Thoughts on Antiquity, Patristics, putting things online, information access, and more
Just come back after a couple of days away doing chores. I find a bunch of Russian language spam comments on this blog. I’ve had to put moderation on for any comments coming out of Russia or Ukraine; then they switch to spamming from free email addresses. Frankly I’m sick of seeing them. All they do is waste my time.
Who can think of any online contribution made by Russia? I certainly can’t. Yet people from there are one of the major hazards on the web. Why don’t we just disconnect Russia?
I got curious as to what else might be found using Google books. about Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary on the Psalms. Apparently Syriac fragments also exist, mentioned in Wright’s Catal. Syr. MSS. Brit. Mus. pp. 35 sq., 125. A certain Robert Leo Odom, Sunday in Roman Paganism: A history of the planetary week and its “day of the Sun” in the heathenism of the Roman world during the early centuries of the Christian Era, writing on the transfer of the Sabbath to Sunday repeats the quotes we saw before, but with a Migne reference and his own translation:
He appears to be the first ecclesiastical writer to spiritualize and accommodate to Christian thought the very pagan name of the day, saying that “on it to our souls the Sun of Righteousness rose.” 7 And he speaks of seeing “the face of the glory of Christ, and to behold the day of His light.” 8 Indeed, he is the first Christian writer to maintain that Christ Himself transferred Sabbath observance from the seventh to the first day of the week. On this point he said: “Wherefore, being rejected of them [the Jews], the Word [Christ] by the new covenant translated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the dawn of light, and handed down to us a likeness of the true rest: the saving and Lord’s and first day of light.” 9
It is interesting to note, also, that in the very same discourse he unwittingly reveals who the real authors of the change were, saying: “All things whatsoever it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as being more appropriate, and chief, and first, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath.” 10
7 Eusebius, Commentary on the Psalms, Ps. 91 (Ps. 92 in A. V.), in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Gratia, Vol. 23, col. 1172, author’s translation.
8 Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, book 4, chap. 16 (comment on Ps. 84:9, 10), translation by W. J. Ferrar, Vol. 1, p. 207.
9 Eusebius, Commentary on the Psalms, Ps. 91 (Ps. 92 in A. V.), in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 23, col. 1169, author’s translation.
10 Ibid., col. 1172, author’s translation.
Of course by “us” Eusebius means “the Christians”, not himself personally!
The Odom book is very interesting, and full of hard factual data. Looking at the overview, we see instantly that he reprints all the images of the pages of the days of the week from the “Chronography of 354”. I’d like to read it; but who can read such a book on-screen?
Moving on, apparently Eusebius also refers to the finding of the cross. Lardner seems to be one of the few to use this work by Eusebius, and did so from Montfaucon’s publication; and indeed, what else could he use? Again, how we need someone to edit this work!
Quite by accident I came across some supposed quotations from the Commentary on the Psalms by Eusebius of Caesarea. Since this work has never been critically edited, and never been translated into English, I thought it might be interesting to see what he has to say. This first link gives a reference:
” All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these {the Church} have transferred to the Lord’s day.”
Source: Eusebius, Commentary on the Psalms, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 23, cols. 1171,1172.
Like all these ‘quotes’ you never know how accurate it is. But I have looked, and the sentence is indeed found in col. 1171A (the Latin) and 1172A (the Greek).
An expanded version from Johns D. Parker, “The Sabbath transferred”, 1902, pp. 93-94:
He says on the ninety-second Psalm :
“The Word by the new covenant translated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light and gave us the true rest, viz., the saving Lord’s Day.”
“On this day, which is the first of light and of the true sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbaths, even all nations redeemed by him throughout the world, and do those things according to the spiritual law which were decreed for the priests to do on the Sabbath.”
“And all things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s Day as more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath.”
Another link refers to Robert Cox, “The literature of the sabbath question”, Edinburgh (1865) vol. 1, p.360-1, which (blessed be Google) is online here, and I suspect is the source for most of the other material. But he is quoting a certain Moses Stuart:
In another work—his Commentary on the Psalms—there are several passages about the Lord’s Day which were brought to light by the late Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary of Andover, Massachusetts. They are partly quoted in his work on the Apocalypse (vol. ii. p. 40), and are appended to the American and later English editions of Gurney’s Brief Remarks on the Sabbath (see below, ii. 386).
The Eusebius material is as follows (minus the excitable capitalisation and italicisation that moved even Cox to apologise):
In commenting on Psal. xxi. 30 (xxii. 29 in our English version), Eusebius applies the verse to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper every Sunday.
…on Psal. xlv. 6 (xlvi. 5), he says, “I think that the Psalmist describes the morning assemblies in which we are accustomed to convene throughout the world;”
… on Psal. lviii. 17 (lix. 16), he declares that “By this is prophetically signified the service which is performed very early and every morning of the resurrection-day throughout the whole world.” (Comm., in Montfaucon’s Collectio Nova Patrum, pp. 85, 195, 272.)
But then he discusses a large chunk of the commentary. This I find is at Migne col. 1169/1170B:
… on Psalm xci. (xcii.), which is entitled, A psalm or song for the sabbath-day. He begins his commentary by stating that the patriarchs had not the legal Jewish sabbath; but still ‘given to the contemplation of divine things, and meditating day and night upon the divine word, they spent holy sabbaths which were acceptable to God.’
Then, observing that the Psalm before him has reference to a sabbath, he refers it to the Lord’s day, and says, that ‘it exhorts to those things which are to be done on resurrection-day.’
Then he says Eusebius quotes the commandment, that it was addressed to the Jews, and that they often violated it. Then Eusebius continues:
Wherefore as they rejected it [the sabbatical command] the Word [Christ], by the New Covenant, Translated and transferred the feast of the sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the symbol of true rest, viz. The Saving Lord’s Day, the first [day] of the light, in which the Saviour of the world, after all his labours among men, obtained the victory over death, and passed the portals of heaven, having achieved a work superior to the six-days’ creation on this day, which is the first [day] of light and of the true Sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual sabbaths, even all nations redeemed by him throughout the world, And do those things according to the spiritual law, which were decreed for the priests to do on the sabbath; for we make spiritual offerings and sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise and rejoicing; we make incense of a good odour to ascend, as it is said, ‘Let my prayer come up before thee as incense.’ Yea, we also present the shewbread, reviving the remembrance of our salvation, the blood of sprinkling, which is of the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, and which purifies our souls. . . . Moreover we are diligent to do zealously, on that day, the things enjoined in this Psalm; by word and work making confession to the Lord, and singing in the name of the Most High. In the morning, also, with the first rising of our light, we proclaim the mercy of God toward us; also his truth by night, exhibiting a sober and chaste demeanour; And all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the sabbath [Jewish seventh day,] these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as more appriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank and more honourable than the Jewish sabbath. For on that day, in making the world, God said, Let there be light, and there was light; and on the same day, the Sun of righteousness arose upon our souls. Wherefore it is delivered to us [paradodotai, it is handed down by tradition,] that we should meet together on this day ; and it is ordered that we should do those things announced in this Psalm.
Note the reference to “the Sun of righteousness”, Sol Iustitiae, as a title for Christ, doubtless in rivalry to Sol Invictus.
Somewhat later Eusebius mentions the title of the psalm and adds that it is not about the Jewish Sabbath but …
…it signifies the Lord’s Day and the resurrection day, as we have proved in other places.
His final quote is this:
This scripture teaches, [that we are to spend the Lord’s Day,] in leisure for religious exercises (twn theion askisiwn,) and in cessation and vacation from all bodily and mortal works, which the scripture calls sabbath and rest.
These are interesting comments, and go to show that this work must contain interesting sidelights on the practise and thinking of the early church, just as so many of Eusebius’ works do. Surely it is time that this work was edited properly?
While translating the 4th century attack on paganism by Firmicus Maternus, I was struck by the content of chapter eight, which begins as follows:
If the sun gathered all humanity assembled together for him to address them, he would undoubtedly attack your despair by a discourse such as this: “So who, weak mortals, revolting every day and in every way against the supreme god, has pushed you, in your perverse taste for a profane error, to this great crime of claiming, according to your pleasure, sometimes that I am alive, sometimes that I am dead? If only you would follow one tradition, and apply to me only one invention of your unhealthy imagination! If only the perfidy of your wicked thought would gave itself free play without covering me with shame! But in throwing yourselves into these abysses, you do not spare me either, and your language respects nothing, but you dishonour me while running to your death and your loss.
2. “Some with a mad eagerness claim that in Egypt I damaged myself in the waves of the Nile and his fast swirls; others weep for the loss which I have suffered of the sexual parts; others make me perish by a painful death, and sometimes boil in a pot, sometimes I have my members torn and impaled on seven spikes. He who flatters me a little by a more balanced account says that I am the coachman of a quadriga. Finish and reject these so disastrous follies, and take this profitable advice: seek the true way of salvation.”
Firmicus Maternus has had nothing good to say of paganism, and has just described the frivolous manner in which the Greeks pay off their obligations to others cheaply by deifying them and superficially worshipping them. Yet here he imagines the sun addressing them, and describes the idea that the sun is the driver of a quadriga as “a more balanced account” than the other myths.
Of course he is right to describe this as more wholesome; but what is interesting is the more positive tone that he takes altogether towards the sun, towards Sol. The late Roman state sun god, Sol Invictus, is frequently depicted in his quadriga.
Firmicus Maternus is addressing the two emperors. Perhaps it is not politic to attack a cult so strongly attached to the late imperial image, a cult founded by Aurelian and patronised strongly by the emperors of the Tetrarchy, from which Constantine and his house derive their legitimacy.
But equally possible is that Firmicus Maternus recognises that solar worship in these forms is tending towards Christianity. Paganism was syncretic. Pagans in late antiquity were not necessarily predisposed to reject Christ, any more than Hindus are; rather they rejected his uniqueness. Was it altogether a huge step to move in imagination from the worship of the single and unconquered Sun and adopt a mighter Sun, the Sun of Justice, Sol Iustitiae, Jesus Christ? Perhaps not. The use of the title Sol Iustitiae for Christ by Fathers such as Jerome himself suggests that the uniqueness of the sun predisposed some to accept monotheism. In the transitional period no doubt all sorts of compromises were made.
However it is a mistake to presume that people can be “blurred” into Christianity. They can “blur” out of it equally easily. Unless there is a positive personal commitment to serve Christ ourselves, we will always psychologically be looking back. This tendency, this failure to truly convert, is very marked in many people supposedly Christians in this period. Perhaps this is why?
In the NASCAS forum a poster mentioned:
Speaking of manuscripts, friends, I wanted to let you know that the Bibliothica Alexandrina has the WHOLE Arabic collection of manuscripts held at the British Library. One can obtain a digital copy for only 5 (yes five) Egyptian Pounds, i.e., 90 US cents!
Now this is very, very exciting news. And I have an idea how this might be so. I believe some Arab princeling paid for all the Arabic mss in UK libraries to be photographed for microfiche. But I have never known where to access this material. Perhaps this is the source of this.
I’ve enquired of the poster how I can get these. I have written before that there is a manuscript of the 13th century Arabic Christian historian al-Makin (BL or. 7564) which I want. Indeed I even ordered a microfilm copy from the BL; who sent me, at a huge price, just the second half!
If the report is true, this is very good news. It might apply to other libraries than the BL, such as the Bodleian. Today I also heard that the Bodleian tried to screw a scholar from Leiden who wanted a photocopy of a dissertation, and demanded 150 GBP (around $220) for a photocopy. This hateful monopoly must be overthrown; no scholarship can happen while access to the primary texts is subject to blackmail of this kind.
Let us hope and pray this is so, and that a torrent of copies is about to be unleashed on the scholarly world!
I started translating Firmicus Maternus some months ago, in what feels like a different world. But it has sat on my desktop since, looking at me, and yesterday I did some more. It was painless, so I will probably carry on.
There is already a perfectly good English translation of this curious anti-pagan work from AD 350-ish. But of course it is not online. Is it worth my while translating stuff that already exists? We all know that offline publishing is doomed. One day it will come online. Is it worth me using up my life in a piece of work that will be futile?
But Firmicus Maternus is important, because of how he is used online. In the online wars, hate-filled atheists routinely sneer at the unwary “Jesus is merely Mithras repackaged” — or Attis, or Osiris, or Hercules, or whoever. Not that they know anything about pagan mythology; they just like the psychological cosh of producing a long list of supposed deities, which it would take a lot of effort to research. Indeed yesterday I saw listed, as a deity who lived, died and was resurrected, “pistis sophia”! Yes, really I did — that relatively well-known gnostic text being proclaimed with the utmost confidence as a pagan deity.
People need access to Firmicus. So… I’ll probably persist.
Two days ago I posted on a strong expression attributed to John Chrysostom:
The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.
Commenters united to say that the ‘quote’ is bogus, and has long been known as such. T.J. Buckton in Notes & Queries ser.1.V.117 (1852) p.92 (online here) writes as follows:
Hell paved with the Skulls of Priests (Vol. iv., p. 484.). — The French priest referred to in this Query had most probably quoted, at second or third hand, and with rhetorical embellishment — certainly not from the original direct — an expression of St. Chrysostom, m his third homily on the Acts of the Apostles :
“οὐκ οῖμαι εῖναι πόλλους ἐν τοῖς ἰερευσι τοὺς σωζομένους, ἀλλὰ πολλῳ πλείους τοὺς ἀπολλυμένους”
I know not if there be many in the priesthood, who are saved, but I know that many more perish.”
Gibbon has also quoted this passage at second hand (v. 399. note z.), for he says :
“Chrysostom declares his free opinion (tom. ix. hom. iii. in Act. Apostol. p. 29.) that the number of bishops who might be saved, bore a very small proportion to those who would be damned.”
It may be safely asserted that the above expression of Chrysostom is the strongest against the priesthood to be found in any of the Christian Fathers of authority in the Church.
T. J. Buckton.
Lichfield.
Well! A fairly definite opinion, that. Can anyone find “vol. 4, p.484” in Google books? I’d like to see the context, as this must be a reply.
On to Chrysostom’s Sermon III on Acts. In the NPNF translation we find this:
I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish;
Which is undoubtedly the same sentence. I would tend to call that a mistranslation, except that Chrysostom is definitely talking about bishops, in context, and trying to deter men from corruptly obtaining high ecclesiastical office.
Today I came to the end of a very pressured project. Ah, the relief! Mind you, it also means I have to find a new job, but not for a couple of weeks. Isn’t it funny how we all have what we think of as our ‘real’ selves, and all this earning a living stuff just gets in the way?
There’s been quite a bit of progress. The translation of Hunain ibn Ishaq’s treatise on reason and religion went online. The first draft of the 11th homily by Origen on Ezechiel has arrived! In fact the Origen project is progressing by leaps and bounds!
I need to follow up a couple of points from the last couple of posts.
I’m told there is a translation with introduction online of the Oeconomica of Ps.Aristotle, and that it is indeed in three books. I’ll post a link when I get to it. The first book is fairly short; the second consists of lists of ways to extract money with ancient examples. Most of these consist of either someone who has overwhelming force; or else examples of low cheating. The third book only survived in a medieval Latin translation.
One of the exciting discoveries of the last week was the news that Nero’s famous rotating banqueting hall (or rather floor) had been found, with some of the mechanism intact, on the Palatine. Again I need to collect some data on this.
An article at Virtueonline on a corrupt Episcopalian bishop included in the comments a quote ascribed to John Chrysostom, which is found in various forms around the web, but always without attribution.
The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.
The fullest form seems to be:
The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path.
But did he say it? There seems to be some knowledge of a context in web pages I have found; that Chrysostom was commenting on the fewness of those known as Christians who will be saved:
I hear Saint Chrysostom exclaiming with tears in his eyes, “I do not believe that many priests are saved; I believe the contrary, that the number of those who are damned is greater.” …
That is the reasoning of Saint Chrysostom. This Saint says that most Christians are walking on the road to hell throughout their life.
One day Saint John Chrysostom, preaching in the cathedral in Constantinople and considering these proportions, could not help but shudder in horror and ask, “Out of this great number of people, how many do you think will be saved?” And, not waiting for an answer, he added, “Among so many thousands of people, we would not find a hundred who are .
Of course in his day of nominal religion, such comments are undoubtedly correct.
But I cannot find the quote in his works. Does anyone have a reference?