Tag: Manuscripts

Bauer, Eusebius HE, Rufinus and Edessa – and the Syriac text

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Yesterday I summarised, section by section, the content of chapter 1 (“Edessa”) of Walter Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy, with a view to working out just what, in plain terms, his argument was.  I shall do more on this next week, and reduce the book to a series of testable statements and propositions, which we may then evaluate.

Along the way I noticed an interesting statement to which I have referred before, but this time was able to address.

d) EH 5.23.4: At the time of the Roman bishop Victor (189-99), gatherings of bishops took place everywhere on the matter of the Easter controversy, and Eusebius still knows of letters in which the church leaders have set down their opinion. In this connection, the following localities are enumerated: Palestine, Rome, Pontus, Gaul, and then the “Osroëne and the cities there.”

The phrase “and the cities there” is as unusual as it is superfluous. Where else are the Osroëne bishops supposed to have been situated except in the “cities there”?

But what speaks even more decisively against these words than this sort of observation is the fact that the earliest witness for the text of Eusebius, the Latin translation of Rufinus, does not contain the words “as well as from those in the Osroëne and the cities there.” This cannot be due to tampering with the text by the Italian translator, for whom eastern matters are of no great concern. In those books with which he has supplemented Eusebius’ History, Rufinus mentions Mesopotamia and Edessa several times (11.5 and 8 at the end; see below, n.24).

Thus the only remaining possibility is that in his copy of EH 5.23.4 he found no reference to the Osroëne, but that we are dealing here with a grammatically awkward interpolation by a later person who noted the omission of Edessa and its environs.

Bauer references the GCS edition of Eusebius’ Church History by E. Schwartz.  We may find the volumes of the GCS edition of the HE easily enough here (part 1; books 1-5), here (part 2; 6-10, and Rufinus 10-11) and here (part 3; introduction, indexes).  EH 5.23.4 is in part 1, p.490-1, here, both Greek and Latin, at the top of the page.

Let’s first look at the manuscripts, listed at the start of part 1, and discussed in detail in part 3.

Of the manuscripts used for the Greek text, ms. A is 11th century; T = 10-11th; E=10th; R = 12th; B is 12th; D is 11-12th; M = 12th.

Of the manuscripts of Rufinus’ translation into Latin, only a few were used.  But ms. N= 8th century; P = 9th; O = 9/10th; F = 9/10th.

The difference in age, therefore, is very slight.  Bauer relies on this difference in order to privilege the version by Rufinus, but neglects to indicate to the reader how very slight it is.

But when Bauer states that the “earliest witness” for the text of this passage is the Latin translation of Rufinus, he is mistaken.  For he seems to have forgotten the Syriac translation, also referenced at the start of the GCS edition, but otherwise not discussed in that edition as far as I can see.  This was published by Wright and McLean in 1898, and may be found here.

Of the manuscripts used for the Syriac text, ms. A is dated AD 462, i.e. 5th century; ms. B is 6th century.  The editors add that the translation has evidently been transmitted through several copyists, even at this early date; Wright, indeed, believed (p.ix) that the translation was made either in Eusebius’ lifetime or soon afterwards.  There is a medieval Armenian version as well, which the editor believes is based on a Syriac text of the 4th century (p.xvii), prior to the corruptions in the Syriac.

So what does the Syriac text say, for this passage?  I am indebted to Syriacist Stephen Ring, who kindly examined it for me.  The passage may be found on p.304 of the Wright-McLean edition, between p.304 lines 13 and p.305 line 1.  This passage is given from B, according to the plan of the edition, with footnotes from Gothic A, by which the editors confusingly indicate the Armenian.

There is another written account of this inquiry and it makes known about a bishop Victor and about the bishops of other places who placed Palma as their chief and of the churches which are in Gaul ruled by Ireneus and again of Mesopotamian churches and the cities there. And also (the written account goes on) of Bakilios bishop of Corinth and many others. Those, as one government were agreed and were of one accord and from these there was one decree which those twenty-four said about it, about the division in Asia.

The Armenian contains something, given in the footnote as:

7. A. ecclesiarum et urbium quae in Mesopotamia sunt.

i.e. “of the churches and cities which are in Mesopotamia.”

For convenience I give the NPNF translation of the Greek:

And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenaeus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.

The passage which Bauer dismisses as interpolated is shown to be present in a similar form in an Armenian witness to a Syriac text of the 4th century and in a Syriac witness of the 6th century.

There is, of course, a difference between “Osrhoene” and “Mesopotamia”.  Dr Ring adds:

Where the text in question has ‘those Osrhoëne’, the Syriac translator wrote ‘idte debayt nahrote’ = ‘churches of betwixt the rivers’ = ‘churches of Mesopotamia’. In my opinion, it would be reasonable to translate ‘those of Osrhoëne’ into Syriac this way.

However, the Syriac context suggests this is exactly what happened, because Osrhoëne is a political entity which had cities like Edessa, Amid and Mabbug, whereas, ‘Mesopotamian churches’ in the Syriac is an ecclesiastical entity which would not contain cities, but the Syriac goes on ‘and the cities there’ suggesting that the translator has not chosen his/her words very carefully.

It is curious that the passage is absent from Rufinus.  Possibly he either translated from a copy of the Greek which was lacking this passage, or else that he accidentally omitted it?  But that the passage was present in copies from very soon after composition can hardly be doubted.

It would of course be possible to assert that this only shows that the passage was added very early to some copies, but that Rufinus had obtained an uncorrupted copy, and the shorter form is more likely to be authentic, despite the very early date of the Syriac-Armenian witnesses.  The reader may form his own opinion on this matter.

But if we return to the main issue; is this a late interpolation, and therefore no evidence of Christianity in the time of Irenaeus in Edessa?  The answer must be no.  It is, if an interpolation at all, one made almost while the author was still breathing.  More likely, the Greek and the Syriac reflect what Eusebius actually wrote.

Share

The early translations of Chrysostom into Latin — 5. The collection of 38 homilies

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The next section in Voicu’s article discusses a collection of 38 sermons by John Chrysostom in a Latin version, which are found in various manuscripts of the 9th century onwards, including the one online at Cologne which I referred to a few posts back.

Dom Andre Wilmart drew up a list of the contents in his 1918 article.  Let’s give that list here, together with where they appear in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca.

1.-2.)  In Psalmum 50 homiliae 1-2 (PG 55, 565-588)
3) In Psalmum 122 (PG 55, 351-353)
4) In Psalmum 150 (PG 55, 495-498)
5) De beata Iob (not actually by Chrysostom, but an extract from Augustine, De excidio urbis Romae)
6) De ascension Eliae (original Latin; Wenk 1988, p. 100-108)
7) De septem Macchabaeis (PG 50, 617-624)
8. De tribus pueris (original Latin; Wenk 1988, p. 117-121)
9) De sancta Susanna (again not by Chrysostom, but a cento of Augustine, De Susanna et Ioseph sermo)
10) De proditione Iudae homilia I (PG 49, 373-382)
11) De cruce et latrone homilia 1 (PG 49, 399-418): quoted by Leo the Great.
12) De cruce et latrone (original Greek in Wenger, 1954)
13) In uenerabilem crucem sermo (Browne 1990, PG 50, 815-820): quoted by Augustine.
14) In ascensionem D. N. Iesu Christi (PG 50, 441-452): quoted by Leo the great.
15) In pentecosten sermo 1 (PG 50, 803-808)
16) De nativitate Domini (original Latin by Jerome; PLS 2, 188 to 193)
17) De natiuitate Domini et Iohannis Baptistae (ed. Botte 1932, pp. 93-105; provenance unknown, possibly from a Greek model, cf. CPL 2276)
18) In resurrectionem Lazari (original Latin Potamius of Lisbon, ed. Wilmart 1918b): cited by Augustine.
19) De Chananaea (pC 52, 449-460) ruled in Constantinople in 403;
20-23) Four works on the gospels, actually by Jerome (PLS 2, 125-188)
24) De recipiendo Seueriano (PG 52, 423-426) given in Constantinople in 401 AD.
25) Severian of Gabala, De pace (ed. Kerameus-Papadopoulos 1891, p. 15-26): also 401 A.D.  Migne does print a text of this in Latin.
26) In Genesim sermo 1 (PG 54, 581-585);
27) De eruditione disciplinae (actually a compilation from the works of Cyprian, ed. Wenk 1988. pp. 127-138)
28) In Eutropium (PG 52, 391-396) given at Constantinople in 399.
29) Cum de expulsione eius ageretur (PG 52, 427-436) given at Constantinople in 403.
30) Ad Theodorum lapsum liber 2 (PG 47, 309-316; Greek text and Latin version in Dumortier, 1966a, p. 46-79 and 241-256)
31) De militia spiritali (Greek text transmitted under the name of Basil of Cesarea; PG 31, 620-625; cf. CPL 1147; CPG 288)
32) De militia christiana (Latin text ed. Wenk 1988, pp. 145-156)
33) De patre et duobus filiis (actually by ps. Jerome; cf. CPL 766; ed. Wenk 1988, pp. 170-188).
34) Sermo ad Neophytos (Greek text and Latin version: Wenger 1970, pp.150-181 ): version citated by Julian of Eclanum.
35) De turture seu de Ecclesia sermo (PG 55, 599-602)
36) Quando ipse de Asia regressus est (Greek text and Latin version: Wenger 1961, pp. 110-123).
37) Post reditum a priore exsilio (Greek text omitted from PG; found in old editions, e.g., Montfaucon 1721, pp. 424-425; ancient Latin version : PG 52, 441-442).
38) De fide in Christo (possibly from a lost Greek original).

Some mss add a further four texts as an appendix.

Bouhot in 1971 analysed a version of the Wilmart collection which added extra works, omitted 1-2, and omitted 14-15 although it retained mention of them in the index of contents.  The order differed as well; consisting of 3-9, 16-17, 10-13; then 34, in a revised recension used by Augustine; then Ad illuminandos catechesis 1 (PG 49,  223-232); then 18-38; then De paenitentia homilia 5 (PG 49, 305-312; the Latin version is divided into two parts); Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 1 (PG 49, 15-34); Epistula 3 (Greek Malingrey 1968, pp. 242-305; PG 52, 572-590): cited by Augustine.

A comparison of the two editions of the collection indicates that the Bouhot version is closer to that used by Augustine.  But neither matches exactly, or includes all the works referenced by Augustine.

Voicu then proceeds to analyse this collection at some length.  It has been asserted that this collection was also translated by Anianus of Celeda.  But nothing suggests this.  There are no dedicatory epistles, and the standard of comprehension of the Greek seems to be inferior.

Various citations of the collection in the 5th century indicate that this collection circulated in that period.

Some manuscripts add what has been called the “ascetic appendix”:

39) Quod nemo laeditur nisi a seipso (ed. Malingrey 1964; PG 52, 459-480).
40-41 ) Ad Demetrium de compunctione liber I and Ad Stelechium de compunctione liber 2 (PG 47, 399-422; in latin under the single title De
compunctione cordis).
42) Ad Theodorum lapsum liber I (PG 47, 277-308; Greek text and Latin version: Dumortier I 966a, pp. 80-218 and 257-322).

The date of the addition is unclear, but must be quite early, as it is mentioned in a ms. of the 7th century, Cod. Vaticanus Reginensis Latinus 2077, which lists some works of Chrysostom:

De compunctione animae liber unus, Neminem posse laedi nisi a semet ipso, In laudem beati Pauli apostoli volumen egregium, De excessibus et offensione Eutropii praefecti praetorio.

These may easily be recognised as nos 40, 41 and 39 of the collection, then the translation by Anianus of Celeda of the works on Paul, and finally no 28.  A similar list is found in Isidore of Seville.

Voicu finishes his splendid article by telling us that there are further Latin translations from the 6-8th centuries, and refers us to Bouhot (1989, p.34).  The article ends with three pages of incredibly useful bibliography.  My only question is why this useful article is not online?  And that, I fear, we all know the answer to: copyright.

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’m still thinking about the sermons of the late 4th century church father John Chrysostom, the most important of the Greek fathers.  In particular I’m thinking about the one only extant in a short latin version, De recipiendo Serveriano, That Severian must be received, preached after his (temporary) reconciliation with Severian of Gabala.

I mentioned that his sermon De regressu, On his return from exile, existed in a short latin version, but that the full Greek text was retrieved by Wenger, who also printed a full ancient Latin version.  The latter came from a homiliary, a genre of text about which I know nothing, and about which a Google search at first sight tells me  nothing.

In the process, tho, I have come across a 9th century manuscript of the collection of 38 latin homilies!  It’s at St. Gall, Cod. 113.  The description is here:

  • S. 3–363 Johannes Chrisostomus: 37 ächte oder untergeschobene Reden >Incipit liber omeliarum Johannis Chrisostomi< dazwischen S. 251 eine mit der Ueberschrift: Incipit Severiani epi. sermo de pace, gedr. in Petrus Chrysologus Venet. 1742 F. p. 178.
    • cf. Severiani Homiliae nunc primum editae Venet. 1827.
  • S. 363–399 >Incipit de eo quod non laeditur homo nisi a semetipso.< Scio quod a crassioribus
  • S. 399–460 >Incipit eiusdem s. Joannis de cordis compunctione liber primus< und liber secundus pag. 436. Anfang: Cum tantum intueor b. Demetri
  • S. 460–530 >Inc. eiusdem de reparatione lapsi<

OK, so this is all Chrysostom material.  On folios 3-363 is the medieval collection.  On folio 251 there is the start of Severian’s reply On Peace, again in an abbreviated form.  On folio 248 is the start of De recipiendo Severiano.

These are the items printed by Migne.  So it is nice to see a medieval manuscript version of them, as Migne’s text is not necessarily that reliable!

Share

The overwhelming quantity of John Chrysostom

Posted on by Roger Pearse

It can be a shock, sometimes, to remember that not every writer is extant in a single manuscript.  That shock just hit me, when I decided, in a weak moment, that I would “just” have a quick search in the British Library Manuscripts catalogue for works by Chrysostom.

I’m looking for copies of the ancient Latin translation of De Severiano recipiendo, in truth.  But since I wasn’t specific, I got the lot.

Boy did I get a lot!  103 hits, to be precise.  Mostly homilies on scripture.

Mind you, the quality was rather low.  Arundel. 542 has a catalogue description which is plainly the result of uncorrected OCR.  I don’t mind; but I’d like to see the raw image!  On the other hand, someone has indexed the authors out of this mess with some skill and effort — well done!  The ms. also contains some homilies of Severian of Gabala at the end, it seems.

I drew blank, but it’s a reminder that finding stuff by Chrysostom in all this mass will not be easy.

Share

More British Library mss.

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The British Library continue their digitisation of their manscripts, which is very welcome.  They’ve moved on to the Royal collection, although the focus seems to have drifted back to digitising “pretty books” and medievalia, rather than the material that classics and patristics scholars will want.

There is a Tertullian in that collection, which ought to be online.  But I have given up making suggestions and requests, since it never seems to have any effect.

In the current upload only one volume is of interest:

  • Royal 6 C. i   — Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae, England (St Augustine’s, Canterbury), 4th quarter of the 11th century.
Share

Papyri of St Augustine in the Green collection?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Via Tommy Wasserman at Evangelical Textual Criticism I learn of some rather exciting news!

The Baptist Standard reports (2012-07-10) from the same summer institute citing Jeff Fish (editor of the new Brill series) who said:

Scholars also mentored students editing some of the earliest fragments of the New Testament, with some dating to the second century, Fish said. Other discoveries are fragments of copies of some of St. Augustine’s commentaries on John’s Gospel and the Psalms, . . .

There is a little more on the session here, although no more about Augustine.

Also, it looks as if New Testament material will not relegate other material to the sidelines: Dr W. reckons that “the first volume will not contain the NT MSS”.  Information from this interview with Jerry Pattengale in Indiana Wesleyan University (2012-08-02):

Comprising of one to two new volumes per year, the new series will publish approximately 20 papyri with a thorough description, commentary with images, and web-based support for further resources.

The first forthcoming volume in the series, planned to be released in early 2013, is dedicated to an early 3c BCE papyrus containing an extensive, undocumented work by Aristotle on reason, and is currently being analyzed by a research group at Oxford University.

Of course the biblical material is no doubt of very great importance; but classical and patristic material is pretty interesting too!

Well done, Steven Green, for getting hold of all this stuff, and making it available!

Share

A new work by Aristotle in the Green collection?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Today I  learned of the Green Collection, a large private collection of manuscripts and papyri.  It is owned by the Green family of Oklahoma, who are (a) billionaires and (b) Christians.  In consequence they have been collecting material of wide interest. 

Brill have announced a new series of publications for the papyri:

The new series fits well among Brill’s strong portfolio of Classical Studies and Biblical and Religious Studies publications, as well as its extensive list of digitized primary source manuscript collections. Comprising of one to two new volumes per year, the new series will publish approximately 20 papyri with a thorough description, commentary with images, and web-based support for further resources.

The first forthcoming volume in the series, planned to be released in early 2013, is dedicated to an early 3c BCE papyrus containing an extensive, undocumented work by Aristotle on reason, and is currently being analyzed by a research group at Oxford University.

The Green Collection contains over 50,000 items, and now holds nearly 15,000 papyri acquired from private collections in Europe, and continues to grow. The collection is approximately 70% Greek, 15% Coptic and 15% late Egyptian. The collection is currently unpublished and contains items of extraordinary importance, including some of the earliest Greek literary texts known, dating to the early 3c BCE. A major building near Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. was purchased in July 2012 to house an international museum for these items.

They are also working with scholars at Tyndale House in Cambridge:

The Green Collection has announced that the Codex Climaci Rescriptus – containing the earliest-known texts of Scripture in something close to Jesus’ household language – will return to the University of Cambridge in collaboration with the collection’s international research arm, the Green Scholars Initiative.

Top manuscript scholars from Cambridge’s Tyndale House will conduct intensive, high-tech research on the codex’s 137 reused vellum leaves, which feature overlapping layers of text. Recent technological breakthroughs developed by Green Scholars at the University of Oxford allow once unreadable, underlying text from the codex to be “lifted” to the surface for enhanced study through a process known as “multi-spectral imaging.”

In selecting Cambridge as the official research home of the Codex Climaci Rescriptus, Green Scholars Initiative Director Dr. Jerry Pattengale said, “Tyndale House is a perfect fit for this project given both its excellent scholars and its reputation in biblical studies. We are pleased with the strength of their ancient languages, from Aramaic, Syriac and Hebrew to Greek and Coptic – and, just as important, their passionate interest in biblical studies.”

They have launched the Green Scholars Initiative:

The Green Scholars Initiative is an international research project involving dozens of institutions under the auspices of The Green Collection, the world’s newest and largest private collection of rare biblical texts and artifacts.

Through thousands of cuneiform texts and papyri, Dead Sea Scrolls and Coptic texts to Gutenberg, Wycliff, Tyndale, Thomas à Kempis, Erasmus, King James and a litany of Reformation and post-Reformation original texts, the Green Scholars Initiative brings established and young scholars together to pioneer groundbreaking biblical discoveries

There will be a new museum in Washington:

A sampling of the Bible museum’s offerings — from the collection of more than 40,000 artifacts — have been displayed in the Passages Exhibit at the Vatican and in Oklahoma City and Atlanta and will soon appear in Charlotte, N.C.

All this is very encouraging for papyrus and manuscript studies: a family with the resources to collect and publish materials, and the desire to do so.  And for once it is being done from a Christian perspective too.  Well done!

Share

The cost of copying books by hand

Posted on by Roger Pearse

At the end of Ms. Vall. 2297, there is an interesting note by the owner, a 15th century chap named Sozomenus, about whom I know nothing except that he owned manuscripts:

Melius est emere libros iam scriptos quam scribi facere: nam pro membranis exposui grossos tredecim, scriptori dedi libros duodecim, et cartorario grossos quatuor.  Summa ergo in totum libras  sexdecim solidos tredecim denarios vi. Die primo mensis Martii MCCCCXXV.[1]

It is better to buy books already written than to have them written: now for parchments I am out 13 grossos, I gave 12 to the scribe of the boooks, and 4 grossos to the binder.  In total therefor in all books 16 solidi, 13 denarii and vi.  1st March, 1425.

The “grosso”, or “denaro grosso” — “heavy penny” — was an Italian silver coin, heavier than a silver penny.  The name is related to the medieval “groat”, I believe.  It cost the owner 29 of these to have these books copied.

Share
  1. [1]Albert C. Clark, Sabbadini’s Finds of Greek and Latin MSS, The Classical Review 20 (1906), p.229, referencing the Valliere catalogue (cur. de Bure, 1783) vol. ii. p.26.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/694935↩

More manuscripts online at the British Library

Posted on by Roger Pearse

At the British Library manuscripts blog, there is news.

Final Harley Science Manuscripts Published

We are delighted to announce that the remaining manuscripts in our Harley Science Project have now been published to the British Library’s Digitised Manuscripts site. All 150 manuscripts in this project have been digitised and recatalogued thanks to the generosity of William and Judith Bollinger. We hope that this resource, part of our ongoing campaign to make our collection items more accessible, will promote new research into the books in question.

I hope so too.  It can’t do the slightest harm.  The cataloguing is pretty good too, I have to say.  But … I wish we could get PDF’s of the mss, rather than being at the mercy of slow broadband and a quirky interface.  I suspect it will come, once libraries recognise that it doesn’t harm them in any way.

Access to these texts was always the problem; only a tiny handful of geographically local scholars could do much.  Now … there are NO excuses for lazy scholarship.  Get publishing articles, gentlemen!

In the current tranche, the following items will be of interest to us.

  • Harley 2686  Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae (France, 9th century)
  • Harley 3748  Galen, Opera (France or Italy, 14th-15th century)
  • Harley 3892  Miscellaneous texts on rhetoric, grammar, geometry and divination (Italy, 1400-1454) — this actually also contains parts of Horace, Ars Poetica and Letters.
  • Harley 3915  Collection of chemical, alchemical and medical recipes, and texts on the techniques and technology of various arts (Germany, 1200-1444) — Includes an extract from Vitruvius, and an autograph note by Nicholas of Cusa, indicating that this book once belonged to him (and so ought to be in Berkastel-Kues with the rest of his books).
  • Harley 3969  Works on history, natural history and rhetoric (England, 14th century) — Actually includes extracts from: Cassiodorus, De orthographia, Censorinus de natali die, Apuleius, Dares Phrygius, Pliny the Elder, and Jerome’s Letter to Helvidius.
  • Harley 4241  Aristotle, Metaphysica (Germany, c. 1450-1464) — Another of St. Nicolas of Cusa’s books.

There are a number of other Latin translations, of Euclid and Aristotle.

Good to have these.

Share

Manuscripts of Quintus Curtius Rufus

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The Penguin translation of the History of Alexander the Great by Q. Curtius Rufus tells me that there are 123 manuscripts of this work.[1]  A list is apparently given by Dosson in his Etude sur Quinte Curce, 1887, p.315-356 (online here).

The work was originally in 10 books, but books 1 and 2 are lost.  There are also large lacunae at the end of book 5 / start of book 6, and in the middle of book 10.  All the extant mss. are of French origin.  The extant manuscripts, which date from the 9th century onwards, divide into two classes, one of which exhibits signs of scholarly tampering.  There is also a mass of late mss, virtually unexamined.

Interestingly the work of Quintus Curtius Rufus is not referenced by other extant writers until the 9th century, although passages which suggest the author had read Curtius Rufus — or perhaps his source — can be found in Seneca, Lucan, and Quintilian.[2]

Share
  1. [1]p.1.↩
  2. [2]Dosson, p.357.↩