mountainman

Hi There Jay!

It is simply amazing how many Authors of Antiquity
are becoming available to the students of ancient history.

Photius. Also thanks to Roger I am reading an extended
history of Philostorgius, summarised by Phoitius. Here
Photius appears to represent his subject's textual works
(ie: Philostorgius') with some form of disdain, and I am
presently trying to gauge his overall political stance.

What do the scholars say of the reputation of Photius,
aside from the fact that, without him, much would have
been lost to posterity. Was he reliable, was he biased?

What is the general consensus about Photius?

Best wishes,

Pete

Roger Pearse

There is an English form of the word, 'gheber' (sp?), which I came across in one of the L.Sprague de Camp 'Incomplete Enchanter' novels.

The Syriac 'gabra' means 'man'.

However Stephen Gobar sounds like a 6th century figure, and so precedes Islam, which suggests that the words are not connected?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Jay,

Thank you for introducing me to Stephen of Alexandria (Stephanus, Stephanos). I have spent a little time trying to locate his oeuvre. Interestingly an edition and English translation of his alchemical works, including De Chrysopoeia, seems to exist:

F. Sherwood Taylor, The Alchemical Works of Stephanos of Alexandria. Ambix: being the journal of the Society for the Study of Alchemy and Early Chemistry, London (1937) vol. 1, pp. 116-39; vol. 2 pp.38-49.

This is certainly out of copyright in some countries.

It would cost me $20 to obtain these -- does anyone have ready access? I'd happily use paypal to send the costs of photocopying plus a little extra, if someone with access could obtain and scan them?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

pkropotkin

I think the Arabic numbers(transfered from India) were called Gobar numerals in Western Arabic, possibly from the Arabic word for dust, as they probably were often written in sand. Arabs were pretty hip on Aristotle too. The Gobar were considered sacred numerals to some extant.

Roger Pearse

Most interesting -- thank you! Do you have a source for this?

From the web I was under the possibly mistaken impression that the first mention of Indian (what we call Arabic) numerals was in the Syriac scientific writer Severus Sebokht, ca. 650 AD, tho?

He certainly does mention these, in a letter attacking Greek pretensions to be the only people with scientific knowledge. This is a chapter in the Paris, BNF Syriac manuscript 346, of which I have a PDF of the microfilm. This has never been published in full, but Francois Nau did an article with an extract of the Syriac (which I have read) with French translation of it.

If so, again this is too late for Stephen Gobar. But very interesting all the same!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I have added some notes on Stephen of Alexandria on Wikipedia.

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Here is another interesting thing that can be gathered from reading Harnack's translation of Photius.(http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ha...n_gobar.htm#19) It is that the passage involving Hegessipus may have been changed.

At the beginning of the text, Photius tells us that the Stephanus used quotes by Church Fathers in his ecclesiastical chapters:

The general ecclesiastical chapters comprise pairs of sentences, presented not only in pairs but as contradictory; yet the sentences are not substantiated by argument or proof-texts, but merely by the utterances, as the author holds, of divergent Fathers. Of these utterances one set maintain the view of the church, the other that which the church rejects. But the wrong view is cherished only in ancient utterances, or by men of ancient times, who had not yet accurately (πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν) weighed and tested everything, and indeed by some of these it is cherished only in the mistaken opinion of the compiler.

We would expect that the first quote we find would be from a Church Father, but instead it is a quote from Hegessipus who certainly was not a Church Father.

(13) The good things prepared for the just, eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither have they entered into the heart of man. ---- Hegesippus, however, an ancient and apostolic man (?), says in the fifth book of his Hypomnemata [I do not know how he arrived at this ] that this is an idle saying, and that those who say it speak falsely, since the Scriptures and the Lord say, "Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear," etc.

Hegesippus does not fit into the category of Church Father and does not really fit into the category of "Apostolic Man" either. An "Apostolic Man" got his teachings directing from the Apostles or other Apostolic Men. Eusebius in book 3 chapter 16 does call him "a trustworthy source" and in book IV, chapter 8, he says, "2. He records in five books the true tradition of apostolic doctrine in a most simple style," But Eusebius never labels him an apostolic man or talks of him being taught by apostolic men.

This becomes important when we note that Irenaeus, who was certainly a Church Father, did in fact oppose the idea that "The good things prepared for the just, eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither have they entered into the heart of man.". He does it in Book IV of "Against Heresies"

1. "But," say they, "God hardened the heart of Pharaoh and of his
servants."(5) Those, then, who allege such difficulties, do not read
in the Gospel that passage where the Lord replied to the disciples,
when they asked Him, "Why speakest Thou unto them in
parables?"--"Because it is given unto you to know the mystery of the
kingdom of heaven; but to them I speak in parables, that seeing they
may not see, and hearing they may not hear, understanding they may not
understand; in order that the prophecy of Isaiah regarding them may be
fulfil leading, Make the heart of this people gross and make their
ears dull, and blind their eyes. But blessed are your eyes, which see
the things that ye see; and your ears, which hear what ye do hear.(6)
For one and the same God [that blesses others] inflicts blindness upon
those who do not believe, but who set Him at naught; just as the sun,
which is a creature of His, [acts with regard] to those who, by reason
of any weakness of the eyes cannot behold his light; but to those who
believe in Him and follow Him, He grants a fuller and greater
illumination of mind.

It is rather odd to imagine that both Hegesippus and Irenaeus wrote passages against this particular Church Doctrine. We also have to consider that the passage in Photius says that the passage quotes both "the scriptures and the lord". The passage in Irenaeus, indeed, does quote "the scriptures and the lord." in order to negate the doctrine.

It is reasonable to suppose that originally this passage in Photius did not have "Hegesippus, however, an ancient and apostolic man, says in the fifth book of his Hypomnemata, but rather "Irenaeus, however, an ancient and apostolic man, says in the fourth book of his Against Heresies..."

It is hard to know if Photius made the change or somebody after him made the change. Since Irenaeus was a Saint, it was certainly an improper thing to say that he had stated something against the teachings of the Church. It would certainly be better, and perhaps safer, if such a statement was stated to be coming from someone from Irenaeus' time period, like Hegesippus, who was not a revered Church Father and Holy Saint, like Irenaeus.

Adding weight to this conjecture is the fact that Photius does go on to show that Stephanus was familiar with Irenaeus and did quote him.

(36) After death the soul departs neither from the body nor from the grave. ---- The soul does not remain with the body nor in the grave. [Here, out of numberless easily found statements, Gobarus has adduced only those of Severian of Gabala and Irenaeus.

Photius cites Stephanus as using Irenaeus once again later:

(15) Hippolytus and Irenaeus say that the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews is not by him, but Clement and Eusebius and many other theophoric fathers count it in among his other epistles and say that the aforesaid Clement translated it from the Hebrew.

Thus given that

a. Irenaeus fits the description of a Church Father and Apostolic Man better than Hegesippus,
b. We know that Irenaeus did in fact write in rejection the stated doctrine in the passage,
c. Stephanus quotes Irenaeus at least two more times, but does not quote Hegesippus again,
d. there was good reason to make the change to protect Irenaeus' reputation,

we may suggest that Stephanus read the quote in Irenaeus, but never read it in Hegessipus' Memoirs.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Steven Avery

And I wonder if any scholars (including Harnack) have commented on the sections about Philo that we discussed a bit in two threads here.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hlight=photius
Did Paul write Romans? (my post, Ben's response, my second post)

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...71#post3747971
So I've heard that there's absolutely NO secular historical evidence for Jesus Christ (my post)

Shalom,
Steven

Roger Pearse

I'd like to thank Jay for starting this most interesting issue on Stephanos of Alexandria. Only one translation of any of his work into a modern langauge exists, which I placed online, containing 3 lectures on alchemy. Yesterday I was able to discover a fourth lecture in manuscript in English, forgotten since 1938, missed by the cataloguer, and unseen by any eyes until yesterday.

So this thread has actually led to a research discovery.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Roger,

I'm very happy to hear this. I think it is an important discovery.

Even in Medieval Philosophy History books, Stephanos is generally ignored. Frederick Copleston (A History of Philosophy: Volume II: Medieval Philosophy from Augustine to Duns Scotus, Doubleday) jumps from Cassiodorus c. 565/70 to Alcuin 730-804. A.S. McGrade (The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Philosophy) goes from Boethius d. 525/526 to Jons Scottus Eriugenia c.800-877. Looking through ordinary histories of Philosophy, one will come across philosophers from every century from the Seventh B.C.E. to the 21st C.E.; the only exception in these 28 centuries is the Seventh century C.E.. For Philosophy, it is the dark ages.
That is another reason why, for me, Stephanos of Alexandria is so interesting. He falls directly in a period where there is a huge gap in the American-English philosophical historical record. Hopefully, we can find out more about him to fill this gap.

Warmly,

Jay