stephan huller

It's a only preview but Panayiotis Tzamalikos's "discovery of a new Greek Father, namely, Cassian the Sabaite, who, by means of Medieval forgery, has been heretofore eclipsed by a figment known as ‘John Cassian of Marseilles" is available for people who are interested:

http://books.google.com/books?id=TRl...imetoi&f=false

stephan huller

Apparently there are verbatim citations of Clement of Alexandria from this resident of Mar Saba. According to the author the new Church Father is "Cassian the Sabaite of Scythopolis (c. 475 - 548)." The Mar Saba monastery was founded apparently in 483 CE and St Saba himself died in 532. Cassian then (and his habits) are reflective of St Saba himself according to the author.

stephan huller

$226 dollars for the book at Amazon. The Real Cassian Revisited: Monastic Life, Greek Paideia, and Origenism in the Sixth Century (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae) [Hardcover] (or via: amazon.co.uk). That's like an hour long massage.

Toto

Brill page

Stephan's blog

stephan huller

start calling me "stephen" i will call you "tito"

Toto

sorry :blush:

stephan huller

joke

stephan huller

I think its interesting how unreliable our information is about a (relatively) recent church father

sotto voce

Like all the others. The popular silence that surrounds them is uncanny; unlike the silence that surrounds the NT, which is precisely as expected. Not one of them shows validation by an apostle, despite the firm claim that this is so; they are bastards, not fathers. Doubly bastards, because not one of them can write for very long before stating obvious heresy, clear contradiction of NT precept. Fathers they are of absurdities, of self-contradictions, of corrupt practice, inquisitions, forced baptisms, of censorship, of celebrated massacre and now organised child abuse, with precious little care or contrition shown. With wretched, pitiful fathers like that, who needs life on earth?

Indeed, 'Hearsay and heresy' is their truthful watchword. The only aspects of info of 'ECFs' is that are reliable are that 'Early' is some sort of joke; that 'Church Fathers' is contradiction in terms; unless another joke. Whatever accepts this Romanist/Eastern Orthodox label is not scholarship. Admittedly, 'Poltroon Platoon' would have alliterative advantage and rhyme, and would be not a whit less prejudiced than 'ECFs'. We have recently had the uncontroverted offering of 'arse-lickers', which, capitalised, could possibly be the most aptly descriptive; but would not meet with universal approbation. Nevertheless, another, more sober collective nounal phrase is appropriate to scholarship, and necessary if a reputation for impartiality is valued, and suspicions of Jesuitical guile allayed. To actively and exclusively promote these men as having a valid, determining role in Christianity may be counter-productive, confirming the view that the correct representation of Christian teaching is actually found in the NT. Finding an agreed neutral label might be a little challenging, but not beyond the powers of present academia, surely, and anyway necessary for self-respect.

andrewcriddle

I've been reading Panayiotis Tzamalikos's books (courtesy of the Cambridge University Library) and I'll try and make some comments.

NB I'm not really convinced by the books and this may possibly damage my objectivity.

I'll do this over several days as I clarify my impressions.

First what has Panayiotis Tzamalikos discovered ?

He has (re)discovered a Greek text attributed to Cassian the Roman which corresponds to part of the Institutes and part of the Conferences well known in Latin and attributed to Cassian of Marseilles and regarded as written c 530 CE.

The texts are so close that one must be a source of the other. Panayiotis Tzamalikos has IMO clearly established on linguistic grounds that the composition of the Greek text is probably c 500 CE certainly well after 450 CE. (As a result of an elaborate argument identifying the author of the Greek text with the author(s) of other texts of uncertain authorship he dates the text more precisely around 520 CE.) Panayiotis Tzamalikos presents strong arguments that this Greek text originally had exactly these contents ie the manuscript he has edited is not a summary of an originally longer Greek text.

The really controversial bit is the claim that Greek Cassian is original and Latin Cassian a later translation and expansion. This claim is based largely on internal evidence and involves the startling consequence that the generally accepted evidence of people knowing about Cassian's Institutes and/or Conferences well before 500 CE is either a result of later forgery or of misunderstanding.

More to Come

Andrew Criddle