From My Diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’m afraid that I am easily distracted.  I still need to write another post on the Sacra Parallela of John Damascene (d. 745).  But while looking at Lequien’s 1712 edition, I found at the start of volume 1, on p.i-xxiv, a “Vita”: a hagiographical “Life” of John Damascene.  This was ascribed to a certain “John, Patriarch of Jerusalem.”  The Vita is listed in the Bibliographica Hagiographica Graeca – the big index created by the Bollandists of all the hagiographical texts – where its number is BHG 884.  This text is reprinted in PG 94, cols. 429-490, and in the Acta Sanctorum  for May, vol. 2, 723-730.

There does not seem to be any translation into a modern language.  However Lequien printed the Life with parallel Latin translation.  This is fortunate, for the Greek text in Lequien is somewhat abbreviated and hard to read, at least by me.  And these days we have quite decent Latin translation, from Google Translate, and also, less accurate but more readable, from ChatGPT.

Out of curiosity, I scanned the Latin text and ran it through ChatGPT 4.  The result was rather amazing – a terribly readable and useful output.

Encouraged by this, I tried to discover whether an electronic Greek text was in the Thesaurus Linguae Graeca collection.  It has; but finding it in the “canon” was really quite difficult.  At least, as someone who rarely uses the TLG, I found it difficult.  There are three different “Lives” in the TLG, together given the index number TLG 5273, and the title is “Vitae Sancti Joannis Damasceni”.  It’s the “vitAE” rather than “vitA” that gets you.  Our text is TLG 5273.2.

Unfortunately this text is not in the elderly CDROM versions that circulate online.  However a kind correspondent sent me the electronic Greek, and I fed this into ChatGPT as well.  This also produced a fairly readable output.

Let’s compare them.  First the translation of the Latin:

I. [The deeds of holy men should be passed down to future generations, especially those of the Doctors of the Church.]

It has become customary among men to honour with representations the image of God in those who have kept it pure from all stain and blemish. Whether they preserved it in its original integrity and grace, or, when it was tarnished and defiled, they restored it, a divine likeness is made for them as a mark of honour. Indeed, those who desire to be seen as lovers of a more exalted reverence, often spare no expense in this endeavour; their generous hands, inclined toward magnificence, employ superior materials in which they engrave their images, thinking that they thereby show greater honour to the holy men.

So, if they display such splendour and grandeur in depicting the forms of these saints, should we leave the words recounting their deeds in a rough and ornament-less style? By no means! The less polished writers are worthy of pardon when, according to the capacity they possess, they narrate in a simple style the deeds of those who pleased Christ. But for those who have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of eloquence, it will not be forgiven if they compile hastily assembled accounts of the lives of the saints—especially of those men whose very spirit and life was devoted to learning, who laboured to free both the mind from ignorance and forgetfulness and the soul from all disorderly passions. These men, who have brought honour to the world and whose books have enlightened the minds of all, did not simply adorn themselves with the external elegance of worldly wisdom, but poured forth abundantly the light of the Holy Spirit.

Now the Greek:

1. To those who have preserved the image unsullied and uncorrupted, well-ordered, and in good condition as from the beginning—or even to those who have often let it be scattered or stained but have restored it—people customarily give honor to the divine forms of these individuals. And those who show their reverence more zealously, and whose hand, along with their wealth, is more magnificent and splendid, use more radiant and noble materials and imprint their forms upon them, believing they thereby dedicate greater honor to the saints.

If, then, they are so eager to adorn their outward form, how could they be expected to neglect and leave in a crude state the words concerning the history of their deeds? Certainly not. For the rougher people, as they are, are excused for simply recounting the deeds of those who were pleasing to Christ; but for those who take study of words seriously, it is not excusable to neglect the lives of saints, recording them hastily and carelessly—especially of men whose very breath and life is to be vigilant in words, and who, by means of words, have purified their minds from ignorance and forgetfulness and their souls from all passionate impulses.

And from those by whom the earthly realm has been adorned, and every mind illuminated, the words upon which they labored not only possess the grace of worldly wisdom but also abundantly emit the light of the Paraclete [Holy Spirit].

There’s no question as to which is more readable.  You have to struggle with the output from the Greek, and mentally retranslate it, merely to understand what is being said.  It probably does reflect the wordiness of the Byzantine text, to be fair. But it’s not very usable.

Likewise Lequien’s Latin translator probably paraphrased and simplified.  He wrote so that people with little Greek could understand the text.  They might not have great Latin either!  Best keep it simple.

I started to work on a translation myself, taking account of both of these and the original Greek and Latin.  But then I found that the ChatGPT output is not reliable, in either version.  Additional words and clauses appear, with no justification in the original, and  going some way beyond the acceptable for paraphrase.  I was tempted just to post both outputs, with a cautionary note, and move on.  But I have resisted doing this.

What I am doing now is to produce a translation from the Latin version, therefore.  It’s not ideal.  But it’s going to be more useful than struggling through 40 chapters of the Greek, which I would anyway have to paraphrase in order that anybody could understand it.

Oh well.  The Sacra Parallela will have to wait.

The start of the autumn term has brought a rash of emails, many of them asking me to do something for somebody.  I try to be sympathetic to such people, many of whom plainly have been thrown in the deep end of a subject about which they do not know even the basics.  But of course I am also wary of the email which reads “please mistuh can you do my homework for me huh” or similar.  There is also the type of researcher for a TV programme who writes and wants you to do the research – which they are paid to do – for them.  The unwary are flattered.  But after a while, you get wise to the scam.

Recently I had one lady write to me asking me to research the background to a medieval quote.  My first thought was “why me?”  But I was lying on the sofa with my smartphone in hand when it arrived.  A simple google search revealed that the very volume that she wanted to find was online, a couple of clicks away.  A second google search revealed the Latin text, and that the quotation in question was from Solinus, the 3rd century pagan medical writer.  It took all of five minutes, and she could perfectly well have done this herself and answered her own question, in the time that it took her to write to a perfect stranger with his own life to lead on the other side of the world.  I confess that I felt very impatient with this.  Indeed I found that she had written to me six times in two years with similar requests.  This time, her request was in vain.

There are those who contribute to the internet, as I do, and spend their days uploading, researching, publishing, purely for the love of it.  There are also those people in this world who, on seeing someone being generous, see only a mug, and an opportunity to help themselves.  I am reminded of the story of a monastery of Benedictine monks in England who decided to serve free steak dinners to any who came.  Their intended guests were the homeless.  But it was not long before men in expensive cars started to drive down all the way from Birmingham in order to get a free lunch at someone else’s expense.  Likewise other religious houses in England have found that there is a certain constituency of vagrants who see them as prey for free board and lodging.

Indeed while writing these words, my phone rang, and woman with a thick Indian accent spoke, telling me that she was from a mobile phone company, in order to offer me a discount for being such a good customer.  “No, you aren’t,” I replied, somewhat curtly, for I have had this scam before.  “No, I suppose I’m not,” came the response in a sad voice.

It can be a sad world, if we let it.  But actually it’s a jolly good world for the most part, and we are extremely fortunate and blessed, all of us, beyond our deserts.  Let’s remember it!

Share

The “Sacra Parallela” of John Damascene

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In 1712, Michel Lequien printed the complete works of John Damascene (d. ca. 749) in two volumes (download from here and here), together with a Latin translation.  This edition was reprinted by Migne in the Patrologia Graeca, vols 95 and 96.  Among the genuine works, he printed in volume 2 a text which he called the “Sacra Parallela” or “Sacred Parallels”, with an appendix of more material from a codex Rupefulcaldina.  (In my previous posts we discussed the pseudo-Josephus text, which appears in this edition as the final portion of the material.)

The text is an anthology of extracts from earlier writers; what is called, in academic jargon, a “florilegium”.  As the literary culture of antiquity faded, the Byzantines, who were trying to preserve it, found that one of the most effective ways was to compile anthologies.  A great number exist.  Many which survive are compiled from still earlier anthologies.

So what we actually have is a bunch of Greek manuscripts, held in various manuscript repositories.  Each manuscript contains extracts.  Some manuscripts are copies of others.

The “Sacra Parallela” is one such florilegium.  Lequien printed it from one Vatican manuscript, the “Florilegium Vaticanum”, and the appendix came from a “Florilegium Rupefulcaldinum.”

A collection of extracts needs an index, so that the reader can find whatever subject he is looking for.  So the “Sacra Parallela” starts with a short prologue, followed by an index, and then the body of the text.  The index itself may be copied from one anthology to another, and modified (often inaccurately), so may tell us something about the chain of transmission.

Here’s the start of the index in Lequien’s edition, vol.2, p.281:

The work is divided into sections. Each section is called a “stoicheion” (“element”), corresponding to a letter of the Greek alphabet.  So here we see “Alpha”.

Each letter is divided into “titles” – subjects, basically.  Letter A is divided into 51 titles, for instance.  The first of these, title 1, is “On the eternity of the holy and consubstantial Trinity, and that there is only one God over all.”  Title 2 is “That God cannot be avoided…”.  Title 4: “On the love and fear of God…”.  Title 6: “About angels…”  And so on.

Here’s the start of the body text, at the end of the index, on p.297:

Here we see stoicheion/letter “Alpha”.  We start with title 1, “On the eternity of the holy and consubstantial Trinity…,”  and continue with a bunch of bible quotations, which Lequien helpfully printed in Italics.  After a page and a half of these, we get the first extract, which is from Basil, followed by three extracts from Gregory Nazianzen.

The extract author is given in the margin.  For Gregory Nazianzen the Greek says only: “of the theologian” (i.e. Gregory Nazianzen).  I suspect this is exactly what is found in the manuscript margin, rather than by Lequien: marginal author identification.

After letter Omega, there is a list of authors referenced on p.730.  I don’t know if this is an addition by Lequien rather than something in the manuscript.

That concludes my overview of what is usually meant when we refer to the “Sacra Parallela”.  I’ll look at the prologue next.

Share

1,000 British Library Manuscripts now back online!

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Today I learned that the British Library has made 1,000 manuscripts available online again.  They are here.  Scroll past the pretty-pretty stuff, and a very workable list appears, on three pages, in order of collection/fond.  Each row is a link, with shelfmark, date, and a quick summary of contents.  Most are Latin, but there are papyri on page 3.  There are no downloads (“as yet”).  But it is a huge relief to see these appear.

It looks rather as if the images mostly (all?) come from manuscripts that were made available to other institutions, and thereby preserved off-site.  If so, that ought to give BL management pause for thought as to the wisdom of only holding digital images in one place.

Funnily enough the list format, although obviously knocked up quickly, is far more usable to a researcher than anything we had on the old site.  I do hope that it is retained, possibly divided into collections, as with the Wiglaf index to the Vatican manuscripts.  Most manuscript repository sites are a pig to navigate.

Looking good.

Share

More on Pseudo-Josephus, “Discourse to the Greeks on Hades”

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In my last post, I mentioned that this Pseudo-Josephus text is transmitted to us in a range of manuscripts, but is also transmitted in the “Sacra Parallela.”   The Sacra is an immense anthology of extracts from the Fathers.  Since then I have been trying to find out more about the Sacra.  It was originally in three volumes, often attributed to John Damascene, but only compilations derive from it survive.

The Sacra has only been edited once, by Michel Lequien, in 1712, in two volumes (here and here), with parallel Latin translation.  But in recent years a German team has been working on the text, and now they have issued an edition of two recensions of the second volume of the Sacra, in the Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos series.[1]  Each recension gets two volumes.  Sadly these do not contain a translation.

The edition by J. Declerck of the second recension of Book II of the Sacra Parallela (volumes 3 and  4 ) contains 2,007 extracts.  These are organised in alphabetical order, using 23 letters of the Greek alphabet.  Apparently this recension included no entries for “zeta.”

But the last entry given is out of sequence.  Indeed this entry is none other than pseudo-Josephus, “Against Plato, on the cause of everything”; in other words, our “discourse to the Greeks on Hades.”  The section is noticeably far longer than the short extracts that precede it.

Here’s the start of this part.

Even the reviewer, Paul-Hubert Poirier, had some difficulty understanding the abbreviations at the top!  *II2 is the second recension of book II of the Sacra.  The asterisk is inscrutable, apparently. “PMLb” is a group of manuscripts.

That it appears there, out of sequence at the end, must mean that it is an addition, added later on to the end of some copy of this recension of the text, and transmitted with it.  For the first recension ends with a short extract from Justin Martyr.  The fact that it is a comparatively long text in several chapters also suggests that it is not part of the original.

We’ve already seen that this version of pseudo-Josephus was edited a century ago by Holl from two manuscripts.  These also form the basis of the new critical edition.  But this edition also ends at the same place, earlier than the Barocci manuscript used for the English translation.

I would infer from this that the pseudo-Josephus text is a free-floating bit of text, on version of which accidentally became attached to the end of one recension of the Sacra Parallela.

So pseudo-Josephus is not a portion of the Sacra Parallela which has gone solo.  Rather it is an independent artist that has joined the band.

Share
  1. [1]T. Thum/J. Declerck, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, in the Patristische Texte und Studien series.↩

Pseudo-Josephus, “A Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades” – an investigation

Posted on by Roger Pearse

There is a text floating around the web under the title of “Josephus’s Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades.”  The full title is “An extract out of Josephus’s discourse to the Greeks, concerning Hades: wherein are contained the souls of the righteous and the unrighteous.”  Bill Thayer has the most reliable version of the piece on his site, here.

This item is from William Whiston’s 1737 version of the complete works of Josephus, and in the original edition it was printed as Dissertation V in volume one.  (Dissertation VI defended its authenticity).  While omitted in most reprints, these dissertations can be found in the 1741 reprint.[1] But the text is plainly not by Josephus, not least because chapter 8 starts with an apocryphal saying of Jesus.  This is found in other patristic texts and reads, “In whatsoever ways I shall find you, in them shall I judge you entirely.”  So we may call it pseudo-Josephus.

Whiston’s “Dissertation V”

We need to find the Greek text for this, before we can discuss it.  In his original edition, Whiston gives a note about this, which leads us down some quite interesting rabbit holes.  As we shall see, it leads to a number of what appear to be unresolved issues.

In the reference literature today, the text is assigned to Hippolytus of Rome, and given a title such as “Adversus Graecos” or “Oratio ad Graecos de inferno”.  It is hesitantly classified as fragment 1 of the lost “De universo,” περί τοῦ παντός, (Clavis Patrum Graecorum CPG 1898).  This classification is based on Photius, Bibliotheca 48, which mentions such a work and ascribes it to Josephus, just as the manuscripts do today.  But Whiston, despite his cranky ideas, was right when he noted that the basis for the proposed identification with De universo was unsound, as Alice Whealey recently discussed.[2]

The text is printed in the Patrologia Graeca 10, cols. 796-801, with a Latin translation copied from Etienne Le Moyne, of whom more anon. The first half of the same text appears in PG 96, 541-544, labelled as the “Rupefucaldinum” version of John Damascene’s Sacra Parallela (CPG 8056).  There is a modern edition of our own text in K. Holl Fragmente vornizanischer Kirchenvater aus den Sacra Parallela (TU 20, 2), Leipzig (1899), pp.137-143.

Whiston’s translation predates all of these editions.  Ordinarily that would not matter, but in this case, as we shall see, it does.

Whiston encountered the text in the Addenda of the 1726 Havercamp edition, the basis for his translation of the works of Josephus.  This piece was in vol. 2, Addenda, p.145-7.[3]

But rather than using Havercamp’s text, he preferred that printed by David Humphreys, The Apologeticks of the Learned Athenian Philosopher Athenagoras, (1714).  This had a loose English translation on pp.292-9 and the Greek on pp.302-307.  Humphreys also collated it with a text printed in the end notes of David Hoeschelius, Photii Myriobiblon (1611).  The Notae at the end restart the page numbering from 1, so its on columns 9-12 at the back of the book.  Whiston mentions also Etienne Le Moyne, Varia sacra, ceu Sylloge variorum opusculorum graecorum, vol. 1 (1694), pp.53-62, whose Latin translation was adopted by Migne in the PG10.  Le Moyne attributes the text, without manuscript authority according to Whiston, to Hippolytus, Sermone contra Graecos, cuius titulus, contra Platonem de universi causa.

But here the mysteries begin.  Whiston prints the text in 8 chapters – the division and numbering are his own –, based upon the text of Humphreys.  But although Whiston himself states, “All the four copies … very nearly agree, till towards the latter end of § 6,” after that we have a problem.

I have only skimmed the texts, but it looks as if all the editions seem to agree as far as the last-but-one sentence in chapter 6.  Hoeschelius, the PG10 text, Le Moyne, and Holl also print a section of text equivalent to chapter 7.  The chapter 7 of Humphreys is rather different.  The chapter 8 of Humphreys is not present anywhere else.

Inevitably we have to ask what manuscript evidence each of these editions is based on.

The Pinakes database lists 10 manuscripts of our text:  Barocci MS 26 (9th c.) in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, BNF Coislin 131 (14th c.) in Paris, one in the Lavra on Mt Athos (K 113, 16th c.), Vatican gr. 723 (13-16th), and 6 more recent MSS also in the Vatican.  This from the online scan of a microfilm of Vatican gr. 723:

Vatican gr. 723, f. 239r (top)
Vatican gr. 723, fol. 240v (end)

So we can now look at the editions.

The Humphreys edition is based on MS Oxford Barocci 26.  Whiston tells us that this becomes nearly unreadable toward the end, but that this is the source of the material beyond chapter 6.  Sadly it is not online. He adds that the Barocci copy “is much the most valuable; because it is about a forth part larger than the other; and yet appears equally genuine.”[4]

Whiston also refers to the Coislin manuscript, which is online here.

Hoeschelius used an Italian manuscript, without specifying it.  He says only:

“Eius fragmentum ut ex Italia missum est pridem mihi a M.M. ita edo, pseudepigraphum, nec ne (non iniuria enim dubites) iudicent eruditi.  Equidem homini Christiano adscripserim.”

“I publish this fragment, just as it was sent to me some time ago from Italy by M.M., pseudepigraphical or not (for you would not be wrong to doubt), let the scholars decide. For my part, I would attribute it to a Christian author.”

So this was probably one of the Vatican manuscripts.  Whiston in “Dissertation 6” p.clxxxv tells us that “M.M.” was a certain Max Marguntius.

As far as I could tell from his rambling preface, Le Moyne does not identify the manuscript that he used for “Hippolytus”.

Pinakes also lists 39 manuscripts of the Sacra Parallela, from the 9th century onwards.  This work exists in various different recensions, and I am unclear whether pseudo-Josephus is present in all of these manuscripts.  Paris BNF gr. 923 (9th c.) and Venice Marciana gr. Z. 138 (10 med.) were used for the Holl edition, and there are three other manuscripts listed of recension “PMLb”, whatever that is.  But the mysteries of the Sacra Parallela will have to await another blog post.

It looks as if we have at least two recensions, and possibly three; the Barocci text via the Humphreys edition, the manuscript itself nearly unreadable at the end; the PG10 / Hoeschelius / Le Moyne text; and perhaps the Holl and PG96 text as a third group similar to the second.  Someone needs to collate these, collate the manuscripts, and establish a stemma.

I notice that even in the first sentence of the work, we find a separating variant.  Humphreys prints “Καὶ οὗτος μὲν ὁ περὶ δαιμόνων τόπος,” “And this is the place of demons.”  But other witnesses read “Καὶ οὗτος μὲν ὁ περὶ δαιμόνων λόγος,” translated by Whiston as “And this is the discourse concerning daemons.”

  • “topos” is the reading of Humphreys (and so, presumably, the Barocci MS), Hoeschelius, Le Moyne, and the PG10. It is also the reading of the Coislin MS, from which Whiston must have taken his reading.
  • “logos” is the reading of Holl, and also PG96, both based on the Sacra Parallela.
Paris BNF coislin 131, fol. 1r (top)

So there is editorial work to be done on the “ad Graecos”, or whatever we call the text.  The text, its authorship, and relationships between the text witnesses, all this would make an interesting subject for publication.  But not by me!

Share
  1. [1]William Whiston, The Genuine Works Of Flavius Josephus, The Jewish Historian. Translated from the Original Greek : according to Havercamp’s accurate Edition, vol. 1 (1737), pp.clxxix-clxxxiv.↩
  2. [2]A. Whealey, “Hippolytus’ lost ‘De universo’ and ‘De resurrectione:’ Some new hypotheses”, in: Vigiliae Christianae 50 (1996), p.244-256.  JSTOR.↩
  3. [3]S. Havercamp, Flavii Josephi quae reperiri potuerunt, 2 vols (1726). BSB: Vol. 1. Vol 2.  The text begins on p.676 of the PDF download of vol. 2.↩
  4. [4]In “Dissertation VI”, p.clxxxvi.↩

Oh no! – Philo of Carpasia and his “Letter to Eucarpius” – Part 4

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In my last few posts, I’ve tracked down and translated the obscure “Letter to Eucarpius” by Philo of Carpasia.  All well and good, except… it’s not.  While googling yesterday, I discovered that it’s actually found among the Letters of Basil of Caesarea / Basil the Great, where it is letter 42, and directed to a certain Chilo!  Oh no!

The attribution to Philo comes to us only from the two manuscripts.  Yet the same letter is found attributed to Basil in other manuscripts.  In fact one of these manuscripts has a note in the margin, saying that it isn’t by Basil either, but by St Nilus.

Well, mea culpa, mea maxime culpa.  What I should have done, clearly, was to search the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae for the opening words of the letter.

Having said this, I don’t feel too bad that I forgot to do so.  Because I have just done that search, and each time it failed.  Yet I knew that they were the same!  In the end I just browsed to Basil Letter 42, and then I found out why the searches failed.  Here’s the start of the Greek of Philo:

And here is the beginning of the TLG text of Basil, Letter 42:

ΠΡΟΣ ΧΙΛΩΝΑ ΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΜΑΘΗΤΗΝ

Σωτηρίου πράγματος αἴτιος γενήσομαί σοι  <missing word>, ὦ γνήσιε ἀδελφέ, εἰ ἡδέως συμβουλευθείης παρ’ ἡμῶν τὰ πρακτέα, μάλιστα περὶ ὧν ἡμᾶς αὐτὸς παρεκάλεσας συμβουλεῦσαί σοι. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ κατάρξασθαι τοῦ μονήρους βίου πολλοῖς ἴσως τετόλμηται, τὸ δὲ ἀξίως ἐπιτελέσαι ὀλίγοις τάχα που πεπόνηται. Καὶ πάντως οὐκ ἐν προθέσει μόνον τὸ τέλος ὑπάρχει, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ τέλει τὸ κέρδος τῶν πεπονημένων. Οὐκοῦν οὐδὲν ὄφελος τοῖς μὴ πρὸς τὸ τοῦ σκοποῦ τέλος ἐπειγομένοις, ἄχρι δὲ τῆς ἀρχῆς μόνης ἱστῶσι τὸν τῶν μοναχῶν βίον· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ καταγέλαστον καταλιμπάνουσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν πρόθεσιν, ἀνανδρίας καὶ ἀβουλίας παρὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἐγκαλούμενοι. Φησὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ Κύριος περὶ τῶν τοιούτων. «Τίς, βουλόμενος πύργον οἰκοδομῆσαι, οὐχὶ πρῶτον καθίσας ψηφίζει τὴν δαπάνην, εἰ ἔχει τὰ πρὸς ἀπαρτισμόν; μή ποτε, θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον καὶ μὴ

I’ve highlighted the differences in the first sentence: quite enough to frustrate my search!

The actual author of the letter is unclear.  From googling, I find that there is a general feeling that letters 42-46 are a group that belong together, which, if by Basil, must precede his ordination as bishop. I am told that letter 42 is not found in any “ancient manuscripts” of Basil’s letters, but first in Paris 967 of 1377 AD; and that MS “Paris Regius 2895” – whatever that now is – has a note “Some attribute this to the holy Nilus”.  It also appears in several manuscripts of the homilies.[1]  I don’t think that this is the place to go into the arguments for Nilus or Basil.

Oh well!  It was fun to do anyway!

Share
  1. [1]Basil, Letters vol. 1, in: Fathers of the Church 13 (1951), p.102, note 1.↩

Philo of Carpasia and his “Letter to Eucarpius” – Part 3 – Translation

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve now made a translation from the modern Greek version of Philo of Carpasia’s Letter to Eucarpius, using a mixture of ChatGPT and Google Translate.  Unfortunately I had no access to an electronic text of the ancient Greek, but I was able to scan the modern Greek and work with that.  As usual, I make the results public domain.  Use them in any way you like!  Update 24/09/24: This is also Letter 42 of Basil. See here.

Philo, Bishop of Carpasia, Letter to Eucarpius

1. I shall become a mediator for you in a matter of salvation, my true brother, if you gladly accept our advice on what you should do, especially regarding the things you yourself asked us to advise you about. For, although perhaps many have dared to begin this solitary life, it seems to me that few have bothered to sustain it worthily to the end. And the objective of it is not just the intention, but the objective is the reward of the effort.  So there is no benefit to those who rush to reach the end of the goal while they remain merely at the beginning of the solitary life, and instead abandon it and become a laughing-stock, and are accused by outsiders of cowardice and vacillation.  For the Lord says about such people, “Who, wanting to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate if he has the means to complete it, lest, after laying its foundation and not being able to finish it, passers-by begin to mock him, saying that this man started to build and was unable to finish?”[Luke 14:28]

Therefore let (those at) the beginning maintain a steady progress along this course, which hastens to reach the goal of the good deeds.  For the bravest athlete, Paul, teaches us this with his own achievement: not to rest on our past good deeds but to move forward day by day, saying, “Forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize of the heavenly calling.” [Phil. 3:13-16]  Such is the whole life of men —to be not content with what they have achieved, but to delight in what is to come.  For what’s the use of yesterday’s full stomach, if today the stomach is hungry for lack of food?  Similarly, there is no profit for the soul for yesterday’s achievement if today’s act of righteousness is lacking. “For in whatever state I find you,” he says, “so I will judge you.”[1]

So the toil of the righteous man is in vain, and the way of repentance of the sinner is irreproachable.  So it is with both of them, the end (of the righteous man), who fell from the best to the worst? and of the other (the sinner), who changed from the worst to the best.  You can see these things also in the prophet Ezekiel, who declares with the Lord’s mouth, “For if the righteous person strays and sins, I will not remember the righteous deeds that he did earlier, but he will die in his sin.” [Ez. 8:24]  And again, he says, “And I will not remember the sins of the sinner, and if he turns to the right way and does justice, he will live in this righteousness.” [Ez. 18:21-3]

For where then is Gehazi’s great companionship with Elisha, who, because of his greed, brought leprosy upon himself?  And what was the benefit of Solomon’s immense wisdom and the great favour he previously received from God, since he later fell into idolatry because of his obsession with women?  Even the blessed David was not left blameless by pride, for the wrong he did to Uriah.  But the fall of Judas from the better to the worse would be sufficient for anyone living in obedience with God to avoid such errors; he, who for so many years was a disciple of the Lord, later, for a minor offence, sold his teacher and bought for himself a noose.

2. This, then, let it be known to you, brother, that it is not he who begins well and then comes to evil, who is righteous before God, but he who ends well, this is the righteous before God. Therefore brother, do not give sleep to your eyes, nor slumber to your eyelids, “so that you may escape like a gazelle from the hunter’s trap, like a bird from the fowler’s snare.” [Prov. 6:5, Ps. 124:7]  Be careful, for “you are stepping among snares, and walking on the battlements of a high wall,” [Sirach 9:13] and for this reason, a fall is not without danger for the one who falls.  Therefore do not stretch yourself immediately to the extreme of asceticism, especially if you do not have confidence in yourself, so that you do not get dizzy and fall from the height of asceticism.  For it is better to climb little by little, progressing step by step toward the height of your achievements, rather than descending step by step because of the weakening of your strength, which is reprehensible and even harmful to the soul.  So free yourself little by little from the pleasures of life, eliminating each habit from yourself, for fear that, if you drop them all at once, you bring upon yourself a flood of temptations.  But when you overcome one passion or one pleasure, take your stand against the next, and in this way, you will easily conquer all pleasures.  For though pleasure is one word, its forms are many.

3. So, my brother, be patient in every temptation—for the faithful are tested with various temptations—they are tested with accusations, earthly losses, lies, disobedience, slanders, persecutions; by these and similar things, the faithful are tested. Do not be reckless in your words, nor argumentative, quarrelsome, vain, or ostentatious, but dignified; not a chatterbox, always eager not to teach but to be taught, as these faults bring you no benefit.  Do not concern yourself with the life of the world, as the Psalm says, “that my mouth may not speak the works of men”; [Ps. 17:4] for he who delights in speaking of the deeds of sinners immediately stirs up thoughts of pleasures against himself.  Do not neglect reading, especially the New Testament.  “Examine everything and judge, hold onto what is good, avoid every evil thing.” [1 Thess. 5:21-22]  Everything is permissible for you, but not everything is beneficial. [1 Cor. 10:23]

Therefore, with those you meet and with those with whom you associate, be in all things blameless, cheerful, loving, gentle, and humble.  Avoid gold as a treacherous enemy of the soul, and the father of sin, and the ally of the devil.  Avoid pleasures, pursue self-control, train your body to endure hard work and your soul to patiently bear trials, with the conviction that the perfect separation of soul and body is a release from every evil.  Always seek to learn about the lives of the righteous, for in this way you will find benefit for your soul.

Do not be fond of traveling or wandering around villages or cities, and do not leave your place under the pretext that you need something; for when you leave your place, maybe you will also leave behind your way of life.  Do not seek out the favour of the crowd, nor be a lover of dancing, nor a friend of the cities, but rather be a friend of solitude, always remaining unmovable in your dwelling, considering prayer and psalmody your work.  Don’t make hospitality hard because of a lack of luxurious foods, but be content with the necessities of the monastic life, and do not accept anything more than those from anyone; and don’t be greedy, not because gold is inherently bad, but because, for those who have a passion for it, it becomes evil.

Don’t make yourself a slave to greed under the pretext of helping the poor; and if someone brings you money for the poor and you know of people who are in need, advise the one who brought the money to take it directly to the brothers who are in need, in case the acceptance of the money stain your conscience.

4. But above all, wait for the enjoyment of the eternal blessings, of which all the saints have become partakers. And you, weighing everything with the scales of the mind, should put pious reasoning in the place of devil-thoughts, especially when a wicked thought arises and says to you:

“What is the benefit of your life in this desert place?  And what have you gained from your withdrawal from human society?  Haven’t you seen the God-appointed bishops of the churches of God, holy men, socializing with others and effortlessly celebrating the spiritual festivals, from which there is much benefit, especially for those who attend them?  For there, explanations of proverbial riddles are made, interpretations of apostolic teachings, listening to theology, and encounters with spiritual brothers, all of which offer great benefit to those who meet together, as they witness Christian conduct.  But you have alienated yourself from so many great blessings and sit here like a wild man, equal to the beasts; because here you see a lot of desolation, not a little inhumanity, lack of teaching, separation from brothers, and much idleness concerning God’s commandment.”

5. When, therefore, the wicked thought disturbs you with such seemingly reasonable arguments, you should counter it with pious reasoning based on your own experience, saying to it:

“Since you assert that the things of the world are good, well, that is why I live here, because I judged myself unworthy of the good things of the world, for, in the middle of its good things, the bad is always present.  For when in the past I was present at spiritual festivals, I did with difficulty meet a brother who seemed to fear God, but in fact was possessed by the devil, and I heard from him beautifully spoken words, lying myths, and behaviour that deceived those present.  I also met others after him—thieves, liars, many greedy and tyrannical people, many who were full of pride.  I saw the vulgar gesturing of drunkards, the blood of the oppressed; I saw the beauty of women, which tormented my chastity.  And though I escaped the act of fornication, I still stained my purity with the desires of my heart.  Though I heard many edifying words, I found no teacher whose works were worthy of their words.  I also heard countless songs, the obnoxious voices of foolish talk and indescribable profanity, the tears of those who were robbed, the cries of those captured and forcibly taken away by tyrants, the sighs of the tormented, the lamentations of the wronged; for sighs and lamentations follow the wronged to reveal the endurance of the poor.  And I saw that it was not a spiritual festival, but a stormy and troubled sea that sought to engulf everyone with its waves.

Tell me then, O wicked thought and demon of fleeting pleasure and vanity, what is the benefit to me from seeing and hearing all these things, since I was not strong enough to help any wronged person, nor could I stop the violence of the wrongdoers, nor was it permitted for me to correct the guilty, who, together with the others, might have destroyed me as well?  For, just as a little clean water disappears in much mud, so I was.  The few things that we think is good to do in the lives of men are overshadowed by the multitude of evils.  What, then, is my benefit?  To lose my soul.

That is why I go and live in the mountains;  ‘like a sparrow, I have escaped from the snare of the hunters’ [Ps. 124:7] through the grace of Christ.  For in this desert I live, O wicked thought, where the Lord dwelt with divine favour. Here is the oak of Mamre, under which the Lord appeared to Abraham.  Here was the heavenly ladder and the army of angels that appeared to Jacob; here is the desert in which the people were purified and given the law, and thus entered the land promised by God.  Here Moses saw God; here is Mount Carmel, where Elijah lived and became pleasing to God.  Here is the desert in which the blessed John, eating locusts, preached repentance to the people.  Here is the Mount of Olives, where Christ went up and prayed, teaching us to pray alone; for He says, ‘Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am among them.’ [Mt. 18:20] Here is the ‘narrow and difficult path that leads to life’; [Mt. 7:14] here are teachers and prophets who ‘wander in deserts and mountains, in caves and holes in the ground’; [Heb. 11:38] here are apostles and evangelists, and the monastic life of desert dwellers.

These things, uncorrupted, I have accepted, and they have been commanded by the martyrs of Christ and the righteous one, so that I can say confidently: ‘By means of the words of Your lips, I have kept to difficult paths’; [Ps. 17:4] for I have understood that the God-beloved Abraham obeyed the voice of God and dwelt in the desert, that the simple Isaac was oppressed, that the patriarch Jacob was exiled, that the wise Joseph was sold, that the three champions of endurance fought in the fire, that the devout Daniel was thrown a second time into the lions’ den, that the outspoken Jeremiah was cast into a pit of mud, that Isaiah, the seer of mysteries, was sawn in two, that John, the reprover of adultery, was beheaded, that Peter was crucified upside down, that Paul was persecuted constantly and imprisoned and then beheaded, that the rest of the apostles and the martyrs of Christ were killed in various ways.  And to avoid being long-winded, even our saviour Christ was crucified for our sake, to give us life through His death and to anoint us all with patience, and through patience to draw us to Himself.

Therefore, I hasten toward Him and His Father and the Holy Spirit, striving to be found genuine, having judged myself unworthy of the good things of the world; for I am not for the world, but the world is for me.”

6. So think about these things and pursue them seriously and willingly, and according to the saying, “Fight for the truth until death.” [Eccles. 4:28] Indeed the Apostle Paul says, “Take heed, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called ‘Today,’ lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin” [Heb. 3:12-3] —for “Today” means all the time of our life.

If you live in this way, my brother, you will also save yourself and you will give joy to us and you will glorify God, whose glory and power are forever and ever. Amen.

Share
  1. [1]This is an apocryphal saying of Jesus, found in Justin, Dialogue with Tryphon 47; Clem. Alex. Quis Dives Salvetur 40, John Climacus, The Ladder 7, Life of Antony 15, Ps.Josephus Contra Graecos/Discourse to the Greeks on Hades 8, and others.↩

Who was Philo of Carpasia and why do we care?

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The name of Philo of Carpasia is known to… practically nobody. [1]  I’d never heard it until a couple of weeks ago, when I learned that a long section of his Commentary on the Song of Songs existed in a manuscript in Ge`ez, classical Ethiopian, and indeed has been printed with Italian translation.[2]

This Carpasia or Karpasia – or even Karpathos, apparently – was an ancient Greek town in the Karpas peninsula of Cyprus, and this Philo was ordained bishop there by Epiphanius of Salamis in the late 4th century AD.  We know this from chapter 49 of the hagiographical Vita of Epiphanius[3], an unusual text in four sections, where the opening section is from notes by Epiphanius’ disciple John, but the remainder somewhat later by an otherwise unknown Polybius of the 5-6th century.  Unfortunately c. 49 is by the latter.

The Suda tells us that a “Philo of Karpathos” composed a Commentary on the Song of Songs, and we have 10 Greek manuscripts listed in the Pinakes database which contain such a commentary which attribute it to “Philo of Carpasia”.  One in Modena is 12th century; Vaticanus Barb. gr. 334 (13th century) is online here.  Two more are 15-16th century, and the rest are later.

Vat. barb. gr. 334, fol. 1r (excerpt showing the author)

There are also extracts from the Commentary in the medieval Greek bible commentaries, the catenae, and four passages in Cosmas Indicopleustes in his Christian Topography  10, 57-8.

As well as the Greek manuscripts, we have an ancient translation of the work into Latin.  This was made in the 6th century at the request of Cassiodorus.  It is preserved in a single manuscript of… the 6th century, which must therefore have a fair chance of being the autograph or copied directly from it.  This ancient manuscript is online, MS Vaticanus latinus 5704.  Comparison of the Latin with the Greek reveals that the Greek text has been abbreviated in places.  Unfortunately Cassiodorus thought that the commentary was composed by Epiphanius of Cyprus, as he says in his Institutions, book 1, 5:4. After mentioning  commentaries on the Song of Songs by Origen, as translated by Jerome and Rufinus, he adds:

Post quos Epiphanius antistes Cyprius totum librum Graeco sermone uno volumine sub brevitate complexus est.  Hunc nos ut alios in Latinam linguam par amicum nostrum virum disertissimum Epiphanium fecimus Domino iuvante transferri.

After them, Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, treated the whole book in one brief volume in Greek. I have had this book like others translated into Latin with the Lord’s aid by my learned friend Epiphanius.[4]

Thus on folio 4v the Vatican manuscript states: Incipit expositio Epiphanii episcopi Cyprii in Canticis Canticorum.

The ancient Latin translation is important in biblical studies because it quotes from the Old Latin text of Song of Songs, itself not well preserved.[5]

There are extracts from the Commentary in an Old Slavonic catena known as the “Commentary of Philo.”  These seem to come from the catenae.[6]  The Ge`ez text seems to be from the original full Greek text, although the translator apparently struggled to translate the ideas from the Greek text into the less flexible Semitic language of Ethiopian.

There is no modern critical edition of the Greek text, although the ancient Latin translation was critically edited with an Italian translation by A. Ceresa-Gastaldo.[7]  The 1750 editio princeps by Foggini is online here, which appeared in Rome under the title S. Epiphani Salaminis in Cypro episcopi Commentarium in Canticum Canticorum.

The Greek text of the Commentary was first printed in 1772 in Rome by Giacomelli, 1772, Philonis episcopi Carpasii enarratio in Canticum Canticorum, with notes and his own translation into Latin.  It is online here. This edition is reproduced in PG40, cols. 27-154.  The same text was reprinted by without notes by K. Hadjioannos / [Chatzēiōannou, Kyriakos], Ἡ ἀρχαία Κύπρος εἰς τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς πήγας / Hē archaia Kypros eis tas Hellēnikas pēgas, vol. 3, Leucosia: Ekd. Hieras Archiepiskopēs Kyprou (1975), together with a modern Greek translation.

A couple of bits of the Commentary have been translated into English by Brian Duvick, and are accessible on Academia.edu here and here.

There are two very useful articles on the Commentary by S. Sagot (1981)[8] and M.A.Barbara (2019).[9]

We also have two Greek manuscripts containing the Letter to Eucarpius by Philo of Carpasia.  I will post a translation of this shortly. Update 24/09/24: This is also Letter 42 of Basil. See here.

Finally there are also two fragments of an Ecclesiastical History by a certain Philo (CPG 7512) preserved in works ascribed to Anastasius of Sinai (7th century).   A recent article and edition argues that the author should be identified with Philo of Carpasia.[10]

Share
  1. [1]For more information, please consult the marvellous article by Solange Sagot, ‘Une récente édition du “Commentaire sur le Cantique des Cantiques” de Philon de Carpasia’, in: Vigiliae Christianae 35 (1981), pp.358-376.  JSTOR. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1582998. ↩
  2. [2]Details in Tedros Abraham, “The Gǝʿǝz Version of Philo of Carpasia’s Commentary on Canticle of Canticles 1:2-14a: Introductory Notes”, in: Aethiopica 15 (2013), 22-52. PDF download here. ↩
  3. [3]BHG 596-9, PG41, col. 85, English translation forthcoming from Claudia Rapp in the TTH series↩
  4. [4]Translated by J. Halporn in TTH 42, Liverpool (2004), p.123.↩
  5. [5]Vide Ceulemans and Dimitrova.↩
  6. [6]Reinhart Ceulemans, Margaret Dimitrova, “The Slavonic Catena also known as the ‘Commentary of Philo’ and the Greek Catena Hauniensis on the Song of Songs” in: The Literary Legacy of Byzantium: Editions, Translations, and Studies in Honour of Joseph A. Munitiz SJ, Brepols (2019) pp.109-144.  https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SBHC-EB.5.117146↩
  7. [7] A. Ceresa-Gastaldo, Commento al Cantico dei cantici / [di] Filone di Carpasia ; nell’antica versione latina di Epifanio Scolastico, Series: Corona Patrum 6 (1979).↩
  8. [8] S. Sagot, “Une récente édition du _Commentaire sur le Cantique des Cantiques_ de Philon de Carpasia” in: Vigiliae Christianae 35 (1981), 358-376↩
  9. [9] M. A. Barbara, “Note sulle traduzioni latine del Commentario al Cantico dei cantici di Filone di Carpasia,” In: In ricordo di Sandro Leanza.  Giornate di studio di  Letteratura cristiana antica, a cura di M. A. Barbàra – M. R. Petringa, Sicania,  Messina 2019, pp. 41-52. ISBN: 978-88-7268-155-8. Online here.↩
  10. [10] L. Van Hoof &c, “Philo of Carpasia, Ecclesiastical History (CPG 7512)” in: Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 112 (2017), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.RHE.5.113225↩

Psalm 82 and Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Psalm 82 is as follows (NIV):

A psalm of Asaph.

1 God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:

2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?[b]
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”

8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.

Footnotes

  1. Psalm 82:2 The Hebrew is plural.
  2. Psalm 82:2 The Hebrew has Selah (a word of uncertain meaning) here.

This psalm always tends to remind me of an unsigned pop group in the late 1960s, formed out of the most competent members of other local groups, which modestly called itself “The Gods”!

On reading the psalm yesterday, I found myself wondering about this “gods” and how it should be understood.  The modern punctuation, using apostrophes around “gods”, is not in the original Hebrew, nor in the Greek nor even the Latin Vulgate.  Modern punctuation is an innovation of the early modern period and later.  But it is a nice way to indicate how the modern translator understood the text.

But how did the ancients understand this psalm?  Well, there is always Eusebius of Caesarea’s massive early-fouth century Commentary on the Psalms, still awaiting an English translation.  So I found myself consulting it.  Fortunately there is an Italian translation, which I have run across into English.  I’ll post the output here, and then add a couple of thoughts of my own.

Note that in the ancient Greek translation of the psalms, the Septuagint, this psalm is numbered 81.  This was the numbering that Eusebius knew, and his text references it so, and the biblical footnotes from the Italian are also in the LXX numbering.

PSALM 81

Verse 1a: “A Psalm of Asaph.”
Verse 1b: “God stands in the assembly of the gods, and in their midst He judges the gods.”

The previous psalm accused the entire Jewish people, as God clearly said: “My people did not listen to My voice, and Israel did not obey Me. So I sent them away to follow their own desires”;[1] and again: “If only My people would listen to Me, if Israel would walk in My ways, I would quickly humble their enemies.”[2] In continuity with that, this one accuses those who preside over the people, since it addresses princes and judges, saying: “How long will you judge unjustly? And will you show favour to sinners? Defend the cause of the poor and the humble, do justice to the orphan and the needy.” Then it adds: I commanded this, but they “neither knew nor understood: they wander in darkness.”

He nevertheless calls them “gods,” either because of the honour they received from the people, so much so that they were approached with fear and reverence as if they were God Himself; or because, having the responsibility to administer justice, they acted on God’s behalf, punishing and chastising the wicked according to the law that was in their hands; or also because they were honoured by God with adoption as His children, to the point that it is said of them: “I have begotten children and raised them up”;[3] or again, because they are made in the image and likeness of God,[4] due to the intellectual and rational substance that is in man. And in this psalm, indeed, he continues by saying to those he accuses: “I have said: You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High. But you will die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”

The Word of God, therefore, in judging those who preside over the people, that is, priests, high priests, and other leaders, declares these things. For this reason, it is said: “God stands in the assembly of the gods, and in their midst He judges the gods”; or, according to Aquila: “God stands in the assembly of the mighty; in what is inward, the Lord judges”; and according to Symmachus: “God stands in the council of God, in the midst, God judges.” The one who judges is this God, that is, the Word of God, and He judges the so-called “assembly of the gods,” declaring His accusations against those being judged. And since the powerful will be examined according to their power, He rightly separates the group of those He calls gods and judges them apart, while in the previous psalm, He had already declared His accusation against the mass of the people. But He also judges in the sense that He discerns those who are worthy of salvation and those who are not. He judges without arrogance, without the ways of a tyrant, without sitting high above, but, lowering Himself towards those He must judge, He stands among them, in a form similar to theirs, because of the man He has assumed. For this reason, He first addresses those who will be judged, to lead them to wisdom, so that they may avoid falling under punishment in judgment, so that they may correct themselves, so that they may be careful to avoid the causes of accusation that are being laid out.

For this reason, He says: “How long will you judge unjustly? And will you show favour to sinners? Defend the cause of the poor and the orphan.” The Spirit of prophecy cried out similar things to them when it said through Isaiah: “Learn to do good; seek justice, defend the orphan, and plead the case of the widow. Then come and let us reason together, says the Lord. And even if your sins are like scarlet, I will make them white as snow.”[5] Certainly, these things had already been commanded by Scripture before, yet those who are honoured with the title of gods and made worthy of such teachings “neither knew nor understood: they wander in darkness.”

These words can also be referred to the time of the first coming of our Saviour among us, when, going to the synagogues of the Jews and standing among the leaders, He conversed with them and accused them, attesting to and describing what would happen to them in the future judgment. Thus, at that time, God stood “in the assembly of the gods,” and there in the midst, He judged these gods, as mentioned. Instead of “judges,” Symmachus and Aquila translated it as “judging.” But observe how He called those He judged “gods” and did not hesitate to speak of the “assembly of the gods,” to the shame of those who deny the divinity of the Saviour. Indeed, if He does not hesitate to call gods those who are accused and found guilty of iniquity, how much more justly should we revere with the august honour due to God the author of such extraordinary works, the one who has received from the Father the power to judge? It is with these objections that the Saviour Himself addressed the leaders of the Jews to confound them. For when they said, “We do not stone you for a good work but for blasphemy because you, a man, make yourself God,” Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law: I said: You are gods? If He called those to whom the word of God came gods — and Scripture cannot be annulled — do you say of Him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world that He is blaspheming because I said: I am the Son of God?”[6]

And do not be surprised if the Saviour says, “Is it not written in the Law?” because He lets us know that any word of God, not only through Moses but also through the prophets, should be understood as a sort of royal law. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to call the precepts given by the prophets the laws of God, and this also applies to the psalms. He Himself, then, the Word of God, “taking the form of a servant and appearing in human form,” placed Himself in the assembly of the “gods,” and, standing among these men called “gods,” He judged them when He said: The word I have spoken will judge you. Thus, we should understand our text in this way, rather than thinking it refers to God the Father, who transcends all, and who would be standing among other “gods.” For it is not permissible to suppose that anyone could be His equal, nor to lower Him to the point of thinking He could stand among men in such a way, standing there in their midst. All this, instead, can be referred to the Christ of God. It is He Himself who, saying: “How long will you judge unjustly? And will you show favour to sinners?” does not only address those He is speaking to personally but all those who have received the power to judge others. And it is right that He criticizes those who hypocritically favour the rich and oppress the needy, while it is with the scales of justice that one must judge, remembering that the Law says: “You shall not show partiality in judgment.” And certainly, we too are often severe judges towards the poor for the small faults they commit, and we show no mercy in our judgments against them. But when the rich commit even grave offenses and then come to the Church of God, we show them favour. Thus, the words of the psalm are appropriate for us as well: “How long will you judge unjustly? And will you show favour to sinners?” By saying, “How long?” He reminds us that we must leave this life. Indeed, He asks: How long will you act this way? And after that, you will face the judgment of God.

Therefore, he adds: “Defend the cause of the poor and the orphan, do justice to the humble and the needy. Rescue the needy, and deliver the poor from the hand of the sinner.” If we, then, listen to these words, correct ourselves, and observe what is commanded of us, we will enjoy the benefits that come from these words. For it will also be said to us: “They neither knew nor understood; they wander in darkness.” And what is it that they neither knew nor understood, if not that, within a short time, they too will have to appear before the tribunal of God to give an account of what they did not judge justly? But those who do not keep the judgment of God in mind wander in darkness because they have filled the eyes of their souls with the darkness of ignorance. Therefore, it benefits them to be illuminated by the splendour of the Word, or not to engage in judgment at all, mindful of the One who said: “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged”;[7] or, if it is indeed necessary to judge, to do so in the most just way and to rebuke sinners, even if it requires dying for the truth, firmly convinced that the end will come for all and that situations will change at the time of the universal judgment of God, which will happen through His Christ.

And this is also indicated by the present text, as it continues, adding: “All the foundations of the earth will be shaken. I said: You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High. But you will die like men, and fall like one of the princes.” Once again, with these words, He addresses the aforementioned “gods,” the leaders and chiefs of the people. The God who came among them teaches that, in imitation of the Father’s generosity, He was not held back by jealousy in sharing His divinity with them, even going so far as to call them “gods” and to declare them all children of the Most High—a status that, however, belongs to Him alone. But they responded to grace with insults.

You will then understand how those who have received power from God are honoured by their subjects almost as if they were gods if you observe what was said to Moses: “See, I have made you like a god to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.”[8] Just as Moses, who was a man of God and was honoured by Him, is declared a god to Pharaoh, so too are all those whom God honours considered by their subjects to be acting in the place of God. Therefore, the subjects approach them with reverential fear, not because of any armed escort, wealth, or power they possess, but because of the honour God has bestowed upon them. Thus, the face of Moses was filled with glory, as were the faces of the apostles of our Saviour, the ancient prophets of God, and all those who are truly servants of God. Though they may remain without glory and poor in their lives, they are honoured by the faithful because of the grace that God has given them.

“So then,” he says, “this is how I wanted it, and I said: ‘You are gods’, because I wanted you also, like me—God who stands among you—to become children of the Most High. But you have despised this grace. And indeed, you die because of your human wickedness and your sins. For, ‘the soul that sins shall die.’[9] Therefore, ‘you die like men, and fall like one of the princes.’ Because there was a time when even the devil was in honour before God, and was one of the princes of the angels in heaven, but then, for having followed an evil purpose, he fell from his status as an angel, so much so that it is said of him: ‘How have you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who rises in the morning?’[10] Likewise with you: it is not by nature that you are wicked, but by your wicked choices. Therefore, as for me, I was calling you to divine honour, but since you have imitated the fallen prince, behold, you also ‘fall like one of the princes.’”

Verse 8: “Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for you shall inherit all the nations.”

In perfect continuity with the previous psalm, where the entire Jewish nation was accused, in this one, which we are now considering, addressing the leaders of the people, the psalmist prays for the reconciliation and manifestation of Christ, not for the nation of the Jews but for all the nations. Therefore, it adds: “Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for you shall inherit all the nations.” And who receives this inheritance, you may ask, but examine the facts and you will see that it can only be the Christ of God, to whom the Father had said: “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your possession.” To urge Him, God who is in the midst of those “gods” and reproves them, this psalm asks Him to finally bring to completion the promise He received, saying: “Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for you shall inherit all the nations.” Indeed, it says, those who have already been accused and have been poor judges have wandered in darkness. But it is your duty to judge with justice, for only you, the Son, have the judgment entrusted to you by the Father. Therefore, rise up, and with your resurrection, bring about the common resurrection of all men, and “judge the earth,” that is, all the people who inhabit the earth. It is up to you to judge all people “for you shall inherit all the nations.”

Thus this psalm has spoken of the “assembly of gods,” of God who is in their midst and “judges the gods,” and has outlined the whole doctrine of judgment, then at the end adds: “Rise up, O God, judge the earth.”

All this has been expounded by the Holy Spirit through the prophet Asaph. However, since we have seen that Psalm 49, also attributed to Asaph, has already dealt with judgment in a manner similar to this one, it seems appropriate to consider it analogous to the one we are now examining, given that it is also by Asaph and shares the same theme. In Psalm 49, it is said: “The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken, and has called the earth, from the rising of the sun to its setting.” Observe how the ending of what we are considering says: “Rise up, O God, judge the earth,” while Psalm 49 begins with: “The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken, and has called the earth.” Furthermore, here it is said: “For you shall inherit all the nations,” and there it says: “From the rising of the sun to its setting.”[11] Moreover, Psalm 49 says: “God will come manifestly, our God, and will not keep silent,”[12] while what He will do is taught here: “God stands in the assembly of gods, and in their midst, He judges the gods.” How He judges is explained in Psalm 49, which says: “A fire will burn before Him, and a mighty tempest will be around Him. He will call to the heavens above, and to the earth, to judge His people.”[13]

So for these reasons, it seemed right to us to consider that Psalm 49 is connected to this one. It should also be noted that the psalms of Asaph that follow this point deal with the repudiation of Israel and its causes, and Psalm 49, by the same prophet, also introduces the topic of the abrogation of the Law of Moses, declaring that sacrifices are rejected. Thus, the context in both psalms presents similar themes. As for why Psalm 49 has been separated from those that are placed here one after the other and placed before the confession in Psalm 50, this we have already explained in our commentary.

An interesting commentary indeed, and I find myself wondering about the explanation of the position of psalm 49.

The Italian translator has treated the first verse as a summary of the psalm, rather than as part of the psalm itself.  Judging from the commentary, this is how Eusebius saw it also.

It is interesting that Eusebius treats psalm 82 as a continuation of psalm 81.  We think of the psalms as composed independently, and then gathered together at some subsequent point.  We always treat them independently in church use.  But here Eusebius plainly thinks that the psalmist composed them in the order in which we have them, and wrote them down in that order.  Furthermore it looks as if he thinks that the collection we now have is disarranged from the original, judging from the final remark.  Of course he could be right, or he could be speculating.  No ancient source preserves anything about the process of composition of the book of psalms, as far as I am aware, so imagination may play freely.

The rather shocking “God stands in the assembly of the gods, and in their midst He judges the gods” he understands as we do; as a reference to human beings, to the “great ones” of our day, who behave like gods over our lives, without regard to our wishes or even our votes.  The whole psalm then becomes a warning to the great, that God is watching them, and indeed to us when we have authority over others.  The non-Septuagint translations of Aquila and Symmachus are referenced, making the same point in different ways.

It is good to check a modern exegesis against the thoughts of antiquity!

Share
  1. [1]Ps. 80:12.↩
  2. [2]Ps. 80:14.↩
  3. [3]Is. 1:2.↩
  4. [4]Genesis 1:26.↩
  5. [5]Is. 1:17↩
  6. [6]Jn. 10:33-36.↩
  7. [7]Mt. 7:1/↩
  8. [8]Exodus 7:1.↩
  9. [9]Ezekiel 18:4.↩
  10. [10]Is. 14:12.↩
  11. [11]Ps. 49:1.↩
  12. [12]Ps. 49:3.↩
  13. [13]Ps. 49:3.↩

From my diary – Philo of Carpasia and his “Letter to Eucarpios” – Part 2

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Many thanks indeed to Diego and Matthieu Cassin who both contributed a lot of useful information in response to my last post.  Let me summarise their comments.

It seems that the K. Hadjioannos (1975) edition of Philo of Carpasia’s Letter to Eucarpios is a straight reprint of a text printed by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus’ in Analekta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, vol. 1 (1891), item 16, 393-399, minus the apparatus and biblical references. His text was taken from MS St Sabbas 408 (9-10th c.), folios 34-40.   Interestingly the manuscript leads off with two works by a certain John Carpathius.

The Analekta volume is a collection of texts printed from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem and its churches in the surrounding area.  Papadopoulos-Kerameus in fact made a detailed catalogue of the manuscripts at the Patriarchate, which includes manuscripts from the monastery of St Sabbas (or Mar Saba as it is often known).  The Mar Saba manuscript appears in this catalogue in vol. 2 (1894) p.536, entry 3 (online here), although I learn from Pinakes that more up-to-date catalogues also exist.  Apparently microfilms of around half the manuscripts at the patriarchate were made in 1950 by an American expedition.

The marvellous Pinakes database also lists another manuscript of the Letter to Eucarpios here.  It is in Greece, on Mount Athos, in the Iviron monastery.  It is Iviron 673 (numbered 4793 in the Lambros catalogue), and dated to the 14th century.  Here the Letter follows two works by Chrysostom, so clearly the Mar Saba manuscript is not just a straight copy of the Iviron manuscript.

I’ve begun to scan the modern Greek translation of the Letter to Eucarpios.  I don’t know a word of modern Greek, but I thought it possible that Google Translate or ChatGPT might be able to do something with it.  Google Translate certainly attempted it, but the results were not very good.  ChatGPT on the other hand has given a very fluent translation of the whole thing, which I will post once I have tinkered with the output a bit.  At one point in particular the thought is obvious but the raw output obscures it.

The letter is written to a monk who is just starting out on the ascetic life and is despairing, and wondering, “what’s the point?”  The response is more interesting than you might imagine.

Update 24/09/24: This is also Letter 42 of Basil. See here.

Share