altheim, franz, and ruth stiehl_new fragments of greek philosophers. 2. porphyry in arabic and...

New Fragments of Greek Philosophers: II. Porphyry in Arabic and Syriac TranslationAuthor(s): Franz Altheim and Ruth StiehlSource: East and West, Vol. 13, No. 1 (MARCH 1962), pp. 3-15Published by: Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29754508 .

Accessed: 23/02/2015 00:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente (IsIAO) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to East and West.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=isiao

http://www.jstor.org/stable/29754508?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


New Fragments

of Greek Philosophers

II. Porphyry in Arabic and Syriac Translation

1.

In the section of his Chronology that deals

with the era of the Creation, Ber?ni speaks about the differences in its epoch which prevail between

Jews and Christians (15,4 f. Sachau). While the

former count 3448 years between Adam and

Alexander the Great, the latter reckon the period as 5180 years. Both sides aim with their numbers at different goals and make use of appropriate evidence. This will be dealt with in the following discussion.

In spite of existing contrasts, both parties have a method in common, which is designated as

his?bu l-jummal (15,9 f.; 17,3). Certain quotations or (on the Christian side) certain striking formulae are picked out, and the sequence of their letters is transformed into its numeric value and added

up From the resulting numbers a prediction is drawn. Ber?ni strives to show the absurdity of

this widespread method. He rejects what both

Jews and Christians think to have found out in

this wa}r. Then the discussion returns to its

starting point, viz. to the different epochs of the era of the Creation with Jews and Christians

(20,12 f.). He adds that both parties possess two different

versions (nusha) of the Torah, whose different data agree with the respective teachings of both

religions. The Greek version possessed by the

Christians and called Septuagint is in their opinion a correct translation of the Hebrew text. But

the Jews say that the translation was made under

duress, and therefore much in it is falsified. Ber?ni inclines toward the latter opinion (21,8), without, however, giving his reasons.

Up to this point the two versions of the Torah

agree with the opposite opinions of Jews and

Christians. Surprisingly enough, a third version comes to light. It belongs to the Samaritans,

whose position is sketched out, and we get from it some new information. If in all the three in? stances we add up the life durations of Adam's immediate successors, the span of time between the banishment from paradise and the Flood amounts to 1656 years with the Jews, to 2224

years with the Christians, and to 1307 years with the Samaritans (21,15 f.). However, we would

expect the Creation, and not the banishment from Eden, to be the starting point. It is also

difficult to make out what the Samaritans have to do with a quarrel between Jews and Christians.

Lastly, we are rather taken aback by the further statement that the span of time between Adam's

creation and the Flood amounts to exactly 2226

years, 23 days and 4 hours (21,19 f.). Not only the Torah is present in its various

versions, but also the Gospels, of which there are

four versions (22,4 f.). The difference is made evident by the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew

1, 2-16 and L,uke 3,23-31; they do not agree as we would expect.

The original theme, concerning the era of Crea?

tion, is hereby completely abandoned. Neither the Gospels nor the genealogy of Christ have

anything to do with it. Accordingly, Berum

makes no further efforts in that direction, but adds a list of the Gospels of Marcion, Bardesanes, the Manichaeans and others. Thus ends this section (23,9-15).

This simple summary shows already how little this paragraph fulfils the requirements of a tightly built-up process of thought. We are

led to surmise a-priori that elements of various

origin and scope were pressed by the author in the service of his cause and were knitted together without much respect for their peculiarities.

The voluminous section on the his?bu l-jummal and its confutation stands out as a part by itself. Berum breaks off the discussion on the subject,

3



points to the possibility of resuming it at a more

appropriate place, and wants to return to the main

theme. With this, he characterizes this section

unequivocable as an insertion. But does then

Ber?ni really return to his main theme?

At first sight this seems to be the case. The new

statement that Jews and Christians own different

versions of the Torah could agree with the fact

that both religions calculated the interval be? tween Adam and Alexander differently. The con?

trast in the chronology would find its counterpart in a contrast of the vScriptures, on which the two

parts rely. Nevertheless the connexion is an illu?

sory one. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek Torah

give a number; nor are we told by what sort of cal?

culation the two contradictory data are arrived at.

Ber?ni's wording confirms this. At the beginnig Jews and Christians were referred to (15,4 f.). But now it is a matter of two versions of the

Torah (20,12 f.). Both give different numbers, it is true. But these numbers refer not to the

distance of time between Adam and Alexander, but to that between the banishment from Para?

dise and the Flood (21,16 f.). It is clear that the

second one could be deduced from the different

versions of the Torah, by adding up the durations of life of Adam's immediate descendants. On the

contrary, the interval between Adam and Alexan?

der could not possibly be contained in either of them. The discussion on the two versions of the

Torah is therefore attached to that on the era of

Creation in a merely outward manner.

The incompatibility of the various elements

being once recognized, it reacts on a wider circle.

While in the last instance the two versions of the Torah are described and the origin of the Greek one is told as a parenthesis, there is question before that of all the books of the Old Testament and not of the Pentateuch alone. Once more the

agreement is scanty; to this we may add that,

shortly before, the sentences on which the Chri? stians perform their hisdbu Fjummal, are not given in Greek but this time in Syriac (16, 7; 18, 19).

The fact that a third version of the Torah comes

in leads us one step further. The Samaritans have

nothing more to do with the contrast of Jews and

Christians, the weak thread or which the trend of though hangs. It is evident that Ber?ni

adapted to his text an extant discussion which

mentioned three different versions of the Torah; in doing do, he first dealt with two, and let the

other follow at some distance. This discussion

originally followed a direction different from the one to which Ber?m assigned it later; this is shown

by the fact that the two, or rather three, versions of the Torah are followed by as much as four of

the Gospels. Beyond a doubt this was intended

?s a rising gradation, which was to show how the extant inconveniences of the Torah were matched

by even greater ones in the Gospels. The independent life of this trend of though,

which Ber?ni only later put to the service of

discussions of his own, is therefore evident. What the Jews say in the Torah is devoid of confusion

(20,13). Confusion is brought in only by the

Christians, who wrongly assert to possess an au?

thentic translation. But, as the text goes on to

sa}^ after the mention of the vSamaritans, the case

of the Christians' own Scriptures is even worse.

There we have four Gospels, and beyond that

heretics and gnostics put forward more writings of this kind. Such a trend of thought, let us say it once more, had nothing to do with the starting

point of the era of the Creation, but came ap?

parently from a tract of anti-Christian polemics. In the latter the Jews were spared, and also the

Samaritans, Marcion, Bardesanes and the Mani

cheeans are the subject of no depreciatory remark.

All the weight of criticism ? a very expert criti?

cism ? is thrown against the Christians. In all this we perceive an arrangement which

in its clearness compares favourably with the one

offered by Ber?ni to his readers in this section. But before taking it up, we have to eliminate

from the (on the whole) unitary section 20,12

23,15 two elements, whose later origin stands

glaringly forth.

There is first of all the witness of a historian Anianus (2), drawn by Ber?ni from the kit?bu

l-qir?n?t of Ibnu 1-B?zy?r (21,19 f.). This wit? ness contributes nothing to the question of the

three extant versions of the Torah and of their

mutual differences. It is also devoid of significance for the number of years between the banishment from Paradise and the Flood, in which those

versions differ; because the historian refers to

the distance of time between Adam's creation

and the Flood, and thus to another period. But

this fresh quotation is meant, and Ber?ni expressly employs it in this sense, to confirm the uncertainty of knowledge on the chronological data. It is

thus inserted in order to twist as far as possible the repugnant trend of thought of our section, which contains a piece of polemics against the

Christians and the validity of their tradition, to

the service of Ber?ni's aim, viz. the question wmether an ascertained era of the Creation exists.

This interpolation is taken from a Muslim work; the same holds good for the second passage that

has to be eliminated. After the mention of the

Manichaeans we have (23,12 f.): "

Of him a ver?

sion is extant, which is called ' the Gospel of the

Seventy '. It is attributed to bl'ms. At the beginn?

ing (we are told) that Sall?m b. 'Abdill?h b. Sal

4



l?m wrote it down upon the oral communication of Salman the Persian". Here the mention of

nationality has given rise to the idea that this

spurious text might have been a Manichaean work. We know the story of Salman the Persian

enough (3) to be able to say that he has just as

little to do with Mani's Gospel, as the latter with that of the Septuagint. We shall proceed to give the translation of

what is left.

2.

" (20,12) I say that each, Jews and Christians,

ow^ns a version of the Tor ah, which expounds what agrees with the tenets of its followers. Of the (version) which belongs to the Jews, the latter assert that it is the one which has remained free of confusion. That (version) which be?

longs to te Christians is named ' Torah of the

Seventy '. This is due to the fact that, when Nebukadnezar marched against Jerusalem and

destroyed it, a part of the sons of Israel went

away, sought refuge with the king of Egypt and remained under his protection down to the times when Ptolemy Philadelphus reigned. This king got news of the Torah and its heavenly origin. He made enquiries on that part (of the sons of

Israel), till he found them in a country town, to the number of about 30,000 men. He offered them

hospitality, summoned them and treated them

kindly. Then he gave them permission, to return to Jerusalem; Cyros, Artaxerxes Ys governor in

Babylonia (4), had reconstructed it (in the mean?

time) and had resumed the cultivation of Syria. They (the Jews) quitted (the town) with a por? tion of his (the king's) officials, through whom he extended to them his protection. He (the king) said to them:

' Look I have something to ask

from you. If you comply with my request, my

gratitude will be complete. It (the request) is to the effect that you may give me a copy of your book, the Torah'. They assented, and swore to fulfil it. After they had arrived at Jerusalem, they carried out their promise by sending him a

copy of the Torah; but it was in the Hebrew lan?

guage and he (the king) did not understand it

(Hebrew). He turned once more to them with the

request for somebody who could understand both Greek and Hebrew, so that he might translate it

(the Torah) for him (the king). He promised ihm gifts and benefits. They (the Jews) selected from their twelve tribes (21,1) 72 men, six out of every tribe from among the learned and the

priests. Their names are known among the Chri? stians. They (the 72) translated it (the Torah)

into Greek, after (the king) had separated them and had appointed for every two of them one

who took care of their needs (5), till they (the 72) had finished its translation. Thus 36 translations came into his hands. He compared them with each other and found in them nothing (no discre?

pancies) except what occurs unavoidably with

regard to the difference of expressions in coincid?

ing conceptions. He gave them what he had

promised and supplied them in the best possible manner with everything necessary. Then they

begged him to grant them one of those versions

(out of the extant 36 translations), so that they

might boast and show off with their fellow-country? men. And he made also. This is (the version) which is valid with the Christians; and no transpo? sition or alteration (in comparison with the original) has taken place in it, so they say. The Jews (how?

ever) affirm (taq?lu: Sachau) the contrary. That

is, that they vere compelled to its (the Book's)

translation), and were pressed to it in that (above

mentioned) way by fear of violence and mal?

treatment, not before they had agreed among themselves on changes and adjustements. There

is nothing found in what the Christians mention ? even if we allow it any credibility at all ?

which might eliminate doubt. On, the contrary, it (what they adduce) strengthens it (the doubt) even more. ?

Now, there are not only these two

versions of the Torah. It has rather a third ver?

sion with the Samaritans, who are known as aftiyya vot (al-l?mas?siya) (6). They are the successors, to whom Nebukadnezar granted Syria when he

had taken prisoners the Jews and had emptied

(Syria) of them. The Samaritans had helped him

and had pointed out to him the weaknesses of

the sons of Israel. Thus he did not harm them

(the Samaritans), he neither killed them nor took

them prisoner, but allowed them to dwell in

Palestine under his rule. Their doctrines are a

mixture of those of the Jews and of the Mages; the bulk of them live in a place in Palestine that

is called Neapolis (ndbuitis); their synagogues are

there. Since the days of David the prophet (7)

they do not cross the border of Jerusalem, because

they maintain that he committed violence and

wrong and shifted the holy temple from Neapolis to Aelia (which is Jerusalem). They touch (as far as possible) no other men, and if they touch

them, they wash themselves. They recognize the prophecies of none (among the prophets) of the sons of Israel that lived after Moses. ?

Concerning the version that is valid among the

Jews and which the latter quote, it gives as 1656

years the period which is obtained by summing up the periods of life of Adam's descendants, between Adam's banishment from Paradise and

5



the Flood that took place in Noah's time. Con?

cerning the version that is valid among the Chris?

tians, the sum of this period mounts to 2242 years.

Concerning (the version) that is valid with the

Samaritans, it says that it (the period) amounts

to 1307 years... (22,4). Not only to the Torah

there belongs a variety of versions and their dif?

ferences, but the case is the same with the Gospel. With the Christians, it has four versions, united into one roll (or: one manuscript), of which the

first comes from the Matthew, the second from

Mark, the third from Luke, the fourth from John; and each of these disciples composed it according to his (Jesus's) announcement in his land. What

is found in each single of them concerning descri?

ptions of the Messiah and stories about him in

the days of his announcement and in the time

of his crucifixion, is in several ways different ?

as it is stated ? from what is found in the others.

Thus concerning his (Jesu's) genealogy, which is the genealogy of Joseph, the bridegroom of Mary and father-in-law of Jesus, Matthew says it to

be as follows (8):

Joseph James Matthan

Eleazar 5. Eliud

Achin

Zadok

Azor

Eljakim 10. Abiud

Zerubabel

Sealthiel

Jekhonjah Josiah

15. Amon

Manasseh

Hiskiah Ahaz

Joatham 20. Usiah

Joram

Josaphat Asah

Abiah 25. Rehabeam

Solomon David

Jesse Obed

30. Boas

Salmon Nahasson

Aminadab Ram

35. Hezron

Perez

Judah James Isaac

40. Abraham

And he (Matthew) begins in the genealogy with Abraham (and) takes it down (to Joseph). As to Luke, he says that (the genealogy) is as fol? lows:

5.

Joseph Heli Matthat

Levi Melchi

(Jannah) Joseph Mattathias

Amos 10. Nahum

Hesli

Nagai Maath

Mattathias 15. Simei

Joseph

Judas

Johanan Resah

30. Jorem

Matthat

Levi Simeon

Judah

20. Zerubabel

Sealthiel Neri

Melchi

Addi

35. Joseph Jonam

Elijakim 25. Kosam

Elmadad Her

Joseph Elieser

Meleah

Menah 40. Matathai

Nathan

David

The excuse of the Christians and their argumen? tation in front of this is to the effect that they say that it is one of the rules laid down in the Torah

that, when a man dies leaving behind a wife

from whom he had no sons, his place with her is

taken by the brother of the deceased, in order

that he may secure posterity for his (deceased) brother. So that what is begotten by him (the substitute brother) belongs to the deceased from the point of view of the pedigree, but to the

living from the point of view of procreation and

reality. The}^ say: Joseph descended (23,1) there?

fore from two fathers: Eli was his father from

the point of view of genealogy and James his father from the point of view of procreation. They (the Christians) say: When Matthew in?

serted him (Joseph) genealogically according to

procreation, the Jews blamed him. They said: the genealogy is incorrect, because it does not take

into account the pedigree. Upon this, Luke

adapted himself to them (the Jews), by compiling his pedigree according to the rule. Both pedigress go back to David. Here lay the purpose (of the

compilations), because it was known of the Mes?

siah that he would be a son of David. For the

rest, the genealogy of Joseph alone was connected

with the Messiah, and not the genealogy of Mary, because it is a law unto the sons of Israel that none of them may marry except within his tribe and his clan, so that the genealogies may not be

different, and the custom prevails to quote only the pedigree of the men, and not that of the wives.

Since Joseph and Mary were both of the same

tribe, they were bound to go back together to

the same starting point, and in this lay the pur?

pose of the fixation of the genealogy and its publi? cation. ? Among the followers of Marcion and the

follovers of Bardesanes one Gospel each is current, which differs in many points from these (above-men?

tioned) Gospels. Among the followers of Mani a

completely separate Gospel is current, which places itself in opposition everywhere, from the beginning to the end, to what the Christians teach. They

6



(the Manichaeans) subject themselves to what it

(their Gospel) contains; they assert that it is the true one and that it corresponds to what the Mes?

siah had maintained and to w7hat he had brought, and that all the other (Gospels) are null and

void and their followers are liers in regard to

the Messiah ''.

3.

The translation shows the inner subdivision

quite clearly. The various versions of the Torah

and of the Gospels form the mainstays. There are

three versions of the Torah, of which the Christian is the most questionable. In the case of the Gospels there are first of all four canonical versions. They contradict each other, and moreover the follo?

wers of Marcion, Bardesanes and Mani assert to

possess each of them the true Gospels, and that

all the other are lies. In both instances the dif?

ferences are shown at the hand of genealogies. The immediate descendants of Adam are different in all versions, and the measure of the differences

becomes evident if one adds up the years of life

down to Noah. In the same way the data on the ancestors of Christ differentiate themselves, in

spite of everything the Christians say in order to

efface the diversities. This subdivision in itself, as well as the trend

of thought which is so well founded from the phi?

lological point of view, suggest a Greek original. Aelia instead of Jerusalem (21,14) points to the same direction.

^ Aq^aioXoyia (21, 9-12) and vofxoi

(21,12-15) of the Samaritans follow each other in the fashion of Greek ethnography. The vojuoi are arranged in the same way according to the

principle of association (9). From the doctrines

of the Samaritans we pass to the synagogues, that are found in the city of Neapolis. The latter

is differentiated from Aelia-Jerusalem, and the

opposition is repeated in the shifting of the temple from Neapolis to Jerusalem. The Samaritans

keep away from Jerusalem, as they separate themselves from the rest of mankind. The pro?

phet David took away from them the temple, and thus the}^ accept no Jewish prophet after

Moses.

In general it is possible to say that the Greek

author, whose voice we perceive through the Arab

translation, wrote after Hadrian. Bardesanes and Mani carry us to the 3rd century, and this

agrees with the argumentation that is given in favour of the authenticity of the descent of the ancestors of Jesus, although so strongly differen? tiated. Something like this is known from Euse? bius h. eccl. I, 7: neql rfjg iv rolg evayyeMoic; vofii

CojLievrjg diaqxovtac rfjg nsol Xqiarov yeveakoyiag. We are told that the version of Matthew and

Luke diaqxoveiv. . . vo/Lic^ovrai rolg noXXolg '(1,7,1). Thus already in Eusebius's times the authenticity of the contrasting versions was being attacked.

Eusebius restricts himself to citing an earlier

confutation by Sextus Julius Africanus, from

whose letter to Aristides (1,7,1; cf. 6,31,3) exten?

sive fragments are quoted. Here we are concer?

ned with section 1,7,2-10 and 16. They discuss the problem of the names in the two genealogies and try to reach a conciliation by distinguishing the father according to the name [xXr\aei\ 1,7,3) from the actual begetter (cf. rwv /uev doxovvrcov

nareqcov, rcov de vnaqyovrcov: 1,7,4). Thus they adduce the same reasons that Ber?ni attributes to the Christians. What the latter gives, is the

argumentation of Africanus in an abridged form.

By this way too we come back to the age of the

Severi.

The story of the rise of the Greek translation of the Tor ah leads us one step farther. The affinity with the tale in the letter of Aristeas is evident. Yet there are differences that cannot be overlook?

ed; we need not enumerate them. When we are

told that the names of the seventy-two transla? tors were known to the Christians (21,1), this shows the existence of a Christian version of the same legend, whose Jewish version is given by the Aristeas letter. The latter was hihgty esteem?

ed, as shown by Josephus's detailed reproduction ant. 12,2,11-118. The church fathers too (10) took over the story

" and in doing so increased its

marvellous features ". But which one of them would be at the bottom of the tale in this instance ? A detail gives us a cue. The seventy-two trans? lators work two by two, and at the end the result

is 36 manuscripts, differentiated by peculiarities in the linguistic form. Nothing of the sort is found in the letter of Aristeas. Such differences

within the Greek versions could interest only a man who collected such things. Could the story, which is attributed to Christians (and not to

Jews as we would expect with the letter of Ari?

steas), go back to the originator of the Hexa

pla? According to Eusebius, Origenes tried hard

avt/vsvaai. . . rag raw ereqcov naq? rovg s?dojLirj xovra rag leq?g yqacp?g eqfirjvevxorcov exdoaetg xai

nvag ereqag (h. eccl. 6,16,1). Or, as it is said

shortly after, ex nvcov /liv/cov rov ndXai Xav&a

aovaag (sc. yqa(pag) %qovov aviyyevaag nqor\yayev elg cpcog.

In this case Africanus and Origenes would be the adversaries, against whom the anti-Christian

author quoted by Ber?ni is fighting. Celsus is

thus out of the question, and we are left with

Porphyry's work xar? Xqianavovg. We know of

7



the criticism he levelled against the geneaology of Jesus (n). We reach it now through the Arab

translation.

This is confirmed by the fact that the last sentences of Ber?nfs text are written after

Mani's death. So we have to take the eighties of the third century for its earliest date. Mor? eover: one gets a terminus post quern for the

not yet fixed datation of Porphyry's work.

4.

This short allusion to Porphyry's criticism on

the genealogies of Jesus needs some explanation. A. v. Harnack (12) lists as fr. 11 of the work against the Christians the remark of Hieronymus on Dan.

1,1: Et ob hanc causam in evang. sec. Matthaeum una videtur esse generatio (Matth. 1,11-12), quia secunda reaaaoaxaidexdg in Joacim desinit filio

Josiae, et tertia incipit a Joacin filio Joacim,

quod ignorans Porphyrius calumniam struit eccle

siae, suam ostendens imperitiam, dum evangelistae Matthaei arguere nititur falsitatem. The difficulty

grew out from the fact that Matthew knew only of 40 ancestors, L,uke of 42. It was necessary to

conciliate the difference. Hieronymus effects it

by inserting at the 14th place two further gene?

rations, viz. Joacim and Joacin, who come after

Josiah. In support of Joacim he could perhaps lean

on that textual tradition which is found in Matth.

1,11 'Icooiaq de eyyevrjaev r?v 'Icoaxtju, 'Iooaxtjn de xtL But Joacin is an invention of Hieronymus's

sagacity (13); Porphyry knew nothing of the sort.

This is shown by the polemics of Hieronymus and

by the Arabic text, which mentions y?sly? alone

and then goes on to y?hany? (22,10). Another matter needs discussion. We ment?

ioned Origenes in connection with the story of

the translation of the Torah. This too must be

clarified. For this purpose we get help from a

manuscript discovery; we allude to the fragment of the Hexaplian psalter that was published after

the death of G. Mercati (14). Porphyry took to task Origenes (if the inter?

pretation suggested above is correct) and his, evaluation of the Greek translation of the Torah

the Torah of the Septuagint. We are told that the

Hebrew original "

remained free from confusion ", This means that Porphyry, and thus also Origenes entertained no doubts on the authenticity of the

current Hebrew texts. But also the Christians affirm that

" no transposition or alteration (in

comparison with the original) has taken place in

it (the Greek version) ". In spite of the large numer of independent translators, there were

differences only in " what occurs unavoidably

with regard to the differences of expression in

coinciding conceptions The translations were

essentially in agreement, and this agreement

guaranteed the correspondance with the ori?

ginal.

Origenes, if he is really in this case the butt of

Porphyry's criticism, related the story of the 72

translators in a form, which widely coincides with that of the Aristeas letter (15), and yet dif?

fers on some points. We are concerned here with

the following points of agrement:

1) the Hebrew original was extant, but was

not understood;

2) the translation was carried out on royal commission by 72 men, who came from Jerusalem to Egypt for this purpose. There is a difference, in as far as Aristeas knows 72 translations, but our text 36 only. Elements common to both are again:

3) the versions that thus came into being are

not different from each other, or nearly so. This

circumstance must have been of particular im?

portance for Origenes; because only if the various

translators came to the same result, the agree? ment with the Hebrew original was guaranteed for him. Only if this was the case, the original could be replaced by the Greek translation for

the usage of the Christians. The consensus was

thus recognized as means of proof in a decisive

instance.

Of course Origenes could not overlook the fact

that the current avxiygaya of the Septuagint (of which the translation of the Torah formed only a portion) did not come up to the exacting standard that was expected of them. He

expressed his opinion on the question in his com?

mentary on Matthew, p. 387, 28 f. Klostermann:

7to?J.rj ysyovsv r\ xcov dvxiygdcpoov diayogd, sirs and

ga&vjuiag xivcbv ygacpscov, ehe and xdX/irjg xivcbv

fjLoy?rjQ?q (ehe and djus?,ovvxcovy xfjg dtog'dcbaecog xcov ygacpo/Lihcov ehe xal and xcbv xd iavxolg doxovvxa ev xfj diog&cbaei ngooxiftevxcov y\ d<patgovvxcov. Accordingly, textual corruptions were laid at

the door of the arbitrariness of the copyists. The method of Origenes aimed at reestablishing the original and uncorrupted condition. This was not effected in the way we use nowadays, i.e.

by ascertaining the earliest and best manuscripts and other textual evidence, by following up the

history of the text, collecting and comparing the variants, and in the last instance by recon?

structing the earliest shape of the text, the manu?

script archetypus and the "

original text The

procedure of Origenes was simple and straight? forward. Since in his opinion the first text of the

Septuagint, before it was corrupted im the course

of centuries, was completely equivalent to the

8



Hebrew original and was guaranteed as such by the consensus of the 36 translations, the only

thing required was to establish the correct trans?

lation. Once this was carried out, the Original text too (as Origenes conceived it) was found.

Thus he examined the translations available to

him, assigned to each of them a column in the

Hexapla, and tried, by comparing these parallel translations with that of the Septuagint, to arrive at the

" correct "

translation, which for him (as already pointed out) was identical with the not

yet corrupted text of the Septuagint. In doing so, Origenes distinguished three dif?

ferent methods, on which he espressed his opinion, once more in the commentary on Matthew: vr)v xgiaiv noir\ad.tievoi and row Xoincbv exddaecov

1. to gvvqoov exelvoiq ECpvXd^afJlEV,

2. xai rtvd jjev cb?eXiaa/uev <<c&s> ev reo e?gaixco jurj xeijueva (ov roX[a'r]aavreg avra ndvrrj negieXeiv)y

3. rtv? de \xer daregiaxow ngoae&Yjxa^ev, Iva

dfjXov fi, ort jLcrj xeifieva nagd rolg e?do/urjxovra ix reov Xovnebv exddaeeov GVjbHpcbvojg reo i?gaixco noo

GE&rjxajbtev.

If we compare this with what is found in Por?

phyry, we must first of all observe that nothing is said about the Hexapla, and nothing about the existence of other translation. Origines had

finished his monumental work about 245, after 28 years of preparation, that is about one genera? tion before the time when Porphyry was working at his book (16). The voluminous structure of the

Hexapla, which besides existed in a few copies only, was practically neither obtainable nor acces?

sible, and therefore escaped the attention of the

critic. But something else appears evident. Origenes

spoke of ev reo e?gaixco fjirj xeifjieva, which he sup?

plied with the ??eXog, ov roXju^jaavreg avr? Ttdvrrj TiegieXelv. At its side there were firj xeljusva nagd rolg e?dourjxovra, which he therefore inserted

(jigocre'&rjxajuev) and marked with an daregiaxog. Concerning the translation of the Septuagint, Porphyry attributed to the Christians the sta? tement that lam yaqa* 'alaiha tabdilun au tahrif

(Ber?m, 21,6). According to this there was "

no

transposition nor alteration "

in comparison with the Hebrew original. But it was just this which

Porphyry called into doubt. He knew the critical methods of his adversary, the employ of d?eXdg and daregiaxog, even if not from the Hexapla itself, at least from copies of the Origenian text contain?

ing critical arjfiela, which were current at the time when he wrote against the Christians (see below). The critic had not overlooked this in?

convenience, which witnessed the corrupt condi

tions of the Septuagint text, allegedly equivalent to the Hebrew original.

In view of the above, all the more surprising was an observation arrived at by the foremost

scholars when dealing with the Ambrosiana

fragments. In their opinion, the column assigned to the Septuagint (marked by Mercati as e) did not contain those critical arjuela, of which Ori

genes speaks ? i.e. ??eX?g and aaxsgtaxog. Al?

ready Mercati believed himself obliged to esta?

blish this absence (17), and in this connection he

reached the conclusion that we must imagine the

critical edition of the Septuagint (i.e. the one

furnished with arj/uela) as an independent editorial

enterprise, existing side by side with Hexapla

(and Tetrapla). Only in this way can we under?

stand his expression: " Esaplo e Tetraplo e la

recensione dei IyXX coi segni diacritici e supple? ment! dentro P. Kahle too had reached the

conclusion that the Ambrosiana fragments "

show?

ed in the Septuagint column not a single asterisk or obelus ". He took this absence to mean

" dass

die Hexapla nur die Grundlage f?r die textkritische

Arbeit des Origenes gewesen sein k?nnte, dass die

in ihr vorliegende Zusammenstellung von wichti?

gen j?dischen Bibeltexten ihm (Origenes) recht

eigentlich das Material f?r seine Arbeit bot "

(18). On the contrary, Mercati seems rather to think

of a careless copy, when he speaks of works "

nelle

quali Origene si valse degli accorgimenti ed arti

ficii usati dai critici e dai grammatici nelle copie dei classici, ma con fini suoi particolari, e forse

per le difficolt? e per la mole non con Tacribia e

la finezza delle scuole e delle omcine librarie, dove

si badava solo alia calligrafia ed ortografla "

(19). We quoted the opinions of both scholar in

their original languages because a thorough discus?

sion is necessary. The idea that the Septuagint column of the

Hexapla showed no critical arj/iela, is a-priori unlikely. We may grant that some texts of the

Septuagint were current, which offered merely their text with such arj/uela. A papyrus of the

second half of the 3rd century with Hezek. 5,12-6,2 contains two aaxeqiaxoi and supplied herewith " most interesting evidence for the early diffusion

of Origenian texts thus G. Zuntz (20), with whom

Mercati agrees. Such a text exploited the results of Origenes's efforts at textual criticism. But the

critical method itself could be carried out and

turn out as successful only in front of the trans?

lation that stood at the side of the Septuagint. Indeed, it could only arise out of this juxtapposi tion. Origenes bears witness to it directly with his

expression: xr\v xoioiv Tiotrjadfievoi and xa>v komcbv

exdooscov, or, as he says shortly before that:

xQixrjQtq) %oriG?{j,Evoi xolg XoiTtolq sxdoaeaiv. Only a

9



comparison of the Septuagint with the contents

of the other columns of the Hexapla could show

where the text of the Septuagint agreed with the

parallel versions (avvqdov), where it did not fit

with the Hebrew original (sv xq> e?gaixcp firj xst/asva) and where it required additions (oxi /urj xet/ueva...

7iQoos?ri>cafiEv). As a matter of fact, it becomes

evident that the Septuagint column of the Am

brosian fragments did not lack the critical oiyueia. On fr. XI 1,30 exkivav in the Septuagint column

(e), Mercati remarks: "

lineola recta vid. ante

posita The Hebrew text of Ps. 45,7 has ^ft?,

and the second column has paxov "

they staggered ".

Correspondingly, the third and fourth column of

the fragments give sacpdXrjaav and Tzegisaxgdnr^aav and the last affixed Quinta ecrahevfirjcav. In front

of them, sxfavav of the Septuagint means "

they fell down". Beyond a doubt this as an inaccurate

translation and belonged to the ev xq> e?ga'Cxco

fA,rj xei/usva. As such, it had to be furnished with

the ??eXog. The horizontal line before exhvav

is therefore nothing else but such an ??ekoQ, or

its remnant, placed before the objectionable word.

The word itself, in agreement with the method of

Origenes, remained untouched.

Further examples of the ??sXog or of the aaxe

giaxog could not be found in the preserved frag? ments. This is less astonishing than it would seem at first sight, because we confess to have

found no further passage in which one of the two

arj/uela would have been fit and proper. After having cleared up this problem, we must

turn to another, which has been often discussed. It concerns the origin and purpose of the second

column, the jusxaygacprj (21) of the Hebrew text in

Greek letters. Perhaps it is possible to arrive at a result in this case too. Let us start from the

state of the question. In the second edition of The Cairo Geniza

(1959), P. Kahle defends the opinion he upheld from the very beginning, viz. that the second

column was intended for being read in the Jew and Christian divine service. He turns against

Mercati's essay II problema delta colonna II del

VEsaplo (22), which had shown once and for all

that the authorities hitherto quoted in support of the liturgical employ of the jusxaygcxpi] do not

prove what they are supposed to prove. In Mer

cati's opinion the second column was created by

Origenes or under his direction. Kahle denies this

and adduces further evidence in favour of his contention (23).

First of all he quotes the work of L. Blau, Zur

Einleitung in die Reilige Schrift, published at Budapest, in 1894. As it is difficult to obtain and

it remained inaccesible to Mercati, Kahle quotes for him the decisive passage in English transla

tion (24). It concerns the express prohibition to

write Biblical (more exactly: Old Testament) texts either in certain languages or, as Blau and Kahle think, in certain scripts. Accordingly, the first alternative would imply translations, the

second /usmyQaq)rj, The prohibition is laid down in two passages of the Babylonian and in one

of the Jerusalem Talmud. The languages or

scripts mentioned therein are: B?r?yt? Sabbat H5a: nw tvnbw nnnr dh? rraop; S?primi,7: nw kVi nno *6i rvonK *tfn nnny *6; Seper Tora 1,8: nw *6l n'O^P *6l fiH? *6l nnrm All the three passages agree in the mention of

nnnp, nnO and fMlV, the first and third in

fV?^P, whose place is taken by fl^lK in the

second; the first alone has JVttSp. Coptic and

Greek are clear; but how could really the Coptic and the Greek scripts, which differ by a few let? ters only, be opposed to each other, and not

rather the two languages? We cannot understand, too, what Blau and Kahle meant by rP"QP, "which

normally must be understood the Hebraic lan?

guage The prohibition of writing Old Testa? ment texts in Hebrew script is as meaningless as

the prohibition of translations in the same lan?

guage. Blau and Kahle did not see that the word

intended was "

Iberic "

and not " Hebrew ", the

initial i being rendered by 'Ain (25). The list

becomes now easier to understand. Coptic, Greek and Iberic are literary languages of late antiquity, in which the Old Testament was translated. The? re can be no question of a juerayQaqprj, because a

jueTaygcuprj of the Hebrew text in Coptic or Iberic

script would be meaningless. Then we come to

dh?. An Iranian language must be meant, and

at all events it is enough to recall the Pahlavi

Psalter. JVB^P is enigmatical, as neither an Ela mite script nor an Elamite language of the first

centuries A. D. are known to us. The only lan?

guage attested in the Elamite region is found, in

the inscriptions of Tang-i Sarvak and Susa (26). Both are written in Aramaic (27), and indeed in

the second place stands the expected IVOIK

instead of fltfS^P. Thus the prohibition concerned the Aramaic

Targums and possibly also the Psitt? of the Old

Testament, the latter in Kahle's opinion having once been the Targum of the Jewish community of Adiabene (28). The evidence adduced must

therefore be eliminated; it proves nothing of

what it was intended to prove. It is inconceivable that neither Blau nor Kahle

thought seriously of what the list of the above

quoted languages may mean. Otherwise they would have recognized that they prove nothing in favour of a fierayga^ij in definite alphabets.

The three passages merely confirm what had been

10



already known for a long time, viz. that Old

Testament text were translated into Coptic, Greek, Iberic, Pahlavi, as well as Aramaic and

Syriac.

The second piece of evidence too is irrelevant.

The homily of the bishop Melito of Sardes (29),

composed in the 2nd century, begins with the

words

rj (lev yqacpi] rfjq i?Qaixrjg ifjodov aveyvojarcu, xal rd Qrjfiaxa rov /uvarrjQiov diaoeodyarai.

Kahle translated: "

The script of the Hebrew

Exodus has been read out, and the words of the

mystery have been explained". He interprets Melito's assertion to mean that

" the reading out

of the Old Testament text in the Hebrew language has taken place

" and that

" upon it followed the

Greek translation ". We must object here to two

errors of translation. Aiaoaxpelv and Scaadcprjaic;

imply in no case a translation, but always an

explanation (30). Furthermore, the Hebrew Exo?

dus (der hebr?ische Exodus) in the sense here

intended is a Germanism. Suffice it to cite Mer

cati's remark that we must not understand "

del

libro dell'Esodo in ebraico ", but "

dell'Esodo

degli Ebrei "

or simply "

delTesodo ". Nothing needs to be added, except perhaps that even if

Kahle 's translation were correct up to the point he means it to be, it would not yet prove a fiera

ygcKprj. Thus a liturgical employ of the ^exayqacpy)

remains yet to be proved. It is rather striking that the second column of the Ambrosian frag? ments shows no variants. This can be explained

only by admitting that one single original was at

the basis of the copy. It may even be that the

text of the second column was prepared by Ori?

genes himself or by his order. This possibility, as set forth by Mercati, cannot be refuted. Kahle's

objection that Origenes's knowledge of Hebrew

was insufficient for the purpose, presupposes what would have yet to be proved. On the con?

trary the situation might be such that, if Mer

cati's interpretation is correct, we could deduce

the level of this knowledge from the second

column.

Neither Mercati nor Kahle took into account

the fact that the letter of Aristeas knows of two

activities of the seventy-two:

1) the fxsrayQacpYj, i.e. the transcription of the

Hebrew consonantic text in the Greek vocalized

alphabet. WTe are expressly told that the text

thus compiled came into the Alexandrine library.

2) the StsQjUTjvsvaig, i.e. the translation from

Hebrew into Greek; it was intended for the use

of the Jewish community. ? The difference be?

tween the two activities remained hitherto unre

cognized because of an insufficient philological

understanding of the text of Aristeas. The way in which to understand the data of the Aristeas

text was shown by us in 1958 and substantiated

by the interpretation of the secondary accounts

of Iosephus and Tzetzes (31). Our study could

not be available to Mercati and was known to

Kahle only at the end of 1960, as it could be

shown from an exchange of letters. The {/eraygacpr} attested in the Aristeas letter is the only one we

know. We must draw the due inferences from this.

Only now the purpose of Origenes becomes

clear. He wanted not only to reestablish the

original text of the Septuagint, but also, according to the tale of the Aristeas letter and the general belief of following generations, to place the /Liera

ygacprj at the side of the translation. The model

and the endeavour to realize it again are unmista?

kable. As the fieraygacfr) precedes the diegturjvsvcrig with Aristeas (32), so it does with Origenes: the

column with the transcription is placed before the

translations. Elsewhere we discussed whether

Origenes placed at the basis of his work the copy of the [xeraygacprj existing in the library of Ale?

xandria (33). This possibility, however, concerns

at the most the Torah, not the psalter. Here we

are left for the moment only with the possibility,

recognized by Mercati, that the /ueraygcKprj was

prepared by him personally or by his order. It

remains a mooth point whether Origenes took as

a model in its details the fieraygacpri of the Torah

in the Alexandrine library; at any rate, it is a

possibility.

5.

Ber?ni's linguistic capacities, as far as they come

to light in his Chronology, are well known. E.

Sachau, who was acquainted with the author

through many years of study, condenses his ob?

servations in a single sentence: "

There is a pos?

sibility of his having had a smattering of Hebrew

and Syriac, but of Greek he seems to have been

ignorant, and whatever he relates on the authority of Greek authors . . . must have been communi?

cated to him by the ordinary channel of Syriac Arab translation" (34). Since no Arab author

mentions an Arabic translation of the books xar?

Xgioriavovq or quotes this book at all, we are

compelled to the conclusion that Berum had a

Syriac translation before his eyes. Within the

Syriac literature Porphyry's work was known.

This is shown by two fragments, even if they have remained unnoticed.

The first one is found in Barhebraeus, chron.

Syriac. 32, 14 f. Bedjan: " After Darius (II).

11



Nothus, Artaxerxes (II, ruled from June 404 to

November 359) (35) reigned for forty(-four) years

(arb'tn is a haplography for arVln w-arba*) . . .

The Jews call this Artahsast by the name

As wer ?s. And concerning him John (of Ephesus) was of the opinion that the matter of Esther

happened in his days. In the interpretation of

the vSeventy (the Septuagint) he was called Artak

sarksis ". So far the text. The Hebrew Ahaswer?s

is given in the transliteration that occurs in Tobit

14,5 as 'Aavrjgog, in Esra 4,6 and Daniel 9,1 as 3Aaovrjoog (36). Barhebraeus's passage therefore comes from a Greek author who knew Hebrew, but employed the transcription that was usual in

Greek. This Greek pointed out the difference

between the Hebrew form in the original and the

one in the Greek translation. On the basis of his

linguistic knowledge he was satisfied that the two

names were not one. This was a highly qualified

philologist, and there can hardly be question of

anyone else but Porphyry. This time too he point? ed out the discrepancies between Greek and He?

brew version, not however in the Torah, but in

another book of the Old Testament.

On the contrary, a Christian had to accept the

equation Ahaswer?s, Aswer?s = Artaxerxes, and

this is what John of Ephesus did. This recogni? tion carried with it the question, which one of the

Achaemenians named Artaxerxes was intended.

John decided in favour of Artaxerxes II. The

reasons for his choice are unknown and hardly relevant. He was no expert in Achaemenian

history, to the contrary of Porphyry, whose sec?

tion on the old Persian kings from his Chronicle

is extant in an Arabic translation (37) (Eutychius 1,75, 14 f. Cheikho).

John of Ephesus had Porphyry's discussion on

Aswer?s-Artaxerxes before his eyes; he believed

he could draw chronological inferences from it.

Perhaps he had a Syriac translation of the book xara Xotartavovg available? John doubtlessly un?

derstood Greek and did not need such a Transla?

tion. The question must remain open. The second fragment too has been preserved by

Barhebraeus, H. eccl. 1,49,2 f., in a section on

Origenes. Eusebius's church history is cited as

source at the beginning, and on the whole the

account of the Syriac author is drawn from it (38). At the end, however, another authority is met with, and that is Porphyry. We know from Eusebius, h. eccl. 6,19,2-14, the sort of objections whereby

Porphyry fought his Christian enemies. According?

ly, in Barhebraeus too the great adversary of

Christianity appears as the foremost among the

enemies and slanderers of Origenes (1,51,10 f). A word-for-word quotation follows (12 f.): "He

said, when he (Origines) went to instruct pagans

in a village, and they said to him: ' Pray with

us, and then we shall all of us yield to thee and

shall accept baptism ', and when he prayed, the

pagans laughed at him and did not become be?

lievers ".

This, like the other utterances of Porphyry

against Origenes (Eusebius, h. eccl. 6,19,9), come

from the xar? Xqianavovg Since the utterance

could not be found in Eusebius, the question arises once more whether Barhebraeus or his source

found it in a Syriac translation of Porphyry's work.

The second fragment is larger than the first.

Nevertheless we can say that it occurs in a con?

text that originally was foreign to it, torn out and

employed as witness in favour of a thought, which was foreign to the original work. This fragment too, it seems, does not point to the existence of a

complete translation of the work. Yet it remains

something peculiar. Barhebraeus says that, when

the bishop Demetrius took steps for expelling Origenes from Alexandria, he did it out of envy, but pleaded religious motives. Thus it came

that Origenes was branded as an heretic, and this

stain remained attached to him to this day. This (he says) served to others as a pretext for

usurping his spiritual heritage. And at the end

slanderers came upon the scene, the worst of

whom was Porphyry.. . With the exception of

what is said at the beginning and at the end,

nothing, of all this is found in Eusebius. How,

then, was this tale concocted, and above all the

list of alleged or real heretical teachings, which

Demetrius attributed to his enemy? It is peculiar that Origenes is said to have asserted that the Son

and the Holy Ghost are created (bery?t? 1,51,4). This ought to refer to a Nestorian, and the paral? lelism with the expulsion of Nestorius, and of

the Nestorians at large, forces itself upon us.

Therefore, this came from a Nestorian source, and Porphyry's fragment too could be derived

from it. But do we stumble herewith on a Nesto?

rian translation of the whole wrork?

Here Ber?ni's large fragment comes in. It was

Ber?ni who first shifted it to the context in which we find it now and tried to make it serve his own

purposes. And Ber?ni could have taken it only from a Syriac translation, if he had not already an Arabic one available. When he composed his Chronology, he was at the service of a lord of

Gurg?n, to whom he dedicated his work in 390-1

H. (38). Before that time Ber?ni lived in his

home-country Khw?rezm. He could have ob?

tained the Syriac translation of the passage only in Khw?rezm, Gurg?n or generally in Khor?s?n.

Such a translation of a Greek work meant that it

was due to a Nestorian, and Merw, the Nestorian

12



metropolis for the whole of Khor?s?n, was then

the place in which it was made.

Even now many things remain obscure. The

comparatively large bulk of the fragment preserv? ed by Ber?m invites one to inquire whether the

Syriac translation thus ascertained was limited to excerpts, or contained the whole work. Or, as

G. Eevi Delia Viva put it in a letter of January 1st,

1960, addressed to one of the authors: "

It remains

to be seen whether (Ber?ni) knew the xar? Xql anavovQ in its complete form or through excerpts; the latter seems to me more likely, the niore so as

the Fihrist does not mention it among the works

of Porphyry ". To this we may add a few words.

It is remarkable that in the fragment the refu?

tation of the story of the 72 ancient is held very short and is practically non-existent as far as the reasons are concerned, which Africanus adduces

in favour of the two genealogies. Perhaps the reasons brought forward by the Christians in

favour of the Septuagint and of the genealogies interested the Nestorian translator more than their

refutation. In this case only such passages from

Porphyry's bulky work would have been selected

and translated, of which it was possible to make use in the controversy. And such a collection of excerpts may have fallen in Ber?ni's hands.

Decisive on this point is a remark in the letter of Barsaum? of Susa, preserved in the chronicle

of Se'ert (2,562,3 f. Scher). There, when the

emperor Heraclius spoke of Mary as the fteoroxog in the presence of the Katholikos Is?'ya(h)^ (40), this was held as an insult to the Gospel, which

begins: " Descent of Jesus the Messiah, the son

of David, the son of Abraham" (2,564,9). The

reference is to the beginning of the Gospel of

Matthew and to the genealogy of Christ there

given. We can see that the Nestorians employed this genealogy to prove their theory of the %qiaxo roxog. Discussion on the import and the evidential

value of this document were the personal concern

of each Nestorian. No wonder that they took over from Porphyry's line of thought not so much

his criticism, as what Sextus Julius Africanus had

brought forward in favour of the authenticity.

6.

Thus we get the answer to the question of what

had the Nestorians of Khor?s?n to do .with a

polemic treatise against the Christians and what

led them to concern themselves with a work, which in the West had been consigned to fire

long ago. Porphyry's superiority consisted in the

acuteness of his observation and the force of his

argumentation, and these the Nestorians took as

a model and a test. " Nestorius, to whom this

sect claim to go back, placed himself in contrast

with the Melkits and produced a doctrine on the

basis that had rendered the break between them

(the Melkits) and him unavoidable. This as

because he encouraged people to consider and to

examine and to draw inferences and to find ottt

analogies and to be ready to answer to opponents, to dispute with them and not to be compelled to

yield to them "

(41). Ber?ni, from whom these

words are taken (chron. 309,2 f.), tributes thus

not a lowly praise to the Nestorians. We know

that another work of Porphyry's was utilized in

this sense. P. Kraus remarks on the Letter to

Anebo: "

Porphyre demande ? un pretre egyptien de le liberer de certains doutes d'ordre philoso

phique qui lui sont survenus au sujet des cultes

paiens et des mysteres. En realite, ses questions sont tres embarrassantes pour le representant des

cultes. II est connu que les contradictions relevees

par Porphyre ont fourni 1'arsenal des Chretiens

dans leur lutte contre le paganisme "

(42). Acciden?

tally, a fragment of this work has been preserved,

again in the neighbourhood of Khor?s?n (43). First of all we must bring together what was

already known. The study of M. Sicherl, Die

Handschriften, Ausgaben und ?bersetzungen von

Iamblichos de Mysteriis (Texte und Untersuchun?

gen, 62), published in 1957, feels compelled to

examine also the occasion of the work. According to a scholium, which in the manuscript tradition

usually precedes the text (44), the pretended name

Abamon conceals the real author Iamblichus.

Already Proclus in his commentary on Plotin's

Enneads had attributed the authorship to Iambli?

chus. Abamon's, or rather Iamblichus's discussion

is presented as the answer to questions put by

Porphyty to the Egyptian Anebo (45). Th. Gale's

editio princeps of 1678 had already attempted a

reconstruction of Porphyry's letter to Anebo. It

was "

compiled from the De Mysteriis and the

quotations with Eusebius, Theodoretus, Cyrill and Augustine" (4?). G. Parthey's edition of

1857 took over this attempt, " without adding

anything new, except for textual variants and the

indications of the origin of the quotations ? (47). Lastly, we are told that J. Bidez planned a new

edition of the fragments (48). Another fragment is found in the fYno^vriarixdv

?i?Hov *I(joGY\nnov 144,48. J. Moreau, who lately made this tract the subject of treatise (49), has

gathered together the bibliography on that frag? ment (50). It is not cited by Parthey, and there?

fore Sicherl knows nothing about it. We would

suppose that the preserved sentence belonged to

the second book.

13



All these scholars overlooked the Arabic

tradition. Although the latter was quoted by us

in another connexion (51), Sicherl did not follow

up this point. We shall, therefore, repeat and

complete what we have already said.

The Fihrist (52) lists among Porphyry's wrorks

kit?b?n il? An?b?. On this the future editor of

the Fihrist, J. F?ck, remarked in a personal letter: "That the Letter to Anebo consisted of

two books, is confirmed by Ibn al-Qifti 257,6 and Barhebraeus Chron. 133 Salhani. Salhani

prints lbynw\ which is certainly incorrect. The

exchange of letters between Porphyry and the

priest Anebo is mentioned by Mas'?di, tanbih

162,5 f. de Goeje. The passage was discussed by P. Kraus in his J?bir b. Hayy?n 2,128" We

subjoin Kraus's translation of the statement

of Mas'?di: " Nous avons rapporte les relations

qu'eurent entre Porphyre de Tyr et Anabou,

pretre egyptien; ce Porphyre est l'auteur du livre

de risagogue ou Introduction au livre d'Aristote; il etait chretien (sic), mais il defendait en secret

les croyances des Sabeens grecs; et Anabou etait

attache aux doctrines des philosophes anciens, celles qu'avaient professes Pythagore, Thaies de

Milet et d'autres, qui sont celles des Sabeens

d'Egypte. Iis poserent Tun a l'autre des questions sur les sciences theologique dans des epitres con

nues de quiconque s'interesse aux sciences an

ciennes ".

A refutation of Anebo's letter to Porphyry is

cited in another passage of the Fihrist (53) among the writings of ar-R?zi (d. 925) (54). We are told on this occasion that Anebo expressed his opinion on Aristoteles's doctrine of God. Thus, Anebo

would have questioned the Aristotelian Porphyry on the Aristotelian doctrine of god in the same

way, as Porphyry questioned the Egyptian on

the Egyptian gods. We gain from this the ad?

ditional knowledge that Porphyry's letter to

Anebo consisted of two books and had been pre? ceded by a letter of Anebo to Porphyry.

Lastly, a long fragment of Porphyry's reply is

preserved in Arabic, in as-Sahrast?m's kit?bu

l-milal wa-n-nihal (345,7-16 Cureton). It runs: " He (Porphyry) too followed the opinion of

Aristoteles and agreed with everything the latter

taught. He maintained that what is referred to

as the utterance of Plato on the origin of the world, is incorrect. He (Porphyry) says in his letter to

Anebo: Concerning that in which Plato stood

alone according to your opinion, viz. that he at?

tributed a beginning in time to the world, this is an incorrect assertion. Plato did not say that the

world has a beginning in time, but that it has a

beginning in respect of the cause; he did so by

maintaining that the cause of being is its beginning.

He (Porphyry) maintained that he who supposes in his (Plato's) doctrine (the opinion) that the world

is both created and something new out of nothing? ness, furthermore, that it arose from chaos to

order, (this man) goes wrong and errs. It is not

always correct that non-existence precedes exis?

tence chronologically, because the cause of a

thing is something else than the thing itself, and

also that every disorder precedes order. Plato means only that, when the Creator caused the

world to arise from non-existence into existence, its presence does not follow from itself, but the cause of existence comes from the Creator

" (55).

The fragment deals with Plato, but the way in

which as- Sahrast?ni introduces it shows that it is taken from a discussion on Aristoteles. We notice

also that Anebo had opened the discussion. This

agrees with the information of the Fihrist, that

there existed a letter of Anebo to Porphyry and

that in it here was question of Aristoteles's doc?

trine of God. We could deduce both facts from

the fragment, even if we did not possess the

express assertion of the P'ihrist.

Iamblichus's reply does not discuss the subject.

Although we read (8,1) that Porphyry enquired about the ngcorov ahiov, what follows shows that

he referred to the Egyptian doctrine on this point, and generally that the discussion took another

trend. This leads us to suppose that the two

books, in which Porphyry's reply to Anebo w^as

divided, had different contents. Anebo had in?

quired about Aristoteles's doctrine of God, and

Porphyry may have replied to that in the first

book. To it belonged the fragment extant in

Arabic translation. In the second book Porphyry

put his precise and inexorably formulated que? stions (5fi) about the Egyptian gods, and the reply was given not by Anebo, but by Imblichus in

his still extant treatise on the mysteries. This

writing has been termed "

the fundamental book

of late antique religion "

(57). An important por? tion of his antecedents has been clarified at the

hand of the Arabic tradition.

Franz Altheim and Ruth Stiehl

NOTES

(!) E. Sachau remarks in the English translation

(1879), p. 372: "

By His?b-aljummal the author under?

stands the notation of the numerals by means of the

letters of the Arabic alphabet, arranged according to

the sequence of the Hebrew alphabet ". More on this

subject in F. Rosenthal, Die aramaistisohe Forschung,

p. 252, n. 5.

(2) E. Sachau in his translation p. 374, suggests Anianus. Cf. Elias Nisib., Chronology 2, 128,1 f. Books

Chabot.

14



(3) Cf. R. K?BERT, in Analecta hiblica i2 (1959), p. 174 n. 4 and 180.

(4) Bahman, viz. b. Isfendiy?r. Cf. Altheim-Stiehl, Die aram?ische Sprache, 2 Lfg., p. 191.

(5) Differently E. Sachau in his translation, p. 374. But we think it is possible to do without emen?

dations.

(6) Cf. K. Sachau in his translation, p. 374.

(7) Cf. 292,10 f., where he appears together with

James, the bishop of Aelia-Jerusalem.

(8) The names in the following lists are given according to the conventional forms. An investigation of the linguistic forms in Ber?ni could lead to some

interesting results.

(9) K. Tr?dinger, Studien zur Geschichte der grie? chisch-r?mischen Ethnographie (Diss. Basel 1918),

pp. 34 f. and 132; E. Norden, Die germanische Urge? schichte bei Tacitus, pp. 460 and 463 f.; F. Altheim,

Weltgeschichte Asiens, 2 (1948), pp. 21 f.

(10) O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament2

(1956) , p. 749.

(u) J. Bidez, Vie de Porphyre (1913), p. 64.

(12) A. v. Harnack, in Abh. Berl. Ah. Wiss. 1916,

1, p. 49.

(13) On the pattern of the series Josiah-Joj akin

Jo jakhin of the Jewish kings. (14) Ioh. Card. Mercati, Psalterii Hexapli Frag

menta, 1 (1958).

(15) Cf. Altheim-Stiehl, Philologia sacra (1958), pp. 37f.

(16) Altheim-Stiehl, Op. cit., p. 37.

(17) G. Mercati, Op. cit., p. xvil, 1.

(18) P. Kahle, in Theologische Literatur-Zeitung

1959, p. 744.

(19) G. Mercati, Op. cit., p. xvn a-b.

(20) G. Zuntz, in Zeitschrift f?r alttestamentliche

Wissenschaft 68 (1956), p. 175, n. 109.

(21) On the meaning of fierayQayrj see Altheim

Stiehl, Op. cit., pp. 9f.

(22) G. Mercati, in Biblica 28 (1947), pp. 1 f. and 175 f.

(23) P. Kahle, Op. cit., pp. 158 f.; cf. P. Kahle, Der hebr?ische Bibeltext seit Franz Delitsch (1961),

pp. 42 f.

(24) P. Kahle, Op. cit., p. 159.

(25) Th. N?ldeke, Mand?ische Grammatik (1878), pp. 4 f.

(26) Altheim-Stiehl, Supplementum Aramaicum

(1957) , pp. 90 f., 98 f.

(27) On Susa see Altheim-Stiehl, Die Aram?ische

Sprache, 1. Lfg. (1959), pp. 47 f. (28) P. Kahle, Op. cit., pp. 269 f.

(29) The Chester Beatty Papyri, fasc. VIII (1941), p. 10. Further bibliography in P. Kahle, The Cairo

Geniza 2, p. 161: Der hebr?ische Bibeltext, p. 43; G. Mer?

cati, Op. cit., p. xviii a.

(3?) Aitheim-Stiehl, Philologia Sacra, p. 19 f., with an examination of the linguistic usage.

(31) Altheim-Stiehl, Op. cit., pp. 16 f.

(32) Altheim-Stiehl, Op. cit., pp. 17 f.

(33) Altheim-Stiehl, Op. cit., pp. 39 i.

(34) E. Sachau in the Preface to his English trans?

lation of Ber?ni's Chronology (1879), p. xn.

(35) Parker-Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology

(1956), p. 19.

(36) R. Stiehl in Altheim-Stiehl, Die aram?ische

Sprache, 2. Iyfg. (1960), pp. 203 f.

(37) Altheim-Stiehl, Supplementum Aramaicum,

pp. 45 f. We are glad of G. I,evi Delia Vida's approval,

expressed in his letter of December 27th, 1959. At the same time, he called attention to his paper in the

Journal of the American Oriental Society 69 (1950), pp. 182 f., where he showed the existence of a fragment of Galen in Eutychius and suggested an examination

of its chronolographical source (Op. cit., pp. 186 f.). This examination will be undertaken by the writers

of the present paper in the fifth volume of her " Ge? schichte der Hunnen "

(he will be published 1962). (38) Same with the Chronicle of Se'ert, 2, 191,5 f.

(39) E. Sachau, Op. cit., p. vm.

(40) On the occasion of the Katholikos's embassy:

2, 557, 4 f. and 8 f. On the events see J.-B. Chabot in

Journal Asiatique 1896, p. 85.

(41) Sachau differs: "

in fact, to give up the Jurare in verba magistri

(42) P. Kraus, J?bir ihn Hayy?n (Mem. presentes ? Tlnstitut d'Egypte, 45), 2 (*1942), p. 128.

(43) First noticed in Altheim-Stiehl, Philologia Sacra pp. 100 f. and repeated here with some impro? vements.

(44) M. Sicherl, Op. cit., pp. 20 f.

(45) M. Sicherl, Op. cit., p. 1.

(46) M. Sicherl, Op. cit., p. 197.

(47) M. Sicherl, Op. cit., pp. 199 f.

(48) M. Sicherl, Op. cit., p. 197 n. 2.

(49) J. Moreau, in Byzantion 25-27 (1955-1957),

pp. 241 f.

(50) J. Moreau, Op. cit., p. 259, n. 2, with a remark

by A. Delatte.

(51) Altheim-Stiehl, Porphyrios und Empedokles (1954), pp. 7 f. This was preceded by P. Kraus, Op. cit. 2, p. 128 n. 5 end.

(52) Fihrist, 1, 253, 16 Fl?gel. (53) Fihrist, 1, 300, 18 f.

(54) On ar-R?zi see in the last instance J. F?ck

in Ambix 4, pp. 137 f.

(55) We are grateful for explanations to R. Robert, Rome.

(56) J. Bidez, Op. cit., pp. 81 f.

(57) M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen

Religion, 2 (1950), p. 429; in Gnomon 23 (1951), p. 407.

15



altheim, franz, and ruth stiehl_new fragments of greek philosophers. 2. porphyry in arabic and...

Documents