Author: Roger Pearse

The Hypotyposes (Outlines) of Clement of Alexandria

Posted on by Roger Pearse

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

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

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

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

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

Codices 110 and 111 deal with the other two works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Some notes on Jupiter Dolichenus

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In the ruined Roman city of Leptis Magna in Libya there is an impressive set of temple steps leading up to what is now merely a foundation.  This was the local temple of a deity little known today, named Jupiter Dolichenus.  Jona Lendering has some notes on this site here, and the following image is at his site.  Despite visiting Leptis twice, I never quite got as far as the temple, as I never walked around the bottom edge of the silted-up port.

Temple of Jupiter Dolichenus at Leptis Magna
Temple of Jupiter Dolichenus at Leptis Magna

But who is Jupiter Dolichenus?

We shall look in vain for literary mentions; Robin Birley here tells us that there are none.  All we have is images with incriptions underneath, and whatever we can deduce from these, from their distribution over the empire, and from the period to which they date.  An altar was recently found at Hadrian’s wall, for instance.

An article by C.S.Sanders in an old issue of the Journal of the American Oriental Society (23), p.85 f. gives more details.  It seems there is a literary reference, in Stephanus of Byzantium (who?) who tells us that Jupiter Dolichenus came from Doliche, a little town in Commagene in what is now Turkey. 

The images are all of the same kind.  The god is depicted holding an axe and a thunderbolt, and stood on a bull or ox.  The inscriptions are largely from the Severan period, and disappear thereafter.

A temporary god, then; one favoured during the period in the 2-3rd centuries when the filth of the Orontes flooded into the Tiber (Juvenal) and which vanished when times changed.

UPDATE: I have finally located online an image of the deity identified clearly by an inscription.  Here it is:

Jupiter Dolichenus (ISDoli 00003)
Jupiter Dolichenus (ISDoli 00003)

The inscription is from Rome itself and reads:

Iovi Optimo Maximo Dolicheno ex iusso ipsius d(onum) d(edit) / L(ucius) Vibius Felix cum Fulvia Tertia coniuge sua / su<b=P> sacerdot{a}e Aquila Barhadados / dedic(ata) Kal(endis) Mart(iis) Imp(eratore) Commodo Aug(usto) IIII et Auf(idio) Victorino II co(n)s(ulibus)

To Jupiter (Jove) Optimus Maximus Dolichenus, by his own order, gives the gift / Lucius Vibius Felix, with Fulvia Tertia his wife / under the priest Aquila Barhadad. / Dedicated on the kalends of March, the emperor Commodus Augustus for the 4th time and Aufidius Victorinus for the 2nd time being consuls.

The fourth consulate of Commodus dates this to 183 AD, on the 1st of March.  The priest Aquila Bar-Hadad has a very biblical name! A Flavius Barhadadi appears in an inscription from Alba Iulia.

Share

Generosity is its own… punishment

Posted on by Roger Pearse

People who write books or place materials online must expect to receive emails of enquiry, and these are normally welcome.  They consist of enquiries about topics already of interest, or can spur further research.

But the generous must be aware that their generosity can be abused.  There are people out there who consider good men as so many easy chairs on which to take their pleasure.

This evening I was reminded of one such episode, some years ago.  I was translating Photius Bibliotheca at the time, and posting chunks of it online.  Someone posted in a public forum a request that I consider translating one particular codex or chapter.  It was a little out of my way, but I did so and a few days later completed the work, and posted it online.  I then replied to the forum post saying that I had done so.

A day or so went by, and I saw other posts by that man, but no reply.  I’d done this work, at his request, and he didn’t even acknowledge it.  This was not very nice; after all, it had taken some hours of my life to do this work.

I eventually emailed him, supposing that somehow he had missed my post.  I got no reply for several days, until finally a sheepish email arrived, saying that he wasn’t sure about various copyright issues and regretted ever asking me to do it.  Thanks there was, in a very muted and unsatisfactory way. 

I felt abused.  In fact I had been abused.  All we have in this life is our time.  We sell it for money, so we can live.  This man had taken some of my life.  He asked me to give him some of my life, and I did so, without thought of any reward save thanks, and this was not forthcoming.  But he got what he wanted, and, hey, that was all he cared about.

There used to be a time when students or schoolchildren would post queries online, which amounted to “will someone do my homework for me”.  This too is selfishness, and any who do so find themselves repaid with silent ingratitude.

Such behaviour can make us smaller, if we let it.  The generous need to consider how they spend their time, and to make sure that they don’t fritter away the only wealth any of us have at the bequest of those who will leave us in the cold once they have no further use for us.  We must do what we do for ourselves.  The abused need to make sure they do not become embittered, for such makes us less.

The happy contributor to the web is one who does only what he feels like doing.  I must admit I’ve been happy in this way for ages!

Share

Petition against Islamic attacks on Copts

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’m not sure whether such things do much good, but Dioscorus Boles has started one in defence of Coptic Christians in middle Egypt currently under Moslem attack.  You can sign the petition here.

It seems to be taken for granted that Copts in Egypt should live in subjection to the Arab majority.  The people who acquiesce in this at the same time get excited about Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland.  The Copts are one group who are denied self-determination and self-identity, and are forced to live under legal disadvantages and discrimination.  This is not good; direct violence against them even less so. 

Share

Ibn al-Tayyib, Commentary on the whole bible

Posted on by Roger Pearse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hill adds:

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

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

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

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

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

From this link I get this:

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

This is referenced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please also refer to the comments for extensive additional bibliography.

Share

Mithras, “protector of the empire”

Posted on by Roger Pearse
Altar at Carnutum dedicated to Mithras by Diocletian
Altar at Carnutum dedicated to Mithras by Diocletian (CIL III 4413, CIMRM 1698)

The silly season is well underway, and daft stories about Christian origins being really pagan — all told with glee — are circulated uncritically and believed unquestioningly by those so inclined. We might reasonably wonder, however, just why every major Christian holiday is subjected to this ritual of debunking, with the evident approval of those in power.

Today’s fairy-story is that in 307 AD the emperor Diocletian proclaimed Mithras as the official protector of the empire. Those of us who know that Mithras was a mystery cult will rub their eyes at this a bit; was Diocletian really adding Mithras to the state cults?

A general google search reveals much hearsay, and suggests that the source of all this is an inscription at Carnutum on the Danube, where Mithras is apparently described as fautor imperii sui. I find a reference to this as C.I.L. III, nr. 4413.

Off to Google books, where some scholarly books might be found. And the magic name “Cumont” starts to appear. Oh blast! Off to Textes et monumentes, and there it is, in vol. 2, page 146, item 367, with a link to 227. Curiously Cumont lists the monument and its inscription separately. Here’s the details.

367. Carnuntum, CIL, III, 4413. Voyez le monument n° 227.

D(eo) S(oli) i(nvicto) M(ithrae) | fautori imperii sui | Iovii et Herculii | religiosissimi
| Augusti et Caesares | sacrarium | restituerunt.

Iovii imperatores sunt Diocletianus et liberi eius, sc. lege adoptionis Galerius, Maximinus, Licinii pater et filius, Herculii Maximianus et filius eius Constantius, nec minus Constantii liberi ius eius nominis fuisse patet, etsi Constantinus propter dissensionem cum Galerio et factione eius eo abstinuit. Pertinet autem titulus hic omnino ad a p. C.307 quo caeso a Maxentio Severo altera Augusto Galerius Aug. die Nov. 11 Carnunti praesentibus duobus Augustis senioribus Diocletiano et Maximiano Licinium patrem Augustum creavit [Euseb. ad h. a.; Idat ad h. a.; Auct. de mort. persec. c. 29; Zosim II 10 qui male confudit cum Carnunto Carnutum Galliae]. Fuerunt eo tempore Iovii Augusti tres Diocletianus senior Augustus, Galerius, Licinius,Caesar unus Maximinus ; Herculii Augustus unus Maximianus senior, Caesar item, unus Constantinus quem quamquam exercitus iam a 308 Augustum proclamaverat, tamen Galerius adhuc pro Caesare habuit, ut mittamus hostem communem Maxentium. [Tillemont IV 103 sqq.] E quibus quos affuisse constat Carnunti quattuor Augusti videntur Mithrae votum solvisse et pro se et pro absentibus Caesaribus duobus. [Mommsen.]

Always nice to get a chunk of Latin as explanation.

Monument 227 is on p. 331-2, where there is a picture of the monument (fig. 205). It’s an altar, with a picture of Cautes on one side.

227. — Grand autel [H. 1.45m, L. 0.92 m] au xviii” siècle à Petronell dans la cour du château du comte Traun. Aujourd’hui au musée des antiques de Vienne.

Décrit : Hormayr, l. c, n° 229 ; Labus, Ara Antica di Hainburgo, 1830, p. 9; Arneth, Beschreibung der zum K. K. Miïnz- und Antikencabinet gehorigen Meilensteine, etc., n” 15; cf. CIL, III, 4413. — Reproduit : fig. 205, d’après un croquis.

Sur la face antérieure on lit l’inscription n° 367. Sur le côté gauche, un dadophore dans le costume oriental ordinaire tient de la main droite une torche élevée et de la gauche trois épis. Sur le côté droit, un porte-flambeau semblable abaisse seulement sa torche.

So, we’re dealing with an altar inscription. Consulting Manfred Clauss, The Roman cult of Mithras, I find the following:

We may mention first of all the dedication by the Tetrarchs dating to the year AD 308 (V 1698). On the occasion of their meeting at Carnuntum in Pannonia Superior, Diocletian, now in retirement, together with the ruling emperors, the Iovii et Herculii religiosissimi Augusti et Caesares, dedicated an altar to Mithras as fautor imperii sui, as protector of their empire, and thereby gave expression to an understanding of the god already shared by Mithraists for centuries. Concomitantly, the Tetrarchs had part of Mithraeum III at Carnuntum repaired.

The reference to ‘V 1698’ is to the collection of monuments by Vermaseren, making this CIMRM 1698.

The inscription is thus:

Deo Soli invicto Mithrae, fautori imperii sui; Iovii et Herculii religiosissimi Augusti et Caesares, sacrarium restituerunt.
To the unconquered sun-god Mithras, patron/protector/supporter of their imperium; the Joves and Hercules’s, the most religious Augustuses and Caesars, have restored the shrine.

Not quite the same as an official edict creating Mithras the protector of the empire, is it?

As an afterthought, I look in the Clauss-Slaby database. This reveals only 6 inscriptions which use the term fautori, always as “protector”. But… great news, the database people have included a photograph! The link won’t embed in the blog software, so I’ve had to copy the image. The original is here, although that link doesn’t look very permanent. Enjoy it, and think kindly of those chaps in Eichstatt who put it online.

CIMRM 1698 Altar of Mithras erected at Carnutum by Diocletian
CIMRM 1698 Altar of Mithras erected at Carnutum by Diocletian
Share

Leo I and sun-worshippers at Christmas

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I see that the stale old anti-Christian legends are going around again this Christmas.  I’ve just seen one misrepresentation and had to look it up.

In fact, it is recorded that Pope Leo the Great, in the fifth century, had to tell Church members to stop worshiping the Sun.

Note the lack of verbatim citation and the lack of reference.  Such omissions should always make us suspicious.  So what does Leo say?  It’s in his Sermon 27, the 7th sermon on the feast of the nativity.  The NPNF translation is here:

IV. The Foolish Practice of Some Who Turn to the Sun and Bow to It is Reprehensible.

From such a system of teaching proceeds also the ungodly practice of certain foolish folk who worship the sun as it rises at the beginning of daylight from elevated positions: even some Christians think it is so proper to do this that, before entering the blessed Apostle Peter’s basilica, which is dedicated to the One Living and true God, when they have mounted the steps which lead to the raised platform, they turn round and bow themselves towards the rising sun and with bent neck do homage to its brilliant orb. We are full of grief and vexation that this should happen, which is partly due to the fault of ignorance and partly to the spirit of heathenism: because although some of them do perhaps worship the Creator of that fair light rather than the Light itself, which is His creature, yet we must abstain even flora the appearance of this observance: for if one who has abandoned the worship of gods, finds it in our own worship, will he not hark back again to this fragment of his old superstition, as if it were allowable, when he sees it to be common both to Christians and to infidels?

So … in this case the quotation is fair.  

Share

The anniversary of the death of C.S.Lewis

Posted on by Roger Pearse

… was yesterday, 22nd November 1963.  Few people so unrecognised by the establishment have had so wide an influence, on me as on many.  He provided a framework for Christians to think about what they believed.

Much as I like his theology, I do wish he’d written more fantasy.  I loved Out of the Silent Planet, and Voyage to Venus, and of course the Narnia stories.  That Hideous Strength has been described as “a Charles Williams novel written by C.S.Lewis” and correctly in my opinion. 

Share

Linking Egyptian and Babylonian chronology

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Jona Lendering points to a discovery of a Babylonian royal seal impression in a tomb in Sinai belonging to one of the Hyksos kings.  If true, this would provide a direct link between the two chronologies.  Read it – this is important.

For myself, I didn’t know that the tombs of the Hyksos monarchs were known!

Share

Origen update

Posted on by Roger Pearse

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share