FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-08-2011, 01:53 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default Galen on textual corruptions in the mss of Hippocrates

In the second century AD the medical writer Galen got hold of whatever he could by Hippocrates, and wrote commentaries on it. His preface to "On the duties of a doctor" is very interesting because of what it says about the text at that date. Among other things he talks about 300 year old papyri.

I happened to stumble across this, and had it translated. I've made it public domain -- do whatever you like with it.

You can get the full version from my blog post here (which has links to various pages and .doc files).

Here's the text:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
He entitled a medical [work], “Pertaining to the Surgery” (κατ’ ἰητρεῖον).[1] But it would have been better for it to be entitled, “On the Things Pertaining to the Surgery” (περὶ τῶν κατ’ ἰητρεῖον), as some give the title for the [works] of Diocles, Philotimus, and Mantius. For while these men wrote on the same subject, in each book, in the greatest number [of copies] the title lacks the preposition (περί) and the article (τῶν)—they are entitled, simply, “Pertaining to the Surgery”—in a few [copies], however, [it is given] with the preposition and the article: “On the Things Pertaining to the Surgery.” But whereas these men’s books give quite copious theoretical instruction, Hippocrates’ [book], after the catalogue of the things that are the components of surgery overall, gives a full explanation of bandaging, since the man considered it proper to practice this first. And indeed, the practice of this can be pursued most especially with pieces of wood sculpted into human form, or if [this is] not [possible], on the bodies of children at least.

This much the book itself required me to say, before my interpretations of individual points; now, however, I will go through what is not required by the book, but by those who, in copying [2] them, readily received the writings of the ancients in whatever [form] they themselves wished.[3] For some eagerly attempted to find 300-year-old copies of even very old books,[4] preserving some in papyrus scrolls, others on sheets of papyrus, others on parchment, like the [texts] that are with us in Pergamum.[5]

Therefore, I decided to examine all these things in the [commentaries of the] earliest interpreters, so that on the basis of the majority and the most trustworthy I might discover the authentic writings. And the result turned out to surpass my expectations. For I discovered that they nearly all agreed with each other—the treatises and the commentaries of the interpreters—such that I was struck with bewilderment at the audacity of those who have recently written commentaries or have made their own edition of all the books of Hippocrates, among whom are Dioscorides and his associates, and Artemidorus, called Capito, and his associates,[6] who made many innovations in the ancient writings.

It seemed to me that the account of the commentaries would be [too] long, if I mentioned all the writings, and so I imagined that it was better to write [about] the older ones only, adding to them some few others—those that show but little alteration—and of these, primarily those which have been acknowledged by the earlier commentators on the book. There are four of them: two, who wrote commentaries on all the books of Hippocrates—Zeuxis and Heraclides; and then Bacchius and Asclepiades, [whose comments], not on all [the books of Hippocrates, are] hard to understand.[7]

And now, enough of these matters. By way of recovering the pleasure of a clearer exordium, I will speak briefly, as though I had not said anything already. Hippocrates’ book, entitled “Pertaining to the Surgery,” contains at the outset a preamble to the whole art [of medicine], as I shall demonstrate a little later, and for this reason some have reasonably considered it proper to read it first of all, promising lessons very similar to what some later gave in the works they entitled “Introductions.” And next in sequence after the common preamble, he teaches (regarding what can be effected in the surgery) the most useful things for those who are beginning to learn the medical art. It will become plain to you that [all] this is the case as you apply your mind carefully to the explanations of the expressions themselves.
and the translator's notes:

Quote:
From: Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia, tom. XVIII pars II, ed. D. Carolus Gottlob Kühn, Lipsiae (1830), p. 629-632. Title: ΤΟ ΙΠΠΟΚΡΑΤΟΥΣ ΚΑΤ̕ΙΗΤΡΕΙΟΝ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΓΑΛΗΝΟΥ ΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΟ ΥΠΟΜΝΗΜΑ Α. The title of the Latin translation is: Hippocratis De Medici Officina liber et Galeni in eum Commentarius I; Galeni praefatio. [Note by R.P.]
[1] “Surgery” here appears to refer to the physical set-up for a doctor’s operations, not the practice of surgery to which the English term most frequently refers.
[2] The Greek term, μεταγράφοντες, carries the implication that they changed them in the process of copying.
[3] Here Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, p. 503, suggests emending the odd ἢ (“or” [?]) to οἳ, yielding the following meaning for the sentence: “…but by the copyists, who readily took…”
[4] In the Greek, it is the copying rather than the composition that is explicitly described as “300-years old,” since the participle γεγραμμένα—lit., “having been written”—is in the accusative case, whereas the books are in the genitive.
[5] Kuhn’s text (τὰδὲἐνδιαφόροιςφιλύραις , ὥσπερτὰπαρ’ ἡμῖνἐνΠεργάμῳ: “others on various / excellent [sheets of paper made from] the under-bark of the lime tree, like the texts that are with us in Pergamum”) is problematic. Although this under-bark is attested as being used for writing (Herodian 1.17.1; Cassius Dio 72.8.4), it has no connection with Pergamum. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, p. 503, cites Cobet’s emendation (ἐνδιφθέραις) with approval—I have adopted it here; Birt also mentions Marquardt’s suggestion (ἐνδιφθερίναιςφιλύραις: “on [sheets of] parchment ‘bark’”).
[6] The phrasing here—”Dioscorides and his associates” (Gk. οἱ περὶ Διοσκορίδην)—is frequently used in Greek as a circumlocution for the simple “Dioscorides.”
[7] Gk. δυσλόγιστα; this can mean, literally, “hard to calculate” or “bad at calculating” and hence, either obscurity or shoddy commentating is the point.
All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 02-09-2011, 05:48 AM   #2
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default

Thank you Roger.

Well done. This is a most important, and interesting topic, at least to me.
I was impressed by Galen's approach, inspecting the documents, carefully, with particular regard for grammar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
For I discovered that they nearly all agreed with each other...
Perhaps this is due to the secular nature of medical practice?

A parallel is not found, in my opinion, upon scrutiny of the oldest texts of the four gospels. They each have significant differences among them, however, there are also noteworthy distinctions among various examples of the same gospel. Here is Mark 7:24 from a thread last year....

Byzantine Majority
kai ekeiqen anastaV aphlqen eiV ta meqoria turou kai sidwnos kai eiselqwn eiV oikian oudena hqelen gnwnai kai ouk hdunhqh laqein


Alexandrian
ekeiqen de anastaV aphlqen eiV ta oria turou kai eiselqwn eiV oikian oudena hqelen gnwnai kai ouk hdunhqh laqein


Hort and Westcott
ekeiqen de anastaV aphlqen eiV ta oria turou kai sidwnoV kai eiselqwn eiV oikian oudena hqelen gnwnai kai ouk hdunasqh laqein

Codex Sinaiticus
εκειθεν δε αναϲταϲ απηλθεν ειϲ τα ορια τυρου και ϲιδωνοϲ και ειϲελθω
ειϲ οικιαν ουδενα ηθεληϲεν γνωναι και ουκ ηδυναϲθη λαλειν


Latin Vulgate
7:24 et inde surgens abiit in fines Tyri et Sidonis et ingressus domum neminem voluit scire et non potuit latere


King James Version
7:24 And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know [it]: but he could not be hid.


Did the Alexandrian version omit mention of his travel to Sidon? Which version corresponds to the "original" Mark?

avi
avi is offline  
Old 02-09-2011, 07:50 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default

Hi Roger,

This is wonderful. Thanks.

I assume Galen is writing about 170 C.E. and he is writing about the works of Hippocrates around 400 CE.

Apparently some of his contemporaries are using manuscripts that were 300 years old from circa 100 BCE. Galen went back and checked these against the earliest commentators. Apparently, he found that the earliest commentators agree on the text of the original work, but that the text of his contemporaries, although they were using 300 year old manuscripts, was quite different.

This means that the 300 year period between 400 and 100 B.C.E., the manuscripts changed so much that Galen could say:

Quote:
I was struck with bewilderment at the audacity of those who have recently written commentaries or have made their own edition of all the books of Hippocrates, among whom are Dioscorides and his associates, and Artemidorus, called Capito, and his associates,[6] who made many innovations in the ancient writings.
This demonstrates once again the basic instability of text in ancient times due to the haphazard nature of the copying process.

This, it seems to me, also explains why the quotes in the New Testament from the Hebrew Scriptures are always different from the received texts of the Hebrew Scriptures. There was simply no standardized text of Hebrew Scriptures and no methodology for ensuring faithful copying.

Sincerely,

Jay Raskin


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
In the second century AD the medical writer Galen got hold of whatever he could by Hippocrates, and wrote commentaries on it. His preface to "On the duties of a doctor" is very interesting because of what it says about the text at that date. Among other things he talks about 300 year old papyri.

I happened to stumble across this, and had it translated. I've made it public domain -- do whatever you like with it.

You can get the full version from my blog post here (which has links to various pages and .doc files).

Here's the text:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
{snip}

This much the book itself required me to say, before my interpretations of individual points; now, however, I will go through what is not required by the book, but by those who, in copying [2] them, readily received the writings of the ancients in whatever [form] they themselves wished.[3] For some eagerly attempted to find 300-year-old copies of even very old books,[4] preserving some in papyrus scrolls, others on sheets of papyrus, others on parchment, like the [texts] that are with us in Pergamum.[5]

Therefore, I decided to examine all these things in the [commentaries of the] earliest interpreters, so that on the basis of the majority and the most trustworthy I might discover the authentic writings. And the result turned out to surpass my expectations. For I discovered that they nearly all agreed with each other—the treatises and the commentaries of the interpreters—such that I was struck with bewilderment at the audacity of those who have recently written commentaries or have made their own edition of all the books of Hippocrates, among whom are Dioscorides and his associates, and Artemidorus, called Capito, and his associates,[6] who made many innovations in the ancient writings.
{snip}
Roger Pearse
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 02-09-2011, 09:52 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Hi Jay

I am not so sure that what you suggest is the rule. The Marcionites clearly had standardized texts. Whenever our sources mention textual variation in the second and third centuries it is deliberate (corruption).
stephan huller is offline  
Old 02-09-2011, 01:56 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Just a warning: we need to remember that technical and legal handbooks tended to change in a way that literary texts did not.

There is a special reason -- you don't read Hippocrates for his style; you read it for recipes to cure people so you can earn a living as a physician. If you find he is wrong, or that you have something to add, why not add it? And your students will value your changes, and transmit them.

Editing astrological texts is quite a challenge, for just this reason.

But it would be a curious conclusion to draw from Galen's remarks, that he didn't believe he could access the text of Hippocrates. On the contrary, he believes he can.
Roger Pearse is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:41 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.