Chronicon of Hippolytus 2nd edition

May 2nd, 2010

Nick Nicholas has laboriously and generously made extensive edits, suggestions and improvements to the first edition.  These are all incorporated into this edition, though a final draft has not been completed.  I am pleased to welcome him as a coauthor with myself and am very thankful for his help.  The 2nd edition can be found here.

Unfortunately, my translation of Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel will be delayed again for a while as it is receiving a thorough editorial scrubbing!  Thanks for your patience.

Papias quote from Apollinarius (Apollinaris) of Laodicea

April 22nd, 2010

Someone has asked a question about Apollinarius’ quotation of Papias:

Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before he was suffocated.  And the acts of the apostles show this, that falling head long he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.  This fact is related more clearly by Papias, the disciple of John, and the fourth book of the Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord as follows:

Judas walked about in this world a terrible example of impiety; his flesh swollen to such an extent that, where hay wagon can pass with ease, he was not able to pass, no, not even the mass of his head merely.  They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all, while as for his eyes they were not visible even by a physician looking through an instrument, so far have they sunk from the surface.

His genitals appeared entirely disfigured, nauseous and large.  When he carried himself about discharge and worms flowed from his entire body through his private areas only, on account of his outrages.  After many agonies and punishments, he died in his own place.  And on account of this the place is desolate and uninhabited even now.  And to this day no one is able to go by that place, except if they block their noses with their hands.  Such judgment was spread through his body and upon the earth.

-A catena compiled by Cramer vol 3 p12

Here are the details.

The quotation exists in multiple forms, some longer than others.

The longest, which is what is translated above, is given in a catena found in Cramer vol 3 p12 and also by Theophylact in his  Exposition on the Acts of the Apostles PG125 p522.  However Theophylact does not attribute the first paragraph to Apollinarius but Theophylact makes it seem as if they are his own words.  He quotes Papias directly in paragraphs two and three.

Oecumenius does the same as Theophylact but omits the last sentence in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles PG118 p57.

Another catena is quite similar to the passage at hand but omits the last sentence,  it is  given in Anecdota Graeca volume 2 p464. I scanned this page myself.

A similar but not identical catena ascribes only the first sentence of the second paragraph to Papias and the rest of the three paragraphs to, seemingly,  Apollinarius Cramer vol 1 p.231

A scholia on Acts 1.18 compiled in S. Lvcae Actvs apostolorvm graece et latine Riga 1782 p. 304 by Matthai gives a shortened variation of the first and second paragraph and attributes it to Apollinarius, and also has a different passage associated with Eusebius, but neither mention Papias.

Kirsopp Lake The Beginning of Christianity p24 says that Bar-Salibi quotes Papias in a fragment in the American Journal of Theology vol 4.3 1900 p501.

Zigabenus alludes to the passage at hand in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles PG129 p.1280 and Matthai p294-295.

What does this mean?  Did  Theophylact (11th/12th century) and Oecumenius (early 7th century) use Papias directly?  Or did they use Apollinarius and omit his name (perhaps due to his heretical history)? Or were they using a catena like the one translated from Cramer above?  Its impossible to know, but Oecumenius’ early date (early 600’s) suggests that he was not using  a catena, but either used Apollinarius or Papias.  However Oecumenius’ date and authorship are disputed, so if he wrote several centuries later (or if someone else wrote the work ascribed to Oecumenius) then a catena could have easily been used.    There are other possibilities, like if Oecumenius quoted Papias and in the course of time a catena falsely attributed it to Apollinarius, or both Oecumenius and Apollinarius quoted Papias independently, etc. It seems likely to me that Apollinarius quoted Papias and that his name was slowly dropped out due to his heretical association.  Oecumenius likely quotes from Apollinarius directly because the first paragraph of his quote is essentially Apollinarius’ wording.  However Oecumenius could be using a catena .  There are obviously many other possibilities as well.

Interesting article on the Chronicon of Hippolytus

March 26th, 2010

Yancy Smith has pointed me to this interesting article

Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronik: Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik. Edited by Martin Wallraff. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006. Especially the article by Osvalda Andrei, “Dalle Chronographiai di Giulio Africano di Giulo Africano alla Synagoge di ‘Ippolito’: Un debattio sulla scrittura cristiana del tempo,” 113-45

According to Yancy this article claims that there is some interdependence between Hippolytus’ and Julius Africanus’ Chronicles and also Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel. I’ll have to ILL this thing and send the Italian on through google translate and see what comes out.

Thanks Yancy!

Chronicon Completed (Finally!)

March 24th, 2010

I have posted the final version of Hippolytus of Rome’s Chronicon here.  Though I essentially finished in 2009, it took me a while to get posted.  I would like to thank Roger Pearse, Nick Nicholas, and Yancy Smith for their help, advice and encouragement.  I would also like to thank my brother and my wife for helping me type up a rather monotonous text!  Still, there are some good interesting bits in it, I can’t say that my translation lacks errors, I’m sure some are there, with all of the hundreds of place names and proper names its nearly impossible to get them all right without a small team of people.  Let me know what you all think of this.

My translation of Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel should be posted in the next 4 weeks (I promise!).

Here is my introduction to the text:

Hippolytus wrote his Chronicon in the year 235AD as he himself tells us.  His goal seems to have been threefold: to make a chronology from the beginning of the world up until his present day, to create a genealogical record of mankind, and to create a geographical record of mankind’s locations on the earth.  For his task Hippolytus seems to have made use of the Old Testament, to research the chronology and genealogies, and a nautical dictionary, to research the distances between locations in and around the Mediterranean Sea.

Though Hippolytus published his Chronicon several years after Julius Africanus published his own Chronicon, Hippolytus does not, as far as I can tell, reference his contemporary’s work nor does he seem to write in response to it.  Despite not gaining the level of prestige as Africanus, Hippolytus’ Chronicon seems to have been fairly successful.  Many historians made use of it, such as the author of the Chronography of 354, Epiphanius of Salamis, the author of the Chronicon Paschal, and George Syncellus.

For this translation the GCS (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller) series number 46 was used.  From lines 1 to 613 the Greek of two manuscripts H1 and H2 were used.  From lines 614-720 the Latin translation from the Liber Generationis 1 of the Chronography of 354 was primarily used.  Whenever this was nonsensical, I attempted to compare it with a German translation of the Armenian or the Liber Generationis 2. From lines 721-741 a Greek fragment was used, and from lines 742-778 the Latin from the Liber Generationis 1 was used again.

The footnotes are not exhaustive, they are meant only to point out difficult readings, suggest possible translations of people groups and locations not found in William Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, and occasionally provide references to other ancient authors.  The maps by Heinrich Kiepert can be used to find many of the people groups and locations mentioned in this work.  These maps are in the public domain can be found on many websites.

The form we have the Chronicon in today contains errors and the reader is cautioned against using Hippolytus’ dates, names, and locations without further research. Additionally, this is my first attempt at translating a work from Greek and Latin into English, and no doubt many of the errors are due to my own paltry German or my inattentiveness and not the editors of the GCS or Hippolytus.

This translation needs one more revision using the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) database to truly ensure a proper translation, but I do not have the time for such a task at the moment.

I would like to thank Nick Nicholas and Yancy Smith for their help and advice, Roger Pearse for his inspiration, which led me to take up this task, and my brother Mike, for recording my dictation.  Lastly, and most of all, I thank my very pregnant wife, who spent countless hours typing up a work that, by any standard, is not a pleasant read!

T.C. Schmidt

-Update-

I am already noticing errors in my text, so I am noting them and then will incorporate corrections into my next edition.  Nick Nicholas also made several good suggestions which I forgot to include and will put these into the next edition as well.  If any of you notice errors please email them to me.  My address can be found here

Update on Commentary on Daniel and Chronicon

March 14th, 2010

Though I have not been able to update my blog recently, I have been making great progress on the translation of Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel.  I have completed the rough draft translation and gone over it several times and am now in the final editing stage.  I hope to have this posted for you all in May.

I am also working on getting Hippolytus’ Chronicon online as well, but I need to check it over one more time.

Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel update #12- Future Democracies?

February 7th, 2010

Last post I discussed how Hippolytus interpreted the first part of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Chapter 2 of the book of Daniel.  Though interesting, Hippolytus interpretation is rather standard among both Christians and secular scholars.  However the second part of the interpretation concerning the feet and toes of the statue has always been keenly debated.  I was quite surprised when I translated the following passage:

Next the toes of the feet, so that  in each place democracies may be shown, which are about to be, which are divided into the ten toes of the image, in which the iron will have been been mixed with clay.

Εἶτα δάκτυλοι ποδῶν, ἵνα δειχθῶσιν αἱ κατὰ τόπον δημοκρατίαι αἱ μέλλουσαι γίγνεσθαι, διαιρούμεναι εἰς τοὺς δέκα δακτύλους τῆς εἰκόνος, ἐν οἷς ἔσται ὁ σίδηρος ἀναμεμιγμένος τῷ ὀστράκῳ.

Does anyone know of another church father who talks about future democracies replacing the Roman Empire?  How should we interpret Hippolytus’ seemingly prescient prediction (though it took 300 or so years to be fulfilled after the fall of the Eastern Empire). For that matter does anyone have a better translation that they would like to contribute?

-UPDATE-

Hippolytus says much the same thing in his work On the Antichrist:

As these things, then, are in the future, and as the ten toes of the image are equivalent to (so many) democracies and the ten horns of the fourth beast are distributed over ten kingdoms, let us look at the subject a little more closely, and consider these matters as in the clear light of a personal survey.

τούτων οὖν ἐσομένων καὶ τῶν δέκα δακτύλων τῆς εἰκόνος εἰς δημοκρατίας χωρησάντων, καὶ τῶν δέκα κεράτων τοῦ θηρίου εἰς δέκα βασιλεῖς μερισθέντων, ἴδωμεν σαφέστερον τὰ προκείμενα, καὶ κατανοήσωμεν αὐτὰ ὀφθαλμοφανῶς. -On the Antichrist 27

Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel update #11

January 26th, 2010

Lots going on so my editing has been in fits and starts the past couple weeks.  The following passage concerns Daniel’s interpretation of the statue/image which was seen by Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel chapter 2. His interpretation is of great interest because he interprets the iron legs of the statue to be the Romans who were ruling during his lifetime.  Next week I will post Hippolytus’ rather intriguing interpretation of the feet of the statue, in which he predicts what the coming kingdom or kingdoms will look like.

And so how can we not consider the ancient things which were prophesied by Daniel in Babylon and are now still being fulfilled in the world? For the image which was portrayed according to that time, encompassed the type of the kingdom of all the world. In which time the Babylonians then reigned, as being the golden head of the image. Then after them the Persians ruled for two hundred forty-five years as they are shown to be silver. After them the Greeks ruled, beginning from Alexander of Macedon, for three hundred years, as they are bronze. After them the Romans, who are the iron legs of the image, being strong as iron.

Hippolytus Commentary on Daniel Update #10

January 12th, 2010

I’ve finished the rough draft translation of Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel, which is about 50,000 words long.  Now I begin the process of editing the translation.  It has proved to be a good read and I’m glad that I have begun this project.  As I was reading the translation I noticed a passage that I had forgotten about, perhaps it refers to the Jewish attitude about the canonicity of the book of Susannah and alludes to why it was deemed apocryphal by some Christians.

And so the chiefs of the Jews now want to mutilate these things of the book of [Daniel? Susannah?], believing that these things did not happen in Babylon, because they were shamed by the Elders at that time,  failing to recognize the administration of the Spirit.

Next week I’ll start posting excerpts of Hippolytus’ interpretation of Daniel’s apocalyptic dreams.

Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel Part 9

January 5th, 2010

It has been a while since I have last updated, vacation can sometimes be more busy than regular workweeks.  Fortunately I’ve made great progress in the translation and will begin editing the rough draft in a few weeks.  Soon I will begin posting some excerpts on how Hippolytus interprets the prophetic dreams of Daniel.  For now however I would like to end the first post of the new year with what Hippolytus’ thought concerning the nature of the Church.

For neither is a mere place able to be a called the Church, nor a house which is built with stone and clay, nor a man himself able to call himself the Church.  For a house is destroyed and a man dies. And so, what is the Church?  The community of saints participating in truth.  Therefore unanimity and the way of the saints added together, this becomes the Church the spiritual House of God.

How beautiful and true his words are.

Hippolytus Commentary on Daniel Part 8

December 17th, 2009

This week Hippolytus turns towards his audience and exhorts us to follow Susannah’s example of faith:

“For on account of this our Lord Jesus Christ also lived and died and rose again, so that he might reign over the living and the dead”  Long ago Susannah in every way  taught these things to us, foreshadowing  in herself, the mysteries of the Church from which faith and reverence and temperance of the body are preached in all the earth until now. Therefore I exhort all those who read this writing , women and virgins, the small and the great, who have before their eyes the judgment of God, take her as an example to be imitated  and just as Sussanah was justified by God and by the word which was administrated through Daniel, she was able to be delivered from the second death.