Author: Roger Pearse

Life of Mar Aba – chapter 24

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Here is another chapter of the hagiographical life of the East Syriac patriarch, Mar Aba I, who ruled in the Persian empire in the late 6th century.  For those who have not seen the earlier chapters, Aba is a Zoroastrian official who has converted, and become patriarch.  He is on good terms with the King of Kings, but currently under house arrest for political reasons in a remote area of Azerbaijan dominated by Zoroastrianism.

24.  He turned the house that he lived in into a church.  He set up there an altar of Christ,  and every day gave himself with his disciples to fasting and prayer.  What in the beginning was the dwelling of Satan became then a house of prayer to the true God.  From the provinces Metropolitans, bishops, priests, deacons and believing men and women came together there, in fact, to pray and to receive his blessing.  Some were standing at his door in sackcloth and ashes, for their sins, and received remission.  Some received the blessing of the spiritual dignity of the episcopate.  Some received the dignity of the priesthood, diaconate or other ecclesiastical ranks (τάξις).  All the houses of the persecutors and blasphemers became offices of the saints and houses of prayer and praise to God.  Crowds of bishops met and the sound was heard of their songs of the Holy Spirit.  A stream of priests came to the offices of their comrades and told each other of the great and wonderfuls that they had seen and heard.  The mountains and heights of Azerbaijan became like cities, wherever the feet of the Saint went.  Old men who came to see the Saint forgot their age and sprang up like deer, and those struck down by disease recovered when they were carried to him to seek his blessing.

None of this material seems very interesting, and it may simply be the imagination of the hagiographer.  It would be nice to return to something like the historical elements in the earlier chapters!  Fortunately in chapter 25 the historical narrative returns.

Share

Notes on Walter Bauer, “Orthodoxy and heresy” – part 1

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A little while ago I was encouraged to read Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy.  Last weekend the book (in English translation) arrived by ILL, and last night I started to read it.

At the moment I have no overall verdict on the book, but a couple of passages struck me, and are worthy of comment for themselves.  That I have not discussed other parts of the same chapter does not mean, of course, that I do not have a problem there also; merely that they did not stick in my head in the same way.

First a couple of methodological items.

From the introduction:

In our day and age, there is no longer any debate that in terms of a scientific approach to history, the New Testament writings cannot be understood properly if one now looks back on them … as sacred books, and prizes them as constituent parts of the celestial charter of salvation, with all the attendant characteristics.

It’s good to know that there is “no longer any debate” among some bunch of deadheads that the New Testament cannot be understood “properly” other than on the basis that it is not scripture.  Quite why a scholarly approach requires a formal creedal statement of unbelief is not explained.  In the next paragraph he utters the following:

We can determine adequately the significance the “heretics” possessed … only when we … without hesitation cast all our preconceived ideas aside. We must remain open to all possibilities.

But only, apparently, those possibilities which exclude the idea that the Christian religion might be true? 

Methodologically this is very bad stuff.  But something must be allowed for the fact that we’re reading a translation of an author writing in German, and evidently not very critically minded.  If he had said something like the following, few would have objected:

In order to study the early history of the church, we must be wary of allowing later perspectives from a more fully developed orthodox position to be back-projected onto the period.  It seems unlikely that the first possessors of the New Testament documents recognised them as scripture in the way that they did the Old Testament; and our analysis cannot presuppose that they did.

This, probably, is what Bauer would like his readers to suppose is being said here, and it’s all testably true.  There is, however, a measurable distance between this and what Bauer actually says.  And Bauer exploits this fact to slip in points that are not discussed or evidenced.

In chapter 1 there was a positive gem:

When we ask how and when Christianity gained influence in this region, it is unnecessary to begin with a survey of the sources – – which are in Syriac, Greek, and a few in Latin. Instead, for the sake of convenience, we will combine the information concerning the sources with the evaluation of them and with the collection of discernible data made possible thereby.

Convenience?  Whose convenience is it, one wonders?  The reader will usually not have all the relevant data in his head.  Any reasonable analysis of the data must start with tabulating it.

There is only one situation in which people try not to allow the data to speak for itself; when they are engaged in trying to debunk it to peddle some theory of their own.  This I always think of as the Von Daniken approach, after the Swiss hotel-keeper whose efforts brightened my teenage years and for whom I retain some affection even now.  I regret that I feel no such affection, however, for such manipulation in scholarly works.

Now for something substantive, and much more interesting!

Bauer is trying to debunk all evidence of Christianity in Edessa, presumably — I haven’t reached that part of the book yet — in order to argue from an absence of evidence, which he is manufacturing here, that this is evidence of absence.  It’s a charmless process that does nothing to gain the reader’s respect.   But it includes this argument, which caused me to scratch my head:

 … the existence of ecclesiastically organized Christianity in Edessa at this time cannot be asserted with any confidence … Eusebius …

d) EH 5.23.4: At the time of the Roman bishop Victor (189-99), gatherings of bishops took place everywhere on the matter of the Easter controversy, and Eusebius still knows of letters in which the church leaders have set down their opinion. In this connection, the following localities are enumerated: Palestine, Rome, Pontus, Gaul, and then the “Osroëne and the cities there.”

The phrase “and the cities there” is as unusual as it is superfluous. Where else are the Osroëne bishops supposed to have been situated except in the “cities there”?

But what speaks even more decisively against these words than this sort of observation is the fact that the earliest witness for the text of Eusebius, the Latin translation of Rufinus, does not contain the words “as well as from those in the Osroëne and the cities there.” This cannot be due to tampering with the text by the Italian translator, for whom eastern matters are of no great concern.

In those books with which he has supplemented Eusebius’ History, Rufinus mentions Mesopotamia and Edessa several times (11.5 and 8 at the end; see below, n.24).

Thus the only remaining possibility is that in his copy of EH 5.23.4 he found no reference to the Osroëne, but that we are dealing here with a grammatically awkward interpolation by a later person who noted the omission of Edessa and its environs.

Over paragraphing is mine.  We should note the absence of discussion of the Syriac and Armenian versions, which I likewise am not equipped to examine.

Let’s put that argument into a systematic form, with one or two additions from my own knowledge:

  1. Eusebius refers to “church officials” in Osroene and its cities.
  2. The earliest extant Greek texts of Eusebius’s Church History are 9th century.
  3. Rufinus translated/condensed the 10 books of Eusebius into 9, and then added 2 books of his own.
  4. The earliest extant copies of the Latin translation by Rufinus are earlier than the Greek of the original.
  5. Therefore we can presume that what Rufinus omitted was not part of the text of Eusebius, but was interpolated later.

On the face of it, that is a weird, weird argument.  Why on earth would we argue from the absence of text in an epitome?  But is Rufinus an epitome?  I learn[1] that in fact it is largely a translation: in his preface, given at the link below, he states that he omitted most of book 10 of Eusebius, added what was left to book 9, and then composed 2 additional books. 

I can’t say that I have ever compared the Latin of Rufinus with the Greek text — Schwartz’ GCS edition prints both on facing pages.   However in the Schwartz edition, there seems to be a lot of commonality.  I learn from a web search that somewhere there is an article on the differences, by Schwartz himself, but not the bibliographic reference.

It would be interesting to know better what the differences are. 

Is the argument sound?  I’d be very sceptical about arguing from a versio like this, and likewise from the argument that the existence of earlier mss is proof of better preservation necessarily.  It’s possible.  It’s just a bit weak.

Share
  1. [1]Rosamund McKitterick, History and memory in the Carolingian world, p.228 f., in Google Books preview here.↩

A bit more of Abu Qurra

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I thought that I would translate a little more from this text:

3.  I left these people, and then Samaritans approached me, saying: “Do not pay attention to these people, but come to us, because nobody is right outside of us. We are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the friends of God, the God of heaven and earth. He had promised our fathers that, he would save their offspring from the land of Egypt, and give them the land of Palestine as their inheritance.  He did this by the intermediary of the prophet Moses.

“God sent him to Pharaoh, and struck [Pharaoh], as well as the people of Egypt, with the well-known signs and wonders.  By force he helped our fathers escape from the hand of Pharaoh; he parted the sea for them; he drowned Pharaoh and his armies there.

“He led our fathers into the wilderness and fed them manna and quails.  He made water burst out of a rock for them.  He gave them the Law of God, which determines for them what is allowed and what is not.  He slew the Philistines and gave their land to our fathers, whose children until today we are.

“So long as we remain faithful to him in keeping the Law, he pours on us his blessings.  But when we resist him, he chastises us, and afflicts us in this world.  Those of us who do good have a prosperous life in this world, those who do ill encounter misfortune.  And when we leave this world, we perish forever.  There is no resurrection.”

Hmm.  Nothing in this suggests a real, contemporary encounter with Samaritans, does it?

4.  I left these people, and at once was approached by Jews who said, “Do not pay attention to those individuals, and don’t join them because they are in error.

“What they said to you, that God is the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Joseph, the promise that He made them about their descendants, the sending by Him of Moses, and that he brought [our fathers] out of Egypt in order to bring them into the land of Canaan, all that is true, so it happened indeed.

“But when they claim to be the descendants of Abraham and of Israel, they are liars.  They are really the sons of the Mazdaeans, and as for the descendants of Abraham and Israel, that’s us!  Truly God gave the land of Israel as an inheritance  to our fathers, where they have resided for 1500 years in unparalleled prosperity.  Then they sinned, and God was angered against them.  He delivered them into the hands of the nations, who deported them.

“But God promised our fathers to send us the messiah.  God will gather us from the ends of the earth into the land of Palestine, He will give us once again the dignity that we used to have, and we will dominate the nations.  He will also raise the dead and gather them with us.   He will command the earth, and it will bring forth bread already baked, for ever.

“God does not lie.  This word will be realised, and we are awaiting it.  Do not attach yourself to anyone else, because ours is the only religion!”

5.  I left these people, and then I was approached by the Christians.  “Do not be led astray,” they said, “by the speech of the Jews.  For God has sent the messiah of whom they speak, but they did not receive him.  So God is angry against them and has dispersed them to the far corners of the earth.  They are in perdition forever, and their hope is vain.

“But what you need is the religion of the messiah and his teaching: that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one God; three persons, yet one in substance.

“This is the true religion that Christ, the Son of God, has given us in the gospel.  He has fixed in our favour what is allowed and not allowed.  He has promised to raise the dead, to reward those who do good with the heavenly kingdom, and to punish those who do evil by hell.  There is no true religion apart from ours; don’t let anyone abuse you!”

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve been thinking again about how a reliable Mithras site might look. 

One of the problems has been layout.  I’ve had great difficulty finding a format for the top-level page that worked for me.  But I had something of a breakthrough last night, when I started working from the Tertullian Project home page as a basis.  I was also able to find online a quality but usable photograph of a tauroctony which, I felt, was suitable to go at the top of the page.

The structure of the Tertullian Project, into various smaller and separate pages, would also work for the Mithras material.

It needs to be done.  At present there is no reliable source for information on Mithras online.  The Wikipedia article has been carefully poisoned, and has deteriorated further since.  So something must be done.

It is a great pity that Vermaseren’s collection of reliefs and inscriptions is not online.  But if I do a proper page, possibly I might be able to get permission from Brill to host a copy?  It’s worth considering, at any rate.

Share

Reading what ex-Wikipedians have to say

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Regular readers will know that I had a very bad experience attempting to contribute to the Mithras article on Wikipedia, when I was the target of a deliberate campaign of violence and defamation by an obvious troll operating at least two accounts, who simply wanted to own my work and push a falsehood.  It ended with a corrupt administrator blocking me on a false accusation of sock puppeting.  I disabled my account and I’ve not been back, needless to say. 

But the experience left me wondering how many other honest contributors have had the same experience.  Today I’ve been reading around the entries on the Wikipediocracy blog.  They are well-written and well thought-out. 

I’ve also spent some time reading material at the Wikipedia Review forum, which contains more of the same, and there is also a Wikipediocracy forum, much of it written by people who are obviously still bleeding from the beatings they received.  

All this makes sad reading.  Out of it emerges a picture of a cess-pit full of vipers, in which, to change metaphors, ordinary contributors are little more than meat for the grinder. 

I’ve written there a short account myself of my own evil experience of Wikipedia administration (here).

Obviously the articles on these sites are very much the work of the disillusioned ex-Wikipedians; but none the less they represent a valuable corrective to the quite misleadingly positive impression that many people have of Wikipedia.  Most people suppose that the way Wikipedia represents itself is accurate.  Even those who have enough experience to realise that this presentation is not how things actually work, and that there is endless fighting involved, nevertheless tend to suppose (as I did) that the administration is honest at least in intent.  The testimonies of the ex-Wikipedians suggest very strongly otherwise. 

It is, of course, necessary to treat all these narratives with a degree of scepticism.  All these people are exiles; and, notoriously, the exile’s perspective on his homeland is distorted by his exile.  There is an undue willingness to believe evil of the ruling faction, and an undue willingness to suppose that anyone else notices.  Memory deceives, and, without any intention to mislead, a narrative can be constructed which is unbalanced.

But that said, it is quite eye-opening to see what is said there.

Share

The early translations of Chrysostom into Latin — 5. The collection of 38 homilies

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The next section in Voicu’s article discusses a collection of 38 sermons by John Chrysostom in a Latin version, which are found in various manuscripts of the 9th century onwards, including the one online at Cologne which I referred to a few posts back.

Dom Andre Wilmart drew up a list of the contents in his 1918 article.  Let’s give that list here, together with where they appear in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca.

1.-2.)  In Psalmum 50 homiliae 1-2 (PG 55, 565-588)
3) In Psalmum 122 (PG 55, 351-353)
4) In Psalmum 150 (PG 55, 495-498)
5) De beata Iob (not actually by Chrysostom, but an extract from Augustine, De excidio urbis Romae)
6) De ascension Eliae (original Latin; Wenk 1988, p. 100-108)
7) De septem Macchabaeis (PG 50, 617-624)
8. De tribus pueris (original Latin; Wenk 1988, p. 117-121)
9) De sancta Susanna (again not by Chrysostom, but a cento of Augustine, De Susanna et Ioseph sermo)
10) De proditione Iudae homilia I (PG 49, 373-382)
11) De cruce et latrone homilia 1 (PG 49, 399-418): quoted by Leo the Great.
12) De cruce et latrone (original Greek in Wenger, 1954)
13) In uenerabilem crucem sermo (Browne 1990, PG 50, 815-820): quoted by Augustine.
14) In ascensionem D. N. Iesu Christi (PG 50, 441-452): quoted by Leo the great.
15) In pentecosten sermo 1 (PG 50, 803-808)
16) De nativitate Domini (original Latin by Jerome; PLS 2, 188 to 193)
17) De natiuitate Domini et Iohannis Baptistae (ed. Botte 1932, pp. 93-105; provenance unknown, possibly from a Greek model, cf. CPL 2276)
18) In resurrectionem Lazari (original Latin Potamius of Lisbon, ed. Wilmart 1918b): cited by Augustine.
19) De Chananaea (pC 52, 449-460) ruled in Constantinople in 403;
20-23) Four works on the gospels, actually by Jerome (PLS 2, 125-188)
24) De recipiendo Seueriano (PG 52, 423-426) given in Constantinople in 401 AD.
25) Severian of Gabala, De pace (ed. Kerameus-Papadopoulos 1891, p. 15-26): also 401 A.D.  Migne does print a text of this in Latin.
26) In Genesim sermo 1 (PG 54, 581-585);
27) De eruditione disciplinae (actually a compilation from the works of Cyprian, ed. Wenk 1988. pp. 127-138)
28) In Eutropium (PG 52, 391-396) given at Constantinople in 399.
29) Cum de expulsione eius ageretur (PG 52, 427-436) given at Constantinople in 403.
30) Ad Theodorum lapsum liber 2 (PG 47, 309-316; Greek text and Latin version in Dumortier, 1966a, p. 46-79 and 241-256)
31) De militia spiritali (Greek text transmitted under the name of Basil of Cesarea; PG 31, 620-625; cf. CPL 1147; CPG 288)
32) De militia christiana (Latin text ed. Wenk 1988, pp. 145-156)
33) De patre et duobus filiis (actually by ps. Jerome; cf. CPL 766; ed. Wenk 1988, pp. 170-188).
34) Sermo ad Neophytos (Greek text and Latin version: Wenger 1970, pp.150-181 ): version citated by Julian of Eclanum.
35) De turture seu de Ecclesia sermo (PG 55, 599-602)
36) Quando ipse de Asia regressus est (Greek text and Latin version: Wenger 1961, pp. 110-123).
37) Post reditum a priore exsilio (Greek text omitted from PG; found in old editions, e.g., Montfaucon 1721, pp. 424-425; ancient Latin version : PG 52, 441-442).
38) De fide in Christo (possibly from a lost Greek original).

Some mss add a further four texts as an appendix.

Bouhot in 1971 analysed a version of the Wilmart collection which added extra works, omitted 1-2, and omitted 14-15 although it retained mention of them in the index of contents.  The order differed as well; consisting of 3-9, 16-17, 10-13; then 34, in a revised recension used by Augustine; then Ad illuminandos catechesis 1 (PG 49,  223-232); then 18-38; then De paenitentia homilia 5 (PG 49, 305-312; the Latin version is divided into two parts); Ad populum Antiochenum homilia 1 (PG 49, 15-34); Epistula 3 (Greek Malingrey 1968, pp. 242-305; PG 52, 572-590): cited by Augustine.

A comparison of the two editions of the collection indicates that the Bouhot version is closer to that used by Augustine.  But neither matches exactly, or includes all the works referenced by Augustine.

Voicu then proceeds to analyse this collection at some length.  It has been asserted that this collection was also translated by Anianus of Celeda.  But nothing suggests this.  There are no dedicatory epistles, and the standard of comprehension of the Greek seems to be inferior.

Various citations of the collection in the 5th century indicate that this collection circulated in that period.

Some manuscripts add what has been called the “ascetic appendix”:

39) Quod nemo laeditur nisi a seipso (ed. Malingrey 1964; PG 52, 459-480).
40-41 ) Ad Demetrium de compunctione liber I and Ad Stelechium de compunctione liber 2 (PG 47, 399-422; in latin under the single title De
compunctione cordis).
42) Ad Theodorum lapsum liber I (PG 47, 277-308; Greek text and Latin version: Dumortier I 966a, pp. 80-218 and 257-322).

The date of the addition is unclear, but must be quite early, as it is mentioned in a ms. of the 7th century, Cod. Vaticanus Reginensis Latinus 2077, which lists some works of Chrysostom:

De compunctione animae liber unus, Neminem posse laedi nisi a semet ipso, In laudem beati Pauli apostoli volumen egregium, De excessibus et offensione Eutropii praefecti praetorio.

These may easily be recognised as nos 40, 41 and 39 of the collection, then the translation by Anianus of Celeda of the works on Paul, and finally no 28.  A similar list is found in Isidore of Seville.

Voicu finishes his splendid article by telling us that there are further Latin translations from the 6-8th centuries, and refers us to Bouhot (1989, p.34).  The article ends with three pages of incredibly useful bibliography.  My only question is why this useful article is not online?  And that, I fear, we all know the answer to: copyright.

Share

The early translations of Chrysostom into Latin — 4. The evidence of Julian of Eclanum and Augustine

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The Libellus fidei attributed to Julian of Eclanum (PL 48, 525-6, written in 418 AD), in chapter 11 (18) contains a long quotation from the Sermo ad neophytos.  This is the title under which the third baptismal catechism was transmitted in Latin.  The eight baptismal catecheses were rediscovered by Wenger only in 1970.[1]

In 419, Augustine tells us in Contra Iulianum I 6:21 (PL 44, 654-5) that Julian of Eclanum made use of the same work by Chrysostom in Julian’s lost work, the Libri ad Turbantium.  The quotations given are not identical, but are the same length and, more importantly, come from the same source.  Neither is based on the Greek text, but rather on a Latin version, as Wenger has shown.

Augustine goes further.  Not merely does he mention the quotation; he refers to the Greek and shows where the Latin has undergone modification or is too free (PL 44, col. 655-6, 658).  However it has been shown that Augustine is not, in fact, showing knowledge of a Greek text, but instead using a revised Latin version.

In his Contra Iulianum, Augustine refers to a number of works by Chrysostom.

  1. Letter 3 (10) (Greek text in PG 52, 574).
  2. In resurrectionem Lazari.  (CPL 541;  latin text actually by Potamius of Lisbon, ed. Wilmart, 1918b, p.302, l. 88-90)
  3. In Genesim sermo 3 (Greek in PG 54, 592).
  4. In Epistula ad Romanos homilia 10 (Greek in PG 60, 475)
  5. In venerabilem crucem sermo (Ps. Chrysostom; original Greek in Browne, 1990, p.137, #20; PG 50, 820, l. 34-36).
  6. Homilia in sancta baptisma (actually by Basil of Caesarea).

Clearly Augustine is using an anthology or florilegium of testimonies here.  There’s no trace of a Greek original; indeed the second item is in fact an original composition in Latin misidentified as Chrysostom.  So here we have evidence of material in Latin again.

Share
  1. [1]Antoine Wenger (ed.), Huit catecheses baptismales inedits, Sources Chretiennes 50 bis, Paris, 1970.↩

The early translations of Chrysostom into Latin — 3. Anianus of Celeda

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In the next few years we have two groups of witnesses, distinct but related to the followers of Pelagius.[1] 

The first of this is someone about whom we would like to know more, starting with his exact name and place of origin: Anianus or Annianus, deacon from an unidentified place called Celeda.  Around 420 A.D. he made translations of two long works  by Chrysostom: the In Matthaeum homiliae 1-25 (cf. CPPC 4424), for which a date of 419-420 AD has been proposed; and the De laudibus s. Pauli apostoli 1-7 (cf. CPG 4344), in the following years but not before 421 A.D.

The translations are prefixed with dedicatory epistles.  In these Anianus shows that he regards Chrysostom as a powerful ally in the defence of the true faith against an opponent whom he characterises with the epithets “Manichaean” and “Traducian”.  We know that the Pelagians applied these words to Augustine.  This suggests that Anianus belongs to that group.

Pelagian he may be, but he seems to be an honest professional.  Although we await a critical edition, it does not seem that he has directed the translation in the service of the ongoing controversy.  But possibly he did not need to; for, as we have already seen, Chrysostom’s insistence on human initiative naturally gives his work a flavour which is to the taste of Pelagians.  If his “doctrinal” interventions are as Piedagnel reports[2], then it must be admitted that Anianus was a heretic of an extremely discreet kind.

NOTE: It would be interesting to know where the text of these translations might be found, and to look at these dedicatory epistles.

Share
  1. [1]This also is taken from Voicu’s excellent article.  In this section I have followed his words more closely than elsewhere, because I am rather interested in Anianus myself. The references are from Voicu and have not been verified, as I have no access to them.↩
  2. [2]A. Piedagnel, Jean Chrysostome, Panégyriques de s. Paul … , Sources chretiennes 300, Paris 1982,  p. 98-99, n. 5.↩

The early translations of Chrysostom into Latin — 2. Pelagius and the first quotation

Posted on by Roger Pearse

This continues my previous post, based on the article by Sever J. Voicu, which is too interesting to be left in Italian.

The first direct quotation of Chrysostom in Latin appears around 414 A.D.  Augustine tells us that Pelagius quotes Chrysostom by name (De natura et gratia 76 (64): Urba-Zycha 1913, p.291): 

Ioannes … dicit peccatum non esse substantiam, sed actum malignum … Et quia non est naturale, ideo contra illud legem datam, et quod de arbitrii libertate descendit.

The quotation is not from any work known today but the thought and phrasing are Chrysostomian, and we may believe that it comes from an authentic work.

It is possible that Pelagius quoted Chrysostom from the Greek.  However it seems that, despite his residence in the east, Pelagius was no master of Greek.  This would make this evidence of a translation of Chrysostom into Latin by this date.

Share

The early translations of Chrysostom into Latin – 1. The first possible references

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The first mention of Chrysostom’s works in Latin comes from a very early stage of his life, when he was still only a priest.[1]  In 392 Jerome mentions in his De viris illustribus ch. 129 that he has read De sacerdotio, or rather, as he states: Peri\ i(erwsu/nhj:

John, presbyter of the church at Antioch, a follower of Eusebius of Emesa and Diodorus, is said to have composed many books, but of these I have only read his On the priesthood.

In 404, in letter 112, 6,[2] Jerome lists Chrysostom as among the authors who have discussed the confrontation between Paul and Peter at Antioch over whether to obey the Mosaic law.  The reference is probably to the homily In illud: In faciem ei restiti (PG 51, 371-388, CPG 4391).  In addition the use by Jerome of other works has been hypothesised.

Jerome does not indicate whether he read Chrysostom in Greek or in some Latin version.  The use of the Greek title in the first case rather suggests Jerome read him in Greek.

Palladius, in his Dialogue on the life of Chrysostom, ch.12, gives the following words to the Roman deacon Theodore:

I knew the mind of the man from common report, and from those writings of his, homilies and letters, which have come into our hands.  

Whether a man like Theodore would have read Chrysostom in Greek may be questioned.

But there is no certainty of any Latin translation at this date.

Share
  1. [1]All this material is derived from Sever J. Voicu, Le prime traduzioni latine di Crisostomo, In: “Cristianesimo latino e cultura greca. XXI Incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana”, 1993, p.397-445.↩
  2. [2]Voicu references the Hilberg edition in CSEL, 1912, p.373.  See also Augustine, letter 75.↩