Category: Eusebius

Editing Eusebius

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve spent the day working on the Word documents that contain the new translation of Eusebius’ Tough Questions on the Gospels.

It’s been about turning the notes into Word footnotes, correcting the margins, fixing issues with the typefaces.

One curious feature is that my translator chose to use the specialised commercial non-unicode font GrkAcca.  This comes with a software package, Greek without tears.  I bought a copy of this, and learn that a new version is imminent.

The main issue to decide, however, is how to organise the collection of 45 fragments that I have had translated.  I’m moving towards the idea of replicating how Migne does things.  So for the quaestiones to Stephanus, you have the big chunk of materials from the catena of Nicetas.  Then you follow it up with the supplementa minora, better known as “other bits I found lying around.”

One problem is that Migne just copied the second edition published by Angelo Mai.  For some unaccountable reason, this did not include some perfectly worthy fragments published in the first edition. 

So I am toying with this structure:

  1. Supplementa – Major fragments, from Nicetas
  2. Supplementa minora – Minor fragments, from Mai’s 2nd edition
  3. Minor fragments, from Mai’s 1st edition
  4. Other fragments

We have fragments of the questions to Stephanus, about the differences at the start of the gospels; but also from the questions to Marinus, about problems at the end.  So I’d first have the fragments from Stephanus, in the above format; then the fragments from Marinus.

I also have Syriac fragments, all from the Stephanus questions.  These I thought I’d put at the end.  Mai also prints some Latin fragments, all from the Marinus questions.  I thought I’d put these after the Syriac.

My hopes of printing translations of the Coptic fragments are fading fast.  They were translated, to a high standard, by Carol Downer and her people; but nothing I can say seems to induce her to let me have more than the latter half.  Ah well…  We’ll have to manage without.

Share

Back to Eusebius

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The Tough Questions on the Gospel by Eusebius of Caesarea has been sitting on my hard disk for a few weeks now, awaiting some editing.  On Boxing Day I went out and bought a laser printer.  I can’t edit long documents on screen — I need something I can look at!  Today I went out and bought a printer cable — thank you, whoever decided to omit this from the box — and have printed off most of the materials.

Time for pencil and paper and red ink!

Share

Eusebius update

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I now have the final version of the translation of the Greek, and also of the Syriac fragments, of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel questions and solutions.  Unfortunately the Greek material will now need editing and sorting out.  I hope to get into this in the next week or so. 

In the mean time I’m only doing odd bits of stuff here and there — the pressures of ordinary life have precluded anything else!  — which aren’t too much hard work.  I tend to find this period of the year, coming up to Christmas, hard to bear.  It’s dark and I feel semi-jet-lagged all the time as the days get shorter and the ‘rush’ to Christmas begins.

So I’ve restarted translating Firmicus Maternus, and was doing some stuff on Serapis last night.  Did you know that Serapis is really Joseph, son of Jacob, the patriarch?  And means “son of Sarah”?  No?  Well, neither did I; but that’s Firmicus’ rather improbable explanation.

I’ve also obtained a copy of Manfred Clauss’ book The Roman cult of Mithras which I need to make use of to update the Wikipedia Mithraism (sic) article.  No-one seems to have interfered with this much since I rewrote it, which is quite a blessing.  Again, I’ll get to this when I can.

Share

Lying awake and thinking about Eusebius

Posted on by Roger Pearse

These days I seem to get insomnia the night before any journey. I wish I knew why.

Anyway tonight I find myself thinking about the Tough questions on the gospels and their solutions by Eusebius of Caesarea.  I’ve had all the Greek fragments translated, even the ones which largely duplicate other fragments.  The question now is how to present all this material?  What will work, for the reader?

In an ideal world, we’d create a critical text.  Then we’d translate that.  But this work is highly non-ideal.

For one thing, we have an epitome of the work; and we have catena fragments of the full text.  Can we really integrate these into one critical text?  They never were one text, at any point in their life.  Claudio Zamagni, who edited the epitome for the Sources Chretiennes, thought not. 

OK, so we have two works.  So we use Zamagni’s critical text of the epitome and translate that (and we did).  What do we do about all the catena fragments?

The thing is, it isn’t simple.  These fragments belong to a number of different catenas.  Catena writers ‘adjust’ the texts they quote, adding words at either end, modifying tenses, etc, in order to get a flowing commentary out of them.  No blame to them; but how on earth do you do a critical edition of that?  Unless you edit the catena, which we aren’t doing.

Do we try to combine fragments?  But… we’re not editing the Greek of the fragments.  Anyway, all we have is stuff already published, as I wasn’t really able to access the manuscripts.

Or do we have the same basic idea, repeated five times in slightly varying forms on the page?

How do I combine these with the epitome?  Do I have the epitome first, and then all the fragments?  Or do I print each “question” in the epitome, and then add related fragments underneath (with a bucket at the end for fragments of unknown relation to the epitome, belonging to “questions” not preserved by it).  I sort of favour the last alternative, because it would be more usable for a reader who wants to know what Eusebius said on a given subject.  But it breaks up the flow of the work.

It’s going to be an unusual publication, that’s for sure.  It won’t be specially scholarly.  To produce anything more than a translation of the lot, in some order or other, is beyond my means, given the problems of the text.

Decisions, decisions — and suggestions very welcome!

Share

Eusebius, “Tough questions on the gospels” more or less done

Posted on by Roger Pearse

An email this morning tells me that the English translation of the Greek text of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Quaestiones ad Stephanum/Marinum and the catena fragments are all revised and pretty much done.  I expect the finished text tomorrow.  I must hurry up the Syriac reviser!  And then begins the task of getting the thing into printed form and selling it.

Share

More on Eusebius on the Psalms

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I got curious as to what else might be found using Google books. about Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary on the Psalms.  Apparently Syriac fragments also exist, mentioned in Wright’s Catal. Syr. MSS. Brit. Mus. pp. 35 sq., 125.  A certain Robert Leo Odom, Sunday in Roman Paganism: A history of the planetary week and its “day of the Sun” in the heathenism of  the Roman world during the early centuries of the Christian Era, writing on the transfer of the Sabbath to Sunday repeats the quotes we saw before, but with a Migne reference and his own translation:

He appears to be the first ecclesiastical writer to spiritualize and accommodate to Christian thought the very pagan name of the day, saying that “on it to our souls the Sun of Righteousness rose.” 7 And he speaks of seeing “the face of the glory of Christ, and to behold the day of His light.” 8 Indeed, he is the first Christian writer to maintain that Christ Himself transferred Sabbath observance from the seventh to the first day of the week. On this point he said: “Wherefore, being rejected of them [the Jews], the Word [Christ] by the new covenant translated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the dawn of light, and handed down to us a likeness of the true rest: the saving and Lord’s and first day of light.” 9

It is interesting to note, also, that in the very same discourse he unwittingly reveals who the real authors of the change were, saying: “All things whatsoever it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as being more appropriate, and chief, and first, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath.” 10

7 Eusebius, Commentary on the Psalms, Ps. 91 (Ps. 92 in A. V.), in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Gratia, Vol. 23, col. 1172, author’s translation.
8 Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, book 4, chap. 16 (comment on Ps. 84:9, 10), translation by W. J. Ferrar, Vol. 1, p. 207.
9 Eusebius, Commentary on the Psalms, Ps. 91 (Ps. 92 in A. V.), in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 23, col. 1169, author’s translation.
10 Ibid., col. 1172, author’s translation. 

Of course by “us” Eusebius means “the Christians”, not himself personally!

The Odom book is very interesting, and full of hard factual data.  Looking at the overview, we see instantly that he reprints all the images of the pages of the days of the week from the “Chronography of 354”.  I’d like to read it; but who can read such a book on-screen?

Moving on, apparently Eusebius also refers to the finding of the cross.  Lardner seems to be one of the few to use this work by Eusebius, and did so from Montfaucon’s publication; and indeed, what else could he use?  Again, how we need someone to edit this work!

Share

A stray quotation from Eusebius, “Commentary on the Psalms”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Quite by accident I came across some supposed quotations from the Commentary on the Psalms by Eusebius of Caesarea.   Since this work has never been critically edited, and never been translated into English, I thought it might be interesting to see what he has to say. This first link gives a reference:

” All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these {the Church} have transferred to the Lord’s day.”

Source: Eusebius, Commentary on the Psalms, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 23, cols. 1171,1172.

Like all these ‘quotes’ you never know how accurate it is.  But I have looked, and the sentence is indeed found in col. 1171A (the Latin) and 1172A (the Greek).

An expanded version from Johns D. Parker, “The Sabbath transferred”, 1902, pp. 93-94:

He says on the ninety-second Psalm :

“The Word by the new covenant translated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light and gave us the true rest, viz., the saving Lord’s Day.”

“On this day, which is the first of light and of the true sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbaths, even all nations redeemed by him throughout the world, and do those things according to the spiritual law which were decreed for the priests to do on the Sabbath.”

“And all things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s Day as more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath.”

Another link refers to Robert Cox, “The literature of the sabbath question”, Edinburgh (1865) vol. 1, p.360-1, which (blessed be Google) is online here, and I suspect is the source for most of the other material. But he is quoting a certain Moses Stuart:

In another work—his Commentary on the Psalms—there are several passages about the Lord’s Day which were brought to light by the late Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary of Andover, Massachusetts. They are partly quoted in his work on the Apocalypse (vol. ii. p. 40), and are appended to the American and later English editions of Gurney’s Brief Remarks on the Sabbath (see below, ii. 386).

The Eusebius material is as follows (minus the excitable capitalisation and italicisation that moved even Cox to apologise):

In commenting on Psal. xxi. 30 (xxii. 29 in our English version), Eusebius applies the verse to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper every Sunday.

…on Psal. xlv. 6 (xlvi. 5), he says, “I think that the Psalmist describes the morning assemblies in which we are accustomed to convene throughout the world;”

… on Psal. lviii. 17 (lix. 16), he declares that “By this is prophetically signified the service which is performed very early and every morning of the resurrection-day throughout the whole world.” (Comm., in Montfaucon’s Collectio Nova Patrum, pp. 85, 195, 272.)

But then he discusses a large chunk of the commentary.  This I find is at Migne col. 1169/1170B:

… on Psalm xci. (xcii.), which is entitled, A psalm or song for the sabbath-day. He begins his commentary by stating that the patriarchs had not the legal Jewish sabbath; but still ‘given to the contemplation of divine things, and meditating day and night upon the divine word, they spent holy sabbaths which were acceptable to God.’

Then, observing that the Psalm before him has reference to a sabbath, he refers it to the Lord’s day, and says, that ‘it exhorts to those things which are to be done on resurrection-day.’

Then he says Eusebius quotes the commandment, that it was addressed to the Jews, and that they often violated it. Then Eusebius continues:

Wherefore as they rejected it [the sabbatical command] the Word [Christ], by the New Covenant, Translated and transferred the feast of the sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the symbol of true rest, viz. The Saving Lord’s Day, the first [day] of the light, in which the Saviour of the world, after all his labours among men, obtained the victory over death, and passed the portals of heaven, having achieved a work superior to the six-days’ creation on this day, which is the first [day] of light and of the true Sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual sabbaths, even all nations redeemed by him throughout the world, And do those things according to the spiritual law, which were decreed for the priests to do on the sabbath; for we make spiritual offerings and sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise and rejoicing; we make incense of a good odour to ascend, as it is said, ‘Let my prayer come up before thee as incense.’ Yea, we also present the shewbread, reviving the remembrance of our salvation, the blood of sprinkling, which is of the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, and which purifies our souls. . . . Moreover we are diligent to do zealously, on that day, the things enjoined in this Psalm; by word and work making confession to the Lord, and singing in the name of the Most High. In the morning, also, with the first rising of our light, we proclaim the mercy of God toward us; also his truth by night, exhibiting a sober and chaste demeanour; And all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the sabbath [Jewish seventh day,] these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as more appriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank and more honourable than the Jewish sabbath. For on that day, in making the world, God said, Let there be light, and there was light; and on the same day, the Sun of righteousness arose upon our souls. Wherefore it is delivered to us [paradodotai, it is handed down by tradition,] that we should meet together on this day ; and it is ordered that we should do those things announced in this Psalm.

Note the reference to “the Sun of righteousness”, Sol Iustitiae, as a title for Christ, doubtless in rivalry to Sol Invictus.

Somewhat later Eusebius mentions the title of the psalm and adds that it is not about the Jewish Sabbath but …

…it signifies the Lord’s Day and the resurrection day, as we have proved in other places.

His final quote is this:

This scripture teaches, [that we are to spend the Lord’s Day,] in leisure for religious exercises (twn theion askisiwn,) and in cessation and vacation from all bodily and mortal works, which the scripture calls sabbath and rest.

These are interesting comments, and go to show that this work must contain interesting sidelights on the practise and thinking of the early church, just as so many of Eusebius’ works do.  Surely it is time that this work was edited properly?

Share

Fragments of Eusebius in the Mingana collection

Posted on by Roger Pearse

PDF’s are such a blessing.  I’ve been looking at the PDF of volume 1 of the Mingana collection of Syriac manuscripts in Birmingham.  How quickly we take these for granted!  Once, just to consult such a volume, would have meant a day off work, a 60 mile journey, and being robbed blind for copies — if I was even allowed copied.  That was the situation, only five years ago.  Not now!

This will be a dull post, I fear.  Because I ordered some photos of manuscripts in the collection, but no longer remember what was so precious in them!  This post is my journey of discovery.

On p.599 of the PDF (col. 1197 of the book), there is listed the various snippets of Eusebius in various manuscripts.  In July 2008 I went through these, and ordered the following from the Mingana:

Ms. Mingana Syr. 332      Folios 1-9a          Eusebius
Ms. Mingana Syr. 480      Folios 29a-31b       Eusebius
Ms. Mingana Syr. 589      Folios 1-6a          Eusebius

Time to refresh my memory on these!

First I’m opening the Mingana catalogue in Adobe Acrobat and running an OCR on the file to create scannable text.  I only wish Adobe used some decent OCR software.  Come on chaps, talk to Abbyy!

 OK.  On p. 308 of the PDF (col. 616) we find ms. 332.  On ff.6b-7a there are quotations on the genealogy of Jesus, from Ephraim, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Philoxenus.  Wonder why I ordered as far as 9a.

 On p. 432 of the PDF (col. 863) is ms. 480.  Ff. 29a-31b consist of tables to show that there is no contradiction between the two genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke.  The first table is from Severus of Antioch; the others from Ephraim, Eusebius and Philoxenus.  Not sure why I thought this stuff was worthwhile, now.

On p. 562 of the PDF (col. 1125) is ms. 589. 

  • Ff.1b-3b = A short treatise on ecclesiastical chronology dealing with the lunar and solar months. 
  • Ff. 4a-5a : Another short treatise on chronology by Eusebius of Caesarea (called Eusebius of Palestine).
  • Fol. 5 : The months in which the year begins in the calendar of the Jews, the Arabs, the Copts, the Syrians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians and the Armenians.
  • Ff. 5b-17b: A medical treatise on the composition of the human body, by Ahud’ immeh Antipater, who mayor may not be the same man as Ahud-‘immeh of Tegrit.
  • and so on.

Fascinating stuff… or not.  This is what so manuscripts consist of, tho; pages of short, dubious-looking texts.

The upshot is that there is unlikely to be much here to impact on my Eusebius project.  Wonder what the “short treatise on chronology is”?  I might toss that over to my translator and ask.

Share

Eusebius “Quaestiones” Syriac fragments all now translated

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Very pleased indeed to get the last fragment of Eusebius’ Tough questions on the gospels in English.  It has been incredibly hard to find people who (a) know enough Syriac to translate this and (b) will actually do it.  This translator is my fourth attempt!  I had to pay a premium price, and it does hurt, but it was worth it.  He’s now going to look over the fragments done by others, and revise and bring it all into line.  But this is another step forward, and a very welcome one.  I shall be very glad to see the back of the Syriac fragments.

I also have some manuscript fragments, which I need to look up again and pass to him.  More later on this.  Today seems to be a day when *everyone* has written to me.

It’s just as well I’m at home this week, recovering from a vicious virus, or I wouldn’t be able to respond to it all.

Oh, and Origen, Homily 9 on Ezekiel, is now done as well.  Only five to go!

Share

Isidore of Pelusium did not pirate Eusebius

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Somewhere I read that book 2, letter 212 of Isidore of Pelusium was an unacknowledged copy of part of Eusebius Ad Marinum.  This would make it valuable as a witness to the text of the latter.  But I sent the text to the translator today. He has just informed me that in fact it takes rather a different approach to the same bible difficulty — how is Jesus dead for 3 days — and is not part of the Eusebius text.  We’ll translate it anyway, but I need to go back and find out who said that it was.

Share