An online edition of the Derveni papyrus

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The ever excellent Ancient World Online blog is indispensible for those wishing to keep aware of what is coming online, and should be in everyone’s RSS reader.  Today I learn that an online edition has appeared of the Derveni papyrus, on which I wrote some notes as long ago as 2006.

The Derveni Papyrus: An Interdisciplinary Research Project …

The Derveni papyrus is a most interesting new document of  Greek literature. It is perhaps the only papyrus to have been found on Greek soil, and is, if not the oldest Greek papyrus ever found, no doubt the oldest literary papyrus, dated roughly between 340 and 320 B.C. Its name derives from the site where it was discovered, some six miles north of Thessaloniki, in whose Archaeological Museum it is now preserved. It was found among the remnants of a funeral pyre in one of the tombs in the area, which has also yielded extremely rich artifacts, primarily items of metalware. After the exacting job of unrolling and separating the layers of the charred papyrus roll, and then of joining the numerous fragments  together again, 26 columns of text were recovered, all with their bottom parts missing, as they had perished on the pyre.

The book, composed near the end of the 5th century B.C., contains the eschatological teaching of a mantis; the content is divided between religious instructions on sacrifices to gods and souls, and allegorical commentary on a theogonical  poem ascribed to Orpheus. The author’s outlook is philosophical, displaying, in particular, a physical system close to those of Anaxagoras, the Atomists, and Diogenes of Apollonia. His allegorical method of interpretation is especially interesting, frequently reminiscent of Socrates’ playful mental and etymological  acrobatics as seen in Plato’s Cratylus. The identification of the author is a matter of  dispute among scholars. Names like Euthyphron of Prospalta, Diagoras  of Melos, and Stesimbrotus of Thasos have been proposed with varying degrees of likelihood.

A few years ago The Center for Hellenic Studies made the Greek text of the papyrus available online, as it was published in 2006, © Olschki, Firenze. …

Editio princeps 2006 (Olschki, Firenze)

Unfortunately the “editio princeps” is merely a pointer to the site, and I found this rather confusing.

The announcement relates to some new way of viewing the text online, but it is news to me that the text itself has been online.  Indeed, if you struggle through the site, you will find a translation in English at the book of a transliteration of each column, but only for the first six columns.  Column 1 is here, for instance. 

Useful to have access to, tho. 

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

This morning I’ve been poking around the PDF volumes of the Patrologia Graeca.  I was trying to find the Lexicon of Photius, in fact.

I’ve not achieved much, because it’s quite hard to work out which volumes contain what.  Each volume does contain a table of contents; but you have to download and open the PDF to see it.  Some of the volumes are in 1900 reprints, which I can’t access anyway.

It seems to me that someone needs to go through the PDF volumes and type up a table of contents for each, and put it online.  There’s only 161 of them, and the task might take a day or two.  I was a little tempted myself, in truth.

Share

Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen and the fragments of Origen’s commentary on Titus

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’ve been idly looking through the fragmentary exegetical works of Origen in the Patrologia Graeca for something interesting.  In the PG14, col. 1303, I find an excerpt from Origen’s work on Paul’s letter to Titus.  It concerns Titus 3:10, and is about heresy, a word that, curiously, doesn’t appear in more modern translations of the bible, and so, naturally, raises the question of just why not:

10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. (NKJV)

10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11 You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned. (NIV)

10 hereticum hominem post unam et secundam correptionem devita 11 sciens quia subversus est qui eiusmodi est et delinquit proprio iudicio condemnatus (Vulgate)

10 αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ, 11 εἰδὼς ὅτι ἐξέστραπται ὁ τοιοῦτος καὶ ἁμαρτάνει, ὢν αὐτοκατάκριτος. (SBLGNT)

Hmm.

Anyway, here is a portion of what the PG text says:

On that chapter in which the Apostle says, “A man that is a heretic, after one warning, reject, knowing that he is perverse, and sins, and condemned by himself.

The word heresy, as far as I can tell, is also explained in the Letter to the Corinthians in this way: “For it is necessary that there are heresies, so that it may be clear who is right among you.”[ref]1 Cor. 11:19[/ref]  And likewise in Galatians, the word “heresy” is inscribed among the works of the flesh: “For the works of the flesh are manifest: fornication, lust, unchastity, idolatry, sorcery, hate, contention, envy, rage, fighting, discord, heresies, drunkenness, partying, and similar things, about which I spoke to you before, because those who did these things will not possessing the kingdom of God.”[ref]Gal. 5:19-21[/ref]  From which we know that, just as those who are fornicators, or lusters and unchaste, and stained with the worship of idols, will not possess the kingdom of God, so also those who fall into heresy.  For it can’t be thought that such an apostle can give an absolute statement with any kind of vacillation.  For the apostle is of the whole church of Christ, chosen “not from man, nor through man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father.”[ref]Gal. 1:1[/ref]  For this reason, therefore, in accordance with the authority of this statement, it is necessary for us, just as for the rest of the evils which he enumerates, to likewise reject the name of heresy, and not to be intermingled in the company of such words.

And after this, and a few similar things inserted in the middle, he adds:

What in fact a heretical man may be, we will describe, through our powers of judgement.  All who confess that they believe in Christ, and however speak of the law and prophets of another god, of the gospels of another god, and the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, not as he said he was, who is predicted by the Law and the Prophets, but another I do not know, who is unknown to all and unheard by all, we designate men of this sort as heretics, whatever various, diverse and fable-like fictions they may concoct, just like the sectaries of Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, and those who call themselves Tethians.  But also Apelles, although he did not deny the Law and the Prophets of God in every way, he is still designated as a heretic, seeing that he pronounces that the god who made the world is different in glory from the engendered and good god who constructed it: and that that god  engendered in the consummation of the age has sent Jesus Christ to fix the world, invited by that god who made him, so that he might send his son to correct the world.  And if someone merely thinks otherwise of God the Father than the rule of piety demands, he must be considered a heretic, as what I have said earlier shows.  And one and the same must be believed also of he who has thought something false concerning our Lord Jesus Christ; whether according to those who say that he was born from Joseph and Mary, just as the Ebionites and Valentinians do; or according to those who deny that he was the first born of the creatures of God, and the Word, and the Wisdom, which is the beginning of the way of God, before anything was, before the creation of the world, before the mountains were made; but saying that he was only a man; or, according to those who confess that he is God, that he did not take on an earthly mind and body: ….

It’s all interesting stuff.  Origen, at least, is clear about the idea of a heretic.  The word indicates an obvious, crass sin.

One could wish that the translators of the scripture had felt the same.

The material quoted apparently comes to us via the Apology for Origen by Pamphilus and Eusebius.  Now call me a fool, but I rather thought that a translation of this work formed part of the 19th century ANF and NPNF series.  But … if so, I cannot find it.  All I can find is a translation of Rufinus’ preface; for it survives only in part, and in a translation by Rufinus.

There is a modern translation by Thomas P. Scheck in the Fathers of the Church series.   But … is there really no public domain translation?

Share

The Acta Pauli blog and Wikipedia trolls

Posted on by Roger Pearse

By accident last night I came across the Acta Pauli blog.  I was hitherto unaware that this group blog existed.  It is, of course, dedicated to the study of the apocryphal Acts of Paul, and their better known extract, the Acts of Paul and Thecla.  The blog contains much useful information on this text, not least that discoveries of portions of it are a continuing process.

It seems that I am not the only one to attempt to contribute to Wikipedia, and to get receive harassment and insults in return.  There is a series of posts in which one of the authors describes his attempts to do so.  One of them is this one. 

I therefore recommend that scholars like myself not bother to make edits on that platform where any non-specialist can take them down within seconds. Scholars don’t have the time to waste on such games.

It turns out that the “administrator” harassing him was 14 years old (!) at the time:

I’ve learned that Anonymous Dissident, who removed my links from the French and German articles on the Acts of Paul and Thecla, is 12 approximately 14 years old.  Wow, that’s pretty cool Wikipedia!  A 12 approximately 14 year old is able to eliminate a link to this site which is being published by people with PhDs.  Now I’m sure that Anonymous Dissident is very mature for the age of 12 approximately 14, but it does lower the status of Wikipedia considerably when scholars can’t even add a little insignificant link to your so-called encyclopedia.

The author of the blog is considerably more courteous to this impudent schoolboy than I would be.  Indeed the author chose to write a post, highlighting the failures of the article on the Acta Pauli.  His reward was might be expected: a prolonged and insulting jeer about “disaffected whinings”, combined with a statement that the troll proposed to appropriate his comments and use them himself on the article.

Wikipedia is not a safe place for sensible people to participate.  And until the likes of “Anonymous Dissident” are expelled from it, it will continue to be a very dangerous place for contributors.

Share

Volumes of the Acta Sanctorum online

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Lately I’ve found myself looking for Saints’ Acta. I’m not sure how one finds translations.  In fact it’s really not that easy to find even the original texts.   But I believe that the “go to” source for the texts is the monster 17-19th century compilation, made by the Bollandists, the Acta Sanctorum.

If you want editable text…

Editions

Here is the Bollandists’ own overview of the series.  The most important part is the Synopsis of the three editions of Acta Sanctorum (PDF).

  • The original series, published at Antwerp, consisted of 68 volumes.  See Brepols list here, and links to those I could find below.
  • A Venice reprint from 1734-1760 is basically the same, except that it combined May vol. 7 and the propylaeum, and it didn’t include September vols.6-8, October 7-13, or any of November or December.  A Brussels supplement to this (ed. Greuse) provided Sept. 5 and 8, and October 1-6.
  • A Paris reprint of 1863-1870 (edited by Palmé) assigned a number to each volume.  But it also divided the two January volumes into three, and stopped with October vol. 12; after which Palme was printing the original series as it appeared.  Links to these follow.
  • Finally there is a 1966-71 reprint of vols.1-60 of the original series.  The 60 volumes printed may be found at the DCO site here.

I doubt that this list of versions is complete.

I have found, by experience, that the page numbers in the Paris edition are not the same as those in the original.

Volume numbers and referencing

The original volumes did not have an overall series volume number, although the 19th century Paris reprint assigned one.  Instead the material is organised by Saint’s day; if the Saint is commemorated on 1st June, then that is where the material will be found.  In turn that means that we need to know which volume contains which days.

A reference to a page in the Acta Sanctorum will typically look like this: AS Mai 23, 412; i.e. May 23rd, page 412.  But you may also get ASS Mai III 412; which would indicate May vol. 3, page 412.

Other collections of links

See also:

Online volumes – The 19th century Paris edition

Here are the 60 volumes of the Paris-Palmé edition, courtesy of Villanova University; followed by the other original volumes which Palmé then issued.  We’re still missing two volumes.  Lots are on Archive.org, or try a search for Acta Sanctorum ed. novissima.

At this point things get rather confused.  Palme’s numbering of 60 volumes of reprints is 1 more than the original series, because he divided January into 3 volumes.  So the “official” number is only 59 to this point.

There are three further volumes, listed at Brepols here as 69, 70, and 71; and then the “Acta Sanctorum Tables Generales” (1900), listed as 72.

Online volumes – Original Antwerp Edition

Since I compiled the list above, volumes of the original printing have started to come online.  I give those I could find here (which often meant searching for “acta sanctorvm septembris”!).  The Greek text in these is frankly very hard to read.

For November and December, the Paris/Palme volumes are the original edition.

Online volumes – Venice Edition

The Venice reprints start in the 18th century.  They do not reprint everything, however.  Here are some volumes that I came across incidentally:

The Venice edition carried on as far as September vol. 5.

Studies

  • H. Delehaye, The work of the Bollandists Through Three Centuries, 1615-1915, (1922) online here.

Contributions of links to volumes where there are gaps are most welcome.  Add them in the comments.

Share

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A rather interesting snippet on the Alin Suciu blog.  Alin is presenting a paper at a French conference, and one item in it will interest many of us:

3. Newly Identified Fragments from Codex Tchacos

It has been already established that Bruce Ferrini sold several fragments from codex Tchacos before the court obliged him to return the manuscript to Frieda Nussberger-Tchacos, its legal owner. Some of the fragments sold piecemeal by Ferrini have been introduced by Herbert Krosney, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst in a 2010 issue of the journal Early Christianity.

Recently, during research carried on some small size collections of Coptic manuscripts, I identified several previously unknown fragments of the same codex. They belong to the writing conventionally called the Book of Allogenes, which immediately follows the Gospel of Judas in Codex Tchacos. One of the fragments is especially interesting as it has helped us to recover some of the opening lines of this gnostic text.

Emphasis mine.  I wonder just who Alin has been talking to?  But it is exciting news, all the same!

Meanwhile the curious story of the British Advertising Standards Authority rumbles on.  Good news, today: they have decided that they had, indeed, no authority to prevent a Christian organisation from saying on their website that God heals.

Share

Another interesting fragment from Origen on Genesis

Posted on by Roger Pearse

In the Patrologia Graeca 12, col. 93-4, we have a further interesting fragment of Origen’s thought on Genesis 1:22.

The PG is a reprint of the Delarue edition, and these Selecta in Genesim are extracted from the medieval Greek bible commentaries, or catenas (=’chains’), which were made up of quotations from earlier authors on each verse in turn, strung together in a chain.  Here is one:

And God said, “Let us make man in our own image and likeness”.  The first thing to discuss is whether this “image” means in body [ἐν σώματι], or in mind [ἐν πψχῇ]. 

And first let us consider the passages made use of by those who assert the former; among whom is Melito, who left works in which he asserts that God is corporeal.  For when they discover the members of God named, the eyes of God looking down at the earth,[ref]Ps. 100:6.[/ref] and his ears listening to the prayers of the just,[ref]Psalm 33:16.[/ref] and the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma,[ref]Gen. 8:21[/ref] and the mouth of the Lord has spoken this,[ref]Isaiah 1:20[/ref] and the arm of God, and the hand, and the feet, and the fingers; at once they suppose that these [passages] teach about nothing else than the form of God. 

For in what way, they say, did God appear to Abraham, Moses, and  to the saints, if he did not have a form?  and if he had a form, what form, if not human? and they heap up a thousand places, in which the members of God are named.

Against these it is necessary to reply firstly from the words of scripture. 

And we oppose to these, who know nothing beyond the letter, the words of scripture contrary to their opinion, from Zechariah: the seven eyes of the Lord range through the whole world.[ref]Zechariah 4:10.[/ref] Because if God has seven eyes, while we have only two, we were not created in his image. 

And neither are we provided with wings, as is said of God in the 90th Psalm: Under his feathers we will shelter,[ref]Psalm 91:4, He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; Origen used the LXX Greek text, but modern editions of the Psalms number these differently.[/ref]  Because if God has feathers, but we are animals without feathers, man was not made in the image of God.

And in what way can heaven, which is spherical and revolves constantly, be the throne of God, as they suppose?  More, in what way is earth his footstool? 

Let them tell us. 

For is it possible that of the body, which extends from the knees to the soles of the feet, understanding the distance which there is between heaven and earth, when the earth is in the middle of the whole universe, and is upheld by Him, as is shown by geometrical demonstrations, the soles of God’s feet are among us, or among the antipodeans [αντιχθοσι]?

And after a few more rhetorical questions of the same kind, he finishes with:

And in what way can it be said that those who suppose these things are not stupid? 

It’s an interesting point.  The scriptures are inspired, but Jesus told parables, so that human beings could understand profound truths, and God uses this poetic language similarly, not to reveal that He has wings (!) but to teach us things not otherwise easy to express in human language.

I learn from the footnote 30 in the PG that this whole fragment is given by Theodoret in his Questiones on Genesis, Q. 20.

Likewise footnote 31 discusses the reference to Melito, the impeccably orthodox 2nd century Christian writer.  It seems that Origen had in mind the lost work of Melito, Περὶ ἐνσωμάτου Θεοῦ, and supposed that this meant that Melito was one of those who stated that God was corporeal — some misunderstanding of Stoic terminology is probably involved here — while in reality the title should be understood On the incarnation of God.  Since Origen wrote only 40-50 years after Melito, I wonder whether Origen had ever read the work, or whether it was already scarce?

Share

An interesting quote from Origen on Genesis

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I found a quotation attributed to Origen a few days ago, which I think we would all consider interesting.

For Origen all Creation was “one act at once,” presented to us in parts, in order to give the due conception of order (cf.Ps. cxlviii. 5).

Ps. 148:5 reads:

Let them praise the name of the LORD, for he commanded and they were created.

Did Origen say this?  If so, where?

My source is the DCB, vol 4, part 1, p.105:

One of the fragments of the Commentary on Genesis contains a remarkable discussion of the theory of fate in connexion with Gen. i. 16 (quoted by Euseb. Praep. Ev. vi. c.11, and given in Philoc. 23 [22]; comp. Euseb. l.c. vii, 20); and in the scattered notes there are some characteristic remarks on the interpretation of the record of Creation. (See notes on i. 26; ii. 2; iii. 21) For Origen all Creation was “one act at once,” presented to us in parts, in order to give the due conception of order (cf.Ps. cxlviii. 5).

Note that the version at CCEL proves to be a cut-down version — avoid! — which reads:

One of the fragments of the Commentary on Genesis contains a remarkable discussion of the theory of fate in connexion with Gen. i. 16; and in the scattered notes there are some characteristic remarks on the interpretation of the record. of Creation. For Origen all Creation was “one act at once,” presented to us in parts, in order to give the due conception of order (Ps. cxlviii. 5).

Where, I wonder, does Origen describe Creation as “one act at once”?  It isn’t quite clear from the DCB. 

Looking further up the page, the material on Gen. 1:2, Frag. of Tom. 3, Gen. 1:14, i.16 f., is referenced to “Huet i. 1-17” and “Delarue, ii.1-24.”  These are editions of Origen’s works, including catena fragments, as a useful article on the older editions makes clear,[ref]Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, vol. 3, p.54, here.[/ref] and indeed I recall that Delarue turned up when we were working on Origen’s homilies on Ezekiel, where the material appeared in the PG 13.  Huet is Origenis opera exegetica, 2 vols, fol. Rouen, 1668; Delarue is 4 vols, Paris, 1733-1759.

 In Migne, PG 12, col. 91, begin “Selecta in Genesim”, essentially Delarue’s catena fragments I would guess. And our fragment appears in cols.97-98 B-C, in fact, on Gen. 2:2 (And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done):

Anyone care to give us a translation?  (You can click on the image to enlarge it).

UPDATE: See the comments for translations from B.R.Mullikan and Stephen C. Carlson.

Share

Sources for Punic inscriptions

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A little while ago I posted on the ancient evidence for child sacrifice at Carthage.  Part of this was an inscription, of doubtful meaning. 

This led me to enquire just what sources there are online for punic inscriptions.  A kind correspondent volunteered some information, which may be of use to any venturing into these waters.

CIS [Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum] is not online, neither is KAI (German for Canaanite and Aramean Inscriptions by Donner and Rollig which is more recent)

The only online source in English is Cooke (http://archive.org/details/cu31924096083104) but it is so out of date as to be worthless.

Your best bet for online are the sources in French or Spanish. Repetoire de Epigraphie Semitique is available through the 1940s, which covers most of the major Punic inscriptions. You can search for these as R.E.S and the assigned number. Google books, I believe has the early volumes in complete form. Also, the Comptes Rendus des Seances…. (CRAI) are available on www.persee.fr.

It sounds as if those interested in Semitic inscriptions have much to do, to publicise their subject.  A search on Google returned very little of use.

I understand that the inscriptions, in the main, do not tie up very much with the literary sources.

Share

Manuscripts of the Panarion of Epiphanius

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The Panarion, the great compendium of heresies by the fourth century Father Epiphanius of Salamis, is extant in a number of manuscripts.  They were detailed by Holl.[ref]Karl Holl, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung des Epiphanius (Ancoratus und Panarion). Texte und Untersuchungen 36.2.  Leipzig : J. C. Hinrichs, 1910. Online here: www.archive.org/details/texteunduntersuc36akad[/ref]  They fall into two groups, the older mss (VGMUW) and the younger group, all of which derive from U.

  • Vaticanus gr. 503 (=V).  Parchment, beginning of the 9th century.  Written in old minuscule.  Contains book 1, on 269 folios.  Holl believes that the text of its ancestor first became corrupt, then suffered atticizing corrections, and then was corrected using two other old, atticizing, manuscripts.[ref]p.26.[/ref]
  • Genoa, Congregatione della missione urbana di S. Carlo 4 (=G).  9th century, about 50 years younger than V.  Written in a minuscule hand.  328 folios.  A copy of V.
  • Marcianus 125 (=M).  Parchment, written in 1057, according to the colophon (f. 394r), by a presbyter John.  Minuscule book hand. 394 folios. Derives from the same ancestor as V.[ref]p.36, 45, where there is a stemma.[/ref]
  • Urbinas 17 and 18 (=U).  These two mss are two volumes of the same manuscript.  Parchment, 12-13th century.   358/168 folios.  A cousin of G.[ref]p.51.[/ref]
  • Vienna, suppl. gr. 91 (=W),  once numbered 127.  Bombyzin (=eastern paper), 14th century, 310 folios.  A collection of extracts,  f.65-163 from Epiphanius.
  • Rhedigeranus 240 (=R), 15th century, parchment.  This isn’t the oldest of the younger group, but the most complete. 327 folios.  Derives from J.
  • Angelicus 94 (=A).  16th century, paper. 384 folios. Derived from R.
  • Paris 833  (=P). 16th century, paper. 487 folios. Derived from R.
  • Paris 835 (=P1). 16th century, paper. 220 folios. Second volume of P.
  • Jena (=J). Written in 1304 according to the colophon.  Bombyzin. 174 folios.  Derives from U.
  • Laurentianus plut. VI 12 (=L), 14th century, bombyzin. 237 folios.  A cousin of J.
  • Laurentianus plut. LIX 21 (=L1), 15th century, paper.  8 folios.
  • Vaticanus 1196 (=v). 15th century paper.  Contains an extract.
There is a stemma on p.94, indicating that V and M are the only independent manuscripts.
Share