Living memory

Posted on May 4, 2012 by Tom

Several months ago Roger Pearse blogged about “living memory” and how far back it might extend. It is easy to think that an event that occurred long ago only now exists in historical documents, but frequently witnesses of an important event or person live for many decades afterwards. With Roger’s encouragement, I wanted to record two people I know who are great examples of “living memory”.

Auntie Chia and C. S. Lewis

This past October my wife and my 2-year-old daughter went to a family wedding. Extended family and friends were there. One woman, whom my wife’s family affectionately calls “Auntie Chia” was a friend of my father-in-law when he was a student at Oxford.  In the evenings we would sit down at the table, with my daughter on my lap, and Auntie Chia would make small origami toys for her to play with, while I asked her about her life. She was born in China during World War II, to a young Chinese couple, but when Mao came to power her family was forced to flee to a refugee camp in Hong Kong when she was still a baby. Later her parents took her to England, where her father studied at Oxford. This is where she grew up. Later, she enrolled in Oxford herself, and told me how wonderful it was to go to lectures by J.R.R. Tolkien.

But most amazingly, she also met C.S. Lewis many times. Her father was a good friend of his. For her 16th birthday party, she told her parents that all she wanted was for C.S. Lewis to come as the guest of honor to a dinner party. By this time Mr. Lewis was already ill, so her father did not know if he could make it, but he did graciously attend and, according to Auntie Chia, they all had a wonderful time. She had asked her mother to recreate the first meal which Lucy shared with Mr. Tumnus in “The Lion and the Which and the Wardrobe”, but her mother couldn’t manage it. When Lewis heard what kind of party she had wanted, he replied, “I couldn’t eat all that much anyway.”

I was amazed to be speaking to somebody who still vividly recalled Lewis. But this is actually not that incredible, Lewis died 48 years ago so it would be expected that plenty of people would still be around, who had met him when they were teenagers or in their early 20s. No doubt these people would not forget that they had met such a distinguished man.

 My Grandfather and the Civil War

  My Grandfather, Edward M. Coffman, was born in 1929, a veteran of the Korean War and a professor of Military History at the University of Wisconsin for 30 or so years. He has written several books, his most famous is probably, “The War to End All Wars” which is a historical account of the American military experience in World War I. He published it on the 50th anniversary of the war, and it is still in print. Much of his writings are based on hundreds of interviews and no doubt thousands of letters he exchanged with various military men and their families. I believe he is one of the few people that ever interviewed General MacArthur. He has an astounding memory which has not faded in 83 years, a quick and hilarious wit and a gentle spirit. I dedicated my translation of Hippolytus of Rome’s “Commentary on Daniel” to him and his wife of 56 years, my Grandmother.

When I was a boy my Grandfather would tell me about two occasions in which he met (American) Civil War veterans. He even had pictures of himself as a young man standing next to a very aged veteran. A few months ago, I wrote my Grandfather and asked if he could write to me about these two men and if he could send along any pictures. He sent me two accounts with photographs. Here they are:

When my Grandfather was in 5th grade, in 1940, he lived his school was across the street from a Civil War veteran, James W. Morris. Morris served in the Union Army from September 1861 to January 1865. He fought in these battles: Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Chickamauga, Lookout Mountain, Missionary Ridge, and the assorted battles during the siege of Atlanta.

My grandfather writes,

 ”In the spring of 1940, while I was in the 5th grade, I crossed W. 7th St. Twice, knocked on the door, and his daughter brought him outside to talk with me. During the 2nd visit, after I had seen, ‘Gone With The Wind’ I told him about the ammunition trains blowing up scene. He said that he saw and heard that event as he was some 2 or 3 miles away that night. The last time I saw him he was sitting in this chair in his front yard greeting visitors on his birthday. My father and I went to see him – shook hands and I gave him a bottle of grape juice and he answered: ‘Much Obliged.’”

Below is a scanned picture of Mr. Morris in that very chair and on that very day in which my Grandfather last saw him, on his 97th birthday, a month before he died.

The 2nd Civil War veteran my Grandfather met was Robert T. Barrett. He was born November 3, 1846 and was one of only around 10 surviving Civil War Union veterans when he died on January 12, 1951 at the age of 104. He lied about his age when he enlisted on August 1, 1864 in company L, 17th Kentucky Cavalry. During his service he dealt with guerrillas in Western Kentucky. He was discharged September 20, 1865 and returned to the family farm in Caldwell County where he spent the rest of his life. In the presidential election in 1864, he voted for Abraham Lincoln.

My Grandfather writes:

“A good friend of my father’s, Cliff Wood, who owned the drugstore in Princeton, volunteered to take me out to see him. He took several photos of us talking. Our visit was on July 20, 1949. Mr. Barrett was 102 when we visited. He said he was lucky he didn’t get killed in one of the skirmishes with the guerrillas. He recalled hogs eating the bodies of a lieutenant and his detail whom the guerrillas had killed. He is proudly wearing his Grand Army of the Republic medal. He was looking forward to attending a reunion of Union veterans in Indianapolis in a couple weeks. Only 6 veterans attended.”

Below is a picture of my Grandfather, when he was 19  20 years old, with Mr. Barrett.

One must pause and think, 150 years after the Civil War first began, there are still people, like my Grandfather, who met and spoke with participants. As historians we should all note that living memory may exist for longer than we would typically expect, especially when it concerns famous people and events.

* Update *
My Grandfather sent in some corrections, which I have duly made!

Posted in Historiography | 5 Comments

Papias fragment from the Syriac version of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius

Posted on October 28, 2011 by Tom

The Syriac version of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius contains an interesting variant when Eusebius quotes the words of Papias. This was pointed out long ago in this article, but I wanted to see what the Syriac said for myself and translate a bit more than was translated in the article. I hope one day to translate all of the fragments in the the Syriac version of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, but right now I simply do not have the time.

The Syriac does change the implication of Papias’ words, as you can see from where I have bolded words. Also, it was interesting to note that apparently the Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical History contains chapter numbers and headings! Those must have been present in the Greek because we apparently still follow them today.

[GREEK]There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: “These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him.” These are the words of Irenaeus.But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends. He says:”But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,-what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.” [SYRIAC]
Thirty-Nine. The writings of Papias.And Papias had five writings, which were written concerning the interpretation of the words of our Lord. For Irenaeus recalls these as being the only that he wrote. And he says in this way, “So these things Papias spoke from what he heard from John. And he was a companion of Polycarp. And he was a man of antiquity.” And he testifies of <these> writings in a [] chapter in his treatises. For five books have been written by him.” Irenaeus <thus> speaks concerning him.

But Papias in the introduction to his words does not declare that he heard the holy apostles or saw them. For he teaches that he accepted the words of faith from they who knew the apostles by these words which he spoke:”I will not be negligent to put down for you in these interpretations what I indeed well learned from the elders. AndI well remember from them and I testify on their behalf the truth. For in many words I did not rejoice as many <do>, but in those who teach the truth, nor in those who remember the Commandments of strangers, but in those who followed what was given by our Lord to the faith and from that which flows and comes from the truth. Nor, if someone came who followed the elders, did I treat as equal the words of the elders, what Andrew said or what Peter said or what Philip or what Thomas or what James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of our Lord or what Aristion or John the elder <said>. For I did not so think to discover gain from their writings as from a living and abiding voice.”
Posted in Papias | 2 Comments

Papias-Syriac fragments translated

Posted on October 27, 2011 by Tom

I translated two Syriac testimonies concerning Papias which are found in the writings of John of Dara. I also updated my page on Papias accordingly.

Therefore, at this Apollonarius the heretic, with his companions, abandoned the glorious illumination of the living words and became blind to the faith like the Jews. He dared to speak, like the Pharisees, that after the resurrection of the dead, we shall live again for a thousand years in Jerusalem with the Messiah, with bodily pleasures, and childish sacrifices, and earthly libations before him [the Messiah?]. After these things are fulfilled, at that time we shall be taken up into heaven. And he was not shamed by the voice of Paul who said, “The kingdom of God is not of eating or drinking. But of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” [Romans 14:17]. Also in like manner Irenaeus bishop of Lyon in Gaul wandered in these matters, which are in the book of Papias as Eusebius narrates.
~John of Dara On the Resurrection of Bodies 2.13

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in the Asia, who was educated with John the Evangelist, says in the fourth book of “Interpretations of the Lord” that delights shall exist through foods in the resurrection. What is more, Irenaeus says the same in writing “Against Heresies”, from testimony from the book of Papias. Afterwards, he accepted this opinion of Apollonarius.
~John of Dara On the Heavenly and the Earthly Hierarchy

Posted in Papias, Translation | Leave a comment

Update

Posted on October 22, 2011 by Tom

Though I have not been blogging lately, I have been very busy. Several months ago I finished translating 39 scholia on the Apocalypse. These are anonymous notes on the Apocalypse in Greek which are found in only one manuscript. Scholars have attributed the scholia to Origen and also to Didymus the Blind. If true this would make the scholia the earliest fragments of any commentaries we have on revelation, especially in Greek. I did some linguistic work with the TLG database to try and hammer down some more evidence about authorship and came up with some favorable matches with Origen and Didymus. No translation into English exists, until now. However I’m going to hold off posting translation online while I look for a publisher.

I have also started a translation of Isho’dad of Merv’s Commentary on Daniel from Syriac. It is very interesting, as his name suggests Isho’dad was originally from Merv which is in modern-day Turkmenistan, and east of modern-day Iran. However he seems to have settled farther west.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Wonderful TLG Gets Better -Update-

Posted on February 26, 2011 by Tom

I use the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae database several times a week. It has by far the best database and software for morphologically analyzing Greek words and for performing word searches and morphological searches on words.  Its breadth of content is amazing as it covers the vast majority of the corpus of Greek writing before the fall of Byzantium.  It is updated on a regular basis and the TLG staff are, in my experience, more than willing to accept suggestions about further updates.

It’s morphological analysis is superior to the software provided by the Perseus Project (who also deserve much thanks for their pioneering efforts), very often a word that the Perseus Project is unable to analyze, the TLG succeeds. Additionally it also has digital versions of the LSJ, Lampe, Baur, and LSJ supplement dictionaries which are automatically linked to the words of every work of every author. The presentation is very nice and fluid.

Without the TLG database my translations of the Chronicon and the Commentary on Daniel of  Hippolytus would have taken much longer and been less accurate.

Though the TLG is subscriber-based, the annual fee is very reasonable at around $100-$125, meaning that non-academics like myself can afford it.  The pirated version of the TLG which floats from the Internet is not nearly as good as the subscriber-based database. The pirated version  is worse at morphologically analyzing words and lacks many of the Greek works that have been added over the years as well as the specialized dictionaries mentioned above.  The presentation of it is also poor in comparison to the legitimate version.

All of that being said, the TLG has managed to improve itself. Recently the TLG has published their own digital version of the Liddell-Scott Jones Lexicon and made it freely available to the public (you can read about some of the background of the project here). The presentation is splendid; they have somehow managed to make a dictionary as dense as the LSJ easy-to-read and browse through. Every word entry contains hyperlinked text to all ancient authorities that are cited. When you click the link you are immediately taken to that position in the text.  This feature appears to be enabled for non-subscribers, (but I am not sure about that) Wonderful!  Many of the links go to ancient lexicons, so the user can get to the very roots of how academics know what words mean.

Please visit it and check it out, I think that it will become the new standard of Greek reference on the Internet.  And consider subscribing to the TLG, I’m sure more subscribers will only make it better.

***UPDATE*****************
Maria Pantelia of the TLG has contacted me and confirmed that nonsubscribers do have access to the hyperlinked LSJ texts. If the text in question is present in the abridged TLG, which is free to access, then the entire text is made available, but if the text is only available to subscribers then the link displays 10 to 15 lines of context, quite a generous amount I think!

Posted in Linguistics | Leave a comment

Papias: 11 New Fragments Found

Posted on January 16, 2011 by Tom

I added 11 new fragments of Papias to my website.  Two are from John of Dara which I gratefully found in the 3rd edition of “Apostolic Fathers: Texts and English translations” by Michael Holmes (2007), one I found preserved in the Chronicle by Prosper of Aquitania, and the other eight from the Ecclesiastical History of Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos (which to my knowledge has never been translated before). All of these seem to stem originally from Eusebius, but they are still valuable (John’s may come from Apollonarius and Irenaeus).

I also added two hypothetical fragments that are proposed by Charles Hill and Richard Baukham. These are very intriguing. Do read them.  I also added information about various ancient translations of fragments from Eusebius, Jerome, and Andrew of Caesarea.  Some of these ancient translations alter the wording of the original in significant ways, which  I will show below.

I also  added a note to Vardan Arewelts’i calling into question the accuracy of his statement about Papias which I learned from Norelli (2005).  Norelli thinks that one of these fragments refers to Pappus of Alexandria not Papias.  I also fixed and changed some other things, which you can read in my “update” section.

My page on Papias is getting rather muddled with all the information I have on it (there are  inconsistencies in quotations, translation methods, etc) so I ask that anyone using it checks all sources to make sure there are no mistakes.

Here is the Syriac translation (found here) of one of Eusebius’ quotes of Papias compared with the Greek (differences are underlined, omissions are given in brackets):

[GREEK]
“But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,-what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.”		 [SYRIAC]
“I do not scruple to adduce for thee in these interpretations of mine that also which I well learned [] from the Elders and well remember. And I attest on behalf of these men the truth. For I did not take delight in those who have much to say, as many do, but in those who teach the truth; neither in the those who recall commandments of strangers, but in those who transmit what was given by our Lord to the faith, and is derived and comes from the Truth (itself). Neither did I when anyone came along who had been a follower of the Elders, compare the words of the Elders: what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas, or what James, or what John, or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord. Nor what Aristo or what John the Elder []. For I did not think that I could so profit from their books, as from the living and abiding utterance.”

This Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History was probably done shortly after the work was published in Greek, so the translator may have had first hand knowledge of Papias. The translator’s alterations seem to indicate that Papias was specifically claiming that he indeed heard the elders, the disciples of Jesus, himself and that he did not bother with reading books written by other people who had heard those disciples.

Here is the Armenian translation of one of Andrew of Caesarea’s quotes of Papias compared with the Greek [given here] (The Greek and Armenian parallel columns continue immediately after the quote from Revelation 12:9, but WordPress won’t let me embed tables so it looks like there is a gap):


And Papias has thus word for word: “some of them, that is, the divine Angels of old, [130] he gave (authority) to rule over the earth and commanded (them) to rule well.” And then says the following: “And it happened that their arrangement came to nothing.” [Rev. 12:9] And the great dragon was thrown (down), the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world, he was thrown to the earth, and his angels were thrown (down).
[GREEK]
Naturally. For heaven does not bear an earthly mentality, because darkness has nothing in common with light. If it is placed with the article “the Satan,” it is not as (though) another is been placed alongside the devil -and if it is placed like an overstatement, such as “the devil and the Satan”-rather he is called by two (names)-the one (the devil) because he slanders virtues and those who desire them and he (slanders) God himself to human beings, as he represented him (God) slanderously to Adam, and the other (Satan), as he is opposed to both the master and his servants. One must know that the fall of the devil that happened after the cross is not that (of) place, (but) as (a fall to) inefficacy from those former (powers), just as he also confessed to Anthony, the verse of the song had been fulfilled in him. “The swords of the enemy he utterly destroyed to the end.” Therefore, his fall is the annulment of his evil [131] machinations, after the complete rejection of him from heaven and the rule belonging to him, as it is said. It had been said by the blessed Justin the martyr (that) after the coming of Christ and the decree against him (to send him) to Gehenna, the devil is to become a creature blasphemer even (to the extent that) he had never before so shamelessly blasphemed God. -On the Apocalypse Book 12.34
 [ARMENIAN]
And Papias, in his discourses, put it this way: Heaven did not countenance his earthly plans, since communication between light and darkness is impossible. He [satan] fell to earth to dwell here, and people came to where he lived. However, he did not let them enjoy their natural passions, rather, he beguiled them into many evils. But Michael and his forces who are overseers of the world helped humanity, as Daniel learned. They established laws and made the prophets wise. All this constituted a battle against the dragon [satan] who [always] set obstacles for humanity. And this struggle extended to Heaven , to Christ. Then Christ came, and the law which had been impossible for others [to fulfill] He realized in His own body, according to the Apostle. He caused sin to retreat and condemned satan, and by His death He spread His righteousness over everyone. Once this happened, the victory of Michael and his forces was realized, and the dragon was unable to resist any longer. This was because the death of Christ made a laughing-stock of him and hurled him to earth. Christ spoke about this, saying: “I saw satan fall from heaven like a bolt of lightning”. The Doctors of the Church (the vardapet s) understood this to refer not to his first fall, but to his second which occurred because of the crucifixion. This [second] fall was not one which occurred in a particular place as the first [fall] had, but rather concerned the expectation of future judgement and punishment . For he had failed in battle, as Anton [St. Anthony] himself confessed in a psalm he wrote about this: “The enemy’s weapons were completely destroyed.” For Christ had judged him and he fell absolutely. The Doctors of the Church teach that until this fall he [satan] had hopes of returning to his former glory, but afterwards he fell completely. On this [topic] Irenaeus takes the words of the martyr Justin as follows… -On the Apocalypse Armenian translation by Robert Bedrosian

I have always wondered what the original Greek said in this portion of Andrew Caesarea’s Commentary on the Apocalypse. The two most striking things about the Armenian translation is that the quotation of Papias comes almost immediately after a previous quotation of him and also that the Armenian translation contains more accurate testimony about the source of Andrew’s statement concerning Justin the martyr; the Greek claims that Andrew is quoting from Justin directly, but the Armenian more accurately states that he is quoting Justin from a quote given by Irenaeus. Even if we are to discount this Papias fragment as an interpolation by the translator, the Armenian translator is clearly a learned man given his “correction” of Andrew’s reference to Justin, and therefore may have had knowledge of Papias himself.

Finally, I have four or five other fragments and testimonies of Papias that I have discovered, I hope to publish them on my website when I get a chance.  As always, leave a comment if you have found any mistakes I have made, or if you have any suggestions.

Posted in Papias | 3 Comments

Julius Africanus and Christmas as December 25

Posted on January 2, 2011 by Tom

A question has come in about Christmas and Julius Africanus.  Africanus (wrote 221/222AD) is a fascinating figure, whose work the Chronographia has been lost except for fragments and testimonies from later authors.  An excellent edition has recently been released in the GCS series.  Unfortunately none of the fragments specifically state when Julius Africanus thought that Jesus was born, in fact there are some contradictions, such as whether Africanus believed that Jesus died 5531 or 5532 years from creation.  It is also not clear whether Africanus believed that Jesus died in 30 or 31 A.D.

Mosshammer has done the most recent work on this question and has released an essay on this topic and a book that incorporate some of the findings in the essay.

Mosshammer, Alden. Julius Africanus und die Christliche Weltchronik: The Christian Era of Africanus. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 157 edited by Martin Wallraff.

Mosshammer, Alden A. Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2008.

Mosshammer provides many reasons for justifying the that Africanus believed that Jesus died in 31 A.D., here is one of them:

There are considerations of another kind in favor of the conclusion that Africanus dated the Passion to A.D. 31, not A.D. 30, and therefore to a standard Olympiad 202.2. In that year, March 23rd was a Friday and March 25th was a Sunday. The calendar date March 25th was associated with the Passion from very early Christian times. Roman tradition dated the Passion to Friday, March 25th, in the consulship of the two Gemini, A.D. 29. The date is attested as early as Tertullian (con. Jud. 8.18). In the Greek church, Sunday, March 25th was the date of the Resurrection. (The Christian Era of Africanus p.102-103)

I would add that there is evidence that Alexander of Jerusalem (c. 218 CE) also says that Jesus was resurrected on March 25 (Dobschutz TU 11.1 p.136f found here , (thanks to Stephen Huller for pointing this out in a comment on my blog)

The idea that Jesus died in 31 A.D. also solves another problem, given that he would have been resurrected on March 25, if Africanus counted cosmic years from the vernal equinox (as the evidence leads us to believe), then Jesus could have died in year 5531 but had been resurrected in year 5532, which solves the contradiction in the fragments nicely:

Indeed, if Africanus counted his cosmic years from the creation of the sun and the moon on March 25th, then it is literally the case that the Passion took place in the year 5531 and the Resurrection in the year 5532. (The Christian Era of Africanus p.107)

Here are the relevant testimonies concerning when Jesus was born.  I quote from the GCS edition mentioned above.

Testimony T92 from Paschale Campanum anno 464-599, Epitoma temporum et indiculum Pascae (745,7-18 Mommsen) says:

Julius Africanus, whose five volumes on chronology are in circulation, established in his writing 5500 years from the first man to the Incarnation (latin=incarnationem) of the Lord.

Testimony T93c from Georgius Syncellus (395,8 – 396,4 Mosshammer) says:

So Africanus, in conformity with apostolic tradition , reckoned the divine Incarnation (σαρκωσιν) in the 5500th year, but he was in error by two years in dating the Passion and the Resurrection of the Savior, calculating this in A M 5531.

Assuming that “incarnation” refers to conception, Moshammer goes on to say that it seems most likely that Jesus was conceived in March and therefore born in December.

In the end, then, we must agree with Gelzer that the year 5500 corresponded to 2 B.C. and with Grumel that Julius Africanus dated both the Incarnation and the Nativity to the year 5501 from Adam, equivalent to 1 B.C. The long and tortuous path we have followed to reach that conclusion has been well worth the journey if the somewhat anti-climactic conclusion is now more firmly grounded in the evidence.
Grumel states that the Christian era of Africanus, beginning in 5501 = 1 B.C. is one year earlier than that of Dionysius Exiguus. In fact, Africanus’ dates for the Incarnation and Nativity in March and December of 5501 are the same as the dates implied by the usual understanding of Dionysius’ year “1.” (The Christian Era of Africanus p.112)

I must add that though this is the most likely possibility (and I think the correct one) it is not a certainty, George Syncellus (c800AD) quotes Africanus frequently and in the following passage he does not mention him as an author who believed that Jesus was born on December 25:

“At the completion of that day, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, the only-begotten son of God,was born according to the flesh from the blessed Mary, eternal Virgin, and in nature and in reality truly the holy Mother of God; his birth was on the next day, 25 December, in Bethlehem a city of Judaea, in the forty-third year of the reign of Augustus Caesar over the Romans, in the consulate of Gulpicius, and Marinus and Gaius Pompeius as it is reported in accurate and ancient manuscripts. We have not compiled this on our own. It is based rather on the traditions that have come down from Hippolytos, the blessed apostle, archbishop of Rome, and holy martyr; Annianos the most holy monk, who arranged a Paschal table of eleven cycles of 532 years, along with accurate scholia, and Maximos the most saintly monk and philosopher martyr, confessor, and great teacher of the Church.” -George Syncellus 382 (p455 The Chronography of George Synkellos: A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation Translated with Introduction and Notes by William Adler and Paul Tuffin

This, however, is evidence of omission; there are a number of reasons why Syncellus may not have included Africanus amongst authors who claimed that Jesus was born on December 25.  Perhaps he just forgot, or, a more likely scenario, is that Julius Africanus did not mention specifically when Jesus was  born (and possibly conceived), but like how his contemporary Hippolytus did in his own Chronicon, Julius Africanus left no room for doubt about the date of Jesus’ birth once all of the pieces of his Chronicle were compared with one another.

*Update*

Just to clarify, Mosshammer determined that Africanus believed that the world was likely created in the early spring by looking at how all the ancient calendars that are used by Julius Africanus correlate with each other and concluded that Africanus must have believed that the world was created in early spring. In the article he summarizes what previous scholars have determined about this same issue, and they pretty much have all agreed, only differing slightly on the precise day, ranging anywhere between March and April.  There is nothing certain in all of this, so we must be careful how we proceed.

Given that a March 25 date solves the contradiction about Jesus’ date of death it seems quite plausible that Africanus believed the world was created on March 25 or that it was created on March 22, but that the cosmic calendar started on March 25 when the sun was created (on the 4th day in the book of Genesis).

Now, given the above, Africanus also seems to have interpreted Luke’s statement about Jesus’s age literally.  If he, like Hippolytus, also assumed that Jesus must have been conceived on or quite near the same day that he died (so that he was exactly 31 or 32 when he died), then it would make sense that Africanus believed that Jesus was conceived on or near March 25 and therefore born on or near December 25.   However, though the evidence does support the idea that Africanus believed that Jesus was conceived on March 25  it is by no means conclusive and other arguments can be made.

Posted in Christmas, Julius Africanus | 5 Comments

Cyprian, Christmas, and the birth of the Sun

Posted on December 31, 2010 by Tom

Occasionally I find that people attempt to quote Cyprian as supporting the idea that Jesus was born on the same day that the Sun was born, typically linking this with December 25 and the Festival of the Birth of Sol Invictus.

The work which contains this quote is, according to George Ogg who provides a translation of it, not by Cyprian because it was written in 243 AD, which is probably before Cyprian was baptized. Also only two manuscripts exist of the work (one was lost in 1870 but a copy of it had been made) and only one of these ascribes it to Cyprian.  It is called the Pseudo-Cyprianic De Pascha Computus published by S.P.C.K.:  London, 1955. Or simply the The Passover Computation.  This translation is based off of the CSEL 3.3 text found here.  The work itself is very likely that this is based off of Hippolytus’ Canon, though scholars disagree (For what it is worth I do think it was based off of Hippolytus’ Canon but I have not studied the relationship closely).

The quote that concerns us is often presented inaccurately as the following:

O the splendid and divine Providence of the Lord, that on that day, even at the very day, on which the Sun was made, Christ should be born.

This is from the start of chapter 19, and the full quote actually reads:

O! The splendid and divine Providence of the Lord, that on that day, even at the very day, on which the Sun was made, 28 March, a Wednesday, Christ should be born [nascor].  For this reason Malachi the prophet, speaking about him to the people, fittingly said: “Unto you shall the sun of righteousness arise, and healing is in his wings.” [Malachi 4:2]

As you can plainly see this does not refer to December 25. In fact the author believed that the world was created on March 25 and the Sun was made on the fourth day of creation, which was a Wednesday, March 28, and that Jesus was born several thousand years later 4BC on the exact anniversary of the creation of the Sun according to the author’s interpretation of the Bible.

That day [the first day of creation] is now understood to be the 25 March.  Some from among us, who previously desired to exhibit this new month and indicate the days of Passover according to the Jews, reckoned from it. ~The Passover Computation 4

The author previously argued in chapter 1 that in Exodus 12:2-11 God set the first day of the year to be the Passover, when the moon was full, so this must correspond to the 4th day of creation, when the sun and moon were created, which was a Wednesday.

Finally at the end of chapter 9 the author says,

And Jesus himself, our Lord and Savior, 1579 years after the Exodus, ate the Passover with his disciples on the 8 April, of Thursday; and he suffered on the following day, 9 April, a Friday [28AD].

The author correlates this date with the 16th year of Tiberius (chapter 22):

On completing the number of years from his Nativity, the Lord Jesus was baptized by John in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. In the sixteenth year he suffered and rose again. Let us now add 31 years to the sum, and there are in all from the Exodus to the passion 1579 years. From that time, i.e. from the passion, to the fifth year of Gordian and the consulate of Arrianus and Papus 215 years have been completed, but from the Exodus in all 1794 years.

Ogg states that some scholars believe that 28 March refers to the conception of Jesus, However, the Latin “nascor” (chapter 19) pretty clearly refers to birth, even if “nativitatem” (chapter 18 and chapter 22) is more ambiguous (the author uses both words to describe the March 28 event).  The authors that Ogg refers to are Hufmayr “Die Pseudocyprianische Schrift de Pascha Computus” and Harnack “Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius”, II 235, 381-383 and “Miszellen zu den pseudocyprianschen Schriften” in Texte und Untersuchungen, N.F.V.3 1900, 145f. I have not had time to consult any of those, so perhaps one of the authors makes some good points about how March 28 does refer to the conception of Jesus, and if so this would support a date for the birth of Jesus sometime in early winter.  However, as I said, I don’t think this is likely.

Posted in Christmas, Cyprian | 1 Comment

Antiochus of Athens and the Birth of the Sun-update

Posted on December 28, 2010 by Tom

Roger Pearse responded to my post on Sol Invictus, and made some very good points.

Aurelian did institite games of the sun (agones solis) in October. The calendar of Philocalus does not give any Christian festivals, so I think we can take it that Natalis Invicti is a state festival of pagan origin. The remark of Julian about the Heliaia on that date — the attribution to Numa is unevidenced, as you say — confirms that such a festival did occur. If you look at the Chronography calendar, you will notice that all the old festivals have the same number of chariot races, while those created in late antiquity have strange numbers like 24. This suggests that the 25 Dec. festival is also a late creation.

There is also the question of what “natalis” means. It could mean birthday; but also it can mean “anniversary of the dedication of a temple”. This seems to be the meaning for other “natalis” in the calendar. We know that Aurelian dedicated the temple of Sol Invictus. Thus we would get a festival on the anniversary of the dedication of the temple, and thus the idea that the festival was created at the same time by Aurelian.

On the other hand, the idea that 25 Dec. is the “new sun” or “birth of the sun” appears in Latin literature generally. The astrologer Antiochus of Athens describes it as the birthday of the sun in his calendar of heavenly events, and he may have lived in the 1st or 2nd centuries. If so, perhaps Natalis has its usual meaning.

But it seems to me that there is a pile of uncertainty in all this.

The idea that Christmas was celebrated on 25 Dec. to stamp on a pagan festival is asserted half a century later by Chrysostom, if I remember correctly.

I think Roger makes a good counterargument against the idea that the Festival of Sol Invictus was not instituted until the fourth century, it does seem reasonable that Emperor Aurelian did institute a Festival on December 25 in 274 A.D.  However, as Roger says, this is uncertain and all we can say for sure is that in the fourth century a Festival did exist.

In terms of Antiochus of Athens, I was looking at his calendar here (Roger is providing translations on his blog) and to me the calendar appears to be purely astronomical in nature and has nothing to do with mythology, implying that when Antiochus uses the term “birthday of the Sun (ἡλίου γενέθλιον) Light increases” on December 25, that this is just referring to the winter solstice to when daylight begins getting longer, (thanks Roger for the correction) and not a pagan festival or birth of a god.  Antiochus places the vernal equinox on March 22, but he also indicates that the Autumnul equinox occurred on September 25, so it would make sense that he would believe that the winter solstice was on December 25, exactly 3 months later. He actually does say that winter begins on December 22, but that light begins to increase on the 25th (thanks to Roger for pointing this out.)

I did some research using the TLG database and found some interesting quotations, which I think prove my point that Antiochus is here simply referring to the winter solstice to when daylight begins to finally increase and not any pagan or mythological Festival or birth.

The first of our two authors is Plutarch (wrote c100 AD) in his  Isis and Osiris section 52 (372A-C) found here he says that, according to the Egyptians, the birth of the “eyes of Horus” occurred sometime in the summer (when the month of Epip occurred).

In the sacred hymns of Osiris they call upon him who is hidden in the arms of the Sun; and on the thirtieth of the month Epiphi they celebrate the birthday of the Eyes of Horus, at the time when the Moon and the Sun are in a perfectly straight line, since they regard not only the Moon but also the Sun as the eye and light of Horus.

He goes on to say that the birth of the “staff of the Sun”, according to the Egyptians, occurred near the autumnal equinox.  He uses the same term “ἡλίου γενέθλιον” that Antiochus of Athens used:

On the waning of the month Phaophi they conduct the birthday of the Staff of the Sun [ἡλίου γενέθλιον] following upon the autumnal equinox, and by this they declare, as it were, that he is in need of support and strength, since he becomes lacking in warmth and light, and undergoes decline, and is carried away from us to one side.

Plutarch  then references the winter solstice and Egyptian celebrations concerning the sun, none of which have to do with its birth.

Moreover, at the time of the winter solstice they lead the cow seven times around the temple of the Sun and this circumambulation is called the Seeking for Osiris, since the Goddess in the winter-time yearns for water; so many times do they go around, because in the seventh month the Sun completes the transition from the winter solstice to the summer solstice. It is said also that Horus, the son of Isis, offered sacrifice to the Sun first of all on the fourth day of the month, as is written in the records entitled the Birthdays of Horus.

Like Macrobius in his Saturnalia Egyptians apparently liked to associate many different gods with the sun:

Every day they make a tripleoffering of incense to the Sun, an offering of resin at sunrise, of myrrh at midday, and of the so‑called cyphi at sunset; the reason which underlies each one of these offerings I will describe later. They think that by means of all these they supplicate and serve the Sun. Yet, what need is there to collect many such things? There are some who without reservation assert that Osiris is the Sun and is called the Dog-star (Sirius) by the Greeks even if among the Egyptians the addition of the article has created some ambiguity in regard to the name; and there are those who declare that Isis is none other than the Moon; for this reason it is said that the statues of Isis that bear horns are imitations of the crescent moon, and in her dark garments are shown the concealments and the obscurations in which she in her yearning pursues the Sun. For this reason also they call upon the Moon in love affairs, and Eudoxus asserts that Isis is a deity who presides over love affairs. These people may lay claim to a certain plausibility, but no one should listen for a moment to those who make Typhon to be the Sun.

Plutarch at least shows that there were different “births” of the Sun throughout the year, and they appear to refer to different solar phases, but also have connections to pagan practices. Though according to Plutarch the birth of the Sun does not appear to occur on the winter solstice, but on the Autumnal Equinox ( this however is inferred and not certain).

Much more relevant is our second author, Hephaestion of Thebes (wrote 4th century AD). He also mentions the birth of the sun in his untranslated (in English at least) (apparently translated by Robert Schmidt, but I do not have a copy) astronomical writing Apotelesmatica, which according to Roger Pearse has been translated by In this work he quotes Antiochus of Athens where Antiochus uses the term “γενέθλιον”!

But Antiochus of Athens says also that this method has a certain truth to it.  “Observe,” he says “on a given day that the Moon is born and to this number add 180 and always deduct 29 from the birthday [γενέθλιον] of the month…
Apotelesmatica of Hephaeston of Thebes p.82 lines 21-24

Antiochus here appears to use the term “birthday” or “γενέθλιον” to refer to the start of a month.  Haphaestion uses “γενέθλιον” 17 times in this work, to refer to the Sun (p.83, line 27), the Moon (p.85 line 8), a month (p.82 line 24), and a even a day (P. 83 line 28).

It seems clear that Haphaestion and Antiochus used the term “γενέθλιον” or “birthday” not to refer to the birth of a god or the celebration of the birth, but simply to the start of a new astronomical phase, either solar, lunar, or monthly, or daily.  Thus it makes perfect sense that Antiochus used the phrase “Birthday of the Sun. Light increases.” on the winter solstice on the day that daylight begins to increase December 25, which refers to the start of the new solar phase, and not to the birth of a god or to any Festival.

As for the quote by John Chrysostom referenced by Roger above, I cannot find it, but it does sound familiar to me. Anyone know where its location is?

**update**

The webpage on Robert Schmidt’s website references Antiochus of Athens’ “Thesaurus” which apparently gives definitions all sorts of astronomical terms.  Maybe it has a definition for γενέθλιον?

Posted in Christmas | 4 Comments

Sol Invictus evidently not a precursor to Christmas

Posted on December 21, 2010 by Tom

I have found the full Latin of the inscription which Roll (“Toward the Origins of Christmas”) implies states that Emperor Aurelian set up a feast for Sol Invictus on December 25 in 274AD.  The Latin inscription can be found here (it is a transcription, sadly no picture is provided) it is number 580 (Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae by Hermann Dessau.)  As we will see the inscription says no such thing about December 25:

Below I have transcribed it:

Soli invicto sacr.
pro salute et inco
lumitate perpetui
imp. Caes. L. Domi
ti Aureliani Pii Fel.
Aug. p.m., t. p. VI, cos.
III, p. p., proconsuli[s]

Here is my translation:

To the Holy Unconquered Sun
for welfare and secur-
-ity of the perpetual
Emperor Caesar Lucius Domi-
-tius Aurelian the Pius Auspicious
Augustus Pontifex Maximus, earned title of consul 6 (times)
3 (times) [don't know what "p. p." is]    procunsul

In my haste I am not too sure about the last line and the latter half of the 2nd to last. For help with Latin abbreviations in inscriptions see here

This inscription doesn’t tell us anything about when the feast was celebrated or even that Aurelian set up a feast at all.  I suspect that this may have all been made up.

After some searching I found a nice blog about Sol Invictus by Roger Pearse, which lead to this wonderfully large and detailed dissertation on the cult of Sol by Steven Hijmans, our part of interest is here.
Hijmans says:

“there is no evidence that Aurelian instituted a celebration of Sol on that day [December 25].  A feast day for Sol on December 25th is not mentioned until eighty years later, in the Calendar of 354 and, subsequently, in 362 by Julian in his Oration to King Helios” [p.588 & p.6 of pdf]

So indeed, no evidence that Aurelian set up a feast for Sol Invictus on December 25, what of the other two pieces of evidence?  The Philocalian Calendar (part 6 of the Chronography of 354)  says that “Natalis Invicti” or “Birth of the Unconquered) was celebrated on December 25, whether that refers to Sol or Jesus is unclear, what is clear is that other feasts of Sol are mentioned by name (for example on August 28) and that the Chronography of 354 does say that Jesus was born on Dec. 25 in part 12.

The second piece of evidence is from no less than Julian the Apostate who in the late 4th century (Oration to King Helios IV, 156C from Hijmans p.589 & p.7 of pdf) claimed that Numa himself instituted a festival of Sol on December 25, meaning that for almost 1,000 years no one mentioned these celebrations until the 4th century, which casts much doubt upon the accuracy of this claim (especially given that it comes from a hostile source).  Hijmans himself dismisses it on p.589 & p.7 of the pdf.

So to conclude our recent blog posts on Christmas and Roman festivals:

A feast to Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun) did occur on December 25, but the earliest evidence for it dates from the mid to late 4th century.  There is no evidence that Emperor Aurelian established a Festival of Sol Invictus (or anyone or anything else) on December 25.

Saturnalia did not occur on December 25 and had nothing to do with the birth of any god or anyone else.

Egyptians apparently presented an infant as a representation of the newborn Sun on the winter solstice, but this evidence also dates from the fourth and fifth centuries.

Hippolytus in 202-211 AD set the date for the birth of Jesus on December 25, because he thought Jesus was conceived 9 months earlier on the Passover, the day in which he also thought  the world was created (5500 years earlier), the Vernal Equinox March 25.

Clement of Alexandria (193-215 AD) quoted various anonymous sources about the birth of Jesus and roughly agrees with Hippolytus, claiming that Jesus was born in late fall to early winter. Clement’s sources clearly seem to believe that Jesus was conceived on the Passover and was born roughly 9 months later; in fact the only difference between them and Hippolytus is that they differed on when the Passover actually occurred.  However there is a significant possibility that one of Clement’s sources was Hippolytus himself because of the preponderance of possible dates he gives that fall on the 25th of a month (He gives 4 of them and then another date on the 24th) which corresponds with Hippolytus’ belief that Jesus was both conceived, born, and executed on the 25th of a month.

Posted in Christmas | 8 Comments