Getting bogged down in Procopius of Gaza

When I first encountered the Italian translation by Federica Ciccolella of the letters of the sixth century sophist Procopius of Gaza, it seemed to me that it would be useful to simply run this through Google Translate, plus some AI translator, combine the two, and get a rough English version.  It wouldn’t be an academic translation, but it ought to be useful enough to stir up interest in the text in the anglophone world.

Unfortunately I’ve gradually got more and more bogged down.  As I worked, I began to feel the need for the Greek text, which I therefore obtained; and also an AI translation of that for orientation purposes.  Comparing this to the Italian indicated that the Greek ought to be consulted rather often.   Gradually the scope widened from the original, limited objective.  Really, it would have been better to start with the Greek altogether.  Instead I find myself comparing this output with that output and, inevitably, being drawn to whatever version is clearer, better English, punchier.  Which is not at all necessarily what Procopius wrote.

Worse yet, the memory loss that goes with getting older means that I have repeatedly lost my place and lost track of what I have or have not done.  I now have a large directory full of drafts, at various stages, with no clear idea of what outputs each drew upon, or the extent of my own interventions.  Being distracted by family commitments, and obliged to stop work for a week or two at various points, has not helped at all.  I’ve burned much more time than I ever intended on this marginal task.

What to do?

I think that the original objective was undoubtedly correct, and it is my own enthusiasm that has led me astray.  I think that the best thing to do is to return to that, and just ignore the Greek materials wherever I have not already done some work with them.  Likewise to prefer the Google Translate to the AI.  After all, the output from this task does not pretend to be a translation: only something to aid the reader to work with the text.  It’s bound to be a hotch-potch, but still better than the big fat nothing that we have at the moment.  But it still makes me wince.

What I must learn from this is the importance of controlling the scope of what I do.  Also I need to realise that these days I may well lose track of things in a long project.  I need to document what each portion of the text actually is, as I go.  This was never a problem in the past, when I did real translations with a clearer focus; but I think my original approach, intending something quick, is the reason why I got into difficulties.

So for  good or ill, I will stop.  I will use whatever I have already worked up, in whatever state it is.  I will add the minimal footnotes that I intended to add.  And I will throw the result over the wall, with a note explaining what it is.  The result should still be helpful to an English reader with little or no Italian, trying to get to grips with Dr Ciccolella’s work.

But it is an uncomfortable feeling, knowing that the result is not what I intended, may contain AI errors, and at bottom is misconceived.  All the same, I cannot face discarding my work and starting again, so I will just have to live with it.  The alternative seems to be to simply abandon the project.

Back to Procopius of Gaza

There are 174 letters of the 6th century sophist, Procopius of Gaza. I want to create a reasonably reliable translation for my own use, which I will put online in case anybody else would find it useful.  It won’t be of academic standard, but rather a tool.

I’ve been assembling materials for a while now.  I’ve got a Word document containing an electronic Greek text. This is made up of the text from the Garzya edition, and I’ve scanned the six extra letters to Megithius, which were discovered by Amato a decade ago.

I’ve also got the Italian translation, and I’ve got DeepSeek to create an AI translation of that.  I’ve also experimented a bit with Google Translate, and found that it is producing better translations of the Italian than DeepSeek.

I’ve got a PDF of the relevant volume of the Patrologia Graeca, which has a Latin translation in it.  But I don’t think this will be of great use, and I won’t try to create a Word document of it.

So I’m all set.

But a bit of self-knowledge comes in here.  174 letters is quite a lot.  In fact it’s overwhelming, and daunting.  Experience tells me that I need to give myself a reward every so often or I will drown.

The best way to do this is to divide it up into groups of 10 letters.  So I’ve created a “work” directory, and under that a directory “01”.  In that I have two files, one containing the Greek for letters 1-10, the other containing the English version of the Italian.  That’s a manageable amount.  If I tried, I could probably finish that up in a day, if I wasn’t otherwise engaged.  When I have done that chunk, I will extract the next ten letters, and so on.

Staring at two or three files and comparing them is tiring.  What I will need to do, for each letter, is interleave the sentences from each file.  So that’s a task still to do.

Forward!

From my diary

I’m working through the letters of Procopius of Gaza.  He was a sophist living in the early 6th century, after the end of the Origenist disputes, and before the rise of Islam.  Only three of the letters are addressed to priests, and the tone is secular.  But he lived in a period when the traditional Roman upper class was starting to be replaced by the ecclesiastical dignitaries, themselves rich and powerful and full of patronage.  In other words, he lived at the changeover period between the Roman and Byzantine periods.

Initially I was rather charmed with the letters.  I got hold of the Italian translation, and ran the lot through DeepSeek, the Chinese AI, so that I could have a read.  I’ve tended to find that DeepSeek produces less “wild” results than ChatGPT, so I use it.  The translations are readable enough.  I thought that others might find them interesting also.

This has led me to start to run each letter in turn in Italian through Google Translate, and compare with the DeepSeek output.  In Latin I have often found that Google Translate is closer to the Latin.  It’s also based on a neural net technology, rather than AI, so the comparison ought to reveal hallucinations in the DeepSeek output.  So far, after 57 letters, I have discovered no hallucinations.

Interestingly, Google Translate is often producing more focused language than DeepSeek.  The latter can waffle around something which could be expressed more concisely and clearly.  Some of the AI stuff makes your eyes close.  You read the words, but they convey nothing to the mind.

I then got hold of the TLG Greek text of letter 1, and ran that through DeepSeek and Google Translate.  The latter was futile – Google Translate doesn’t support ancient Greek.  The former produced an interesting output, and I compared it to the evolving translation for letter 1.  It revealed that the Greek is quite a bit more concise than the Italian.  In a couple of places I preferred the output from Greek.

Originally my intention was simply to run the Italian translation through DeepSeek so that I could read them myself.  I’d add a few notes; and then throw the thing over the wall, so that others could easily do the same.  How else, after all, would any normal person be able to engage with Procopius’ letters?  It’s not a translation as such; but it makes life easier for the researcher.  And this, I thought, might take a day to do.

Once you start doing this, and comparing other outputs, the timescale stretches out.  It’s starting to get slow, and cumbersome.

I’m also getting rather fed up with Procopius.  All the letters so far seem to be the same letter – the author whining to some correspondent that he hasn’t had a letter from him, suggesting sometimes that perhaps the latter is now too rich and important to reply, adding maybe a classical allusion, and so on.  I’ve worked through 57 of these, and I am getting rather jaded.  The historical content is nil.  Are these letters really just rhetorical exercises, saying “look at how nicely I can write Greek!”?  Maybe.

So I may cut this short, and do less from here on.  We’ll see.

I always take the view that whatever I do is a step forward from whatever we had before, because there was nothing there before.  I also consider that I have no obligation to do more than I feel like doing.  There are people out there who are paid to do this stuff, after all!

So I won’t hesitate to shirk if I have to.  Sorry Procopius!

Jerome and the letters of Procopius of Gaza

Among the few untranslated letters of St Jerome, Epistle 150 is a very short item which is completely spurious.  This is because it is from Procopius of Gaza, the late 5th-early 6th century sophist.  Note that this is not the more famous, and slightly later, historian Procopius of Caesarea, who chronicled the wars of Justinian.  The letter is indeed written to a “Hieronymus”, but it is to another Jerome, one who lives in Egypt.

It seems that there is no translation of the letters of Procopius in English, nor French.  But a complete and rather charming translation exists in Italian, translated beautifully by Federica Ciccolella, and edited by Eugenio Amato, Rose di Gaza: Gli scritti retorico-sofistici e le Epistole di Procopio di Gaza, Edizionei dell’Orso (2010).  I was very fortunate to obtain access to a copy.

It turns out that Jerome, Letter 150, is letter 81 of the collected letters of Procopius of Gaza. The simplest way to discover this was to search for letters addressed to Jerome, and run them through DeepSeek AI translation.  I’ve not checked the results, but they’re probably good enough for casual use, and I thought that I would share a few with you, and a few excerpts from the wonderful footnotes.

9.  To Jerome.

I thought my sister’s wedding was a secret, not that it was known to all who live near my house, let alone to you—I believed you were still by the Nile. But it seems nothing related to luxury escapes you; indeed, as soon as an event occurs, the scent of celebration reaches you from afar. Perhaps you can outdo the Homeric Zeus in your love for libations and the fat that curls in spirals of smoke.

This is what the Nile and the fortunate men who live along that river have instilled in you, and now, residing in Elusa, your senses have grown even sharper whenever smoke rises from the earth. As for your slave, I was almost moved to treat him poorly for not having you write the letter in full. But since he brought gifts from you, the sight of them changed my mind and, somehow, dissolved my anger. I will respond to these matters briefly: for either a little daughter has been born to you, or one is about to be born.

I learn from the excellent notes that Elusa was a city in the northern Negev, about 30 miles from Gaza, and the most important city in the region.  Despite the aridity of the area, the city was prosperous thanks to the caravan traffic.  Christianity arrived around 400 and the desert setting became the home of monks and hermits.  Drought and shifting sands were a constant threat to urban life, and the city was abandoned in the 8th century.  Procopius emphasises how poor it was compared to wealthy Alexandria, where many citizens of Elusa migrated: the city was a “hell” (ep. 87) where the water tasted salty, bread was made of barley (ep. 2, 91) and wind and sand interfered with the cultivation of vines (ep. 81).

81.  To Jerome.

Egypt and luxury again—we are so poor compared to you, with no thought for those left far behind. But that is nothing—by all means, let it be so, if only you may laugh while seeing the Nile flow like gold! And even if you raise your eyebrow still higher, we will certainly bear being scorned. For a day will come when you will see Elusa once more and weep for the sand borne on the wind, which strips the vines down to their roots. There dwell only a few desert and brackish nymphs, while Zeus the Rain‑giver is nowhere to be found. Then it will be my turn to laugh and write a comedy about fate, while you will deem me happy—the one you now despise. But so long as the Nile allows you such airs, at least write, and go ahead and call us insignificant creatures who walk the earth. Thus we will be happy if you write, and at the same time we will comfort ourselves for your arrogance with hope in the future.

Vines were grown in Elusa, all the same, and the archaeology includes a huge wine-press.  Of course in Elusa men had to walk, rather than ride on boats on the Nile.

86.  To Jerome

It should have been you, my friend—you who have gone away from us—to begin the correspondence and to inform us, who miss you greatly, whether Poseidon has been favorable to you and made the sea smooth for your ship, whether your situation in the city of Alexander is favorable, whether you have happily sailed up the abundant Nile, whether your school is thriving, and consequently, whether you have heaps of money and your house is overflowing with Egyptian gifts. You ought to have written these things and kept your promises—promises that included frequent letters, but not the forgetting of friends. Yet you do not even care who writes to you, refusing to reply to letters! Indeed, this is already the second one I have sent you, and if you continue to keep silent, we will soon add a third, until at least some shame over your behaviour seizes you and we manage to hear your voice.

Procopius complains that Jerome hasn’t written after his arrival in Alexandria – is this perhaps an earlier letter, chronologically?  The comments about how the riches of Egypt and how Jerome must be making a fortune have the feel of a standing joke between the two friends.

91. To Jerome.

What a grave accusation you have brought against us—we, the arrogant, the overly sophistical, those sick with pride behind a modest appearance! I could not even begin to count how many arguments you have piled up against us, as though you have long been waiting for the moment to unleash your tongue upon us. And so, without even giving a just cause, you bring forth what you had long kept hidden. So tell me: what is so terrible if, in writing to you, I began the letter with “Procopius greets Jerome”? I am certain you yourself would agree that this follows ancient usage. “But there is no need,” you say, “to depart from the custom that now prevails.” Well then, go ahead and accuse even one who wishes to restore the pomposity that now reigns to its ancient dignity, and to return to the muse of Terpander the music that has sunk into meaningless songs and popular trifles!

But why, by Zeus, protector of friendship, would you yourself appear solemn if you uttered some Attic phrase and won approval for conforming to the ancient rules, when you can fill yourself with common words and carry them to the public assembly? Or why, when you sit in your chair before the young, do you think it right to present them with some mighty phrase of the famous Aristides in order to gain approval by speaking like him? Did not Polemon cleanse ancient rhetoric of Asian charlatanry? If fate had granted you to be born back then, I believe you would perhaps even bring an accusation against him for neglecting custom and daring to be presumptuous by returning to the ancient art.

If only the Spartan table were in fashion again and our diet were like that of the ancient Persians: barley bread, water, and cress! Even now one could see such foods prevailing in your Elusa—not from an excess of temperance, but because those are the few provisions that land laboriously supplies to its inhabitants. And yet, now that you have learned Egyptian luxury, you have cast off your ancestral customs: you, who prescribe maintaining traditions even beyond what is fitting!

Moreover, calling me arrogant for placing your name after mine seems typical of someone unaware that what comes first in order does not at all hold the first place in value, or who pretends not to know the saying of Demosthenes that children are fond of reciting: that action, compared to speaking and voting, though last in order, is first and strongest in effect. But if you simply condemn this as presumption, it is time to include in the vice of insolence, along with me, all those who in ancient times used such forms of address—among whom, leaving others aside, I number Socrates and Plato, who raised philosophy to the heavens.

But as for arrogance, stop it from now on, and do not turn the proverb’s knife against yourself. Or is it not true that your own tales have long been known: that no sooner had you disembarked than the sons of the Egyptians accompanied you in procession with a barbarous shout, and there was a celebration no less solemn than when, in former times, a fortunate generation gave them Apis; and that, having become puffed up in mind for these reasons, you not only called me—living in a small city—a man of little worth, but also neglected your homeland, your wife, and even your own son? And perhaps you considered me, who practice philosophy, of no value because I did not receive abundant applause from a confused roar—oh Zeus!—and a barbarous tongue? What is worse, you called yourself a happy man only because they made your house overflow with food and meat. See how puffed up you have become over trifles, you who now accuse me of arrogance!

And I say this—by the gods!—not because I wish to take revenge for your words (for I do not think that would accord with my philosophy), but because, if possible, I want to make your tongue more moderate. But be careful not to refrain from writing us such things, frightened by the power of my words! For, in the name of your Nile and the Graces who dwell near you, I presented your letter as a public rhetorical exhibition, and it was recited to everyone in the center of Gaza. And I was ashamed to be called arrogant in your letter, and the public laughed at me, while you seemed to succeed with your arguments.

And our final quote.

124. To Jerome.

How proudly you parade along the Nile and attack us, dragging Egypt into it, as though you had reached the point of forgetting our dear Elusa! So not only are your letters sophistical, but I seemed even to see the arrogance of Gorgias in them. For you said that the Nile rains from the earth — if I have not missed some word — and makes navigable what was once passable on foot.(585) But what does that have to do with you, who live in the city of Hermes,(586) a place Zeus the Rain‑giver does not even glance at while the Nile, flowing past it, hastens elsewhere? And then why do you lie about harvesting crops? Unless you call “crops” the snakes and scorpions that swarm there. Reportedly, once, stung by one of them, they say you cried out, “Ah, ah!” Then, catching sight meanwhile of a lavish table, you threw yourself wholeheartedly toward it, greeting the scorpion — perhaps after uttering this comic line: “Even in death may I never be without you!”(588) This is what you should have written, not boasting with the goods of others! Yet you also accuse me of silence when it is you who tells us nothing at all. Of course, you could have found someone more talkative, and then you would not cite to us Cotocides(589), who mocked the sophists for being like flutes. Farewell, with your son and your wife. And do not loom sternly over your son Alexander, imposing too much effort on one so young.

585.  A reference to a widely held theory in antiquity that the Nile’s floods were caused by the surge of a river—a sort of second Nile that, on certain days of the year, emerged onto the surface from subterranean caves.
586.  Hermopolis Magna, modern Al-Ashmounein, a dry location which has preserved many papyri.
588.  Euripedes, Alcestis 367-8, reused in Aristophanes Acharnians 893-4.
598. Aeschines is called “Cotocides” by Demosthenes (13, 29). The allusion could concern Aeschin., 3,229, or some passage of a lost oration.

Obviously this is DeepSeek, and I haven’t gone through it line by line.  But it’s all very readable, and I truly wish these letters existed in English, with footnotes at the bottom of the page.  This is the sort of thing that Penguin did so well under Betty Radice with Pliny’s Letters.  Could someone do this again for Procopius?  I see that Federica Ciccolella seems to be at Texas A&M University, so must have good English.  Perhaps she could supervise a graduate student to do them for the ACW or FOC series?

Procopius of Gaza and Matthew 27:25

Our review of patristic references to Matthew 27:25 (“His blood be upon us and our children”) has now reached the latest author given by BiblIndex, Procopius of Gaza.  With this author we have reached the 6th century, and there is a case that we are no longer dealing with patristic writers, but rather with Byzantine ones.  Procopius was the author of the catena-type of commentary, the medieval Greek commentary formed out of quotations of earlier writers.

But I have never looked at his work, so it might be rather fun to see what he has to offer.

BiblIndex offer two references:

  • Procopius of Gaza, Catena in Esaiam, PG 87.2, 1817-2718. § 1 (p.857); § 2 (p.352); § 2 (p.600)
  • Procopius of Gaza, Commentarii in Octateuchum, PG 87.1, 21-1220. (p.252); (p.491, l.46); (p.919); (p.923); § 1 (p.41)

Let’s start with the Catena on Isaiah.

The first reference is to PG 87.2, column 1857 (not 857).  This is commentary on Isaiah 1:21-23, “See how the faithful city has become a prostitute! She once was full of justice; righteousness used to dwell in her— but now murderers!

And it [Jerusalem] is called a prostitute, on account of the fornications of the inhabitants; whom likewise he calls murderers.  For finally after shedding the blood of Christ, they are bold enough to say, “His blood be upon us.”  But indeed they had not even spared the prophets themselves previously.  For it says, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kill the prophets.”

Stephen upbraids the Jews, “For which of the prophets did your fathers not kill?”  But in those times it was more appropriate, in which the Saviour came among us; whence he was accustomed to call them also a wicked and  adulterous generation.  And so, in his time, Isaiah accuses them, not now of idolatries, but of violence and murder.  And since, after being so bold in the crime against the Lord, they wished to be considered as masters of piety.1

All of this is merely historical exegesis, following the practice of earlier commentators in identifying in the Old Testament parallels to the events of the New Testament.

The second passage is on col. 2352 (not 352 – it looks as if the first numeral has been omitted in every case), which I would link to if the wretched hotel wifi and the equally wretched Google Books viewer would cooperate.  This passage is on Isaiah 41:1-7.

What can I [God] be lacking of that, who am eternal, without corruption of any kind, and unaffected in fact by the customs of men?  But you argue so with yourself, he says, “If the new things surpass the old, what a trouble it is to carry on altogether with the old laws. Is it not better to be taught that which is now proclaimed?  And you do not know the economy of the divine wisdom, of which the apostle learnedly predicted, he affirmed that the law was introduced that sin might abound: then, that the scripture said that all are under sin, that He might have mercy on all.”

The law itself shows the weakness of man, not justifying them but condemning them, whom Christ has justified by grace.  For He is the one who, although he does not hunger, grants spiritual power to those who hunger after justice.  And he makes the destitute, drowned in feeling grief, understand the vindication of the sinners.  For he is used to the grief that leads to salvation, which is according to God, so that penitence may be done in a way requiring least penitence; in fact he even understands the grief, which those who shouted “His blood be upon us and our children” felt at the capture of the city [of Jerusalem].  For with spiritual food the destitute have escaped illness, although they earlier exceeded in power, when on account of their weakness, the nations were being trampled by the feet of the devil; … 2

Hmm… that was hard going.  But the passage is about the merciful nature of God, extending even to those who crucified him.

What’s the betting that the third reference is at col. 2600?  I have now downloaded a PDF, so it is easier to page through.  And … sure enough, it is!  This is comment on Isaiah 59:1-18 (and often the comment makes a lot more sense if you read the passage first, by the way!), which begins thus: “Behold the hand of the Lord is not shortened that it cannot save, neither is his ear heavy that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have divided between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you that he should not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity: your lips have spoken lies, and your tongue utters iniquity. There is none that calls upon justice, neither is there any one that judges truly: but they trust in a mere nothing, and speak vanities: they have conceived labour, and brought forth iniquity.”

He [Isaiah] speaks here in the manner of Jeremiah: …   and so on.  By whom, so to speak from little beginnings of wickedness, they went on to the murder of Christ the Saviour, which especially in this place it is reasonable to include.  For although from the blood of the Saviour their hands were unpolluted, they were not at all free from blame; those who demanded that blame for his blood be placed upon themselves and their children; those who attacked him with abuse, and stirred up the people against him, those who said he was mad, those who said he was a Samaritan, those who said he was born from adultery, those who said he drove out demons by the name of Beelzebub; they never ceased to accuse.3

Again Old Testament comments about the wickedness of Israel are being seen as a prediction of the wickedness of Israel in New Testament times.

Now let’s move on to the Commentary on the Octateuch.  Col.252.  This is on Genesis 4:15, And the Lord said to him, whoever kills Cain, I will avenge it sevenfold.  The comparison is between the blood of Abel and the blood of Jesus, both shed unjustly.  Procopius compares the wanderings of the Jews, under legal protection, with those of Cain, similarly protected.

Some here infer an allegorical sense.  They say that Cain was a type of the Jews, who seeing Christ, who is meant under the name of Abel, eager to be carried to his murder, crying, “Why do you seek to kill a man who has told you the truth?”  Of these it is testified that the father was Cain, whom Satan calls upon, … The rest [of the Jews], so that they are not completely destroyed, have been marked with a sign.  The remnant of them are preserved to testify to the truth of scripture.  They have gone out also, like Cain, from the sight of God. And the divine power speaks thus to us, saying, “When you multiply your prayers, I will not hear you, for your hands are full of blood.” For they killed the Lord and author of life.  In addition they shouted, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.”  But this sacred blood, shed for us, cries out against the Jews, and according to the eloquence of Paul, better than the blood of Abel.4

This is starting to sound very close indeed to the medieval attitude to the Jews.

I will look at the remaining four passages in my next post.

  1. At meretrix dicitur, propter scortationes incolarum; quos item homicidas vocat. Tandem enim effuso Christi sanguine, dicere ausi sunt : “Sanguis ejus super nos.” Imo ne prophetis quidem ipsis antea pepercerunt. Ait enim: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, quae occidis prophetas.” Quem enim prophetarum non occiderunt patres vestri, Judaeis exprobrat Stephanus? Sed temporibus istis magis conveniant, quibus peregrinatus est nobiscum Salvator; unde erat etiam generationem pravam et adulteram eos appellare solitus. Hoc itaque tempore, non eos jam idololatriae, sed caedis, et homicidii, Isaias accusat. Et quoniam post tam audax in Dominum facinus, pietatis magistri haberi volebant.[]
  2. Qui possum ego istis indigere, qui sum aeternus, nulli corruptioni, nulli denique, more hominum, passioni obnoxius? Sed tecum ita ratiocinaris, inquit: Si veteribus praestant, quae nova sunt; quid omnino priores ferre leges opus fuerat? num tunc doceri satius, quae nunc promulgantur? At ignoras divinae sapientiae oeconomiam, cujus cognitione praeditus Apostolus, legem introduci, ut peccatum abundaret, affirmavit: deinde, conclusisse Scripturam omnes sub peccato, ut omnium misereretur. Arguit igitur hominum imbecillitatem lex ipsa, non eos justificans, sed damnans, quos Christus gratia justificavit. Ipse enim est, qui, praeterquam quod non esurit, iis etiam, qui justitiam esuriunt spirituale robur largitur; sensuque destitutos immisso moerore, vindictam peccatorum persentire facit. Solet enim ad salutem moeror, qui secundum Deum est, poenitentiam operari minimo poenitendam: vel certe moerorem eum hic intelligit, quem ab urbis expugnatione iidem perceperunt, qui sanguis ejus super nos et super filios nostros inclamarunt. Illi enim spirituali cibo destituti, infirmi evaserunt , quantumvis, antea robore praestarent: cum propter imbecillitatem, diaboli pedibus gentes calcarentur; praeceptisque legalibus educati, gratia gentibus adveniante, …[]
  3. Ait igitur hunc in modum Jeremias: “Virtus mea defecit me, ab iis qui maledicebant mihi.” Et noster hic propheta; “Vide ut justus tollitur,” et quae deinceps. A quibus, tanquam a parvis scelorum initiis, ad Christi Salvatoris caedem progressi sunt, quam maxime hoc loco nobis innui fuerit consentaneum. Etsi enim Salvatoris sanguine manus habent impollutas, culpa tamen haud vacant; qui sanguinis ejus in se, suosque filios, ultionem extendi postularunt: qui probris lacessere, populumque in illum concitare, qui furiosum, qui Samaritam, qui ex adulterio procreatum dicere; qui denique in Beelzelbul nomine daemonia ejiceret, incusare nunquam desierunt.[]
  4. Quidam allegoricum sensum hinc colligunt. Aiunt Cainum esse typum Judaeorum, quos videns Christus, qui per Abelum designatur, in suam caedem cupidius ferri, exclamat : “Quid me quaeritis interficere hominem, qui veritatem vobis locutus sum?” Horum patrem esse testatur Cainum, quem Satanam vocat, ut qui illius sint similes.  … Caeterum ne penitus interciderent, signo notati sunt. Servatae enim sunt, ut testatur Scriptura reliquiae. Exierunt quoque, ut Cainus, e conspectu Dei ; Numenque sic nos alloquitur : “Cum multiplicaveritis orationem, ego non exaudiant, cum manus vestra sanguinibus repletae sint”. Interfecerunt enim ducem et auctorem vitae. Praeterea clamaverunt: “Sanguis ejus super nos et super liberos nostros.” Sed hic sacratus cruor pro nobis fusus vociferatur adversus Judaeos, et secundum eloquium Pauli, meliora quam sanguis Abeli.[]