2012-11-18

Gospel Contradictions

One of the new pages I posted online this year dealt with the efforts in the early years of Christianity to explain why the different Gospels do not agree on some details about Jesus.

One of the harder-to-find texts dealing with this is an anonymous tract that may date from the third or fourth century and which was published in 1852 by Angelo Mai. I have grabbed this from a facsimile (title page below) on Archive.org and have cleaned it up a bit so that you can either read it (if you know Latin) or cut and paste it into Google Translate for a rough and ready translation into your language of choice.

As far as I know, this is the first time this tract has ever been edited online, which is always a special moment with any ancient text that has lasted 1,000 years plus.

The text is perhaps of more general interest. It offers a rather abstruse meditation on the contradictions between Matthew and Luke, based on theories of the auspicious numbers hundred, sixty, thirty and three, and contends that Matthew's last group of 13 ancestors properly adds up to 14 because the missing element is either Eli, or the church, or the Holy Spirit. My own particular interest is only in the second of its 12 sections, where it alludes to an explanation for the Gospel contradiction which it rejects: that Luke's genealogy is a list of Mary's ancestors.
A lot of people want the generations which Matthew enumerates to apply to Joseph, and the generations which Luke enumerates to apply to Mary, arguing that the man is the "head" of the woman, and so requiring that, even for her generation, the man be named.
This is an early, independent and hostile allusion to the family of ideas on which the Great Stemma is based, though of course without the element of Mary being allotted a father named Joachim. The tract's author approves (if I understand him or her correctly) a simplified version of the levirate-marriage theory first developed by Julius Africanus. For an overview of all six different theories which circulated, see my article about the Gospel contradictions.

The author of this tract is referred to as Pseudo-Hilarius because the text was once thought to be a work of the fourth-century bishop Hilary of Poitiers, and the piece (along with a second tract on the Gospel of John) is listed in the Beuron Répertoire General (RGAEL) of Gryson and Frede as one of the pieces with the code "PS-HIL tr" (p. 562).

Christophe Guignard (earlier post) states in La lettre de Julius Africanus (2011: page 116, note 503) that the part of the text down to section 7 below is also reproduced in a series of pseudo-Augustinian sermons published in Bibliotheca Casinensis, seu Codicum manu-scriptorum qui in tabulario Casinensi asservantur series (volume 2, [Monte Cassino]: Typis Montis Casini, 1875, pp. 63-66 of the Florilegium Casinense, at the end of the volume: see the Google Books digitization). He also quotes the RGAEL, which I have not yet checked, as noting that there is a similarity between this text and a group of Gospel commentaries known under the name Epiphanius Latinus (dated to either the 5th or the 5th-6th centuries). I think it is entirely possible that the text below does date from between 250 and 450.

Having gone to the trouble to digitize this, I present the text in full in case it is of use to anyone else:

1. A transmigratione Babylonis usque ad Christum generationes quattuordecim dicuntur, et tredecim inveniuntur. Huius rei ratio nobis exponenda est. Quaestio haec generationum iuxta regulae rationem solvitur, Scribitur in lege, ut si defunctus fuerit quis sine filiis, frater aut proximus eius accipiat uxorem ipsius, ut suscitet semen in nomine defuncti. Est ergo Ioseph duorum filius, unius iuxta carnem, id est Iacob; et alterius iuxta legem, id est Heli. Iacob cum esset proximus, accepit uxorem Heli, et generavit Ioseph. Idcirco Matthaeus enumerans generationes, filium dicit Iacob; Lucas eum, iuxta legem scribens evangelium, servans regulae suae rationem, filium dicit Heli; iuxta illud videlicet quod iam dudum in lege fuerat praeceptum, ut in nomine defuncti, qui sine filiis excesserat, suscitaretur semen, deputabatur in nomine defuncti filius; sicut hic Ioseph deputatur filius Heli. Sed veritatis imaginabat lex personam. Ubi ergo completum est, imago percurrens abscessit, et veritas loco suo fixa stetit. Igitur ut plenius ostendatur, nullum in nomine defuncti suscitatum, nisi ei cui res parabatur, Iacob genuit filium; et non cum nominavit Heli, sed Ioseph.
2. Superest nunc ut intellegamus, apostolos omnes quasi unum virum, qui fratres a Domino sunt appellati, iam non dicam vos servos sed fratres, accipientes ecclesiam post mortem Domini, id est post eius passionem. Et vere suscitatus est ab eis filius in nomine defuncti, id est Christi, populus Christianorum, qui vere ex defuncti nomine nominatur. Matthaeus evangelium sic incipit: “liber generationis Iesu Christi filii David, filii Abraham.” David Christum dicit ob hoc, quia multis in locis idem Christus dictus est David: vel quia Maria ex eadem tribu et Ioseph fuerit, id est de tribu Iuda, unde et David. Idcirco et Christus verus et aeternus rex nominatur vel dicitur David. Multi volunt, generationem, quam enumerat Matthaeus, deputari Ioseph; et generationem quam enumerat Lucas, deputari Mariae; ut quia caput mulieris vir dicitur, viro etiam eiusdem generatio nuncupetur. Sed hoc regulae non convenit, vel quaestioni quae est superius: id est, ubi generationum ratio demonstratur, verissime solutum est. Ut superius dictum est filium David Christum, sic David, sic Abraham, sic Adam, sic Dei. Quia ab Adam decurrens generatio pervenit ad Abraham; et ab Abraham ad David regem, ut superius dictum est; ostendit verum et aeternum regem Christum, sicuti prophetae dixerunt. Ut autem intellegi manifestius possit, cur Iudas cum esset quarto loco natus, acceperit benedictionem, et non primitivus natus, haec ratio fuit. Cum sit mos in lege non alium accipere benedictionem, nisi qui maior natu sit, et qui habeat promogenita, Ruben primogenitus illa ratione non accepit, quia incestaverat concubinam patris. Simeon et Levi illa ratione, quia cum indigne ferrent stuprum Dinae sorori suae illatum ab Emor et Sichem, circumcisos civitatis viros, et in dolore constitutos, gladiis interfecerunt. Quo facto, his non contulit benedictionem, quae datur Iudae, quarto loco nato: propter illum numerum, quo Salvator propter historiam et legem et prophetiam venerat, qui solus benedictionem totam habet: sicuti Iudas, qui quartus fuit, accepit benedictionem, qui leo et catulus leonis est dictus. Iam tunc Christus ob potentiam leo dictus, qui victor et triumphator diaboli, etiam ipsius mortis invenitur.
3. Satis anxie satisque trepidanter, cur sanctissimus Matthaeus tali usus sit principio, exponere aggredior. Ait namque: “liber generationis Iesu Christi filii David, filii Abrahae.” Quaeritur ergo principii istius ratio, quare sic coeperit, cum Lucas praemissa quadam oratione coeperit evangelium conscribere. Sed quia veterum scripturarum series studens novitati, et quaecumque vetus testamentum singulariter continet, novum ipsa veritatis ratione adimplevit; iam dudum enim fuerat per sanctissimum David ita praenuntiatum: in capite libri scriptum est de me; non inmerito sanctus Matthaeus ita praefatus est dicendo: liber generationis Iesu Christi; hoc est, in capite libri scriptum est de me. Quod Spiritus futurum sciens, dicebat librum evangelii, qui nativitatem filii Dei contineret. Vel quia Hebraei Christum venturum manifeste sciunt, vel quia iam venisse non credunt, idcirco tali principio Matthaeus utitur dicendo: liber generationis Iesu Christi, et cetera. Illa igitur ratione filius dicitur David, quia ex prosapia David, per virginem Mariam erat venturus. Hic est quem sanctissimus Iacob in benedictione Iudae demonstrans, leonem et catulum leonis dixit. Et Moyses sanctissimus ait: “Prophetam vobis suscitabit dominus Deus vester de fratribus vestris. Hunc sicut me audietis. Erit autem, quaecumque anima non audierit prophetam illum, eradicabitur de populo suo. Vel quia Esaias Emmanuhelem, id est nobiscum Deus, per virginem venturum dixerit. Et Hieremias: hic Deus noster, et non reputabitur alius. In terra visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est.”
4. Ideo ergo Hebraeis occurritur, ut quem venire sperant, iam venisse certo certius eis demonstraretur. Et ideo ne sit aliqua excusatio, tali principio sanctissimus Matthaeus utitur: liber generationis Iesu Christi filii David; carnalem scilicet generationem describens, quia sic venturus per prophetas est annuntiatus, id est ex David. Quia virgo Maria per traducem veniens David, non inmerito ait propheta: virga ex radice Iessae, et flos de radice eius ascendet. Virga, Maria; flos ex virga, Christus dominus, filius Abraham. Prius enim quam circumcideretur, Abraham credidit Deo, sicut scriptura testatur: credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam. Ergo Abraham iustus, qui credendo, pater fidei invenitur. Denique ad eius contubernium et sinum omnes fideles inveniuntur. Quod autem ait: filii David, filii Abraham; Christus dominus noster, quia per Abraham; ex tribu Iuda, quia per David, decurrentibus generationibus, ex Maria virgine carnem accepit. Idcirco dicitur filius David, ut per prophetas idem filius Dei dicitur David, et David filius Abrahae, a quo generationum propter iustitiam a sanctissimo Matthaeo sumitur principium. Ergo quia iustus est filius Dei, qui iuste iudicat, et iustitiam diligit, et rex est perpetuus, merito generationem secunduin carnem sanctissimus Matthaeus ab Abraham exorsus est. Sed quia per traducem, et David regis fecit mentionem, ostendit filium Dei Iesum Christum et regem; merito eius iustitiae, et regalis secundum carnem progenies ascribitur.
5. Decursis igitur generationibus Matthaeus et ostensis, rursus recapitulat dicendo: “ab Abraham usque ad David generationes quattuordecim. Et a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis, generationes quattuordecim. Et a transmigratione, Babylonis usque ad Christum, generationes quattuordecim.” Facit tres ordines ter decusquartus, quo fiunt quadraginta duo. Non sine ratione hoc scripsisse invenitur; sed diligentius ratio stili eius requisita, et magna cum sollicitudine discussa, ordinum factorum nobis mysterium adiuvante Deo patefiet; testimoniis scilicet ad hanc rem pertinentibus contractis et perquisitis. In parabola enim seminis boni invenimus per eundem Matthaeum enuntiatum, incipientem scilicet a centesimo fructu ad sexagesimum, et a sexagesimo ad tricesimum, qui sunt ordines tres. Qui ordines hactenus simpliciter accipiendi sunt. Centesimus fructus, perfecta fides, ut centenario Abrahae, id est patri fidei, natus sit Isaac. Vel quia centum in manu dextera tenentur, quod est dextri lateris, in qua parte agni collocati inveniuntur a pastore. Ideo ergo ab Abraham incipit, qui est pater fidei, generationes enarrare. Sexagesimus autem fructus, secundus ordo est virginum. Ordo enim primus usque ad David: secundus vero ordo a David usque ad transmigrationem. Merito ergo a David ordo virginum declaratur, in sexagesimo scilicet fructu, quia virgo Maria ex David, de qua dominus noster Christus carnem accepit. Tricesimus autem fructus ordini tertio conveniens, a transmigratione Babylonis ad Christum; ideo quia Christus dominus et Deus noster, ut ait Lucas evangelista “et ipse Iesus erat incipiens fere annorum triginta, ut putabatur esse filius Ioseph.” Quibus annis passus est dominus noster Iesus Christus.
6. Videmus ergo haec omnia spiritaliter in filio Dei, Deo ac domino nostro, deputari, in quo perfecta iustitia et virtus invenitur consummata. Et quia sanctissimus Matthaeus, descensionem filii Dei nititur insinuare e caelis ad terram, quando dignatus est nostri causa venire, et hominem induere, ideo a centesimo numero ad tricesimum pervenit, id est a maiori summa ad minorem, hoc est de caelis ex illa gloria, ad hominis corpus induendum descendisse filium Dei demonstrat. Et ideo a centesimo ad sexagesimum de caelo veniens ad virginem per quam editus, ad tricenarium numerum veniens annorum, quo tempore passus est. Lucas autem evangelista passionem eius et ascensionem, et ad dexteram patris sessionem, a tricesimo numerans fructu, quot annorum passus est; et ad sexagesimum veniens, quod est caro virginalis incorrupta; quam Dominus ab inferis suscitans, secum pertulit ad caelos. Centesimi autem fructus adimpletio fidelis, et martyrii Christi cum virtute et potentia perfecta, ad dexteram patris consedisse manifestum est. Non inmerito et Lucas evangelista, generationes a Christo rursum per Ioseph numerans, id est ab homine usque ad Deum perveniens, verissime eius ascensionem demonstrans, a Ioseph per David et Abraham, et per Adam usque ad Deum pervenit. Et quem dixerat filium, ut putabatur esse, Ioseph; hunc dicit filium esse Dei. Igitur quia fides vel martyrium, quod est centesimus fructus; et virginitas, sexagesimus; et tricesimus, virtus; omnia haec per gradus, quos diximus, in filio Dei qui in omnibus, utpote Deus, perfectus invenitur, conveniunt et concurrunt. Quod autem Matthaeus a centesimo ad sexagesimum, et inde ad tricesimum decurrit, descensionem domini nostri Iesu Christi ostendit, quippe qui iuxta carnem nativitatem eius descripserit. Lucas autem quod a tricesimo ad sexagesimum, et inde ad centesimum percurrit, demonstrat, ut superius dictum est, passionem, id est virtutem qua diabolum vicit per crucem et incontaminatam carnem, quam resuscitatam imposuerit in caelis; et ideo a minori summa, rursum ascendere ad maiorem numerum invenitur; non inmerito, ut supra exposuimus, aquilae gerit imaginem, qua eum ad caelum volasse demonstrat. Et quia tres ordines numerantur de fructibus, de quibus breviter demonstravimus, tres etiam ordines in generationibus demonstrantur, et numero certo ascribuntur. Quique tres ordines generationum et seminum, sine dubio trinitatem patris et filii et spiritus sancti demonstrant.
7. Sed quia novissima summa, quam a transmigratione Babylonis usque ad Christum dixerat, generationes quattuordecim inveniuntur, scrupulum quoddam legentibus incutit, quasi Matthaeus vel mendacii reus, vel subtractor unius arguatur, cum praescriptus numerus non totus inveniatur. Ideo necesse est hoc quoque omni diligentia exponere ac discutere, et veritatem patefacere. Ergo quia numerus unius generationis facit nobis quaestionem, cum quattuordecim dicuntur, et tredecim inveniuntur, spiritalis intellectus invenit istam generationem, quae in numero non invenitur. Dinumeratis scilicet generationibus iuxta carnem, una inde ad simplicem intellectum invenitur esse subtracta; sed, ut dixi, spiritali intellectu numero conveniente significantur. Et sic incipit veritas evangelistae, cui nec mentiri nec fallere licet, tota hice clarescere. Dicit igitur, usque ad Christum generationes quattuordecim; et tredecim inveniuntur. Sequitur spiritalis generatio, quae licet numeretur inter carnales, non tamen in eo numero inveniatur. Sic enim decet ut ea generatio, quae de saeculo non est, cum saeculi generationibus non inveniatur. Quartadecima spiritalis est, de qua sic rettulit dicendo: Christi autem generatio sic erat. Christi autem generatio ecclesia intelligitur. Et merito David ait: Deus autem in generatione iusta est. Haec generatio Christi, id est ecclesia, in qua filius Dei permanere invenitur. Igitur quia ecclesia Dei spiritali nativitate renata, in saeculo non est, habens scilicet conversationem caelestem, quam Salomon in nave figurans ait, inter se naves in pelago natantes non cognoscere; id est conversationem vel generationem ecclesiae in saeculo non posse repperiri; siquidem actus eius et nativitas sit spiritalis; et ideo generatio iusta, in qua filius Dei consistit, ecclesia est; de qua dictum est: Christi autem generatio sic erat. Quatenus autem excitata sit haec generatio post apostolos, satis ut opinor, in quaestione generationum discussum est et ostensum.
8. “Cum esset disponsata mater eius Maria Ioseph, ante quam convenirent, inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu sancto. ”Hanc igitur conceptionem Mariae futuram sanctissimus Esaias propheta plenissime retulit dicendo: “ipse Dominus dabit signum: concipiet virgo in utero, et pariet filium, et vocabitur Emmanuhel.” Non immerito Lucas evangelista eundem partum describens futurum, angeli Gabrihelis interventum plenissime demonstravit dicens:
eodem tempore missus est Gabrihel angelus in civitatem Galilaeae, cui nomen erat Nazareth, ad virginem disponsatam viro, cui nomen erat Ioseph, de domo David, et nomen virginis Maria. Et ingressus ad eam angelus Domini, benedixit eam, et dixit illi: abe, gratia plena, Dominus tecum, benedicta tu inter mulieres. Ipsa autem ut vidit eum, obstupuit in introitu eius, et erat cogitans quod sic benedixit eam. Et ait illi angelus Domini: ne timeris, Maria; invenisti enim gratiam apud Deum: ecce concipies in utero, et paries filium, et vocabis nomen eius Iesum. Hic erit magnus, et filius Altissimi vocabitur. Et dabit illi dominus Deus sedem David patris eius, et regnabit in domo Iacob in aeternum, et regni eius non erit finis. Dixit autem Maria ad angelum: quomodo fiet istud, quoniam virum non cognovi? Et respondens angelus dixit illi: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi; ideoque quod nascetur sanctum, vocabitur filius Dei.
Cogitabat igitur Ioseph quid facere debeat, quoniam nullam adhuc propter hoc monitionem angeli acceperat, sicuti ait: “Ioseph autem vir eius cum esset iustus, et nollet eam traducere, voluit occulte dimittere eam.” Postea quam cogitata sua Ioseph efficere nititur, inhibetur ab angelo. Denique ait: “haec eo cogitante, angelus Domini in somnis apparuit ei dicens: Ioseph fili David, noli timere accipere Mariam coniugem tuam; quod enim ex ea nascetur, de Spiritu sancto est. Pariet autem filium, et vocabis nomen eius Iesum: ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum.” Iesus enim salvator interpretatur. Ergo quia erat Ioseph iustus, et sciens scriptum esse per prophetas, quia venturus esset salvator filius Dei ex virgine natus, non solum credidit angelo Dei dicenti, sed et iussa mox perfecit.
9. Introducens itaque sanctissimus Matthaeus virginis partum vel conceptum, prophetae Esaiae usus est testimonio. Dixerat enim Deum ipsum signum daturum. Et quasi interrogatus, quod signum? respondit: “ecce virgo in utero accipiet, et pariet filium, et cetera.” Hanc per Ioatham, postea quam septuaginta duo interpretes, Ptolemaeo iubente segregati, tamquam uno ore et sermone totam legem ex hebraeo in graecum interpretassent; sed quidam ex Iudaeis adulteratores et interpolatores scripturarum, non virginem sed iuvenculam fecerunt. Quod enim signum futurum diceretur, si iuvencula conciperet ex viro? Hoc, naturae consuetudo est. Sed signum Dominus repromittit, quia virgo parere haberet Emmanuhelem, quod est nobiscum Deus. De hoc Hieremias quoque sic ait: “hic Deus noster, et non reputabitur alius. In terra visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est”. Hic est igitur Emmanuhel, nobiscum Deus, quem virgo Maria edidit. De qua re quid cogitaret Ioseph, per angelum sine intermissione docetur, et perficit. Denique ait: “exurgens autem a somno, fecit sicut praecepit illi angelus Domini. Et accepit coniugem suam, et non cognovit eam, donec peperit filium, et vocavit nomen eius Iesum.”
10. Quod autem ait, non cognovit eam donec peperit, multis haec verba, sed carnalibus dumtaxat non spiritalibus, scrupulum incutiunt, quasi postea quam natus sit Iesus, cognoverit eam Ioseph, quia dixit, donec. Sed quicumque sanae mentis sunt et spiritales, sic sentire non debent, ut potuisset Ioseph vir iustus, qui et visiones angelorum videbat, et quid ageret angelo monente ediscebat, contingere Mariam, de qua didicerat filium Dei natum; cui etiam ut nomen Iesu imponeret, quod est salvator, ab angelo didicit. Quia fieri non poterat, ut homo iustus Ioseph, qui custos positus Mariae invenitur; qui signum quod per prophetas fuerat dictum, in populo futurum cernebat, ut hic Mariam libidinis causa temptaret. Angelos enim sanctis et pudicis viris semper apparuisse, manifestum est. Igitur nisi Ioseph in sanctimoniae itinere gressus firmos habuisset constitutos, numquam puto eum angelorum visiones videre potuisse, et quid agere deberet eorum insinuatione edidicisse. Quod utique si fuisset verum, numquam profecto diceret Iesus in passione constitutus ad matrem suam de Iohanne discipulo: “ecce filius tuus. Et ad ipsum Iohannem: ecce mater tua. Et recepit eam discipulus ille apud se ex illa die.”
11. Constat igitur sanctissimam Mariam post editum Iesum sic permansisse, et ei semper fuisse obsecutam, et postea cum apostolis orationi vacasse, sicuti actas continet apostolorum. “Hi omnes erant unanimes deservientes orationi, cum mulieribus, et Maria matre Iesu, et fratribus eius.” Videmus etiam hic exceptam personam matris, quae utique si mulier eo genere ut ceterae haberetur, fuisset inter easdem dinumerata. Sed quando dicit cum mulieribus et Maria matre Iesu, videmus Mariam praecellere mulieribus, sicuti apud Moysen et Aaron invenimus: praecedens autem Maria dicebat: cantemus Domino, et cetera. Ilia ratione praececedebat mulieres, quia virgo erat. Sed et hic Maria, ex partu mulier quidem, quantum autem ad virum expectat, virgo, non immerito inter mulieres non numeratur, sed excipitur, et dicitur: cum mulieribus, et Maria matre Iesu. Quantum autem ad Iudaeos attinet, non solum dicebant Iesum fratres et sorores habere, verum etiam Iesum fabri filium dicebant; ut etiam docenti se ingerere non destiterint temptantes illum “ecce fratres tui foris stant, quaerentes loqui tecum.” Et alibi cum virtutum ipsius miracula cernerent, quae sine dubio homo facere non posset, admirantes dicebant: “nonne hic est Iesus fabri filius, cuius fratres scimus et sorores?” Erant ergo stupentes in mirabilibus, non intellegentes dicta prophetarum, quia filius Dei veniens talia esset facturus.
12. Ut ergo plenius demonstremus de sanctissimae Mariae glorificatione, quae idcirco a Ioseph cognosci non potuit, donec peperit dominum gloriae et totius potentiae, habens in utero non cognoscebatur; sanctissimi Moysis cum Deo colloquentis glorificata est facies, ita ut non possent intendere in eum filii Israhel, sed velamen faciei suae ponens, ad eos loquebatur; quanto magis sanctissima Maria agnosci vel intueri non poterat, quae ut diximus dominum potentiae in utero habebat, id est Emmanuhelem? Sed plenius de hac ipsa re angelus dixit, cum ait ad Mariam: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi. Hanc igitur obumbrationem virtutis Altissimi, non obscuritatem sed infinitam claritatem debemus intellegere. Sicuti enim oculis nostris cum radiis solis attentius voluerimus intendere, hebetat visus, et nimiam ob claritatem fit obscuritas, ut videre omnino nequeamus; sic ergo sanctissima Maria claritate virtutis Altissimi obumbrata cognosci non poterat a Ioseph, donec pareret. Post partum ergo hactenus, ut diximus, a Ioseph cognita invenitur specie faciei, non tactu libidinis. Completa est quaestio generationis Iesu Christi domini nostri, cui cum Patre sanctoque Spiritu est gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

The tract quotes the Vetus Latina version of the bible, not Jerome's Vulgate, which is a strong indicator that it may date from the fifth century or earlier. Jerome's revision of the Vetus Latina was conservative, changing only occasional words, but none of his changes appear in the main scriptural passage quoted above.

Here is Luke 1:26-35 from Sabatier's version of the Vetus Latina, (based mainly on the Codex Colbertinus but with verse 29 from the Codex Corbeiensis II). The main differences from the Vulgate are marked in bold:
[26] Eodem autem tempore, missus est angelus Gabriel a Domino in civitatem Galilaeae, cui nomen Nazareth, [27] ad Virginem desponsatam viro, cui nomen erat Ioseph, de domo David, et nomen virginis, Maria. [28] Et ingressus Angelam ad eam dixiti: Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum, benedicta tu inter mulieres. [29 Corb.] Ipsa autem ut vidis eum, meta est in introitu eius, et erat cogitans quod sic benedixisset eam.  [30] Et ait angelus ei: ne timeas, Maria; invenisti enim gratiam apud Deum: [31] ecce concipies in utero, et paries filium, et vocabis nomen eius Iesum. [32] Hic erit magnus, et filius Altissimi vocabitur, et dabit illi Dominus Deus sedem David patris eius, et regnabit in domo Iacob in aeternum, [33] et regni eius non erit finis. [34 Mss.] Dixit autem Maria ad Angelum: quomodo fiet istud, quoniam virum non cognovi? [35] Et respondens Angelus dixit ei: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi. Ideoque et quod nascetur ex te Sanctum, vocabitur Filius Dei.
Mai says the text of the tract comes from a codex in the Vatican Library: Cod. Vat. 4222, f. 37 ff. He apparently thought the author really was Hilary of Poitiers. The second tract, on questions connected to the Gospel of John, can be consulted in the volume at Archive.org.

2012-11-13

Roda in Northern Spain

A visit to Roda de Isábena, Spain, where the Codex of Roda was kept for centuries, is not possible with the help of Google Street View because the road ends at the carpark: link. A tourist website, which notes that it is the smallest town in Spain to have a cathedral, offers this fine view from above:


The Cathedral of Saint Vincent in this tiny town in Aragon appears to be well worth a visit.

The scriptorium which produced the codex has never been finally established. The Spanish Wikipedia article notes that the locations suggested by the key scholars include Nájera, where a Francisan community has its own small website enabling a look at the public parts of Santa María La Real Monastery. This monastery was founded by the kings of Navarre. Other suggested origins include Leire, Pamplona and San Millán de la Cogolla.

2012-11-12

An Abbey on an Extinct Volcano

Google Street View enables a virtual visit to the Abbadia San Salvatore at Monte Amiata, Italy which was mentioned a few months ago in this blog as the source of three outstanding medieval codices.

The abbey was suppressed in 1782 in consequence of a scandal involving Filippo Pieri, the last abbot, his brother who was also a monk and their live-in girl friend, who had become pregnant. The account, quoted by Michael Gorman, includes an outraged duke denouncing the monks for their "airy, careless, protected, ignorant, liberal" ways and the public scandal they sowed.

A religious community was re-established in 1939, but as far as I can see on the internet, it is no longer there. A municipal website for the town, which took over the name from the religious community, provides no further useful information. Elsewhere, I find an imperfectly translated history of the site and photos including:


Monte Amiata is reckoned at 1,738 metres to be the second-highest volcano in Italy, but is now extinct and covered with forest. The abbey and its town are on the mountain flank, not the top (Roberto Ardigo photo):

2012-11-11

An Ideological Kernel

A new article on the Great Stemma was published last year in Spanish, as I see from a new web search. In it, Helena de Carlos Villamarín seeks the reason for the inclusion of the diagram in the Codex of Roda. She argues that the diagram is the "ideological kernel of the Codex" and "points to the typological meaning of the textual ensemble, showing one of its interpretative clues to be the opposition between the Old and New Testament."

Perhaps. She says she is discussing all this "sin entrar a profundizar en el posible origen de estos textos o en sus avatares de transmisión". I would think that ignoring the possible origin of the genealogical diagram and its transmission history might make her interpretative argument rather vulnerable.

There is nothing wrong with speculating about the theological intentions of the Codex compiler, and de Carlos certainly knows the Codex as well as anyone today (this is her third published scholarly article about it), but surely one needs to also discuss what customers of the 10th-century book trade wanted (this was an expensive book to make), what was available for inclusion and why an illustrative frieze like the diagram was esteemed.

If the Christians of 10th century northern Spain knew that the diagram was of patristic origin, were aware that it had once existed in roll form and where it had been displayed, or even regarded it as an authoritative source, they might have used the diagram as a core document of their belief. If it was little known or obscure, it might have been taken up merely because of its decorative value. The errors in the diagram as copied leave the question open: did it go uncorrected because it was too authoritative to alter, or because the editors had a cavalier attitude to it?

The article is: "El Códice de Roda (Madrid, BRAH 78) como compilación de voluntad historiográfica". Edad Media: revista de historia, ISSN 1138-9621, 12 (2011), pp 119-142. Accessible here from Dialnet (which is an academic digitization portal, not a mobile-phone provider). (De Carlos's and other recent articles on the Codex by various authors are listed on Regesta Imperii.)

While I would not have expected de Carlos to have discovered my own Great Stemma research, which did not began to arrive online in bulk until 2010, I think she ought to have cited Christiane Klapisch-Zuber's L'ombre des ancêtres (2000) rather than an exploratory article published in 1991 by that author after her 1985-1986 Villa I Tatti stay in Florence. Klapisch-Zuber does not include the 1991 article any longer in her selected publications.

Admittedly my Spanish is too basic to go beyond the broad lines of argument of de Carlos, who teaches philology at the University of Santiago and edits an annual journal, Troianalexandrina, I find her re-interpretation of the genesis of the Codex an interesting contribution to the debate about the Great Stemma. In essence, she argues that the Codex contains two elements in tension: worldly history and biblical history, with a monastic editor trying to align them in a kind of harmony.

What I would have liked to see included would be some analysis of the diagram's history in Spain, including the known sightings of it in 772 and 672. Whether the Great Stemma in its 10th-century form really had kept its purely biblical character could also be debated. The Eusebian chronology and its synchronisms had long been introduced into the diagram by this stage via the Ordo Annorum Mundi. The version of the Great Stemma in the Codex of Roda is the closest in Spain to the lost original, and second only to the Florence version of the diagram as a witness, but we should not lose sight of the fact that the work was already at least 550 years old when the parchment for the Codex of Roda was still lying blank on a scriptorium shelf.

2012-11-10

Wooden Horse

An equi lignei gaming machine (photo and original) found near the hippodrome in Constantinople (Istanbul) is one of the treasures of the Bode Museum in Berlin. It seems to be one of the class of devices outlawed in 534 by the emperor Justinian:
Prohibemus etiam, ne sint equi lignei: sed si quis ex hac occasione vincitur, hoc ipse recuperaret: domibus eorum publicatis, ubi haec reperiuntur. (Text link.) Translation: We also prohibit (the game with) wooden horses; if any one loses in it, he may recover the loss. The houses of those where these games are played shall be confiscated. (English translation by Fred Blume: link.)
Now plainly these wooden horses are not the sort used in the Greek capture of Troy, nor the sort that may have been vaulted over during Graeco-Roman gymnastic exercises. The museum has an online description of the item, which has exhibit number Ident.Nr. 1895, and a public image (bigger on the museum site):


This is a gaming machine. A commentary quoted on the museum page says the players placed four differently coloured marbles and let them run down through the holes. The marble which emerged first from the last hole produced a win for whoever had placed his bet on it. When this legal commentary was written is unclear.

The marble run or ball run in Berlin dates from about 500 and is a luxury stone-carved version of the machine. The marble is richly sculpted on the exterior with reliefs depicting the excitement of chariot racing: statues of horses, flute (aulos) players, men raising a banner, racetrack employees operating the draw for the teams and the start of a chariot race. The races appear to be conducted among teams of four horses, which was a passion among the people of Constantinople.

Jan Reichow refers to an account by the scholar Diether Roderich Reinsch and a museum guide by Arne Effenberger, quoted without page numbers or a proper bibliographic reference. The scholars appear to concur that the device was not a toy for a princeling but a capital investment for an entrepreneur in the equi lignei gambling trade, with the decoration on it conferring luxury and prestige, rather like the croupiers in casinos wearing tuxedos and bow ties to make the whole squalid experience seem as if it is high-class.

I made several marble runs from corrugated cardboard when I was about 10, and made another later as a father to amuse my sons. The frame was a cardboard carton and the tracks were strips of cardboard bent into V-cross-sections. With a box-cutter knife, I cut triangular holes in the carton to fit the tracks so that the marble could run through each track in succession. Children love marble runs, and this sort is easy to make and easy to recycle through the paper bank.

What makes a good marble run fun, until you have figured it out, is the unexpected way that the marble pops out on all sides of the block, rather like a mole showing up from a tunnel at an unexpected spot in my garden.

In my study of infographic history, the equi lignei device in Berlin firstly drew my attention because I wondered if its Late Antique users would have developed a scientific analysis of the path run through the device by the marble. An image on craft2eu.blog.de shows little holes at the side: it is not entirely clear if these are merely windows to show the players how far the marble has advanced or if these are exits for marbles that have been thrown out of the race:


Certainly some kind of mental projection of a path is a prerequisite for understanding a graph or a complex infographic like the Great Stemma.

The second aspect of interest is the illusionist potential of a marble run. Its operations are amusing because the marble can emerge, or at least be seen, where it is not expected. The marble seems to violate the rules of space by appearing magic-fashion in all sorts of unlikely places. It disrupts our sense of normal space. Some of the organization of the Great Stemma also breaks the rules of vision and is therefore slightly illusionist.

The marble run in Berlin at least confirms that the Late Antique world had a degree of experience with technical inventions that bent the rules of perception and vision when dealing with paths. This connects to the interesting technical guides by Hero of Alexandria including the one on ways to fake miracles in temples. These books were the subject of a post last year by Roger Pearse and there are links to the editions on the Wilbour Hall site.

2012-11-07

The Tamar Storyboard

I've been studying a curious little flow-chart embedded in the Great Stemma of the Morgan Beatus that describes  Tamar's lucky-on-the-third-shot pregnancy in Genesis 38.

A revisor has added to this diagram a visualization of his own creation for one of the strangest sexual scandals in the Bible story, Tamar's seduction of Judah while pretending to be a veiled prostitute.

Tamar had been married to Judah's eldest son, Er. After she was widowed, Judah's second son Onan had sex with her but employed a crude form of contraception. Tamar then used a ruse to seduce her lecherous father in law and became pregnant. Her twin sons are either the sons or the grandsons of Judah, depending on your interpretation of this soap-opera plot.

Whether Shua, the wife of Judah, accepted this unusual family constellation is not recorded in Genesis, but the revisor devised the following compact visual summary of the story which retains for Shuah the place of honour in the emotionally tangled Judah household. It appears in flow-chart fashion in the Morgan Beatus like this: 

Leah
I have left out the text and instead used letters to mark the characters. Here, J is Judah, J1 and J2 are his first and second sons Er and Onan, and T is Tamar. Her twin children are marked JG, since the text marks them as sons of Judah and ambo gemini. Having the two twins arrayed in symmetry either side of their mother is a neat trick.

Perhaps it was Maius himself, the scribe-scholar who was in charge of making M 644 at the Morgan Library in New York, who devised this little flow chart. The roundel intervening between J and J1 is Shua, Judah's wife.

This addition, thus arranged, is only found in one other manuscript of the diagram, that made 100 years later by Facundus for King Fernando and Queen Sancha of León.

The whole group in the above sketch is composed of the six sons and daughter Dinah (D) of Leah (L). Links to online views of the manuscripts can be found on my manuscripts page.