June 2012 – Page 2 – Roger Pearse

Britain will not contribute to the internet – copyright suicide proposed

Posted on June 27, 2012 by Roger Pearse

A curious report on the BBC today, indicating that the British government is pretty much owned by the music and book publishing industries.

Under the plans users suspected of accessing or uploading illegally copied files will be sent letters from their internet service provider (ISP), delivered at least one month apart, informing them they are suspected of copyright infringement.

Accused users who wish to appeal against the claims outlined in any letter must pay £20 to do so, but the revised code says only grounds specified in the act will be considered.

‘”Innocent until proven guilty”? What’s that?’

It is already hard to think of any site based in Britain that is widely used. Nearly all the major internet sites are US-hosted. Every internet start-up is a US firm, it sometimes seems. Looking at this proposal, who’d be a British internet user? Every one of them will soon be in breach of the law.

Likewise who on earth would create a website? Or a blog? Sooner or later, the copyright trolls would come after them. Who but major publishers will be able even to discover whether they are conforming to the ever-more aggressive copyright laws? Am I in breach of copyright, for quoting the snippet above? Well, I don’t know!

Britain, it seems, it committing copyright suicide.

This proposal is one that could only be made by an industry utterly confident that it owns the government. It’s about as extreme as it gets. Do British internet users get no voice in their own country? Well, one can only infer that apparently not.

I have several times remarked on how there is little material worth reading in German on the web, and all of that is in older publications hosted in the US. This is because German laws have handed far too much power to publishers, and they send threatening letters in just this way to bloggers and websites.

It seems that the Europeans just do not ‘get’ the internet. In search of the last possible sniff of money, they have just condemned their continent to irrelevance, and volunteered for competitive disadvantage.

I hope they enjoy learning Chinese. Because, shooting themselves in the foot like this, they’re going to have to.

Looking for Gregory the Great, “lib. vii, ep. 64”?

Posted on June 25, 2012 by Roger Pearse

The letters of Gregory the Great do exist in English, as they were translated, complete, a few years ago. Sadly none of us have access to them, unless we have $150 to spare. But today the question was raised of just where a certain letter of Gregory’s can be found.

In various online sources, apparently — the questioner didn’t specify — a reference is present to “lib. vii, ep. 64”. Yet if you look in the Patrologia Latina 77, and go to the back, there is a list of all the letters, and book 7 only has 45 letters.

An article here on Gregory and the Papal supremacy refers to “Fr. Edward Hawarden, Charity and Truth (1728) pp. 233-243″ and gives the following text:

Again, “As to what they say of the See of Constantinople, who doubts but that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the Emperor and the Bishop of that See constantly own?” says St. Gregory, in a letter to John, Bishop of Syracusa.² And writing to the same Bishop concerning the Byzantine primate in Africa: “Whereas he owns himself subject to the See Apostolic, when bishops commit a fault, I know not what bishop is not subject to it. But when there is no fault to be punished, by way of humility, all are equal.”³

[2] Lib. 7, Ep. 64, p. 1348, D.
[3] Lib. 7, Ep. 65, p. 1349, AB.

Hmm. So … to what edition does this refer?

I suppose it would be prudent to check the transcription against the original. This is here, where footnote 2 is (30) and the Latin is given:

(30) Nam de Constantinopolitana ecclesia quod dicunt, quis eam dubitet Sedi Apostolicae esse subjectum? Quod et piissimus Dominus Imperator, et Frater noster eiusdem Civitatis episcopus assidue profitentur. L. 7. Epist. 64. p. 1348. D. Nam episcopi nomen proprium in melioris notae codicibus MSS. deest. Vide Nat. Alex. de Scriptis S. Gregorii. Saec. VI. Cap. iv. Art. xvi.

A search on the Latin brings up this link to the NPNF-212, where the reference is given to Lib. IX, Ep. 12. Doubtless the standard numeration has changed since that rather remote day.

Gregory the Great, “Moralia in Job”, now online complete in English

Posted on June 25, 2012 by Roger Pearse

Some years ago a dedicated soul decided to digitise the complete English translation of Gregory the Great’s Moralia in Job. It is a task that I shirked, I admit.

But he’s done it! It’s complete! And it’s here, on a very nice-looking website.

The translation was part of the Oxford Movement Library of the Fathers project. Anyone who has seen the original volumes will flinch at the amount of labour that must have been involved.

Well done, that man!

The ps.Acts of Linus (Acta Petri et Pauli gnostica)

Posted on June 25, 2012 by Roger Pearse

In the abbreviated Dictionary of Christian Biography edited by Wace and online at CCEL there is an article on Linus. This refers to certain “acts of Linus” in the following terms:

Under the name of Linus are extant two tracts purporting to contain the account of the martyrdom of SS. Peter and of Paul. These were first printed in 1517 by Faber Stapulensis as an appendix to his Comm. on Saint Paul’s Epistles. … Linus does not profess to give a complete account of the acts of the two apostles. He begins by briefly referring to (as if already known to his readers) the contest of St. Peter and Simon Magus, his imprisonments and other sufferings and labours, and then proceeds at once to the closing scenes. The stories of the martyrdom of the two apostles are quite distinct, there being no mention of Paul in the first nor of Peter in the second. …

… The alleged cause of Agrippa’s animosity exhibits strongly the Encratite character common to Linus and the Leucian Acts. St. Peter, we are told, by his preaching of chastity had caused a number of matrons to leave the marriage bed of their husbands, who were thus infuriated against the apostle.

… St. Peter requests to be crucified head downwards, desiring out of humility not to suffer in the same way as his Master. A further reason is given,, that in this way his disciples will be better able to hear his words spoken on the cross, and a mystical explanation is given of the inverted position which bears a very Gnostic character. An alleged saying of our Lord is quoted which strongly resembles a passage from the Gospel according to the Egyptians, cited by Julius Cassianus (Clem. Al. Strom. iii. 13, p. 553 see also Clem. Rom. ii. 12), “Unless ye make the right as the left, the left as the right, the top as the bottom, and the front as the backward, ye shall not know the kingdom of God.” … The story of Peter’s crucifixion head downwards was in the Acts known to Origen, who refers to it in his Comm. on Gen. (Eus. H. E. iii. 1).

The second book, which treats of St. Paul, relates the success of his preaching at Rome. The emperor’s teacher, his hearer and close friend, when he cannot converse with him, corresponds with him by letter. …

Lipsius infers, from the coincidences of the tolerably numerous N.T. citations in Linus with the Vulg., that our present Latin Linus must be later than Jerome; … We conjecture the compiler to have been a Manichean, but he is quite orthodox in his views as to the work of creation, the point on which Gnostic speculation was most apt to go astray.

Now these are certainly obscure items, and my attention was drawn to them only in a forum.

The edition of Faber Stapulensis, “Epistole divi Pauli Apostoli”, 1517 is on Google Books here; the two letters of Linus are right at the back and start here. A modern edition by Lipsius is here. There is a lengthy introduction.

Pp.xiv-xv discuss the text as “Acta Petri et Acta Pauli gnostica” and begin:

The passions of Peter and Paul which bear the name of Linus, bishop of Rome, were first edited by Jacob Faber Stapulensis as an appendix to the commentaries on the letters of Paul, which appeared in 1512, reprinted 1515 or 1516.

On p.xvi he discusses reprints, apparently rather duff ones. Then:

The passion of Peter the apostle is said in many manuscripts to have been written in Greek by bishop Linus and handed down by the eastern churches. The same is said not only of the passion of Paul, but also of the Life of Peter which in the name of Abdiah [fertur] is inscribed in the manuscripts.

But he says that it certainly wasn’t written in Greek.

The discussion continues; on p.xix-xx is a list of (Latin) manuscripts of the “passion of Peter”; on p.xxiii-xxvi is a similar list of 78 mss for the “passion of Paul”, probably incomplete (he says). A stemma appears on p.xxxi. The text is on p.1-22, and p.23-44, respectively.

The text as printed seems to be 37 words on 5 lines, i.e. 7.4 words per line.

For the Acta Petri, the line count is:

11+22+21+22+25+28+28+19+19+19+16+18+27+15+15+17+27+23+14+12+15+21 = 434 lines

Which would be 3212 words. It’s probably the same for the Acta Pauli gnostica.

I don’t know that either text has ever been translated. Each could probably be done for about $200. But is it worth it? I suppose that, if they have encratite views, they must be ancient and so should be made available.

A gem with a Mithraic tauroctony of the 1st century BC?

Posted on June 23, 2012June 23, 2012 by Roger Pearse

An email from a correspondent pointed me to an image in Wikipedia Commons, itself from the Walters Art Gallery, of an intaglio ring, and enquired about the date of the item.

The item consists of an ancient gold ring, with a depiction of the killing of the bull by Mithras cut into a gem of sard. It is catalogued by Vermaseren as CIMRM 2367, who gives no date for it.

Note that the image to left is rather magnified: the item is 2.2 x 2.3 cms.

Standard elements in the scene appear. At top right is the sun, Sol, identifiable by the rayed crown. A face opposite, top left, is presumably Luna, although nothing can be seen that indicates this.

The action takes place in the cavern, whose rocks form a roof to the scene. Two individuals appear on either side, who would usually be Cautes and Cautopates, the torch bearers. But these seem a little unusual. Each is supporting his chin with one arm. And where are the torches?

But there is something more which is a little unusual about this. Notice the position of Mithras’ head. He is looking forwards and down, towards the dagger. But Mithras is nearly always depicted looking back over his shoulder — why, we do not know.

The provenance of the item is nothing. It was bought by the Walters from a previous collection, owned by one A. Evans — not the great Arthur Evans of Knossus? –, and appears in the catalogue of his sale in 1938. The find location is “said to be from Nemea” in Greece. So there is no archaeological provenance for the ring.

The date given by the cataloguer of the Walters collection is “late 1st century BC (Augustan)”, although no explanation is offered for this date.

Such a date would precede all the archaeology for Mithras by more than a century, and, if correct, would be of the highest interest for Mithraic studies.

But it is difficult to know why we should give it any such date. If we assume that the item is authentic, why should we not presume, what we would otherwise suppose, which is a date of the 2-3rd century AD?

Items of this kind can only be dated from three considerations, as far as I can tell. They may have an inscription, which tells us when they were made. They may be found in an archaeological context where the stratigraphy tells us the date. Or they may be dated by comparison with similar securely dated items, where the change of style identifies the period to which an unknown item should be assigned.

Yet which of this is available for this ring? It has no inscription. It was bought on the art market. And not a single one of the gems published by Vermaseren has a date attached to it.

The text on the Walters’ page reflects the usual hearsay, that Mithras was a Persian deity adopted by the Romans. This has not been the consensus of the academy since 1971. The archaeological evidence makes clear that Mithras as we know it originated in Rome, whatever the pre-history of the cult. So … I don’t think we need pay any attention to the date on the page.

It is, all the same, an interesting item. I wish we could have a colour picture of it.

And I wonder whether someone might like to ask the Walters if they would consider placing an image of their other Mithraic gem, CIMRM 2364, accession no 42.868, on the web?

The gems, in general, are not numerous. They are, however, remarkably syncretistic in nature. Some contain magical inscriptions. Others depict other gods, such as Iao. I would infer from this, although I have not the slightest qualification to have an opinion, that all these items are late, and belong to the decay of paganism. Perhaps someone who knows about gems will tell us.

An online edition of the Derveni papyrus

Posted on June 23, 2012 by Roger Pearse

The ever excellent Ancient World Online blog is indispensible for those wishing to keep aware of what is coming online, and should be in everyone’s RSS reader. Today I learn that an online edition has appeared of the Derveni papyrus, on which I wrote some notes as long ago as 2006.

The Derveni Papyrus: An Interdisciplinary Research Project …

The Derveni papyrus is a most interesting new document of Greek literature. It is perhaps the only papyrus to have been found on Greek soil, and is, if not the oldest Greek papyrus ever found, no doubt the oldest literary papyrus, dated roughly between 340 and 320 B.C. Its name derives from the site where it was discovered, some six miles north of Thessaloniki, in whose Archaeological Museum it is now preserved. It was found among the remnants of a funeral pyre in one of the tombs in the area, which has also yielded extremely rich artifacts, primarily items of metalware. After the exacting job of unrolling and separating the layers of the charred papyrus roll, and then of joining the numerous fragments together again, 26 columns of text were recovered, all with their bottom parts missing, as they had perished on the pyre.

The book, composed near the end of the 5th century B.C., contains the eschatological teaching of a mantis; the content is divided between religious instructions on sacrifices to gods and souls, and allegorical commentary on a theogonical poem ascribed to Orpheus. The author’s outlook is philosophical, displaying, in particular, a physical system close to those of Anaxagoras, the Atomists, and Diogenes of Apollonia. His allegorical method of interpretation is especially interesting, frequently reminiscent of Socrates’ playful mental and etymological acrobatics as seen in Plato’s Cratylus. The identification of the author is a matter of dispute among scholars. Names like Euthyphron of Prospalta, Diagoras of Melos, and Stesimbrotus of Thasos have been proposed with varying degrees of likelihood.

A few years ago The Center for Hellenic Studies made the Greek text of the papyrus available online, as it was published in 2006, © Olschki, Firenze. …

Editio princeps 2006 (Olschki, Firenze)

Unfortunately the “editio princeps” is merely a pointer to the site, and I found this rather confusing.

The announcement relates to some new way of viewing the text online, but it is news to me that the text itself has been online. Indeed, if you struggle through the site, you will find a translation in English at the book of a transliteration of each column, but only for the first six columns. Column 1 is here, for instance.

Useful to have access to, tho.

From my diary

Posted on June 22, 2012 by Roger Pearse

This morning I’ve been poking around the PDF volumes of the Patrologia Graeca. I was trying to find the Lexicon of Photius, in fact.

I’ve not achieved much, because it’s quite hard to work out which volumes contain what. Each volume does contain a table of contents; but you have to download and open the PDF to see it. Some of the volumes are in 1900 reprints, which I can’t access anyway.

It seems to me that someone needs to go through the PDF volumes and type up a table of contents for each, and put it online. There’s only 161 of them, and the task might take a day or two. I was a little tempted myself, in truth.

Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen and the fragments of Origen’s commentary on Titus

Posted on June 19, 2012June 20, 2012 by Roger Pearse

I’ve been idly looking through the fragmentary exegetical works of Origen in the Patrologia Graeca for something interesting. In the PG14, col. 1303, I find an excerpt from Origen’s work on Paul’s letter to Titus. It concerns Titus 3:10, and is about heresy, a word that, curiously, doesn’t appear in more modern translations of the bible, and so, naturally, raises the question of just why not:

¹⁰Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, ¹¹knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. (NKJV)

¹⁰Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. ¹¹You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned. (NIV)

¹⁰hereticum hominem post unam et secundam correptionem devita ¹¹sciens quia subversus est qui eiusmodi est et delinquit proprio iudicio condemnatus (Vulgate)

¹⁰αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ, ¹¹εἰδὼς ὅτι ἐξέστραπται ὁ τοιοῦτος καὶ ἁμαρτάνει, ὢν αὐτοκατάκριτος. (SBLGNT)

Hmm.

Anyway, here is a portion of what the PG text says:

On that chapter in which the Apostle says, “A man that is a heretic, after one warning, reject, knowing that he is perverse, and sins, and condemned by himself.

The word heresy, as far as I can tell, is also explained in the Letter to the Corinthians in this way: “For it is necessary that there are heresies, so that it may be clear who is right among you.”^[1] And likewise in Galatians, the word “heresy” is inscribed among the works of the flesh: “For the works of the flesh are manifest: fornication, lust, unchastity, idolatry, sorcery, hate, contention, envy, rage, fighting, discord, heresies, drunkenness, partying, and similar things, about which I spoke to you before, because those who did these things will not possessing the kingdom of God.”^[2] From which we know that, just as those who are fornicators, or lusters and unchaste, and stained with the worship of idols, will not possess the kingdom of God, so also those who fall into heresy. For it can’t be thought that such an apostle can give an absolute statement with any kind of vacillation. For the apostle is of the whole church of Christ, chosen “not from man, nor through man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father.”^[3] For this reason, therefore, in accordance with the authority of this statement, it is necessary for us, just as for the rest of the evils which he enumerates, to likewise reject the name of heresy, and not to be intermingled in the company of such words.

And after this, and a few similar things inserted in the middle, he adds:

What in fact a heretical man may be, we will describe, through our powers of judgement. All who confess that they believe in Christ, and however speak of the law and prophets of another god, of the gospels of another god, and the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, not as he said he was, who is predicted by the Law and the Prophets, but another I do not know, who is unknown to all and unheard by all, we designate men of this sort as heretics, whatever various, diverse and fable-like fictions they may concoct, just like the sectaries of Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, and those who call themselves Tethians. But also Apelles, although he did not deny the Law and the Prophets of God in every way, he is still designated as a heretic, seeing that he pronounces that the god who made the world is different in glory from the engendered and good god who constructed it: and that that god engendered in the consummation of the age has sent Jesus Christ to fix the world, invited by that god who made him, so that he might send his son to correct the world. And if someone merely thinks otherwise of God the Father than the rule of piety demands, he must be considered a heretic, as what I have said earlier shows. And one and the same must be believed also of he who has thought something false concerning our Lord Jesus Christ; whether according to those who say that he was born from Joseph and Mary, just as the Ebionites and Valentinians do; or according to those who deny that he was the first born of the creatures of God, and the Word, and the Wisdom, which is the beginning of the way of God, before anything was, before the creation of the world, before the mountains were made; but saying that he was only a man; or, according to those who confess that he is God, that he did not take on an earthly mind and body: ….

It’s all interesting stuff. Origen, at least, is clear about the idea of a heretic. The word indicates an obvious, crass sin.

One could wish that the translators of the scripture had felt the same.

The material quoted apparently comes to us via the Apology for Origen by Pamphilus and Eusebius. Now call me a fool, but I rather thought that a translation of this work formed part of the 19th century ANF and NPNF series. But … if so, I cannot find it. All I can find is a translation of Rufinus’ preface; for it survives only in part, and in a translation by Rufinus.

There is a modern translation by Thomas P. Scheck in the Fathers of the Church series. But … is there really no public domain translation?

^[1]1 Cor. 11:19↩
^[2]Gal. 5:19-21↩
^[3]Gal. 1:1↩

The Acta Pauli blog and Wikipedia trolls

Posted on June 19, 2012June 19, 2012 by Roger Pearse

By accident last night I came across the Acta Pauli blog. I was hitherto unaware that this group blog existed. It is, of course, dedicated to the study of the apocryphal Acts of Paul, and their better known extract, the Acts of Paul and Thecla. The blog contains much useful information on this text, not least that discoveries of portions of it are a continuing process.

It seems that I am not the only one to attempt to contribute to Wikipedia, and to get receive harassment and insults in return. There is a series of posts in which one of the authors describes his attempts to do so. One of them is this one.

I therefore recommend that scholars like myself not bother to make edits on that platform where any non-specialist can take them down within seconds. Scholars don’t have the time to waste on such games.

It turns out that the “administrator” harassing him was 14 years old (!) at the time:

I’ve learned that Anonymous Dissident, who removed my links from the French and German articles on the Acts of Paul and Thecla, is 12 approximately 14 years old. Wow, that’s pretty cool Wikipedia! A 12 approximately 14 year old is able to eliminate a link to this site which is being published by people with PhDs. Now I’m sure that Anonymous Dissident is very mature for the age of 12 approximately 14, but it does lower the status of Wikipedia considerably when scholars can’t even add a little insignificant link to your so-called encyclopedia.

The author of the blog is considerably more courteous to this impudent schoolboy than I would be. Indeed the author chose to write a post, highlighting the failures of the article on the Acta Pauli. His reward was might be expected: a prolonged and insulting jeer about “disaffected whinings”, combined with a statement that the troll proposed to appropriate his comments and use them himself on the article.

Wikipedia is not a safe place for sensible people to participate. And until the likes of “Anonymous Dissident” are expelled from it, it will continue to be a very dangerous place for contributors.

Volumes of the Acta Sanctorum online

Posted on June 19, 2012June 20, 2022 by Roger Pearse

Lately I’ve found myself looking for Saints’ Acta. I’m not sure how one finds translations. In fact it’s really not that easy to find even the original texts. But I believe that the “go to” source for the texts is the monster 17-19th century compilation, made by the Bollandists, the Acta Sanctorum.

If you want editable text…

See https://www.heiligenlexikon.de/Literatur/Baende_Acta_Sanctorum.htm. All the text *is* here, but badly organised. Go to the bottom of each page to go to the next section of a volume. You can twiddle the URL at the top to go direct.

Editions

Here is the Bollandists’ own overview of the series. The most important part is the Synopsis of the three editions of Acta Sanctorum (PDF).

The original series, published at Antwerp, consisted of 68 volumes. See Brepols list here, and links to those I could find below.
A Venice reprint from 1734-1760 is basically the same, except that it combined May vol. 7 and the propylaeum, and it didn’t include September vols.6-8, October 7-13, or any of November or December. A Brussels supplement to this (ed. Greuse) provided Sept. 5 and 8, and October 1-6.
A Paris reprint of 1863-1870 (edited by Palmé) assigned a number to each volume. But it also divided the two January volumes into three, and stopped with October vol. 12; after which Palme was printing the original series as it appeared. Links to these follow.
Finally there is a 1966-71 reprint of vols.1-60 of the original series. The 60 volumes printed may be found at the DCO site here.

I doubt that this list of versions is complete.

I have found, by experience, that the page numbers in the Paris edition are not the same as those in the original.

Volume numbers and referencing

The original volumes did not have an overall series volume number, although the 19th century Paris reprint assigned one. Instead the material is organised by Saint’s day; if the Saint is commemorated on 1st June, then that is where the material will be found. In turn that means that we need to know which volume contains which days.

A reference to a page in the Acta Sanctorum will typically look like this: AS Mai 23, 412; i.e. May 23rd, page 412. But you may also get ASS Mai III 412; which would indicate May vol. 3, page 412.

Roger Pearse

Month: June 2012

Britain will not contribute to the internet – copyright suicide proposed

Like this:

Looking for Gregory the Great, “lib. vii, ep. 64”?

Like this:

Gregory the Great, “Moralia in Job”, now online complete in English

Like this:

The ps.Acts of Linus (Acta Petri et Pauli gnostica)

Like this:

A gem with a Mithraic tauroctony of the 1st century BC?

Like this:

An online edition of the Derveni papyrus

Like this:

From my diary

Like this:

Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen and the fragments of Origen’s commentary on Titus

Like this:

The Acta Pauli blog and Wikipedia trolls

Like this:

Volumes of the Acta Sanctorum online

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: