PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I am finding many interesting things in reading THE "SIC ET NON" 1 OF STEPHANUS GOBARUS by Adolf Von Harnack (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ha...n_gobar.htm#19)

The first interesting thing is the identification of Stephanus Gobarus.
Harnack places him with good reason in the late sixth century. He writes:

The teacher upon whom Gobarus is most dependent, Philoponus, was not mentioned by name in the work. That may be definitely affirmed; for if Photius had found this man in Gobarus among the "fathers," he would, with his deep repugnance to "Mataioponus " (see Photius, Bibl. LV, LXXV, XXI, XXIII), have animadverted upon this. Nor may it be asserted that Gobarus failed to mention Philoponus because the latter passed with Chalcedonian orthodoxy as a heretic, for not until much later, at the sixth Council, was he condemned as such. We can only infer that Philoponus was not mentioned by Gobarus because he was still alive.33 Since Philoponus attacked the patriarch of Constantinople, Johannes Scholasticus (565-577), he was certainly still living about the year 570. Hence our work is to be assigned to the period ca. 540 to ca. 570 (or even later)

Harnack identifies the author as an Aristotelian:

Gobarus was an Aristotelian; for (a) the proof that in spite of the doctrine just sketched the resurrection of the body can nevertheless be held could only be successfully advanced by the means of Aristotelian philosophy; (b) the chapters I, 21 and 37 (likewise I, 1 and 15) reveal this philosophy clearly, and the whole work (including its tritheism) dwells in the cool scientific atmosphere of Aristotle

Harnack takes Photius' description of him as "tritheist" as accurate, but he keenly notices a problem:

It is striking that no reference to tritheism is made in the work (unless perhaps in I, 1 ?), while nevertheless the sole theological characterization which Photius makes of Gobarus is "tritheist." Now it will appear in the sequel that the chief intent of the work was to overthrow church tradition as such. In a Monophysite who revered Severus and claimed to be a conservative this purpose can have been evoked only by some strongly felt dogmatic aim (or by some burning ecclesiastical question of the day). No aim of that kind is to be gathered from the work itself; hence the probability that Gobarus's purpose was the defence of tritheism by overthrowing tradition in general, and that for this reason he said nothing of tritheism itself. In that case the work probably belongs to the time of Justin II (565-578).36 This dating combines excellently with the one given above, and we thus gain for our work the date 565 -ca. 570, or, in case Philoponus attained a very advanced age and Gobarus took part in the earliest stages of the tritheistic controversy, 553-ca. 580. The date ca. 600, given in many books, lacks, so far as I know, all foundation. Of the dogma of energies and wills, which came to the front as early as about 600, no trace is found in the work. It remains surprising that our book is not mentioned in the work of John of Ephesus; but it has already been remarked that we are but imperfectly acquainted with John's work and that the work of Gobarus was probably not "edited."

The real problem here is that our Stephanus does not support Tritheism and he does attack the whole church tradition and not just a part of it. This suggests to me that the writer is outside the Church tradition.

Harnack points out a possible location for our author: 'Walch (l. c, p. 883) feels justified in reckoning him among Egyptian teachers, "since he seems best acquainted with the Alexandrian controversies and church fathers." The observation is correct, but whether it suffices to determine the locality will have to be investigated.'

Harnack, although hesitant to locate the author definitively, also notes in a footnote that the writer may be associated with Alexandria:

37. Where Gobarus is to be looked for, remains problematical. Statistically a preponderance of references in the citations relate to Alexandria in Egypt; but since almost all these cases relate to great ecclesiastical persons and actions (Origen, Dionysius, Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyril), and since we do not know whether Gobarus's citations are at first or second hand, the result is after all a non liquet. Nevertheless the interest in Isidore of Pelusium inclines the balance in favor of Egypt, and the close relationship to Philoponus supports this conjecture. On the other hand, the surname Gobarus points to Syria, as has been said above. The question is of slight importance, for the reason that in the second half of the sixth century the Syrian and the Alexandrian Monophysites maintained an intimate intercourse with one another, and there were always many Syrians in Alexandria.

If we are look for someone outside the Church tradition who would attack it and is a Aristotelian from this time period, and associated with Alexandria, only one man jumps to mind: Stephanus of Alexandria the Philosopher.


Kenneth Parry tells us in Depicting the Word: Byzantine Iconophile Thought of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries,Brill Academic Publishers November 1996, pg. 53:
Sometime after 610, Stephen of Alexandria, was invited to Constantinople by the Emperor Heraclius to teach Plato and Aristotle at the newly opened imperial academy.

The only thing that works against this interpretation of the identity is the term "Tritheist" that Photius uses to describe the man. It is possible that Photius is basing this primarily on Stephanus' use of text by Severus of Antioch, as the work itself, as Harnack notes, does not support Tritheism.

What virtually clinches the identification in my mind is this passage from Harnack:

It is evident from the whole nature and learned attitude of the book that Gobarus was what was called both in the sixth century and at other times a 'grammaticus.' It is possible indeed that the surname 'Gobarus' may be explained by this fact; perhaps it meant 'doctor irrefragabilis.'

The nickname "Doctor irrefragabilis" or "Doctor Irrefutable" would only be given to a Philosopher of high repute.

We should further point out that the style of the writer is philosophical rather than theological, turning the Christian Church Tradition against itself to destroy the Christian Church Tradition.

We thus may propose that the hitherto unknown identity of Stephanus Gobarus is most likely to have been the early Seventh century Philosopher Stephanus of Alexandria.

Although Harnack misses the identification itself, we should appreciate Harnack for getting us within a hair's breath of it. He recognizes himself that we are not dealing with an ordinary theologian but an extraordinary, philosophically trained mind:

The work of Gobarus is unique in the whole literature of the Greek church. When one considers what tradition signifies in the Greek church, and that the whole dogma is built up on traditional proof, the boldness of Gobarus is amazing. From the time of the heretic Marcion no one in the church had undertaken any such thing. It was precisely in the tritheistic controversy that the chief rôle was played by proof from the testimonies of the fathers 45 ---- and just at that moment Gobarus wrote his "Sic et Non," and uncovered the contradictions to be found in the works of the most celebrated church fathers.

How did he come to do it? Where did he get the courage and the capacity for such an undertaking? It is to be remembered that since the end of the fifth century Aristotelianism had regained ascendancy in learned study. Gobarus believed in the controlling significance of ratio and dialectic, looked with scorn upon the traditionalists, and believed himself able to dispense with their weapons. This is where Gobarus belongs; but he alone among the teachers of the church was consistent. The others clung to the principle, "ratio et autoritas", but Gobarus took his stand on ratio alone, and annihilated tradition.

We must also consider that Photius is reading and summarizing only works by famous and important people. It is unlikely that he would waste his time reading and describing in detail some unknown scholar's obscure work.

So when we add up all these attributes:

Philosopher,
Aristotelian,
From Alexandria,
Independent somewhat from the Church,
Associated with Philoponus,
Late 6th or early 7th Century,
Famous,

we seem to have a prime candidate for the author in Stephanus, the Philosopher.

I do not know if anybody else has proposed that Stephanus Gobarus is Stephanus the Philosopher. Other opinions on the matter would be welcome.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

edited by PhilosopherJay : July 9, 2007 at 09:44 AM. Reason: minor gramatical errors, added summary of attributes

Roger Pearse

It is an interesting article, isn't it? It makes me wonder what else is to be found in Byzantine writers, mostly inaccessible to us as they are.

I'm afraid I don't know anything about this Stephen of Alexandria. The reasons that you offer for identification with Stephen Gobar don't seem very powerful to me.

What about Stephen Bar Sudaili?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

S.C.Carlson

It should be Harnack not Harnock.

Roger Pearse

Von Harnack, surely?

(For those who don't know, plain Adolf Harnack was bumped up to Adolf von Harnack by Kaiser Bill).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

S.C.Carlson

Yes, and the ultra-pedant will be careful to be chronologically correct when using "von Harnack" or just plain old "Harnack."

Stephen

PhilosopherJay

Hi S.C.

This is a good example of subconscious transposition. I read something about the "o" in gobarus being strange and that it could possibly be an "a" instead of the "o". I spent some time searching for the word gabar in ancient Greek. I concluded thinking that the "a" was probably an "o" after all. When I wrote Harnack's name, and I wasn't sure of the spelling, the conclusion ("o" not "a") that I had reached in the case of Gobarus came to mind and I wrote Harnock instead of Harnack.

Additionally, you should know, as a bit of irony, that I often spend several hours a day correcting the grammar and typos in my students' papers, but that leaves me very little time to correct my own writings.

Is there a quick way to correct the post?

Thanks.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Toto

I have corrected the title - I will edit the post for you.

Toto

On Gabar - this is intriguing, but probably a coincidence?

Gabar

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Thanks for editing the post.

Interesting note on Gabar. Yes, I agree that without further evidence, we have to assume a coincidence.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi Roger,

Thanks for the comments. We are all in your debt for making this great article available on your wonderful website.

Regarding Stephen Bar Sudali, according to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Stephen_Bar
Philoxenuis (died 523) and Jacob of Serugh (451-521) wrote letters against him. This would mean that he was writing and making waves around 515-520.

Harnack notes:

2. Gobarus regarded Origenism (II, 13) as an actual heresy. This renders it probable that he wrote after the fifth Council, and presumably brings the terminus a quo for our work to the years 553-ca. 570 (ca. 580?).

According to an anonymous Catholic blog:
(http://blog-by-the-sea.typepad.com/b...pseudodio.html

Between 509 and 512, Stephen bar Sudaili was forced to flee his Syrian city of Edessa when he was reproached for his Origenist thinking, which opposed the Monophysites. Bar Sudaili then settled in a monastery near Jerusalem, an area that then remained more tolerant toward clandestine Origenists.

This information strongly contradicts Harnack's description of Gobarus. He calls Gobarus an anti-Origenist, while Stephen bar Sudaili apparently was associated with Origenism. He sets a terminus a quo at 553-570, while bar Sudaii is apparently flourishing 40 years earlier. Of course bar Sudaili might have lived to an extraordinary old age for his time period and changed his mind about Origen, but we have no evidence for this.

Most importantly, bar Sudaili was a mystic and Harnack praises Gobarus for his logic and rational thinking, he writes, "Gobarus believed in the controlling significance of ratio and dialectic."

Harnack's description of Gobarus simply does not fit bar Sudaili.

On the other hand, Stephanus of Alexandria falls on the correct side of Harnack's time period (553-570 or after) and is known for his logical and rational writings. From (http://www.ivh.au.dk/kollokvier/mari..._11_97.dk.html)
Stephanus of Alexandria is known as a commentator on Plato and Aristotle to whom astronomical, astrological, alchemical, and medical works are also attributed. According to tradition he had been invited from Alexandria to Constanstinople by the emperor Heraklius (610-641) to teach at the University, with the particular assignment of commenting on Plato and Aristotle and teaching the Quadrivium.


In A Historical Outline of Byzantine Philosophy and Its Basic Subjects
By Katelis Viglas of the University of Thessaloni
(http://tinyurl.com/2evquj) writes that "Stephanus of Alexandria, who was a student of Philoponus.
Harnack says, "The teacher upon whom Gobarus is most dependent, Philoponus...

So we have Viglas saying that Stephanus of Alexandria was a student of Philoponus and Harnack, totally independently of her, basing himself on Photius' codex, declares that the writer Stephanus Gobarus depends on the teacher Philoponus.

As far as I could discover, only Stephanus of Alexandria has been described as a student of Philoponus. It is hard to imagine that Philoponus had many other students named Stephanus.

Another point to consider is the amount of space that Photius devotes to the Stephanus text. Of his over 250 summaries, it is one of the longest. This shows that he considered the text and the writer important. Stephanus of Alexandria, as a writer of text on Plato, Aristotle, Alchemy, medicine, and astronomy, and a man invited to hold a teaching chair at Constantinople from Alexandria would certainly be considered important enough to devote the considerable time and energy that Photius devotes to his work. Not many other people between 555 and Photiius time (850) named Stephanus match this qualification. (None as far as I could find). And none as far as I know were Aristotelian students of Philoponus.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay