New Fragments of Greek Philosophers: II.

Porphyry in Arabic and Syriac Translation

Author(s): Franz Altheim and Ruth Stiehl
Source: East and West, Vol. 13, No. 1 (MARCH 1962), pp. 3-15
Published 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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

New
of

Fragments

Greek

Philosophers

II. Porphyry

in Arabic

In

that deals
the section of his Chronology
the era of the Creation, Ber?ni speaks about
the differences in its epoch which prevail between

with

Jews and Christians

former count 3448

the
(15,4 f. Sachau). While
Adam
and
between
years
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
This will be dealt with

in the following

discussion.

In spite of existing contrasts,

a method
in common, which

both parties have

as
is designated

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
From the resulting numbers a prediction
up
is drawn. Ber?ni strives to show the absurdity of
He
method.
this widespread
rejects what both

think to have found out in

Jews and Christians
the discussion
Then
returns to its
this wa}r.
starting point, viz. to the different epochs of the
era

of the

(20,12 f.).
He adds
versions

Creation

with

Jews

and

Christians

that both parties possess two different

different
(nusha) of the Torah, whose

agree with the respective

The Greek version
religions.

data

Christians
a correct

teachings

of both
the

by
possessed
and called Septuagint
is in their opinion
of the Hebrew
text.
But
translation

the Jews say that the translation was made under

in it is falsified.
and therefore much

duress,
Ber?ni

inclines

toward

Syriac

Translation

is sketched out, and we get from

position
it some new information.
If in all the three in?
we
stances
add up the life durations of Adam's

whose

1.

evidence.

and

the

latter opinion
reasons.

his

without,
however,
giving
Up to this point the two versions
agree with the opposite
opinions

(21,8),

of the Torah

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

immediate successors,
the span of time between
the banishment
from paradise
and the Flood
to 1656 years with the Jews, to 2224
amounts
the Christians,
and to 1307 years
years with
(21,15 f.). However, we would
and not the banishment
Creation,
to be the starting point.
It is also
out what the Samaritans
difficult to make
have
to do with a quarrel between Jews and Christians.

with the Samaritans

the
expect
from Eden,

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
23 days and 4 hours (21,19 f.).
in its various
is present
only the Torah
versions, but also the Gospels, of which there are
years,
Not

four versions

evident

(22,4 f.). The difference is made

the genealogies
of Jesus in Matthew
L,uke 3,23-31; they do not agree as

by
1, 2-16 and
we would expect.
The original theme, concerning the era of Crea?
Neither
abandoned.
tion, is hereby completely
nor the genealogy
the Gospels
of Christ have

to do with
it.
Berum
anything
Accordingly,
no
further
makes
efforts in that direction, but
adds a list of the Gospels of Marcion,
Bardesanes,
the Manichaeans

section
This

and

others.

Thus

ends

this

(23,9-15).

shows already
how
simple summary
little this paragraph
of
fulfils the requirements
a tightly built-up
are
of thought. We
process
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
respect for their peculiarities.
The voluminous
section on the his?bu l-jummal
and its confutation stands out as a part by itself.
on the subject,
Berum breaks off the discussion

without

much

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to the possibility of resuming it at a more

appropriate place, and wants to return to the main

points

theme.

With

this section
this, he characterizes
as an insertion.
But does then

unequivocable
Ber?ni
really return to his main theme?
At first sight this seems to be the case. The new
statement

versions

that Jews and Christians own different

of the Torah
could agree with the fact

that both

calculated

tween Adam

the

religions
and Alexander

interval

be?
con?

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

the connexion is an illu?

parts rely. Nevertheless
nor the Greek Torah
one.
Neither
the
Hebrew
sory
a
nor
are
we
told
number;
by what sort of cal?
give
culation the two contradictory data are arrived at.
wording confirms this. At the beginnig
and
Christians were referred to (15,4 f.).
Jews
But now it is a matter
of two versions of the
Ber?ni's

Torah

Both give different numbers,

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

distance
but

of time between

to that between

Adam

and Alexander,
from Para?

the banishment

dise and the Flood

(21,16 f.).
second one could be deduced

It is clear that the

from the different

of the Torah, by adding up the durations

of life of Adam's
immediate descendants.
On the

versions

contrary, the interval between Adam and Alexan?

in either of
der could not possibly be contained
on the two versions of the
them. The discussion
is therefore attached to that on the era of
Torah
in a merely outward manner.
Creation
The

of the various
elements
it reacts on a wider circle.

incompatibility
once recognized,
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

being
While

and not of the Pentateuch

alone. Once more the

we may add that,
to
is
this
scanty;
agreement
on which the Chri?
the
sentences
shortly before,
stians perform their hisdbu Fjummal, are not given
in Greek

but this time in Syriac (16, 7; 18, 19).

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
The

Christians,
of though
adapted
mentioned

the weak

thread

or which

the trend

It is evident
that Ber?ni
hangs.
to his text an extant discussion which

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
even
ones
in
the Gospels.
by
greater
The

life of this trend of though,

independent
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

which

is brought
in only by the
Confusion
(20,13).
an au?
to
who
assert
Christians,
possess
wrongly
thentic translation. But, as the text goes on to
sa}^ after the mention of the vSamaritans, the case
own Scriptures
of the Christians'
is even worse.
we have
that
four Gospels,
and beyond
heretics and gnostics put forward more writings

There

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

and the Mani

Bardesanes
Marcion,
Samaritans,
are
no
the
of
remark.
cheeans
subject
depreciatory
?
a very expert criti?
All the weight of criticism
cism ?
is thrown against the Christians.
an arrangement
In all this we perceive
which
in its clearness compares favourably with the one
to his readers in this section.
offered by Ber?ni
But before taking it up, we have to eliminate
from the (on the whole)
section 20,12
unitary
later origin stands
23,15 two elements, whose
glaringly forth.
There
is first of all the witness

of a historian

Anianus

from the kit?bu

(2), drawn by Ber?ni
Ibnu
of
1-B?zy?r
l-qir?n?t
(21,19 f.). This wit?
ness contributes nothing to the question
of the
three extant

mutual

versions

differences.

of the Torah

It is also devoid

for the number

and

of their

of significance
the banishment

of years between
and the Flood,
in which
those
the historian
refers to
versions
differ; because
the distance
of time between Adam's
creation
from Paradise

But
the Flood, and thus to another period.
this fresh quotation
ismeant, and Ber?ni expressly
employs it in this sense, to confirm the uncertainty
and

of knowledge
thus inserted
the
which

repugnant
contains

the

It is
data.
chronological
to twist as far as possible
trend of thought of our section,
a piece of polemics
against the

the validity of their tradition, to

of Ber?ni's
aim, viz. the question
era of the Creation exists.
wmether an ascertained
This interpolation is taken from a Muslim work;
Christians
the

and

on

in order

service

the same holds

that
passage
the mention
of the
"
we have
Manichaeans
Of him a ver?
(23,12 f.):'
sion is extant, which is called
the Gospel of the
has

to be

good
eliminated.

for the second

After

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

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

Seventy

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

l?m wrote

it down

the oral communication

upon
the Persian".

of Salman

Here

the mention

of

has given rise to the idea that this

text
have
been a Manichaean
spurious
might
work. We know the story of Salman the Persian
enough (3) to be able to say that he has just as
nationality

little to do with Mani's

Gospel,

that of the Septuagint.

shall proceed
to give
We
what is left.

as the latter with

the

of

translation

into Greek, after (the king) had separated

them
had appointed
for every two of them one
who took care of their needs (5), till they (the 72)
and

had

finished its translation.

came

each other and

Thus

36 translations

He

into his hands.

compared
found in them nothing

them with

(no discre?
occurs
what
with
except
unavoidably
pancies)
to
the
difference
in
of
coincid?
regard
expressions
He
gave them what he had
ing conceptions.
promised and supplied them in the best possible

manner
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

be?
(version) which
'
of the
is named
Torah
longs to te Christians
'. This
is due to the fact that, when
Seventy
Nebukadnezar
marched
and
Jerusalem
against
a
sons
of
the
of
went
Israel
it,
destroyed
part
away, sought refuge with the king of Egypt and
remained under his protection down to the times

when

This king
Ptolemy
Philadelphus
reigned.
and its heavenly
got news of the Torah
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

summoned
them and treated them

hospitality,
kindly. Then

he gave

them permission, to return

to Jerusalem;
Ys governor in
Artaxerxes
Cyros,
had
it
reconstructed
Babylonia
(4),
(in the mean?
of Syria.
time) and had resumed the cultivation

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)
'
I
said to them:
to ask
have
Look
something
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
the Torah'.
and swore
book,
assented,
They
to fulfil it. After they had arrived at Jerusalem,

they carried out their promise by sending him a

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

guage

and

he

it
(the king) did not understand
turned once more to them with the

(Hebrew). He
request for somebody

Greek

and Hebrew,

who

could understand

so that he might

both

translate

it

(theTorah) forhim (theking). He promised ihm

selected
gifts and benefits.
They
(the Jews)
from their twelve tribes (21,1) 72 men, six out
of every tribe from among the learned and the
Their names are known among the Chri?
priests.

stians. They (the 72) translated it (theTorah)

with everything necessary.

Then
they
one
to
him
them
of
those
versions
grant
begged
so that they
(out of the extant 36 translations),
boast
and
show
with
their
off
fellow-country?
might
men.
And he made
also. This
is (the version)

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?
That
the contrary.
ever) affirm (taq?lu: Sachau)
vere
that
to its (the Book's)
is,
they
compelled

which

translation),
mentioned)
treatment,
themselves

and were pressed to it in that (above

and mal?
way by fear of violence
not before
had
they
agreed among

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) strengthensit (the doubt)

even more. ?

Now, there are not only these two

It has rather a third ver?
versions of the Torah.
sion with the Samaritans, who are known as aftiyya
vot (al-l?mas?siya)
(6).
to whom Nebukadnezar

They

are

the successors,
Syria when he

granted
the Jews and had emptied
prisoners
had helped him
(Syria) of them. The Samaritans
of
and had pointed
out to him the weaknesses

had

taken

the sons of Israel.

Thus

he did not harm them

them nor took

he neither killed

(the Samaritans),
them prisoner, but

Palestine

under

his

allowed

in
to dwell
a
are
doctrines

them

rule. Their

of the Jews and of the Mages;

that
the bulk of them live in a place in Palestine
their
is called Neapolis
synagogues are
(ndbuitis);
the prophet (7)
there.
Since the days of David

mixture

of those

they do not cross the border of Jerusalem, because

and
that he committed
violence
they maintain

wrong and shifted the holy temple from Neapolis

to Aelia
touch (as
They
(which is Jerusalem).
no other men, and if they touch
far as possible)
themselves.
them, they wash
They
recognize
of none
the
the prophecies
prophets)
(among
?
of the sons of Israel that lived after Moses.

the version that is valid among the

Concerning
which
the latter quote, it gives as 1656
and
Jews
is obtained by summing
years the period which
up the periods
between Adam's

of life of Adam's
banishment

descendants,
and
from Paradise
5

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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.
that

the Flood

that

is valid

with

the

Concerning
(the version)
it says that it (the period) amounts
Samaritans,
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.

the Christians,
it has four versions, united
With
into one

(Jesus's)
is found in each

announcement

Sealthiel

ptions
the days

of his announcement
and in the time
of his crucifixion, is in several ways different ?
as it is stated ?
fromwhat is found in the others.
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

Thus

be as follows (8):

Melchi

Joram
Josaphat
Asah

Eleazar

Abiah
25. Rehabeam
Solomon

Zadok

David

Azor

Jesse

Eljakim

10.Abiud

Obed
30. Boas

Zerubabel

Salmon

Sealthiel

Nahasson

Jekhonjah

Aminadab

Josiah

Ram

15. Amon

35. Hezron

Manasseh

Perez

Hiskiah

Judah

Ahaz

James

Joatham
20. Usiah
And he
Abraham
to Luke,

Isaac

40. Abraham

(Matthew) begins in the genealogy with

As
(and) takes it down
(to Joseph).
he says that (the genealogy)
is as fol?

lows:

Joseph

Heli

5.

Amos
10.Nahum

Matthat

Hesli

Levi
Melchi

Nagai
Maath

(Jannah)
Joseph
Mattathias

Jonam

Addi

Elijakim

Meleah

25. Kosam

Menah

Elmadad
Her

40. Matathai
Nathan

Joseph
Elieser

David

excuse of the Christians

The

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
from whom
taken

Mattathias
15. Simei
Joseph

a man
a wife
dies leaving behind
he had no sons, his place with her is
in order
the brother of the deceased,

by
that he may
brother.
So
substitute

James
Matthan
5. Eliud
Achin

Judah
35. Joseph

Neri

in his land. What

single of them concerning descri?

of the Messiah
and stories about him in

Joseph

Levi
Simeon

20. Zerubabel

of which the
(or: one manuscript),
first comes from the Matthew,
the second from
Mark, the third from Luke, the fourth from John;
it according
and each of these disciples composed

Jorem

Matthat

Johanan
Resah

roll

to his

30.

Judas

secure

for his (deceased)

posterity
that what
is begotten by him (the
from
brother) belongs to the deceased

the point of view of the pedigree, but to the

and
living from the point of view of procreation
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.
in?
Matthew
say: When
They
(the Christians)
to
serted him (Joseph) genealogically
according
the Jews blamed him.
said:
They
procreation,
the genealogy is incorrect, because it does not take
into account
the pedigree.
this, Luke
Upon

adapted himself to them (the Jews), by compiling

his pedigree according to the rule. Both pedigress
Here
go back to David.
lay the purpose
(of the
was
of
it
known
the
Mes?
because
compilations),
siah

that he would

be a son of David.

For

the

alone was

connected
rest, the genealogy of Joseph
with the Messiah,
and not the genealogy of Mary,
it is a law unto the sons of Israel that
because
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.
Joseph and Mary
tribe, they were bound
the same starting point,

Since

were

both

of the

same

to go back together to
and in this lay the pur?
pose of the fixation of the genealogy and its publi?
and the
cation. ? Among the followers ofMarcion
one Gospel each is current,
follovers of Bardesanes
which differs inmany points from these (above-men?
tioned)

Gospels.

Among

the followers

of Mani

completely separate Gospel is current, which places

itself in opposition everywhere, from the beginning
to the end, to what the Christians teach.
They

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to what it
subject themselves
(the Manichaeans)
contains;
they assert that it is the
(their Gospel)
true one and that it corresponds to what the Mes?
and to w7hat he had

siah had maintained

and

that

all

void

and

their

the Messiah

brought,
are null and
(Gospels)
followers are liers in regard to

the other
''.

CojLievrjg diaqxovtac rfjg nsol Xqiarov

yeveakoyiag.
are told that the version of Matthew
and
We
. .
Luke
rolg
noXXolg
vo/Lic^ovrai
diaqxoveiv.
'(1,7,1).
times the authenticity
Thus already in Eusebius's
of the contrasting versions was being attacked.
restricts

Eusebius
confutation

by Sextus
letter to Aristides

whose
sive

3.
The

translation
The

shows

the

various

versions

inner

subdivision

of the Torah

In the case of the Gospels

is the most questionable.
there are first of all four canonical versions. They
contradict
each other, and moreover
the follo?
of Marcion,

Bardesanes

and Mani

assert

to

and that
possess each of them the true Gospels,
In both instances the dif?
all the other are lies.
ferences are shown at the hand of genealogies.

The

immediate

descendants

of Adam

are different

in all versions, and the measure

of the differences
one
if
evident
adds up the years of life
becomes
down

to Noah.

ancestors

In the same way

differentiate

of Christ

the data

on the

in
themselves,
in
to
order
say

spite of everything the Christians

efface the diversities.
in itself, as well
This subdivision

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.
(21, 9-12) and vofxoi
Aq^aioXoyia
follow each other
of the Samaritans
(21,12-15)
in the fashion of Greek ethnography.
The vojuoi
are arranged
in the same way according
to the
From
the
of
doctrines
association
principle
(9).
we pass to the synagogues,
of the Samaritans
that are found in the city of Neapolis.
The latter
from Aelia-Jerusalem,
is differentiated
and the

opposition is repeated in the shifting of the temple

from Neapolis
to Jerusalem.
The
Samaritans
as
from
away
Jerusalem,
they separate
keep
from the rest of mankind.
themselves
The pro?
took away from them the temple,
phet David
and thus the}^ accept no Jewish prophet
after
Moses.

In general it is possible
to say that the Greek
we
whose
voice
author,
perceive through the Arab
wrote
after Hadrian.
Bardesanes
translation,
carry us to the 3rd century, and this
that is given in
agrees with the argumentation
favour of the authenticity
of the descent of the
ancestors of Jesus, although so strongly differen?
and Mani

tiated.

fragments

ned with

quite clearly.
and of the Gospels form the mainstays.
There are
three versions of the Torah, of which the Christian

wers

citing an
Africanus,
Julius
(1,7,1; cf. 6,31,3)

like this is known

from Euse?
Something
bius h. eccl. I, 7: neql rfjg iv rolg evayyeMoic; vofii

to

himself

are

we

Here

quoted.

and

section

are

earlier

from
exten?
concer?

16.

1,7,2-10
They discuss
the problem of the names in the two genealogies
and try to reach a conciliation by distinguishing

to the name
the father according
[xXr\aei\ 1,7,3)
from the actual begetter
(cf. rwv /uev doxovvrcov
Thus
nareqcov, rcov de vnaqyovrcov: 1,7,4).
they
the same reasons that Ber?ni
adduce
attributes
to the Christians.

What

of Africanus

argumentation
By this way too we

the latter gives,

in an abridged

come back

is the
form.

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
the tale in the letter of Aristeas
is evident.
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

with
Yet

the existence

shows

of a Christian

version

of the

same

is given by
Jewish version
legend, whose
letter. The latter was hihgty esteem?
the Aristeas

detailed reproduction
ed, as shown by Josephus's
The church fathers too (10) took
ant. 12,2,11-118.
"
over the story
and in doing so increased
its
one of them
But which
features ".
marvellous
be at the bottom of the tale in this instance ?
The seventy-two
A detail gives us a cue.
trans?
lators work two by two, and at the end the result

would

differentiated
is 36 manuscripts,
in the linguistic form. Nothing

by peculiarities
of the sort is

in the letter of Aristeas.

found

Such

differences

the Greek versions could interest only a

within
man who collected such things. Could the story,
to Christians
is attributed
which
(and not to
we
as
with
the
would
letter
of Ari?
Jews
expect
pla?

to the originator of the Hexa

to Eusebius,
tried hard
Origenes

go back

steas),

According
. . rag

avt/vsvaai.

xovra
nvag

raw

naq?

rovg

s?dojLirj

leq?g yqacp?g eqfirjvevxorcov exdoaetg xai

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

nvcov

shortly

after,

aovaag

(sc. yqa(pag)

elg

ereqcov

rag

/liv/cov

rov

ndXai

%qovov aviyyevaag

Xav&a

nqor\yayev

cpcog.

In this case Africanus

the adversaries,
author quoted
thus

out

Porphyry's

and Origenes would be

the anti-Christian

whom

against
Ber?ni

by

is fighting. Celsus
is
we
are
left with
and

of the question,
work xar? Xqianavovg.

We

know

of
7

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the criticism
of Jesus

he

levelled
reach

(n). We

against the geneaology

it now through the Arab

translation.

is confirmed

sentences

fact

text

are

by

of Ber?nfs
So we

death.

the

have

that

the

written

to take

last
after

the eighties
Mor?
date.

of the third century for its earliest

eover: one gets a terminus post quern for the
not yet fixed datation
work.
of Porphyry's

4.
criticism on
This short allusion to Porphyry's
the genealogies
of Jesus needs some explanation.
A. v. Harnack
(12) lists as fr. 11 of the work against

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

et tertia incipit

Josiae,

filio Joacim,
Joacin
struit eccle
calumniam

quod ignorans Porphyrius

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

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

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

by

on that textual

is found inMatth.

tradition which

1,11 'Icooiaq de eyyevrjaev r?v 'Icoaxtju, 'Iooaxtjn

de xtL But Joacin is an invention ofHieronymus's
sagacity (13); Porphyry knew nothing of the sort.

and
is shown by the polemics of Hieronymus
text, which mentions
y?sly? alone
by the Arabic
and then goes on to y?hany? (22,10).

This

Another

matter

ioned Origenes
the translation

discussion.
with

in connection
of the Torah.

We

ment?

of

the

This

story
too must be

this purpose we get help from a

discovery; we allude to the fragment

manuscript
of the Hexaplian
the death

Porphyry
pretation
evaluation
the Torah

needs

For

clarified.

Hebrew

regard

coinciding

psalter
of G. Mercati

that was

entertained

after

(14).
to task Origenes
(if the inter?
above
is correct) and his,
suggested
of the Greek translation of the Torah
took

of the Septuagint.
"
remained
original

This means

published

We

are told that the

free from confusion

",
that Porphyry, and thus also Origenes
no doubts on the authenticity
of the

current Hebrew
texts.
But also the Christians
"
or alteration
no transposition
affirm that
(in
taken place in
has
with
the
comparison
original)

In spite
it (the Greek version) ".
numer
of independent
translators,
"
occurs
differences only in
what

of the
there

large
were

unavoidably

to the differences

the

guaranteed
ginal.

of expression
in
were
translations

The

conceptions
in agreement,

essentially

This
Mani's

with

and

this
with

correspondance

agreement
the ori?

if he is really in this case the butt of

criticism, related the story of the 72
in a form, which widely
coincides

Origenes,
Porphyry's
translators

letter (15), and yet dif?

that of the Aristeas
fers on some points. We are concerned here with
the following points of agrement:
original was extant, but was
1) the Hebrew

with

not understood;
2) the translation

was

carried

out

came

on royal

from Jerusalem
commission by 72 men, who
There is a difference,
for this purpose.
to Egypt
but
knows 72 translations,
in as far as Aristeas
common
our text 36 only. Elements
to both
are again:
3) the versions

that thus came into being are

not different from each other, or nearly so. This
circumstance
portance
translators

have

must

for Origenes;
came

been

because

to the same

im?
of particular
if
the
various
only

result, the agree?

ment with the Hebrew
original was guaranteed
for him. Only if this was the case, the original
for
could be replaced by the Greek translation
The consensus was
the usage of the Christians.
of proof in a decisive
thus recognized as means
instance.

could not overlook the fact

Of course Origenes
the current avxiygaya of the Septuagint
(of
formed only
which the translation of the Torah
a portion)
did not come up to the exacting
that

standard
expressed
mentary

that

was

his opinion
on Matthew,

He
of them.
expected
on the question in his com?
p. 387, 28 f. Klostermann:

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

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

and djus?,ovvxcovy xfjg dtog'dcbaecog

fjLoy?rjQ?q (ehe
xcov ygacpo/Lihcovehe xal and xcbv xd iavxolg doxovvxa
ev xfj diog&cbaei
ngooxiftevxcov y\ d<patgovvxcov.

were
textual
laid at
Accordingly,
corruptions
of the copyists.
the door of the arbitrariness
of Origenes
aimed at reestablishing
The method
the original
and uncorrupted
This
condition.
was not effected in the way we use nowadays,
i.e.
the earliest and best manuscripts
by ascertaining
and other textual evidence, by following up the
and comparing
history of the text, collecting
the variants, and in the last instance by recon?
structing the earliest shape "of the text, the manu?
The
original text
script archetypus and the
was
and
of
simple
straight?
Origenes
procedure
forward.

in his opinion the first text of the

before it was corrupted im the course

Since

Septuagint,
of centuries,

was

completely

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

equivalent

to the

as such by
original and was guaranteed
consensus of the 36 translations,
the only
was
to
the
correct
trans?
establish
thing required

Hebrew
the

this was

Once

lation.
text

too

Thus

he

carried

out, the Original

found.
conceived
it) was

(as Origenes
the translations
examined
to each

him,

assigned
and
Hexapla,

a column

of them

to

available

in the

these parallel
tried, by comparing
to arrive
translations with that of the Septuagint,
"
"
at the
correct
translation, which for him (as
identical with the not
already pointed
out) was
text of the Septuagint.

yet corrupted
In doing so, Origenes
three dif?
distinguished
ferent methods, on which he espressed his opinion,
once more
on Matthew:
in the commentary
vr)v
xgiaiv

noir\ad.tievoi
1.

to

row

and

exelvoiq

gvvqoov

Xoincbv

exddaecov

ECpvXd^afJlEV,

2. xai rtvd jjev cb?eXiaa/uev <<c&s> ev reo e?gaixco

jurjxeijueva (ov roX[a'r]aavreg avra ndvrrj negieXeiv)y
3. rtv? de \xer daregiaxow ngoae&Yjxa^ev,
Iva
ort
rolg
jLcrjxeifieva nagd
dfjXov fi,
e?do/urjxovra ix
reov

Xovnebv

exddaeeov

reo

GVjbHpcbvojg

noo

i?gaixco

GE&rjxajbtev.

If we

compare this with what is found in Por?

we
must first of all observe that nothing
phyry,
the Hexapla,
is said about
and nothing about
the existence

finished

of other

Origines had
about 245, after
that is about one genera?

translation.

his monumental

work

28 years of preparation,
tion before the time when Porphyry was working
at his book (16). The voluminous
structure of the

which besides existed

in a few copies
Hexapla,
was
nor acces?
neither
obtainable
only,
practically
and
therefore
the
of the
attention
sible,
escaped
critic.
But

evident.
something else appears
Origenes
ev
reo
of
he sup?
which
fjirj
spoke
e?gaixco
xeifjieva,
ov
the
with
avr?
??eXog,
plied
roXju^jaavreg
Ttdvrrj
TiegieXelv. At its side there were firj xeljusva nagd
he therefore
inserted
e?dourjxovra, which
(jigocre'&rjxajuev) and marked with an daregiaxog.

rolg

the

Concerning

of the Septuagint,
to the Christians
the sta?

translation

attributed

Porphyry
tement that

lam yaqa*

'alaiha

tabdilun

au

to this there was

(Ber?m, 21,6). According
"
in comparison
transposition nor alteration

the Hebrew

But

it was

original.
called into doubt. He

Porphyry
of his
methods

tahrif
"
no
with

just this which

knew the critical

the employ of d?eXdg

adversary,
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

The

below).
convenience,

against
critic had not

which

witnessed

the Christians

overlooked
the corrupt

this

(see
in?

condi

tions of the Septuagint

text, allegedly
to the Hebrew
original.
In view of the above, all the more
was

an

observation

scholars

equivalent

surprising
at by the foremost
the Ambrosiana
with

arrived

when

dealing
In their opinion, the column assigned
fragments.
as e) did
to the Septuagint
(marked by Mercati
not contain those critical arjuela, of which Ori
?
Al?
i.e. ??eX?g and aaxsgtaxog.
genes speaks
to
esta?
Mercati
believed
himself
ready
obliged
blish

this absence

reached
critical

(17), and in this connection

the conclusion that we must imagine

edition

furnished with

he

the

of the Septuagint
(i.e. the one
arj/uela) as an independent editorial

by side with Hexapla

in
this
way can we under?
Only
(and Tetrapla).
"
e la
e Tetraplo
stand his expression:
Esaplo
e
recensione dei IyXX coi segni diacritici
supple?
ment! dentro
P. Kahle
too had reached the
"
show?
conclusion that the Ambrosiana
fragments
ed in the Septuagint
column not a single asterisk
"
or obelus ". He took this absence to mean
dass
enterprise,

existing

side

nur die Grundlage

f?r die textkritische
die Hexapla
Arbeit des Origenes gewesen sein k?nnte, dass die
von wichti?
in ihr vorliegende
Zusammenstellung

recht
ihm (Origenes)
j?dischen Bibeltexten
"
f?r
bot
Arbeit
Material
seine
(18).
eigentlich das
seems rather to think
On the contrary, Mercati
"
nelle
of a careless copy, when he speaks of works
gen

ed arti
si valse degli accorgimenti
critici e dai grammatici nelle copie
e forse
dei classici, ma con fini suoi particolari,
e
non
con
Tacribia e
per la mole
per le difficolt?
la finezza delle scuole e delle omcine librarie, dove
"
solo alia calligrafia ed ortografla
si badava
(19).
the opinions of both scholar in
We
quoted
quali Origene
ficii usati dai

their original languages because a thorough discus?

sion is necessary.
column of the
The
idea that the Septuagint
no
showed
critical
arj/iela, is a-priori
Hexapla
some texts of the
that
We
may grant
unlikely.

were
offered merely
current, which
Septuagint
of the
their text with such arj/uela. A papyrus
second half of the 3rd century with Hezek. 5,12-6,2
two aaxeqiaxoi
and
herewith
contains
supplied
"
most interesting evidence for the early diffusion
thus G. Zuntz (20),with whom
of Origenian texts
Mercati
Such a text exploited the results
agrees.
efforts at textual

of Origenes's

critical method

itself could

be

criticism.

But

the

carried

out

and

turn out as successful

lation

that

stood

only in front of the trans?

at the side of the Septuagint.

Indeed, it could only arise out of this juxtapposi

tion. Origenes bears witness to it directly with his
xr\v xoioiv Tiotrjadfievoi and xa>v komcbv
expression:
as

he

shortly before that:

xQixrjQtq) %oriG?{j,Evoixolg XoiTtolq sxdoaeaiv. Only a
exdooscov, or,

says

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of the Septuagint with

comparison
of the other columns of the Hexapla

the contents
could

show

the text of the Septuagint

agreed with the
it did not fit
where
versions
parallel
(avvqdov),
with the Hebrew
original (sv xq> e?gaixcp firjxst/asva)
where

it required additions
(oxi /urjxet/ueva...
of fact, it becomes
7iQoos?ri>cafiEv). As a matter
evident that the Septuagint
column of the Am
and where

fragments did not lack the critical oiyueia.

column
On fr.XI
1,30 exkivav in the Septuagint
"
recta
ante
Mercati
remarks:
lineola
vid.
(e),

brosian

text of Ps. 45,7 has ^ft?,

The Hebrew
posita
"
and the second column has paxov
they staggered ".
third
and
fourth
column of
the
Correspondingly,
the fragments give sacpdXrjaav and Tzegisaxgdnr^aav
and the last affixed Quinta
ecrahevfirjcav. In " front
means
of them, sxfavav of the Septuagint
they

Beyond a doubt this as an inaccurate

to the ev xq> e?ga'Cxco
translation
and belonged
fA,rj
xei/usva. As such, it had to be furnished with
line before
The horizontal
exhvav
the ??eXog.
is therefore nothing else but such an ??ekoQ, or
fell down".

word.
its remnant, placed before the objectionable
The word itself, in agreement with the method of
Origenes, remained untouched.

examples of the ??sXog or of the aaxe

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

found no further passage

arj/uela would have been

in which

one of the two

fit and proper.

up this problem, we must

After having cleared

turn to another, which has been often discussed.
It concerns the origin and purpose of the second
text in
column, the jusxaygacprj (21) of the Hebrew

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

Geniza
second
of The Cairo
edition
he
P.
Kahle
the
defends
upheld
opinion
(1959),
from the very beginning,
viz. that the second
column was
intended for being read in the Jew
He
turns against
and Christian divine service.
the

Mercati's

essay II problema delta colonna II del

(22), which had shown once and for all

VEsaplo
that the authorities

in support
quoted
of the jusxaygcxpi] do not

hitherto

of the liturgical employ

In Mer
prove what they are supposed to prove.
was
cati's opinion the second column
created by

denies this
Origenes or under his direction. Kahle
in favour of his
and adduces
further evidence
contention
First

(23).
of all he quotes

the work

of L. Blau,

Zur

Einleitung in die Reilige Schrift, published at

in 1894. As
Budapest,
it remained inaccesible
for him

the decisive

it is difficult to obtain

to Mercati, Kahle
in English
passage

and

quotes
transla

tion (24). It concerns the express prohibition

to
write Biblical
Old
exactly:
(more
Testament)
texts either in certain languages or, as Blau and
Kahle
the
think, in certain scripts. Accordingly,
first alternative
would
the
imply translations,
/usmyQaq)rj, The prohibition
in two passages
of the Babylonian
of the Jerusalem
Talmud.
The
second

scripts mentioned

therein

are:

is laid down
and

in one

or
languages
Sabbat
B?r?yt?

H5a: nw tvnbw nnnr dh? rraop; S?primi,7:

nw kVi nno *6i rvonK *tfnnnny *6; Seper
Tora 1,8: nw
*6l n'O^P *6l fiH? *6l nnrm
All

the three passages

of
agree in the mention
in
and
the
third
first
and
nnO
nnnp,
fMlV,
whose
in
is
taken
the
fl^lK
fV?^P,
by
place
the first alone has
and
second;
JVttSp. Coptic
Greek are clear; but how could really the Coptic
and

the Greek

ters

be

scripts, which differ by a few let?

to each other, and not
opposed

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

normally

be understood

the Hebraic

lan?

The prohibition
of writing Old Testa?
guage
as
ment texts in Hebrew
script is as meaningless
the prohibition
in the same lan?
of translations
did not see that the word
guage. Blau and Kahle
"
"
"
intended was
and not
Hebrew
Iberic
", the
initial

i being rendered by 'Ain (25). The

list
now easier to understand.
Greek
Coptic,
and Iberic are literary languages of late antiquity,
in which the Old Testament was translated.
The?

becomes

a
re can be no question of a juerayQaqprj,because
or
text
in
of
the
Iberic
Hebrew
Coptic
jueTaygcuprj

Then we come to
script would be meaningless.
must
and
An
be meant,
Iranian
dh?.
language
at all events it is enough to recall the Pahlavi
Psalter.
JVB^P is enigmatical, as neither an Ela
script nor an Elamite
centuries A. D. are known

mite

language of the first

to us.
The only lan?

in the Elamite
guage attested
region is found, in
and Susa (26).
the inscriptions of Tang-i Sarvak
in Aramaic
and
Both are written
indeed in
(27),
the

the expected
stands
IVOIK
place
of fltfS^P.
the Aramaic
the prohibition
concerned

second

instead
Thus

and possibly
Targums
the latter
Testament,
once been the Targum
of Adiabene

also

the Psitt?

of the Old

in Kahle's

opinion having
of the Jewish community
adduced must
The
evidence

(28).
of
it proves
eliminated;
nothing
what
intended to prove.
it was
that neither Blau nor Kahle
It is inconceivable
therefore

thought

be

seriously

of what

the list of the above

mean.

Otherwise
they
languages may
quoted
that
would have recognized
they prove nothing
in definite alphabets.
in favour of a fierayga^ij
The three passages merely confirm what had been

10

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

for a
already known
text were
Testament
Greek,

Iberic,

long time, viz. that Old

into Coptic,
translated
as well as Aramaic
and

Pahlavi,

Syriac.

piece of evidence too is irrelevant.

of Sardes (29),
The homily of the bishop Melito
in
2nd
the
with the
century,
begins
composed
The

second

words

rj (lev yqacpi] rfjq i?Qaixrjg ifjodov aveyvojarcu,

rd

xal

Qrjfiaxa

rov

/uvarrjQiov

diaoeodyarai.

The script of the Hebrew

read out, and the words of the
He
been explained".
have
interprets
"
mean
the reading out
that
assertion to

Kahle

translated:

has been

Exodus
mystery
Melito's

text in the Hebrew

of the Old Testament
language
"
"
the
it
and that
followed
has taken place
upon
Greek translation ". We must object here to two

Aiaoaxpelv and Scaadcprjaic;

an
but always
translation,
the Hebrew
Exo?
explanation
(30). Furthermore,
sense
here
the
in
dus (der hebr?ische
Exodus)
Suffice it to cite Mer
intended is a Germanism.
"
del
cati's remark that we must not understand
"
in ebraico ", but
dell'Esodo
libro dell'Esodo
"
"
or
".
delTesodo
Ebrei
Nothing
simply
degli
that even if
needs to be added, except perhaps
Kahle 's translation were correct up to the point
errors of translation.
imply in no case a

he means
ygcKprj.
Thus

it to be, it would

not yet prove

fiera

of the ^exayqacpy)
employ
liturgical
It
to
is rather striking
be
yet
proved.
the second column of the Ambrosian
frag?

remains
that
ments

can be explained
that one single original was at

shows no variants.

prepared by Ori?
or
This possibility,
order.
his
by
genes
as set forth by Mercati, cannot be refuted. Kahle's
of Hebrew
that Origenes's
knowledge
objection

the purpose,
presupposes
the con?
to
On
be
yet
proved.
such
be
the
situation
that, if Mer
trary
might
we
deduce
could
is
cati's interpretation
correct,
from the second
the level of this knowledge
insufficient

for

have

column.

Neither

Mercati

shown from an exchange

in the Aristeas

of letters. The

{/eraygacpr}
letter is the only one we
draw the due inferences from this.

attested

now the purpose

becomes
of Origenes
Only
the
not only to reestablish
clear.
He wanted
but
text
of
the
also,
according
Septuagint,
original
letter and the general
to the tale of the Aristeas

belief of following generations, to place the /Liera

The model
ygacprj at the side of the translation.
and the endeavour to realize it again are unmista?

the fieraygacfr)precedes the diegturjvsvcrig

the
(32), so it does with Origenes:
the
before
is
column with the transcription
placed
we
whether
discussed
translations.
Elsewhere
As

kable.

Aristeas

with

Origenes placed at the basis of his work the copy

of the [xeraygacprj existing in the library of Ale?
concerns
xandria
(33). This possibility, however,
we
Here
not
the
at the most the Torah,
psalter.

only with the possibility,

that the /ueraygcKprjwas
Mercati,
recognized by
or by his order. It
him
personally
prepared by
took as
a
whether
mooth
remains
Origenes
point
Torah
of
the
a model
the
in its details
fieraygacpri
in the Alexandrine
library; at any rate, it is a
are left for the moment

possibility.

nor Kahle

5.

even be that the

himself

what would

by the interpretation of the secondary accounts

of Iosephus
and Tzetzes
study could
(31). Our
was
known to
and
to Mercati
not be available
Kahle
only at the end of 1960, as it could be

This

only by admitting
It may
the basis of the copy.
text of the second column was

was

insufficient philological
The way
of the text of Aristeas.
understanding
the data of the Aristeas
in which to understand
text was shown by us in 1958 and substantiated

know. We must

"

of an

because

cognized

took

the fact that the letter of Aristeas

into account
knows

of two

of the seventy-two:
1) the fxsrayQacpYj,i.e. the transcription of the
text in the Greek vocalized
Hebrew
consonantic
are
WTe
expressly told that the text
alphabet.
activities

thus compiled came into the Alexandrine

library.
from
2) the StsQjUTjvsvaig, i.e. the translation
was
it
intended for the use
Hebrew
into Greek;
?
The difference be?
of the Jewish community.
tween the two activities remained hitherto unre

Ber?ni's
linguistic capacities, as far as they come
are well known.
to light in his Chronology,
E.
was
author
the
with
who
Sachau,
acquainted
his ob?
through many years of study, condenses
"
There is a pos?
in a single sentence:
servations
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?

to him by the ordinary

translation"
(34). Since
an Arabic translation
mentions
cated

Arab

compelled
translation
Syriac
literature
shown

remained

have

The
Syriac.

no

Arab

of Syriac
author

of the books xar?

or quotes
this book at all, we are
to the conclusion that Berum had a

Xgioriavovq

Syriac
This
is

channel

his

Porphyry's

the
eyes. Within
known.
work was

by two fragments,
unnoticed.

first one
32,

before

14 f.

even

if they

chron.
is found in Barhebraeus,
"
After
Darius
Bedjan:
(II).
11

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Nothus, Artaxerxes
(II, ruled from June 404 to
November
359) (35) reigned for forty(-four) years
...
for arVln w-arba*)
(arb'tn is a haplography
The
call
this Artahsast
Jews
by the name
As wer ?s. And concerning him John (of Ephesus)
was
of Esther
of the opinion that the matter
In the

in his days.
happened
interpretation
the vSeventy (the Septuagint)
he was called Artak
sarksis ". So far the text. The Hebrew Ahaswer?s

of

that occurs in Tobit

is given in the transliteration
as
in
Esra
9,1
14,5
4,6 and Daniel
'Aavrjgog,
as 3Aaovrjoog (36). Barhebraeus's
therefore
passage
comes from a Greek author who knew Hebrew,
but employed the transcription that was usual in
out the difference
pointed
form in the original and the
translation. On the basis of his

Greek.

This

between

the Hebrew

one

Greek

in the Greek

linguistic knowledge he was satisfied that the two

names were not one. This was a highly qualified

of
and there can hardly be question
philologist,
too
he
time
else
This
but
anyone
point?
Porphyry.
ed out the discrepancies
between Greek and He?
in the Torah, but in
brew version, not however
another book of the Old Testament.
On the contrary, a Christian had to accept the
= Artaxerxes,
and
equation Ahaswer?s, Aswer?s
This
did.
this is what John of Ephesus
recogni?
tion carried with it the question, which one of the
Achaemenians
John
reasons

decided

in favour

for his
He

relevant.

Artaxerxes

named

choice
was

no

was

of Artaxerxes

intended.
II.

The

are unknown

and hardly
expert in Achaemenian
of Porphyry, whose sec?

history, to the contrary

tion on the old Persian kings from his Chronicle
is extant in an Arabic
translation (37) (Eutychius

1,75, 14 f. Cheikho).
on
had Porphyry's discussion
John of Ephesus
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?
not
such a Transla?
Greek
and
need
did
derstood

question must remain open.

second fragment too has been preserved by
H.
eccl. 1,49,2 f., in a section on
Barhebraeus,
church history is cited as
Eusebius's
Origenes.
tion.

The

The

the
the beginning,
and on the whole
of the Syriac author is drawn from it (38).
At the end, however, another authority ismet with,
and that is Porphyry. We know from Eusebius,
source

at

account

the sort of objections whereby

Porphyry fought his Christian enemies. According?
too the great adversary
of
ly, in Barhebraeus
h. eccl. 6,19,2-14,

as
appears
Christianity
and slanderers
enemies

among the
of Origenes
(1,51,10 f).
follows (12 f.): "He
A word-for-word
quotation
said, when he (Origines) went to instruct pagans
the foremost

'
in a village, and they said to him:
Pray with
we
us
to
thee and
all
of
then
shall
and
us,
yield
shall accept baptism
', and when he prayed, the
at
and did not become
be?
him
pagans
laughed
lievers

".

like the

This,

other

of Porphyry
h. eccl. 6,19,9), come
the utterance
Since

utterances

against Origenes
(Eusebius,
from the xar? Xqianavovg

the question arises

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

it in a Syriac

translation

of Porphyry's

work.

fragment is larger than the first.

we can say that it occurs in a con?
Nevertheless
text that originally was foreign to it, torn out and
employed as witness in favour of a thought, which
The

second

was

This fragment
foreign to the original work.
not
to
the
does
existence of a
too, it seems,
point
Yet it remains
complete translation of the work.

Barhebraeus
says that, when
something peculiar.
the bishop Demetrius
took steps for expelling
he did it out of envy,
from Alexandria,
Origenes

it came
Thus
religious motives.
that Origenes was branded as an heretic, and this
to him to this day.
attached
stain remained

but

pleaded

(he says) served to others as a pretext for

And at the end
usurping his spiritual heritage.
came
of
the
slanderers
scene, the worst
upon
.
of
the exception
whom was Porphyry..
With
This

and at the end,

beginning
is found in Eusebius.
How,
and above all the
this tale concocted,

what

is said

at the

of all this

nothing,
then, was
list of alleged

Demetrius

or real heretical

attributed

teachings, which
to his enemy? It is peculiar

is said to have asserted that the Son

Ghost are created (bery?t? 1,51,4).
and the paral?
This ought to refer to a Nestorian,
and of
of
the
with
lelism
Nestorius,
expulsion
at large, forces itself upon us.
the Nestorians
that Origenes
and the Holy

from a Nestorian

this
Therefore,
and Porphyry's

came

rian translation

of the whole

from it. But

too

could

fragment
do we stumble herewith

be

source,
derived

on a Nesto?

wrork?

Ber?ni's
large fragment comes in. It was
who first shifted it to the context in which
it serve his own
find it now and tried to make

Here
Ber?ni
we

And Ber?ni could have taken it only

purposes.
if he had not already
from a Syriac translation,
one available.
an Arabic
he composed
When
his Chronology, he was at the service of a lord of

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

that time Ber?ni
lived in his
H. (38). Before
He
ob?
could have
Khw?rezm.
home-country
tained

translation of the passage

only
or
in
Khor?s?n.
Gurg?n
generally

the Syriac

in Khw?rezm,

Such a translation of a Greek work meant that it

was due to a Nestorian,
and Merw, the Nestorian

12

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

metropolis
the place
Even

was

for the whole of Khor?s?n,

it was made.

then

in which

now many

The
things remain obscure.
large bulk of the fragment preserv?
invites one to inquire whether the

comparatively
ed by Ber?m
Syriac translation

ascertained

thus

was

or contained

to excerpts,
G. Eevi Delia

limited
Or, as

the whole work.

a letter of January 1st,
in
Viva put it
"
It remains
1960, addressed to one of the authors:
knew
the
to be seen whether
xar? Xql
(Ber?ni)
anavovQ in its complete form or through excerpts;
likely, the niore so as
it among the works
not mention
we
To this
may add a few words.

the latter seems to me more

the Fihrist

does

of Porphyry

".

in the fragment the refu?

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

is remarkable

that

of the two

the
Perhaps
genealogies.
in
forward
the
Christians
by
brought
and of the genealogies
favour of the Septuagint
interested the Nestorian
translator more than their
in favour

reasons

In this case only such passages

from
Porphyry's bulky work would have been selected
and translated,
of which it was possible to make
refutation.

in the controversy.
And
such a collection
fallen in Ber?ni's
of excerpts may have
hands.
on this point is a remark in the letter
Decisive
in the chronicle
of Barsaum?
of Susa, preserved
of Se'ert
the
There, when
(2,562,3 f. Scher).

use

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
"
the son
of Jesus the Messiah,
Descent
begins:
of David,
The
the son of Abraham"
(2,564,9).
reference

Matthew
We

is to the beginning
of
of the Gospel
and to the genealogy
of Christ there
can see that the Nestorians

given.
this genealogy

employed
to prove their theory of the %qiaxo
on the import and the evidential
roxog. Discussion
value of this document were the personal concern
of each Nestorian.

No

wonder

that

took

they
over from Porphyry's
line of thought not so much
his criticism, as what Sextus Julius Africanus had
forward in favour of the authenticity.
brought

and these the Nestorians

took as
argumentation,
"
a model
to
whom
this
and a test.
Nestorius,
to go back, placed himself in contrast
a doctrine on the
the Melkits
and produced
that had rendered the break between them

sect claim
with
basis

as
and him unavoidable.
This
(the Melkits)
to
to
consider
and
because he encouraged
people
to
ottt
find
examine and to draw inferences and
analogies and to be ready to answer to opponents,
to
to dispute with them and not to be compelled
"
to
whom
from
these
them
yield
(41). Ber?ni,
are taken
words
(chron. 309,2 f.), tributes thus
not a lowly praise
that another work

to the Nestorians.

know

in
of Porphyry's was utilized
to
remarks on the Letter
P. Kraus
this sense.
"
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.
sont tres embarrassantes

realite, ses questions

pour le representant des
relevees
les contradictions
En

II est connu que

ont fourni
Porphyre

cultes.

des Chretiens
"
leur lutte contre le paganisme
(42).Acciden?
tally, a fragment of this work has been preserved,
of Khor?s?n
(43).
again in the neighbourhood
First of all we must bring together what was

par
dans

1'arsenal

study of M. Sicherl, Die

von
und ?bersetzungen
Handschriften,
Ausgaben
Iamblichos de Mysteriis
(Texte und Untersuchun?
already

known.

The

to
in 1957, feels compelled
gen, 62), published
examine also the occasion of the work. According
tradition
to a scholium, which in the manuscript
text
the
the
usually precedes
pretended name
(44),
conceals

Abamon
Already
Enneads

Proclus
had

the

in his

real

author

attributed
or rather Iamblichus's

chus. Abamon's,
as
is presented

Iamblichus.

on Plotin's
commentary
the authorship to Iambli?
discussion

the answer

to questions
put by
Anebo (45). Th. Gale's
Porphyty to the Egyptian
a
editio princeps of 1678 had already attempted

It
letter to Anebo.
of Porphyry's
reconstruction
"
was
De
the
and
the
from
Mysteriis
compiled
with Eusebius,
Theodoretus,
Cyrill
quotations
edition of
G. Parthey's
and Augustine"
(4?).
"
without
1857 took over this attempt,
adding
and the
for
textual
variants
new,
except
anything
of the origin of the quotations
are told that J. Bidez planned
of the fragments (48).

indications
Lastly, we

6.

We

edition

? (47).
a new

fragment is found in the fYno^vriarixdv

who lately
?i?Hov
*I(joGY\nnov144,48. J. Moreau,
this tract the subject
made
of treatise (49), has
on that frag?
gathered together the bibliography
Another

Thus we get the answer to the question of what

to do .with a
of Khor?s?n
had the Nestorians
and what
polemic treatise against the Christians
led them to concern themselves with a work,
in the West
had been consigned
to fire
which
long ago.
acuteness

Porphyry's
superiority
of his observation
and

consisted

in the

the force of his

(50). It is not cited by Parthey, and there?

fore Sicherl knows nothing about it. We would

ment

suppose that the preserved

the second book.

sentence

belonged

to

13

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

that he who supposes

(Porphyry) maintained
in his (Plato's) doctrine (the opinion) that the world
is both created and something new out of nothing?

the Arabic
overlooked
the latter was quoted by us
tradition. Although
in another connexion (51), Sicherl did not follow
shall, therefore, repeat and
up this point. We

He

already
wrorks
(52) lists among Porphyry's
On this the future editor of
kit?b?n il? An?b?.
in a personal
remarked
the Fihrist,
J. F?ck,

order, (this man) goes wrong

exis?
always correct that non-existence
precedes
the cause
of a
tence chronologically,
because
thing is something else than the thing itself, and
Plato
order.
also that every disorder precedes
means
the
the
when
Creator
caused
only that,

these

All

scholars

what we have

said.

complete
The Fihrist

the Letter
letter: "That
two books,
is confirmed
and Barhebraeus
Chron.

to Anebo

consisted

of

Ibn

257,6
by
al-Qifti
133 Salhani.
Salhani

The
is certainly incorrect.
lbynw\ which
and
the
between
of
letters
Porphyry
exchange

prints

tanbih
is mentioned
by Mas'?di,
priest Anebo
was
The
discussed by
162,5 f. de Goeje.
passage
We
in his J?bir b. Hayy?n
P. Kraus
2,128"
statement
of
the
translation
Kraus's
subjoin
"
avons rapporte
les relations
Nous
of Mas'?di:
et Anabou,
entre
de
Tyr
Porphyre
qu'eurent
ce
est
l'auteur
du livre
Porphyre
pretre egyptien;
au livre d'Aristote;
de risagogue ou Introduction
il defendait en secret
il etait chretien (sic), mais
etait
les croyances des Sabeens
grecs; et Anabou
aux doctrines des philosophes
attache
anciens,

de
Thaies
celles qu'avaient
professes Pythagore,
et d'autres,
Milet
qui sont celles des Sabeens
Iis
Tun a l'autre des questions
poserent
d'Egypte.
sur les sciences theologique
dans des epitres con
nues

de

aux

sciences

an

refutation

of Anebo's

letter to Porphyry
is
of the Fihrist (53) among

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

of god in the same

on
the Egyptian
way,
questioned
We
from
this
the
ad?
the Egyptian
gods.
gain
letter to
that Porphyry's
ditional
knowledge
on the Aristotelian

doctrine

as Porphyry

Anebo
ceded

consisted of two books and had been pre?

to Porphyry.
by a letter of Anebo

a long fragment of Porphyry's

reply is
kit?bu
in
in
as-Sahrast?m's
Arabic,
preserved
runs:
It
l-milal wa-n-nihal
(345,7-16 Cureton).
"
too followed
the opinion
of
He
(Porphyry)
and agreed with everything the latter
Aristoteles
that what is referred to
taught. He maintained
Lastly,

as the utterance
is incorrect.

He

on the origin of the world,

(Porphyry) says in his letter to

and

to arise

stood
that in which Plato
Concerning
he
to
that
at?
viz.
your
opinion,
according
tributed a beginning in time to the world, this is

alone

an incorrect assertion.
Plato did not say that the
a
in time, but that it has a
world has
beginning
in respect of the cause; he did so by
beginning
that the cause of being is its beginning.
maintaining

to

from chaos
errs.

It is not

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

world

from non-existence

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

which

had opened the discussion.

This
that
agrees with the information of the Fihrist,
to Porphyry and
there existed a letter of Anebo
doc?
that in it here was question of Aristoteles's
also that Anebo

could deduce
even if we did

both

We

trine of God.

facts from

not possess
the
fragment,
express assertion of the P'ihrist.
Iamblichus's
reply does not discuss the subject.
we
read
enquired
Although
(8,1) that Porphyry
about the ngcorov ahiov, what follows shows that
doctrine on this point,
he referred to the Egyptian
the

that the discussion

generally
This
trend.
leads us to suppose

took

and

another

the

that

two

Porphyry's
reply to Anebo w^as
in?
had
different contents. Anebo

in which
had

divided,

doctrine of God, and

Aristoteles's
have
may
replied to that in the first
Porphyry
in
the fragment extant
To
it belonged
book.
In the second book Porphyry
Arabic translation.
quired

about

formulated que?
put his precise and inexorably
stions (5fi)about the Egyptian
gods, and the reply
in
was given not by Anebo,
but by Imblichus
This
his still extant treatise on the mysteries.
"
the fundamental book
writing has been termed"
of late antique religion
(57). An important por?
has been clarified at the
tion of his antecedents
hand

of the Arabic

tradition.

Franz

Altheim

and Ruth

Stiehl

NOTES

of Plato

Anebo:

it arose

that

furthermore,

books,

".

ciennes

quiconque

s'interesse

ness,

in the English
remarks
translation
Sachau
"
the author
under?
p. 372:
By His?b-aljummal
of the numerals
of the
the notation
by means
to
of the Arabic
arranged
according
alphabet,

(!) E.
(1879),
stands
letters
the

sequence
in F.
subject
p.

252,

Anianus.

n.

of the Hebrew
Rosenthal,

Die

".
alphabet
aramaistisohe

More

on

this

Forschung,

5.

(2) E.

Sachau

Cf. Elias

in his translation p. 374, suggests

Nisib.,

Chronology

Chabot.

14

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2,

128,1

f. Books

(3) Cf. R. K?BERT,

p.

174 n.

Die

and

in Analecta hiblica

viz. b. Isfendiy?r.
(4) Bahman,
aram?ische
2 Lfg.,
p.
Sprache,
we

But

Cf. Altheim-Stiehl,

in

his

translation,

the

(8) The

K.

in his

Sachau

translation,

292,10

f., where

he

bishop

of Aelia-Jerusalem.

appears

bei

schichte

with

in the following lists are given

names

zur

Studien
(9) K.
Tr?dinger,
chisch-r?mischen
Ethnographie
34 f. and
132; E. Norden,
pp.
Tacitus,

der

Geschichte
Basel

1, p.

and

grie?

(10) O.

Eissfeldt,

17 f.

(12) A.
49.

v. Harnack,

in Abh.

(15) Cf. Altheim-Stiehl,

Berl.

Ah.

Testament2

Wiss.

(16) Altheim-Stiehl,
(17) G. Mercati,

Op.

68

(21) On
Stiehl,

the
cit.,

Op.

sacra

(1958),

1.

xvil,

Theologische

Literatur-Zeitung

xvn

cit., p.
Op.
in Zeitschrift

(1956), p.

175, n.

meaning
9f.

of

pp.

its

This

(23) P. Kahle,
Op.
hebr?ische
Bibeltext

cit.,
seit

158
pp.
Franz

cit.,

Op.

2,

557,

Journal

(26) Altheim-Stiehl,

P.

cf.

f.;

1. Lfg.

10.
p.
Geniza

Kahle,

Grammatik

see

Sacra

On

the

existence

in

paper

69

the

(1950),

of a fragment
an examination

cit.,

pp.
the

by

of Se'ert,
p. vm.
of the Katholikos's

Chronicle

186 f.).
writers

2,

f.

191,5

cit.,

p.
"

see

events

the

differs:

embassy:
in
Chabot

J.-B.

85.
in fact,

to give

ihn Hayy?n

J?bir

100 f. and

pp.
(44) M.
(45) M.
(46) M.
(47) M.
(48) M.

the Jurare

up

presentes

(Mem.

here

repeated

some

with

(1961),

(1878),

cit.

Aram?ische

Op.

cit.,

269

pp.

impro?

fasc. VIII

2, p.

Bibeltext,

xviii

a.

P.

f.

Op.

cit.,

pp.

Sicherl,

Op.

cit.,

p.

1.
197.

Sicherl,

Op.

cit.,

p.

Sicherl,

Op.

cit.,

pp.

Sicherl,

cit., p.
Op.
in Byzantion

(50) J. Moreau,
Delatte.

Op.

cit., p.

199 f.
n.

197

2.

25-27

259,

(1955-1957),
a remark

n. 2, with

(51)Altheim-Stiehl, Porphyrios und Empedokles

(1954), pp. 7 f. This was preceded by P. Kraus, Op.
2,

128

p.

n.

in Ambix

end.

1, 253, 16 Fl?gel.
1, 300, 18 f.

(52)Fihrist,
(53)Fihrist,

see

ar-R?zi

4, pp.

(55) We

are

(56) J.
(57) M.

Bidez,

in

the

last

J. F?ck

instance

137 f.

grateful

for explanations

to R.

Robert,

Rome.

f.

in

20

Sicherl,

(49) J. Moreau,
241 f.

by A.

(1959), pp. 47 f.

bibliography
hebr?ische
161: Der
p.

his

suggested
source
(Op.
be undertaken

1896,

Asiatique
(41) Sachau

(54) On

Die

Further

Op.

to

and

the

magistri
(42) P. Kraus,

Aramaicum

Altheim-Stiehl,

(29) The Chester Beatty Papyri,

cit.,

in Eutychius

approval,

27th, 1959. At the

Oriental Society

showed

the
(40) On
4 f. and 8 f.

Kahle,

Delitsch

Supplementum

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

(28) P.

he

Vida's

in verba

1 f. and

159.

p.

(25)Th. N?ldeke, Mand?ische

Sprache,

f., where

Op.
occasion

see Altheim

4 f.

Susa

of the American

with
(38) Same
Sachau,
(39) E.

109.

f.

(27) On

attention

called

Aramaicum,

Supplementum
I,evi Delia

"
of the present paper in the fifthvolume of her
Ge?
"
will
be
schichte der Hunnen
1962).
(he
published

pp.

Kahle,

of G.

chronolographical
will
examination

alttestamentliche

28 (1947), pp.

175 f.

(24) P.

he

time,

a-b.

f?r

fierayQayrj

in Biblica

(22)G. Mercati,

42

aram?ische

? Tlnstitut d'Egypte, 45), 2 (*1942), p. 128.

(43)First noticed in Altheim-Stiehl, Philologia

37.

p.

p.

Frag

Die

vements.

(19) G. Mercati,
Zuntz,
(20) G.

Wissenschaft

cit.,

Op.
in

Kahle,
(18) P.
744.
p.

1959,

cit.,

(37) Altheim-Stiehl,
are glad
f. We

same

1916,

Hexapli

Philologia

37f.

45

pp.

of

Alte

Chronology

in Altheim-Stiehl,

Stiehl

trans?

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

182
pp.
of Galen

Psalterii

Mercati,

(36) R.

Babylonian

19 f.,

p.

39 i.
pp.
to his English
p. xn.
(1879),

Chronology

(1956), p. 19.

Journal

in das

Einleitung

Card.
(14) Ioh.
1 (1958).

menta,

cati,

pp.

Urge?
germanische
463
f.; F. Altheim,

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

Jo jakhin of the Jewish kings.

pp.

pp.

cit.,

expressed in his letter of December

(1956) , p. 749.
(u) J. Bidez, Vie de Porphyre (1913), p. 64.

pp.

cit.,

Op.

1918),

(Diss.
Die

460

pp.

investigation
to some
lead

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

Der

Op.

linguistic

(35) Parker-Dubberstein,

together

to the conventional
An
forms.
according
of the
in Ber?ni
forms
could
linguistic
results.
interesting

pp.

(31) Altheim-Stiehl,
(32) Altheim-Stiehl,

of Ber?ni's

374.

p.

the

cit.,
(33) Altheim-Stiehl,
Op.
in the Preface
(34) E. Sachau

emen?

to do without

it is possible

Sacra,

Philologia

of

examination

usage.
16 f.

lation
(6) Cf.
(7) Cf.

James,

think

(3?)Aitheim-Stiehl,

an

with

191.

Sachau

(5) Differently E.

p. 374.
dations.

i2 (1959),

180.

Kahle,
p.

(1941),

The

Cairo

43; G.

Mer?

Religion,
p.

P.

(1950),

81
pp.
Geschichte

cit.,

Op.
Nilsson,

p. 429;

f.
der

in Gnomon

griechischen

23

(1951),

407.

15

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:28:57 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions