stephan huller

Utterly fascinated and very grateful you have the time to do this Andrew. Always treasure your observations. Just a quick point, this type of expansion thing has happened many times before - the writings of Origen for example, the difference between Epiphanius's copies of Irenaeus (which seem to attribute chapter 21 of Book One to someone other than the Marcosians etc, Tertullian's adaptation of an original Greek treatise into both Against the Jews and Against Marcion Book Three). There are many other examples. But ignore my redundancy here because I am far more interested in what you have to say.

andrewcriddle

Panayiotis Tzamalikos presents a detailed cumulative case for the priority of Greek Cassian. I may be underestimating its strength but IMO too much of it is about Greek Cassian being clearer, better and more concise than Latin Cassian. I'm dubious how far this is an argument that Greek Cassian is first and Latin Cassian second. It does indicate the skill and thoughtfulness of the composer of Greek Cassian whether he was an original writer or a translator, but this is a different issue.

There are also some indications the other way. The Conferences takes the form of discussions with wise Egyptian monks over Christian issues. In the much longer Latin version this is clearly set in the years leading up to 400 CE. In the Greek version there are less indications of supposed time, but in both the Latin and Greek versions there is a passage where the elderly monk Moses tells Cassian how as a young man he heard a discussion between the famous Anthony (Anthony the Great died 356)) and other senior monks. IF these Conferences are loosely based on real discussions between Cassian and Egyptian monks then these discussions must have occurred before say 410 CE which is too early for Cassian to later write them up c 500 CE. IF the Conferences are entirely a literary fiction then this argument fails. There is also an argument that the whole picture of monasticism in both Greek and Latin Cassian more fits the 5th century than the more formalized situation in the 6th. Panayiotis Tzamalikos would argue that on the contrary the discovery of Greek Cassian should make us rethink our picture of the development of monasticism.

More to Come

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

But there are clear points in his favor:

1) we know nothing about the origins of 'John Cassian.'
2) he ends up dying in Marseille (which seems odd because the only reason Sophrinius, Maximus and the other Sabaites from the later period end up in Europe is because of the Muslim conquest)
3) while he is a saint his feast day is on the one day of the year which doesn't actually 'exist' each year - Feb 29. No explanation would be needed to explain it not appearing in the normal calendar
4) it is generally assumed that our Latin text is the original. In other words, it isn't as if we believe he wrote in Greek and it was translated into Latin. As such the shorter Greek text is a powerful argument for originality.
5) there are other examples of monks with wholly invented pasts in our tradition. While Maximus the Confessor is said to have been born in Constantinople, his Maronite opponents right point to him being a native Palestinian.

This is all I could come up with in five minutes but I think in general when you have a short Greek text and a long Latin text and a tradition which ultimately derives from Mar Saba, the more likely option is the Greek original.

Still fascinating to read your summary. Ignore me.

andrewcriddle

Clement of Alexandria introduced the idea that Apatheia (passionlessness an important Stoic concept) is a Christian goal. Apatheia is important in the tradition that Cassian represents (Evagrian Origenism) and means being so committed to God as to leave no room for competing passions. (In Clement Apatheia may have a different emphasis.)

However Latin Cassian does not use the Latin word apathia (borrowed from the Greek apatheia) instead he uses paraphrases such as purity of heart. (apathia was developing misleading undertones, it is ultimately the source of our word apathy, and some ancient Christian latin writers objected to the idea that Christians should be emotionally dead.)

Looking through the text of Greek Cassian last night it seems (the index is too inadequate for me to be sure) that Greek Cassian does not use the word apatheia either but instead has Greek phrases meaning purity of heart etc.

Although it is possible that Greek Cassian objected to the undertones of apatheia, it is IMO more plausible that Latin Cassian chose a paraphrase instead of a potentially misleading Greek loan word and that Greek Cassian translated the paraphrase literally back into Greek.

More to Come

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Gennadius wrote c 490 CE a continuation of Jerome's list of Christian writers. Our existing manuscripts have an account of Cassian.
Panayiotis Tzamalikos regards this as a later interpolation. Such interpolations in Gennadius certainly happened and it is quite possible that the passage about Cassian is one of them. (The earliest manuscripts are after 600 and the developed version of the Latin Cassian story was certainly around before 600 CE.) The account of Cassian in Gennadius has odd maybe legendary features (e.g. Cassian came from Scythia) which may support an interpolation, but most scholars IIUC think that we have enough early manuscripts of Gennadius to make interpolations without textual evidence unlikely.

(If the account by Gennadius is authentic but muddled it would still establish an early 5th century Latin Cassian and his authorship of the Institutes and the Conferences although it might call into question whether Cassian really founded monasteries in Marseilles.)

'Gennadius' attributes to Cassian not only the Institutes and the Conferences but also an attack on the views of Nestorius. Panayiotis Tzamalikos very tentatively suggests that a genuine Latin Cassian wrote the attack on Nestorius in the first half of the 5th century and that this Cassian has been conflated with the later Greek Cassian. IF the account of Cassian in Gennadius is a later interpolation, then a different authorship for the anti-Nestorius work than for the other works seems very plausible. (I agree with Panayiotis Tzamalikos that the prefaces linking together the various works attributed to Latin Cassian are decidedly dubious.)

The most difficult problem for the views of Panayiotis Tzamalikos may be the evidence that Prosper writing c 535 knows Conference 13 attributed to Latin Cassian even though Prosper never mentions Cassian by name. I will try and cover this issue next.

More to Come

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

http://books.google.com/books?id=zJq...assian&f=false

You wrote 535 CE. As I understand it this Epistula ad Rufinum was a letter written by Prosper Tiro of Aquitaine to a certain Rufinus, who has never been identified nor has the exact year of the epistle been determined. Does Conferences 13 appear in the Greek?

stephan huller

What do you think of this Andrew?

Owen Chadwick, John Cassian, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Eng., 1968); idem, "Cassian," in Theologische Realenzyklopiidie, 26, 596-600. Is it possible that Collatio 13 was a development of something originally written by Pelagius (not being suggested here by Chadwick but a possibility?)?

stephan huller

Here is the standard explanation of

I am wondering whether - given the fact that Proper's work is directed against Pelagius rather than Cassian (who is never named) whether this portion of the Conferences has been incorporated from a Pelagian work into the Latin of Cassian.

stephan huller

I was just reading . Apparently other people (Owen Chadwick) have argued for this reference to be a later interpolation in Prosper. http://books.google.com/books?id=TRl...assian&f=false

stephan huller

Good argument from Tzamalikos:

Had 'John Cassian' actually written all the works allegedly cited by Gennadius of Marseilles, he should have been a renowned author. Still, Photius refers to 'a certain Cassian', of whom he actually knows nothing beyond the treatises he had in front of him. (p 129)