I’ve received the first column of Chrysostom’s sermon on New Year, and it’s been checked over by someone I trust who has given it the all-clear (i.e. only a couple of minor glitches). Full-speed ahead!
Tag: Patristics
Some remarks about John Chrysostom’s homilies against the Jews
A. L. Williams useful book Adversus Judaeos was composed in 1935, well before modern political correctness or post-WW2 guilt. It is written to be of use to Christians considering missionary work among the Jews, and to advise them of older apologetic, which he suggests is mostly useless today.
Nearly a hundred writers are summarised, and the book is still of great value. Williams states plainly enough that his collection of writers cannot be comprehensive, since it omits works in manuscript only, and to which he had no access. But it has never been superseded.
When we read modern opinions about Chrysostom’s sermons against the Jews, we are always uncomfortably aware that those writing may not feel able to sound “anti-semitic”. Works held dear but which violate political correctness are liable to be misdescribed; works hated may get the same misdescription in the opposite direction.
Williams’ comments are therefore refreshingly interesting. As a man with no interest in the politics of our day, what does he think Chrysostom was doing and meant? —
Chrysostom’s Homilies against the Jews are glorious reading for those who love eloquence, and zeal untempered by knowledge. The Golden-mouthed knew little of Judaism, but he was shocked that his Christian people were frequenting Jewish synagogues [2], were attracted to the synagogal Fasts and Feasts, sometimes by the claims to superior sanctity made by the followers of the earlier religion, so that an oath taken in a synagogue was more binding than in a church, and and sometimes by the offer of charms and amulets in which Jews of the lower class dealt freely. We cannot blame Chrysostom therefore for doing his utmost to prevent apostasy, partial or complete, and we cannot but praise him for the straightness of his speech, and his passionate desire that every one of his hearers should not only refrain from religious intercourse with Jews, but also do his utmost to keep his brethren in the same Christian path.[4] Sometimes also there are direct appeals to Jews to turn to the true faith.
But that is all that can be said. Chrysostom’s sermons were intended almost entirely for his Christian listeners, and only exceptionally for Jews. How could it be otherwise? We gather from these Homilies that the Jews were a great social, and even a great religious, power in Antioch, but that Chrysostom himself had had no direct intercourse with them worth mentioning, and knew nothing of their real reasons for refusing to become Christians. Far more serious still than his ignorance is his lack of a real evangelistic spirit in his relation to them. There is no sign that he felt the slightest sympathy with them, much less a burning love for the people of whom His Saviour came in the flesh, or, indeed, that he regarded them in any other way than as having been rightly and permanently punished for their treatment of Christ, and as still being emissaries of Satan in their temptation of Christians. But that is not the way to present Christ to the Jews, or even to speak of them when preaching to Christians [2].
The notes are also interesting:
2. The tendency of professing Christians to frequent synagogues is not peculiar to Chrysostom’s time and place. M. Isidore Loeb in his illuminating essay on La Controverse religieuse entre les Juifs au moyen age en France et en Espagne tells us that in the Middle Ages the semi-Christianised peoples found it difficult to distinguish between Judaism and Christianity, or, at least, to see where one left off and the other began. They knew that Christianity had its roots in Judaism, and that the weekly day of rest, Easter, and Pentecost, were taken from the Jews, and the mother religion had fascination for them. At Lyon they used to go to the synagogue, pretending that the sermons were better than those of the Christian priests. In 1290 in Provence and the neighbouring countries Christians made offerings in the synagogue, and paid solemn respect to the roll of the Law (Revue de l’histoire des religions, 1888, xvii. 324 sq.).
4. This is the key-note of each of the Homilies.
2. Chrysostom’s hatred of the Jews is not confined to these eight Homilies, as may be seen from the countless references to them scattered throughout his works, covering more than seven columns in Montfaucon’s Index.
This is plain speaking. Williams has no hesitation in describing “Chrysostom’s hatred of the Jews”, nor in describing the sermons as “glorious reading for those who love eloquence”, feeling no need for apology. But his judgement is “Chrysostom’s sermons were intended almost entirely for his Christian listeners, and only exceptionally for Jews.”
We may, I think, agree with him safely on this, then. As with so much else in the later Roman Empire, Christianity had become a badge of a community, rather than the means of salvation. Chrysostom was merely defending the “turf” of the group who had elected him their bishop.
Chrysostom “In kalendas” progress
Why Severian of Gabala is famous
Apparently he was a flat-earther. Wikipedia has no article on him in English (which I may rectify tomorrow). But there is a French article, and a German one, as well as a rather dense BBKL article.
The Wikipedia flat-earth article quotes Severian thus:
The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall.
A reference is given of “J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Planetary Systems’, (1906)” which needs to be verified. A limited preview of it is here, and Severian is on p.211-2. (Update: the whole book is here). Here is what is said:
A contemporary of Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, lays great stress on the necessity of accepting as real the supercelestial waters 1, while a younger contemporary of Basil, Severianus, Bishop of Gabala, speaks out even more strongly and in more detail in his Six Orations on the Creation of the World,2, in which the cosmical system sketched in the first chapter of Genesis is explained. On the first day God made the heaven, not the one we see, but the one above that, the whole forming a house of two storeys with a roof in the middle and the waters above that. As an angel is spirit without body, so the upper heaven is fire without matter, while the lower one is fire with matter, and only by the special arrangement of providence sends its light and heat down to us, instead of upwards as other fires do3. The lower heaven was made on the second day; it is crystalline, congealed water, intended to be able to resist the flame of sun and moon and the infinite number of stars, to be full of fire and yet not dissolve nor burn, for which reason there is water on the outside. This water will also come in handy on the last day, when it will be used for putting out the fire of the sun, moon and stars4. The heaven is not a sphere, but a tent or tabernacle; “it is He…that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in5“; the Scripture says that it has a top, which a sphere has not, and it is also written: “The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came unto Zoar6.” The earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels through the northern parts “as if hidden by a wall,” and he quotes: “The sun goeth down and hasteth to his place where he ariseth7.” When the sun goes more to the south, the days are shorter and we have winter, as the sun takes all the longer to perform his nightly journey1.
1 Catechesis, ix., Opera, Oxford, 1703, p. 116.
2 Joh. Chrysostomi Opera, ed. Montfaucon, t. vii. (Paris, 1724), p. 436 sqq. Compare also the extracts given by Kosmas, pp. 320-325.
3 I. 4.
4 II. 3-4.
5 Isaiah xl. 22.
6 Gen. xix. 23. The above is from the Revised Version, but Severianus (III. 4) has: “Sol egressus est super terram, et Lot ingressus est in Segor. Quare liquet, Scriptura teste, egressum esse Solem, non ascendisse.”
7 Eccles. i. 5.
1 III. 5.
Few of those familiar with Wikipedia will be surprised, then, to discover that the “quote” is in fact the words of Dreyer, not of Severian. Amusingly the “quote” has made its way, sans reference, into the French and German articles.
But the exciting part is that Dreyer clearly has read Severian, albeit in the Latin version, and so it should be possible to identify the material properly.
The French article tells us that a French translation exists of Severian’s six sermons on Genesis, plus one more. These are from Bareille’s 19th century translation of Chrysostom, and that in turn suggests that Bareille may have translated all of Chrysostom, if he was getting into the spuria as well.
‘Severian of Gabala’ on the sufferings and death of our Lord
In 1827 J.B.Aucher published a set of sermons from Armenian at the press of the Mechitarist Fathers in Venice, Severiani sive Seberiani Gabalorum episcopi Emesensis homiliae nunc primum ex antiqua versione armena in latinum sermonem translatae, Venetiis, 1827. A homily on the sufferings and death of our Lord appears on p.428 of that edition. Unfortunately it is not listed among the sermons of Severian of Gabala in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum 2, so is perhaps pseudonymous [but see below].
A reader of these posts has discovered an English translation of this obscure text in S.C.Malan, Meditations on every Wednesday and Friday in Lent (1859). The book itself is a curiosity, printed using the long-s (which looks like ‘f’ without part of the cross-stroke) which had then ceased to be in use for more than a century. It is dedicated to Charles Marriot, the editor of the Oxford Movement Library of the Fathers translations.
This is Holy Week. I admit my own thoughts have been far from the sufferings of the Lord. But as I scanned this translation, I found myself moved by the words of this ancient writer. The sermon is a little long to post here, and I have left the English archaic as it was. If anyone has difficulty with this, I would like to know.
But here it is.
UPDATE (1/4/10). The Aucher publication is online here! It’s remarkable, really, what Google books now contains. After looking at the index of sermons, I must ask whether this sermon is really by Eusebius of Emesa, like the one that follows it? A look at the CPG reveals that, indeed, both are by Eusebius of Emesa.
Projects progressing, projects new
My project to publish an edition and translation of the remains of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel problems and solutions continues to progress. I still intend to make the translation freely available online, but first I need to sell some paper copies to recover the money spent. The total of the money is now assuming quite impressive dimensions – about the size of a small car!
Today an updated version of the translation of the Coptic fragments arrived. The translator has difficulties with technology — I have asked her to print whatever she needs to and just send it to me! I’ve also suggested she get a training course in this stuff, because it’s really not optional any more.
Also the chap proof-reading the Greek has nearly finished the fragments of the Ad Marinum bit; I’ve sent him the fragments of the Ad Stephanum portion as well. If he wants it, I may send him a large chunk of the epitome as well. This is going really well.
Also someone has written and volunteered to translate some of the untranslated Chrysostom that I discussed here, on a commission basis. I’ve sent him Migne’s text of the sermon ad Kalendas — on the New Year’s festival — and we’ll see what sort of job he makes of the first column of that.
In addition the chap I sent the Severian of Gaballa, De sigillis librorum, has volunteered to have a go at a translation for free. That is very kind of him, and it will be interesting to see what emerges. I’ve also had an interesting email from the chap who put me onto Severian in the first place, with some manuscripts detail (which I must actually read!).
A busy day. But I shall start winding down things on this blog; I now need to prepare seriously for Syria.
Eutychius on the events in Egypt in 820-30 AD
I’ve translated from the German the last portion of the Annals of Eutychius, who was Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria, and whose autograph manuscript has been edited in the CSCO.
33. EVENTS IN JERUSALEM AND LOWER EGYPT (820-830 A.D.)
[286]. When morning came, the Patriarch Thomas and his companions were brought. The Muslims came and testified that the dome had enlarged (=been made larger). Patriarch Thomas disproved this through the (above-mentioned) argument 1.
[287] Abdallah ibn Daher said to them: he is right. Explain to me: How big was the dome, before it was removed, and how big is it now? They said: We will think about this. They went out and the meeting came to an end. Abdallah ibn Daher then went to Damascus. Thomas and his companions went merrily to the holy city.
[288] Thomas paid the Sheikh in question 1000 (dirhams). To him and his children after him as well as his children’s children the compensation was paid continuously, so long as (someone) from his descendants lived, until there was only one daughter (young woman). Elias ibn Mansur, Patriarch of the holy city, presented her with the compensation. Patriarch Thomas died, and his pupil named Basila (= Basilios) became Patriarch of the holy city. It was in the 7th year of the Caliphate of al-Ma`mun. Basila remained in the see 25 years and died. Abdallah ibn Daher returned to al-Ma`mun and reported about Egypt and on what he had undertaken (there). Then the (supporters of the) Emma (Yma) revolted. Al-‘Emma is a coptic word and means “forty” 2. This is why: when the Romans left Egypt, in the time when the Muslims arrived, forty men stayed. In the lower part of the country (=Lower Egypt) they testified, multiplied and continued to do so and were called ‘Y MA, i.e. the descendants of the forty (men). They revolted and paid neither excise nor poll tax. This event was announced to Mamun and he sent his brother al-Mu`tasim, who was a Amir, to Egypt. The Emma fought against him . . . 3
1 The previous sentence in Ch. 51, 56,20-22 reads: A Muslim sheikh had secretly instructed him (to say): May the Emir ask them,”How big was the small dome, which I took down as you requested, and how big now is the dome, which I have rebuilt and enlarged?”
2 If the rebels had been descendants of those Romans left, then they would have used a Greek name, not a Coptic one. The letters given however do not permit the Coptic reading of HMA (for forty). Later historians have confounded this revolt with that of the Copts in Basmur, which took place allegedly under Abdel Malek around 750-51. Scholars are therefore divided on the exact date of the last Coptic revolt, therefore. See Sylvestre Chauleur, Histoire des Coptes d’Egyple, Paris 1960, 107 (dating the revolt to 216 AH. = 831 AD); item: C. Detlef, G. Müller. Grundzüge des christlich-islamischen Ägypten, Darmstadt 1969, 146 (both giving around 828-30).
3 The continuation of the sentence in Ch. (51, 57.17-18) reads: “and he fought them and killed very many of them. He struck them down and drove out their wives and children and brought them with him to Baghdad.”
Some notes on Thomas Gaisford
The classical scholar Thomas Gaisford (1779-1855) is a name that I have run across several times while looking for editions of obscure works. Among others, he edited the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius. Some interesting material about him appears in Rev. W. Tuckwell, Reminiscences of Oxford, p. 124, which is on Archive.org. Gaisford was regius professor of Greek at Oxford from 1811, and became Dean of Christchurch College, a college then as now rather the preserve of men of an upper class background. This Gaisford did not possess, and his defensiveness was legendary.
Gaisford became Dean unexpectedly; the men came up in October, 1831, to find his grim person in Smith’s vacated stall. … Gaisford was no divine; he preached annually in the cathedral on Christmas Day, and a sentence from one of his sermons reverberated into term-time.
“Nor can I do better, in conclusion, than impress upon you the study of Greek literature, which not only elevates above the vulgar herd, but leads not infrequently to positions of considerable emolument.”
The muse had taught him, as she taught Horace, malignum spernere vulgas.
He was a rough and surly man; had owed his rise originally to Cyril Jackson, who discovered the genius of the obscure freshman, gave him a Christchurch studentship, and watched over him. “You will never be a gentleman,” said the “Great Dean” to his protege with lordly candour, “but you may succeed with certainty as a scholar. Take some little known Greek author, and throw your knowledge into editing it: that will found your reputation.” Gaisford selected the great work on Greek metres of the Alexandrian grammarian Hephaestion, annotated it with marvellous erudition, and became at once a classical authority.
In 1811 Lord Liverpool, with a highly complimentary letter, offered him the Professorship of Greek: he replied: “My Lord, I have received your letter, and accede to its contents. Yours, etc.” The gaucherie came to Cyril Jackson’s ears; he sent for Gaisford, dictated a proper acknowledgment, and made him send it to the Prime Minister with a handsomely bound copy of his Hephaestion.
He never lectured; but the higher Oxford scholarship gained world-wide lustre from his productions. His Suidas and Etymologicon Magnum are glorified in Scott’s Homerics on the strife between Wellington’s and Peel’s supporters for the Chancellorship.
In a facetious record of the Hebdomadal Board Meeting in 1851 to protest against University Reform, he is quoted as professing that he found no relaxation so pleasant on a warm afternoon as to lie on a sofa with a Suidas in one’s arms. These Lexica, with his Herodotus, won cordial respect from German scholars, who had formed their estimate of Oxford from third-rate performances like Dr. Shaw’s “Apollonius Rhodius.” His son used to relate how, going with his father to call on Dindorf at Leipsic, the door was opened by a shabby man whom they took to be the famulus, but who on the announcement of Gaisford’s name rushed into his arms and kissed him. …
Gaisford was an unamiable Head, less than cordial to the Tutors, and speaking roughly to his little boys. He nominated my old schoolfellow, “Sam” Gardiner the historian, to a studentship. Sam became an Irvingite, and thought it right to inform the Dean, who at once sent for the College books and erased Gardiner’s name.
He had a liking for old Hancock, the porter at Canterbury Gate, with whom he often paused to joke, and whom he called the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hancock once presumed so far as to invite the Decanal party under that name to tea: I do not think they condescended to immure themselves in those unwholesome subterranean rooms of his.
The story of the Dean of Oriel’s compliments to the Dean of Christchurch is true in part. The Dean Minor was Chase; the Dean’s remark, not written but spoken to his neighbour, was, “Oh! yes Alexander the Coppersmith to Alexander the Great.”
In Gaisford’s day men required nothing more than a first degree to become a fellow; indeed anyone who graduated and remained at the college qualified, so long as they remained unmarried, and it was expected that they would leave in time to take a living in the church somewhere, or otherwise move on. All of them were clergymen, of course. Research was unheard of, and tuition no more extensive than now, until the reforms of Jowett later in the century created the modern university.
Gaisford also had some remarks to make on the Fathers. In Mozley’s Reminiscences Chiefly of Oriel College and the Oxford Movement (1882), vol. 1, p.356 we find this:
The old Oriel school would not have blundered as it did in its desultory attempts to mend the Athanasian theology, had it possessed even a moderate acquaintance with the ‘Scholastic philosophy.’ The classics were everything in those days, and the great scholars would then rather enlarge the circle of the classics than leave an opening for early Christian theology. Gaisford induced the Clarendon Press to spend 2,000L. in an edition of ‘Plotinus,’ by a German he brought over. Showing Christchurch library to a visitor, he walked rapidly past all the Fathers. Waving his hand, he said ‘sad rubbish,’ and that was all he had to say.
There is also an account of him in Peter H. Sutcliffe’s The Oxford University Press: an informal history, p. 3 here, where we learn that his edition of the Suda cost an astonishing £3,685 to produce. What this means we can learn by comparing it to the fortune of Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice; £10,000 a year, a sum great enough to make Darcy effectively a billionaire. But the edition never sold more than ten copies in a year. We also learn from Sutcliffe that the “emolument” anecdote was in the conclusion of an autobiographical sermon, doubtless intended to encourage rather than intimidate.
Gaisford’s obituary in the Gentleman’s Magazine is here.
Chronicle of Hippolytus now online!
Tom Schmidt has now posted the final version of his translation — the first — of the Chronicle of Hippolytus. He talks about it here:
I have posted the final version of Hippolytus of Rome’s Chronicon here. … Hippolytus wrote his Chronicon in the year 235AD as he himself tells us. His goal seems to have been threefold: to make a chronology from the beginning of the world up until his present day, to create a genealogical record of mankind, and to create a geographical record of mankind’s locations on the earth. For his task Hippolytus seems to have made use of the Old Testament, to research the chronology and genealogies, and a nautical dictionary, to research the distances between locations in and around the Mediterranean Sea.
He adds:
Many historians made use of it, such as the author of the Chronography of 354, Epiphanius of Salamis, the author of the Chronicon Paschal, and George Syncellus.
For this translation the GCS (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller) series number 46 was used.
This is excellent news! These little chronicles never tend to get translated, but they contain the raw data for all sorts of things that we know about antiquity. Tom has done a wonderful thing in making this available to us all! Well done!
UPDATE (6th Oct 2017): The translation has been offline for some time now. Today brings the news that Gorgias Press have brought it out in book form, here.
Notes on Severian of Gabala
Who was Severian of Gabala? And do we care?
In Gennadius’ continuation of Jerome’s On Famous Men, c. 31, we read:
Severianus, bishop of the church of Gabala, was learned in the Holy Scriptures and a wonderful preacher of homilies. On this account he was frequently summoned by the bishop John [Chrysostom] and the emperor Arcadius to preach a sermon at Constantinople. I have read his Exposition of the epistle to the Galatians and a most attractive little work On baptism and the feast of Epiphany. He died in the reign of Theodosius, his son by baptism.
As we learn from Socrates (book 6, c.11-16) Severian was from Syria, and spoke in a definite but pleasant Syrian accent. His abilities as a preacher made him welcome in Constantinople at the end of the 4th century AD, when John Chrysostom was Bishop. Among his friends was the empress Eudoxia. Unfortunately he fell out with one of Chrysostom’s subordinates, the administrator Serapion, a man who could make enemies with a blink of an eye. Even the pro-Chrysostom Socrates writes:
But Serapion’s arrogance no one could bear; for thus having won John’s unbounded confidence and regard, he was so puffed up by it that he treated every one with contempt. And on this account also animosity was inflamed the more against the bishop.
On one occasion when Severian passed by him, Serapion neglected to pay him the homage due to a bishop, but continued seated [instead of rising], indicating plainly how little he cared for his presence. Severian, unable to endure patiently this [supposed] rudeness and contempt, said with a loud voice to those present, `If Serapion should die a Christian, Christ has not become incarnate.’
Serapion, taking occasion from this remark, publicly incited Chrysostom to enmity against Severian: for suppressing the conditional clause of the sentence, `If Serapion die a Christian,’ and saying that he had made the assertion that `Christ has not become incarnate,’ he brought several witnesses of his own party to sustain this charge. But on being informed of this the Empress Eudoxia severely reprimanded John, and ordered that Severian should be immediately recalled from Chalcedon in Bithynia.
He returned forthwith; but John would hold no intercourse whatever with him, nor did he listen to any one urging him to do so, until at length the Empress Eudoxia herself, in the church called The Apostles, placed her son Theodosius, who now so happily reigns, but was then quite an infant, before John’s knees, and adjuring him repeatedly by the young prince her son, with difficulty prevailed upon him to be reconciled to Severian. In this manner then these men were outwardly reconciled; but they nevertheless continued cherishing a rancorous feeling toward each other. Such was the origin of the animosity [of John] against Severian.
From this we learn that Severian was the victim of an intrigue in which he was banished by Chrysostom, and restored by the efforts of the empress. Severian became an enemy of Chrysostom, which led him into bad company. He took part in the Synod of the Oak, organised by the evil Theophilus of Alexandria, which deposed and exiled Chrysostom in 403 AD. He died some time after 408.
Some of Severian’s works have reached us, although it is not quite clear what. It seems that some work is needed in this area! The commentary on Galatians is lost, unless some fragments are preserved in catenas. Quasten states that around 30 sermons are extant. The Clavis Patrum Graecorum vol. 2 assigns CPG 4185-4295 to Severian.
Most of the works were preserved, ironically, under Chrysostom’s name. There are at least 15 homilies in Greek, and probably the same again in Armenian, not all genuine.
The most important of his works now extant are the 6 sermons On the Six days of Creation. According to Quasten these take a very literal approach, to the point of absurdity. They are printed in PG 56, 429-500, and also in Savile’s edition of Chrysostom, in vol. 7, p. 587-640. Fragments also exist in later writers, including Cosmas Indicopleustes, who tells us that the author was Severian, not Chrysostom. A Coptic version of Sermon 6 exists; fragments also exist in Armenian; and 7 sermons (not 6!) in Christian Arabic. CPG 4217 is the remains of a further sermon on the same subject, and it seems that the Arabic seventh sermon is a translation of the full text of this.
The CPG list seems the most comprehensive. It also lists three unpublished sermons. There’s also a Syriac sermon on the Nativity of Our Lord, which might be interesting for the history of Christmas considering its early date.
There was interest in producing a critical edition of his works. The article to read is apparently C. Datema: “Towards a critical edition of the Greek Homilies of Severian of Gabala“, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 19, 1988, 107-115. I’ve not seen this, tho, and it does not seem to be in JSTOR. The project was to be continued by Karl-Heinz Uthemann, and published by GCS. Holger Villadsen in Denmark was to do the homilies on Genesis, and did collect 11 manuscripts in microfilm, but had to pull out.
A christological treatise was edited by Michel Aubineau in Cahiers d’orientalisme n° 5 (1983). The BBKL bibliography is probably fairly up-to-date, although I always find their articles hard to read!