Thoughts on Antiquity, Patristics, putting things online, information access, and more
Busy today with Adam’s curse, so I haven’t managed to get to posting about the Controversiae of the elder Seneca. But I will!
Another correspondent asked if I knew where all the volumes of the Oxford Movement Library of the Fathers translations might be found. I’ve been looking for them and downloading them.
William Tabbernee and Peter Lampe successfully identified the site of ancient Pepuza a few years ago, and published their findings as Pepouza and Tymion: The Discovery and Archaeological Exploration of a Lost Ancient City and an Imperial Estate. De Gruyter, 2008. I’ve been reading this volume this evening.
The book is unusual in that the text appears in parallel columns in English and German, followed by a Turkish text. I think I approve of this. Is there any pressing reason, when a team is multi-lingual, not to do this? Paper is cheap enough, after all. It certainly broadens the possible appeal of a text.
But in other respects the book is very disappointing. It seems as if they were unable to do any serious archaeology. The possible basilica in the centre of the city — the possible catacomb under it, choked with ancient demolition rubble and perhaps the site of Montanus’ grave — all this was not excavated. There are repeated references to permission to do this, to do that. In the end it seems as if they could only investigate the site of the Byzantine cave monastery. It’s a disappointing tale, in short, and I’m not sure that this is the fault of Tabbernee and Lampe.
Cynic that I am, I can’t help wondering whether, as soon as they left, excavations commenced, undertaken by the local villagers, in search of the treasure the silly foreigners must have been looking for. Let’s hope not. But … the last work recorded was in 2004. That’s a fair few years ago.
The author of the 8th century Syriac Chronicle of ps.Dionysius of Tel-Mahre is preserved in a single copy written ca. 903 AD. This was preserved in the monastery of Deir al-Suryani in the Nitrian desert, but brought to the Vatican in 1715, where it is Ms. Vaticanus Syr. 162, 173ff. Some missing leaves were retrieved by Henry Tattam in 1840, and are now British Library Additional 14665.
The Chronicle is very valuable because its unknown author made use of the Ecclesiastical History of the 6th century bishop John of Ephesus. A large chunk of the latter still survives, but most does not. Ps.Dionysius had access to the whole work, and quotes from it word-for-word.
The year 861 [=549-50 AD] … At this time the destructive heresy of Montanus was put to shame and uprooted. We [=John] have written the story of how it sprang up in the (section about) apostolic times. Now however at the incitement of John bishop of Asia the bones of Montanus were found, who used to say of himself that he was the Spirit Paraclete, and (the bones) of Kratis, Maximilla and Priscilla, his prophetesses. (John) burned them with fire and pulled their temples down to the foundations.1
The events must have taken place at Pepuza in Phyrgia, where the cult was centred.
We have no other 6th century accounts of this event. But as often happens, early documents were embedded in later Syriac sources. In this case Michael the Syrian, in the 12th century, gives us more information because he has access to other sources than just John.
In the land of Phyrgia there is a place called Pepuza, where the Montanists had a bishop and some clergy. They called it Jerusalem, and there they killed the Christians. John of Asia went there and burned their synagogue, on the orders of the emperor. In this house there was found a great reliquary [=γλωσσόκομον] of marble sealed with lead and bound with iron fittings. On it was written, “Of Montanus and his women.” It was opened and in it were found Montanus and his two women, Maximilla and Priscilla, which had golden leaves over their mouths. They were covered with confusion by seeing the fetid bones which they called “the Spirit”. They were told, “Have you no shame to allow yourselves to be seduced by this rascal, and to call him the ‘Spirit’? A spirit has neither flesh nor bones.” And the bones were burned. The Montanists were heard wailing and crying. “Now,” they said, “the world is ruined and will perish.” Their shameful books were also found and burned. The house was purified, and became a church.
Previously in the days of Justinian I [=Justin], some people had informed the emperor that Montanus, at the time of his death, had ordered those responsible for his funeral to bury him fifty cubits under the earth, “because,” he said, “the fire must reveal me and devour all the face of the earth.” His followers, by the pernicious operation of demons, put it about falsely that his bones were exorcising demons. They bribed a few individuals who, for bread to eat, claimed that he had healed them. — The emperor wrote to the bishop of that place. He dug deep and removed the bones of Montanus and his women to burn them. Then the Montanists came to find the bishop by night and gave him five hundred darics of gold. They carried off the bones and brought others. And in the morning, without anyone realising the mystery, the bishop burned these bones as being 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 Rome and began to trouble the world. Then Apollos, (led) by the Spirit, went to where he was and saw him sitting and preaching error. He began to curse him, saying, “Enemy of God, the Lord will punish you!” Montanus began to rebuke him and said, “What difference is there between you and I, Apollos? If you prophesy, I do also; if you are an apostle, I am too; if you heal, I do too.” Apollos said to him, “Let your mouth be closed, in the name of the Lord.” He immediately stopped and was never again able to speak. The people believed in our Lord, and received baptism. They overthrew the seat of Montanus, who fled and escaped. — This story is finished, just like the other.
Some interesting material there, evidently from at least three different sources. The first paragraph must derive from some 6th century account, more detailed than that of John of Ephesus; or perhaps from a fuller text than ps.Dionysius had.
The second is still more interesting. Is it possible that some of the Montanists, after the event, put about a rumour that the bones burned were not those of Montanus, in order that their cult might continue? It’s not easy to imagine another source for this story, where the clergy are depicted as venal state hirelings.
The third moves into the realm of folk-tale. Clearly the author had no idea when Montanus lived — although it sounds from ps.Dionysius if this was already rather murky in the 6th century — and we seem to have some sort of material from a hagiographic text about Apollos. Perhaps Michael has simply assembled whatever he had about Montanus, regardless of consistency.
1. Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre: Chronicle. Translated … by Witold Witakowski. Liverpool University Press, 1996, p.112 (the end of p.125 of the Syriac text)
2. Michael the Syrian, Chronicle. Translated into French by J.B.Chabot. Book 9, chapter 33, in Volume 2, p. 269 of Chabot’s publication (on Archive.org).
A horrific story is reported by the BBC News here. A mass burial of 97 new-born children, next to a Roman villa at Hambleden in Buckinghamshire, has been excavated, and identified as waste products of a Roman brothel.
Imagine the story of human misery that lies behind these mute remains. The women were slaves, little more than children themselves. Raped incessantly until they got pregnant, then forced to provide whatever services they could in that condition until they gave birth. Then the child was killed, and the woman, still sore, sent back to lie on her back again. And so on, again and again, until death released them.
We take for granted so much that Christianity brought into the world. An end to the casual infanticide of the Roman era was one of those things. Another was the casual toleration of such evil. The emperor Constantine closed few temples, but one exception was that at Heliopolis in Lebanon, or Baalbek as it is now known. Travelling to Jerusalem he reached the town, and found that the whole place was dedicated to temple prostitution, and that there was not a married couple in the town. He closed the “temples” that had supported such, forced the inhabitants to marry, and did what he could to put an end to the trade.
Doubtless it continued in some form. It was very profitable, as the magnificence of the architectural remains today is witness. The trade was never to be extirpated. But a line had been drawn in the sand — morality had come into the world. The casual evil of the Hambleden brothel could no longer exist in broad daylight.
The amount of fictitious material spewed onto the web by Christian-hating groups is extraordinary. Another example came my way today, from one of the “Jesus is really pagan! tee hee!” types, whose ignorance is generally exceeded only by their credulity and quarrelsomeness. I was told very positively that Celsus said the following:
Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians – and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God.
Of course the pamphlet of Celsus is lost – this must be from Origen’s Contra Celsum, somewhere, and until we see the context we can’t say much about it. But when I did a google search, all I got was headbanger sites. I did not get the CCEL site.
A bit of investigation revealed that we owe this gem to Freke and Gandy, a pair of authors who have managed to put more misinformation in more heads than I would have believed possible. Rather to my surprise I found most of Freke and Gandy online in PDF form.
And in turn, they say they got this from R. J. Hoffmann’s Celsus, p.120, a translation published by Oxford University Press. Hoffmann was criticised by one of the only two reviewers for amending the arguments of Celsus in order to “improve” them to meet the objections of Origen. A small section that I examined myself managed to misrepresent the argument.
Now Hoffmann did not make it easy for readers to check his version. He gives no cross-references to Contra Celsum. I have generally managed by looking for proper names. I admit to being unenthusiastic about hunting for whatever lies behind this “quote” in the 8 books of Origen! But now I have a page number, it should be possible!
And … it is still very difficult, but by going back a page, where he mentions “Apollo and Zeus”, I can find it. The above paragraph is derived from Contra Celsum, book 8, chapters 45 onwards. But … erm… something is wrong.
Here’s Hoffmann, with context:
Certainly the Christians are not alone in claiming inspiration for the utterances they ascribe to their god through their prophets. I need hardly mention every case of prophecy that is said to have occurred among our own people-prophets and prophetesses as well, both men and women, claiming the power of oracular and inspired utterance. What of those who have claimed the power to discern truth, using victims and sacrifices of one kind and another, and those who say that they are privy to certain signs or gifts given to them by the powers that be? Life is full of such claims: Cities have been built because a prophet says, “Build it!”; Diseases and famines have been dealt with in their oracles, and those who neglected their advisories have often done so at their peril. The prophets have foretold disaster with some accuracy; colonists have heeded their warnings before going to foreign parts, and have fared the better for it; not common people alone, but rulers have paid attention to what they have to say; the childless have gotten their hearts’ desire and have escaped the curse of loneliness because prophets have helped them; ailments have been healed. On the other hand, how many have insulted the temples and been caught? Some have been overcome with madness as soon as they blasphemed; others have confessed their wrongdoing; others have been moved to suicide; others have been punished with incurable diseases; some have been destroyed by a voice coming from within the shrine itself! Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians-and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs?
In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God. They believe in eternal punishment; well, so do the priests and initiates of the various religions. The Christians threaten others with this punishment, just as they are themselves threatened. To decide which of the two threats is nearer the truth is fairly simple; but when confronted with the evidence, the Christians point to the evidence of miracles and prophecies that they think bolsters their case.
Now look at the full text, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers translation (I see no reason to go behind this to the Greek). In chapter 45 we find the start of this passage, as far as “some have been destroyed by a voice coming from within the shrine itself!” But there the passage ends, and Origen’s dry response begins:
… Yea, some have been slain by a terrible voice issuing from the inner sanctuary.” I know not how it comes that Celsus brings forward these as undoubted facts, whilst at the same time he treats as mere fables the wonders which are recorded and handed down to us as having happened among the Jews, or as having been performed by Jesus and His disciples. For why may not our accounts be true, and those of Celsus fables and fictions? At least, these latter were not believed by the followers of Democritus, Epicurus, and Aristotle, although perhaps these Grecian sects would have been convinced by the evidence in support of our miracles, if Moses or any of the prophets who wrought these wonders, or Jesus Christ Himself, had come in their way.
Chapters 46 and 47 do not contain anything by Celsus; they continue the reply of Origen. Then begins chapter 48, dealing with the next portion of Celsus, as Origen tells us. I indent the words of Celsus, for clarity.
In the next place, Celsus, after referring to the enthusiasm with which men will contend unto death rather than abjure Christianity, adds strangely enough some remarks, in which he wishes to show that our doctrines are similar to those delivered by the priests at the celebration of the heathen mysteries. He says:
“Just as you, good sir, believe in eternal punishments, so also do the priests who interpret and initiate into the sacred mysteries. The same punishments with which you threaten others, they threaten you. Now it is worthy of examination, which of the two is more firmly established as true; for both parties contend with equal assurance that the truth is on their side. But if we require proofs, the priests of the heathen gods produce many that are clear and convincing, partly from wonders performed by demons, and partly from the answers given by oracles, and various other modes of divination.”
He would, then, have us believe that we and the interpreters of the mysteries equally teach the doctrine of eternal punishment, and that it is a matter for inquiry on which side of the two the truth lies. Now I should say that the truth lies with those who are able to induce their hearers to live as men who are convinced of the truth of what they have heard….
Can everyone see what has happened? Hoffmann himself composed the words in bold above, the words attributed to Celsus. They are not found in Contra Celsum at all.
And indeed no wonder, for the reflect the views of a headbanger of the late 20th century, rather than pagan polemic. Origen’s reply makes clear that neither side considers that Celsus is saying that Christians believe the same as pagans. Celsus is attacking the well-known Christian morality, based on fear of judgement. He asserts that pagans can’t be that immoral, since they believe in a judgement too. Origen responds by dryly asking which side actually believe it, as evidenced in daily life.
I doubt that Dr Hoffmann intended a fraud. Rather his enthusiasm got the better of him. But in so doing, he started a falsehood.
Mike Anderson has written a very interesting article about the Spartan army after the Peloponnesean war, with that invaluable thing, numbers attached.
At the end of the war, by 398 BC, the Spartans could field 6,000 hoplites – Spartiates, who lived as permanent soldiers and ate in the communal messes, under their peculiar but egalitarian polity. But the loot of the war wrecked the state. Once there was money, there were rich and poor. Rich men are not keen to live as conscripts, and their sons less so.
Famously the Spartan ascendancy came to an end at the battle of Leuctra in 371, when they were defeated by the Thebans under Epaminondas. The result of the battle was met with general rejoicing among the Greeks. But Mike points out that only 1,050 Spartiates were present. The rest of the army was made up of Perioeci, the associates. Luxury had destroyed the Spartan system; new methods of fighting did the rest.
A Daily Mail article is filled with glorious photographs of Christian frescoes from a catacomb in Rome.
Greek language and literature enjoyed considerable status among Roman optimates during the republic and after. Cicero himself did not disdain to translate treatises into Latin.
But in late antiquity, as the centre of Roman government moved to Constantinople, there began to be a need to translate in the other direction. I must say that I have never known much about this.
One instance of this process is material quoted by Eusebius. Little of this is from Latin sources, but he makes use of a translation into Greek of Tertullian’s Apologeticum. In other places he quotes imperial edicts, evidently from official translations. But he does not seem to have known much Latin himself.
Another instance is material by Jerome. Jerome himself tells us that his Life of St. Hilarion was translated into Greek by a certain Sophronius. His De viris illustribus was translated into Greek by ps.Sophronius, and the version is extant. Interesting the version of the Testimonium Flavianum given by Jerome features the crucial variant, He was believed to be the Christ (credebatur esse Christum). But in the Greek version the text has been harmonised to the normal Greek text, He was the Christ.
All these things are something I would like to know more about. Today I stumbled across a volume on Google books, extant in preview mode, John J. Winkler &c, Later Greek Literature (1982). This is a collection of essays, but includes on p.173-216 a paper by Elizabeth Fisher, Greek translations of Latin Literature in the fourth century. This discusses in a very interesting way some of these examples, and shows precisely how the translator handled his material.
Sometimes this was with considerable freedom. Jerome’s negative portrayal of Alexander was modified for a Greek audience, where the latter’s hero-status could not be ignored, for instance.
Much of the article is visible through Google Books, and is worth a look.
Under the church of Santa Prisca in Rome is a crypt which was once a Mithraeum. It was excavated in the 1960’s by Martin Vermaseren and G. Van Essen, and contains some striking frescos.
But it is probably best known for a series of inscriptions which I think are scratched in plaster. One of these, in particular, is a favourite of the “Mithras=Jesus” headbangers, because it contains the word “And you have saved us by the shedding of the eternal blood”. At least… it might do.
Last week someone raised the question of whether the inscription in the Santa Prisca Mithraeum in Rome really does refer to nos servasti — “you have saved us” — or not. Apparently there is some doubt in the scholarly literature.
The obvious thing to do is to get some photographs. But how?
I find that you can visit the Mithraeum, but only as part of a guided tour. I do not think that would probably make photography possible.
But there must be people who can do this. People based in Italy, firms of photographers, people with the contacts to get access, who could do this — for money.
Does anyone have any ideas?
I read somewhere that the festival of the Hilaria in Rome on March 25th marked the celebration in the cult of Cybele of the resurrection of Attis. This evening I consulted a PDF of the relevant volume of the old Realencyclopadie, which stated the following:
Hilaria. Ἱλάρια war der Name verschiedener in der griechischen Welt (z. B. in Kreta) gefeierten Feste, welche auch bei glücklichen Ereignissen, wie der Thronbesteigung eines Prinzen, offiziell befohlen wurden: Niemand durfte an diesen Tagen Trauerkleider tragen und nach verschiedenen Dankopfern gaben sich alle der Freude hin (Dionys. Areop. Epist. 8 § 6, P. G. III 604, mit Maximi scholia, P. G. IV 420). Auch in dem Isiskult gab es einen Hilarientag am 3. November (Philocalus, CIL I2 p. 334). Aber in Rom wurden besonders mit diesem Namen die H. der Magna mater bezeichnet, die am 25. März begangen wurden (CIL 12 p. 313). In Kleinasien (z. B. in Hierapolis, Damascius Vit. Isid. bei Phot. bibl. 345 a Bekker) wie in Rom waren sie eines der Hauptfeste des Jahres (Hist. aug. Alex. Sever. 37, 6; Aurel. 1). Mit Kränzen geschmückt (Sallust. phil. de diis 4) versammelten sich Gäste zu fröhlichen Mahlen, und es fand eine große Prozession statt, wo neben feierlichen Speerträgern (αἰχμοφόροι, hastiferi, vgl. Hepding a. a. O.) auch lustige Masken erschienen, die allerlei Spässe spielten (Herodian. 110, 5). Der religiöse Hintergrund dieses antiken Karnevals war nicht nur ein altes Frühlingsfest, das nach der Nachtgleiche, quo primum tempore Sol diem longiorem nocte protendit, die Wiederbelebung der Natur ankündigte oder hervorrief (Macrob. Sat. I 21, 11. Iulian. or. V 168 D. 169D. 175 A: vgl. Frazer Adonis, Attis, Osiris 1907), sondern die H. standen auch in der engsten Verbindung mit dem Attismythos. Der Gott, dessen Tod man beweint hatte (s. Attis o. Bd. II S. 2250), war an diesem Tage auferstanden, was als ein Versprechen einer glücklichen Unsterblichkeit für seine Mysten betrachtet wurde (Damascius a. a. O.: Ὅπερ ἐδήλου τὴν Ἅιδου γε-γονυῖαν ἡμῖν σωτηρίαν). Marquardt-Wissowa St.-V. III2 872. Hepding Attis 1908, 167ff. 197. 215. [Cumont.]
Hilariana basilica der dendrophori matris deum magnae Ideae et Attis, benannt nach ihrem Gründer M’. Publicius Hilarus (Inschrift des 2. Jhdts. n. Chr.; CIL VI 30973. Vgl. Gatti Not. degli scavi 1889, 398 und Hülsen Röm. Mitt. VI 1891, 109f), lag im Bereiche der ehemaligen Villa Casali (jetzt Militärhospital) am Caelius nördlich von S. Stefano Rotondo. Die Reste einer Treppenanlage und des Vorraumes mit Mosaik und Inschrift intrantibus hic deos propitios et basilicae Hilarianae (vgl. C. L. Visconti Bull. com. 1890 Tav. I. II) fanden sich 1889. Vgl. auch Not. degli scavi 1890, 79. 113 und Bull. com. 1889, 483. 1890, 18ff. 78. [Gall ]
I have translated this as follows, although a couple of words don’t make sense:
Hilaria. Ἱλάρια was the name of different festivals celebrated in the Greek world (e.g. in Crete), which were officially ordered also at happy events such as the accession of a prince: No one was allowed to wear mourning clothes on these days and after various peace offerings, all gave themselves up to rejoicing (Dionys. Areop. Epist. 8 § 6, P. G. III 604, with the scholia of Maximus, P. G. IV 420). Also in the cult of Isis, there was a Hilaria day on 3 November (Philocalus, CIL I2 p. 334).
But in Rome this name was used mainly for the H. of the Magna Mater, which took place on 25 March (CIL 12 p. 313). In Asia Minor (e.g. in Hierapolis, Damascius Vit. Isid. in Phot. bibl. 345 a Bekker), as in Rome, they were one of the principal feasts of the year (Hist. aug. Alex. Sever. 37, 6; Aurel. 1). Wearing wreaths (Sallust. phil. de diis 4), guests gathered for happy grinding [Mahlen?], and there was a large procession, where in addition to ceremonial spear carriers (αἰχμοφόροι, hastiferi, see Hepding above) also comedy masks appeared, playing all kinds of jokes (Herodian. 110, 5).
The religious background of this ancient carnival was not only an ancient spring festival, which after the equinoxes, quo primum tempore Sol diem longiorem nocte protendit, announced the revival of nature or caused (Macrob. Sat. I 21, 11. Iulian. or. V 168 D. 169D. 175 A: see Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, 1907), but the H. were also in the closest connection with the Attis-mythos.
The god, whose death had been mourned (see Attis above, II p. 2250), was resurrected on that day, which was regarded as a promise of a happy immortality for his mystic [ Mysten?] (Damascius above): Ὅπερ ἐδήλου τὴν Ἅιδου γεγονυῖαν ἡμῖν σωτηρίαν). Marquardt-Wissowa St.-V. III2 872. Hepding Attis 1908, 167ff. 197. 215. [Cumont.]
This is an interesting article. However I have become wary of comments of this sort by Cumont. Too often his remarks are an extravagant extrapolation from some tiny piece of data.
So… it’s time to verify the references. This I will start to do. At least there are references!
UPDATE: I’ve also been looking at the Attis article in the RE, also by Cumont. This discusses the very divergent forms of the Attis myth, and then adds:
Eine stark abweichende euhemeristische Umbildung der Legende findet man bei Diodor (III 58. 59) und ausserdem bei Firmicus Maternus (de err. pr. relig. 3), der ausdrücklich sagt, dass A. nach seinem Tode auferstanden sei — ein Zug, der nirgends so klar ausgesprochen wird (vgl. doch Plut. de Is. et Osir. 69), obwohl das Frühlingsfest des Gottes ihn voraussetzt.
A highly divergent euhemeteristic transformation of the legend is found in Diodorus (III 58. 59.) and also at Firmicus Maternus (de err. pr. relig. 3), which expressly says that A. was resurrected after his death – an idea that is nowhere expressed so clearly (but see Plut. de Osir. et Is. 69), although the spring festival of the god presupposes it.
A further note reads:
Ganz bekleidet, trauernd, das Kinn auf die Hand gestützt, gewöhnlich auf Grabdenkmälern (die Auferstehung des A. wurde wohl als eine Versprechung der Unsterblichkeit angesehen, vgl. CIL III 6384).
In clothed, mourning, his chin resting on his hand, usually on grave monuments (the resurrection of A. have been regarded as a promise of immortality, see CIL III 6384).
And that, it seems, is all that Cumont has on the resurrection of Attis. We have just a single reference, in Firmicus Maternus. There is a reference to a monument which I will investigate.
Can it be, is it possible that the idea that the Roman celebration of the Hilaria celebrates the resurrection of Attis is just speculation?
Certainly it was associated with the Magna Mater. But… where in the ancient texts is the connection to Attis? Where is the detail that he is resurrected on that day?