Greek Fragments Research Articles

Hégésippe chez Eusèbe. Histoire Ecclésiastique, IV, 21-22 : Διαδοχή et origine des hérésies

The present contribution submits to investigation the main themes of Hegesippus’ Greek fragments quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History IV, 21-22 ; our analysis takes account as well of the other fragments of the same author, of their historical context and of the previous studies about the author and the subjects mentioned and pays also attention to distinguish the original message of Hegesippus’work from the interpretation given to it by Eusebius for his own narrative and ideological aims. We so tried to offer some new results about some debated problems : Hegesippus’oriental origin and his proposed, but improbable, Jewish birth ; the nature and aim of his work, called Hypomnemata, probably some « annotations » of heresiological and apologetical subject ; his activity in the context of the constitution of the first lists of bishops in ancient Christian communities, at the time of the rising of Christian « heresies » and of the first identification of some so-called « apocryphal » writing...

Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism (review)

Reviewed by: Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism M. Jason Reddoch Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism. By Adrian Kuzminski. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008. Pp. xiv + 155. Hardcover $65.00. Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism, by Adrian Kuzminski, is a short monograph of four chapters in which the author argues that Pyrrho of Elis (ca. 365–270 b.c.e.) developed his form of skepticism after coming into contact with Indian philosophers on his journey with Alexander the Great. Although the subtitle suggests that the primary focus of the study will be to develop this argument for historical diffusion, the book is more of an apology for Pyrrhonism, which Kuzminski thinks can be better understood by emphasizing its striking similarities with Buddhism. While presenting a plausible scenario for historical diffusion, he emphasizes parallels specifically with the Mādhyamaka school of Mahāyāna Buddhism in order to provide a better understanding of Pyrrhonism's meaning, purpose, and potential. Kuzminski is persuasive in his use of Buddhism to clarify Pyrrhonism and to correct previous misinterpretations of Pyrrhonism by Western philosophers, but his treatment of historical and philological issues is often neither thorough nor totally persuasive. In what follows, I will present a summary of the book followed by some critical remarks. Kuzminski's focus is on Pyrrhonism, but I will provide more discussion of his treatment of its similarities and contact with Buddhism. In his first chapter, "Why Pyrrhonism is Not Scepticism," Kuzminski argues that in contrast to the dogmatic and nihilist approach of the Academic skeptics who held that truth cannot be known, Pyrrhonism is best understood as a nondogmatic therapeutic philosophy that promoted suspension of judgment. This distinction is supported by the account of Pyrrhonism by Sextus Empiricus (fl. second century c.e.). In order to stress Pyrrhonism's practical and soteriological goals, Kuzminski contrasts ancient accounts of Pyrrho, who is described as living a tranquil and reclusive life, with those of Arcesilaus (fl. third century b.c.e.), the first head of the skeptical Academy, who is said to be somewhat pompous and prone to extravagant displays. Kuzminski blames the confusion between these two schools of thought on a number of prominent modern philosophers and contemporary scholars, including David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, M. F. Burnyeat, and Martha Nussbaum. Kuzminski considers Arne Naess the closest to a contemporary Pyrrhonist. In chapter 2, "Pyrrhonism and Buddhism," Kuzminski undertakes his most direct comparison of the two traditions.1 He emphasizes the plausibility of historical diffusion by pointing to both general evidence for sustained contact between Greece and India via trade routes and the Persian empire and possible references to Ionian Greeks in the middle-length discourses of the Buddha. Kuzminski rejects the claims [End Page 424] of Richard Bett, who argues on the basis of a later Greek fragment of Aristocles (fl. second century c.e.) that our sources for Pyrrhonism do not actually go back to the historical Pyrrho and that Pyrrho was more of a nihilist.2 According to Kuzminski, the account is biased and reflects the same misunderstanding many modern scholars have had. Kuzminski's point of departure for his specific comparison of Pyrrhonism and Buddhism is Everard Flintoff's 1980 article in which he argued that a persuasive case could be made for the necessary historical relationship between Pyrrhonism and Buddhism not on the basis of individual parallels but by considering the combination of similarities as a whole.3 Kuzminski, however, is critical of Flintoff on a couple of points such as his claim that the quadrilemma is unprecedented in Greece prior to Pyrrho. When Kuzminski turns to his specific comparison of Pyrrhonism and Buddhism, he refers primarily to Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakārikā and Candrakīrti's Madhyamakāvatāra. Both traditions share the idea that their philosophy is better understood as a method rather than a doctrine, and Kuzminski argues that the Pyrrhonist method of producing contradictory arguments in order to be led to a state of suspension of judgment (epochē) and then tranquility (ataraxia) is paralleled in the text of Candrakīrti. Both consider it necessary to accept involuntary sensory impressions and thoughts but to reject inferences...

A New Fragment of Athanasius's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter: Heresy, Apocrypha, and the Canon

Athanasius of Alexandria's thirty-ninth Festal Letter remains one of the most significant documents in the history of the Christian Bible. Athanasius wrote the letter, which contains the first extant list of precisely the twenty-seven books of the current New Testament canon, in 367 c.e., during the final decade of his life. Like many of his annual Easter letters, the thirty-ninth was fairly long, but only a small portion of the text survives in Greek.1 The Greek excerpt contains Athanasius's lists of the books of the Old and New Testaments, which he calls “canonized,” and a list of a few additional books, like the Shepherd of Hermas, which he says are not canonized, but are useful in the instruction of catechumens. Most studies of the formation of the Christian canon, including very recent ones, examine only this Greek fragment and so discuss only the contents of the lists. But already in the late-nineteenth-century fragments of the much more extensive Coptic translation had been published, and a few scholars, such as Carl Schmidt and Theodor Zahn, used them to write penetrating studies of the letter.2 In 1955 Lefort published all the then-known Coptic fragments in his book of Coptic Athanasiana, and then in 1984 Coquin published another long fragment.3 These served as the basis for my 1995 translation and my 1994 article in this journal on the social context of canon formation in fourth-century Egypt.4

A Note on the Status of Origen's De Principiis in English

AbstractThe standard English translation of Origen's De principiis, translated by G.W. Butterworth and published in 1936, is based upon the earlier critical edition of Paul Koetschau. Origen's text survives through the Latin translation of Rufinus, a version that Koetschau fundamentally distrusted: Rufinus had admittedly expurgated Origen's text and could not, accordingly, be trusted. Hence the job of the editor and translator was judged to be the reestablishment—as far as was possible—of Origen's original text. Such suspicion of the text led to, among other problems, the awkward printing of parallel Greek and Latin passages in columns in Butterworth's English edition. Greek fragments and Origenistic material—that is to say, passages that were not direct quotations of De principiis, nor even directly Origen's—were inserted into Koetschau's text based upon presumed doctrinal parallels between those fragments and Origen's 'authentic' thought.We cannot reconstruct the Greek text; what we have inherited for better or worse is Rufinus's Latin translation of Peri archôn, a text that the more recent scholarship of G. Bardy and others have significantly rehabilitated confidence in. With the notable exception of English, translations of De principiis have been made in French, Italian and German, based upon more recent and more balanced critical editions. The author proposes a new English translation of Rufinus's Latin text based upon the critical edition of Henri Crouzel and Manlio Simonetti, published in the Sources Chrétiennes series.

A Proposed Rereading of P.Oxy. 654 line 41 (Gos. Thom. 7)

The Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas is paralleled in three sections by Greek fragments from Oxyrhynchus. P.Oxy. 655, in the Houghton Library at Harvard, consists of small amounts of text, which correspond to sayings 24 and 36–39. P.Oxy. 1, in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, is a fragment of a codex containing sayings 26–33 (cf. also saying 77). This latter exemplar in particular shows that—with some exceptions—there is a good deal of correspondence between the Greek and Coptic versions, and therefore that it is quite possible that substantial portions of the Coptic version of Thomas go back to a Greek original.

« Un fragment grec inédit des Actes de Pierre »

This paper provides for the first time the critical edition and presentation of a Greek fragment entitled From the Acts of the saint apostle Peter. It is a part of a manuscript preserved in the Library Angelica in Rome. One of the questions this paper asks is: Was this fragment originally part of the primitive Acts of Peter?

THELIFTEROFHEAVY BODIES OF HERON OF ALEXANDRIA IN THE IRANIAN WORLD

Abstracttitle ABSTRACT /title The contribution considers several Persian codices, found in recent years, that were inspired by Book II of Heron's Mechanics. Made in the Iranian context, their existence imposes the integration of the studies performed on the guide of Greek fragments and on the Arabic version of Qusta Ibn Luqa al-Ba'albakk that have inspired all of the translators of European languages. Moreover, the distribution of the texts in a wider and wider temporal and cultural space and their noticeable correlations suggest searches in fields up to now neglected by the historians of science, just like the Iranian one, abounding of documents and texts.

Greek Mechanics in Arabic Context: Thābit ibn Qurra, al-Isfizārī and the Arabic Traditions of Aristotelian and Euclidean Mechanics

Assuming the crucial interest of Arabic material for the recovery of the textual tradition of some Greek texts of mechanics, the following article aims at presenting a partial survey of the Graeco-Arabic transmission in the field of mechanics. Based on new manuscript material dating from the ninth to the twelfth century, it investigates the textual and theoretical traditions of two writings ascribed to Aristotle and Euclid respectively and transmitted to Arabo-Islamic culture in fragmentary form. The reception and the impact of the Peripatetic Mechanics are analyzed on the basis of texts edited by al-Khāzinī as well as by the comparative study of the proof of the law of the lever in three authors: Pseudo-Aristotle, Thābit ibn Qurra, and al-Isfizārī. The codicological analysis of the extant manuscripts of Maqāla fī ‘l-mīzān – a rather systematic treatise on the balance ascribed to Euclid – leads to the assumption that it is a Greek fragment edited in Arabic. This reconstruction of the Arabic tradition of Euclidean mechanics is further elaborated by an annotated synopsis of al-Isfizārī's systematic recension of the text.

Light within the Human Person: A Comparison of Matthew 6:22-23 and "Gospel of Thomas" 24

Readers acquainted with the patterns of mystical and Gnostic thinking will not be surprised when they encounter the idea of light or a spark within the human person. context, corresponding metaphors, or philosophical passages in the respective texts will most often explain this light as the essence of the human person, the true self. In the NT it is only Paul who speaks of Christ as an internal principle. Christ has become the agent within himself that has replaced his old ego: is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me (Gal 2:20). In the Synoptic tradition, however, there is only one reference to light within the human person, in the Q-logion about the eye as the lamp of the body (Matt 6:22-23; Luke 11:34-36).1 In Matthew, whose version lacks the minor features of a conscious editing that are apparent in Luke,2 the saying reads as follows: IMAGE FORMULA4IMAGE FORMULA7IMAGE FORMULA9IMAGE FORMULA13IMAGE FORMULA14IMAGE FORMULA17IMAGE FORMULA18IMAGE FORMULA21IMAGE FORMULA22IMAGE FORMULA25IMAGE FORMULA26IMAGE FORMULA28 This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Boston, 1999. 1 I will not discuss the question of the saying's position and meaning in Q here. It has been interpreted within a context of controversies of the Q community with those who are unwilling to respond to the preaching of the kingdom (see J. S. Kloppenborg, Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections [SAC; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987], 138). But the saying's possible relevance for the theology of Q does not answer the question of its original meaning and Sitz im Leben. If it existed independently, that is, if it was not created by the Q redactor, it has to be examined as a piece of tradition in its own right. 2 Luke 11:34-35 is almost identical to Matt but has. . .oLv ... at the beginning of v. 35. Similar parenetic imperatives are used redactionally by Luke in 12:1; 12:15; 17:3; 20:46; and 21:34. Verse 36 functions as a second explanation, which, however, fails to give the passage a convincing interpretation. It stresses the aspect of gaining a lightful body, which is repeated twice (in a rather vague tautological construction), but does not contribute to an understanding of the paradoxical warning in v, 35 (. . . . .). Since the latter is present in both Luke and Matthew, the diverting second comment in Luke probably is a later addition. 3 See, e.g., H. D. Betz, Matt. 6:22-23 and Ancient Greek Theories of Vision, in Synoptische Studien (TUbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992), 141. 4C. Edlund,, Das Auge der Einfalt: Eine Untersuchung zu Matth. 6,22-23 and Luk. 11,34-35 (Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1952); J. Amstutz, ARAOTHE: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Studie zum judisch-christlichen Griechisch (Bonn: Hanstein, 1968). See also H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1985), esp. 233-U. 5 Deutsches Sprichworter-Lexicon (ed. K. F. W. Wander; Leipzig: Brockhaus 1867),1:172 n. 87. 6 See esp. J. 1. Beare, Greek Theories of Elmentary Cognition from Alcmaeon to Aristotle (Oxford: Clarendon, 1906); for extensive references to the literature on the subject matter, see Betz, Matt. 6:22-23. 7 Betz, Matt. 6:22-23, 153. 8 H. W. Attridge, The Greek Fragments, in Nag Hammadi Codex 11, 2-7 together with XIII,2 Brit. Lib. Or. 4926 (1), and P. …

Tatian's Diatessaron and the Old Testament Peshitta

Did Tatian consult the Syriac version of the OT when drawing up his Gospel harmony? This question, first raised almost a century ago,1 has not become irrelevant since then, in spite of much progress in research on both the Diatessaron and the OT Peshitta.2 In a study of OT quotations contained in the Old Syriac and Peshitta Gospels, the present writer, following in the footsteps of F C. Burkitt and S. P. Brock, undertook to show that Tatian did make use of the OT Peshitta.3 I concluded that Tatian, in his Diatessaron, frequently inserted OT Peshitta readings as a rendering of OT quotations instead of translating the Greek text as read in the Gospels.4 This position has recently been challenged by R. Shedinger on methodological grounds: since no Western witnesses of the Diatessaron were used to show dependence on the OT Peshitta, and since Shedinger's own analysis of quotations in the Western harmonies produced no traces of such dependence, the hypothesis became, in his view, untenable.5 The present article offers a renewed survey of relevant readings. In the first section, the Eastern evidence is briefly reevaluated. As will be seen, this evidence cannot be brushed aside as easily as has been done by Shedinger. The second and third sections introduce new material from Western sources that is supportive of the hypothesis. Although the thesis of Tatianic dependence on the OT Peshitta cannot, in the absence of the original text of the Diatessaron, be proven absolutely, the conclusion must be that what textual evidence we have is strongly supportive of it. I. Traces of the Old Testament Peshitta in Eastern Witnesses of the Diatessaron Historical research shows that Tatian's harmony was probably from the start a Syriac writing.6 The impact of the work is felt primarily in the Syriac-- speaking area, while the Greek church appears to have had no firsthand knowledge of it. To prove Syriac origin on a textual basis is hard, since no complete original text of the Diatessaron has been preserved.7 It may fairly be stated, however, that the textual evidence is generally supportive of the hypothesis,8 and that no textual facts oppose it, not even the Greek fragment of the Diatessaron found in Dura Europos.9 If the Diatessaron was written in Syriac, precedence must be conceded to the Eastern sources. Although even the earliest Syriac witnesses show clear signs of having been modified later in the direction of Greek manuscripts of the Gospels, they nevertheless offer the possibility of retracing part of the wording of the Diatessaron itself. 10 The Arabic and Persian harmonies are more problematic, both because these texts are of a later date and because they are translations. But at least they depend directly on a Syriac text, whereas Western harmonies are mostly translations twice or thrice removed from the original. It is good method, therefore, to build a hypothesis regarding Tatian's sources first and foremost on the basis of the Eastern evidence. Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron On the supposition of a Syriac original, the only direct witness to the text of the Diatessaron is to be found in Gospel quotations in early Syriac texts. Early Syriac authors, particularly Aphrahat and Ephrem, quote the Gospel primarily, or even exclusively, according to the Diatessaron.11 Even these quotations show us a text adapted to that of the Greek Gospels,12 but they are generally, and rightly, considered to be our best source. When Burkitt first addressed the question of the possible influence of the OT Peshitta on the Diatessaron, it is to these quotations that he turned for a solution.13 The results were disappointing. Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron was then available only in an Armenian translation, which did not permit a clear conclusion; as to Aphrahat, the evidence seemed to indicate a positive answer, but it was hard to be certain.14 Returning to the problem three-quarters of a century later, Brock found himself in a much more favorable position. …

In Search of Origen's Commentary on Philemon

In a letter to Paula, in which he includes a list of Origen's Pauline commentaries, Jerome refers to a commentary on Philemon. There is no extant Greek manuscript tradition of this commentary by Origen. There are also no Greek fragments attributed to Origen in the catena commentary on Philemon edited by Cramer from the eleventh-century codex Parisinus Coislin 204. The Codex von der Goltz, which has provided helpful information on some of Origen's other Pauline commentaries, has only two brief, marginal references to Origen on the textual reading of Philemon at verses 10 and 12. The only known portion of Origen's commentary on Philemon that has been preserved is a fragment of his comments on Philemon 5 in Rufinus's Latin translation ofIn Apologeticum S. Pamphili.

Homilies on Luke. (review)

Reviewed by: Homilies on Luke Ann A. Pang-White Origen. Homilies on Luke. Translated by Joseph Lienhard. Fathers of the Church, vol. 94. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996. Pp. xxxix + 246. $31.95. Origen’s homilies on Luke (dated ca. 233–244) are the only extant patristic commentaries devoted to the Gospel of Luke before Ambrose’s Exposition on Luke (ca. 390). Prior to this translation, three translations of Origen’s extant homilies and of fragments of his lost commentary and homilies have been made into modern languages since the early 1960’s—one in French in 1962, one in Italian in 1969, and one in German in 1991–1992. Joseph Lienhard’s translation is the first translation of Origen’s homilies and commentary on Luke in English, a translation that has been eagerly awaited. It is an original work that deserves much praise. Origen’s homilies on Luke in Greek are lost except for fragments. Thirty-nine of these homilies, however, survive through Jerome’s Latin translation (ca. 390–393). In this volume, Lienhard has translated all thirty-nine homilies from Max Rauer’s critical edition of Jerome’s Latin version, along with a translation of about 115 Greek fragments, also from Rauer’s edition. The translation comes with a helpful twenty-five-page introduction, extensive and valuable footnotes, a nicely organized general index, and an index of Holy Scripture. The translation is not overly literal, and is accurate and faithful to the Latin and the Greek text. The translation is also smooth and vivid, which is an achievement worth noting, since it is not easy to remain faithful to the Latin or the Greek, yet to provide a smooth rendering into English as well. The footnotes and the index of Holy Scripture indicate the translator’s wide knowledge of, and familiarity with, Scriptural texts and early church history. The introduction provides an excellent brief biography of Origen, and a fine explanation of the style and the method of Origen’s biblical commentary, as well as a needed guide to the theology in Origen’s homilies on Luke. Its value, however, would have been all the greater, if Lienhard had dealt more comprehensively with the controversial points of Origen’s theology, even though Origen does not himself directly engage in much theological speculation in these homilies. It would have been helpful for the reader to be made aware of the wider context of Origen’s theology, so that he or she could read Origen’s homilies in light of such information. Many biblical scholars regard Origen as perhaps the first systematic theologian in the Christian tradition and a study of his work is surely necessary for understanding the Platonic influence on early Christian theology. The homilies on Luke are also essential for understanding the influence of Origen’s thought, especially the influence of his threefold method of biblical exegesis, namely, literal, mystical, and allegorical, on later theologians and thinkers. For this reason, Lienhard’s English translation is not just a valuable work for scholars, [End Page 452] but also an excellent teaching tool, a book for the classroom, one that could be profitably used in graduate courses or upper-division undergraduate courses. It makes Origen’s homilies accessible to those who have not yet mastered Latin and Greek, and opens up another avenue for their exposure to this Greek church father. Ann A. Pang-White University of Scranton Copyright © 1997 The Johns Hopkins University Press

An Ancient Jewish-Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1. 27-71 (review)

Reviewed by: An Ancient Jewish-Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions Lawrence E. Frizzell F. Stanley Jones. An Ancient Jewish-Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1. 27–71. Texts and Translations’ Christian Apocrypha Series. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Pp. xiii + 208. $39.95. The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies bear witness to an early Christian novel describing Clement of Rome’s conversion to Christian faith, his travels with St. Peter and his discovery of lost members of his family. Do these texts, which share much material in common, depend on an earlier “Basic Writing?” How do they relate to other sources for the history of the early Church? F. Stanley Jones offers a thorough review of scholarship over the past century and a half, with critical remarks that evaluate the debate. Thus he lays the foundation for his own work. Versions survive in Syriac and in Latin (the work of Rufinus of Aquileia about 406), with fragments of the original Greek and in an Armenian translation. Jones renders an important service by translating the Syriac of Recognitions 1:27–71 for the first time and placing it in parallel with his rendering of the Latin, as well as the Armenian fragments. This covers 57 pages of careful work. But why were the original texts not included in a series of appendices? The presence of these materials would have allowed the historian or theologian to use this work more effectively. The second contribution of this book is a 44 page chapter on the “isolation of the source material.” Here Jones interacts with other scholars as he looks for signs of the redactor’s touch and then postulates that a “Basic Writing” can be extracted from the extant sources. He discusses quotations of the Pseudo-Clementine texts in the Chronicon Paschale, the Panarion of Epiphanius, and the Apostolic Constitutions. Again it would have been helpful to include the original of these passages. The relationship of the Clementine stories to the Book of Jubilees, the New Testament, and the passages of Hegesippus preserved by Eusebius is reviewed as well. Currently scholars agree that Hegesippus and Recognitions 1.27–72 depend on an earlier source or tradition rather than one drawing directly from the other. Jones would be happy however, to make this section of Recognitions derive from Hegesippus (142–45). How do the sources of Recognitions 1. 27–71 relate to “The Ascents of [End Page 288] James” mentioned by Epiphanius? Common themes are found elsewhere in early Jewish Christian sources and differences make contact unlikely. However, Jones finds links with the extant citations from the Gospel of the Ebionites and Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho (148–50). Jones posits an original structure for the Basic Writing (150–55) and, in a brief concluding chapter, he builds on his theory that the original narrator in the source is Matthew. Thus he presents traditions that might claim an antiquity equal to the Pauline letters. “This study has unearthed the thoughts and struggles of at least one of these Jewish Christians” (of the late second century) (168). The traditions include a development of the Jubilees story about Abraham as an astrologer, a concern for the Land of Israel, an understanding of Jesus’ death as a sacrifice and its effect on Temple worship, the destruction of the Temple and the wretched lot of Jews thereafter. Each of these topics receives only a sketchy treatment in this investigation. There is an extensive bibliography and fine indices (passages from ancient literature, modern authors and subjects). Lawrence E. Frizzell Seton Hall University South Orange, New Jersey Copyright © 1997 The Johns Hopkins University Press

A Proposal for a Theater Museum: Staging the Fragments of Greek and Roman Drama

A Proposal for a Theater Museum: Staging the Fragments of Greek and Roman Drama

A Greek Fragment of the Books of Samuel: Beinecke Library MS 544 (RA 846)

A Greek Fragment of the Books of Samuel: Beinecke Library MS 544 (RA 846)

The Spurious Texts of Philo of Alexandria: A Study of Textual Transmission and Corruption with Indexes to the Major Collections of Greek Fragments

The transmission of Philo of Alexandria's works is very complex, and genuine works are preserved in the original Greek, and in ancient Armenian and Latin translations. There are also many excerpts attributed to him in medieval catenae and florilegia, and in quotations in Church writers. The task undertaken here is to discriminate as far as possible between the genuine and the spurious within the textual history of Philo. An analysis of the sources of the fragments of Philo is followed by a listing of sixty-one texts which are demonstrably spurious, deriving (as is shown here) from various sources, including the Bible, Church writers, classical authors, and Josephus. Also included is a survey of the complete books which have been mistakenly assigned to Philo. An Index locorum provides identifications of the Philonic texts found in all the principal collections of fragments. Many of the identifications of spurious and of genuine fragments are made here for the first time.

Reviews

REVIEWS J. R. Royse, The Spurious Texts of Philo of Alexandria: a Study of Textual Transmission and Corruption with Indexes to the Major Collec- tions of Greek Fragments (Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des Hellenistischen Judentums 22). Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1991. xiii, 252 pages. Price Hfl. 130, $74.50. Extensive though the Philonic corpus preserved in the original Greek is, it amounts to only just over half of what we know Philo to have writ- ten. The critical edition of Cohn and Wendland (1896-1915) contains 38 Greek treatises. 11 more books are preserved in an Armenian transla- tion (counting the

Two Greek fragments in Canterbury

Two Greek fragments in Canterbury

New Light from Arabic Sources on Galen and the Fourth Figure of the Syllogism

New Light from Arabic Sources on Galen and the Fourth Figure of the Syllogism NICHOLAS RESCHER The Problem of the Origin of the Fourth Figure FLYING IN THE FACE of the long-standing tradition--going back in Europe to Renaissance times--which credits Galen of Pergamon with the origination of the fourth syllogistic figure, recent authorities have almost to a man evinced doubt about Galen's claim to this innovation. Heinrieh Scholz speaks of "the Galenian syllogistic figure which has been attributed to him, probably wrongly." i j. W. Stakelum concludes his careful discussion of the matter with the categorical assertion that "Galen did not teach the fourth figure." ~ I. M. Bochenski--following Lukasiewicz (see below)--says that the fourth figure "was only ascribed to Galen by a misunderstanding." : William Kneale (also following Lukasiewicz) writes that "it is easy to see how misunderstanding.., by some Arabian philosopher... could have given rise to the tradition that Galen added a fourth figure to Aristotle's syllogistic theory." 4 The currently received account of the matter is that of Jan Lukasiewicz who, in his book on Aristotle's Syllogistic (1951; 2d ed., 1957), presents the known reports about Galen and the fourth figure as follows (I list them in the order in which they came to light) : 1) Several passages in Averroes' (d. 1198) Middle Commentary on Prior Analytics credit Galen with introducing a fourth figure (ad Anal. Pr. I, 5; I, 8; I, 23). These passages, known in Europe through a Renaissance Latin translation of a Hebrew version, provided the basis upon which Zabarella in his work, De Quarta Syllogismorum Figura (in his Opera [Leiden: 1587], pp. 41-53), popularized the "Galenian figure" in European logic. 2) In 1844 Minoides Mynas published in the Preface to his edition of Galen's EisagSg~ dialektik~ an anonymous Greek fragment (late, perhaps 6th century) which states that certain "later scholars" transformed the indirect moods of the first figure added by Theophrastus and Eudeffms into a new fourth figure, citing Galen as the originator of this doctrine.~ 1Abriss der Geschichte der Logik (Miinster: 1931), trans, into English by K. F. Leidecker, ConciseHistory of Logic (NewYork: 1961);p. 38ofthe Englishversion. "Why 'Galenian' Figure?" The New Scholasticism, XVI (1942),289-296. s Formale Logik (Miinchen-Freiburg:1956; 2nd. ed., 1962), trans, into English by Ivo Thomas, A History of Formal Logic (Notre Dame: 1961);p. 142of the Englishversion. Williamand Martha Kneale, The Developmentof Logic (Oxford: 1962),p. 184. Alsoprinted in Karl Kalbfieisch, ~ber Galen s Einleitung in die Logik, 2~. Supplementband der Jahrbi~cherfi~r klassische Philologie (Leipzig:1897), p. 707. This datum casts some 28 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 3) A Greek fragment was found around 1858 by Karl Prantl in a logical work of the Byzantine scholar Ioannes Italus (llth century) which says that Galen taught the existence of a fourth figure, adding sarcastically that he (Galen) thought thus to appear cleverer than the older logical commentators (presumably Theophrastus and Eudemus are intended), but fell far short.6 4) In 1899 Maximilian Wallies published7 an anonymous Greek scholium (of perhaps the 6th or the 7th century) on Ammonins' commentary on Prior Analytics which states that Galen "says in his Apodictic that there are four figures, because he looks at the compound syllogisms consisting of four terms (i.e., with three premisses )" rather than the simple (three-term, two-premiss) syllogisms of Aristotle. (The scholiast goes on to explain at some length how such compound syllogisms can be sorted into four groups.) It is readily seen that, given these data, two possibilities stand before us: a) Galen did actually invent the traditional fourth figure. Reports (1)-(3) are correct, and the anonymous scholiast of (4) was put on the wrong track by the fact that Galen also said that compound syllogisms of four terms can be classed into four groups. b) Galen did not invent the traditional fourth figure. Only after his time when once the indirect moods of the first figure had--somehow--become systematized into a separate "figure," was this credited to Galen by a mistake along the lines described by the anonymous scholiast. Thus (4) alone is right, and (1)-(3) are mistaken. Which of...

ユダの荒野で発見された十二小預言者の断片

The parchment fragments, containing a part of the Twelve Minor Prophets in Greek, discovered in the Cave of Horror on the Wadi Heber of the Judaean Desert, belongs stratigraphically to the period of the Bar Koseba's revolt in the first half of the second century A. D. From the palaeographical and archaeological point of view, they would be contemporary with the Greek fragments of the Twelve Minor Prophets, argued in RB Vol. 60 (1953) by Barthélemy, and a leather scroll in Hebrew found in a cave somewhat upstream to Murabba'at, which covers a great part of the twelve Minor Prophets. These two groups of the fragments and a scroll were all perhaps possessed by the rebels. Considering their remarkable similarities to the Aquila's version and the MT, the writer supposes them the nearest manuscript to the Hebrew text, which would be sanctioned as canon by the Jamnian (Yabneh) synod in the late first century A. D. under the influence of the Rabbis during the second term of Tanna'îm, and strictly literal translations into Greek, which are ascribed to the same tradition circle and would be intended to b e done so above all rather than to revise.