The translation of the Quaestiones ad Stephanum/Marinum has now been revised all through the epitome, and as far as the end of the first fragment. There will now be a delay, tho, for summer.
Category: Eusebius
Eusebius, Quaestiones ad Stephanum/Marinum under way again
It seems like ages since I last reported on this project to produce a professional-standard English translation of the Gospel questions and solutions of Eusebius of Caesarea. The translation of the Greek was completed early this year, but needed revision.
The translator of the Greek has now begun the process of revision of the translation. This was definitely necessary, as the process of translating all the fragments from catenae revealed areas where the text of the main witness was defective, or had not been correctly understood. So it seems possible that by the autumn the Greek will be completely done.
The Syriac and Coptic fragments begin to seem as if they will never be completed. It seems impossible for me to find anyone who will undertake to do them, and then actually do it! I may have to publish what I have, and just accept the fact that I can’t get this done. Shame.
Errors in Cramer’s catena publication
I’ve made use of the medieval commentary published by J. A. Cramer for fragments of Eusebius, but some of the attributions have seemed a bit odd. Quite by accident today I was skimming through volume 6 of the Journal of Theological Studies, when I came across an article by Claude Jenkins on p.113-116 about the Origen citations in the portion of Cramer from 1 Corinthians.
The author notes that Cramer was dependent on copyists for access to the manuscripts, which he could not inspect himself. Comparison of Cramer with his source, Paris Cois. gr. 204 (a copy of Vat. gr. 762, unknown to Cramer) reveals that Cramer’s text routinely assigns passages to Origen which are clearly assigned to Chrysostom in the manuscript. The article assigns the blame for miscopying a very clear 16th century manuscript to the scriba Parisinensis whom Cramer was obliged to use.
Some of the fragments assigned to Eusebius in the catena on the gospels that I have had translated have looked very like portions of Chrysostom. So this is probably a general problem.
What this means, of course, is that we cannot depend on Cramer. We urgently need someone to correct the text and reissue it.
A little-known find of Coptic books in 1910
While perusing the Book-Think blog, I came across mention of a find of Coptic books at the Monastery of St. Michael in 1910. This was interesting, since although I am interested in Egyptian manuscript discoveries, I had never heard of it.
I find an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia which deals with the find.
The most important of these discoveries was undoubtedly that of the library of the Monastery of St. Michael in the Fayûm (Spring, 1910). Most of the fifty-eight volumes of which it consisted found their way to Paris, where they were purchased by J. Pierpont Morgan (Dec., 1911), in whose library (at New York) they are now preserved. 5000 volumes remained in Egypt, and, with a few fragments of the same origin, are kept [in Cairo]… Mr. Morgan’s collection is no less remarkable as a group of dated manuscripts of absolutely certain provenance. … the Morgan collection contains eighteen dates ranging from A.D. 832 to 914… Many of the manuscripts are still in their original bindings…
Why do we have so many fragmentary books?
One of the most important features of the Morgan collection is that it consists of complete volumes, while other collections, yet reputed so valuable, those of Rome, Paris, and London (see below under British Museum Collection), to name the principal ones, consist mostly of fragments. It is an inveterate habit with the Arabs of Egypt to tear the manuscripts they discover or steal, so as to give each member of the tribe his share of the spoils, and also in the hope of securing higher prices by selling the manuscripts piecemeal, a process fatal to literature, for while some leaves so treated will be scattered throughout the public or private collections of Europe and America, a good many more will either meet destruction or remain hidden indefinitely by the individual owners. Most of the manuscripts of the Monastery of St. Michael had already been divided into small lots of leaves and distributed among a number of Arabs when they were rescued at the cost of untold toil and expense.
The same happened to the Gospel of Judas, the Exodus, the Greek Mathematical Treatise and the Letters of Paul manuscripts, half a century later.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article lists the books (bless them!). There are biblical texts, liturgical stuff, and masses of Saints’ lives. There are also some homilies by Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Shenuda, among others.
Interestingly, at the end of the page in the CE, are details of other purchases by the British Museum of Coptic mss. Among the texts found is a “discourse of Eusebius of Cæsarea on the Chanaanite woman” [Ms. Or., 5001, item 10]. Has this ever been published, or translated? The article gives as sources:
On Or. 5000 and Or. 5001 cf. CRUM, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts of the Brit. Museum (London, 1905), Nos. 940, 171; WALLIS BUDGE, The earliest known Coptic Psalter in the Dialect of Upper Egypt from the unique Papyrus oriental 5000 in the Brit. Museum (London. 1908); IDEM, Coptic Homilies in the dialect of Upper Egypt (from Or. 5001 text and English tr., London 1910).
The last item is at Archive.org, which is a blessing, believe me. For I saw a bound copy of this book, thick, small, fat and with a tight binding impossible to photocopy, and my heart failed me and I passed by on the other side and did not try to scan it. Thankfully someone else has. From this I find that the homily is of Eusebius of Caesarea in Cappadocia!
E. W. Brooks and the Chronicle of James of Edessa
Chronica Minora III (CSCO 6, AD 1906) contains Latin translations of a number of Syriac historical texts, each with an introduction. I thought that I would give the introduction to the Chronicle of James of Edessa here in English, since this text is an important one for the early history of Islam. Notes by me are in square brackets.
The text was around 340 words of Latin, and took me about 45 minutes, although I read over it last night first, and only had to look up about 3 words.
II. Chronicle of James of Edessa, translated by E. W. Brooks.
Fragments of this chronicle are preserved in British Museum manuscript Additional 14,685, which according to Wright [the cataloguer of the BM Syriac mss] was written in the 10th or 11th century. The author given as is James Philoponus, or “lover of work”, who is the same as James of Edessa, in Wright’s opinion, because excerpts from the work of James of Edessa are quoted by Michael the Syrian. The canon-table itself, which begins on folio 10r, is a continuation of the Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea; to it a preface is prefixed in which the work of Eusebius is corrected and supplemented.
In the manuscript as we now have it, the fragments are wrongly ordered: fol. 12v must be read before fol. 12r, and fol. 18v before 18r [i.e. these pages have been bound in backwards], fol. 11 and 13 come from the same folio, and likewise fol. 19 and 20; and two fragments which contain fol. 19 are stuck together.
The fragments go no further than 942 A. S. [=the Seleucid era, or year of the Greeks], = 631 AD, but the canon, as we learn from Michael the Syrian, was continued to 1021 A.S. Michael notes that James died two years before this, so that the last two years must be supposed to be the work of a pupil. But Elias of Nisibis says that James composed the Chronicle in 1003 A.S. = 692 AD; and if this is true, then 18 years must be ascribed to the continuator. The canon of years was copied by Michael, so portions now missing from the manuscript can easily be restored. The same author quotes several places from the preface in a complete form which are now mutilated in our manuscript. We have also edited from Elias of Nisibis material both from the preface, which he calls the Chronicle, and excerpts from the canon itself, to fill up the gaps.
Among the sources for the Chronicle the following must be included: Socrates, Theodoret, the Chronicle of Edessa, John of Ephesus, the history generally ascribed to Zacharias Rhetor, and perhaps lists of emperors, kings and bishops. In the preface, besides Eusebius, James used certain Alexandrian chronographers, perhaps Anianus and Andronicus, and, as we see, a catalogue of kings of the Persians.
The beginning of the preface was translated [not so; edited] in the Catalogue by the excellent Wright; I myself edited the Canon in 1899 with an English translation and commentary: the complete text of the whole work is now translated for the first time [into Latin]. Many places which in the previous edition of the canon were left lacunose or wrongly filled up I have now restored from Michael and corrected. [Michael was published between 1899 and 1906] I have imitated the layout of the manuscript where possible in both text and translation; in the translation I have restored lacunas in the canon of years, but in the text it did not seem worthwhile to do so.
Bibliographical note:
You can read a description of the manuscript in Wright, Catalogue of Syriac MSS in the British Museum, p. 1062-1064 [online here, vol. 3; the PDF is p.1062 also. This gives the text of the start of the work, not a translation].
Editions: W. Wright, op. cit., p. 1062, 1063, London, 1872. Text of the start.
E. W. Brooks, The Chronological Canons of James of Edessa (Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Bd. LIII, p. 261 ff and p. 550). Canon with English translation. — Cf. also ibid. p. 534 ff (notes by Sigismund Fränkel) — See also F. Nau, Notice sur un nouveau ms. de l’Octoechus de Severe d’Antioche et sur l’auteur Jacques Philoponus (Journ. asiatique, ser. IX, tom. XI, p. 346 ff).
* * *
From Wright:
DCCCCXXI. Paper, about 12 in. by 7, consisting of 23 leaves, all of which are more or less stained and torn. There are from 36 to 40 lines in each page. This volume is written in a good, regular hand of the 10th or 11th century and contains…
New fragments of the Turin King-list
Our knowledge of the dynasties of the Pharaoh’s derives in the first place from Manetho, a Greek working for the Ptolemies. Actually that well-worn statement is misleading; Manetho is lost, and our knowledge of the contents of his work derives from quotations by Eusebius, mostly in the Chronicle.
In the 19th century Drovetti discovered a papyrus roll, dated to the 12th century BC, containing a list of kings so far. This he sold to the Italians, and in the process of being passed around the nearly complete roll was reduced to a heap of fragments.
From this article I understand that some mislaid fragments have been located, and that the British Museum will be trying to piece them into the remains.
Translations that ought to exist
What untranslated ancient texts deserve to be translated? Here is a list of texts that I have thought about translating, which I feel ought to exist in English. Of course there are many others that probably deserve attention too — these are merely ones where I have given some serious thought to it. It’s a wish-list, in a way.
The fragments of Philip of Side.* He wrote a massive universal Chronicle which is now lost. But there’s a miscellaneous manuscript in the Barocci collection in the Bodleian which has excerpts from various texts, including a biggish chunk of Philip. It was published a century ago with German translation. It includes an otherwise unknown chunk of Papias. But surely we’d like to have this? Not so expensive to do, either. Maybe more chunks exist in other mss?
Gelasius of Cyzicus. His history of the Council of Nicaea in three books has a critical edition in the Berlin GCS series, but no modern language translation. It’s the only text on Nicaea written within a century not translated.
Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum. Massive 10 book refutation of Julian the Apostate. Should be just as interesting as Origen, Contra Celsum. Probably 100,000 words, or say $10,000 to get translated?
Cyril of Alexandria, De recta fide. “You need to think like this” says Cyril, in three works of this title. A German translation exists of the first. They’re all crucial to understanding the Nestorian split. Not that long, really.
Eusebius of Caesarea, De Pascha*; Commentary on Luke*. Two short fragmentary works. I’ll probably try and do these.
Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentary on the Psalms. Massive text with no proper text available. Someone should attack this.
Chrysostom, Against the Jews*. Wendy Pradels found part of Oration 2, which had been lost. This has been published with German translation, but never in English. The rest has twice been translated, but offline. We really need a good quality, non-PC version. He also did a sermon against Jews and Pagans, which needs doing.
Chrysostom, On the Nativity*. Two sermons, often referred to at Christmas time. One has been translated but is only available in a PhD thesis. The other not. Probably wouldn’t cost too much to do. Only a Migne text available.
Al-Makin. Big 13th century Arabic Christian chronicle. We urgently need the bit about Josephus from it. The text has never been edited or translated.
Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum. A massive who’s who of Syriac Christianity. Amazing that this hasn’t been done. Probably another $10,000 job, but… I have great difficulty getting translators from Syriac.
Syriac fragments of Eusebius from the Mingana library. I have photos of these. Not very long; but same problem as Bar Hebraeus.
Thomas of Edessa, On the Nativity, On Easter. The text of the first was published in a thesis with Latin translation. I have photographs of both from the Mingana. Probably each is around 10,000 words, or about $1,000 for a translation. The first is interesting for a reference to 6th century sun-worship in Syria; and if we’re going to do the first, we should do the second. But… I can’t get translations made from Syriac.
Quite a list, isn’t it? How to proceed…!
UPDATE: 9th February 2013. Coming back to this, I find that we have made some progress. I have added an asterisk to items that have been done, either by myself or Maria D. (see comments). Which is good news, actually!
More lust for the CPG – works of Eusebius in Armenian and Georgian
I’ve been unable to stop thinking about the object of my obsession. Yes, this is another “why the Clavis Patrum Graecorum is like Paris Hilton” post. Both might make you go blind, for instance, although probably for different reasons. How many people realise just how wonderful this object is?
What brought this on, I hear you say? Well, thinking about Eusebius of Caesarea, and his “Tough questions about the Gospels” (Quaestiones ad Stephanum/Marinum — and if I owned a copy of the CPG, I’d give the work’s CPG reference number). As everyone knows, this work is lost but a large chunk survives, plus some fragments in Medieval Greek bible commentaries which were made up purely of chains of quotations from the Fathers of the Church. I commissioned David Miller to translate the Greek fragments; someone else is doing fragments extant in Syriac.
But I’m a sad person. (Sorry Paris). I started wondering what other languages Eusebius’ work might have been translated into in late antiquity. Coptic is an obvious choice, and there are fragments in that language.
But what about Armenian? The Armenians were converted to Christianity around the time of Eusebius. They set up a monastery in Jerusalem, to copy Greek books, translate them into Armenian, and send them back to the old country. We know that at least two works by Eusebius were indeed translated into Armenian. His famous Church History exists in Armenian. Better still, his Chronicle exists; book 1 of that work only exists in Armenian, in a single copy. That copy was found by a traveller who was staying in Armenia in the 18th century in a rural district, who got up in the night for a glass of water and found the book being used as the water-pot cover!
Anyhow, I started asking around. Maxime Yevadian mentioned that the Canon and the letter to Carpianus also existed in Armenian 1. The excellent Dominique Gonnet of the CNRS in France then pointed me to the CPG! To my astonishment, this lists information about Georgian works by Eusebius (please forgive rough OCR):
3465. Epistula ad Carpianum. Canones euangeliorum.Versio georgica. B. UT’IE, Evsevis ep’ist’elisa … Udzvelesi kartuli versiebi, in Mravalthavi 17 (1992),p.117-123.
3467. Commentarii in psalmos. (1) in ps.37. Versio georgica (introductio in psalmos). M. SANIDZE, Psalmunis dzveli kartuli redakciebi, 1 (Anciennes rédactions géorgiennes des Psaumes), Tbilisi, 1960, p. 470-475.
3495. Historia ecclesiastica. Versio georgica (fragmentum de S. Iacobo fratre Domini: H.E., Il,23). Cf. M. VAN EsBROECK, Les homéliaires, p. 123,189,213.
Of course the most exciting bit of that is the portion of the unpublished and untranslated monster-work, the Commentary on the Psalms. Nothing on the Quaestiones, but what a book, that contains stuff like this!
<swoon>
1 Thomson, Bibliography of Armenian Literature, Brepols, 1995, pp. 51-2.
Bringing projects to an end
The recession is biting, and I need to reduce my outgoings. Luckily the Eusebius is all but done, the al-Majdalus is done, and I have a promise of the Cyril text for a week hence. I’ve cancelled the translation of letters by Isidore, and decided not to commission a translation of the medieval biographies of Hunain ibn Ishaq.
I have enjoyed doing all these things, but I don’t have a guaranteed source of income, and so must be prudent in hard times. At the moment I don’t know where my income will come from after March. This is by no means unusual, but this year there may be no business in April. It was nervous enough this time last year, when I spent three months hunting for work. Let’s see what the new financial year brings.
Eusebius project progress
Regular readers will know that a year ago I commissioned David Miller to translate all that now exists of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Quaestiones Evangelicae ad Stephanum et Marinum. This consists of an epitome of the work, plus a large number of fragments from catenae and the like.
The subject of the work is differences between the gospels, at the start and at the end, and how they should be resolved: Why are the genealogies in Matthew and Luke different? Why is there more than one ending in Mark? As may be imagined, this makes it an interesting book indeed!
I’ve not been posting updates, because every week there has been a new chunk translated. But we’ve now reached the end of the text. The last few fragments of Greek and Latin reached me today in English translation. The quality has been improving all the time, and the notes are extremely interesting.
The next stage will be to revise the whole and make sure that formatting is consistent, etc. This will probably take place in a month or two, to allow the translator a bit of distance from the process of actual sentence-by-sentence translation and to see the text as a whole.
The Syriac and Coptic have made only limited progress, and I fear that I will have to go with what has been done and ignore the rest. This is unfortunate, of course.