Translations at Luke J. Stevens

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Luke J. Stevens is an independent researcher who is publishing interesting material in the JTS, JECS and other significant journals.  Thankfully this is all accessible through his personal website, and also at Academia.

But even better than this, he has made accessible some draft translations of some unusual patristic texts.  (I’ve added CPL numbers where I could find them)

The Dionysius bar Salibi is from the CSCO Latin translation rather than direct from the Syriac, but none the worse for that.

Everyone should do this with their draft translations.  Grab them while they’re hot!

Did Pierius sacrifice?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The Acts of St Phileas record the events of 305 AD during the Great Persecution under Diocletian.  An ancient Latin translation exists, but in the 20th century two Greek versions of the Acts were discovered.  These  are in the Bodmer papyrus 20 (= Bo), and a different version in the Chester Beatty papyrus 15 (= Be).

The Bodmer version Bo begins as follows.  The translation us by H. Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (1972), pp. 330-1:

1. The defence speech of Phileas, bishop of Thmuis and ruler of Alexandria, when he appeared for the fifth time in court and was thenceforth consummated.

Now at the time of his first defence, after many insults on the part of the prefect, much disturbance, and rackings by the legionaries even beyond the fourth peg, he was cast [into prison? ] at Thmuis for two days. Then going about in chains and with bare feet . . . he came to Alexandria and was cast into prison…

2. Though insulted and beaten, he did not flinch. Similarly at his third and fourth appearances, after many insults and blows, Phileas was told: ‘You have killed many men by not sacrificing. Pierius saved many by submitting.’ (Πιέριος πολλοὺς ἔσωσεν ὑποταγείς.)

Summoned for a fifth time, together with the clergy who were with him to the number of twenty, Phileas was asked by the prefect: ‘Can you now be reasonable?’

Phileas answered: ‘I am always reasonable, and I exercise myself in good sense.’

‘Sacrifice to the gods,’ said the prefect.

‘I will not,’ said Phileas.

Culcianus said: ‘Why? .. .’

Now Jerome tells us of a famous biblical scholar of the name of Pierius in  his De Viris Illustribus c.76:

Pierius, presbyter of the church at Alexandria in the reign of Carus and Diocletian, at the time when Theonas ruled as bishop in the same church, taught the people with great success and attained such elegance of language and published so many treatises on all sorts of subjects (which are still extant) that he was called Origen Junior. He was remarkable for his self-discipline, devoted to voluntary poverty, and thoroughly acquainted with the dialectic art. After the persecution, he passed the rest of his life at Rome. There is extant a long treatise of his, On the prophet Hosea which from internal evidence appears to have been delivered on the vigil of Passover.

Eusebius in his Church History book 7 c. 32 mentions him:

Among those nearest our times, we have known Pierius, of the presbyters in Alexandria, and Meletius, bishop of the churches in Pontus, – rarest of men. The first was distinguished for his life of extreme poverty and his philosophic learning, and was exceedingly diligent in the contemplation and exposition of divine things, and in public discourses in the church. Meletius, whom the learned called the “honey of Attica,” was a man whom every one would describe as most accomplished in all kinds of learning; and it would be impossible to admire sufficiently his rhetorical skill. It might be said that he possessed this by nature; but who could surpass the excellence of his great experience and erudition in other respects? For in all branches of knowledge had you undertaken to try him even once, you would have said that he was the most skillful and learned. Moreover, the virtues of his life were not less remarkable. We observed him well in the time of the persecution, when for seven full years he was escaping from its fury in the regions of Palestine.

He is also mentioned by Photius (Bibliotheca 119), who had ten of his homilies  before him, and who quotes him.  There is also something among the fragments of Philip of Side.  Palladius in the Lausiac History cc. 12 and 143 tells us that the hermit Ammonius, in the Nitrian desert recited numerous passages of his writing, and St Silvia of Aquitaine on her pilgrimage to the Holy Land studied his commentaries.

Further details can be found in the article by G. Fritz in the old Dictionaire de théologie catholique 12.2 (1935), col. 1744-6 (Online here).  This suggests that Pierius may indeed have spent his final years at Rome, either to avoid the very long and severe persecution at Alexandria, or else to avoid the “decidedly anti-Origenist” Patriarch Peter I, who had succeeded the more tolerant Theonas in 300 and who travelled rather than be martyred.  When the DTC article was written, the Bodmer papyrus was still unknown, so it is interesting to see this opinion.

The discovery of the Bodmer papyrus therefore alters our perception of this man.  In Barns and Chadwick, “A letter ascribed to Peter of Alexandria” JTS NS 24 (1973) 443-455 (JSTOR), we find:

It was natural for the church to remember with pride the names and ‘birthdays’ of the martyrs who had died in the great persecution, and equally natural that the names of apostates were not recorded. Lapse, whether by preference or by weakness, had taken them out of the community, and there could be nothing but grief and embarrassment in the later recall of their concession to diabolical forces. No one had a motive for advertising their number or even existence. There was every reason to hush up the awkward facts, especially if the apostate had been a divine of some eminence like Pierius.2 Poor Pierius had to leave Alexandria and spend the rest of his days in quiet obscurity somewhere in Rome, which was a large enough place to get lost in.

The footnote reads:

2. His lapse is now certain from the Bodmer papyrus of the Acts of S. Phileas. At his trial Phileas was told ‘You have killed many men by not sacrificing: Pierius saved many by submitting’. See Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (1972), pp. 330-1. Jerome (de vir. inl. 76) says that ‘after the persecution Pierius lived the rest of his life in Rome’. In view of Pierius’ lapse it is remarkable that there was a church named after him at Alexandria, mentioned in the list given by Epiphanius (Panarion 69. 2. 4. Ill p. 153 Holl). Perhaps the existence of this church (perhaps a house-church that was originally the private property of Pierius himself?) may have made possible the later legend that Pierius was martyred in the persecution, attested in the Latin martyrologies of Ado (PL vol. 123, col. 390, for 4 Nov.) and Usuard (p. 335 Dubois) and also in Photius (Bibl. cod. 118 and 119).

That sounds rather plausible, but does the evidence stack up?  Reducing the claim to bullet-points, we end up with this:

  1.  One version – only – of the Acts of Phileas says a certain Pierius “conformed”.  We may reasonably assume this means “sacrificed.”
  2. This Pierius must be the famous one.
  3. Jerome tells us that the famous Pierius left Alexandria and spent the end of his life in Rome.

That’s a wee bit feeble for my liking.

Everything depends on whether we think that the “Pierius” must be the exegete, and whether the editor of the Acts had this information, or whether it was inserted for other reasons.  I find it hard to think of Jerome endorsing someone who sacrificed without mentioning it.  The bitter Origenist disputes, which started from 400 onwards, might put Pierius, as “Origen the Younger”, very much in the cross-hairs.  Jerome was an anti-Origenist.  The editor of the Bodmer version of the Acts of Phileas may have been also, depending on when this version was created.

I suspect that a single word in a single edition of a later hagiographical text is perhaps not enough evidence to show that Pierius did sacrifice.

Can you, must you for your own safety, keep a slave if you are an ascetic and renounce all your possessions?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A truly interesting and very well-written article has appeared in Early Medieval History this month.  Fortunately it is open-access.  The article is

T. Dailey & Justin Piggott, “Ascetics, slaves, and necessity in Late Antiquity: renouncing all wealth, but for a single slave”, Early Medieval Europe 34 (2026); https://doi.org/10.1111/emed.70055

It can be found online here.  Unfortunately the page numbers do not seem to be given on the website.  Here’s the abstract:

Slave owners in Late Antiquity viewed the possession of at least one slave to be a necessity and a defining mark that distinguished the dignified social classes from the poor. Ascetics who shared this perspective faced a choice when renouncing all worldly possessions in pursuit of spiritual perfection, one not merely about luxury, but also about status and perhaps even survival. Hagiographic literature and monastic rules reveal that the embrace of the ascetic life, in eremitic and coenobitic contexts alike, was often assumed to accommodate the retention of a single slave as a personal attendant.

That is the argument: that asceticism did not exclude having a slave, and indeed for elite people, required it as a signifier of social status.

The article is very well written and compelling, and the illustrations are also interesting.  Here is an excerpt.

High-status individuals of the late Roman world regarded the ownership of at least one slave as a necessity. Indeed, the ephemeral appearance of slaves in hagiographic narratives indicates that their literary function secured the high social status of their protagonist. By retaining one slave, an ascetic addressed the fear that total renunciation might destabilize their social status, in a manner distinct from other forms of wealth.8

Such sentiments appear in a story about the mistreatment of Fructuosus. According to his seventh-century Life,9 when he became separated from his entourage while praying in a secluded place in the woods, Fructuosus found himself confronted by a passing peasant. Alone, dressed in humble clothing, and with no other visible markers of his status, he was taken to be a runaway slave. The peasant shouted abuse and even struck the saint, who faced the risk of enslavement in a society that had particularly strong laws on the reclamation of runaway slaves.10

The Life, however, presented the peasant as behaving irrationally, under demonic influence, and the tension in the scene ended when the saint exorcized his assailant, who was miraculously restored to his senses. Divine intervention thus rescued Fructuosus from the unthinkable fate of equivalent treatment to a slave.

9. Life of St Fructuosus, c. 11, ed. M.C. Díaz y Díaz, La vida de San Frutuoso de Braga. Estudio y edición crítica (Braga, 1974).

St Fructuosus was previously unknown to me, but he is one of the Visigothic saints, belonging to the early 7th century.  The critical edition referenced is not accessible to me, and indeed this article states that it is “quite difficult to access.”1

The “Life” itself is apparently BHL 3194; CPL 1293; old Latin text in PL 87, cols 459-70.  Fortunately an English translation exists in the TTH series by A. T. Fear, Lives of the Visigothic Fathers, Liverpool (1997), p. 123-144.  Chapter 11, p.133, with an interesting footnote:

…. But, as we have said, when he was on that part of his journey which passed through the lands of Idanha-a-Velha, it happened that all the companions of the blessed man went ahead of him a little way,47 while he stopped in a secluded place in the woods, hidden away in the thick forests, and prayed a short while. While he lay prostrate in prayer, the Ancient Enemy, ever envious of all good men, swiftly brought a boorish countryman possessed by madness to the place where the man of God was praying. When he had seen the man of God from afar, catching sight of him alone amongst the trees, dressed in poor clothes with unshod, naked feet, as he had a peasant’s mind he despised him for his poor clothing and because of his mad rashness drew closer. Thinking Fructuosus a runaway slave, the peasant abused him with shameless words and did not delay to insult him with all kinds of vile expressions.48 But when the man of God replied to him with a tranquil mind, ‘I am clearly not a runaway’, the peasant, thinking on the contrary that he certainly was one, goaded by the impulse of the devil, struck him a blow with the staff he was carrying in his hands. The man of God bore this patiently, but the other did not cease from striking him, so soon he made the sign of the cross to him. At once the demon left the woodsman and passed into the earth,49 dashing him prostrate before the feet of the holy man and wounding him to such a degree in its fury that after cruelly lacerating him it left him lying in a pool of his own blood. 50 However, the man of God at once prayed and restored him to his previous state of health without any difficulty.

48.  Part of the problem might have been Fructuosus’ unkempt appearance. This probably involved growing his hair long, which was the sign of a slave – see LV 9.1.5 where it is made an offence to cut a fugitive slave’s hair. There would have been a potential reward of at least a tremiss for the countryman had Fructuosus been an escaped slave, LV9.l.l4. The problem of runaways seems to have been a persistent teature of the Visigothic kingdom. Leovigild legislated on this matter (LV 9 .1.3) as did many of his successors. See King [1972] 162 ff.

50.  Demons characteristically injure their victims when forced from their bodies.

The article is online, 22 pages of it, and so I won’t try to summarise it.  As we all knew from our student days, the summary is at the end anyway:

Slave owners in Late Antiquity viewed the possession of at least one slave to be a necessity and a defining mark that distinguished the dignified social classes from the poor. Ascetics drawn from this background shared the same perspective, and their renunciation of all worldly possessions often stopped short of releasing every slave. In many situations, whether within a hermitage or a monastery, one personal attendant remained, perhaps under legal slavery or perhaps under a freed status that left the same asymmetrical architecture of their relationship in place while maintaining a nominal distinction. …

Slave ownership, especially in the form of personal attendance, functioned as more than an economically oriented relationship. It also marked the high status of the slave owner and defined the identity of the elite. The slave who ran away from Monegund, and the faithful Galienus who remained with Merovech to the bitter end, might have been opposites in terms of their loyalty to their owners, but they shared one essential quality: for their owners, their presence was a matter of life and death.

When late antique authors claimed, consistently and repeatedly, that one slave was a necessity for their own existence as a social elite, they revealed a rare glimpse into the ideological and practical limits of asceticism and renunciation.

So what do we make of this argument?  Argument from scattered examples always carries the risk of generalising as a universal rule what is instead a series of unrepresentative local examples.  But the claim does have the ring of truth.

In all times, members of the elite have always found ways to communicate their status, and always will.  In England social status is conveyed by accent and language rather than dress, a means of communication that can pass unobserved to those unaware of it.  For instance readers of John Wesley’s Diary will remember the scene where he is grabbed by a local landowner and marched off, “to serve his majesty” as a conscript.2  It is only when his captor draws breath that Wesley calmly points out, in elite language, and no doubt in an Oxford accent, that such conduct is illegal.  Whereupon his captor suddenly realises that his victim is not a labourer as he had thought, but a gentleman.  Consternation! –

Upon this Mr. B. lost all patience, and cried out with all his might, “Seize him, seize him! I say, seize the Preacher for His Majesty’s service.” But no one stirring, he rode up and struck several of his attendants, cursing them bitterly for not doing as they were bid.

Perceiving still that they would not move, he leaped off his horse, swore he would do it himself, and caught hold of my cassock, crying, ” I take you to serve His Majesty.” A servant taking his horse, he took me by the arm, and we walked arm in arm for about three quarters of a mile. He entertained me all the time, with the “wickedness of the fellows belonging to the society.”

When he was taking breath, I said, “ Sir, be they what they will, I apprehend it will not justify you, in seizing me in this manner, and violently carrying me away, as you said, to serve His Majesty.” He replied, “I seize you! And violently carry you away! No, Sir; no. Nothing like it. I asked you to go with me to my house, and you said you was willing; and if so, you are welcome; and if not, you are welcome to go where you please.”

I answered, “ Sir, I know not if it would be safe for me to go back through this rabble.” “ Sir,” said he, “ I will go with you myself.” He then called for his horse, and anotherfor me,and rode back with me to the place from whence he tookme.

The slave as a marker of status is quite an argument, and rather compelling.  It will be interesting to see the responses.

What struck me here was that I had never imagined that this might be the case.  It is salutary to be reminded that a few minutes time-travel to late antiquity would most certainly up-end our mental picture of that period in all sorts of ways.

  1. Hérold Pettiau, “La Vie de saint Fructueux de Braga quelques aspects de la relation entre l’ascète et la société en Espagne wisigothique”, L. Lemoine & B. Merdrignac (eds), Corona Monastica, Rennes (2004) p. 51-63.[↩]
  2. July 3, 1745.[↩]

A new modern apocryphon – Scott Wolter and the “Yeshua Scroll in the Green Jar”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Modern apocrypha are fun!  You know the sort of thing – things like the Archko Volume, or the Aquarian Gospel, or any one of a hundred or a thousand similar items.  They’re all modern, they’re all fake, and they all proceed by claiming a “Vatican cover-up” or “this will shake the church to its foundations” and so forth, in a thousand predictable conspiracy claims.  Almost invariably the supposed ancient text only exists in English.  Invariably the supposed manuscript is “lost”.

Here’s the blurb from one example:

DO YOU DARE BELIEVE THAT JESUS DID NOT DIE ON THE CROSS . . . that He was Mary’s illegitimate son and the heir to the Macabees . . . that He married Mary Magdalene, and Barabbas was their son . . . that He wrote His own autobiography . .. that He lived to be 80 years old and died fighting the Romans at Masada . . . that His remains were finally buried in 1969 . . . and that the Russians now have the scroll which proves these disclosures and have so informed the Vatican?

These disquieting revelations are not meant to be accepted on faith. They are backed by documentary evidence!

THE JESUS SCROLL : THE MOST DISTURBING BOOK ABOUT CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY EVER PUBLISHED!

These stirring words belonged to Donovan Joyce, “The Jesus Scroll” (1972).  This is a long-forgotten example of the genre.  In this case the actual text is  cunningly not produced, and the supposed scroll only described on page 178 in what the author says is a fictionalised narrative.  You’d better believe it is fictional.  I believe that there may have been a film as well.  Wikipedia has some of the details of what was clearly just a money-making exercise.

This weekend I came across the twitter feed of somebody named Scott Wolter, who appears to be an American pseudo-science and pseudo-history writer, with no qualifications in either science or history that I could discover.

Text:

The Yeshua Scroll contains a passage that directly challenges the Genesis narrative as compiled by the Council of Nicaea. The text states that Adam and Eve were not the first people, but the first Jews, a distinction that reframes the entire origin story.

It then references the sons of M.F., a term Scott interprets as potentially non-human or extraterrestrial beings, who saw the daughters of men and found them pleasing. These beings came to the land of Nod, where Cain had been sent, and their children lived… (etc)

Ah yes.  We’re already in familiar territory here.  Eric von Daniken, please call your office.

This “Yeshua Scroll in the Green Jar” is supposedly a find in the USA – the frame has been shifted somewhat.  How well it relates to the older story I don’t know, but I have read that it is basically the same idea.  Possibly Wolter came across the old publication and felt that there was something to be made of it.  The “scroll” is “encrypted”, supposedly.

A look at Wolter’s books page makes it clear what we’re dealing with: fiction.  Stories told as entertainment and for profit, and read by the gullible.

In a way, this pseudo-history is a form of storytelling, which has an audience and from which money can be made.  Once you have seen one production from this world, you have seen them all.  Then you have stuff like this:

I must say that these things always leave me feeling that I need to wash my hands, however.

Will the “Yeshua Scroll” ever matter to any of us?  I rather doubt it.  But it is quite interesting to see a modern apocryphon being fabricated right here and now!

A missing chunk of Pope Vitalian’s Letter to King Oswiu about Easter?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In Bede’s Ecclesiastical History book 3 chapter 29, he quotes a letter from Pope Vitalian to the Anglo-Saxon King Oswiu, encouraging him to adopt the new simpler Roman calculation of the date of Easter instead of the Irish method using the 89-year cycle of Victorius.

“To the most excellent lord, our son Oswiu, king of the Saxons, Bishop Vitalian, servant of the servants of God.

“We have received your Highness’s welcome letter. …  Therefore your Highness must, as a member of Christ, always follow the holy rule of the chief of the apostles in all things, both in the celebration of Easter and in everything delivered by the holy apostles, Peter and Paul, who, like two heavenly lights, illuminate the world, while their teaching daily illuminates the hearts of believers.”

After some remarks about celebrating the true Easter uniformly throughout the whole world, he goes on:

“Finally, in view of the length of the journey, we are not at present able to find a man who is entirely suitable and fitted to be your bishop, as you request in your letter….

Bede says that he omits the “remarks about celebrating the true Easter uniformly throughout the whole world”, and the letter has not otherwise come down to us.

But, long ago Archbishop Ussher of Armagh drew attention to a manuscript from Whitby.  This contained a potentially interesting item which he printed in his Veterum epistolarum Hibernicarum sylloge (1632), p.126 (online here).  The book itself is a collection of papal and other letters directed to Ireland in the earliest times.

The entry begins (p.125), with Ussher’s own words in italics:

In the year of Christ 639, the Roman see being vacant through the death of Pope Severinus, these letters were written.  Concerning which, and others similar sent 50 years before to by Pope Honorius to the same Irishmen , Bede wrote thus in book 2 of his Ecclesiastical History, chapter 19.  Pope Honorius sent letters to the Scottish race, whom he had learned were in error in the observation of Holy Pascha. ….

Then:

Deinde epistolam hanc adjungit: sed quae “de ratione Paschalis observantiae” in ea sunt exposita praetermittit.  Quod & in superioribus Laurentii Cantuariensis ad Hibernos literis, & in aliis Vitaliani Romani Pontificis ad Oswium Nordanhumbrorum regem (quas penultimo 3. libri capiti inseruit) ab eo factum videmus, qui posteriorum illarum defectus ex antiquissimis fortasse Whitbiensis coenobii schedis aliquo modo suppleri poterit; in quibus, praefixo titulo “Vitalini” (“Vitaliani” haud dubie) Papae Urbis Romae, subjectum repperi.

Nunquam enim celebrare [debemus] sanctum Pascha, nisi secundum Apostolicam & Catholicam fidem, ut in toto orbe celebratur a Christiana plebe; id est, secundum Apostolicam regulam CCCXVIII sanctorum patrum, ac computum sancti Cyrilli & Dionysii.  Nam in toto terrarum orbe sic Christi una columbam hoc est, ecclesia immaculata, sanctum Paschae resurrectionis diem celebrat.  Nam Victoris sedes Apostolica non adprobavit regulam Paschae: ideo nec sequitur dispositionem eius pro Pascha.

I.e.

Then he appends this letter: but he omits what is set forth in it ‘concerning the manner of observing Easter.’ We see that he did the same both in the earlier letters of Laurence of Canterbury to the Irish, and in others of Vitalian, Roman Pontiff, to Oswiu, king of the Northumbrians (which he inserted in the penultimate chapter of Book 3). The deficiencies of the latter letters may perhaps in some way be supplied from very ancient documents of the monastery of Whitby; among these I found the following text, headed with the title ‘Vitalini’ (undoubtedly ‘Vitaliani’), ‘of Vitalian, Pope of the City of Rome.

For we ought never to celebrate the holy Easter except according to the Apostolic and Catholic faith, as it is celebrated throughout the whole world by the Christian people; that is, according to the apostolic rule of the 318 holy fathers, and according to the reckoning of St Cyril and Dionysius. For throughout the whole world the one dove of Christ—that is, the spotless Church—thus celebrates the holy day of the resurrection of Easter. For the Apostolic See did not approve Victor’s rule for Easter; therefore it does not follow his arrangement concerning Easter.

Ussher’s “Whitby manuscript” is not known today, but his text is almost the same as Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Digby 63, folio 59v, which may perhaps be the same manuscript.  It is likely enough that Ussher corrected his manuscript for publication.  The Digby manuscript was written between 867 and 892, somewhere in the North of England.  It does not seem to be online, but a recent publication tells us that it contains the following text:

VITA.LINI PAPE URBIS ROMAE

Numquam enim celebrare sanctum pascae nisi secundum apostolicam et chatholicam fidem ut in toto orbe caelebratur a christiane blebe; id est secundum apostolicam regulam CCCXVIII sanctorum patrum ac compototum sancti cirilli et dionisi. Nam in toto terrarum orbe sic Christi una columba, hoc est ecclesia inmaculata, sanctum pascae resurrectionis diem celebrat. Nam victoris sedis apostolica non adprobavit regulam pascae. Ideo nec sequitur dispositionem eius pro pascae.

Holy Easter must never be celebrated except according to the Catholic and apostolic faith, as it is celebrated in the whole world by the Christian people; to wit according to the apostolic rule of the 318 Holy Fathers and the computus of the venerable Cyril and Dionysius. For the one single dove of Christ, i.e. the immaculate Church, celebrates in this way throughout the whole world the day of Holy Easter of Resurrection. Indeed, the Apostolic See did not approve Victor’s Easter rule; thus, neither does it follow his dispositions for Easter.1

“Vitalinus” is apparently an ancient version of “Vitalianus”, and attested in one recension of the Liber Pontificalis, composed prior to 742 AD.  Ussher believed that this was the missing chunk from Vitalian’s letter.

It is not surprising that Bede would omit this material.  Despite what it says, the Easter reckoning of Victor was actually in full use in Rome only a few decades before Vitalian wrote his firm statement that it was not used in Rome.

So is this passage from Ussher/Digby actually from the letter of Vitalian?  Well a recent open-access article thinks so:

The passage is well-known to scholarship since J. Ussher, Veterum epistolarum Hibernicarum sylloge, quae partim ab Hibernis, partim ad Hibernos, partim de Hibernis vel rebus Hibernicis sunt conscriptae (Dublin, 1632), p. 126; its authenticity was doubted by Mac Carthy, Annals of Ulster, vol. 4: Introduction and Index (Dublin, 1901), pp. cxlv–cxlvii, but vindicated by Jones, Bedae opera, pp. 102–4; the passage has been readily accessible to Bedan scholars through Plummer’s edition: Baedae Historiam ecclesiasticam II, 201; the commentary to the recent edition by M. Lapidge with Italian translation by P. Chiesa, Beda, Stroria degli inglesi (Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum), 2 vols. (Rome, 2008) II, 568–9 reproduces Plummer’s account, except for his discussion of the Victorian dimension of this passage. See now also I. Warntjes, ‘Pope Vitalian’s Letter to King Oswiu of Northumbria and the Beginning of Armagh’s Claim to Primacy over the Irish Churches’, Revue Bénédictine 134 (2024), pagination tbc.2

Note the reference with “pagination tbc” – that should be “pp.5-43.”

But if this passage in Ussher/Digby is the missing portion of the letter of Vitalian, isn’t that really very convenient?  Too convenient?  How does this extract come to be made in the first place?

It is not easy to see why a scribe, who possessed a complete copy of the letter of Vitalian to Oswiu, one independent of Bede, would copy out of it only the few words which Bede does not reproduce?  Which fit so exactly in the gap, so luckily for modern readers?  It’s a bit too good to be true.  The identification relies on the heading, and these are notoriously unreliable.

Interesting, then, but we should be sceptical.

  1. Luciana Cuppo, “Felix of Squillace and the Dionysiac computus II: Rome, Gaul, and the insular world” in:  Late Antique Calendrical Thought and its Reception in the Early Middle Ages,(2017), pp 138-181; p.163.[↩]
  2. Tobit Loevenich and Immo Warntjes, “Theodore of Tarsus and the Study of Computus at the Canterbury School,” In: Anglo-Saxon England 50 (2023), 29-59, esp. pp.37-38.[↩]

The encomium of Phoebammon on St Colluthus

Posted on by Roger Pearse

There are two long encomia / eulogies on St Colluthus.  The first of these exists in English already.  The second, by Bishop Phoebammon or Phoibamon, acting as deputy in the 6th century for the exiled Patriarch Theodosius II, was included in CSCO 650, edited and translated into German by Gesa Schenke in 2010.  It was preserved in a single parchment manuscript of the 9-10th century.

Unfortunately the text is very incomplete.  What we actually have is a single leaf, in Paris, which has the start of the work.  Then we are missing 20 pages, which probably covered the saint’s family, birth and upbringing.  We know how many pages are missing because the next two leaves have page numbers.  They are pages 23-26 of the whole volume.  This contains the beginning of the trial of Colluthus.  These leaves are in Vienna.  Finally there is one more leaf, also in Vienna, with pages 69-70.  By this point Phoebammon has finished the martyrdom, and moved onto miracles performed at the shrine of St. Colluthus.

While we don’t have most of the text in Coptic, in reading CSCO 650 carefully, I discover that a copy of a complete version in Arabic exists!  This is preserved in British Library Or. 4723 [3°], fols. 23v–45r.  As far as I can tell, it has never been printed.  If only I knew a bit of Arabic, I might be tempted to take my smartphone down to the British Library, photograph the 22 pages, and see if I could get it transcribed.  But lacking any knowledge, I suspect that I would photograph the wrong pages!  Hmpff!

The CSCO 650 translation is intended purely as a tool, to be read with the Coptic.  But I thought that the rest of us might like to read the text, so I have scanned it in, removed all the technical stuff, and run the resulting German through ChatGPT and Google Translate.  No doubt there are errors, but it’s better than nothing.  I’ve summarised a few footnotes also.

Here, then, in English, is Bishop Phoebammon’s eulogy of St Colluthus, delivered sometime in the early 6th century at the new shrine in Pneueit.

    *    *    *    *

[Title-summary][1]

The second encomium, delivered by the bearer of all the virtues of the Holy Spirit, Saint Apa Phoebammon,[2] Bishop of the city of Akhmim[3] and deputy of the whole land of Egypt[4].

He proclaimed it for the revered victor and archpriest, the true physician, the chaste, the holy martyr of Christ, Saint Colluthus, son of Lord Heraklamon, the “dux” of the whole land of Egypt.[5]

He delivered this eulogy in his holy martyr-shrine, the one built in his name in the land of Sodom,[6] that is, Pneueit, on the day on which his holy dwelling place was consecrated. This was the 24th day of the month Hathyr, when Apa Kosma[7], the bishop of the capital city Antinoë, was sitting with him, together with Theocharis, the great eparch of that same city of Antinoë and of the city of Schmun[8], and the majority of the archons of the city of Akhmim.

He explained to them how Saint Colluthus had informed him about that lawless village, how he had led them to believe in Christ, and how Saint Colluthus had come to him. He[9] revealed to them these things, as well as the words that the Saviour had spoken to him, while all the people marvelled at the great wisdom, and, even more, at the great love of God for his people.

He also said something in the same eulogy about the sufferings that he, Bishop Phoebammon, had endured in exile together with Apa Theodosius, the Archbishop of Alexandria.

In the peace of God. Amen. [10]

I shall take as my starting point the words of the One who gives me every comfort and strength in all matters, who knows my whole heart and all my thoughts.  Who is this? It is the Logos of the good Father, He whose divine body I break with my own hands. I pour his blood into the chalice, offering it to those who desire it.  It is my Lord and my God, Jesus Christ, who proclaims through his divine mouth the following, “Everyone who asks will receive, and the one who seeks will find, and the one who [knocks, it will be opened to him.]” …

[Pages 23-26][11]

I informed him that I intended to go to the city of Schmun (Hermopolis). And so he gave orders for me to be brought to him in the city of Schmun.

When I had been brought to him in the city of Schmun, I found him sitting together with the courier[12], the entire governing authority of the city of Schmun, and the officials of the city of Antinoë.

Arianus said to me, “Colluthus, I have been informed by people hostile toward you that you are a Christian. Now come and offer sacrifice to the emperor’s gods, so that you may put your accusers to shame!”

But I said to him, “The Lord, my true King, Christ, lives! Even if you were to give me the entire Roman Empire, by saying, ‘Take a grain of incense and offer it to Apollo,’ I could never do such a thing and abandon the true God.”  And immediately I cursed him, as well as his lawless emperor and his abominable gods.

When Arianus heard this from me, he was deeply embarrassed in the presence of the emperor’s courier, who was sitting beside him. He was filled with rage against me.  He gave orders, and two chains were brought. They fastened them to my body and hanged me from a Persea tree.  And there was a millstone, broken into two halves, lying unnoticed beside the Persea tree. He ordered forty torturers[13] to fasten one half of the millstone around my neck and the other half to my feet. He left me hanging from the Persea tree in this manner for three hours, as if he hoped to split me in two.

But those who saw me were astonished, and great fear seized them. In particular, the officials of the city of Schmun pleaded with him, “Spare him, for he is the son of the dux of the whole land of Egypt!” So he ordered them to lower me down, bit by bit. Yet a little blood trickled from my mouth. But later he again ordered them to tie the millstone around my neck and hang me up.

While I remained hanging in this way, a great quantity of blood came out of my mouth and nostrils. My servant, however, had followed me and caught the blood flowing from my mouth. This blood is what has now been cast into this holy well, so that anyone who is sick may find healing by washing in it.

After this, the courier interceded with Arianus, saying to him, “Spare him, for he was a nobleman!” And so he ordered them to unbind me and throw me into the prison of Schmun.

After three days, the governor boarded a ship with the courier. They sailed north to arrange for him to go to the emperor.  But after returning south, he went to Antinoë. It was then, following these things, that he dismissed the courier.

Now Tadiane was the daughter of Komedia, my sister. When she[14] heard about the things that Arianus had done to me, and that he had thrown me into prison, she swore an oath to him in these words, “As long as my brother Colluthus remains in prison, you shall have no dealings whatsoever with my daughter!”  Consequently a great enmity arose between the young daughter and Arianus, lasting for three full years.[15]

However there was a white she-mule that had belonged to my late father, the man who had presented offerings to all the churches of the city. My sister used to send the mule to me through a servant, and I went to see her many times in the city of Antinoë.  Then, after these things, it happened one day that, while I was sitting in prison, while I …

 [Pages 69-70][16]

… the name of that woman was Eudocia, and the name of her husband was Theognostos. These people were more than forty years old and were still childless. Theognostos was deeply saddened by this fact.  So one day he and his wife set out and went to the shrine of the Saint Apa Colluthus, which is located in the necropolis of his city, Antinoë. They remained there, praying and beseeching him to intercede with Christ on their behalf and grant them a child.

When night had fallen, Saint Colluthus appeared to Theognostos and his wife. He said to them,  “Haven’t you heard that the merciful Jesus sent me to this village, called Pneueit, in the district of Akhmim?  So if you want to obtain what you have asked for, truly, arise and go to my shrine in that place!”

After they had heard these things from Saint Apa Colluthus, before daylight had broken they made preparations and boarded a ship. They traveled south to Pneueit, and went to the shrine of Saint Apa Colluthus.

When evening came, they went to rest in the shrine. At midnight, Saint Colluthus appeared to them. He said to them, “When you rise in the morning, wait there until they gather for the service, and then inform the administrator. He will give you the water used to wash the table and the chalice. When you drink it, what you have asked for will happen to you.”  And they acted just as he had told them, as the Holy Messenger does for everyone who asks of him.

After they had told the administrator what had been said, he gave [them the water, and they drank it.]…

    *    *    *    *

[1] The first leaf of the manuscript is preserved in Paris B.N. 12916 fol. 76.  The manuscript was written in the 9-10th century. The text starts with a summary of the work in a single column.  The actual words of Phoibamon start over the page, when the text changes from one column into two.

[2] Mid-6th century.  Also spelled Phoibamon.

[3] Panopolis.

[4] “diadochos” = heir or successor or deputy.  The title “deputy of the whole land of Egypt” perhaps means that he was acting as deputy for the exiled patriarch of Alexandria, Theodosius I (d. 566).

[5] The title “dux of the whole land of Egypt” applied to Heraclamon, the father of Colluthus, presumably refers only to the Thebaid province.  The father is not elsewhere attested, but the name appears in the PLRE as that of a 5th century “praeses” (= dux) who once heard a sermon by Shenoute of Atripe (PLRE II 538 f.), and also as that of other high-ranking 5th century figures mentioned in papyri.

[6] Or “the new Sodom”, according to the Arabic text.  CSCO 650, p.157, n.167, referencing Crum, “Colluthus”, p.326.  Pneueit was a pagan stronghold.

[7] This word is uncertain.

[8] Schmun = Hermopolis.  Theocharis was the “great eparch” of Antinoë and Hermopolis, i.e. the prefect or head of government of the province of the Thebaid, so presumably the official successor of Arianus, the persecutor.

[9] Phoibamon.

[10] At this point the manuscript goes into two columns.

[11] Twenty pages are missing.  The next two leaves of the manuscript cover the start of the martyrdom of Colluthus.  They were originally numbered as pages 23-26, and are preserved in Vienna at the Austrian National Library (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, ÖNB), as ÖNB K 9525 and K 9526.  Phoibamon is now reading out words placed in the mouth of Colluthus himself.  “Him” means Arianus the persecuting governor.

[12] A “veredarius”, a military messenger from the emperor.

[13] “quaestionarii”.

[14] Komedia.

[15] Colluthus was held in prison for 3 years.

[16] This leaf is also preserved in Vienna as ÖNB K 9524.  This features a miracle story about a childless couple who seek help at the shrine of Colluthus in Pneueit; the shrine where Phoibamon is preaching the encomium.  Phoibamon takes care to tell his listeners how the couple initially seek help at the shrine in Antinoë, only to be told to go to Pneueit if they really want help.

    *    *    *    *

More interesting than one might think, and a window into life in Egypt in the 6th century A.D.

So why should we edit Coptic martyrdoms anyway? The CSCO editor replies.

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve started to look at the modern critical edition of the texts around St Colluthus.  This was printed a decade ago  in 2013 in the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO) volume 650, edited by Gesa Schenke.1  The texts were printed properly – in place of the half-assed hand-written texts in the editiones principales.

The translation and commentary was in German, which nobody else can actually read, although some scholars pretend. Cough.

Anyway I ran the preface through ChatGPT, just to get an English version and skim read it before looking at the good stuff.  Well, we all know how boring these prefaces always are.

So I was rather surprised to find something really interesting, and even inspirational.  Have a read.  Accuracy not guaranteed, of course.

    *    *    *    *

The impetus for my engagement with Coptic martyr legends came from reading courses and practical exercises conducted as part of my teaching at the Department of Egyptology at the University of Cologne. These hagiographical texts, which had long been underestimated and consequently largely neglected, grew particularly close to my heart over many semesters of teaching. I was astonished by the wealth of quotations from Holy Scripture incorporated into them, which the martyrs repeatedly produced during interrogations by the authorities, whether asked for them or not. The manner in which a constant struggle is stylized between the wickedness of the ruling Roman power and the piety of the martyrs—out of which the latter repeatedly emerge victorious through divine intervention—leaves a deep impression and is at times as fantastic as it is amusing. “The lawless ruler” orders the martyr to be flogged, while “the good soldier of Jesus Christ” quotes Scripture and endures his suffering, only to be healed again through divine assistance after his tortures.

This continual struggle between good and evil, punctuated by cruel tortures and pious quotations, seemed to me to be a defining feature of the Coptic martyr legend, one that does not entirely justify the constant accusation of a lack of quality and originality in Coptic literature.

Not only does the continuation of this struggle between good and evil recall ancient Egyptian myths, but the incorporation of convincing biblical quotations into the vita and passio of famous saints also reveals itself to be a genuinely original literary device. Thus, in response to Winstedt’s warning— “It is much to be feared that the Coptic lives of the saints but seldom contain anything of profit or interest to ordinary sinful humanity” —it should be pointed out that, although these narratives may seem repetitive and long-winded to modern readers, the manner in which biblical quotations are incorporated reveals a distinctive literary dynamic that can be highly interesting. Moreover, this type of popular literature provides access to the intellectual and emotional world of the indigenous population and, not least, constitutes evidence of a living Egyptian Christianity that, from Late Antiquity through the Early Middle Ages, repeatedly worked with the basic pattern of these legends, deliberately varying and convincingly adapting it when required for particular purposes.

Using the legendary texts concerning Saint Kolluthos as an example, the typical dossier of an Egyptian martyr saint is presented and examined here. Particular attention is paid to the structure, narrative technique, and compositional purpose of these different types of legends, in order to contribute to a deeper understanding of these textual genres. All previously known Coptic literary texts concerning the holy physician, martyr, and miracle-worker are brought together and newly edited here for the first time. In this way, a basis for further study is established for this particularly important Egyptian saint, for whom all three types of legend—the Martyrdom, Encomion, and Miracula—have survived, albeit in some cases only fragmentarily.

The texts, which are entirely in Sahidic, are each provided with an introduction, a German translation, and a commentary. The Encomion of Bishop Isaac of Antinoe on Saint Kolluthos, edited by S. E. Thompson in this series, is not reproduced here, but is discussed extensively, since the edition appeared entirely without commentary. This substantial text, however, provides a vivid impression of the veneration of saints in Late Antiquity and the early Arab period and is particularly well suited to illuminating the compositional methods of Coptic legendary texts.

In addition, the texts presented here are intended as reading exercises. They can be used in Coptic instruction or as reading texts for consolidating knowledge of the Coptic language. The Coptic text of the originals is likewise presented in two columns, in order to familiarize modern readers with the ancient format of the texts and to encourage the study of “ancient reading.” Word division, however, follows modern standards and corresponds essentially to that used in the editiones principes. The Leiden system of brackets is used in the presentation of the texts.

Then, after acknowledgements, we read:

My father died before the idea for this work was even born. Nevertheless, I would like to dedicate the present work to his memory and thank him for passing on to me the principle that the enjoyment of Coptic texts should (almost) always come first.

Oxford, November 2012
Gesa Schenke

    *    *    *    *

That is really thoughtful.  I think that we might all look a bit more kindly at Coptic hagiographical texts in future.

  1. ”Das koptisch hagiographische Dossier des Heiligen Kolluthos: Arzt, Märtyrer und Wunderheiler”.  The table of contents can be found online here.[↩]

The Martyrdom of St Colluthus – Second Version

Posted on by Roger Pearse

St Colluthus was a Coptic physician who was tried and executed in 314 AD.  This was part of the great persecution of Christians ordered by the emperor Diocletian.  The original court record survives, more or less, preserved as a martyrdom text, and this I posted a few days ago here.  This has been referenced in the literature as “Colluthus 1”.

But there is another Martyrdom of St Colluthus, derived from the first, and known as “Colluthus 2”.  This has been sharpened up by an editor who felt that it needed some miracles, and that it needed to conform more closely to other fictional martyrdoms.  In these the saint is usually arrogant, and the pagan judge is always a comic-book baddie.

I thought that it would be interesting to post the translation of this also.  As before, the translation here has been extracted from E.A.E. Reymond and J.W.B. Barns (edd.), Four martyrdoms from the Pierpont Morgan Coptic codices, Oxford (1973), pp.145-150.  Curiously Reymond felt that Colluthus 2 should be rendered in mock-Jacobean English.  I have removed this and generally made it easier to read.

    *    *    *    *

The martyrdom of the revered martyr, the holy Apa Colluthus, which he fulfilled in fortitude on the twenty-fourth day of the month Pashons.

It happened in the twenty-first year of the emperors Diocletian and Maximinianus (sic) the transgressors, when they were persecuting the Christians, on the twenty-first (sic) day of the month Pashons, that the holy Apa Colluthus was produced before Arianus the governor as he sat on the tribunal in Shmoun (Hermopolis).

Arianus the governor of the Thebaid said to Apa Colluthus, “Will you obey? For all these who stand here are praying for you to be wise. If therefore it is shame which restrains you, out of vanity and the law of the Christians, well, now let a proper shame come to you, so that you worship the Emperor’s gods.”

The holy Apa Colluthus answered, “May it not happen that I should abandon my God and worship idols which are the works of men’s hands; they have eyes and do not see, they have ears and do not hear, they have mouths and do not speak, they have noses and do not smell; their hands do not handle, their feet do not walk; they do not speak through their throat; for there is no spirit in them.  Those who have made them are like them, and all who put their trust in them. For, as for you and your lawless emperors, the Devil has shut up all the perceptions of your souls, like those things which you worship.”

Arianus was angry, and ordered the soldiers to lay before the holy Apa Colluthus all the things with which people are tortured, if perhaps through the fear of them he should be able to prevail on him and persuade him to sacrifice to the idols. And he brought into the middle of the fire, and a great stone to be hung upon the neck of the blessed man, and a sack full of sand, and a helmet,[1] and the rest of the instruments of torture.

And when he had laid all these in his sight, the governor said to him, “O Colluthus, be afraid of all these torments and pains which are laid before you, and sacrifice; all these torments are for those who disobey the Emperors.”

And Apa Colluthus answered, “It is written, ‘Don’t be afraid of those who kill your body, but are not able to kill your soul; but rather be afraid of him which is able to destroy your soul and your body in the Gehenna of fire.’ And again it is written, “Anyone who confesses Me before men, I will confess him also before My Father Who is in heaven, and His holy angels’; and again, ‘Whoever denies Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father who is in heaven, and His holy angels’ ”

Arianus answered and said to Apa Colluthus, “You have not been called upon to make long speeches; if you dare to speak again in my presence, I will have your tongue torn out. For all those who stand here grieve for your sake . . .”

Apa Colluthus answered, “My pride and my crown is the Lord. For it is written, ‘Our conver­sation is in heaven, from whence we look for our Saviour, the Lord Jesus, Who shall change the body of our low estate into the likeness of the body of His glory; that the eyes of our heart may be enlight­ed.”

Arianus answered and said to him, “Are you a deacon or a presbyter, to utter these words? And tell me too, what is your calling?”

Apa Colluthus said to him, “To this world I am a physician from my youth up, for by God I have been granted the power of healing; but to God I am a Christian, worshipping Jesus Christ my Lord.”

Arianus said to him, “Sacrifice, O Colluthus, and have pity on yourself; let every one look upon your favourably, and regard you in a good light. For you have not had any of the advocates who are present here contend for you; they are all together and you have not made use of their support to speak for you.”

Apa Colluthus answered, “I do not need them, for I have my Lord Jesus Christ fighting for me. For all your torments which are laid before me are nothing in my sight. Therefore every torment which you please, give them to me … it is written, ‘An athlete is not crowned unless he runs well.’ ”

The governor straightway ordered him to be put on the rack and scraped and stabbed. But when he was set up on the rack, the holy Apa Colluthus signed himself with the Cross straightway, and the rack fell in two pieces. And Arianus said, “See the magic of the Christians, how great it is!” And the governor ordered another rack to be brought, and Apa Colluthus to be put on it and fitted with a helmet . . . Apa Colluthus . . . [The text breaks off here]

[1] κασσίς = “cassis”, a heated metal helmet used as an implement of torture.  Lampe has “whip”, wrongly.

An English translation of Harnack’s reconstruction of Marcion’s gospel

Posted on by Roger Pearse

An interesting email this morning from W. C. Muenchow IV of truetestament.org:

I’m writing to let you know about … the first complete English translation of Adolf von Harnack’s textual reconstruction of Marcion’s Bible, built largely from close analysis of Tertullian’s five books against Marcion, together with Epiphanius and the Dialogue of Adamantius.

Harnack’s reconstruction — the Apostolikon (Paul’s ten letters as Marcion had them) and the Evangelion (Marcion’s Luke) — comes from the appendices to Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott (1921) and has never before been translated into English in full. We’ve also translated his 1923 follow-up pamphlet, Neue Studien zu Marcion.  Everything is free at truetestament.org

The website is very smart, and you can download the whole thing as a PDF (I have tried this) or purchase a printed version.

Obviously this is a labour of love by an enthusiast, but none the worse for that.  Might be useful!