On the issue of Acta Martyrum Scilitanorum

Contents I. State of the issue II. Primary source of acts III. Scili or Scilli? – The meaning of this name IV. Language of acts. – In what language were the services performed in Carthage? V. Crux interpretum Scientific research on the question of Acta Martyrum Scilitanorum has resulted in rather uncertain results. In the well-known standard-work, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius von Adolf Harnack (Leipzig 1893), Erwin Preuschen describes the state of this scientific question in the following terms: “Acta Martyrum Scillitanorum [sic] is preserved in several reviews: a) Greek review beginning with the words: "Επί Περσαντος τὸ β" in Cod. Paris. Gr. 890. first published by Usener (Index Scholarum Bonnae 1881), then by J. A. Robinson, The Passion of. S. Perpetua in Texts and Studies I, 2, Cambridge 1891. pp. 113–117. This review is not the original, but an adaptation of the Latin (aus dem Lateinischen geflossen), but in any case it represents a very ancient type of text. b) Very closely related to this Greek is the Latin review, beginning with the words: Praesente bis. This text is published in its entirety by Robinson (ibid., pp. 112–116) from Cod. Mus. Brit. 11, 880" (SS. 817.818). What follows is irrelevant to the question. As is known, Usener, who published a Greek review of a single manuscript completed in April 890, spoke about its text with complete certainty. "Versionem dico graece enim haec neque agi coram proconsule Africae potuerunt neque scripta esse Carthagini probabile est." "Propono igitur narratiunculam illam simplicissimam, ex fidelium qui iudicio astiterant memoria olim ueraciter conscriptam latine." - Obe 1, on the contrary, began to prove that the Greek text is not a translation from Latin, but the very original act, on which existing Latin reviews depend and which are altered and distorted. - Robinson, who was fortunate enough to discover the complete text of the oldest existing Latin review, declares that this Latin text is older than the Greek (p. 109), that it is the most Latin original of the acts and, therefore, the most ancient Christian Latin continuous coherent text that has survived to our time (p. vii). – Proishen, as we see, returns to Usener’s point of view. He disputes Aubey's guess explicite (“not original”), and rejects Robinson's view implicite when he puts the Greek review first. But what is the mutual relationship of these reviews and - in particular - what this ancient Latin review is, Proyshen does not express. Sometimes standard works, no matter how high their importance is for a given scientific field as a whole, do not reflect favorably on its individual points. To sum up the research on particular issues, such classical works capture it to a certain extent. Many people get the impression that this result is the last word of science and its further movement in this matter would no longer have a reliable basis. In my opinion, the study of the mutual relationship between the two main reviews of acts should end with a less meager result and the current state of this issue should be viewed only as ephemeral. In the following lines, I try, as far as possible, to replace the uncertainty of E. Preuschen’s views with more definite theses. After Robinson's publication of the ancient Latin review of the acts, the question of the primary source of the acts needs to be reconsidered. Do we have in at least one of the reviews of acts the so-called acta proconsularia? All existing reviews undoubtedly passed through Christian hands. The ancient Latin ends with the words: “et regnant cum Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto per omnia secula seculorum.” amen." Greek consistently uses such expressions as "ό άγιος Σπερ ᾶ τος ε ἶ πεν", "ἡ δὲ ἁ γία Ἑ στία λέγει " 2. But all this refers to purely the literary finishing of the acts and does not affect their content. The words spoken by the proconsul, the responses of the Christians to him, could have been set out in the acts exactly as they were recorded in the acta proconsularia, in the minutes of the meeting itself, compiled on the basis of the notaries' tachygraphic record. Did the compiler of these Acta M. Scilitanorum have an extract from the original minutes of the meeting of July 17, 180, or not? Robinson did not touch upon the question in a single word. But the review he published, in the volume in which it is read in Cod Mus. 11,880, in my extreme understanding, from its first line Praesente bis et Claudiano consulibus and ending with the words: “Uniuersi dixerunt: Deo gratias,” does not contain a single phrase that would not be possible in an extract from the original acta proconsularia kept in the Carthaginian archive. – Usener, in turn, does not consider the Latin text of the Greek review to be an extract from the acta proconsulariä; this, in his opinion, is a historically reliable narrative compiled from the recollections of believers present at the meeting on July 17, 180. Thus, the tone of both reviews, their high historicity, would allow such a solution to the question: In the oldest Latin review Praesente bis an extract from the acta proconsularia was preserved, in the Greek review 'Επὶ Πέρσαντος τὸ δεύτερον - a translation of the narrative compiled by Christians who were eyewitnesses to both the feat and death of the saints. martyrs. It can be assumed that among the Christians who were in the secretariat during the trial of the martyrs, there were also “secret cursive writers” 3, and their rough tachygraphic sketches were at the disposal of the Christian who edited the Latin record of the acts, which was then translated into Greek. This would satisfactorily explain the amazing accuracy with which Christian acts convey not only the very sequence of Saturninus’ questions and the answers of the martyrs, but also the very words of the proconsul and Christians, so that the Christian entry in this regard hardly differs from the official entry in the acta proconsularia, suitable for a hastily taken copy from the latter. One external circumstance does not allow such an explanation to be considered valid. Both according to the Latin review and the Greek, proconsul Saturninus directly addresses the accused Christians with the following words, 4 from which it is clear that the inquiry here continues, and does not begin. We do not learn from the acts either for what reason the Christians were brought to trial, or why instead of 12 accused there are only six at trial, and against the remaining six “failures to appear”, τοὐς ἀφάντους, the sentence was pronounced in absentia. Did all these Christians have an accuser - a delator? Or did the proconsul himself, on his own initiative, begin the coercitio? Where were they taken into custody: in a house of worship or while traveling? There is no answer to all these questions, obviously because the martyrs had already been interrogated at some meeting earlier on July 17, and now appear before the proconsul as guilty (from the point of view of Roman law) and having pleaded guilty. In all varieties of Latin acts, no matter how much their original text suffered from the unbridled arbitrariness of various “eloquent speakers” - amplifiers - there is not the slightest trace of this previous meeting and, fortunately, no attempt was made to add the missing beginning of the process. Obviously, therefore, the acta proconsularia remained inaccessible to Christians. It is impossible to explain otherwise, without assumptions that are not very plausible 5, why Christians made an extract not from the beginning of the process, but only from the middle. On the contrary, it can be assumed without any stretch that the trial of the Numidians brought to Carthage began so unexpectedly that the Carthaginian Christians only later learned that these Numidians were struggling for the name of Christ: therefore, none of the more or less educated Christians was at the first hearing, except, of course, the defendants themselves. And since the whole “agon”, all the “testimony for the name of Christ”, was contained in full in the acts of the second and last meeting; that beginning of the process from a Christian point of view was not of particular value: from the available Acta Martyrum Scilitanorum, the Christian knew everything that was important to know for his own edification and for the church glorification of the saints. martyrs. Therefore, to the detriment of history, the information about the beginning of the process that Christian contemporaries could have collected on the spot was not included in the acts. So, all existing reviews of the Acta Martyrum Scilitanorum are based on the “memoirs” of Christian eyewitnesses, or rather, in my opinion, several sketches of notes made secretly by Christians during the very trial of the martyrs in the secretariat on July 17, 180. These notes were few: maybe three. One of them was at hand by the compiler of acts of the type presented in the Greek review; the second - one might say unchanged, in its original purity - was published by Robinson and, with some discrepancies noted in the margin from the third entry, lies at the basis of all later alterations of the Latin text of the acts 6. III. Scili or Scilli? – The meaning of this name Only in the Greek review - and not in any of the Latin ones - are the following lines read: “ἦ σαν ο ὖ ν ὁρμώμενοι οἱ ἀγιοι ἀπο Ί σχλὴ τῆς "" For historical geography, this place gives little: scientists are not able to determine where the homeland of Sts. martyrs 7. But it resolves the issue of the spelling of this geographical name. In 411, the Orthodox “episcopus ecclesiae Scillitanae”, Squillacius, took part in the proceedings of the Carthaginian conference. His colleague, the Donatist Donatus episcopus Scilitanus, was also present at the conference. - On October 8, 649, at the Lateran Council, the letter “concilii proconsularis” to Paul of Constantinople was read; On the 34th he signed it “Pariator, gratia Dei episcopus sanctae ecclesiae Scilitanae” 8. – In the Kalendarium Carthaginense (V-VI centuries) under (17) July there is a memory “sanctorum Scilitanorum” 9, in the martyrologium ex codice Bernensi (VIII-IX centuries) “et Silicitanorum” [sic] 10. Victor Vitsky 11 mentions the Carthaginian basilica “Celerinae vel Scillitanorum”. The critical apparatus of the indicated place is represented only by BLVR manuscripts. The most authoritative manuscript, A, 9th century, does not have initial leaves. B – IX centuries, L – XII, VR – X centuries. "Scillitanorum" is obviously read only in BR. Options: scilitanorum L, sicilitanorum V. – Finally, George of Cyprus, a writer of the late 6th century, reads Σκήλη, which does not differ from Σκίλι. - Let's sum it up. Of the above 7 authorities, one (Victor Vitsky) or two (“et Silicitanorum”) should be considered indecisive. That leaves one Scilli against four Scili. The same result is given by the manuscripts of the oldest Latin review A (IX century) B (XI century) C (XIII century). B C Scyllitanorum, B Scyllitanorum. Robinson takes the reading of A Scilitanorum thoroughly into the text. Manuscript A is not only the oldest of the three, but also the only one that is orthographically correct, with a consistent Narzalus Νάρτζαλος; and Vestia. Who can rely on the authority of B with his successive "Saturinus" vm. Saturninus and "Bistea" and the variables "Nazari Naharo Nartaldus", or on reading C with his "Bestia Narcallo Nartallus?" – Finally, there are quite a lot of false analogies in favor of “ll” in the Latin language: ille, mille, all kinds of camilli camillaeque, and finally the notorious mythological Scylla 12. It is natural for an absent-minded scribe to give a foreign Scili a more Latin physiognomy and write “Scilli”. This is how the cacography “Scillitanorum” was established. Usener did not appreciate the full authority of the reading “ἀπο Ί σκλή”, which next to “Νουμηδίας” obviously does not differ from Ί σκλί, and is inclined to see in this only a corrupted Σκίλι Scili. Aube and Robinson found that in Cod. Paris. actually reads Ί σχλή Ί σχλί. This reading establishes irrevocably that Scili is only a Latinization of the true Punic name of the town, and relates to Ί σχλή in the same way as “Rome” to “Roma”, as “Paris” to “Paris”, as “Moskau” to “Moscow”. Semitic languages, including Phoenician-Punian, have the peculiarity that a word beginning with two consonants is unpronounceable for them; therefore not “Scili”, but either “Sicili” (if not “Sicli”) or “Iscli”. So the Arabs call “peace” “salam(un)”; but "slam(un)" is impossible; therefore, “'islam(un)”, the high spiritual world of a person who has completely surrendered to the will of God, “Islam”. Obviously this is a Semitic analogy to a phenomenon known to everyone from the Romance languages, which transform spiritus into espiritu, esprit, Stephanus in Estevan, Etienne. Such names are personal, like Miggin, Stiddin, Birictbal, Byrycth Βυρυχθ ["Blessed One", Benedicta], and geographical names, like Bidil, Igilgili. Intibili, Sitifi, Tibilis, Tigisis, Timici, and the famous scenes in “Poenulus”, where Hanno poenus loquitur punice, leave no doubt that the sound “i” predominated in Punic phonetics, which is therefore archaic: in the Hebrew language, as taught by European Hebraists, with its modernized phonetics, many Punic “i” would turn into “e” 13. On the other hand, the abundance of "y" in "Poenulus" and such an expressive equality as mytthymbalMuthumbal show that in the Punic "I" there was a strong admixture of "U"; it sounded dull, like the Russian “y”. Ί σχλή in the Punic accent represented something between iskhyl’i and yskly. Everyone sees that Ί σχλλη would be a monster. Based on the full authority of de Lagarde 14, we can say that the tertia radicalis of the Semitic word, in this case λ, should not be doubled; and if sound corruption were involved here, the emphasis would move, and the result would be ίσχίλλη. Meanwhile, the Punic of 180 pronounces this word with such a half-sound after χ that there is nothing corresponding to it in the Greek alphabet. This empty space in the gender of the apostrophe obviously cannot take on the stress: ίσχ ^ λη is pure nonsens. - The Latin, with his healthy pronunciation (scala scutum), which does not need phonetic supports (escalier ecu), and with his ear dull for the aspiration shades in the sound k, hears this iskhili-yskly as scili. – There seems to be no doubt about the meaning of this geographical name: the Punic word is sufficiently explained by the three letters of its root σχλ SKL. In the transcription of the LXX translation, εσχώλ corresponds to the Hebrew eskol, which is equal to the Arabic iGkal(un), the Ethiopian askal. In all these languages, this word means a bunch of grapes, a bunch, βότρυς. Nahal-eshol, the forest of thunder, the forest of dreams, was the name of the valley that amazed the Jews with the fruitfulness of its vineyards 15. A Slav would call Ί σχλη Scili Greznovo, Grozdovka. Hence the obvious geographical postulate: do not look for the location of Ishli Scili where it is impossible to plant a vineyard 16 . IV. Language of acts. – In what language were the services performed in Carthage? Usener does not think that the Greek review appeared in Carthage itself. Initially, in his opinion, the Carthaginian Christians set out these acts in Latin. If this view is correct, if this Latin text existed and years, decades, maybe even centuries passed between the original recording and the translation; then two rather unexpected conclusions emerge. a) A Greek of non-African origin, therefore unfamiliar with the subtleties of local pronunciation, wrote in his translation Ἰ σκλή or Ἰ σχλί, obviously only because ISCHLI was in the Latin original. Everyone in Carthage called St. martyrs of Iskhli “Sancti Scilitani”, their native village – Scili. He Schilitani and not Schili. And, however, the scribes faithfully copied this Ischli, they didn’t even throw out the h. Here one can feel the care taken to carefully preserve this ancient church monument of Latin writing. b) This monument, however, is of no interest to anyone in the West. Nobody uses it. The varieties of Latin reviews, which all depend on the text of Praesente bis, were not affected by any feature of the review Ἐπι Πέρσαντος 17, no matter how natural such a borrowing would be. The best way out of this was proposed, in my opinion, by Obe. The Greek review is not a translation, but the original itself 18. The author of the acts wrote them directly in Greek, although of course he had at hand a rough tachygraphic record of the process in Latin, because the process itself took place in Latin. In most of his work, the author was, of course, only a translator. Apparently a natural Latin, whose command of the Greek language was far from fluent, he either translates every Latin expression literally 19, not caring how elegant such a combination of Greek words will seem to the Greek reader, or resorts to descriptions if his stock of Greek words comes to an end, especially when encountering technical Latin words that are not often repeated in everyday conversation. But the author placed this translated part in an appropriate, written frame, not without impulses towards floridity, which constitutes his complete literary heritage. In this complete form, the Acta Martyrum Scilitanorum graece never existed in Latin translation. But why did the author of the acts give himself such a strange task at first glance - to write in a foreign Greek language, and not in his native Latin? And the answer to this question is outlined by Obe 20: the liturgical language of the Carthaginian church at that time was Greek, not Latin. That in the first two centuries the church language of Roman Christians was not Latin, but Greek, this is established so firmly by Caspari’s research that it is considered a generally accepted scientific truth 21 . But Caspari himself believes that such a unique order - the Greek language in the church and Latin in everyday relations - existed among Christians only in Rome. “In African churches, not even excluding Carthage, where, of course, many educated people understood and spoke Greek, services were performed, without any doubt, exclusively in Latin.” 22 It seems that the foundations laid under this bold assurance are not particularly strong, and there is reason to doubt its validity. The martyrs Saturus and Vibius Perpetua, who suffered on March 7, 203 in Carthage, saw visions before their death, which they themselves wrote down 23 . “Et vidi,” writes Perpetua, “hominem canum in habitu pastoris—et dixit mihï Bene uenisti, tegnon.” Satur sees himself and the other martyrs already suffering and ascended to heaven. “Et uidimus – Optatum [the first historically known Carthaginian] episcopum ad dexteram et Aspasium presbyterum doctorem [may be of Greek origin, judging by his name] ad sinistram – et diximns illis: Non tu es papa noster et tu presbyter? – et conplexi illos sumus. et coepit Perpetua graece cum illis loqui. – et audiuimus uocem unitam dicentem: Agios, agios, agios: sine cessatione.” – That Perpetua, an educated matron, speaks Greek is evident from the dozen Greek words that appear in her story: but she also writes and speaks to others in Latin. The position of the Christian heroine is too serious for one to be satisfied with her simple habit of the Greek language, frivolous, reprehensible in the eyes of the Romans 24, to explain the fact that the apocalyptic shepherd, according to her, greets her with Greek τέκνον. And not she herself, but Satur, as it seems, who himself did not speak Greek fluently, hears her conversation in Greek with Pope Optatus and the presbyter-teacher Aspasius. In Saturus’s view, his co-martyr is an ideal heroine: if she “began to speak Greek to them,” then obviously in a place like heaven, with such persons as the bishop and the presbyter, one should speak Greek. The Christian naturally imagines heaven under the image of the church. Consequently, in 203, the “popes”-bishops and presbyter-teachers greeted the Carthaginian Christians during worship with the word τέκνία, pronounced the words of prayers in Greek, and the believers with one mouth did not yet proclaim Sanctus sanctus sanctus, but Αγιος ἄγιος ἄγιος. Tertullian's literary activity represents a rather peculiar phenomenon. He solves some questions in works in Greek; and this is what he does not only at the beginning of his activity, when he lived in Rome, but also during the period of its full flowering, in 201-202, when he was undoubtedly a Carthaginian presbyter. These questions interested him so much that sometimes he took them up again and discussed them in Latin. It would be funny to think that Tertullian acted as a Greek writer because by his time the Latin church language was not sufficiently developed: Tertullian spoke his native language as an educated lawyer; several termini technici from the Greek ecclesiastical language (haereticus, baptismus, ecclesia) - and from the literary Latin language the ecclesiastical language was obtained. However, the Carthaginian presbyter, even having “created” the Latin church language, still prefers to write Greek works first and then present them in Latin. It cannot be said that scientific attempts to explain this oddity have been happy: it is not possible to prove not only that the Greek Christian world primarily needed the educational services of Tertullian, but even that the subjects about which he wrote in Greek were actually of interest to Christians in Egypt and Asia, and not only to the Carthaginian Christians. And - to complete the mystery of the situation - Tertullian himself says that he is writing specifically for his fellow citizens, propter suauiludios nostros, and draws their attention to his Greek treatise, although his Latin work on the same issue was, in all likelihood, already written: graeco quoque stylo satisfecimus 25. In Abyssinia, to this day, there is such a custom: if someone writes the so-called “dyrsan”, that is, a theological treatise, of course, in the church language “gyyz” (Ethiopian), dead, but more or less understandable to the Abyssinians who received a regular education; then a new work of theological literature is read before everyone in the church 26. It is primitive in form and highly ecclesiastical in spirit: the theologian wants to serve the church; It is natural for him to “publish” his feasible work not “into the world,” but into the church, to bring it to its attention, to bring it to its court. This, in my opinion, was the case in Carthage in the 2nd century. The writings of the Carthaginian presbyter on issues of interest to Carthaginian Christians were read, first of all, in the church: this was their publication. And therefore he had to write them in the church language, in Greek. Tertullian himself makes it clear that when he considers it his moral duty to express his opinion, proprium negotium meae opinionis, even if troubles were looming in the future, he writes an essay in Greek. A true “man of warfare,” he is not content with such a treatise, and then expounds it in Latin; he wants to act on the masses, to explain to them the correctness of his polemical point of view; and the Carthaginian commoner, in any case, was not able to understand everything in Greek research. But it was not this alone that prompted Tertullian to resort to such second editions: the Carthaginian presbyter had to write his treatises, intended for reading in a church meeting, not only in Greek, but also in a strictly church tone, laconicly and calmly, as far as was possible for such an ebullient nature; he was forced to put aside some of his polemical weapons and, of course, above all, his caustic sarcasm. Stylo graeco, he admonished and denounced his opponents with all patience, as was worthy of himself, the most reverent presbyter; but when he began to show them the truth latine, he dealt with them in the same way as they should have been treated according to the quality of their - perceived or actual - errors. His Latin treatises were probably a great success, but it was the success of a private enterprise and a private individual; whoever wanted could ignore the very existence of these scriptures. Therefore, when he wants to show the Carthaginian theatergoers that they have been exposed - to show them mercilessly, so that they cannot walk away with their eyes closed, to excuse themselves with ignorance: he refers them not to his Latin work de spectaculis, but to the Greek, read aloud to the whole church: “graeco quoque stylo satisfecimus.” The hypothesis about the liturgical use of the Greek language in Carthage, explaining both the Greek ingredients in the visions of Saturus and Perpetua and the origin of the Greek writings of Tertullian, shows that the Greek acts of the martyrs of Iskhli should have appeared soon after July 17, 180. The unity of tone in the worship of the Carthaginian church was maintained so completely that further meetings were not directly During liturgical services the Greek language was heard. The acts of the martyrs were also read in the same language. “Fideliter memoriis communicantes, actus eorum in ecclesiis ad aedificationem legite,” we read in the abbreviated acts of St. Perpetua and other martyrs who suffered with her 27. Consequently, it can be assumed that already on July 17, 181, the memory of Sts. was celebrated in Carthage (and in Ishli). martyrs and the story of their feat was read. There is no reason not to admit that the review of Ἐπι Πραίσεντος το δεύτερον was compiled already in 180 - 181. The Greek text is a review of acts authorized by the church itself. Their compiler was, of course, a person invested with the trust of the Carthaginian church, recognized as primarily capable of such work. It goes without saying that the author of the acts had at his disposal the most accurate information about the martyrdom of Sts. Sperat and his squads, which the Carthaginian church had at its disposal 28. He had at hand a tachygraphic record of the trial, from which all Latin reviews of acts originate, and perhaps he himself was an eyewitness to the trial of the martyrs. This establishes a mutual relationship between the review of Praesente and Πραίσεντος. The Greek review and the ancient Latin can be looked at as two equal documents of equal antiquity. The Greek authorized text is inferior, as a document, to the ancient Latin review because the last words of the proconsul and the martyrs are conveyed in the original, and not in translation. But in one case - for very special reasons - the Greek text is superior to the Latin text precisely because it competently explains it, and perhaps even treats it as an original translation. When all the martyrs confessed themselves to be Christians and refused the period of reflection offered to them, After this, Saturninus again offered the martyrs a thirty-day period of reflection; but they again confessed themselves to be Christians, and the proconsul read them the death sentence. In the Greek text, Sperat's answer contains more words than in the Latin, and one of them, προσεπιτούτοις, is attributed by the entire Protestant learned world to the greatest importance. Can you see a typo in this word? πρὸς ἐπὶ ταύταις (i.e. βίβλοι), do we mean with πρὸ &#962#962; ἐπὶ τούτοις more distant σκεύεσιν, should we finally understand this προσεπιτούτοις, in any case it has the meaning of something extra, some plus. Epistles of the Ap. Paul are shaded in the Acta Martyrum Scilitanorum graece as + ἐπιστολαί; and since it is said αί προσεπιτούτοις ἐπιστολαί (and not προσεπιτούτοις αί ἐπιστολαί ), then this + does not represent an accidental, transitory mark of them, but their permanent characteristic based on their nature. In relation to αί βίβλοι they are always + ἐπιστολαί: they are not only not included in the concept of “these books”, but are expressively considered as an appendage to them. "Our books and Paul's epistles are beyond that, ausserdem." And since αί βίβλοι are the sacred books of the New Testament canon, it follows that in 180 the epistles of St. Paul has not yet been included in this canon. A Protestant, Prof., rebelled indignantly against these conclusions of Protestant theologians and non-theologians. theology Theodore Tsang. “It is absolutely obvious that this expression cannot be understood in the sense of καὶ προσεπὶ τούτοις αί ἐπιστολαί: this latter would characterize the messages as an addition not yet given in concept in the general expression αί βίβλοι. On the contrary [in the expression καὶ αί προσεπὶ ταύταις ἐπιστολαί ] the particular is next to the general, it is explicitly stated that the epistles of Paul should be counted, mit hinzurechnen seien, among the previously named saints. books." “The Scillitanian martyrs180 chose a very unique designation for the biblical writings. Neither they themselves, nor their contemporary who recorded their last confession, of course, did not imagine that later Christians would find it necessary to Schulmeisterly correct their awkward words, and even less did they foresee that the scientists of our time, to whom the original text of their expressions again became available, would begin to shake this text on the rack, auf die Folter spannen in order to lure out of him secrets regarding the history of the formation of the New Testament canon. If the martyrs, when asked what was contained in their case with volumina, had only answered: “our scriptures”; then that would say it all; all the sacred books of the church would be designated by this.” Tsang is convinced that the general expression αί καθ᾿ ἡμ ᾶ ς βίβλοι means not only the four gospels, but “undoubtedly, sicher, also the Old Testament.” “If the martyrs specifically named the epistles of Paul, which in the same way belonged to the number of their saints. books and were stored in the same cases with others; then they must have had special reasons for this. Perhaps they expected that the authorities would subject their books to inspection and that long letters to the great churches in Rome and Corinth - messages whose age and origin were unknown to the authorities - would be considered incriminating papers, they would see in them documentary evidence that Christians represented an international community dangerous to the state. Yes, among the canonical books of Christians there are also letters; but these are the messages of a holy, pious man who did not instill anything evil. Whether this attempt is successful in explaining a very peculiar expression or not, in any case, here we have before us a testimony due to the special position of Christians who stood before the pagan court, and not at all an example of how believers in the church then expressed themselves to each other about the priests. Scripture and its constituent parts." – Summa summarum: according to Tsang, the proconsul’s question has an allegorical meaning, but is well understood by Christians. “The proconsul Vigelius Saturninus in 180 did not ask the martyrs of Scyllis: what is the content of your Bible, your codex? His question is: What kind of writings are in your cases? The answer was: “our books and those that form an integral part of them, die mit dazu gehörigen, the epistles of the holy man Paul” 30. Thus, all Protestant belligerantes are united by a unity of ground: they are all convinced, they accept pro concesso et probato, that here we are talking about the composition of the New Testament canon. The battle revolves around one and only question: does προσεπιούις mean “mitdazu” or “ausserdem”? In my opinion, this whole dispute is a brilliant tournament pro nihilo, not particularly fruitful for science and not particularly glorious for it. The accuracy of astronomical observations is harmed, by the way, by the personal error of the observer; The correctness of historical research is incomparably more seriously harmed by an error that I would call the Ethiopianism of the researcher. In one of the lists of the 31 gospels in the Ethiopian language, the place is John. 19, 19 the following is read. image: “Pilate wrote the inscription and placed it on the cross. It was written: The Lord Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” The simple-minded Abyssinian, who is accustomed to always calling the Savior “Ygziy Iyasus Krystos,” does not even think that anyone would ever call Him simply “Jesus,” and not “Lord Jesus,” “Ygziy Iyasus.” Obviously, at the heart of this mistake lies the most blatant inability to take someone else’s point of view other than one’s own. Is it this Ethiopianism that was reflected in that amplifier, who, to the best of his wretched understanding, decorated the ancient text of Acta Martyrum Scilitanorum with the pearls of his eloquence in order to weave St. An even more radiant crown for the martyrs forced the proconsul to send them once again to prison and stretch them there for the whole night on an instrument of torture, and Saturninus’ question about the capsa was conveyed in this form: “Qui sunt libri quos adoratis legentes?” 32 Well, of course, Vigelius Saturninus in 180 had no right not to know that when Christians read their holy books. books, then they give them adoratio! The point of view of Protestant scholars, who saw in the words of the Ishli martyrs almost a revelation on the issue of the history of the New Testament canon, also suffers from a significant dose of Ethiopian. When in such a simple question about the books in the capsa they see an ingenious inquiry into the composition of the New Testament canon, one might think that Vigelius Saturninus, somewhere earlier somewhere in Lopodunum or Sumelocenna, was a Christian professor who, no worse than Clements and Origen, comprehended the differences between ὁμολογούμενα and ἀντιλεγόμενα, ἐνδιάθηκα and μὴ τοιαῦτα, καθολικὰ and νόθα, knows that καν ὼ ν ἐκκλησιαστικὸς does not have the same content in all churches, I studied to the subtleties the capricious language of different Tertullians and all sorts of descriptive expressions, and now takes the opportunity to find out whether the canon is identical in Carthage and some tens of kilometers away from Carthage - in Ishli. To complete the historical naturalness of such an image, it is immediately admitted that for Christians who understand the true meaning of the word capsa at a glance and recognize ex ungue leonem, this subtle expert of the New Testament canon is terrible with his gross ignorance: the epistles of St. He can take Paul for the current correspondence of the Ishli Christians themselves and invent all sorts of fears and dangers for the empire from the “international union” of Christians. The logic of the martyrs is also presented in a no more enviable light. To the question: which books do you recognize as canonical? they give the answer: “the books are canonical” and are ready to calm down at that. But apprehension suddenly flashed in their minds: the proconsul might mistake Paul’s letters for our own “international” correspondence. They are concerned about how to prevent such misunderstanding; but the most radical remedy against this does not even occur to them: to inform Saturninus that this Paul died under Nero. No, the proconsul did not ask Christians about the New Testament canon, unknown to him; he spoke of a very concrete and tangible capsa. But in this case, why do the martyrs testify, as the other side believes, that they do not include the letters of Paul in the New Testament canon? Christians made such a testimony either unconsciously or consciously. The first is, of course, absurd: it cannot be assumed that the very idea that someone might think that Christians recognize the letters of Paul as canonical books seemed so terrible to them that they began to protest against it as if shocked by a galvanic current. After all, they are messages from St. Paul was kept together with the gospels, therefore the first ones, even if they were only ἀντιλεγόμενα, recognized them as their shrine. And there is not the slightest reasonable basis to testify about the canonicity or non-canonicality of the apostle’s epistles. The mere fact that the question of the books was proposed to the Christians at a time when the trial against them on the merits of the matter had already been completed showed that in the eyes of Saturninus the outcome of the case did not depend at all on the answer he heard from the Christians. Did their situation improve because they declared Paul's epistles non-canonical? Did this bring the proconsul even a hair closer to Christianity, to which he was so openly indifferent? He, who refused to listen to the “mystery of simplicity”, not familiar with the foundations of Christian teaching, could he understand the subtleties of the difference between ἀντιλεγόμενα and ὁμολογούμενα? It seems that he was as prepared to assimilate such messages as a person who had not heard of the multiplication table was to listen to lectures on integral notation. Meanwhile, not obscured by any Ethiopianisms, the text of the acts is so simple and natural. By their answers, by their refusal of the period for reflection, according to the court of the proconsul, the Christians proved their inveterate persistence in crime. Of course, he had already given the order to write a death sentence on the sign. There is a pause for several minutes. To fill this idle time, Vigelius Saturninus discovers a tantillum of academic interest in Christianity itself. One hears a casual, almost disgusted voice: “What are these things in your case?” And perhaps the helpful hands of the apparator take these “things” out of the capsa, and one by one these volumina are deployed before the proconsul, and he deigns to pay attention to them for a few seconds. Or else he is given an inventory of this capsa, which the officium compiled only to show that these treatises do not complicate matters with any new crime. No matter how great the inspiration of the martyrs, at these moments they also need composure of spirit in order to complete their feat, courageously meeting the death that lies ahead of them. This is not a state where a person is talkative aimlessly. Their answer is succinctly short, like Saturninus’ question. They have a moral duty to show that Christians are absolutely honest; that they are not hiding anything, because there is nothing criminal behind them. It is necessary to answer in such a way that the proconsul is convinced with his own eyes that the names are really the very “things” that are in the case. An inventory or inspection left such an impression of volumina in capsä KATA μαθθαῖον. ΒΙΒΛΟΣ γενέσεος ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ KATA μάρκον. ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ KATA λουκ ᾶ ν . ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν KATA ίωάννην. ἐν ἀρχῆ ἧ ν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος and then ΠΡΟΣ ρωμαίους. ΠΑΓΛΟΣ δοῦλος ἰησου χριστοῦ ΠΡΟΣ κορινθίους ά . ΠΑΓΛΟΣ κλητός ἀπόστολος ΠΡΟΣ κορινθίους β. ΠΑΓΛΟΣ ἀπόστολος χριστοῦ ΠΡΟΣ γαλάτας . ΠΑΓΛΟΣ ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπ᾿ ΠΡΟΣ ἐφεσίους . ΠΑΓΛΟΣ ἀπόστολος χριστοῦ etc. 33 The word produced a series of treatises marked with the initial word κατὰ, and another series of treatises beginning with the word πρός. The first treatise of the first category is called βίβλος. When Sperat answered: αί καθ᾿ ἡμ ᾶ ς βίβλοι, he described the first category of books absolutely accurately. The names “Matthew, Mark, Luke, John” that flashed before the eyes of the proconsul were hardly retained in his memory: they could be summarized in ἡμ ᾶ ς. Αί καθ᾿ ημάς βίβλοι, this for an outsider meant nothing more than a simple “libri nostri”. 34 The category πρός looked more complicated. The name of Paul was repeated so often that it certainly remained in the memory of the proconsul; it was also clear that these were letters of Paul. Paul should have been mentioned in the answer and characterized. The addressees, Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, were too specific for all of them to be reduced to one word of the gender ἡμ ᾶ ς. Sperat apparently said: “πρός ad tales et tales,” or: “πρός and so on,” and this is expressed by the complex “αί πρός ἐπὶ τούτοις.” It is quite possible that Sperat gave the answer to the question about Greek books in full in Greek, and only later was it transmitted in Latin, circumventing insurmountable difficulties. “Libri et epistulae Pauli uiri iusti”, this expression replaced a more complex phrase, at least for those unfamiliar with the elements of the Greek language, incomprehensible. The philologist has no right to consider the expression αί πρός ἐπὶ τούτοις without connection with αί καθ᾿ ἡμ ᾶ ς. Here πρός, there κατὰ. If the German scholarly world had not taken on faith Caspary's opinion that in Carthage divine services were performed in Latin, and not in Greek; if the interpretation of προσεπιτούτοις had been approached with the clear idea that the volumina were written not in Latin, but in Greek: the obvious contrast between κατὰ and πρός would certainly not have escaped the attention of the interpreters, and in the words of the martyr they would have long ago seen a simple description of the main components of the New covenant, and not at all a testimony that the epistles of St. Paul in 180 were not yet considered canonical books. B. Haibé, Étude sur un nouveau texte des Actes des Martyrs Scillitains [sic], Paris 1881, p. 20. – Arguing for the originality of the Greek text in 1881 was relatively easy: the full Latin text of the acts at that time was known only in Baronio’s amplifications that distort the historical tone of the monument. in ms. Colbert., in ms. de l'abbaye de Silos, etc. Confronted before Usener's text, the creators of these later reviews usually accused each other of writing by the fact that their arbitrary fabrications, appearing in one review as a plus to Usener's Greek text, disappeared without a trace in another. Page 118 - 121 of Robinson's books make this clear. Eg. The Greek text reads only: ἀλλ᾿ ὀμόσατε μ ᾶ λλον κατὰ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας τοῦ δεσπότου ἡμῶν αυτοκράτορος. ' Εν πράγματι ο ὕ τως ἑγκρίτω οὐδεμία καθίσταται βουλὴ ἢ διάσκεφις. Όποέροις ἀποκεινται σκεύεσιν ; – From such a comparison of texts, it becomes clear that later Latin reviews of acts have only a pathological interest: as material for the history of the damage to this ancient monument. Everything in them is inauthentic that cannot be read literally in Robinson’s ancient Latin review, which is strikingly close to Usener’s text. Whether Aubé would have decided to defend the originality of the Greek text if the oldest Latin review had already been known is still a question. Unfortunately, I do not know to what extent Aube continues to support his view after the publication of Robinson's book. In ancient Latin, on the contrary, we read: "Speratus dixit", "Vestia dixit". This absence of the name "sanctus", according to Robinson, serves as proof of the greater antiquity of the Latin review compared to the Greek. He further notes that the short "Speratus dixit: Deo gratias agimus" in Greek corresponds to: "τότε τοίνον ὁ ἀθλοφόρος τοῦ Χριστοῦ Σπερ ᾶ τος ἐπαλλόμενος εὐχαρκληκότι αὐτούς εἰς τόν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ θάνατον ἀνέπεμψεν. Likewise, at the very end of the acts, instead of “Uniuersi dixerunt: Deo gratias" in Greek, the martyrs say a prayer of thanks in 25 words. All such observations, in my opinion, have no value. After all, this is indisputable the fact is that the Greek manuscript was completed in 890 and the oldest of the Latin ones, “A” in the critical apparatus of Robinson, cod. Mus. Brit. 11,880, also of the 9th century. From the comparison of ABC it is clear that in the BC acts end with a completely different expression compared to A. In the text of the acts BC allow themselves to indulge in eloquence, of which there is not a trace in A and in the Greek review. The scribes, Greek and Latin, apparently regarded certain details as indifferent and varied them ad libitum. The differences noted by Robinson, however, are such that a Christian hand could have introduced them into the original text in the same year 180. But draw conclusions about the comparative antiquity of the reviews themselves on the basis of these external editorial details. - this is a critical technique, quite similar to what would happen if someone began to doubt the authenticity of incunabula simply because they were clearly bound in the 19th century. If someone had placed Raphael’s or Murillo’s Madonna in a Moscow-style icon case, then the character of the Western brushwork of the image itself would certainly not have suffered from this icon case. Everything that Robinson noted relates to the fundamental principle of the text only as an icon case relates to an icon. Χαίρετε , τῶν ἐμων λόγων ἐρασταὶ , – καὶ γραφίδες φανεαὶ καὶ λ α ν θ ά ν ο υ σ α ι, says Gregory the Theologian in his farewell speech (oratio 42, ol. 32, n. 26. p. 767. Migne, Patrol. S. Gr, t. 36, 492) to the Constantinople flock. In general, it can be assumed that ancient tachygraphs were inferior to modern stenographs in recording accuracy. The less perfect is the tachygram that came out from under the γραφίδες λανθάνουσαι. And if there were several such records, small variations inevitably appeared in the very original source of the Christian acta martyrum. Potestis indulgentiam domini nostri imperatoris promereri, si ad bonam mentem redeatis. Eg. acta proconsularia of this meeting were lost and were not found in the archive; Christians later lost the extract delivered to them; the person who had access to the archive and was hired by the “praemio” did not understand what exactly the Christians needed; or he found that he was not paid generously enough to make it worthwhile to make an extract from the previous minutes in addition to the meeting on July 17. The second entry was preserved, in my opinion, in A of Robinson’s critical apparatus, the remains of the third – in BC. And the oldest Latin review appears to me as follows: Barians e and f – from BC; consultatio is spoiled in A in commutatio. Later echoes: acta apud Baronium: "furoris huius insipientiae"; ms. Colbert.: "furoris huius dementiae"; ms. Silos: "huius dementiae". Cp. pr. 1. Acta Bar. for reading "iusta - nulla", ms. Colb. Silos. - for reading "bona - deliberatio." - Option g - from C: "et indesinenter Dominum Deum meum colo et adoro" etc. The Greek review serves as a control. παραφροσύνης κτλ. This is a marginal reading. διάσκεφιν ἀναμονῆς χρήζετε " – „ ἐν πράγματι ο ὖ τως ἐγκρίτω οὐδεμία καθίσταται βουλὴ ἢ διάσκεψις ". Apparently the tachygraphers are not sure whether the martyr said 'iusta' or 'bona', 'consultatio' or 'deliberatio'. In the compiler's note acts (in the first tachygram) there was apparently not “iusta” or “bona”, but another adjective (“certa”?), and both nouns were placed side by side. - Sperat’s last answer: “Χριστιανός ἀμετάθετος τυγχάνω; in the first tachygram there was apparently, if not “indesinenter”, then a word similar to it. - The expression of the Greek text: „ ἀλλ᾿ εἴ τι καὶ πράσσω, τὸ τέλος ἀποτίνυμι “in ABC in the second and third tachygram corresponds to: “sed si quid emero, teloneum reddo.” Obey is, of course, absolutely right when he translates the Greek text as literally as possible with the words: “sed si quid negoti ago.” It is worth noting that in Ms. Silos it reads: “si quid autem in publicum emero,” and in Ms. Colbert.: “s. q. a. i. p. egero.” Didn’t the martyr say: “sed si quid negoti egero"? (And another question: is it not because Sperat speaks of such a special point of the honest performance of civil duties as the payment of trade duties, because the words ABC: “Hodie martyres in caelis sumus. Deo gratias” are translated in Greek: “Σήμερον ἀληθώς”) “Obviously, the first tachygram read: “Deo grati.” – All the noted differences between the three tachygrams can be just as easily explained under another assumption: there was only one tachygraphic record (text A); one of the Christians who was in the secretariat then re-read it, and noted in the field (BC) the options where, in his opinion, the tachygram did not convey the words with literal accuracy. This consolidated text came into the hands of the compiler of the Greek review, and he, also an eyewitness, deviated from the Latin record where it was transmitted. the words were approximately accurate, but he remembered them literally. K. J. Neumann, Der römische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche bis auf Diokletian (Leipzig 1890, 71 – A. Schwarze, Untersuchungen über die äussere Entwicklung der afrikanischen Kirche (Göttingen 1892), 104. Neumann made of the Greek acts that indisputable the conclusion that this town lay in Numidia proconsularis. In any case, "τῆς Νουμηδίας" has scientific value: until now it was impossible to say even this with certainty. There is no need to add that Scili is not mentioned either in the Itinerarium Antonini or in the Tabula Peutingeriana. Consequently, Scili was neither civitas nor simply mansio on one of the main African roads, although this does not mean that it was not on one of them - Wed. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Amplissima Collectio, IV, 125C. 80D. 53A. 155B; X, 930C. 940D. Baluze (Mansi, IV, 125, n. 7) “Scilli” posits in Numidia, referring to Notitia provinciarum et civitatum Africae (in the appendix to Victoris Vitensis historia persecutionis, recensuit C. Halm [in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Berolini 1879], pp. 63 – 71). Apparently Baluze means n. 54 in Nomina prouintiae Numidiaë "Maximus sillitanus prbt". Even Du Pin (in 1700) noticed the fallacy of this basis and pointed out [Migne, S. Lat., t. 11, 1318, n. 272] that at the same conference of 411 the Orthodox "Faustinus episcopus plebis" was also present Sillitanae" (Mansi, IV, 103B). However, even Gelzer (Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis Romani, ed H. Gelzer, Lipsiae 1890, pp. 106–107) writes: “Maximus Sillitanus – quin Scillitanus scribendus sit, dubium non est.” Without suspecting that Squillacius and Donatus were bishops two faiths, he thinks that only one of them was the bishop of Ί σκλη Σκήλη [ Σκίλι ] Scili in Numidia, “alter, sicut Pariator, ad Scilium Provinciae Proconsularis pertinet.” Thus, according to Gelzer, there were two towns from which the adjective could be formed Scilitanus: α ) Scilium in the proconsular province and β ) Scili in Numidia; Scili is mentioned by the signature of Bishop Papiator in 646, Scili is mentioned aa) in Notitia 484 and bb) in George of Cyprus But in fact Notitia mentions only Silli or Sillium in Numidia, correcting Sillitanus in two independent ones; other sources on Scillitanus means allowing completely unscientific arbitrariness. George's Σκήλη reads en toutes lettres; but to rely on the authority of the inscription " ἐπαρχία Νουμιδίας " and to believe that this Σκήλη (hardly anyone dares to dispute its identity with Ί σκλη Scili acts) lay in Numidia is possible only by misunderstanding. Geltser himself is also too reassuring on these pages of George of Cyprus. Undoubtedly, they suffered cruelly from time. Κωνσταντίνη . Now in the Bysacian diocese the first place is Σούβιβα - Sufibus, a μητρόπολις A δράμυτος Ί ουστινιανη (Procop., aedif. 6,6) - in the 13th and penultimate place, in Numidia Καλάμα takes precedence, and Cirta Constantina is also in the 13th and last place. Moreover, of all the cities of the proconsular province, only Καρταγεννα is named. This obviously gives reason to think that the missing cities of this province did not disappear from the lists of George without a trace, but - at least - some of them were mixed with Bysacian or Numidian cities. And in fact, the 12th of the Numidian ones, Βάγης, is undoubtedly identical with πόλις έν χώρα. Προκονσουλαρία Βαγὰ ὄνομα Procop. 6, 5, 339 Bonn. Vaga, now Bedja, 36° 47' N. latitude, 9° 9' e. from Greenwich; a Vaga was never included in Numidia. Likewise, the mysterious Ληράδους in the 7th place between the Numidian cities was probably formed from Λαρήβους Λαρίβους (cf. Procop. de bello Vand. 2, 22. 28, pp. 508. 533 Bonn.) Laribus, now Lorbous, 36° 1' N. la., 8° 53' E. village Greenv. Therefore, Σκήλη in 9th place can be considered not a Numidian city, but that city of the proconsular province, in which Pariator was the bishop in 646, and Squillacius in 411 (The form of the name “Scilium” is not based on anything; it is equally impossible to provide positive evidence that Squillacius was a Numidian bishop). Thus, until 1881 g., scientists could only talk about Scili as a Numidian city, and after 1881 they also counted two Scili instead of one. In my extreme understanding, there is no sufficient reason to doubt that the boundaries of Numidiae proconsularis (in the 1st-3rd centuries AD) on the map of Romische Geschichte von Th., Berlin. 1886, are mapped out quite precisely: starting at the coast of the Mediterranean Sea at 36° 55' N and 7° 0' E., this border gradually descended to the south to 35° 45' N. and 8° 15' E. d., then went, slightly rising to the north, east and at 35° 50' N. w. and 9° 5' E. having described an arc, it turned north and, with a slight slope to the west, reached the sea at 37° 0' N. w. and 8° 50' E. (True, Schwarze, relying on Ephemeris Epigr. VII, n. 49, suggests that perhaps Sufetula, now Sbitla, 35° 14' N, 9° 8' E, was once part of Numidiae proconsularis; but this opinion is too weakly motivated). African cathedrals at the end of the 4th - beginning of the 5th century. show that the bishops of the western half of Numidiae proconsularis (Calama, now Guelma, 36° 28' N, 7° 26' E, Hippo Regius, 36° 51' N, 7° 46' E, Thagaste 36° 18' N, 7° 55' E, Thagora, now Taoura, 36° 10' N, 8° 2' E, even Bulla Regia 36° 34' N, 8° 42' E) look upon themselves as Numidae and recognize as their superior not the bishop of Carthage, but the “elder” (senex) of Numidia, that is, the oldest bishop of Numidia by consecration. primas province. That is, Numidia proconsularis in the 4th-5th centuries merges partly with its own Numidia, and partly with the proconsular province. This new border between the provinces apparently changed from time to time; in 646 the bishops of Benenatus Semitensis were present on the concilium proconsulare (colonia Simitthu, now Schemtou, 36° 32' N, 8° 38' E., seven m. pass. west of Bulla Regia) and Benenatus Naraggaritanus (Naraggara 36° 16' N., 8° 20' E., on the very border between Tunisia and Algeria). From all this it follows that the same place Ί σχλη Scili in the 2nd century. believed in Numidia, and in the 7th century. - in the proconsular province. It apparently lies in the territory of present-day Tunisia, somewhere around 9° 0' E. from Greenwich, not far (to the west) from the ancient boundary between Numidia proconsularis and provincia (Africa) proconsularis, passing between Bulla Regia and Vaga. In Mabillon and reprinted in E. Egli, Altchristliche Studien: Martyrien u. Martyrologien ältester Zeit (Zurich 1887), 109. Acta Sanctorum, Octobr., t. XII, p. xix. I, c. 3, n. 9, p. 3, 30 ed. Halm. Next to the normal Aquilius, Avilius, Aurelius, Petilius, Turpilius, the forms Aquillius, Avillius, Aurellius, Petillius, Turpillius are also attested epigraphically (G. Wilmans, Exempla Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berolini 1873, Index I, 1). Wed. P. Schröder, Die Phönizische Sprache, Halle 1869. – M. A. Levy, Phönizische Studien, Breslau 1864. – P. de Lagarde, Übersicht, über die im Aramäischen, Arabischen u. Hebräischen übliche Bildung der Nomina (Gottingen 1889), 75 – 78 [segol, i.e. vowel e in Hebrew, ancient i]. Heb. group of letters AT, Phoenician AIT, in Hebrew now pronounced et, in Punian it sounded “yth" (Plautus). Son in Hebrew “BeN” (Βενιαμίν), in Punian “byn” (Anno byn Mytthymbal Hannonem sese ait - Muthumbalis filium). Phoenician MLQRT "Melkart" means "king of the city" (Heb. MeLeK-QaRT); in the name Ἀμίλκας Hamilcar the sound "e" gave way to "i". The "silli" that occurs more than once in Poenulus in Hebrew would be "aser-li" "something-to-me." - Until now scholars (W. Wright, Lectures on the comparative grammar of the Semitic languages, Cambridge 1890, p. 86) believed that the Punes had numerous “rus” in their place names (Ruspe, Rusadder, Rusibi, Ruspina) [Arabic “rá's(un)”, head, le cap, cape] pronounced “rush”, and their “judges” (sufetes) were called “shufet” - on the basis that the corresponding Hebrew words in European science are usually pronounced rosh, shofet. De Lagarde (Mittheilungen, IV, 378 [Gottingen 1891, from Nachrichten von d. k. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. zu Gottingen, 1891, Stuck 5, vom 6. Juni] article “Samech”) showed that the custom of pronouncing the letter Shin as sh and the letter Sin as s is only a Syrian tradition, on which European Hebraists are dependent. He expressed the idea that in ancient times the pronunciation was completely different: what is now taken for shin was pronounced as s, and the current sin as sh. It directly follows from this that the Punic rus sufet also sounded like rus, sufet. Therefore, in what follows I will transcribe through s. P. de Lagarde, Uebersicht, 11.203.54.80.152. The firmly established χ in Ί σχλη is important because it shows that in Pushian it is not qoph, but kaph. Vytia, 14, 13. 24. Numbers, 13, 24. 25: nahal 'eskô'l) διά τόν βότρυν ( 'eskô'l) ὂ ν εκοψαν ἐκείθεν οί υίοὶ Ισραηλ . The massiveness of this bunch of grapes is already indicated by the fact that “two carried it on a pole.” Deuteronomy 1:24. In province Byzacena at 36 m. pass, from Sufetula and 68 from Hadrumotum (Itin. Antonini, 53 Wessel.) lay the town of Mascliana. Under one document (Aug. 397), there is a signature: "Victorianus episcopus plebis Mascilianensis" (Mansi, III, 926AB). This is "Mascli" - "Mascili" - apparently of the same root with Ἰ σχλὴ Scili [The reader completely unfamiliar with Semitic languages will only be pleased to note that the word mosque, Moschee mosguee, is a corruption of the Arabic masgid(un), masjid (masdjed) as pronounced in Syria, masgid - in Egypt, from the verb sgd sagada, il s'inclina jusqúa terre, il se prosterna devant, προσεκύνησε And. in ma-sgid and in ma-scli - ma there is a prefix Masgid(un) a place where prostrations are made, Mascli a place where vines grow] On the other hand, in Tabula Peutingeriana on the way from Bulla Regia to Thuburbo Pass 24 mil. east of Bulla Regia it is noted: “Armasclafl[uvius]. the meaning is similar to the Hebrew nahal – 'еskôl, and maybe Scili Ισχλη lay not far from this river. There could be a trace. differences (lines from pp. 113–117 Robinson): 113, 10 + Θεῶ 17+ ἀληθοῦς 24+ αἰσθητοῖς 25 πράσσω negoti ago 115.2 ἀποδειχθείσης 3 ἐπισφαλης (apparently not mala, but some other adjective) 7 γενέσθαι ἤ δειχθῆναι (which seems to suggest a phrase with videri) 10 κατοικοῦντα (from Psalm. 123.1; 2, 4? vm. est) 19 εῖπαν (vm. sopsenserunt). – Amplifiers love beautiful expressions (120.19 uidens etiam ipsorum mentis stabilitatem etfidei firmitatem 121.1 hoc semper meditabitur cor meum etlabia mea pronuntiabunt 121, 29 quales nos hodie сernis tales post hanc induciam futuros esse non dubites); however, no one took advantage of place 117, 7 – 9 (see note 2). In acta Baron. 120, 27 the death of the martyrs is described as follows: et fleris genibus unaninuter [this feature is not found either in the Greek or in the oldest Latin review, or in mss. Silos. Colbert], cum iterum gratias Crista agerent [the Greek review contains the text of the thanksgiving itself in 25 words, but the word Χριστός is not there], truncatasunt singulorum capita. Aube, 6. 12. 13. 20. According to Aube, the Greek acts were written between 180 and 200. But he admits that even the trial itself took place in Greek due to the fact that the African defendants, although they understood a little Greek, did not speak Latin at all. This seems to me absolutely incredible, and the “subtilite” that Aubé foresees but rejects (questions and answers - translation from Latin, everything else in the Greek text is original) is the only possible one. Examples: persuasio πιθανότης tranquillas γαληνιώσας and especially ὀιαμεῖαι πορεύομα, if in fact Secunda said: “perscueratum eo” (vm. "ipsud uolo esse" of the oldest review, the reading of which, reflected in later versions, leads Ob. R. 18 to think that the current Greek reading owes its origin only to the scribe Cod. Paris, who copied from a manuscript in which there was only ομαι, and read it ex conjectura as πορεύομαι vm. βούλομαι), likewise male accepti κακῶς δεχθέντες. This last reading suggests a lack of grammatical understanding of the Greek expression, and not a weak understanding of the Latin language. διαμείναι πορεύομαι shows the same lack of lexical instinct. Both are understandable in the case when it is not a Greek who translates from a foreign language into his native language, but a Latin from his native into a foreign language - Sometimes the translator resorts to descriptive expressions. Ὁ ποῖαι [the Greek translator would probably have written ποίαι ] πραγματεῖαι τοῖς ὑμετέροις ἀπόκεινται σκεύεσιν; The semi-contemptuous "res" of the proconsul is sufficiently defined through the subsequent "capsa". The author of the Greek review, unless he had special incentives to deviate from the Latin text, probably did not know what "capsa" is called in Greek, and was forced to replace it with the general expression σκεύεσιν... But from this the defining "res" was a hint This gap is successfully filled by the fact that instead of πραγματα, πραγματεῖαι is placed. The Latin “ex tabella recitavit” corresponds to ἐξεφώνησεν. Ex tabella is omitted or because for a contemporary it was obvious that the proconsul read the sentence. already written, or because the Latin did not know how to translate "tabella" in Greek. The Latin "genius" is interpreted through "ἡ συμπεφυκυίὰ εὐδαμονία ". The author of the acts either does not know that the Greeks "genius" is conventionally replaced by the word "τύχη", or protests against this replacement as inaccurate. Robinson, p. 110, draws attention to the expression "iniquitati nullam operam praebuimus", omitted in the Greek review. "But any one who attempts to find a rendering for it will pardon the Greek translator, if he used the license of a paraphrast and purposely omitted it." What exactly is the meaning of the omitted phrase and why exactly it is so difficult to translate, Robinson does not explain. In my opinion, Aubey is right, p. 13, when he suggests that the African martyrs were people "at least of the middle class, of Punic or Lybian blood." And Sperat, despite his Latin name, perhaps thought in Punian, although he used Latin words. As a similar explanation, one can point to the following. φαυλίξειν, συκοφαντεῖν, ἀσεβεῖν. The name derived from this verb replaces ἀδικος, ἀνομος, παράνομος, δόλιος, ἀσεβής. But the same verb (in 2 Kings, 9, 14) means: conspired, mmurauif. sense: conspiracy, des projefs de révolte. The same verb in the Gondar dialect of Amharic (ammata) means: fut inique, injuste, méchant, désobéissant, rebelle; agit injustement, se mit en rebellion A. Dillmann, Lexicon linguae aеthiopicae (Lipsiae 1865), 958. - R. Basset, Etudes sur l'historie d'Ethiopie (Paris 1882), 47.156 - Anfoine d'Abbadie, Dictionnaire de la langue amarinna (Paris 1881), 475. If the author of the acts, as a contemporary, understood that the word “iniquitas” in the mouth of Sperat had the ponderous specific meaning of the Ethiopian “ammatz”; then it is not surprising if he found it difficult to translate it into Greek: the word ἀσεβεια with its special political meaning either did not occur to the Latin translator or, perhaps, even seemed too soft to him. Aubé, 13. "Dans l'Eglise d'Afrique, prolongement probable de l'Eglise de Rome, au premier et au second siecle, la langue usuelle est plutot le grec que le latin. N'etait ce pas en cette langue qúon lisait les Ecritures, les Evangiles, les lettres de saint Paul? – Ne savons-nous pas que Perpetue parlait le grec couramment? Tertullien, qui crea – le latin ecclesiastique, ecrivait en grec comme dans sa langue maternelle. Neither Robinson, 109 – 111, nor Overbeck (A. Harnack's u. E. Schurer's Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1882, Sp. 175, where Franz Overbeck, one of the paramount figures in German church-historical science, wrote a review of Aubé's Etude!) paid attention to Aubey's new thought in science, the Greek text of the acts is original, it cannot be rejected a priori, and he drew attention to the relations of Montanist-minded African Christians with their eastern like-minded people as the “most natural motive” for recording the acts in Greek. S. P. Caspari, Ungedruckte unbeachtete und wenig beachtete Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel, III, Christiania 1875. Excursion: Griechen und Griechisch in der römischen Gemeinde in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten ihres Bestehens" (SS. 267–466) sympathetically greets A. Harnack (Theol. Ltztg 1876, 13). E. Schurer, Die altesten Christengemeinden im römischen Reiche (Kiel 1894), 10: “the language of the Christian community in Rome until the end of the 2nd century AD was Greek.” - T. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte (Berlin 1886), V, 547. Caspari, 458: So kann er [Tertullianus, de spectac. 25] in den Worten „ εἰς αιῶνας ἀπ᾿ αὶῶνος “ [which the church said in honor of Christ, and the circus in honor of the gladiator] weder die afrikanischen Gemeinden, in denen der Gottesdienst ohne allen Zweifel ausschliesslich in lateinischer Sprache gehalten wurde (auch die carthagische machte hievon keine Ausnahme, obgleich hier so mancher Gebildete griechisch verstand und sprach), noch die griechischen und hellenistisch-orientalischen; sondern nur die römische vor Augen gehabt haben, in der man griechische Gottesdienste hatte und lateinisch verstand. - Mommsen, 657. 658, definitely does not speak about the original liturgical language of African Christians. Passio s. Perpetuae, nn. 4. 13. 12, Robinson, 68. 82. 80. 43. "Omnia graece." Juvenal, sat. 6, 187 Tertull. de baptismo [approx. 198] p. 15: haeretici – (baptismum) sine dubio non habent – ​​sed de isto plenius iam nobis in graeco digestum est. Hauck (A. Hauck, Tertullian''s Leben u. Schriften, Erlangen 1877), 102, explains: "it is easy to understand why he wrote this work in Greek: the decision adopted by the African church seemed to him desirable for the whole church. He defended this decision before the Africans" [here - I note - the defense was appropriate, because the decision of the council abolished the previous practice] “and at the same time recommended it to everyone” [the Asia Minor churches did not need this recommendation for the sole reason that their views and ancient practice agreed with the African decree]. – de corona militis [in 201–202] p. 6: “ex quibus spectacula instruuntur – sed et huic materiae propter suauiludios nostros graeco quoque stylo satisfecimus." – de uirginibus uelandis [in 201–202] p. 1 [beginning of the essay]: “Proprium iam negotium passus meae opinionis, latine quoque ostendam uirgines nostras uelari oportere.” Disputatione quadam,” comments Rigault, “aduersus graecos [however, it is known only that this question was of burning interest precisely in Carthage] - graecorum conuitiis exceptus ac pro haeretico exagitatus fuisse uidetur “This question,” writes Fuller in W. Smith and H. Wace A Dictionary of Christian Biography (London 1887), 845, seemed so important to Tertullian that he discussed it in both languages, perhaps hoping to draw attention to it. east and west” [but why the east in advance? after all, the dispute exists and is of keen interest to everyone in Carthage!]. The Greek works of Tertullian have not reached us, the Latin works de spectaculis and de uirg. uel. preserved. I heard about this in our dissertations and colloquiums from Hierodeacon Gabra-Krystos (Christodoulos), an Abyssinian from Tamben in Tigray, who lived in St. Petersburg. Theological Academy in 1892 - 94. From here, of course, it follows that all the Ikhli martyrs were laymen. If, for example, Sperat had been a bishop or presbyter of the Iskhli church, then the compiler of the Greek text of the acts, which were intended to serve as a word of praise to the martyrs, would not have omitted this detail. In Prop. 17, I offered what is, in my opinion, the most likely explanation of the difference between the Greek text and the Latin at this point. Other explanations are also possible. Σκεύος has such a broad meaning (Acts of the Apostle 10, 11 „ καταβαΐνον σκεύός τι ώς όθόνην μέγαλην “in Russian it is difficult to call "vessel"); σκεύη in the house - not only "vessels" (σκεῦος μόδιος Luke 8:16; 11:33; Matt. 5:15), but "furniture" in general (Matthew 12:29; cf. Heb. 9, 21). The modern "portfolio" is undoubtedly σκεῦος, according to Acts 10, 11. - Σκεύη luggage for a traveler. In African churches, books were sometimes stored very simply. Gesta purgationis Felicis (Migne, S. Lat. t. 8, 725 AB): "inuenies in cathedra libros et super lapide codices". δὲ τῶ ἐβδόμω αὐτοῦ ἔτελ =217 no p. ἐκδόσεως ἐν πίθοις ἐν Ἰ εριχῶ κεκρυμμένοι, and under Alexander Severus ηὑρέθη ἔκτη ἔκδοσις , καὶ αὐτὴ ἐν πιθοις κεκρυμμένη ἐν Νικοπόλει τῆ πρὸς Ἀκτία it is clear that valuable books were hidden [cf. Jer. 39 (32), and 14] and perhaps in ordinary times they were kept in clay pots (cf. 2 Corinth. 4, 7: ἔχομεν δὲ τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν ). Obviously, the σκεύεσιν of acts allows for such an explanation. – In view of what follows, the question is of some interest: where were these books on July 17, 180? If only the Latin reading was available, everyone would probably answer without hesitation: apparently in the meeting room, in secretario. If σκεύεσιν in luggage,” that is, if Ishli Christians were arrested during the trip; then, of course, their books were seized along with them. But if we assume the incredible that the author chooses his σκεύεσιν deliberately in order to contrast it with the word capsa as a fixed bookcase (in Obe: “in uestris armariis”) with a portable book case, then shouldn’t we think that the books were currently in Ishli? The word itself ἀπόκεινται shouldn’t mean: put and are still there? I think the answer should be negative. Firstly, the Latin author was not particularly sensitive to the subtleties of the Greek vocabulary and put ἀπόκεινται instead of sunt, apparently for another reason. Instead of "habete" he writes, however, ὑμῖν ἔστω; but for 14 cases of the verb esse in the Latin text there are only 2 cases (ἐστὶν, εὶμι) in Greek. Instead of the usual "christianus sum" in Greek, χρ is used. καθισταμαι, χρ. ὑπάρχω, χρ. τυγχάνω. The Latin author is apparently not sure whether it is possible to say ε ἷ ναι in Greek in all those cases where in Latin it is esse, and tries to avoid this ε ἷ ναι. Therefore, here too the sunt is bypassed; they were free from suspicion even of magic; after all, the capsa could contain witchcraft books, which were supposed to serve as evidence against them, like malefici. It would be bad for the judicial investigator who would not have guessed to attach these books to the case. It was more convenient to study them in Carthage than in Iskhli, and the capsa was not at all so bulky that the officials found it difficult to transport it to the residence of the proconsul. Theodor Zahn, Gesclrichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Erlangen-Leipzig 1888–89), I, 102 Anm. 1; 86 Anm. And; 102. 103; 81. 82. An Ethiopian text was published on it in Biblia Polyglotta ed. Brian Walton, Londini 1657. The results of Tischendorf's research on the inscriptions of New Testament books in the oldest manuscripts agree with the conclusions of Westcott and Hort. Novum Testamentum grace. Recensionis Tischendorfianae ultimae (1873) textum cum Tregcllesiano (1857–1879) et Westcottio-Hortiano (1881) contulit Oscar de Gebhardf. Lipsiae 1884. If expressions like ὁ πατσίκιος ὁ κατὰ Ἰ έσδην, Σέργιος ὁ κατὰ Νικήταν, then in living speech they could gain rights citizenship for a long time. Punic Africa provided particularly favorable soil for such a modus loqueudi. In “Poenulus” there are “oh sili”, “amma silli”, “bene silli”, i.e. brother-what-to-me, mother-what-to-me, son-my-what-to-me, instead of my brother, etc.