Category: Eusebius

Graf on Arabic translations of Eusebius

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In Graf’s Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, vol. 1, p. 318, is a note on translations of Eusebius in Arabic.  Here it is:

85. Eusebius, Bischof von Cäsarea (gest. 339 oder 340). Abu’l-Barakät, Katal. 648 erwähnt von ihm “Erklärungen zu den Abschnitten des heiligen Evangeliums und verschiedene Abhandlungen”. Mit den ersteren sind eher die “Kanones” oder synoptischen Tabellen zu den Evv gemeint, die häufig den Evv-Hss beigegeben sind, als die unter seinem Namen gehenden Scholien in Katenenwerken. Die grosse koptisch-ara­bische Evv-Katene (siehe unten S. 481 f.) enthält 6 Scholien des Eusebius zu Mt und weist ihm im Bunde mit Severus von Antiochien den grösseren Anteil an Scholien zu Lk zu [1]. Auch ein junger jakobitischer Kommen­tar zu den evangelischen Sonn- und Festtagsperikopen verwendet “Er­klärungen” des Eusebius; siehe im II. Teil. — Ueber eine Einleitung zu den Psalmen unter seinem Namen siehe II. Teil.

Von den „Abhandlungen” scheint in arabischer Sprache nichts mehr vorhanden zu sein ausser ein unterschobenes Leben des Papstes Silvester (314-335) in Par. ar. 147 (15. Jh.), ff. 306 r-321 v. Ob und inwie­weit dieses mit der griechischen Vita S. Silvestri (von Simeon Metaphrastes?) in Verbindung steht, aus der ein Auszug in freier Bearbeitung dem B. V. 58 einverleibt ist, bleibt noch dahingestellt; vgl. Rom. Quartalschr. 36 (1929) 209 f. 229 f.

[1] Nächste Quelle für den Kopten dürfte Nicetas gewesen sein, der in seinem Kommentar zu Lk Eusebius 121 mal (mit Auszügen aus der Kirchengeschichte) zitiert; siehe Joseph Sickenberger, Die Lukaskatene des Niketas von Herakleia [T. u. U. 22, 4], Leipzig 1902.

In English:

85. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (d. 339 or 340). Abu’l-Barakat, Catalogue 648 mentions by him ‘Explanations of the sections of the Holy Gospel, and various papers”. The former are more likely to be “canons” or synoptic tables of the Gospels, which Gospel-manuscripts often include, or scholia going under his name in Catenas. The great Coptic-Arabic Gospel-Catena (see below p. 481 f.) contains 6 scholia of Eusebius on Matthew and, along with Severus of Antioch, assigns to him the larger share of the scholia on Luke. Even a younger Jacobite Commentary on the Gospel passages used on Sundays and festivals refers to “Explanations” of Eusebius, see in Part II. – About an introduction to the Psalms in his name, see Part II.

Of the “papers” in Arabic, nothing seems to be left apart from a interpolated life of Pope Silvester (314-335) in Par. ar. 147 (15th century), ff 306r-321v. Whether and to what extent this is connected with the Greek Vita of S. Silvestri (by Simeon Metaphrastes?), from which an excerpt is incorporated in a free version by BV 58, remains an open question; Rom. Quartalschr. 36 (1929) 209 f. f 229 .

[1] Nicetas should have been the source most readily available to the Copts, who, in his commentary on Luke, cited Eusebius 121 times (including excerpts from the Church history), see Joseph SICKENBERGER, The Luke catena of Nicetas of Heraclea [T. u. U. 22, 4], Leipzig, 1902, B. 86 f.

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The first chunk of the translation of the Coptic portions of Eusebius on the Gospels has arrived!  This is very good news.  The translator is asking ab0ut how I formatted the rest of the work — a very good question — and asking to see the rest.  I must progress this. 

An email came back from Claudio Zamagni; when he sent his Greek/French text to the publisher, he supplied the Greek and the French in separate files.  This is why, he says, the Greek page has the same page number as the French page.  This is very useful info, of course.

The chap who is going through the files turning the Greek into unicode is doing a splendid job, and has done the second file also (of four).

I have started to put out feelers to see if I can find a freelance editor to take on the book.  I just know so little about the process of book production.

I also emailed Sebastian Brock about the possibility of finding the lost mss. of Seert.  His response was to discourage investigation because of the sensitive politics around the massacres that led to the books being lost/hidden.  Some parties locally might prefer to destroy the books, rather than recover them. 

I’ve also remembered who I asked to translate all of Sbath treatise 20, and sent them a reminder.

Share

The Latin introduction to the Coptic catena published by Paul de Lagarde

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The translator of the fragments of Eusebius found in the Coptic catena published by Paul de Lagarde — I’m never sure whether to write “de Lagarde” or “De Lagarde” — has asked for a translation into English of his preface, written in Latin.  I have hastily asked Andrew Eastbourne for a construe, and he has kindly said he will produce one in a few days.

The preface contains non-Latin material.  So here I am, OCRing it.  Chunks of it are in English, although containing misleading information.

According to de Lagarde, Joseph Lightfoot mentions the catena ms. in A plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament by F. Scrivener, Cambridge, 1874, p. 335, and says:

The volume, *Parham 102, described in the printed Catalogue (no. 1, vellum, p. 27) as a MS of the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, is really a selection of passages taken in order from the four Gospels with a patristic catena attached to each. The leaves however are much displaced in the binding, and many are wanting. The title to the first Gospel is + [coptic], etc. ‘The interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew from numerous doctors and luminaries of the church.’ Among the fathers quoted I observed Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement, the two Cyrils (of Jerusalem and of Alexandria). Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Evagrius, the three Gregories (Thaumaturgus, Nazianzen and Nyssen), Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Severianus of Gabala, Severus of Antioch (often styled simply the Patriarch), Symeon Stylites, Timotheus, and Titus.

In the account of this MS in the Catalogue it is stated that ‘the name of the scribe who wrote it is Sapita Leporos, a monk of the monastery, or monastic rule, of Laura under the sway of the great abbot Macarius,’ and the inference is thence drawn that it must have been written before 395, when Macarius died. This early date however is at once set aside by the fact that writers who lived in the sixth century are quoted. Prof. Wright (Journal of Sacred Literature vii. p. 218), observing the name of Severus in the facsimile, points out the error of date, and suggests as an explanation that the colophon (which he had not seen) does not speak of the great Macarius, but of ‘an abbot Macarius.’ The fact is, that though the great Macarius is certainly meant, there is nothing which implies that he was then living. The scribe describes himself as [coptic], I the unhappy one (talaipwroj) who wrote it’ (which has been wrongly read and interpreted as a proper name Sapita Leporos). He then gives his name [coptic] (Theodorus of Busiris?) and adds, [coptic], ‘the unworthy monk of the holy laura of the great abbot Macarius.’ He was merely an inmate of the monastery of St Macarius; see the expression quoted from the Vat. MS lxi in Tattam’s Lexicon p. 842. This magnificent MS would well repay careful inspection; but its value may not be very great for the Memphitic Version, as it is perhaps translated from the Greek …

And I think there is a note in the ms. which reads:

Mr Rt Curzon brought this volume from the Coptic Monastery of Souriani on the Natron Lakes, to the west of the villiage of Jerraneh, on the Nile; in the month of March. 1838. It consists of 254 leaves of vellum, which contain 2 indexes, and the Gospels of St Mathew, & St Mark, with the commentaries of St Cyrill, St Chrysostom, Eusebius, Gregory the Patriarch, Titus, &c.

The leaves are not in their proper places, the two Gospels being mixed together, they have been put together just as they came over, to prevent their being lost. The name of the scribe who wrote this MS, is Zapita Leporos, a monk of the monastery of sic Laura, under the rule of the Abbot Macarius. Macarius of Alexandria, Abbot of the Monks of Nitria, died according to the Art de verifier les Dates; either in the year 395, or 405. it would therefore apper sic that this manuscript must have been written before the end of the fourth century, in which case it is the most antient book in existance sic with a date, several of the Syriac MSS which were brought to England from the same monastery in which this was discovered, are supposed to be of equal antiquity, the earliest of those which have any date given in them, is a quarto of Eusebius, which was written in the year 411. it is now in the British Museum, it seems however that this manuscript is even more antient, as it was probably written about the year 390.

These little snippets of information, or misinformation, may make us smile but they do show scholarship emerging from ignorance, little by little.

Update 10 Feb 2024.  The translation was uploaded as part of the errata for the Gospel Problems and Solutions, so here.

Share

Working on Eusebius

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The cold that I have had over the last couple of weeks has fairly thoroughly disrupted my work schedule on editing the Eusebius.  We all take the energy we have for granted; until it vanishes under the onslaught of a virus.  

Now I have the translation of everything, aside from the Coptic; but it all needs licking into shape.  I need someone to retype the bits of Greek in the footnotes into unicode, and generally work it all together.  I am reluctantly concluding that I will not have the time to do this.

Is there anyone out there with editorial skills (and familiarity with Greek letters!) willing to help me, for money?  If so, please get in touch!

I’ve also had a contract for use of the Greek text of part of the work from the Sources Chretiennes, which I have managed to read and is really quite sensible.  I need to get onto that too.

Share

An Armenian catena on the Catholic epistles

Posted on by Roger Pearse

My learned Armenian correspondant Seda Stamboltsyan has been looking in the electronic catalogue of the Matenadaran at Yerevan for us.  She reports at least one Armenian catena in the catalogue, which includes material by Eusebius.

Doing so was not entirely straightforward, as the search tool is somewhat cranky.  You have to get the exact word correct — searching for “euseb” will not bring up “eusebius”.  Since the endings will vary, depending on case, this is a little bit of a pain.  But typing “eusebi” (genitive case) gave 53 results; “eusebios” produced 14.  Among them was this entry:

667662
     Խմբագիր մեկնութիւն է. վկայութիւններ են բերուած հետեւեալ հեղինակներից՝ Կիւեղ Աղեկսանդրացի, Պիմեն, Սեւեռիտոս, Ներսէս, Յովհան Ոսկէբերան, Բարսեղ Կեսարացի, Իսիքիոս Երուսաղէմացի, Դիոնեսիոս Աղէկսանդրացի, Որոգինես, Թէոդորիտոն, Ապողինար Լաոդիկեցի, Եւսեբիոս Կեսարացի, Դիդիմոս, Ամոն, Տիմոթէոս, Աթանաս, Եփրեմ Ասորի։

Translated:

“[Manuscript number] 667662
This is a collective commentary [i.e. catena]. Testimonies are brought from the following authors: Cyril of Alexandria, Pimen, Severitos, Nerses, John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, Hesychios of Jerusalem, Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen, Theodoriton, Apolinarius of Laodicea, Eusebius of Caesarea, Didimus, Amon, Timothy, Athanasius, Ephrem the Syrian.”

Clicking through gave more info.  Folios 1-235 are commentaries on the Catholic epistles, and the authors above are for this.  Plainly this is a catena.  There was also a bit of bibliography: “cf. Vienna N 48 (Tashian, Bibliography, 234-243). Also: PO, t43, N193.”  The shelfmark is Mashtots Matenadaran ms. N 1407. Date: 1596. The place where it was written is not mentioned. Scribe: Priest Pawłos (Paul).

Seda reminds us that not all the manuscripts in the Matenadaran have been catalogued to this level of detail yet.  Four volumes were published, and the electronic catalogue is based on these.  The fifth volume has just been published, but not yet incorporated into the online catalogue.  However there are about 17,000 mss. in the Matenadaran.  Each volume is around 500 mss, so there is a considerable distance still to go.

There is a brief catalogue of all the mss, but it doesn’t go to this level of detail.

PO 43 does indeed contain a publication of an Armenian catena on the Catholic epistles:

Volume 43. La chaîne arménienne sur les Épîtres catholiques. I, La chaîne sur l’Épître de Jacques / Charles Renoux…

So there is a publication with French translation in PO 43/1 (N193), Turnhout 1985; 44/2 (N198), 1987; 44/1-2 (205-206), 1994; 47/2 (N210), 1996.   I queried the manuscript numeral, as that didn’t look like a shelfmark to me.  (It’s probably the electronic catalogue’s database primary key!)

Seda Stamboltsyan tells me that she has been doing  translations from Classical Armenian into modern Armenian, also editing and proofreading texts in Armenian, preparing critical editions of Classical Armenian texts.  I think those of us that are illiterate, at least in Armenian, can be very grateful to her for her efforts!

Share

Manuscripts of Eusebius’ “Vita Constantini”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A researcher from a Canadian film company wrote to me, saying they were doing a documentary on Constantine, would be in Rome and was there an original or an old copy of this work there, because they wanted to film it.  I went and looked in the GCS 7 volume online, and I thought I’d share the results.

The Mss of the “Vita Constantini” and the “Oratio ad sanctum coetum” are

1)

  • V. — Vaticanus 149 [XI S.].
  • R. — Vaticanus 396 [XVI S.].

IIa) 

  • J. — Moscoviensis 50 [XI S.].

IIb):

  • M. — Marcianus 339 [XII vel XIII S.].
  • B.  — Parisinus 1432 [XIII S.].
  • A.  — Parisinus 1437 [XIII vel XIV S.].

IIc):

  • E. — Parisinus 1439 [XVI S.].
  • D.  — Parisinus 414 [XVI S.].
  • Sct. — Scorialensis T-I-7 [XVI S.].

IId)

  • N. — Marcianus 340 [XIII S.).
  • P. — Palatinus 268 [XIII S.].
  • G. — Parisinus 1438 [XV S.].
  • Sav. — (only Vita books I-III) Savilianus [XV S.] = N + M.
  • Scr. — Scorialensis R-II-4 [XVI S.] = C + ?

Mss. called “Parisinus” will be in the French National Library. Marcianus is a library in Venice.  Palatinus is a sub-collection in the Vatican library (books originally from the library in Heidelberg of the Rhineland Palatinate, and transferred to the Vatican as part of the settlement of the 30 Years War).  Scorialensis is the Escorial in Madrid.  Cantabrigiensis = Cambridge University Library in the UK. Ottobonianus is another Vatican sub-collection (made up of the books once owned by the long-dead Cardinal Ottoboni).

It’s not a bad collection, for an ancient Greek text.  Fourteen mss, one of the 11th century.  Apparently they all have gaps in, tho!

Share

Eusebius update

Posted on by Roger Pearse

More news on Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel problems and solutions.  I’ve had an email from the lady who has been translating the coptic fragments of this work from Delagarde’s catena.  Apparently this is now close to completion.  She also tells me that Delagarde’s intro is interesting, and should be translated.  This I will put elsewhere, as she is tied up.

One issue I have not explored is transcribing the coptic.  I don’t know if it will be hard to do; I would think not.

Share

Catenas on the Psalms: the “Palestinian catena”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

There may be 29 different types of catena on the Psalms.  All of them contain quotations from works by the Fathers on the exegesis of the Psalms.  But the most important of these by far is the catena known to modern specialists as the “Palestinian catena”.  This catena was apparently originally compiled in 6th century Palestine, directly from a bunch of mostly now lost texts.

It stands out for the size and quality of the extracts that are preserved in it.  These are mainly taken from the commentaries of Eusebius of Caesarea, Didymus the Blind, and Theodoret.  In some of the psalms, there is also material from Apollinaris of Laodicea, Asterius the Sophist, Basil of Caesarea, and — of course — Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and Origen.  For psalm 118 there is also material from Athanasius.

Psalms is a long book.  A catena on the psalms is also a long book.  Some time after composition, the catena was turned into two editions.  The first of these was in three volumes; on Psalms 1-50, 51-100, and 101-150.  The other was a two volume edition; on Psalms 1-76 and 77-150.

Naturally the volumes of each version have travelled down the centuries independently.

The three volume edition

Volume 1 of this edition is preserved in good condition in the catena of type VI (Karo and Lietzmann).  This is found in he following manuscripts:

  • Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barroci gr. 235 (9-10th century)
  • Mt. Athos, Iviron monastery 597 (1st half of 11th c.)
  • Bucharest, Romanian Academy Library gr. 931 + Constantinople, Panaghia Kamariotissi Patristic Library 9 (1st half of 11th century)
  • Munich, National library gr. 359 (10-11th c.)
  • Vatican Library gr. 1789 (10-11th c.).
  • Oxford, Bodleian, Auct. 1.1 (= Misc. 179) (17th c.), pp.169-262 containing Pss.10-50 and pp.262-284 (Ps. 9)
  • Oxford, Bodleian, Barocci gr. 154 (late 15th c.), a copy of Barocci 235.

These are all derived from the Barocci ms., and the other mss. serve only to supplement some passages today missing from the Barocci (I presume this means leaves have been lost down the years).

Marcel Richard made a check on the value of the material using the text for Ps. 37.  The whole commentary of Eusebius on this psalm happens to be extant, under the name of Basil, and is accessible in PG 30, col. 81-104 (now I ought to commission a translation of that!).  Origen’s two homilies on this psalm have reached us, in a version in Latin by Rufinus.  Theodoret’s Interpretatio in Psalmos is extant, and in PG 80.  The work of Didymus has perished.

Richard found that all the extracts from extant sources were reproduced correctly, and attributed to the correct authors.  The remaining extracts, from Didymus, were not found in any of the other authors, so are presumably also corrected quoted.  This gives us great confidence in using the catena.

The second volume existed in a single manuscript in Turin, Cod. 300 (C.II.6, 10th c.).  Unfortunately this was destroyed in the fire on 26th January 1904, without ever being photographed or printed.  No doubt the librarians who watched it burn had congratulated themselves just as modern ones do, that they had never allowed it to be photographed, thereby preserving it from “damage”.  Some leaves remain, and the Institut de Recherches et Histoire de Textes did their best, but the majority of the material from this excellent source is lost.

Fortunately this matters less for the Commentary of Eusebius.  A portion of this massive commentary has reached us in direct transmission, and contains Pss.51-95:3.  It’s in Cod. Coislin 44 (10th c.).

The third volume, on Pss.101-150, did not reach us, and no traces of it are known.

The two volume edition

The first volume of this edition, covering Pss.1-76, has been lost.  No copy of it came down to our times.

The second volume, however, covering Pss. 77-150, is extant.  This is fortunate, as it complements the losses in the three volume edition.

This volume was classified by Karo and Lietzmann as type XI.  No single copy is entire, although it probably once existed complete in Milan, Ambrosian Library F 126 sup. (=A, 13th century) which is now mutilated at the start and end.  Fortunately Ms. Patmos, St. John’s Library 215 (=P, 12-13th c.) is complete at the end, and has only lost a couple of leaves at the front.  The material at the start of the catena is found in Ms. Vienna theol. gr. 59 (13th c.).

A and P both descend from a copy in uncial.  A is the better, as P has been contaminated with material from the commentary of Theodoret.  Fortunately this is usually placed in the same places, and can be readily identified.

Indirect tradition

The material contained in the Palestinian catena is good, but the same material also appears in secondary catenas; catenas that used the Palestinian catena as a source.  This means that this indirect tradition can be a control on mistakes in the text.

The catenas that form this tradition appear in two forms; either a condensed version of the whole catena, or else a collection of extracts from across the catena.

Printed editions

It was always obvious to scholars that it should be possible to recover the commentary of Eusebius in almost complete form from these materials.  B. de Montfaucon printed an edition of his commentary on Pss.1-118, which is reprinted in PG 23, cols. 71-1396.  J.-B. Pitra reedited this in Analecta sacra Spicilegio Solesmensi parata, 3: Patres antenicaeni, Venice: S. Lazaro (1883), p.365-529.

Angelo Mai added the remainder, from Pss. 119-150, which is reprinted in PG 24, 9-78.  Unfortunately the materials used were printed with insufficient care, and are contaminated by material from Origen.

Carmelo Curti wrote a series of articles on this subject, all reprinted in Eusebiana 1: Commentarii in Psalmos, Catania 1989 (2nd ed).  Unfortunately I have never managed to see this, but I’ve just put in an ILL for it.[1]

Share
  1. [1]Update, 5th June, 2015.  I came across this post this week, which I had entirely forgotten about.  I wish that I had added the sources at the time.  I think that the main source was Angelo di Berardino, Patrology: The Eastern Fathers from the Council of Chalcedon (451) to John of Damascus (d.750), 2006, p.618 f.↩

Cerf’s up!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I agreed to use the Sources Chrétiennes Greek text of Eusebius’ Quaestiones with the editors.  This will appear opposite the English translation that I commissioned, when I publish the book.

Well, the contract from Les éditeurs du Cerf has arrived! It’s all in French, of course, but is only three pages. 

In fact it’s a sensible contract, designed to facilitate business; that much I can see at once.  You see, I get to see a lot of contracts, professionally.  They get offered to me to sign when I do a freelance job.  Most of those are deeply unfair, and have one-sided clauses in them which one has to try to mitigate as best one can.  The Cerf contract has none of that rubbish.  All the clauses I have read so far seem reasonable, and designed only to protect them against a rogue, rather than to screw the translator.

Now I need to read it very, very carefully and make sure it won’t stop me doing what I need to do, which is put the English translation online under a Creative Commons license eventually.  I can’t do that with a thumping headache, so I will put off doing so for a day or two.

I wonder if we can call the board of directors the “Cerf board”!  I love that pun.  And they seem to be a good company, and one doing a great work for patristics.  All of us, you know, live in what people will one day call the “age of the Sources Chrétiennes”.  Long may they flourish.

Share

Finding Armenian resources

Posted on by Roger Pearse

My queries to professional Armeniologists have gone unanswered, doubtless because they are very busy.  But I am still interested to learn whether there are catenas on the gospels in Armenian.

A thought struck me last night.  Suppose that none have been published?  Where could we find catenas?

The answer, surely, is to start looking at catalogues of Armenian manuscripts.  These will surely indicate the general content of manuscripts.  If there are catenas, they will probably indicate the authors quoted.

The French National Library has PDF’s of most of its catalogues online (bless them!).  This includes a splendid catalogue of their 300-odd mss, with a nice history of the collection at the front and some good indexes.

The results were a little disappointing, tho.  So in the Index of subjects on p.1002 (p.538 of the PDF), there are lists of mss by subject.  But catena is not one of those subjects.

However there is an anonymous Commentary on the genealogy of Matthew and Luke in Ms. 303, items 4-5.  This is something Eusebius talks a lot about in the Quaestiones ad Stephanum.  Probably the material here is at least influenced by him.  Unfortunately you would need Armenian to learn much more.

A few pages on, there is a category of Questions and Responses.  Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and John Damascene all feature.  So, interestingly, does Philo!  There is no Eusebius listed, but who knows what someone sat in the reading room ordering up mss might find?

Looking in the author index there are fragments of the Church History and the Chronicon in various mss.  This is natural, since both exist in full in Armenian.  But no other works are listed.

All in all, this was an interesting exercise.  I learned more about the collection than I might have done.  But so far, no material for the Eusebius Quaestiones.

Share