Eusebius update

I had a review of the manuscript today with David G. D. Miller, the principal translator.  This made me realise that there is more to do to it than I had realised!    It’s largely small stuff, but it needs to be done.

A couple of issues have emerged.  Firstly it looks as if some of the “corrections” of Greek that I had done are not right.  This means going back and revisiting  them all.  Secondly a division is emerging in the footnotes between those which are concerned with the text and those concerned with other points.  The idea is that the former will sit on the pages of the original language.  This will involve some rework, unfortunately.

UPDATE: After some effort, it looks as if I was panicking unnecessarily.  The corrections are nearly all just, and some of them highlight unresolved issues.  Phew!

Share

Eusebius update

I have now discovered a typesetting firm online who look like exactly the people I need to deal with.  They understand the “Sources Chretiennes” layout, with facing Greek and translation.  They understand oriental languages.  They’re called Atelier Fluxus Virus.  So … I have written to them this evening asking how to do business with them.  Let’s hope they don’t mind hand-holding me a bit!

I’d been asking around, but not getting very far.  Many thanks, tho, to “John” who suggested googling on “Greek typesetting”.  That gave me the company above.

Share

English translation of book 15 of John bar Penkaye now online

If we are going to get a BBC TV series on early Islam which mentions John bar Penkaye, there may be an opportunity to collect some interested people for Syriac studies.  John bar Penkaye is a non-Islamic witness to the first century of Moslem rule in the middle east, you see.  He was a Nestorian monk of that period.

For this reason (and because it was too hot to sleep last night!) I’ve taken Mingana’s translation into French of book 15 of the his history, the Rish Melle and run it across into English, with the aid of Google translator.  I must say that the latter has improved yet again.  Who would have thought that accurate translation was possible merely by an adaptation of a search engine to find the same words in two different languages?

Of course the translation has no scholarly value.  The academic will go to Sebastian Brock’s version of about 66% of the book.   But it might be useful to the general reader with no French and no access to Sebastian’s version. Dr Brock has been enormously generous with his time and efforts to promote access to Syriac literature, but his work suffers from the curse of the pre-internet age, that most of it is offline.

I’ve compared the result to Sebastian Brock’s translation, and it didn’t seem too unsound.  I also smartened it up in a few places or added extra footnotes.  The result is here:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/john_bar_penkaye_history_15_trans.htm

I’ve also put a link in the Wikipedia article on John bar Penkaye to it.  I’ve also written a preface, aimed at that audience, which is here:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/john_bar_penkaye_history_00_eintro.htm

I’ve tried to presume no knowledge of Syriac studies.  If anyone has suggestions for improvements to either, particularly to the intro that might help promote Syriac studies, do post them in the comments or email them to me.

Share

Should we blame our sins for plague? Or blame God for not preventing it?

The Ris melle or Brief world history of the East Syriac (Nestorian) monk John bar Penkaye was written ca. 690 AD.  It contains in memre (=chapter or book) 15 a harrowing description of the famine and plague of 686-7.  It describes the bodies left unburied, people fleeing to the mountains and then being robbed there by bandits, and many other details.

John attributes all these misfortunes to the sinfulness of the church.  The latter he describes graphically. 

It is quite tempting to see this as medieval superstition.  God is the ultimate author of all, true; but to say this without qualification is to omit a substantial portion of the truth.  God made the world in which we live; but the process contained many more elements than God snapping his fingers.  The world contains both you and me.  God is responsible for this, in a way; but my parents might have something to do with it also.  Any account of my origins that mentions God but does not mention my parents would be more than a little misleading. 

Similarly the world contains disease, and no doubt this is a consequence of the Fall.  But that is not to deny that poor sanitation may be a more immediate cause.

Then John goes on:

Those who were alive, wandered in the mountains, like sheep without a shepherd. They wanted thereby to avoid the plague, which continued like a harvester, using dogs and wild beasts to gather them like sheaves, and (what was more distressing) they were constantly hounded by thieves to deprive them of everything and keep them away from their hideouts.

In this way, they were stripped of everything and as naked, and yet they did not think that it was impossible to escape God without repentance and without returning to him, the heart filled with repentance. They beat harshly any that reminded them of this and told him: “Go away from here; for we know that flight is much more beneficial than prayer; we have already repented, but we have not been helped, we can’t even do that any more.”

Men were reduced to despair because of their many sins; such pain came down upon them, and they did not repent at all…

My first impression, on reading this passage, was to sympathise with the fugitives.  “We’ve tried repenting, and the plague did not go away, so what’s the point?”  Indeed faced with such a disaster, some superstitious cleric admonishing them that it is all their own fault, and that they should ‘repent’, rather than helping them in practical terms, sounds like the very epitome of priest-craft, of the kind of monkish superstition that we are all taught to abhor.  Would that “repentance” involve money for church funds, we would naturally ask next.

But then I thought about this some more.  I can’t quite imagine the state of mind that says, “I’m going to try to repent to make the plague go away.”  What is that about?  And “I don’t believe in God, then, because I did repent and the plague did not go away.”  There’s something odd here.

There is always a temptation for the clergyman in a superstitious age to make Christianity seem like theurgy — a set of rituals designed to invoke a greater power in order to obtain material benefits.  This kind of “religion” is what paganism was, and in a way is more akin to an atomic power plant than a church.  Doing this and that will make the sun come up, reasoned the pagans.  Pray and the Lord — whoever he may be — will bless your lawsuit.

An clergyman, faced by an ignorant populace that cannot understand any appeal to anything but the most elementary benefit, may find himself preaching thus.  I know nothing about what is called “Prosperity theology”, but it is attacked in terms that suggest its foes believe that it is a superstition of just this kind.

We can see, from John’s own account, that the tendency to attribute every misfortune to lack of praying was definitely present in the Nestorian clergy.  He more or less writes as if he takes this view himself, although the odd phrase suggests that he is well aware of the limits of such a position.

Because … this is not the Christian view.  “Go to church and God will make sure nothing bad happens” is not a Christian view.  The life of St. Paul by itself is a refutation of this.  The world is a nasty place.  Bad things happen all the time, mostly to the better sort.  A scumbag Prime Minister triumphs, and marches off, loaded with honours and riches, while a humble gospel preacher is held in a cell for seven hours, fingerprinted and his DNA taken, because an agent provocateur demanded to know whether he endorsed sodomy or not.  This is life.  It has always been thus, and always will.  To the strong the spoils; to the weak… well, the Romans had a saying which epitomised their culture.  Vae victis! or “Stuff the losers”.

Those who have come to know Christ, however, have discovered that this picture of the world is not all true.  They have discovered that Christ is out there; that there really is someone who can help.  It’s not like discovering you’ve won the lottery.  Misfortunes do not go away, or diminish, but the reverse.  But they find that the Lord is there to help them along the road.  That is the Christian way, and  it is a  million miles away from the kind of complacent journalism — we’ve all seen it — that pretends with a snicker to ask someone accustomed to a life of comfort, who has somehow stubbed their toe, “Has this caused you to lose your faith?” 

So I find myself much less sympathetic to the victims after this.  To them, “God” was just a tool to get what they wanted.  Repentance they did need.  They did need God, and John — improbable as it seems, on first sight — was right to make this point.

Of course they also needed medical care.  They needed good sanitation, which good government could provide, and proper law and order, which a good government should provide, and many other things.

It’s a warning that we must not be led astray by our instincts.  Let’s look carefully, before we condemn.

Share

The exegesis of Polychronius

It looks as if the Lord is going to answer my prayer for another contract rather sooner than I had expected.  If so, I shall  have money once more, and one of the items on the slate for translation is the remains of the commentary on Daniel by Polychronius.

“Who he?” I hear you cry.  Andrew Eastbourne has drawn my attention to a review in the 1880 Dublin Review, 3rd series, volume 3, p.535-6 of a book by old Bardenhewer on just this author.  The review is short and so I post it here.

Polychronius, Bruder Theodor’s von Mopsuestia und Bischof von Apamea. Ein Beitrag eur Geschichte der Exegese. Von Dr. Otto Bardenhewer. Freiburg. 1879. (Polychronius, brother of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Bishop of Apamea. A Study on the History of Exegesis. By Dr. Otto Bardenhewer. Friburg. 1879.)

DR. BARDENHEWER, a young professor of the University of Munich, draws attention to one of the greatest ornaments of the school of Antioch. His book contains an account of the life and works of Polychronius, his views on canon and inspiration, and his hermeneutic principles, to which is added a translation and explanation of some portions of his commentaries.

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus,[1] praises Polychronius as a successful ruler of his diocese of Apamea, and as a man of graceful eloquence and virtuous life. This is about all that is known of his life with any degree of certainty. According to Cardinal Mai,[2] Polychronius seems to have written commentaries on almost the whole of the Old Testament. There are, however, only fragments of them preserved, and these chiefly belong to his commentaries on Job, Daniel, and Ezechiel.

Polychronius (says Dr. Bardenhewer, p. 5) has happily avoided the extravagances of his brother Theodore, though not quite all his faults. In real exegetical accuracy and conscientiousness he has surpassed all Antiochean interpreters; in knowledge of history and languages not one amongst them wasjequal to him, nor has any one entered with such love and keen understanding into the depth of the Biblical text, nor made such correct allowances for actual circumstances.

Of all his works, the best preserved are his very valuable scholia on the book of Daniel (published by Mai, l. c. P. ii. pp. 105-160). It is strange that he, like S. Ephrem, explains Daniel’s prophecy of the four empires to mean, besides the Babylonian, Median, and Persian, the Macedonian (and not the Roman) empire. But he believed in the canonicity of all the deutero-canonical pieces of Daniel, perhaps with the exception of the Hymn of the Three Children in the fiery furnace. Bardenhewer gives us (pp. 63-65) some arguments for his opinion that Polychronius really denied the canonicity of Dan. iii. 25-90, Vulg. They rest on the passage : ” This hymn is not found in the Hebrew and Syriac text. It is said to have been afterwards added by some one, and founded upon what is narrated in the book. I shall, therefore, abstain from explaining this part, in order to keep exclusively to the interpretation of the book.” Granted, that Polychronius has written these words; but they only mention the doubts of others as a reason why Polychronius did not interpret the hymn.

It is clear from Dr. Bardenhewer’s book that Polychronius is worthy of the greatest consideration. Dr. Bardenhewer is well able to appreciate him, and shows a well-trained judgment in handling critical questions, and a great taste for patristic and exegetical studies.

May the author continue to encourage, and to facilitate the study of the Fathers, and the interpretation of the Scriptures, by works similar to the one mentioned here.

1 Eccl Hist., v. 40. 
2 Scriptorum veterum nova collectio. Tom. I. Romae, 1825, praef. p. xxxl.

I must say that I hope we manage to go ahead with this.  It seems clear that Polychronius has interesting things to tell us!

Share

More on Eusebius on the Psalms

Alex Poulos is starting to translate portions of the commentary of Eusebius on the Psalms.  Catch the English and the Greek here.

Alex modestly deprecates his work, but frankly everyone seems scared to translate stuff from this huge work.  So whatever he does, however he does it, he’s a pioneer in an unexplored land.  Well done!

Share

The dialogue of a Montanist with an Orthodox

In my last post, I mentioned the existence of this mysterious Dialogue of a Montanist with an Orthodox (Dialogus Montanistae et Orthodoxi).  Thanks to Jesus de Prado, I’ve been able to access the text. 

As far as I can tell, no English translation exists.  But I find that the Dialog was edited with an Italian translation by Anna Maria Berruto Martone, Dialogo di un montanista con un ortodosso, Biblioteca patristica 34, EDB, Bologna 1999.  Interestingly no copy seems to be listed in COPAC, but then Italian editions are generally poorly represented in UK libraries.  Fortunately a copy is available on the web and I have ordered one.

The text was first edited by G. Ficker as Widerlegung eines Montanisten in ZKG 26 (1905), p.447-63.  This is online.  The Greek text fills some eight pages, which isn’t a lot.  I find that the text is also known as the Dialexis Montanistae et Orthodoxi.  It’s CPG 2572, I believe.

There seems to be a French edition and translation: Pierre de Labriolle, DIDYME L’AVEUGLE, “Dialexis Montanistae et orthodoxi” (introduction, traduction française et notes), although I can find no more details of it than that.  Is it possible that it formed part of his Les sources de l’histoire du Montanisme (1913)?   Hum.

So… more searching to do!

UPDATE: I had second thoughts and cancelled the order for the Italian edition.  I can’t believe that no translation exists of this already.

UPDATE: And I was right to be cautious.  It looks as if it exists in English in Heine, The Montanist Oracles, 1989, text from Ficker, plus English translation pp.112-27.  See the preview here.

Share

Eusebius update

I need to get the Eusebius book into PDF form ready for printing.  I’ve had some emails from a chap who is willing to help with the final editing.  I’ve also written today to another chap who knows about setting up the book in Adobe Indesign for layout etc.  One issue is how I arrange for Greek to face English; and how do we do page numbers and indexes and things?

Share

Eusebius on Psalm 51 (52) uploaded in English

A while back Andrew Eastbourne translated a portion of the Commentary on the Psalms by Eusebius of Caesarea (CPG 3467), starting at psalm 51.  The remains of the commentary on the first 50 psalms are recovered from catenas, but a manuscript of the complete text of the next 50 survives in Paris, so this was a good place to start.

I didn’t actually commission this, but it’s floated around since.  Rather than see it lost, I’ve stumped up for it, and released it into the public domain.  The word .doc file is on Archive.org, here.  You can get the same file from this blog here: Eusebius-Comm-in-Ps-51.  And I will turn it into HTML and add it to the Fathers collection this evening (or this weekend).

I hope it’s useful.  If people would like to see more psalms, let me know.

UPDATE: Html version here.  PDF version here: Eusebius-Comm-in-Ps-51.

Share

Montfaucon on Eusebius’ Commentary on the Psalms

Volume 23 of the Patrologia Graeca contains the start of Eusebius’ monster commentary on the Psalms.  At the start of it is a preface, presumably by Bernard de Montfaucon, the 18th century Benedictine scholar.  It’s the size of a small book itself!

It would be interesting to know whether Eusebius takes a literal or allegorical approach in this work.  He was very much a disciple of Origen, whose enthusiasm for the allegorical method led him to the curious statement that the literal meaning of some passages of scripture is of no importance.  But he was also his own man.

I had wondered about commissioning a translation of the preface; but not at that length!

Share