“The Song of the Sacred Dance”- Gregory of Nazianzus, Greek Epic, and Christian Theology

November 7, 2012November 7, 2012 ~ Alex Poulos ~ 1 Comment

For my term paper in my Homer class, I’ll be examining the Homeric influences in Gregory of Nazianzus’s Poemata Arcana. These are the first eight of his dogmatic poems. Written in the epic hexameter of Homer, the poems are exquisite statements of Christian dogma and aesthetics. The third poem, entitled “On the Spirit” commences in dramatic fashion. Indulge me as I translate a few lines (with suitable poetic license):

“O Soul, why are you troubled?
Sing the boast of the Spirit,
Lest you divide the one not made so by nature.
Let us tremble at this great Spirit,
My God, by whom I know God;
The Spirit of God in the Heavens,
Who yet makes me a god here on the Earth.
Almighty, All-giving, the Song of the Sacred Dance,
Bearer of Life, both seen and unseen;
Divine counselor, He proceeds from the Father;
Divine Spirit he goes un-bidden.
He is not the Child;
But one is worthy of such honor,
Yet apart from God he is not;
Divine, he is equal in nature.”

Θυμέ, τί δηθύνεις; καὶ Πνεύματος εὖχος ἄειδε,
μηδὲ τέμῃς μύθοισιν ὃ μὴ φύσις ἐκτὸς ἔθηκε.
Πνεῦμα μέγα τρομέωμεν, ὅ μοι θεός, ᾧ θεὸν ἔγνων,
ὃς θεός ἐστιν ἔναντα, καὶ ὅς Θεὸν ἐνθάδε τεύχει·
πανσθενές, αἰολόδωρον, ἁγνῆς ὕμνημα χορείης,>
οὐρανίων χθονίων τε φερέσβιον, ὑψιθόωκον,
Πατρόθεν ἐρχόμενον, θεῖον μένος, ἀυτοκέλευστον,
οὔτε Πάϊς (μοῦνος γὰρ ἑνὸς Πάϊς ἐσθλὸς ἀρίστου)
οὔτ᾽ ἐκτὸς θεότητος ἀειδέος, ἀλλ᾽ ὁμόδοξον.

If you look at the Greek, you’ll see quite a few differences: I make no apologies here. Translating poetry demands poetic license. Of course, I’m hardly a competent English poet. Hopefully, my translation brings out some of what is truly beautiful in the original. Gregory’s poetry is difficult, but stunning in its erudition and loveliness.

I’ve bolded a few things I found particularly interesting or appealing in the Greek. First, one has acknowledge Gregory’s debt to Homer. The very first word of the poem, θυμός, is extremely common word for soul or spirit in Homer. Likewise, his command to his soul to “sing the boast of the Spirit” uses Homer’s singing and boasting language. One is reminded of the very first line of the Iliad, “Wrath, Goddess, sing!” One thinks too of Homer’s heroes always boasting in their lineage. Before a battle there was usually an exchange of words, each opponent boasting in his family line. So too, Gregory exhorts his soul to boast in the Spirit, so that it may be prepared for battle with those who “divide what by nature is indivisible.”

Of course, Gregory writes as a Christian poet as well. Though Homer has an immeasurable influence on his form and vocabulary, Gregory melds with it a web of Christian influences and theology. One particularly glaring incident comes in the 7th line, where the Spirit is called, θεῖον μένος. Μένος is another extremely common Homeric word. It means something like our english word “spirit,” but a bit more like in our use of “high-spirited.” Sometimes “battle strength” or “battle rage” is more fitting (the flexibility is rather like the Latin animus). But here, the Spirit the divine μένος! Gregory has taken an extremely common Homeric word, and filled it entirely with new content.

The Scriptural resonances are evident as well. The first line, while clearly echoing Greek epic, also echoes the Psalmist, “why are you downcast O Soul!” The Spirit is the “bearer of Life” for both “the heavenly ones and the earthly ones,” which I translated “seen and unseen” to evoke the allusions to the great creed. But my favorite phrase of these lines definitely comes from the fifth line, where the Spirit is the “ἁγνῆς ὕμνημα χορείης,” “the Song of the Sacred Dance.” It is turns of phrase like that that have established Gregory as one of the greatest Christian poets. His use of language so carefully and beautifully exhibits the truth of Christian theology. The two meanings of orthodoxy, which is both true worship and true theology, come together exquisitely in Gregory. Rightly has the Church remembered with the simple epithet, “the Theologian.”

ἐν αὐτῷ
ΜΑΘΠ

ἄλλος, John 14:16, and Gregory of Nazianzus

November 5, 2012November 7, 2012 ~ Alex Poulos ~ Leave a comment

If you’ve ever heard a sermon on the nature of the Holy Spirit, the speaker may have used John 14:16 as a reference:

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give another comforter to you, one that will be with you always.”

The Greek behind the English word, “another” is the adjective ἄλλος. It’s common to hear that there are two words for “another” in Greek: ἄλλος and ἕτερος. I can’t think of any English derivatives of ἄλλος, but ἕτερος is where we get our “hetero” words, like heterogenous. At any rate, ἄλλος (which is used here), means “another of the same type” in classical Greek, while ἕτερος means “another of a different type.” This distinction is still felt in the New Testament period, though the two words start to overlap more and more.

As always, with points of Greek usuage like this, I like to refer to the Greek fathers when possible. Their Greek is better than mine will ever be! Gregory, in his Oration on Pentecost (Or. 41), supports the distinction between the two words, and puts it to good use when discussing the Holy Spirit:

Διὰ τοῦτο μετὰ Χριστὸν μέν, ἵνα Παράκλητος ὑμῖν μὴ λείπῃ· «Ἄλλος» δὲ, ἵνα σὺ τὴν ἰσοτιμίαν ἐνθυμηθῇς. τὸ γὰρ «ἄλλος» οὐκ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῶν ὁμοουσίων οἶδα λεγόμενον.

Because of this, after Christ (the Spirit came), so that you would not lack a helper. This helper is “another” (ἄλλος) so that you may know that he is one of equal honor. For the word “ἄλλος” does not refer to things of a different type, but we know that it said about things that are of the same nature (gk. ὁμοούσιος, the word used in the Nicene Creed to refer to the “consubstantiality” of the Godhead).

Scholars of Greek often lament the poor use of Greek in sermons, but this particular point is well-founded in our knowledge of Greek, and has precedent in the Church Fathers. One could, I suppose, argue against it, but it’s always nice to have Gregory of Nazianzus on your side.

ἐν αὐτῷ,

ΜΑΘΠ

En route to Boston!

November 1, 2012November 1, 2012 ~ Alex Poulos ~ 1 Comment

As I write this, I’m en route to Boston, to attend the annual conference of the Byzantine Studies Association of North America. Tomorrow, I’ll be presenting my first ever conference paper on digital tools for studying manuscript traditions. I don’t have anything new to contribute to the digital stemmatology per se; I hope instead to present several of the tools currently available for the benefit of those curious about digital editing. Hopefully it will go well.

Omnes qui oratis, orate pro me!

ἐν αὐτῷ,

ΜΑΘΠ

John Chrysostom, Philemon 1:4-6, and κοινωνία

October 20, 2012October 20, 2012 ~ Alex Poulos ~ 3 Comments

My father-in-law has a neat practice. Throughout the year, he sends one verse from each chapter of the New Testament to each of his children. He typically goes through books, and since the year has more chapters than the New Testament, he repeats from the gospels or adds in from the Psalms.

Recently, the verse he sent along was one from the tiny letter to Philemon. I don’t always ponder these little snippets like I should, but this one piqued my interest, due mostly to a mistranslation of the NIV84.

Philemon 6 reads in the NIV84, “I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.” The Greek reads of 4-6 reads (I add more since it’s one all one sentence), “Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου πάντοτε μνείαν σου ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου, 5 ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν, ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, 6 ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται ἐν ἐπιγνώσει παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν εἰς Χριστόν.”

The bolded section is what concerns us here. Namely, κοινωνία (koinonia) does not imply the type of sharing that the NIV84 seems to imply. As it stands in the NIV84, Paul’s prayer for Philemon concerns evanglism: sharing the faith with those outside the fold. However, our word implies a sharing among intimates or friends. Hence, it is used in other contexts, like 1 Cor 10:16 to describe our communion with Christ through the bread and wine, or to denote the Philippians financial and spiritual partnership with Paul and his ministry.

Of course, you should always be wary of people who say, “well the Greek really says…” Fortunately for you, and for me, I have support for my claims! The standard New Testament lexicon (BDAG) gives four definitions:

close association involving mutual interests and sharing
attitude of good will that manifests an interest in a close relationship
abstr. for concr. sign of fellowship, proof of brotherly unity, even gift, contribution
participation, sharing τινός in someth.

The editors of the lexicon list this passage under section 4, and offers the following translation, “that your participation in the faith may be made known through your deeds.” This strikes me as unlikely (particularly the last part: I don’t know how γένηται ἐνεργὴς translates to “might be made known through your deeds”). I think participation is certainly a possible translation, but I’d want to add “with us” that that the corporate dimensions of Paul’s prayer are more clear.

When dealing with a Greek question like this, I always try to get a native speaker’s opinion. Fortunately, the late fourth century bishop John Chrysostom has left us a series of homilies on all of Paul’s epistles, including little Philemon. He notes (from PG 62.709),

Εὔχομαι, φησὶν, ἵνα ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται. Ὁρᾷς πρότερον αὐτὸν διδόντα ἢ λαβεῖν, καὶ πρὶν ἢ τὴν χάριν αἰτῆσαι [62.709], τὴν αὑτοῦ παρέχοντα πολλῷ μείζονα; Ὅπως, φησὶν, ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται ἐν ἐπιγνώσει παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν. Τουτέστιν, ἵνα πᾶσαν ἀρετὴν ἐπέλθῃς, Ἵνα μηδὲν ἐλλειφθῇ. Οὕτω γὰρ ἡ πίστις γίνεται ἐνεργὴς, ὅταν ἔργα ἔχῃ. Χωρὶς γὰρ ἔργων ἡ πίστις νεκρά ἐστι. Καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν, Ἡ πίστις σου, ἀλλ‘, Ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου, συνάπτων αὐτὸν ἑαυτῷ, καὶ ἓν σῶμα δεικνὺς, καὶ τούτῳ μάλιστα αὐτὸν δυσωπῶν. Εἰ κοινωνὸς εἶ, φησὶ, κατὰ τὴν πίστιν, καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἄλλα ὀφείλεις κοινωνεῖν.

“I pray,” he says, “that your partnership in the faith may be active.” Do you see how he himself gives before receiving, and that before he asks him the favor, he provides a much better one of his own? “So that,” he says, “the partnership of your faith my be active in the knowledge of everything good thing we have in Christ.” That’s to say, “so that you may attain all virtue,” or “so that you may lack nothing.” Now faith is “active” when it has works, for without works faith is dead. He did not say, “your faith,” but the “partnership of your faith,” joining him (Philemon) to himself, and with one body revealed, he entreats him all the more. “If you share the faith,” he says, “then you are required to share other things too.”

John appears to understand κοινωνία not as participation, nor as evangelism, but as a partnership: notice the line “joining him to himself.” The use of κοινωνία serves to link Philemon to Paul, and hopefully make him more receptive to Paul’s plea to free Onesimus (the favor John mentions here).

John’s gloss of ἐνεργὴς (active, or effective) is also helpful, as this adjective isn’t terribly common in the New Testament. His explanation (that faith is ἐνεργὴς when it “has works”) fits particularly nicely in the context of the letter, as Paul is essentially urging Philemon to do a good work: free Onesimus!

All that to say, I think the NIV11’s change to this verse is most welcome! The new NIV reads: “I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ.” I’m still not sure about the second half of the verse, (how does ἐν ἐπιγνώσει…, which means “in the knowledge…”, fit in with the rest of the sentence?), but I think they nailed the first part. Kudos!

ἐν αὐτῷ,

ΜΑΘΠ

Update: I amended my translation with two suggestions from Stephen (see the comments). Thanks to him for catching several mistakes, and for the helpful suggestions!

Commentary on Gregory of Nazianzus Or. 41:15

October 6, 2012January 7, 2013 ~ Alex Poulos ~ 1 Comment

As mentioned in a prior post, Gregory of Nazianzus spawned a significant scholarly tradition. His works accumulated scholia from an early date, and several different commentaries have come down to us for several of his works.

In this post, I translate Nicetas of Serrone’s on Or. 41:15. To my knowledge, the Greek text of commentary has not been published in its entirety. I have transcribed the Greek text from CMB Codex Graecus 140 folio 94 and following. This codex preserves a selection of Gregory’s homilies in their entirety, along with Nicetas’ commentary. The images of the manuscript are freely available online.

For convenience, I copy in my translation of Gregory from the prior post. In that post, I translate 41.15-16, but here I only deal with 15. For my transcription of the Greek text (of both Gregory and Nicetas), see here. Here’s the English.

Gregory of Nazianzus. Or. 41.15

[15] They were thus speaking in foreign languages, and not their own, and this was a great miracle: the message was being proclaimed by those who had not been instructed. This was sign to the unbelievers, not to the believers, so that it might be a sign of judgment against the unbelievers, for it is written, “’in different languages and in strange lips I will speak to this people, and thus they will not hear me,’ says the Lord.”

But, “they were hearing.” But wait here for a bit, and let us raise the question about how to divide this sentence. The reading has an ambiguity, which arises because of punctuation. Were they each hearing their own language, which implies that once voice was resounding through the air, but that many were heard? Thus, as it was traveling through the air, so that I may speak more clearly, one language [1] became many.

Or, should we place a pause after “they were hearing,” and thus join “as they were speaking in their own languages” with what follows. Thus, those “who were speaking,” were speaking the languages of the audience, so that we might understand it as, “foreign languages.” [1] I much prefer this approach [2]. In the former case, the miracle would belong more to the hearers than to the speakers. But in the latter, the miracle belongs to the speakers, who even as they were being accused of drunkenness were clearly working wonders by the Spirit through their voices.

[0] See 1 Cor 14:20ff

[1] Several times in the passage, Gregory uses φωνή to mean language. This word generally means “sound” or “voice” but “language” is a possibility according to LSJ. Gregory is also likely pulling from Neoplatonic discussion of φωνή.

[2] There is some doubt about this phrase. Rufinus’ early Latin translation appears to be confused about Gregory’s preference on the matter, and it may be that his base text lacked this sentence. We have some fairly early Syriac translations (c. 700-800) that have the line (thanks to Charles Sullivan for untangling the Syriac).

Nicatas of Serrone. Commentary on Or. 41.15

For it is written in the book of Acts about the apostles, that “they began to speak in different languages.” That is, the languages of the listeners, and not their own. For the languages of the hearers were not native to the apostles. This was a most marvelous occurrence, because the apostles were speaking a language that they had not learned. Just as the divine apostle says when writing to the Corinthians, these languages were a sign, not to the believers, but to the unbelievers, so that there may be a sign of judgment for them, and that when they saw this, that did not believe, as it is written, “in foreign tongues I will speak,” and the rest. Now where is this written? Chrysostom says that it is in Isaiah, but it is not found there, unless it was removed maliciously or was overlooked by mistake.

This is from the book of Acts, that “each one was hearing in their own language as they were speaking.” But the Theologian2 raises a difficulty. Presently, it is necessary to identify and resolve the ambiguity that is found there, that is, to punctuate it and solve the problem. He has presented two resolutions, so that he may establish the second. “Were the apostles,” he asks, “speaking one and the same language, while their voices became many as they resounded through the air? In which case, each of the hearers understood their own language. Or, shall we punctuate after “they were hearing?” Then, we would join “as they were speaking,” to what follows, so that the sense would be that the nations were hearing as the apostles were speaking their own languages, that is, in languages foreign to the speakers. This indeed fits much better, for he says that if the apostles were speaking in only one language, while the audience divided it into their own, then the miracle would belong to the audience. But if you punctuate after “they were hearing,” then you may infer that the apostles were speaking in the languages of the audience, and that the miracle belongs to the apostles. After all, it is clear that, even as they were being accused of drunkenness, that they themselves were speaking in the languages of the audience through the Spirit. Everyone who heard his own language was burning in his heart, since he saw that the apostles were not only speaking to him, but also speaking the message to those of other languages. The one who accuses them of a debauched frenzy seems not to understand the foreign languages the apostles were speaking.

As always, suggestions and corrections are welcome.

ἐν αὐτῷ,

ΜΑΘΠ

Gregory’s Oration on Pentecost: A translation from 41.15-16

September 28, 2012October 6, 2012 ~ Alex Poulos ~ 4 Comments

In this passage, Gregory discusses the nature of the miracle of Pentecost. The main concern is whether the Apostles spoke one language, and then the audience understood miraculously in their own, or they Apostles were themselves speaking many languages. He also discusses the tower of Babel, presenting Pentecost as a reversal. Likewise, he seems to touch briefly on the nature of spiritual gifts. Finally, he quotes a psalm, which he cites as evidence against an unnamed group of heretics “who divide the divine nature.” In translating, I’ve tried to be literal, but I have been idiomatic in places to improve the English. I’ve followed the Greek text of Sources Chretiennes volume 358. You may see the Greek at Charles Sullivan’s blog here. Several Latin translations, including Rufinus’ very early one, can be found here. As always, suggestions and corrections are welcome.

Gregory of Nazianzus. In Pentecostem. Oration 41.15-6.

Then, “they were hearing.” But wait here for a bit, and let us raise the question about how to divide this sentence. The reading has an ambiguity, which arises because of punctuation. Were they each hearing their own language, which implies that once voice was resounding through the air, but that many were heard? Thus, as it was traveling through the air, so that I may speak more clearly, one language [1] became many.

[16] Certainly, though, the former division of languages[1] is to be praised, that division which took place when these evil and atheistic men were building the tower and speaking the same language, just as some now dare to do. God, having ruined their shared knowledge by dividing their language, thus foiled their attempt. Because of this, the present miracle is all the more praiseworthy, for it flows from one spirit, is poured out to many, and unites us together once more. There is indeed a diversity of gifts, and this diversity requires another gift for the discernment of the better gift, since all of them have something worthy of praise.[3] And this division is said to be good, about which David says, “Scatter, O Lord, and divide their languages!” Why? Because “they loved all the words of confusion, with a deceitful tongue.” Here, he most clearly accuses those tongues that divide the divine nature.[4] But that is enough on this subject.

Notes:

[0] See 1 Cor 14:20ff

[3] This passage is a bit opaque. As the French translation notes, διαφορά has two meanings: “diversity/difference” or “type.” Gregory uses both here. The talk about the “better” gift appears to allude to 1 Cor 12:31, where Paul instructs to “pursue the greater gifts.” According to Nicetas Heracleensis, Gregory is referring to the “complimentarity” of the gifts, whereby one gift, like “tongues” needs another gift “interpretation of tongues” to explain it. The gift of prophecy likewise requires the gift of discernment to understand properly.

[4] According to Nicetas Heracleensis, Gregory is referring to the Pneumatomachians (also known as the Macedonians), a semi-Arian group which denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and asserted that Jesus is of like substance (ὁμοιούσιος) rather than of the same substance (ὁμοούσιος) with the Father.

An overview of Origen’s Homiletic Output

September 24, 2012September 24, 2012 ~ Alex Poulos ~ 2 Comments

In my free time, which is unfortunately sparse, I’ve been slowly reading through Henri Crouzel’s monograph, Origène (1984).The book is a rich source of discussion on the Alexandrian master: the second chapter contains an overview of his work, and that which survives.

One thing which struck me was just how important the recently discovered codex of homilies on the psalms may be. Crouzel’s paragraph sums up the then status quaestionis nicely (pg. 71, my translation):

“Nearly 300 homelies, as we have said, remain, 279 to be precise. Of these, only 21 are conserved in Greek: 20 on Jeremiah, of which 12 also exist in a Latin translation of Jerome, and the celebrated homily on 1 Samuel 28, where Saul visits the Necromancer of Endor. From Rufinus, we have 16 homilies on Genesis, 13 on Exodus, 16 on Leviticus, 28 on Numbers, 9 on Judges, 5 on Psalm 36, 2 on Psalm 37, 2 on Psalm 38, and 1 on the birth of Samuel, which may come from Rufinus, but that is uncertain. From Jerome, we have 2 homilies on the Song of Songs, 9 on Isaiah, 14 on Jeremiah, of which 12 exist in Greek, 14 on Ezekiel, and 39 on the Gospel of Luke. V. Peri has recently restored 74 homilies on the Psalms attributed by Dom Morin to Jerome who is here only the translator/adapter.”

Using Alin Suciu’s list as a guide, the recently discovered codex gives us 29 homilies:

Psalm 15: 2
Psalm 36: 4 [1]
Psalm 66: 2
Psalm 73: 3
Psalm 74: 1
Psalm 75: 1
Psalm 76: 4
Psalm 77: 9
Psalm 80: 2
Psalm 81: 1

Even the four homilies that we know are authentic (due to having Rufinus’ translations) are a significant increase in the number of homilies we have in Greek. If the rest of the codex, or even a large portion of it, turns out to the authentic, then we’ll have more than doubled the number of homilies we have in Greek. The codex actually contains more homilies than we had in Greek from Origen before it’s discovery (29, compared to the 21 that Crouzel lists).

I did know that this work was important, but I didn’t realize it would augment our knowledge of “Greek” Origen by this much. Granted, a lot of work needs to be done before all of the homilies can safely be attributed to Origen, but Perrone and others are in favor of authenticity at this point.

From what I’ve read, Peri’s attribution of those 74 homelies of Jerome to Origen has been received with skepticism by many. This codex may give us a chance to test his thesis more thoroughly.

It’s an exciting time to be interested in Patristics!

ἐν αὐτῷ,
ΜΑΘΠ

[1] Note that Alin’s list follows the catalog description, but that the catalog description mistakenly lists 4 homiles on Ps 31 instead of 4 on Ps 36, which Perrone, as I recall, noted in the lecture I linked to in a prior post.

More from Origen

September 4, 2012September 4, 2012 ~ Alex Poulos ~ 6 Comments

As part of a project I hope to publish (regarding stylometrics and Origen), I’ve been transcribing more of his homilies on the Psalms. I don’t have the time to translate them, or really even to edit the Greek text properly at the moment, but I figure that even my transcriptions may be useful to someone. I’ve created an Origen page here, where you may find my transcriptions of (currently) two homilies on Psalm 36, in addition to the Greek text and translation of his third homily on Psalm 76.

Transcribing a text is a laborious task, and one bound to introduce errors into one’s copy. I’ve read over most of the transcribed material, but even still I’m sure more errors are present. If you find any, leave a comment or send me an e-mail.

ἐν αὐτῷ,

ΜΑΘΠ

Origen the Philologist

August 24, 2012August 24, 2012 ~ Alex Poulos ~ Leave a comment

It’s well known among scholars that Origen of Alexandria was one of the most extraordinary minds of early Christianity. He was a master of traditional Hellenistic learning, and matched that with an astounding knowledge of the scriptures. Naturally, philology, as it was practiced in the Hellenistic world, played a key role for Origen in his interpretive practice. I’m currently transcribing from his first homily on Psalm 36, and was reminded by this excerpt, in which he explains the difference between the Greek words παραζηλόω and ζηλόω:

τίς οὖν ἡ διαφορὰ τοῦ παραζηλοῦν παρὰ τὸ ζηλοῦν; κατανοητέον, οὐ πάνυ τίς ἐστιν ἡ λέξις ἑλληνική. οὐδὲ τέτριπται ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ τῶν ἑλλήνων. οὔτε τῶν φιλολόγων· οὔτε τῶν ἰδιωτικώτερον φραξόντων· ἀλλ’ ἔοικε βεβιασμένη γενέσθαι ὑπὼ τῶν ἑρμηνευτῶν· βουλομένων ἑρμηνεῦσαι τῷ ἑβραϊκῷ ῥημῷ καὶ τὴν διαφορὰν παραστῆσαι κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει ζήλου καὶ παραζηλώσεως·

What then is the difference between “παραζηλοῦν” and “ζηλοῦν?” In must be acknowledged that this word (παραζηλόω) is not quite Greek. It is not customary of the Greeks, nor of the philologists, nor of those speaking their own tongues. Rather, it appears to have been forced into being by the translators, who wanted to translate this Hebrew word, and demonstrate for the human kind the difference, insofar as it was possible, between ζήλος (zeal) and παραζήλωσις (emulation, jealousy).

Remarkably, I did a quick check of Origen’s observation against the TLG. Παραζηλόω is indeed an essentially Christian word. I can’t find anything earlier than the Septuagint, and nearly all the occurrences come in Christian writers. It’s quite a testament to his ability that he (and other ancient scholars) could make these kinds of judgments without the benefit of computers!

ἐν αὐτῷ,

ΜΑΘΠ

Unpublished Material from John Chrysostom on the Psalms

August 16, 2012 ~ Alex Poulos ~ 3 Comments

First, I must say that I am enjoying my week in Oxford immensely. I’ve learned a good deal from the Palaeography summer school: we’ve been able to read a goodly number of texts, in all sorts of different hands. There have been quite interesting lectures in the evenings, and great library exhibits during the day.

While I’m here, I’ve decided to make use of the special collections access that came with my card. Use the excellent Pinakes website, I came across Ms. Barocci 55, a codex containing a large number of homilies from John Chrysostom. Of particular interest to me were 6 homilies on the Psalms which are not included in the Patrologia Graeca volume. According to the catalog, the materials on the psalms dates from the 10th century, which means it’s quite early.

The psalms covered in the ms are: 41, 50 (2 homilies), 71, 92, and 100 (all LXX numbers). I transcribed some material today from the homily on ps 100 (about a folio, front and back’s worth). Though I’m no expert in such matters, it is consistent with what I’ve read from John’s material on the Psalms (especially his contrast between worldly songs and spiritual ones).

If proven authentic, these are important homilies! Robert Hill recently published an English translation of Chrysostom’s material on the Psalter, and these homilies were not included (given they are not in the PG). Likewise, Hill has an article on Antiochene interpretation of Psalm 41, which does not mention the homily contained here.

Hopefully I’ll be able to do some more work with this while I’m here, and perhaps in the future too. The recent discovery of the Origen codex will only increase interest in our early exegetical material on the Psalms. In the meanwhile (as they say in the UK), let this serve as a humble reminder: The PG, while vast, does not contain the entirety of the Patristic tradition!

Oh, and if someone is aware of a publication of these homilies, do let me know in the comments!

τῷ χείρι τοῦ ταπεινοῦ Ἀλεξάδρου ἁμαρτωλοῦ