Tag: Patristics

A 7th century Syriac mathematician

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Before the first world war there was a flourishing of interest in Syriac studies among oriental Christians.  Patriarch Aphram I Barsoum wrote in Arabic a patrology of their works, referenced mainly from manuscripts then existing in Eastern libraries.  This was published but inaccessible by reason of language.  However a few years ago the excellent Matti Moosa translated it into English, and it is available from Gorgias Press under the title of The scattered pearls.  For people interested in Syriac, it is a wonderful resource.  I went and bought a copy, which says something.

It seems that a doctoral student really is going to have a go at some of the works of Severus Sebokht.  This made me look up the entry in Barsoum’s work.  It’s quite impressive, and accessible to few.  This is what Barsoum has to say:

94. Severus Sabukht (d. 667)

Severus was a skillful and famous doctor, a mathematician, a philosopher, nay the first scholar of the church who explored the obscurities of astronomical and natural sciences. He was born at Nisibin in the last quarter of the seventh century, became a monk and was educated in the Monastery of Qenneshrin, where he also acquired that knowledge of Greek and Syriac language and literature and of the Persian language, which made him the goal of seekers of knowledge. He was one of the prominent scholars who was graduated from this famous school, in which he also spent his life teaching philosophy, theology and mathematics, besides the writings of all the Syrian scholars. He was most prominent in astronomy and even excelled the Greeks in this field.1 Many pupils studied under him, the most famous of whom were the Patriarch Athanasius II and Jacob of Edessa. In 638, Severus was consecrated a bishop of the city of Qenneshrin, or, as it was said, of his monastery. He died in 667 at an advanced age. He was assigned the twentieth of July (or according to another calendar the eleventh of September) as the festival day of his commemoration. In the latter calendar, he was called “Severus the Mathematician.”

From the writings of Severus, which cover the fields of theology, philosophy and mathematics, very few have come down to us.

Of his theological writings the following survive:

1.  a treatise on the weeks of Daniel;

2.  an extract on the date of the birth of Our Lord in flesh and in what Greek year he was born;

3.  two letters in seven pages to Sergius, abbot of the Monastery of Khanushia in Sinjar, containing a commentary on the two discourses of Gregory Nazianzen on the Son and the Holy Spirit. In these letters, the name of the author (Severus) was ascribed to his native home Nisibin, which misled Chabot, who thought they belonged to a bishop of Nisibin who was Severus’ namesake.2

His philosophical writings are:

4.  a short treatise on the Analytica Posteriora of Aristotle written in 638 of which only three pages remain;3

5.  extracts in three chapters from his treatise on Hermeneutics,

6.  a letter to his friend Jonas the periodeutes (visiting cleric), explaining some points in the Rhetorica of Aristotle;4

    1 Baumstark, p. 246.
    2 See the three folios in the Brit. Mus. MS. 14547, ninth century.
    3 Brit. Mus. MSS. 17156 and 14460. Also, the Chaldean Library in Mosul MS. 35, sixteenth century, and Cambridge MS. 3287, eighteenth century.
    4 Brit. Mus. MS. 17156, Cambridge MS. 2812, nineteenth century, Dayr al-Sayyida MS. 50. 

7.  a treatise he wrote for some of those who love knowledge, explaining some logical points which had been mentioned in his former letter to Jonas to whom he sent a copy of this treatise;

8.  a letter to the priest Ithalaha, who became a bishop of Nineveh on certain terms in the treatise, De Interpretatione and on arithmetic, surveying, astronomy and music, making the remark that he had written to him a year ago, explaining some canons of the saintly fathers and also praising him because he had sent him copies of the letters of Gregory and Basilius.1

Of his astronomical works we have:

9.  a magnificent treatise on the astrolabe in fifty-two pages, translated into French and published by Nau in 1899;2

10.  a treatise on the signs of the Zodiac, which he wrote in the year 659 or 660, of which only eighteen chapters remain. These chapters were published by Sachau in 1870.3 A few samples of these works exist in a manuscript at the British Museum, such as the habitable and inhabitable portions of the earth, the condition of those living in all its sphere—above and below the measurement of the heaven and the earth and the space between them—and whether the sun moves under or over the earth in the celestial sphere. To this treatise he added in the year 665 from nineteen to twenty-seven answers to astronomical, mathematical and cosmographical questions at the request of the periodeutes Basil of Cyprus.4 This is probably the same treatise which Bar Hebraeus alluded to in his book, Ascent of the Mind;

11.  a letter in eighteen pages addressed to the same Basil on the fourteenth of the lunar month of April 556, about fixing the exact date of Easter;5

    1 Brit. Mus. MS. 14660, ninth-tenth centuries, and Mosul MS. 35.
    2 Paris MS. 346 dated 1309 in the handwriting of the priest Yeshu` Kilo; Berlin MS. 186 in the handwriting of the metropolitan Moses of Tyre dated 1556. For the French translation of Sabukht’s treatise on the astrolabe see F. Nau, “Le traite sur l’astrolabe plan de Severe Sabokt,” Journal Asiatique IX serie, t. XIII, 1899: 56-101 and 238-303. (tr.)
    3 Sachau, Inedita Syriaca, 127-134.
    4 Brit. Mus. MS. 14538, tenth century, and Paris MS. 346.
    5 Berlin MS. 186. [The date 556 should be 665. (tr.)]

12.  three letters, also to Basil, on the science of history, contained in the British Museum manuscript;1

13.  he translated from the Persian into Syriac an abridged exposition of Aristotle’s Interpretatione which had been translated from the original Greek to Persian by Paul the Persian for King Khosrau I,2 to which the monk Severus added the fifth treatise of Aristotle on logic;

14. the translation of Ptolemy’s Tetrapillon on the composition of mathematical speech as is confirmed by an established historical tradition.3

Both Wright and Duval, quoting Assemani, who quoted al-Duwayhi, have erroneously ascribed to him a liturgy in the name of Severus of Qenneshrin, which, in fact, belongs to Severus, bishop of Samosata and abbot of Qenneshrin as has been already mentioned.4

    1 Brit. Mus. MS. 17156.
    2 Dayr al-Sayyida MS. 50.
    3 Paris MS. 346.
    4 Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature, p. 139, citing Assemani B. O., 2: 463. (tr.)
Share

Paulinus of Nola

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Paulinus of Nola (353-431) has never come to my attention hitherto.  He was a contemporary of St. Augustine and lived through the times of the fall of Rome.  His works consist of poems and letters.  The poems include anti-pagan material which must therefore be of value for late paganism.  His works were translated in the Ancient Christian Writers series by P. Walsh during the late 60’s and 70’s.

Rather to my surprise I can find no trace of any of his works online in English.  There must be few fathers of that period so under-represented!

Among the material sent to me about the bruma is this from carmen 14, v.13 (p. 46):

 ergo dies, tanto quae munere condidit alto 
 Felicem caelo, sacris sollemnibus ista est, 
 quae post solstitium, quo Christus corpore natus
 sole nouo gelidae mutauit tempora brumae
 atque salutiferum praestans mortalibus ortum 
 procedente die se cum decrescere noctes 
 iussit, ab hoc quae lux oritur uicesima nobis, 
 sidereum meriti signat Felicis honorem.

Linking the birth of Christ and the bruma, it would be interesting to know what it says.

UPDATE: Here it is, from the Walsh translation, p.77:

13. So the day which bestowed so great a gift by setting Felix in the heights of heaven is the day of our yearly ritual. It comes after the solstice, the time when Christ was born in the flesh and transformed the cold winter season with a new sun, when He granted men His birth that brings salvation, and ordered the nights to shorten and the daylight to grow with Himself. The twentieth day that dawns on us after the solstice marks the heavenly glory which Felix merited.

De la Cerda believed that solstitium only meant summer solstice, in the purest Latin.  But by the time of Paulinus this was clearly no longer so.  This identifies the day of Christmas with the solstice, solstitium (“after the solstice … the twentieth day” is the martyrdom of Felix, not Christmas).

UPDATE: A preview of the Walsh translation is here.

Share

The transmission of the Blessing of Isaac, Jacob and Moses by Hippolytus

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In the Patrologia Orientalis 27, fascicle 1-2, a text called The blessing of Jacob appears.   It is a commentary on Genesis 49.  This is given in Greek, but also in Armenian and Georgian.  A French translation is included.  The Greek text seems to have been discovered relatively recently, and contains glosses at some points, as the Armenian shows.  There is also a text called The blessing of Moses printed, which is extant only in Armenian and Georgian, with a couple of fragments of Greek only.

Share

Abu’l Barakat’s catalogue of patristic books is underway!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

This evening I received the first chunk of the English translation that I commissioned of the 13th century list of Christian books by the Arabic Christian writer Abu’l Barakat.  It’s all Greek fathers so far, starting with Clement of Rome and winding down to Cyril of Alexandria. 

The lists are fascinating, and cry out for cross-referencing against Quasten’s Patrology and Graf’s Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, which I think we will do.  This will help everyone work out what exists in Arabic and so is potentially worth investigating for the tradition of the text.

Wonderful news!

Share

The Hypotyposes (Outlines) of Clement of Alexandria

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Clement of Alexandria believed that “Cephas” was different from “Peter”. This information comes to us from Eusebius (Eccles Hist, 1.12.2).Here is the text:

They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote tothe Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. This is the account of Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, “When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face.”

The Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria is one of his lost works. It still existed in the 9th century, when Photius read it, but probably perished with so much else in the sack of Constantinople by the renegade army originally hired for the Fourth Crusade. Photius’ remarks are here, in the Bibliotheca, codex 109. (Hypotyposes = outlines) He isn’t very complimentary.

Read three volumes of the works of Clement, presbyter of Alexandria, entitled Outlines, The Miscellanies, The Tutor.

The Outlines contain a brief explanation and interpretation of certain passages in the Old and New Testaments. Although in some cases what he says appears orthodox, in others he indulges in impious and legendary fables. For he is of opinion that matter is eternal and that ideas are introduced by certain fixed conditions; he also reduces the Son to something created. He talks prodigious nonsense about the transmigration of souls and the existence of a number of worlds before Adam. He endeavours to show that Eve came from Adam, not as Holy Scripture tells us, but in an impious and shameful manner; he idly imagines that angels have connexion with women and beget children; that the Word was not incarnate, but only appeared so. He is further convicted of monstrous statements about two Words of the Father, the lesser of which appeared to mortals, or rather not even that one, for he writes : “The Son is called the Word, of the same name as” the Word of the Father, but this is not the Word that became flesh, nor even the Word of the Father, but a certain power of God, as it were an efflux from the Word itself, having become mind, pervaded the hearts of men.” All this he attempts to support by passages of Scripture. He talks much other blasphemous nonsense, either he or some one else under his name. These monstrous blasphemies are contained in eight books, in which he frequently discusses the same points and quotes passages from Scripture promiscuously and confusedly, like one possessed. The entire work includes notes on Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, St. Paul’s epistles, the Catholic epistles, and Ecclesiasticus. Clement was a pupil of Pantaenus, as he himself says. Let this suffice for the Outlines.

Codices 110 and 111 deal with the other two works.

Only fragments now exist of this commentary on the bible, which Eusebius tells us (HE 6.14.1) also included comments on the apocryphal works of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter. Most of the few fragments are in Eusebius. Others are in the commentary of ps.Oecumenius, and John Moschus Pratum Spirituale.  The Greek material can all be found in GCS 17, which is online somewhere, and translated here in the ANF 2.

There is also a Latin translation of a good chunk of it, which passes under the title Adumbrationes Clementi Alexandrini in epistolas canonicas. This was made in the days of Cassiodorus.  It exists in two manuscripts.  The first is in the public library of Laon, no. 96 (L).  This is a parchment quarto which dates from the 8-9th century. The adumbrationes form folios 1-9 of this manuscript, and is followed by a Latin version of the commentary of Didymus the Blind on the letter of James.  Various pages of the manuscript are disordered.

The other manuscript (M) is in Berlin, part of the Sir Thomas Phillips collection from Cheltenham, no. 1665.  This is a parchment codex of 184 pages, of the 13th century. The first 11 pages of the codex contain the adumbrationes, followed by a work of Didymus the Blind, Bede on Acts, Bede’s retraction on Acts, his tract on the canonical letters, and an Epistola ad Accam.  The manuscript has a note that it belonged to a monastery of “St. Mary of the mountain of God”.  It was in Paris in the library of the Jesuits, then passed into the Meerman library, where it was no. 443, and then was bought by Sir Thomas Phillips. 

There  may be passages from the text also in a manuscript in the Laurentian library in Florence, (Pluteu 17.17), a Latin catena on these letters of the bible from Bede, Clement, Didymus and Augustine. 

The text was first published by Margaret de la Bigne in 1575, in her Sacra bibliotheca sanctorum patrum, col. 625-634.  Nothing is said of the manuscript used.  This text was reprinted several times; J. Fell in 1683, Th. Jttig (1700), J. Potter (1715), R. Klotz (vol. 4, 1834), Chr. C. Jos. Bunsen (1854), and L. Dindorf (1869).

A critical edition was published by Zahn in Supplementum Clementinum, Forsuchungen zur Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur, III, pp. 64-103, which edits all the fragments; the critical edition of the adumbrationes is on p.79-93.  The editio princeps (P) and the Dindorf edition (D) supplement the two mss (see Zahn, p.10-16).

The comments in the text relate to 1 Peter and 1 John and 2 John.  An English translation of the adumbrationes is in the ANF 2, here.

Share

Ibn al-Tayyib, Commentary on the whole bible

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve had an email this morning asking me if I know of an English translation of a commentary on the four gospels by “ibn al-Tayyib”.  My first reaction is the same as yours — “who?”!

A look in Georg Graf’s Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur vol. 2, p. 160f reveals a Nestorian writer of that name.  Graf gives his name as `Abdullah ibn a-t-Taiyib, but I suspect it is the same man.  He lived and worked in Baghdad in the 11th century, as a physician, monk and priest.  In his day, he was an important man, known to the ruler of the city.  He wrote an introduction to Porphyry’s Isagogue, and did stuff with the works of Hippocrates and Galen.  He died in October 1043, and was buried in the church of Darta.  Sic transit gloria mundi – a great man, whose life is now just a few lines in an obscure handbook.

But he also wrote a commentary on the entire bible.  Graf describes this as the most extensive commentary on scripture in Arabic Christian literature.  It is extant in two manuscripts, Vatican arab. 37 (1291 AD) and Vatican arab. 36 (13/14th century).  A few more manuscripts contain parts of the work.  Graf lists no editions and no translations into any language of this monster text.

Graf wrote 50 years ago, so it is possible that work has been done since.  I’ve posted a note in the NASCAS forum asking if anyone knows of any.  It’s nice to peer into some neglected corners of scholarship like this. 

And I must remember to ask my correspondant how he knows of such a person and his work, and why he wants to know!

UPDATE: Sergey Minov writes to tell us that we’re probably out of luck.  It’s unpublished and untranslated.  But apparently it’s really interesting!

As far as I know no original texts or translations of al-Tayyib’s exegetical works has been published so far. It is a real pity, because, for example, it would contribute to our knowledge of Antiochene exegetical tradition. Thus, there are numerous (?) extracts from Theodore of Mopsuestia and its other representatives in his commentaries.

Here is what I’ve got on modern research on him:

  • Baarda, T., To the Roots of the Syriac Diatessaron Tradition (TA 25:1-3), Novum Testamentum 26 (1986), 1-25.
  • Cacouros, M., La division des biens dans le compendium d’étique par Abû Qurra et Ibn al-Tayyib et ses rapports avec la Grande Morale et le Florilège de Stobée, in: A. Hasnawi, A. Elamrani-Jamal and M. Aouad (eds.), Perspectives arabes et médiévales sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque. Actes du colloque de la SIHSPAI (Société international d’histoire des sciences et de la philosophie arabes et islamiques), Paris, 31 mars – 3 avril 1993 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 79; Leuven: Peeters / Institut du Monde Arabe: Paris, 1997), 289-314.
  • Caspar, R., Charfi, A., De Epalza, M., Khoury, A.T., Khoury, P., and Samir, S.K., Bibliographie du dialogue islamo-chrétien, Islamochristiana 1 (1975), 125-181; 2 (1976), 187-249; 3 (1977), 257-286.
  • Chahwan, A., Le commentaire de Psaumes 33-60 d’Ibn at-Tayib reflet de l’exegese syriaque orientale (Th.D. dissertation; Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1997).
  • Faultless, J., The Two Recensions of the Prologue to John in Ibn al-Tayyib’s Commentary on the Gospels, in: D.R. Thomas (ed.), Christians at the Heart of Islamic Rule: Church Life and Scholarship in ‘Abbasid Iraq (The History of Christian-Muslim Relations 1; Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2003), 177-198.
  • Féghali, P., Ibn At-Tayib et son commentaire sur la Genèse, Parole de l’Orient 16 (1990-91), 149-162.
  • Hill, J.H. (tr.), The Earliest Life of Christ Ever Compiled from the Four Gospels, Being the Diatessaron of Tatian (circ. A.D. 160) Literally Translated from the Arabic Version and containing the Four Gospels woven into One Story (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903).
  • Hoenerbach, W., and Spies, O. (eds.), Ibn at-Taiyib. Fiqh an-Nasrânîya, Das Recht der Christenheit. 4 vols (CSCO 161-162, 167-168, Arab. 16-19; Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1956-1957).
  • Kaufhold, H., Die Rechtssammlung des Gabriel von Basra und ihr Verhältnis zu den anderen juristischen Sammelwerken der Nestorianer (Münchener Universitätsschriften – Juristische Fakultät, Abhandlungen zur rechtswissenschaftlichen Grundlagenforschung 21; Berlin: J. Schweitzer, 1976).
  • Köbert, R., Ibn at-Taiyib’s Erklärung von Psalm 44, Biblica 43 (1962), 338-348.
  • Langermann, Y.T., Abu al-Faraj ibn al-Tayyib on Spirit and Soul, Le Muséon 122:1-2 (2009), 149-158.
  • Macomber, W.F., Newly Discovered Fragments of the Gospel Commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Le Muséon 81 (1968), 441-447.
  • Rosenthal, F., The Symbolism of the Tabula Cebetis according to Abû l-Faraj Ibn at-Tayyib, in: Recherches d’islamologie. Recueil d’articles offert à Georges C. Anawati et Louis Gardet par leurs collègues et amis (Bibliothèque philosophique de Louvain 26; Louvain: Peeters, 1977), 273-283.
  • Samir, S.K., Nécessité de la science: texte de ‘Abdallâh Ibn at-Tayyib (m. 1043), Parole de l’Orient 3 (1972), 241-259.
  • ———. Nécessité de l’exégèse scientifique. Texte de ‘Abdallâh Ibn at-Tayyib, Parole de l’Orient 5 (1974), 243-279.
  • ———. Le repentir et la pénitence chez ‘Abdallâh Ibn at-Tayyib (début du XIe siècle), in: Péché et Réconciliation hier et aujoud’hui (Patrimoine Syriaque, Actes du Colloque IV; Antélias, Liban: Centre d’Études et de Recherches Orientales, 1997), 176-204.
  • ———. Rôle des chrétiens dans la nahda abbasside en Irak et en Syrie (750-1050), Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 58 (2005), 541-572.
  • ———. La place d’Ibn-at-Tayyib dans la pensée arabe, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 58:3-4 (2006), 177-193.
  • Sepmeijer, F., Ibn al-Tayyib’s Commentary on Matthew 1-9:32-34, Parole de l’Orient 25 (2000), 557-564.
  • Stern, S.M., Ibn al-Tayyib’s Commentary on the Isagoge, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 19:3 (1957), 419-425.
  • Troupeau, G., Le Traité sur l’Unité et la Trinité de ‘Abd Allah Ibn al-Tayyib, Parole de l’Orient 2 (1971), 71-89.
  • ———. Le rôle des syriaques dans la transmission et l’exploitation du patrimoine philosophique et scientifique grec, Arabica 38:1 (1991), 1-10.
  • Zonta, M., Ibn al-Tayyib Zoologist and Hunayn ibn Ishaq’s Revision of Aristotle’s De Animalibus – New Evidence from the Hebrew Tradition, ARAM 3 (1991 [1993]), 235-247.

There was one final bibliographic item which wasn’t in Roman letters and wouldn’t paste!

UPDATE 2: I’ve written back to my correspondant, telling him this and suggesting he commission a translation and transcription.  At 10c per word of Arabic, it would probably only cost $2-3,000.  That’s nothing for an institution.  I’ve also suggested that, if he does, he put it online as public domain!

If only I had more money!  There is so much I could do.  In the mean time I rely on sales of my CD to help fund it all.

UPDATE 3: I was looking at that bibliography above, and noticed the reference to Hamlyn Hill’s 1903 translation of the Diatessaron from Arabic.   This has to be online, so I went and looked at it.  It turns out that ibn al-Tayyib translated the Diatessaron into Arabic!  His name appears in the colophon:

THE Gospel is concluded, which Tatian compiled out of the four Gospels of the four holy apostles the blessed evangelists, on whom be peace, and which he named Diatessaron, that is, That which is composed of four. The excellent and learned presbyter, Abu-l-Faraj Abdullah Ibn-at-Tayyib, with whom may God be pleased, translated it from Syriac into Arabic, from a copy written by the hand of Gubasi ibn Alt Al-mutayyib, a disciple of Hunain ibn Ishak, on both of whom may God have mercy. Amen.

Hill adds:

Akerblad pointed out that MS. XIV. was evidently a translation from Syriac, as the Arabic of it was full of Syriac idioms. The Borgian MS., on the other hand, is expressly stated, in a notice prefixed to the text, and also in another notice at the conclusion of it, to have been translated from Syriac into Arabic by Abu-1-Faraj Abdullah Ibn-at-Tib. Ciasca, in his Preface, has collected several allusions to this Abdulla Ben-attib, as he is called, from which it appears that he was a celebrated Nestorian monk, born in Assyria, and was the author of several books. He died A.D. 1043, so that  we may conclude that he translated the Diatessaron from Syriac into Arabic early in the eleventh century. The use of the Arabic language was made compulsory in Syria : it is not surprising, therefore, that the two MSS., which now survive, of a Syriac work once used by the Syrian Churches, should both be in Arabic.

[CIASCA, . . Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniae,  Arabice, etc., Rome, 1888. ]

UPDATE 3.  Of course I suppose one reason why someone would come to me about this man is that I commissioned and placed online here a translation of one of his works…  I had completely forgotten, I admit; only a google search revealed it.  Ahem.

A book Arabic logic: Ibn al-Tayyib on Porphyry’s “Eisagoge” by Kwame Gyeke (1979) seems to be readily available from online booksellers.  244 pages, and in English.  I wish it was online freely!

It looks as if ibn al-Tayyib commented on Aristotle’s Organon as well.  He was also interested in zoology and botany, according to the snippets I have found.  It is a pity that the articles above are inaccessible to me!

From this link I get this:

Ibn al-Tayyib (Arabic Christian scholar, Baghdad, d. 1043): “The curse of Noah affected the posterity of Canaan who were killed by Joshua son of Nun. At the moment of the curse, Canaan’s body became black and the blackness spread out among them.”

This is referenced:

Joannes C. J. Sanders, Commentaire sur la Genèse, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 274-275, Scriptores Arabici 24-25 (Louvain, 1967), 1:56 (text), 2:52-55 (translation).

I wonder if this is a translation of part of the commentary on Genesis?  It certainly looks like it!  The proper title is “Commentaire sur la Genèse / Ibn aṭ-Ṭaiyib”.  A German version of his commentary on the Categories of Aristotle also seems to exist.  A version of Proclus’ commentary on the Pythagorean Golden Verses does exist in English, translated by J. Linley (1984).

UPDATE: Some more bibliography from Aaron M. Butts in NASCAS, which I had overlooked:

“The following bibliography can be added to that provided by Sergey:

  • T. Baarda, ‘The Author of the Arabic Diatessaron’, in
    Miscellanea Neotestamentica, ed. T. Baarda, A. F. J. Klijn, W.C. van Unnik, vol. 1 (1978), 61-103. (reprinted in T. Baarda, Early Transmission of Words of Jesus [1983], 207-249)
  • C. Ferrari, Die Kategorienkommentar von Abu l-Farag ‘Abdallah ibn at-Tayyib. Text und Untersuchungen (2006).
  • K. Gyekye, Ibn al-Tayyib’sCommentary on Porphyry’s Eisagoge. Arabic text edited with introduction and a glossary of Greek-Arabic logical terms (1975).
  • idem, Arabic Logic. Ibn al-Tayyib’s Commentary on Porphyry’s Eisagoge (1979).
  • M. Kellermann, Ein pseudoaristotelischer Traktat über die Tugend (Ph.D. diss., Friedrich-Alexander-Universität; 1965).
  • ‘Ali Husayn al-Jabiri et al., al-Sharh al-kabir li-maqulat Aristu (2002).
  • Y. Manquriyus, Tafsir al-mashriqi (1908-10).
  • Y. Manquriyus and H. Jirjis, al-Rawd al-nadir fi tafsir al-mazamir (1902).
  • J. C. J. Sanders, Commentaire sur la Genèse (CSCO 274-275; 1967).
  • J. C. J. Sanders, Inleiding op het Genesiskommentaar van de Nestoriaan Ibn at-Taiyib (1963).
  • P. P. Sbath, Vingt traités philosophiques et apologétiques d’auteurs arabes chrétiens du IXe au XIXe siècles (1929), 179-180.
  • G. Troupeau, ‘Le traité sur l’union de ‘Abd Allāh Ibn at-Tayyib’, ParOr 8 (1977-8), 141-150.
  • idem, ‘Le traité sur les hypostases et la substance de ‘Abd Allah Ibn al-Tayyib’, Orientalia Hispanica, ed. J. M. Barral (1974), 640-644.
  • H. Z. Ülken, Ibn Sina Risâleleri (1953), vol. 1, 57-65.
  • J. Vernet, ‘Ibn al-Tayyib’, EI2, vol. 3, 955.

It should be noted that Sanders has provided an edition (with FT) of Ibn al-Tayyib’s commentary on Genesis.”

John Lamoreaux was “currently transcribing the Arabic of the CSCO edition” (of Sanders version of Genesis).

Please also refer to the comments for extensive additional bibliography.

Share

Origen update

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I commissioned a translation of Origen’s fourteen homilies on Ezekiel earlier this year.  Today I had what must be very nearly the final versions of homilies 11-14, including translations of relevant Greek fragments from the catenas.  This means that the job is nearly done.  It also means, less pleasantly, that I need to start thinking about how to market these, in order to recover at least some of the money, so that I can then put them online.

The sermons are lost in the original Greek; what we are translating into English for the first time is St. Jerome’s Latin translation of them.  We’re using the GCS critical text.  In the Patrologia Graeca is a pre-critical version.  But also present is an excerpt from Origen’s Commentary on Ezechiel — also mostly lost — which is about a page in length.  We’ll do that as well.

In Migne there is also a collection of Selecta in Ezechielem.  These are fragments of Origen’s original Greek text, found mixed with excerpts from other authors in the medieval Greek commentaries or catenae.  The labelling of which father contributed which excerpt can be pretty erratic in the catenas, so not all his material labelled “Origen” is probably authentic.  Migne prints what there is, tho.

Translation of the Selecta has begun, and the fragments on chapters 1-3 of Ezekiel have been completed.  Interestingly the catena fragments are much more readable than Origen at full length.  Probably the brevity of the chunks has something to do with this, but I think people will find them interesting.  Here’s one on chapter 1, verse 3.  Origen writes:

“in the land of the Chaldaeans.”  “Chaldaean” is translated as “all work.” And these [i.e., Chaldaeans] are astrologers, who talk about fate, and are completely tied to perceptible things, and work hard among them, making them into gods.  The “land of the Chaldaeans” is the worst position and attitude.  Indeed, the Chaldaeans represent a symbol of those who are arrogant in impiety.

I smiled when I read this, since later Syriac fathers would identify with the Chaldaeans.  I think we may be sure that they never saw this comment when doing so!

Share

Update on Abu’l Barakat

Posted on by Roger Pearse

There is a 13th century list of works that exist in Arabic Christian literature by a certain Abu’l Barakat.  It was published long ago by Riedel, with a German translation, but has never found an English translator.

Such a list is a “road-map” of the unexplored land, a guide to the wayfarer as to what might exist.  It includes works translated into Arabic, such a material by the Cappadocian fathers, plus original compositions.  The translations may be interesting — because material does exist in Arabic now lost in Greek and Syriac.  The original compositions should help us to get an idea of what there is in the language.

I commissioned a translation of this back in the summer, which I intend to give away online.  It’s been delayed because the same translator was working for me on the Syriac fragments of Eusebius.  But today I heard back.

Riedel is about 25 pages, so the idea is that we’ll do it in 5-page chunks.  That’s less intimidating for him, and easier on my pocket!

Share

Origen and “Buddhism in Britain”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

An email has reached me, on an interesting topic:

I’m trying to establish the authenticity or inauthenticity of a purported quote attributed to Origen.  A brief English translation purportedly of Origen appears frequently in atheist polemic and on wikipedia. It reads as follows:

“The island (Britain) has long been predisposed to it (Christianity) through the doctrines of the Druids and Buddhists, who had already inculcated the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead”.

That’s it. Very short.  The underlying source of this purported quote is always the same, page 42 of ‘Buddhism in pre-Christian Britain’ by Donald A. Mackenzie, Blackie and Son Ltd, 1928. This page 42 can be viewed online here. MacKenzie provided no footnote. He said it was from Origen’s Commentary on Ezekiel, but did not cite a paragraph, nor even what edition he consulted.

The ‘quote’ doesn’t have the ring of truth to me, so I’ll be surprised if it is authentically Origen. Are you in a position to comment on the authenticity or otherwise of the purported quote?

I’d be suspicious too!  But the only way to find out is to go and look.

Origen did compose a Commentary on Ezechiel, in 25 books.  But it is lost, and only catena fragments survive.

What about the Homilies on Ezechiel?  I did a search for “Britain” on the English translation of these.  The word appears only in Homily 4, chapter 1:

For when, before the arrival of Christ, did the island of Britain agree together in the worship of the one God?  When did the land of the Moors [do so]?  When [did] the whole world at once [do so]?  Now, however, by virtue of the Churches that occupy the borders of the world, the whole earth shouts with joy to the God of Israel and is capable of [performing] good [actions] according to its boundaries.

So this actually states that the island of Britain was NOT worshipping a single God before the Christians.  So… back to the Commentary.  Is it in a catena fragment, I wonder?  In 1928, I would guess that the author could only be using Migne.

In PG13, there are 60 columns of Selecta in Ezechielem, col. 767 onwards.  These undoubtedly are catena fragments, from whatever works on Ezechiel the catenist used.  I intend to get these translated, but we’re not there yet.  So… a look through the Latin side for the word “Britannia”.  And… it doesn’t seem to be there.  If anyone else wants to look, the PG13 is online here.

In the same volume, fragments from the Commentary start at col. 663.  They are VERY brief.  They do not contain it either.

So … the “quote” and “reference” look like bunk.  The book is plainly not an educated one, so the author has copied from somewhere else.  But where?

There is a JSTOR article which mentions the subject, but I can’t access it.  Can anyone?  It’s here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/498371

Searching for “Origen Britain”, I come across this 1662 text which refers to a remark in Origen about a passage in Luke 1, quoted in Homilies on Luke 6, III, 939. ed. Huet. Virtus domini salvatoris et cum his est, qui ab orbe nostro in Britannia dividuntur — The power of God our Saviour is also with those who in Britain are divided from our world.  Never trust a quote: a look at this text would be a good idea, I’m sure. These too are in PG13, col. 1801 for the homilies, and 1901 for the fragments.  Homily 6 starts in col. 1813.  And there is the quote, in col. 1816C; and the sentence continues, but no more mention of Britain.

Now into Google books.  And I come across a reference to the same idea, here (Lynn Bridgers, The American Religious Experience, 2006, p. 223).  It is that Origen tells of Buddhist missionaries in Britain.  No reference, of course!

The Dictionary of Christian Biography p.340 talks about references to Buddha in patristic texts; but no Origen on Britain.  Origen does talk about two types of Indian philosopher in Contra Celsum, somewhere.  I find this in book 1, chapter 16:

It seems, then, to be not from a love of truth, but from a spirit of hatred, that Celsus makes these statements, his object being to asperse the origin of Christianity, which is connected with Judaism. Nay, he styles the Galactophagi of Homer, and the Druids of the Gauls, and the Getae, most learned and ancient tribes, on account of the resemblance between their traditions and those of the Jews, although I know not whether any of their histories survive; but the Hebrews alone, as far as in him lies, he deprives of the honour both of antiquity and learning.

So he compares various people to the Jews; from this we presume monotheism?  Another source here says that Origen talks about Druids as monotheistic.  No reference again.

Ronald Hutton, Blood and Mistletoe: the history of the druids in Britain, p. 59 is revealing.

The other major publication of the period to mention Druids was conceived in the year in which the first edition of the Holinshed history was published; and represented another example of the influence of continental scholarship on British attitudes. In this case the scholarship concerned was embodied in the great Flemish geographer Abraham Ortelius, who visited England in 1577. He stayed with a young Westminster schoolmaster, William Camden, who was acquiring a reputation for his study of the physical remains of the British past. Ortelius was already interested in Druids, having corresponded with the Welsh historian Humphrey Llwyd over the correct identification of the island of Mona. He persuaded Camden to write a book on British antiquities which would give European scholars an enhanced sense of his nation’s importance within the ancient and early medieval worlds.33 The result was published, in Latin, in 1586, under the title of Britannia. As a work produced as a contribution to international scholarship, according to the highest standards of research, it did not make any grand claims for the Druids, or associate them with rulers such as Druiyus, Bardus and Albion. Instead it alluded briefly to them as practitioners of a heathen religion, relying firmly on ancient Roman sources.34

As the years passed, and the book went through successive, and ever enlarged, editions, Camden’s attitude to them changed. He still confined his authorities to the classical sources that represented ‘genuine’ history, but quoted these at greater length and more favourably to the Druids. The process culminated in 1610, when the final and biggest version of the book was translated into English. It had turned, after all, into a patriotic work intended primarily for a domestic market. The ancient sources on which he relied for information on Druids, especially Caesar, were quoted at length and lightly trimmed to highlight the passages that dealt with the Druids’ learning and social importance. Most impressive, he quoted two early Christian writers, Tertullian and Origen, as saying that they had predisposed the British to receive the Christian faith, by acknowledging only one god.35 Here was the claim that German and French writers had been making for them over the past hundred years, apparently anchored in real ancient texts and contextualized specifically in the Druidic homeland of Britain.

Actually, Camden only had one witness, because Tertullian merely boasted that by his time, under the later Roman Empire, even some of the (remote) British had adopted Christianity. It was Origen who apparently provided the testimony, and he did not mention Druids as such; rather, as Camden read him, he stated that the British had believed in a single god before the coming of Christ, and it could be reasonably inferred from this that the Druids had been responsible for that belief. Camden had, however, made a classic mistranslation. He had not realized that Origen had been posing a rhetorical question: that of whether, before the coming of Christ, peoples as marginal as the British and the Berbers had believed in one deity. The implied answer was clearly negative, allowing Origen to proceed to his point, which was that, by his time in the third century, Christianity had carried that message even to these far-flung regions.36 Camden’s knowledge of Greek, or that of his informant, had not been up to the understanding of the passage. Later in the seventeenth century other scholars spotted the mistake,37 but it was embedded in a work of huge popularity and influence, justly respected for the generally high quality of its erudition and research.

The preview on Google books does not allow me to check the references; but here, clearly, is the source of the story; and it is a bad story.

Can anyone access Blood and Mistletoe?  And what an excellent source this book is!

Update (7th May 2021): A kind reader has supplied me with the pages from Blood and Mistletoe, and I can now obtain the references.  These are on p.431:

33. Stuart Piggott, ‘William Camden and the “Britannia” ’, Proceedings of the British Academy 37 (1951), 199–217.
34. William Camden, Britannia (London, 1586), 11.
35. Camden, Britannia, trans. Philemon Holland (London, 1610), 4, 12–14, 68, 149.
36. Origen, Homiliae in Ezechielem, ed. Marcel Borrett (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1989), No. IV, ch. 1, lines 154–6.
37. Such as Selden (for whom see below) and Edward Stillingfleet, Originae britannicae (London, 1685), 5.

Camden’s 1610 English version appeared under the title of: Britain, or a Chorographicall Description of the most flourishing Kingdomes, England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the Ilands adjoyning, out of the depth of Antiquitie.  It is not that easy to find online.  A transcription here gives us the following quote:

But to this purpose maketh especially that which erewhile I alleged out of Tertullian, as also that which Origen recordeth how the Britans with one consent embraced the Faith, and made way themselves unto God by meanes of the Druidae, who alwaies did beat upon this article of beleefe, that there was but one God. And verily of great moment and importance is that with me, that Gildas, after he had mentioned the rebellion of Boodicia and treated of the revenge thereof,…

The Origen quote is in the Sources Chrétiennes 352, p.162-5.  From this it can be found on p.130 f. of the excellent 2014 text and translation by Mischa Hooker of Origen: Homilies on Ezekiel, which is online at Archive.org here.  From homily 4, chapter 6:

Confitentur et miserabiles Iudaei haec de Christi praesentia praedicari, sed stulte ignorant personam, cum videant impleta quae dicta sunt. Quando enim terra Britanniae ante adventum Christi in unius Dei consensit religionem, quando terra Maurorum, quando totus semel orbis? Nunc vero propter Ecclesias, quae mundi limites tenent, universa terra cum laetitia clamat ad Deum Istrahel et capax est bonorum secundum fines suos.

Even the miserable Jews admit that these things are proclaimed concerning the presence of the Christ, but they foolishly disregard his person, although they see that what was said has been fulfilled. For when, before the arrival of Christ, did the land of Britain agree together in the worship of the one God? When did the land of the Moors do so? When did the whole world at once do so? Now, however, by virtue of the churches that occupy the borders of the world, the whole earth shouts with joy to the God of Israel and is capable of performing good actions according to its boundaries.

And this, of course, is the same quotation that we started with, showing that Britain did NOT worship one god until the Christians came.

Share

All the PDF’s for the Patrologia Graeca online

Posted on by Roger Pearse

After collecting a set of links to all the volumes of the PL online, Rod Letchford has done the same for the volumes of the Patrologia Graeca which are online:

http://cyprianproject.info/PG.htm

This again is fantastically useful, considering how awkward it can be to find particular volumes.  Thanks Rod!

Share