Month: June 2012

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A rather interesting snippet on the Alin Suciu blog.  Alin is presenting a paper at a French conference, and one item in it will interest many of us:

3. Newly Identified Fragments from Codex Tchacos

It has been already established that Bruce Ferrini sold several fragments from codex Tchacos before the court obliged him to return the manuscript to Frieda Nussberger-Tchacos, its legal owner. Some of the fragments sold piecemeal by Ferrini have been introduced by Herbert Krosney, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst in a 2010 issue of the journal Early Christianity.

Recently, during research carried on some small size collections of Coptic manuscripts, I identified several previously unknown fragments of the same codex. They belong to the writing conventionally called the Book of Allogenes, which immediately follows the Gospel of Judas in Codex Tchacos. One of the fragments is especially interesting as it has helped us to recover some of the opening lines of this gnostic text.

Emphasis mine.  I wonder just who Alin has been talking to?  But it is exciting news, all the same!

Meanwhile the curious story of the British Advertising Standards Authority rumbles on.  Good news, today: they have decided that they had, indeed, no authority to prevent a Christian organisation from saying on their website that God heals.

Share

Another interesting fragment from Origen on Genesis

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In the Patrologia Graeca 12, col. 93-4, we have a further interesting fragment of Origen’s thought on Genesis 1:22.

The PG is a reprint of the Delarue edition, and these Selecta in Genesim are extracted from the medieval Greek bible commentaries, or catenas (=’chains’), which were made up of quotations from earlier authors on each verse in turn, strung together in a chain.  Here is one:

And God said, “Let us make man in our own image and likeness”.  The first thing to discuss is whether this “image” means in body [ἐν σώματι], or in mind [ἐν πψχῇ]. 

And first let us consider the passages made use of by those who assert the former; among whom is Melito, who left works in which he asserts that God is corporeal.  For when they discover the members of God named, the eyes of God looking down at the earth,[1] and his ears listening to the prayers of the just,[2] and the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma,[3] and the mouth of the Lord has spoken this,[4] and the arm of God, and the hand, and the feet, and the fingers; at once they suppose that these [passages] teach about nothing else than the form of God. 

For in what way, they say, did God appear to Abraham, Moses, and  to the saints, if he did not have a form?  and if he had a form, what form, if not human? and they heap up a thousand places, in which the members of God are named.

Against these it is necessary to reply firstly from the words of scripture. 

And we oppose to these, who know nothing beyond the letter, the words of scripture contrary to their opinion, from Zechariah: the seven eyes of the Lord range through the whole world.[5] Because if God has seven eyes, while we have only two, we were not created in his image. 

And neither are we provided with wings, as is said of God in the 90th Psalm: Under his feathers we will shelter,[6]  Because if God has feathers, but we are animals without feathers, man was not made in the image of God.

And in what way can heaven, which is spherical and revolves constantly, be the throne of God, as they suppose?  More, in what way is earth his footstool? 

Let them tell us. 

For is it possible that of the body, which extends from the knees to the soles of the feet, understanding the distance which there is between heaven and earth, when the earth is in the middle of the whole universe, and is upheld by Him, as is shown by geometrical demonstrations, the soles of God’s feet are among us, or among the antipodeans [αντιχθοσι]?

And after a few more rhetorical questions of the same kind, he finishes with:

And in what way can it be said that those who suppose these things are not stupid? 

It’s an interesting point.  The scriptures are inspired, but Jesus told parables, so that human beings could understand profound truths, and God uses this poetic language similarly, not to reveal that He has wings (!) but to teach us things not otherwise easy to express in human language.

I learn from the footnote 30 in the PG that this whole fragment is given by Theodoret in his Questiones on Genesis, Q. 20.

Likewise footnote 31 discusses the reference to Melito, the impeccably orthodox 2nd century Christian writer.  It seems that Origen had in mind the lost work of Melito, Περὶ ἐνσωμάτου Θεοῦ, and supposed that this meant that Melito was one of those who stated that God was corporeal — some misunderstanding of Stoic terminology is probably involved here — while in reality the title should be understood On the incarnation of God.  Since Origen wrote only 40-50 years after Melito, I wonder whether Origen had ever read the work, or whether it was already scarce?

Share
  1. [1]Ps. 100:6.↩
  2. [2]Psalm 33:16.↩
  3. [3]Gen. 8:21↩
  4. [4]Isaiah 1:20↩
  5. [5]Zechariah 4:10.↩
  6. [6]Psalm 91:4, He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; Origen used the LXX Greek text, but modern editions of the Psalms number these differently.↩

An interesting quote from Origen on Genesis

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I found a quotation attributed to Origen a few days ago, which I think we would all consider interesting.

For Origen all Creation was “one act at once,” presented to us in parts, in order to give the due conception of order (cf.Ps. cxlviii. 5).

Ps. 148:5 reads:

Let them praise the name of the LORD, for he commanded and they were created.

Did Origen say this?  If so, where?

My source is the DCB, vol 4, part 1, p.105:

One of the fragments of the Commentary on Genesis contains a remarkable discussion of the theory of fate in connexion with Gen. i. 16 (quoted by Euseb. Praep. Ev. vi. c.11, and given in Philoc. 23 [22]; comp. Euseb. l.c. vii, 20); and in the scattered notes there are some characteristic remarks on the interpretation of the record of Creation. (See notes on i. 26; ii. 2; iii. 21) For Origen all Creation was “one act at once,” presented to us in parts, in order to give the due conception of order (cf.Ps. cxlviii. 5).

Note that the version at CCEL proves to be a cut-down version — avoid! — which reads:

One of the fragments of the Commentary on Genesis contains a remarkable discussion of the theory of fate in connexion with Gen. i. 16; and in the scattered notes there are some characteristic remarks on the interpretation of the record. of Creation. For Origen all Creation was “one act at once,” presented to us in parts, in order to give the due conception of order (Ps. cxlviii. 5).

Where, I wonder, does Origen describe Creation as “one act at once”?  It isn’t quite clear from the DCB. 

Looking further up the page, the material on Gen. 1:2, Frag. of Tom. 3, Gen. 1:14, i.16 f., is referenced to “Huet i. 1-17” and “Delarue, ii.1-24.”  These are editions of Origen’s works, including catena fragments, as a useful article on the older editions makes clear,[1] and indeed I recall that Delarue turned up when we were working on Origen’s homilies on Ezekiel, where the material appeared in the PG 13.  Huet is Origenis opera exegetica, 2 vols, fol. Rouen, 1668; Delarue is 4 vols, Paris, 1733-1759.

 In Migne, PG 12, col. 91, begin “Selecta in Genesim”, essentially Delarue’s catena fragments I would guess. And our fragment appears in cols.97-98 B-C, in fact, on Gen. 2:2 (And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done):

Anyone care to give us a translation?  (You can click on the image to enlarge it).

UPDATE: See the comments for translations from B.R.Mullikan and Stephen C. Carlson.

Share
  1. [1]Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, vol. 3, p.54, here.↩

Sources for Punic inscriptions

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A little while ago I posted on the ancient evidence for child sacrifice at Carthage.  Part of this was an inscription, of doubtful meaning. 

This led me to enquire just what sources there are online for punic inscriptions.  A kind correspondent volunteered some information, which may be of use to any venturing into these waters.

CIS [Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum] is not online, neither is KAI (German for Canaanite and Aramean Inscriptions by Donner and Rollig which is more recent)

The only online source in English is Cooke (http://archive.org/details/cu31924096083104) but it is so out of date as to be worthless.

Your best bet for online are the sources in French or Spanish. Repetoire de Epigraphie Semitique is available through the 1940s, which covers most of the major Punic inscriptions. You can search for these as R.E.S and the assigned number. Google books, I believe has the early volumes in complete form. Also, the Comptes Rendus des Seances…. (CRAI) are available on www.persee.fr.

It sounds as if those interested in Semitic inscriptions have much to do, to publicise their subject.  A search on Google returned very little of use.

I understand that the inscriptions, in the main, do not tie up very much with the literary sources.

Share

Manuscripts of the Panarion of Epiphanius

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The Panarion, the great compendium of heresies by the fourth century Father Epiphanius of Salamis, is extant in a number of manuscripts.  They were detailed by Holl.[1]  They fall into two groups, the older mss (VGMUW) and the younger group, all of which derive from U.

  • Vaticanus gr. 503 (=V).  Parchment, beginning of the 9th century.  Written in old minuscule.  Contains book 1, on 269 folios.  Holl believes that the text of its ancestor first became corrupt, then suffered atticizing corrections, and then was corrected using two other old, atticizing, manuscripts.[2]
  • Genoa, Congregatione della missione urbana di S. Carlo 4 (=G).  9th century, about 50 years younger than V.  Written in a minuscule hand.  328 folios.  A copy of V.
  • Marcianus 125 (=M).  Parchment, written in 1057, according to the colophon (f. 394r), by a presbyter John.  Minuscule book hand. 394 folios. Derives from the same ancestor as V.[3]
  • Urbinas 17 and 18 (=U).  These two mss are two volumes of the same manuscript.  Parchment, 12-13th century.   358/168 folios.  A cousin of G.[4]
  • Vienna, suppl. gr. 91 (=W),  once numbered 127.  Bombyzin (=eastern paper), 14th century, 310 folios.  A collection of extracts,  f.65-163 from Epiphanius.
  • Rhedigeranus 240 (=R), 15th century, parchment.  This isn’t the oldest of the younger group, but the most complete. 327 folios.  Derives from J.
  • Angelicus 94 (=A).  16th century, paper. 384 folios. Derived from R.
  • Paris 833  (=P). 16th century, paper. 487 folios. Derived from R.
  • Paris 835 (=P1). 16th century, paper. 220 folios. Second volume of P.
  • Jena (=J). Written in 1304 according to the colophon.  Bombyzin. 174 folios.  Derives from U.
  • Laurentianus plut. VI 12 (=L), 14th century, bombyzin. 237 folios.  A cousin of J.
  • Laurentianus plut. LIX 21 (=L1), 15th century, paper.  8 folios.
  • Vaticanus 1196 (=v). 15th century paper.  Contains an extract.
There is a stemma on p.94, indicating that V and M are the only independent manuscripts.
Share
  1. [1]Karl Holl, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung des Epiphanius (Ancoratus und Panarion). Texte und Untersuchungen 36.2.  Leipzig : J. C. Hinrichs, 1910. Online here: www.archive.org/details/texteunduntersuc36akad↩
  2. [2]p.26.↩
  3. [3]p.36, 45, where there is a stemma.↩
  4. [4]p.51.↩

Using aliases to manipulate debate online

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Jim Davila at Paleojudaica notes an interesting article and makes some useful comments upon it:

 Are online aliases ever justified in academic debate? Sock puppets – online commenters that create a false identity – are disrupting academic freedom and scholarly debate, says Simon Tanner (The Guardian).

If it’s just a matter of discussing evidence and debating rational arguments, it doesn’t really matter whether one knows all the names of the debaters. … But, that said, there is rarely a compelling reason to conceal one’s identity in tempest-in-a-teapot academic debates  …  human nature being what it is, Internet anonymity leads some people to do things they would never do in their own name.

Sock puppetry goes beyond presenting arguments anonymously for an unpopular position and deliberately creates the impression that more people are making the arguments than actually are. (This amounts to a twisted appeal to the authority of numbers to give the impression of a false controversy or even a false consensus.)

The showpiece example of sock puppetry run amok is the Raphael Golb affair involving the Dead Sea Scrolls (more background here and links), which Tanner mentions, citing Robert Cargill. This case moved from mere nuisance trolling to an attempt actually to damage the reputation of a prominent academic, and it illustrates sock puppetry’s potential for real harm.

The Tanner article is very sound.

Have you encountered a sock puppet recently? The answer is probably yes even if you never knew. I met one (well several) the other day and it was quite an experience – a bit like getting mugged by a chimera. Sock puppets, referencing the cute and simple hand puppets made from a sock, are intended primarily to deceive. This is not the anonymity we all sometimes seek when online; sock puppetry is about setting up a false identity so the puppeteer can speak falsely while pretending to be another person.

Some of the craziest uses of sock puppetry are when these misleading online identities end up working in unison: simultaneously praising and defending their alter egos while attacking, stalking or even libelling and defaming people or organisations they don’t like. All the while never admitting the link or affiliation to the puppeteer.

Sock puppetry, and covert campaigns to subvert the consensus of any sort, are hideously dishonest.  But the use of it to damage the reputation of real people by means of false identities, created for the purpose, is interesting.  I would never had thought that it had that end in mind.  Yet my own experience echoes that of both these writers.

The only experience that I have ever had of sock puppetry was just such a case.  After contributing for two years to the Mithras article in Wikipedia, and researching every statement in it, one worthless individual who knew nothing about the subject turned up under at least two identities and fought a war to gain control of the article.  One identity was used to provoke trouble, hurl accusations, yell insults and generally try to start a fight; while the other  was used to make complaints to Wikipedia about any response from the victims, and to engage in “brinking”.  I subsequently learned that this is a common technique from sock-puppeters.

The troll’s determination to injure my own reputation, as the only person present who really knew about Mithras, knew no apparent limits.  After several months of harassment against every editor who objected in any way, he got hold of a corrupt administrator (also anonymous), and made a false accusation of  sock puppeting against myself.  I didn’t take it seriously, since I had never edited that article under any other name, and was the only person NOT using a false name.[1]  But then I found the administrator wouldn’t hear me, and I was actually banned for something that had never occurred, on an evidently malicious accusation, made by an anonymous troll via two sock puppets, without any input from myself, and despite my attempts to defend myself.  Such is the power of a false accusation, made, apparently, by several people!  The troll then settled down to the charmless task of repeating the libel ad nauseam, to deflect attention from his own violation of the article, and for all I know may be at it yet.  His second account now being redundant, he ceased using it.

Now Wikipedia is notoriously an unsafe environment for any normal person with any actual knowledge.  The contributors are treated as meat, and chewed up by those who have no interest in contributing.  But the general problem is anonymity.   Sock puppeting is a consequence of it, facilitated by the fact that no-one knows who they are dealing with.  Bad coin drives out good.  In Wikipedia, fewer and fewer people dare use their own names.

The troll had no claim to authority, so he resorted to violence to get his way, and sock-puppeting as his method.  He made use of the fact that his victim was posting under his own name to run his smear campaign.  But it is unlikely that he would have done so, had his own identity been involved.  But even then, he could not have achieved his end without manufacturing “support”.

Likewise the administrator would have hesitated to use Wikipedia to label someone unheard guilty of something that never happened, had his own identity been at stake.

It’s worth being aware of this tactic.  But how sad it is, that the web will have to be regulated, merely to deal with these forms of dishonesty!

Share
  1. [1]After months of harassment under my own name, I had experimented with creating a pseudonymous account — like everyone else — so that I could resume contributing elsewhere.  I made a couple of edits using this identity to the Mithras liturgy article, where no edit war was in progress.  But in fact I didn’t like editing under a name other than my own, so I  stopped using it.  The existence of a second account was later on made the excuse for banning me, despite the fact that I never edited the Mithras article using it and never used it for sock puppetting.↩

And yet more on the Origen ms. from Alex Poulos

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Alex has posted a tutorial on Greek paleography:

I spent the morning writing up a short Greek paleography tutorial.  It’s targeted at people who have at least an intermediate knowledge of Greek, but haven’t done much paleography themselves (ie, they haven’t read from manuscripts). 

Because of the clarity of hand, I think the recently discovered Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Codex graeca 314 (the Origen manuscript) is an excellent introduction to “reading a manuscript for oneself.”  Plus it will allow one to take part in excitement of the new discovery. 

It remains to be seen how useful the page will be, but I do hope it’ll be useful for those who haven’t yet worked with Greek manuscripts. 

So, for those who would like to read this exciting ms, but haven’t read from a ms in a while, take a look and let me know what you think.  You can find it in the title-bar, or here. 

Good man!  What do people think?

Alex also asks what kind of writing these sermons are.

I think I’ve found evidence that suggests that these were, more or less, impromptu or extemporaneous lectures.  

Share

Translation of part of one of the new Origen homilies

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Via Alin Suciu I learn that Alex Poulos has transcribed and translated part of one of the newly discovered homilies on the Psalms by Origen:

As promised, this post will contain a short transcription and translation of Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Codex graeca 314, the codex which scholars recently have rediscovered and believe contains a large number of homilies of Origen of Alexandria.  …

I picked a rather arbitrary spot to transcribe and translate. I decided to start with the 3rd homily on Psalm 76 (LXX). This begins on folio 193v (page 393 in my PDF). In this excerpt, Origen is commenting on the nature of the “waters which see God,” which comes from Psalm 77:16 (Hebrew numbering). The NETS translates it thus, “The waters saw you, O God, the waters saw you and writhed; the very depths were convulsed. The waters saw you, O God, the waters saw you and writhed; the very depths were convulsed.”

Our author proceeds to explain the nature of these waters, and their relationship with the three heavens. The comments are speculative and “cosmic” in nature, which comport nicely with Origen’s reputation.

His translation follows, and here is an excerpt of what Origen says:

How must I labor so that I may ascend into the first heaven? What must happen so that I may be considered worthy of the second? I must be like Paul, if I should go to the third.

And if I should become as Paul, I will still not have yet seen the following heaven, these waters which praise God, according to the prophet, beyond the heavens.

Well done, Alex!  This is exactly what we want to see.  Come on, everyone: the BSB has put the images online, so let’s see a bit of crowd-sourcing.  If you can read it, why not transcribe a bit?  If you can read and translate, why not do so?

Alin Suciu has continued to gather news on the discovery here.   He writes

UPDATE 3: The blog Paleografia Greca announced yesterday the schedule for the seminar “Paleografia greca oggi” (“Greek Paleography Today”), which will take place at Padua University on June 25. Marina Molin Pradel shall present a paper titled “Novità origeniane dalla Staatsbibliothek di Monaco,” in which she will be talking about her identification of Origen’s homilies on the Psalms.

If you know Italian and can be there, I would imagine that this was an essential meeting to attend.

Share

Which of Origen’s homilies on the Psalms were previously known, and more on Jerome

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The new find of Origen’s homilies on the Psalms raised the question of what already existed.  Alin Suciu listed the homilies found, as I mentioned yesterday.

Previously we had only extracts from catenas, plus a Latin translation of 9 homilies on the Psalms: 5 on Psalm 36, 2 on Ps. 37, 2 on Ps. 38.  These were translated by Rufinus.[1]

In addition, a collection of 74 homilies on the psalms exists, attributed to Jerome.  V. Peri claimed that these were in fact translations of Origen’s homilies, but this seems probably mistaken.[2]

Yesterday I posted a translation of Jerome’s letter 33, which gave a list of Origen’s works.  I learn today from the Westminster handbook to Origen[3] that a complete English translation of this letter was published in 1989, by H. Crouzel.[4]

It seems that letter 33 was long known only in an incomplete form.  Crouzel (p.37) says:

Those who copied the letters of Jerome did not bother to transcribe more than the opening lines of this list, but shortly before the middle of the last century it was rediscovered by Sir Thomas Phillips in a manuscript at Arras; since then it has appeared in the editions of Jerome’s Letters.

In the letter, excerpta seems to be rendered as scholia by Crouzel, “learned notes of commentary”.

McGuckin adds:

A useful list of Origen’s homilies with a digest of their contents was made by B. F. Westcott for DCB 4: 104-18 (London, 1887) 

Share
  1. [1]J. A. McGuckin, The Westminster handbook to Origen.  Preview here.↩
  2. [2]McGuckin: “Recently V. Peri (“Omelie origeniane sui Psalmi”. Studi e Testi 289. Vatican City, 1980; idem CCL 78) has restored to Origen a total of seventy-four homilies on the Psalms formerly attributed to Jerome, who was, it now appears, only their translator.” L. Perrone, “FOUR GOSPELS, FOUR COUNCILS” – ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST The Patristic Developments of Christology within the Church of Palestine.  p.378 (pdf p.22): “For this analysis we have emblematic evidence in the “mixed” text represented by the Homilies on the Psalms, circulating under the name of Jerome but for some scholars to a large extent merely translated and adapted by him from a corresponding work of Origen.(47)

    47. Tractatus sive homiliae in Psalmos, ed. G. Morin, CCL 78, Turnhout 1958. For the scholarly discussion on the authorship see lately Origene – Gerolamo. 74 omelie sul libro dei salmi, intr., trad. e note di G. Coppa, Milano 1993, 13-32. Their overall dependence on Origen was especially asserted by V. Peri, Omelie origeniane sui Salmi. Contributo all’identificazione del testo latino, Città del Vaticano 1980. His thesis has been rejected by P. Jay, “Les Tractatus in Psalmos”, in Jérôme entre l’Occident et l’Orient. Actes du colloque de Chantilly publiés par Y.-M. Duval, Paris 1988, 367-380, for whom the clear origenian inspiration of the homilies should not be an obstacle for considering them a work of Jerome, as is shown by their many actual connections.”↩

  3. [3]J. A. McGuckin, The Westminster handbook to Origen.  Preview here.↩
  4. [4]Origen: the Life and Thought of the First Great Theologian by Henri Crouzel and A. S. Worrall (Sep 1989), p. 37-39.  Snippet view here.↩

Jerome’s Letter 33, listing the works of Origen

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In my last post about the new find of homilies of Origen on the Psalms, I quoted a letter by Lorenzo Perrone.  He states that Dr Marina Molin Pradel “noticed that the list of the other homilies corresponded to a large extent to that presented by Jerome in his Letter 33 to Paula, the most important group being the series of nine homilies on Psalm 77.”

No complete translation of this letter from ca. 384 AD seems to be online.  I have therefore taken the partial 19th century Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers translation, and added to it the detailed list of the works of Origen from the Latin.[1]  The conditions under which I am working are far from ideal; errata would be gratefully accepted.

It makes interesting reading.  Not merely does it give a list of the works of Origen, which, however, must be incomplete since it doesn’t mention Contra Celsum or the Dialogue with Heracleides.  It gives a list of the Latin works of Varro also.

30. TO PAULA.

1. Antiquity marvels at Marcus Terentius Varro, because of the countless books which he wrote for Latin readers; and Greek writers are extravagant in their praise of their man of brass, because he has written more works than one of us could so much as copy. But since Latin ears would find a list of Greek writings tiresome, I shall confine myself to the Latin Varro. I shall try to show that we of today are sleeping the sleep of Epimenides, and devoting to the amassing of riches the energy which our predecessors gave to sound, if secular, learning.

2. Varro’s writings include:

45 books of antiquities, 4 concerning the life of the Roman people, 15 on Images, 76 “Logistorikwn”, 15 on the Latin Language, 9 of disciplines, 5 on Latin speech, 5 of Plautine questions, 3 of Annals, 3 on the origin of the Latin language, 3 of poetry, 3 on the origins of the stage, 3 on the actions of the stage, 3 on the acts on the stage, 3 on descriptions, 3 on the propriety of writers, 3 on libraries, 3 on readings, 3 on the similarity of words, 3 on embassies, 3 of “suasiones”, 3 on Pompey, 10 “singulares”, 3 on persons, 15 on the civil law, an epitome in 9 books from the 42 books of antiquities, an epitome in 4 books from the 15 books on Images, an epitome in 9 books from the 15 books on the Latin language, 9 books on the principles of numbers, 3 books on rustic matters, 1 book on preventative health, 3 books on his own life, 3 books on the form of philosophy, 3 books on urban matters, 150 books of Menippean satires, 10 books of poetry, 22 books of orations, 6 books of pseudo-tragedies, 4 books of satires and many others, which it would be wearisome to enumerate. I have barely listed half of the index, and it is overwhelming to the readers.

3. But by contrast our age has learned men, and they know in which waters fish were born, and on what shore an oyster grew. We have no doubts concerning the flavour of thrushes, Paxamus and Apicius are ever in our hands, our eyes on our possessions, our senses on the plates, and, if one of the philosophers or Christians, who are the true philosophers, with worn cloak and grubby tunic fails to pay attention to the reading, he is thrown out with a jeer as if mad.

4. But why, you ask me, have I thus mentioned Varro and the man of brass? Simply to bring to your notice our Christian man of brass, or, rather, man of adamant — Origen, I mean— whose zeal for the study of Scripture has fairly earned for him this latter name. Would you learn what monuments of his genius he has left us? The following list exhibits them. His writings comprise:

13 books on Genesis, 2 books of mystical homilies, excerpta[2] Exodus, excerpta on Leviticus, 10 books of “Stromata”, 36 books on Isaiah, likewise excerpta on Isaiah, 1 book on Hosea concerning Ephraim, commentary on Hosea, 2 books on Joel, 6 books on Amos, 1 book on Jonah, 3 books on Micaiah, 2 books on Nahum, 3 books on Habakuk, 2 books on Wisdom, 1 book on Haggai, 2 books on the beginning of Zechariah, 2 books on Malachi, 28 books on Ezekiel, excerpta on the Psalms from the start to [Psalm] 15, again 1 book on Psalm 1, 1 book on Psalm 2, 1 book on Psalm 3, 1 book on Psalm 4, 1 book on Psalm 5, 1 book on Psalm 6, 1 book on Psalm 7, 1 book on Psalm 8, 1 book on Psalm 9, 1 book on Psalm 10, 1 book on Psalm 11, 1 book on Psalm 12, 1 book on Psalm 13, 1 book on Psalm 14, 1 book on Psalm 15, 1 book on Psalm 16, 1 book on Psalm 20, 1 book on Psalm 24, 1 book on Psalm 29, 1 book on Psalm 38, 1 book on Psalm 40, 2 books on Psalm 43, 3 books on Psalm 44, 1 book on Psalm 45, 1 book on Psalm 46, 2 books on Psalm 50, 1 book on Psalm 51, 1 book on Psalm 52, 1 book on Psalm 53, 1 book on Psalm 57, 1 book on Psalm 58, 1 book on Psalm 59, 1 book on Psalm 62, 1 book on Psalm 63, 1 book on Psalm 64, 1 book on Psalm 65, 1 book on Psalm 68, 1 book on Psalm 70, 1 book on Psalm 71, 1 book on the beginning of Psalm 70 part 2 (?), 2 books on Psalm 103. 3 books on Proverbs, excerpta on Ecclesiastes. 10 books on the Song of Songs, and 2 other books (tomos), which he wrote on this in his youth, 5 books (tomos) on the Lamentations of Jeremiah, likewise 4 books “Monobibia, Periarchon”, 2 books on the resurrection and two other dialogues on the resurrection, 1 book on various questions on Proverbs, dialogue against Candidus the Valentinian, a book on martyrdom.

On the New Testament: 25 books on Matthew, 32 books on John, 1 book of excerpta on various parts of John, 15 books on Luke, 15 books on the letter of the apostle Paul to the Romans, 25 books on the letter to the Galatians, 3 books on the letter to the Ephesians, 1 book on the letter to the Philippians, 2 books on the letter to the Colossians, 3 books on the 1st letter to the Thessalonians, 1 book on the 2nd letter to the Thessalonians, 1 book on the letter to Titus, 1 book on the letter to Philemon.
Again homilies on the Old Testament: 17 homilies on Genesis, 8 homilies on Exodus, 11 homilies on Leviticus, 28 homilies on Numbers, 13 homilies on Deuteronomy, 26 homilies on Joshua son of Nun, 9 homilies on the book of Judges, 8 homilies on the passover [=Easter?], 4 homilies on the 1st book of Kings, 22 homilies on Job, 7 homilies on Parables, 8 homilies on Ecclesiastes, 2 homilies on the Song of Songs, 32 homilies on Isaiah, 14 homilies on Jeremiah, 12 homilies on Ezekiel.

On the Psalms: 1 homily on Psalm 3, 1 homily on Psalm 4, 1 homily on Psalm 8, 1 homily on Psalm 12, 3 homilies on Psalm 15, 1 homily on Psalm 16, 1 homily on Psalm 18, 1 homily on Psalm 22, 1 homily on Psalm 23, 1 homily on Psalm 24, 1 homily on Psalm 25, 1 homily on Psalm 26, 1 homily on Psalm 27, 5 homilies on Psalm 36, 2 homilies on Psalm 37, 2 homilies on Psalm 38, 2 homilies on Psalm 39, 1 homily on Psalm 49, 1 homily on Psalm 51, 2 homilies on Psalm 52, 1 homily on Psalm 54, 7 homilies on Psalm 67, 2 homilies on Psalm 71, 3 homilies on Psalm 72, 3 homilies on Psalm 73, 1 homily on Psalm 74, 1 homily on Psalm 75, 3 homilies on Psalm 76, 9 homilies on Psalm 77, 4 homilies on Psalm 79, 2 homilies on Psalm 80, 1 homily on Psalm 81, 3 homilies on Psalm 82, 1 homily on Psalm 83, 2 homilies on Psalm 84, 1 homily on Psalm 85, 1 homily on Psalm 87, 1 homily on Psalm 108, 1 homily on Psalm 110, 3 homilies on Psalm 118, 1 homily on Psalm 120, 2 homilies on Psalm 121, 2 homilies on Psalm 122, 2 homilies on Psalm 123, 2 homilies on Psalm 124, 1 homily on Psalm 125, 1 homily on Psalm 127, 1 homily on Psalm 128, 1 homily on Psalm 129, 1 homily on Psalm 131, 2 homilies on Psalm 132, 2 homilies on Psalm 133, 2 homilies on Psalm 134, 4 homilies on Psalm 135, 2 homilies on Psalm 137, 4 homilies on Psalm 138, 2 homilies on Psalm 139, 3 homilies on Psalm 144, 1 homily on Psalm 145, 1 homily on Psalm 146, 1 homily on Psalm 147, 1 homily on Psalm 148, excerpta on the whole psalter.

Homilies on the New Testament: 25 homilies on the gospel “kata Matqaion”, 39 homilies on the gospel “kata Loukan”, 17 homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 11 homilies on the 2nd letter to the Corinthians, 2 homilies on the letter to the Thessalonians, 7 homilies on the letter to the Galatians, 1 homily on the letter to Titus, 18 homilies on the letter to the Hebrews.

1 homily on peace, an exhortation to Pionia, [a homily] on fasting, 2 homilies on monogramy and trigamy, 2 homilies on Tarsus, by Origen, Firmianus and Gregory, likewise 2 books of excerpta of letters by Origen and by others to him — the letter of Hesiphodorus on the case of Origen in 2 books — 9 books of his letters to various people, 2 books of other letters, likewise a letter in 2 books as an apologia for his works.

5. So, you see, the labors of this one man have surpassed those of all previous writers, Greek and Latin. Who has ever managed to read all that he has written? Yet what reward have his exertions brought him? He stands condemned by his bishop, Demetrius, only the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phenicia, and Achaia dissenting. Imperial Rome consents to his condemnation, and even convenes a senate to censure him, not— as the rabid hounds who now pursue him cry— because of the novelty or heterodoxy of his doctrines, but because men could not tolerate the incomparable eloquence and knowledge which, when once he opened his lips, made others seem dumb.

6. I have written the above quickly and incautiously, by the light of a poor lantern. You will see why, if you think of those who today represent Epicurus and Aristippus.

Share
  1. [1]Latin text in CSEL 54, p.252 f, online here, partial NPNF translation here.↩
  2. [2]‘excerpta’=notes.↩