaître devant lui; il espérait les convertir et les ramener de leur pernicieuse erreur; il disputa avec eux, les instruisit, leur démontra par l’Écriture qu’ils adhéraient à une doctrine païenne, mais ils ne se laissèrent pas persuader; avec une ténacité satanique, ils criaient devant l’empereur sans aucune crainte, disaient qu’ils étaient prêts à affronter le bûcher pour l’enseignement de Manès et à supporter tous les supplices et toutes les souffrances pour ne pas le changer.

Alors l’empereur ordonna d’accomplir leur désir, de les jeter [Syriac] et de les brûler dans la mer afin qu’ils fussent ensevelis dans les flots, et de confisquer leurs biens, car il y avait parmi eux des femmes illustres, des nobles et des sénateurs. C’est ainsi que beaucoup de Manichéens périrent par le feu et ne voulurent pas quitter leurs erreurs.

Des paiens que l’on découvrit à Constantinople sous l’empereur Justinien.

La dix-neuvième année de l’empereur Justinien (546), on s’occupa, grâce à mon zèle, de l’affaire des païens que l’on découvrit à Constantinople. C’étaient des hommes illustres et nobles avec une foule de grammairiens, de sophistes, de scholastiques et de médecins. Quand ils furent découverts et que, grâce aux tortures, ils se furent dénoncés, on les saisit, on les flagella, on les emprisonna, on les donna aux Églises pour qu’ils y apprissent
la foi chrétienne comme il convient aux païens.

Il y avait parmi eux des patrices et des nobles. Ainsi un païen puissant et riche nomme Phocas, qui était patrice, voyant l’âpreté de l’inquisition et sachant que ceux qui étaient arrêtés l’avaient dénoncé comme païen et qu’un jugement sévère avait été rendu contre lui à cause du zèle de l’empereur, prit de nuit un poison mortel et quitta ainsi cette vie terrestre. Quand l’empereur l’apprit, il ordonna avec justice qu’on l’enterrât comme un âne, qu’il n’y eût aucun cortège pour lui ni aucune prière. Ainsi sa famille le mit durant la nuit sur une litière, l’emporta, fit ouvrir un tombeau et l’y jeta comme un animal mort. Grâce à cela les païens craignirent pour quelque temps.

En 853 (542), la bonté de Dieu visita l’Asie, la Carie, la Lydie et la Phrygie, grâce au zéle du victorieux Justinien et par l’opération de son humble serviteur (c’est-à-dire de Jean d’Asie). Aussi par la vertu du Saint-Esprit, 70,000 âmes furent instruites et quittèrent les erreurs du paganisme, l’adoration des idoles et les temples des démons pour la connaissance de la vérité. Tous se convertirent, renièrent les erreurs de leurs ancêtres, furent baptisés au nom de Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ, et furent ajoutés au nombre des chrétiens. Le victorieux (Justinien) paya les dépenses et les habits du baptême; il eut soin aussi de donner un trimi/tion (1) à chacun d’eux.

Quand Dieu eut ouvert leurs esprits et leur eut fait connaître la vérité, ils nous aidaient de leurs mains à détruire leurs temples, à renverser leurs idoles, â extirpir les sacrifices que l’on offrait partoùt, à abattre leurs autels souillés par le sang des sacrifices offerts aux démons et à couper les innombrables arbres qu’ils adoraient, car ils s’éloignaient de toutes les erreurs de leurs ancêtres.

Le signe salutaire de la croix fut planté partout chez eux, et des églises  de Dieu furent fondées en tout lieu. Elles furent bâties et édifiées, jusqu’au nombre de quatre-vingt-seize, avec grande diligence et grand zèle dans les montagnes hautes et escarpées et dans les plaines, dans tous les lieux qui portérent le paganisme. Douze monastères (2) furent aussi fondés dans ces lieux qui portérent le paganisme et où le nom de chrétien ne fut jamais entendu depuis le commencement du monde jusqu’à cette époque. Cinquante-cinq églises furent fondées aux frais du trésor public et quarante et une aux frais des nouveaux chrétiens. Le victorieux empereur leur donna volontiers par nos mains les vases sacrés, les vêtements, les livres et l’airain (3).

In English:

At that time, Manichaeans were discovered at Constantinople and burned.

At that time many men adhered to the fatal error of the Manichaeans; they gathered in houses and listened to the impure mysteries of this teaching. When they were taken, the emperor summoned them before him; he hoped to convert them and bring them back from their pernicious errors; he disputed with them, instructed them, showed them from Scripture that they were adhering to a pagan doctrine, but they would not allow themselves to be persuaded; with satanic tenacity, they cried out before the emperor without any fear, said they were ready to face the stake for teaching of Manes and to bear every agony and suffering rather than change.

Then the emperor ordered that their desire should be fulfilled, and to throw them [Syriac] and to burn them in the sea that they might be buried in the waves, and to confiscate their property, because there were among them illustrious women, nobles and senators. Thus many of the Manicheans perished by fire and would not leave their errors.

Of the pagans that were discovered at Constantinople under the Emperor Justinian.

In the nineteenth year of the Emperor Justinian (546), they were busy, thanks to my zeal, with the matter of  the pagans who were discovered in Constantinople. These were illustrious and noble men, with a host of grammarians, sophists, scholastics and physicians. When they were discovered and, thanks to torture, denounced themselves, they were seized, flogged, imprisoned, and sent to the churches so that they might learn the Christian faith as was appropriate for pagans.

There were among them patricians and nobles.  Then a powerful and wealthy pagan named Phocas, who was a patrician, saw the harshness of the inquisition and knowing that those arrested had denounced him as a pagan, and that a severe sentence had been given against him because of the zeal of the emperor, that night took deadly poison and so left this earthly life. When the emperor heard this, he ordered with justice that he should be interred like an ass, that there should be no cortege or prayer for him. So his family during the night put him on a litter, carried him, made an open grave and threw him in it like a dead animal. Thanks to this the pagans were afraid for some time.

In 853 (542), the goodness of God visited Asia, Caria, Lydia and Phrygia, thanks to the zeal of the victorious Justinian and by the efforts of his humble servant [i.e. John of Ephesus himself].  So by the power of the Holy Spirit, 70,000 souls were instructed, and left behind the errors of paganism, the worship of idols and the temples of the demons for the knowledge of the truth. All were converted, disavowed the errors of their ancestors, were baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and were added to the number of Christians.  The victorious (Justinian) paid the expenses and clothing for baptism; he also took care to give a τριμίτιον (1) to each of them.

When God had opened their minds and had made known the truth, they helped us with their own hands to destroy their temples, to overthrow their idols, to extirpate the sacrifices that were offered everywhere, to cut down their altars, soiled with the blood of sacrifices offered to demons, and to cut down countless trees that they worshipped because they were leaving all the errors of their ancestors.

The salutary sign of the cross was planted everywhere among them, and churches of God were founded everywhere.  They were built and erected, to the number of eighty-six, with great diligence and zeal, in the high mountains and steep and in the plains, in all the places where there was paganism.  Twelve monasteries were also founded in places which were pagan, and where the name of Christian name had never been heard from the beginning of the world until this time. Fifty-five churches were founded at public expense and forty-one at the expense of the new Christians.  The victorious emperor gave them willingly, by our hands, the sacred vessels, clothes, books and brass items.

(1) The dictionary gives three gold pieces.

We are so accustomed to Christians being persecuted, that it is right to remember that the name of Christ has been used to justify horrible persecution.  John of Ephesus, it seems clear, was a persecutor.  He ended his life in exile, however, when the tide in Constantinople changed and the monophysites received the treatment that he had handed out as a young man.  It’s sad, sobering stuff.  Note how Justinian didn’t want to say “I am persecuting you” but took refuge in the “I am giving you your desire”.  Such are the tricks that men play on themselves, when they are doing something they know to be wrong, yet doing it anyway.

But an interesting fact is that even in the middle of the 5th century, there were substantial areas of Asia Minor where “the name of Christian had not been heard from the beginning of the world to this time.”

The article mainly summarises what is on each page of the manuscript.  On fol. 238v, we find the statement that in 861 AG (550 AD), John of Ephesus burned the bones of Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla, as well as the temples of their adherents.  It is a pity that he does not translate this section. 

Share

Paul of Aegina and his medical handbook

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The technical literature of antiquity is generally hard for us to access.  Few would perhaps be able to venture much beyond Galen and Hippocrates for ancient medical writers.

This evening I learned of the existence of Paulus Aeginata, Paul of Aegina, a 7th century compiler of a medical encyclopedia.  An article by Vivian Nutton, From Galen to Alexander, mentioned a certain “Paul”, who was translated by Francis Adams in 1834.  Nutton (p.2) states:

The most obvious difference between the medicine of the second and that of the sixth century A.D. can be summed up in one word, Galenism, in both its positive and its pejorative meanings. Instead of the variety of great names that can be cited for the second century-Galen, Rufus, Soranus, Antyllus, maybe even Aretaeus-and the evidence from both literary and epigraphic texts for new interests and ideas on surgery, the fourthand later centuries present us with a dull and narrow range of authors-the summarizers, the encyclopaedists-who have been studied not for themselves but for the earlier sources they happen to encapsulate. Oribasius, Aetius, Alexander, Paul are the medical refrigerators of antiquity: we are concerned with their contents, not their mechanics or their design.

…

We are in a quandary also because our conception of how medicine works has changed drastically; and it is not surprising that the last major work of medico-historical value to be done on them was over a century ago by Francis Adams, whose third and final volume of his great translation of Paul appeared in 1847. The reason for this is simple: to Adams, Paul was transmitting a living medicine, one that could still be used in his daily practice in Scotland. and it was precisely for this reason that Adams, on the basis of his own experience as a doctor, could reach such a sound judgment on the merits of this compiler.

It is a useful, not to say frightening, reminder how far medical knowledge has advanced in 150 years.

This naturally led me to do a Google search.  I was able to find vol.2 (1846) and vol. 3 (1847), but not vol. 1.  This 1834 work may be the first volume, perhaps.

 However a browse suggests that the subject matter will not be of interest except to those interested in the history of medicine.  I had hoped for something on antiquity, but sadly not.  But perhaps the preface by Paulus himself will be of interest.  In the interests of readability I have paragraphed it.

It is not because the more ancient Writers have omitted any thing relative to the Art that I have composed this Work, but for the purpose of giving a compendious course of instruction. For, on the contrary, every thing is handled by them in a proper manner, and without any omissions, whereas the moderns have not only in the first place neglected the study of them, but have also blamed them for prolixity. Wherefore, I have undertaken the following Treatise, which, as is like, will serve as a Commentary to those who may choose to consult it, whilst it will prove an exercise to me.

For it appears wonderful that Lawyers should be possessed of compendious, and, as they call them, popular legal Synopses, in which are contained the heads of all the Laws, to serve for immediate use, whilst we neglect these things, although they have it generally in their power to put off the investigation of any point for a considerable time, whereas we can seldom or rarely do so; for in many cases necessity requires that we act promptly, and hence Hippocrates has properly said, “The season is brief.”

For their business is generally conducted in the midst of cities, where there is an abundant supply of books, whereas physicians have to act not only in cities, in the fields, and in desert places, but also at sea on board of ships, where such diseases sometimes suddenly break out as, in the event of procrastination, would occasion death, or at least incur the most imminent danger. But to remember all the rules of the healing art, and all the particular substances connected with it, is exceedingly difficult, if not altogether impossible.

On this account, I have collected this Epitome from the works of the ancients, and have set down little of my own, except a few things which I have seen and tried in the practice of the art. For being conversant with the most distinguished writers in the profession, and in particular wit Oribasius, who, in one work, gave a select view of every thing relating to health, (he being posterior to Galen, and one of the more modern authors,) I have collected what was best in them, and have endeavoured, if possible, not to pass by any one distemper.

For the work of Oribasius, comprehending 70 books, contains indeed an exposition of the whole art, but it is not easily to be procured on account of its bulk, whilst the epitome of it, addressed to his son, Eustathius, is deficient in some diseases altogether, and gives but an imperfect description of others, sometimes the causes and diagnosis being omitted, and sometimes the proper plan of treatment being forgotten, as well as other things which have occurred to my recollection.

Wherefore, the present work will contain the Description, Causes, and Cure of all diseases, whether situated in parts of uniform texture, in particular organs, or consisting of solutions of continuity, and that not merely in a summary way, but at as great length as possible. But in the first place, we will give an exposition of every thing that relates to Health and Regimen. The last book contains an account of simple and compound Medicines. 

I find a few more details by a Google Books search. 

Paul lived in Alexandria, and an iambic in some of the manuscripts says that he was “well-travelled”.  The work is extant in quite a number of Greek manuscripts, and was edited by J. L. Heiberg in the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum.  It seems that the Pragmateia — the Greek title — was translated into Syriac sometime in the 8th or 9th century, although only fragments of this survive, in quotation.  It was then translated into Arabic by Hunain ibn Ishaq in the 10th. 1

His surgical techniques include the methods of castration (book 6, chapter 68), which he states:

The object of our art being to restore those parts which are in a preternatural state to their natural, the operation of castration professes just the reverse. But since we are sometimes compelled against our will by persons of high rank to perform the operation, we shall briefly describe the mode of doing it.

The eye-watering details may be omitted.

1. Peter E. Pormann, The oriental tradition of Paul of Aegina’s Pragmateia, Brill (2004).

Share

R.J.Hoffmann on “Movement humanism”, while Mary Beard writes against attempt to limit smut for kiddies

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Two interesting posts came in via my RSS feed.

The first, via eChurch blog, is by atheist R.J.Hoffmann, and entitled Movement Humanism.  What he describes is what most of us experience, when we encounter atheists or atheist writing:

While often claiming the protective cloak of science and reason as their aegis for intellectual rectitude, movement humanism was really all about creating straw-men, stereotypes and bogeymen and unfortunately came to believe in its own anti-religion discourse. …

To be blunt, movement humanism with its straw men and reductive techniques, its stereotyping and bogeymen, is not just stuck in the past but stuck in a religious past of its own making. It is a past that an authentic and fully inclusive humanism would want to reject. It is a past that many religious thinkers have already rejected.

That many of these headbanger atheists are precisely this kind of animal — the religious bigot — is what some of us have observed for some time.  The main religious hate one will encounter online is from atheists. 

This can come as a shock to those of us whose encounter with older atheism was in the form of J. S. Mill.  Such a realisation from a modern atheist like Hoffmann can only be welcome.

Less welcome is an article from classicist Mary Beard, who writes for the Times.  In Young minds … and the dirty bits (in Aristophanes), we get the following observations.

Of course, you will object, sexualised clothing and sexualised images near schools are not the same thing as the naughty bits in an ancient Greek dramatist. In some ways they are not — and in some ways they are. Both of them, in their different ways, are a nice illustration of the “BAN IT” culture that we have come to accept. If you dont like something, if you think — even more –that its presence could harm young minds and bodies, then BAN IT — as if that was effective, and the only strategy of change that there was.

Isn’t this cute?  Doesn’t it remind you of the hippy age?  Haven’t we all heard this kind of things for decades, as an excuse for filth?

The arguments all seem rather empty, to me.  We live in the age of the “Human Rights Commission”.  We know of writers like Ezra Levant dragged through legal proceedings for expressing an opinion.  We know of Christian street preachers lured by gay agents provocateurs to condemn unnatural vice and then denounced to the police.  Every week brings a new report of some family whose breadwinner has lost his job because he accidently expressed a non-politically correct opinion.  We live in an age of Stalinist-style repression of free speech.  But none of this features in the post.

Those who write like this — I don’t know about Dr. B personally — are almost never opposed to a BAN IT culture.  They’re in favour of it, so long as it is under their control, and will happily defend the most outrageous Gestapo-like tactics.  They object to the ban on filth because it is not a ban that they have advanced and feel comfortable that they control.

Heaven forbid, it might lead to condemnation of themselves.

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Two parcels this morning from Amazon. The first one contained a print-off version of Baumstark’s handbook on Syriac literature.  I ordered this while I was working on the Encyclopedia of Syriac Literature wiki, although I had a PDF.  But I can’t read a book in a PDF.  This one will get marginal notes that help me to find my way around.

The other was Aelian’s Varia Historia. 

The Bar Hebraeus Chronicon Ecclesiasticum vol. 2 PDF that I uploaded to Archive.org on Thursday is defective; the pages are in the wrong order!  I’ve made a new one and it is uploading as we speak.  Apologies to the 15 people who have already downloaded it.

Share

Mithras and 25th December in Franz Cumont, English and French

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The great Franz Cumont, the founder of Mithraic studies, was not well served by his publisher.  The latter permitted an English translation to be made, not of the whole Textes et Monumentes — which would have been of great use — but instead of merely the last portion of only tome 1, the Conclusions.  The work was published in 1903, and is online here and many other places.  But the footnotes that Cumont had given to that section in the full work, rather than being augmented for a stand-alone work, were abbreviated still further.

Cumont made many statements which connect Mithras, the 25 December as the late Roman festival of Sol Invictus on that date, and Christmas.  I thought it would be interesting to explore them.

A look in the English index gives this entry:

Christmas, 167, 191, 196, 202. 

while the French contains only the following entry (t.1, p373):

Noel, placée au 25 Décembre, 342, n. 4.

The entry on p.202 of the English has no connection to this subject.  But here’s what the English translation says, on p.167:

Possibly the sixteenth or middle day of the month continued (as in Persia) to have Mithra for its patron. On the other hand, there is never a word in the Occident concerning the celebration of the Mithrakana, which were so popular in Asia. They were doubtless merged in the celebration of the 25th of December, for a very wide-spread custom required that the new birth of the Sun (Natalis invicti), which began to wax great again on the termination of the winter solstice, should be celebrated by sacred festivals.

No footnotes, notice.  Here is the corresponding passage in Textes et monumentes, tome 1, p.325:

Par coutre, on n’entend jamais parler en Occident de la célébration des Mithrakana, qui étaient si populaires en Asie. Ils avaient sans doute été transportés au 25 décembre, car une coutume très générale voulait que la renaissance du Soleil (Natalis invicti), qui à partir du solstice d’hiver recommençait à croître, fût marquée par des réjouissances sacrées [1].

1) cf. Carmen. adv. pagan. (t. II, p. 52): Qui hibernum (hierium ms.) docuit sub terra quaere Solem, cf. Julien (t. II, p. 66); S. Léon (t. II, p. 68,1. 4); Corippe (t. II, p. 701. – Les textes qui nous parlent de cette fête ont été réunis par Mommsen, CIL, I, 2e éd., p. 338, mais ils concernent le culte officiel de Sol Invictus, établi par Aurélien, plutôt que les mystères de Mithra, et ne nous apprennent rien sur les rites de ceux-ci. Je note cependant que, d’après un auteur syriaque, on avait coutume lumina accendere, festivitatis causa. Sur la substitution de la Noêl à cette fête, cf. infra, ch. VI, p.342.

The statement is referenced, but only in the French, possibly because it refers to volume 2 of Textes et Monumentes, which does not appear in the English:

1) cf. Carmen. adv. pagan. (vol. II, p. 52): Qui hibernum (hierium ms.) docuit sub terra quaere Solem, cf. Julian the Apostate (vol. II, p. 66); St. Leo (vol. II, p. 68,1. 4); Corippe (vol. II, p. 701. – The texts which tell us about this festival have been collected by Mommsen, CIL, vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 338, but they concern only the official cult of Sol Invictus, established by Aurelien, rather than the mysteries of Mithra, and tell us nothing about the rites of the latter. But I note that, according to a Syriac author, there was the custom to lumina accendere, festivitatis causa. (burn a light, because of the festival). On the substitution of Christmas for this festival, see below, ch. VI, p.342.

Note that in all of this there is nothing to justify Cumont’s claim that supposed festivals of Mithras — for which he gives no evidence — were “doubtless” (speculation) merged with the Natalis Invicti on 25 December.  The reference, useful as it is, gives us only access to material about the Natalis Invicti.

Here’s p.190-191 of the English:

… It was in the valley of the Rhone, in Africa, and especially in the city of Rome, where the two competitors were most firmly established, that the rivalry, during the third century, became particularly brisk between the bands of Mithra’s worshippers and the disciples of Christ.

The struggle between the two rival religions was the more stubborn as their characters were the more alike, the adepts of both formed secret conventicles, closely united, the members of which gave themselves the name of “Brothers.”* The rites which they practised offered numerous analogies. The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians, purified themselves by baptism; received, by a species of confirmation, the power necessary to combat the spirits of evil; and expected from a Lord’s Supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December, the same day on which Christmas has been celebrated, since the fourth century at least. …

All these very controversial claims are given with but a single footnote:

*I may remark that even the expression “dearest brothers” had already been used by the sectaries of Jupiter Dolichenus (CIL, VI, 406 = 30758: fratres carissimos et conlegas hon[estismos]) and probably also in the Mithraic associations.

We need hardly remark that such an expression might be used quite naturally in many forms of association, without any necessary reference to Jupiter Dolichenus, Mithras, Jesus, or indeed Noggin the Nog for all we know.

On p.339 of Textes et Monumentes we find the following:

C’est dans la vallée du Rhône, en Afrique et surtout dans la ville de Rome, où toutes deux étaient solidement établies, que la concurrence dut être particulièrement vive au IIIe siècle entre les collèges d’adorateurs de Mithra et la société des fidèles du Christ.

La lutte entre les deux religions rivales fut d’autant plus opiniâtre que leurs caractères étaient plus semblables [2]. Leurs adeptes formaient pareillement des conventicules secrets, étroitement unis, dont les membres se donnaient le nom de “Frères” [3]. Les rites qu’ils pratiquaient, offraient de nombreuses analogies : les sectateurs du dieu perse, comme les chrétiens, se purifiaient par un baptême, recevaient d’une confirmation la force de combattre les esprits du mal, et attendaient d’une communion le salut de l’âme et du corps [4]. Comme eux aussi, ils sanctifiaient le dimanche [5] et fêtaient la naissance du Soleil le 25 décembre, le jour où la Noël était célébrée, au moins depuis le IVe siècle [6].

2) Dom Martin insiste déjà sur nombre de ces analogies dans son Explication de divers monuments singuliers, 1739, p. 271 ss.
3) Minut. Felix, c. 9, § 9l, cf. supra, p. 318, n. 4, et Waltzing, Corporations profess. I, p. 329, n. 3.
4) Cf. supra, p. 319 ss.
5) Cf. supra, p. 119 et p. 325, n. 12. Le rapprochement a été fait dans l’antiquité, cf. Tertull, Apol., 16; Ad nationes, 13. — Il ne peut pas cependant y avoir eu d’action du mithriacisme sur le christanisme, car la substitution du Dimanche au sabbat date des temps apostoliques.
6) Cf. infra, p. 342, n. 4.

Again we have many more notes; but for the main claim, only note 6 “See below, p.342, n.4”.

On p.195-6 of the English we find the following:

We do not know whether the ritual of the sacraments and the hopes attaching to them suffered alteration through the influence of Mazdean dogmas and practices. Perhaps the custom of invoking the Sun three times each day,—at dawn, at noon, and at dusk,—was reproduced in the daily prayers of the Church, and it appears certain that the commemoration of the Nativity was set for the 25th of December, because it was at the winter solstice that the rebirth of the invincible god,* the Natalis invicti, was celebrated. In adopting this date, which was universally distinguished by sacred festivities, the ecclesiastical authority purified in some measure the profane usages which it could not suppress.

*See above, p. 167.

And on p.342 of the French this:

Nous ignorons si le rituel des sacrements et les espérances qu’on y attachait, ont pu subir en quelque mesure l’influence des pratiques et des dogmes mazdéens. Peut-être la coutume d’invoquer le Soleil trois fois chaque jour, à l’aurore, à midi et au crépuscule, a-t-elle été reproduite dans les prières quotidiennes de l’Église [3], et il paraît certain que la commémoration de la Nativité a été placée au 25 décembre parce qu’on fétait au solstice d’hiver le Natalis Invicti, la renaissance du dieu invincible [4]. En adoptant cette date, qui était universellement marquée par des réjouissances sacrées, l’autorité ecclésiastique purifia en quelque sorte des usages profanes qu’elle ne pouvait supprimer.

3) Usener, Gotternamen, p. 186, n. 27. Cf. cependant Duchesne. Origines du culte chrétien, 2e éd. p. 431 s.
4) Le premier qui ait mis ce fait en lumière, est Philippe del Torre (Mon. veteris Antii, p. 239 ss.) et non, comme on le dit d’ordinaire, Wernsdorf, De origine solemn. natalis Christi, Wittenberg, 1757. – Les principaux textes sont réunis par Mommsen, CIL, I 2e, p. 338. D’après un extrait que me communique M. Boll, le calendrier de l’astrologue Antiochus (Monac. gr., 287, f. 132), donne au 25 décembre l’indication: H(li/ou gene/qlion: C’est le plus ancien témoignage que l’on possède, et il est très important pour déterminer l’origine de la conception paienne (cf. Macrobe, I, 18, § 10). Sur l’histoire de sa transformation, cf. Usener, Das Weihnachtsfest, I, 1889, p. 214 ss. – Un passage récemment découvert du commentaire d’Hippolyte sur Daniel (IV, 23, p. 243, éd. Bonwetsch, 1897), donne déjà la date du 25 décembre pour la naissance du Christ, mais peut-être est-il interpolé (Hilgenfeld, Berl. Phil. Woch., 1897, p. 1324 s.). Il est certain que cette date, pour la célébration de la Noel, fut fixée à Rome par le pape Libère en 354, et qu’elle fut adoptée plus tard en Orient. – Diverses fêtes paiennes marquaient l’époque du solstice d’hiver; cf. Epiphan. Adv. haeres, t.II (t. II, p. 482 ss., éd. Dindorf).- M. Duchesne (Origines du culte chrétien, 2e éd., p. 250 ss.), propose une explication nouvelle du jour choisi pour la Noel. On y serait arrivé par des calculs chronologiques en partant de la date du 25 mars, que l’on croyail être celle de la mort du Christ. Cette explication n’exclut pas la première. – Cf. aussi infra, note additionnelle C.

The shoddy note in the English replaces a detailed note by Cumont, in which he gives details of reasons to suppose that Christmas replaces the Natalis Invicti.  Whether this argument is well-founded is not our present concern; we need merely note that Mithras is not mentioned anywhere in all of this, nor in the sources.  Nor, indeed, does Cumont say that it is.  He merely introduces this material in the middle of talk about supposed Mithraic influence on the church, and allows the reader to conclude what he will.  

Let us finally look at “additional  note C”, referenced in footnote 4 of the French.  It appears on p.355 of tome 1, and is headed “The sun, symbol of Christ”.  But the word “Mithra” is not mentioned at all.  Instead it charts how the Christians came to think of sol iustitiae and suggests connections with a solar festival on 25 Dec.

The statements that Cumont makes are very positive.  But he is merely speculating; for when he has data, he gives it, copiously.  But no data appears indicating any connection between 25 Dec. and Mithras; and the most Cumont can say is “probably”, “doubtless”.

I confess to finding no probability, and doubting entirely.

Share