Matthaeus Rader's Annotations on the Paschal Chronicle

^A he composed in a free manner, as Suidas says; thinking that the words ^B by which he enumerates his works should be referred to this Chronicle: "The Hexaemeron in three thousand iambic verses. On Heraclius the king, and on the Persian war." As if Pisidas had documented the annals from O. C. up to Heraclius and the Persian war—for so he thinks the preposition [εἰς] should be interpreted, so that it means not "about" Heraclius, but "up to" Heraclius. For he totally removes the punctuation before "εἰς." There are three things, however, that prevent me from agreeing with this opinion. First, because Suidas truly asserts that the Hexaemeron was written in iambics; for we still have in our hands one thousand eight hundred and eighty verses of that work, as if it were a certain prologue to the entire subject, as is apparent from the manuscript codex of the library, which reads in these words: "Prologue of George, deacon of the Great Church, called the Pisidian, to the Hexaemeron in iambic verses." That work is therefore metrical and written in verse, and it does not contain the space of more than six days, whence it is also inscribed *Cosmopoeia* and *Hexaemeron*. Next, in Suidas, after the word "three thousand," there follows a punctuation mark, as if to show that the history following it, concerning Heraclius, is different from the *Cosmopoeia*, and that it was written in prose. Finally, the author of another manuscript Chronicle (from the library of the Annæus College) reports that, excerpted from Pisidas and Cyril, the first daughters of Adam, one called Azura and the other Asua, are named, whereas in this Chronicle there is no mention of either Asua or Azura. Therefore, this Chronicle cannot be by Pisidas. These things seemed so to me, yet, if the former opinion should please anyone more, he may feel as he wishes; I will not, meanwhile, go to the point of denying that—if the epigraph of that manuscript Annæus Chronicle is true—a Chronicle may have been elaborated by Pisidas, but in loose prose, not bound by feet; yet it cannot be proven from Suidas, who makes absolutely no mention of it.

Onuphrius Panvinius and the "chastiser of times" designate the book by the name of anonymous, except that the latter sometimes calls it the "Casaubonian" in the *Eusebian Thesaurus*. The consular Fasti taken from it are commonly called the *Siculi* [Sicilian] or *Tabula Siciliae* [Sicilian Table], because the book was first found in a very ancient library in Sicily.

Indeed, it seems more likely to me that there was not one single author of this Chronicle, which I conjecture first from the inscription, then from the preface, and finally from the list of Caesars. Panvinius reads the inscription, which promises a continuation of events from the foundation of the world down to the first year of Heraclius. Our codex, from which Casaubon took his excerpts and transmitted them to Scaliger, contains all the years of the world down to the twentieth year of Heraclius. It seems, therefore, that those things which follow after the first year of Heraclius were added by someone else. ^C Next, the nomenclature of the Roman emperors, which names the final Roman monarch (who they write reigned in the year of Christ 45), shows clearly that the whole catalog of emperors was either inserted or augmented by another; since more than thirty emperors are enumerated here after Heraclius.

The preface, however, bears the name of Peter of Alexandria, bishop, I believe, for so he is named a thousand times in Greek writers, especially in the councils; whence I deem the Chronicle should be called "Alexandrine" rather than "Sicilian," since it prefers the name of Peter of Alexandria, whether bishop, or lector, or someone else, and frequently disputes about the typical lamb from paschal and mathematical calculations. That the bishop of Alexandria could at one time have had that concern for the calculation of times: in the chronology of Greco-Roman law I read that Peter, bishop of Alexandria, was present in the year of Christ 640, in the fifty-something year, who could have been the author of the Chronicle.

^D This Chronicle has been lauded by the writers of our own century, first by Carlo Sigonio in his *Commentary on the Fasti and Roman Triumphs*. "We," he says, "have followed Dionysius, whom certain consular Fasti written in Greek, and brought (as I hear) from Sicily, following as well others in Latin which Cuspinianus cites, in which the consuls are placed in succession, with only their cognomina given in this manner, 'of Brutus and Collatinus'." Then Panvinius, who in the general preface to his *Commentaries on the Fasti* writes thus: "The most recent of all the ancients, as far as I know, who wrote the consular Fasti, is another anonymous author, who in a universal Chronicle composed in Greek by himself, added also the names of the consuls from the finished kings to the first year of the Emperor Heraclius." That book, written in very ancient letters, was found in Sicily, in an ancient library, by Hieronymus Surita, and by the labor of Antonius Augustinus, auditor of the Rota (it was arranged that the part of his book which contained the consuls should be transmitted to us). By whose aid I was much relieved in putting together these Fasti.

The same (lib. 11, preface): "For I have used Orosio, Cassiodorus, and those Greek Fasti recently brought to Rome from Sicily through the labor of the most learned man Antonius Augustinus, and those indeed most depraved, in ordering the consuls."

And (lib. 1, preface): "For the Greek Fasti brought to the city from Sicily through the labor of Antonius Augustinus and Hieronymus Surita extend down to the times of the Emperor Heraclius."

How highly Sylburgius valued the same is attested by himself, who testified that he bought this very codex, which we have from the Augustan [Augsburg] library, for thirty-six gold coins, and offered it to D. Hoeschel, and Hoeschel offered it to the republic.

Casaubon copied a great part of it from there, which Scaliger brought into his *Thesaurus* of times (or errors?), and first edited it in Greek, and thus inscribed it: "A Compendium of Times from Adam the first-formed man until the twentieth year of the reign of Heraclius. A Compendium of times by an unnamed author, never before edited. From Adam the first man to the twentieth year of the reign of Heraclius with the consuls; a most useful work, although by an uneducated writer, from the library of the most noble Isaaci Casauboni."

He commends the same in another place with several words, when he says: "Moreover, to this Eusebian work, because of the kinship of the material, we have added the first anonymous Chronicle, a patchwork of an uneducated man indeed, but one sewn together from good pieces at times, especially instructed from the excerpts of Eusebius and Africanus." The father first of all, or among the first, called them the "Sicilian Fasti."

We have termed it the "Casaubonian" [copy], because he received it from a certain Greek, and communicated it to us transcribed by his own hand. Whatever good, therefore, can be drawn from that hodgepodge shall be imputed to him, since it is not a meager profit that can be gathered from this Chronicle. We have not wished to alter the orthographical errors that exist in it, which we mention so that no one might think them typographical mistakes. Anyone will be able to correct them according to his own perception or judgment. And from the Preface: "We even have certain things from an unnamed chronologist, which they call the Sicilian Fasti."

You understand from these what chronologists and investigators of times think of this Chronicle. That Scaliger says it is a patchwork made chiefly from Eusebius, and from Africanus, who is older than Eusebius, affirms our opinion that it was put together by many authors, since more things were added from a later century.

*What things already exist from this Chronicle.*

Panvinius was the first to publish the bare consular fasti in Greek and Latin. Joseph Scaliger, in his *Thesaurus Eusebianus*, published only in Greek the chronological excerpts up to the eighteenth year of the Emperor Maurice, with histories inserted here and there, which part contains a third of the whole book. Why he, or Casaubon, omitted the following pages, I cannot divine, unless it is because there is much mention there of sacred images, which I suppose the iconoclasts shunned.

We received the whole work, begun from the foundation of the world and carried down to the nineteenth year of Heraclius, in Greek from the manuscript of the Augsburg Library, and we have transcribed it with our own hand and made it public property. Only two years are missing from what the title promised, which, as the antiquarian Andreas Darmarius testifies, were destroyed by antiquity.

We have added considerations and corrections; for since, as Panvinius and Scaliger experienced, we had noticed the codices were foully corrupted with errors, there was much labor for us to spend in taking care of them and healing them; where, however, no certain traces of medicine could be applied, we marked the incurable wound with an asterisk, so that the reader might not be ignorant of it, and might have faith that ours has been fully examined. But if anyone should consider the amendment of the notes suspicious, let him know that the autograph manuscript is preserved in the library of the Republic of Augsburg, to which an appeal can be made.

Since the discipline of chronography is one of the most impeded and nearly inextricable of all, I shall not quibble with writers; I shall only set forth the opinion of our chronographer, and set forth those whom he has as authors, followers, and laudators of his opinion, as well as those who are his opponents.

First, it is certain that this number is accepted from the Seventy translators of the sacred Scriptures. They attribute to several fathers of families, or founders of the human race, one hundred years more than the Hebrews, aside from the years of Lamech, where they differ by only six years, and Noah, in whose five-hundredth and 600th years they agree entirely. Regarding this matter, D. Augustine, D. Jerome, and others who later, having abandoned the opinion of the Seventy Fathers, followed the Hebrew and the common Latin along with Jerome and Augustine, argue at length (6).

Therefore, our chronographer has followed the Septuagint Interpreters of the ancient Greek manuscript edition, which Africanus read and approved, as did Epiphanius, and the Patriarch Nicephorus, Anastasius the Librarian, the Chronicle from Pisida and Cyril, and Honorius Augustodunensis, for whose decrees Antonio Contius, a very skillful observer and writer of laws and times, most fiercely fights, and who teaches in the plainest words that the whole Greek and Latin Church originally followed the Seventy Elders up to the times of D. Jerome and Augustine, and today some still follow them. But the Greek [Church] never departed from them, whose interpretation the modern Church does not condemn in the least, but acknowledges and receives as canonical.

II. FIRST DECADE OF THE FATHERS OF FAMILIES.

Adam 230 begat Seth. (Heb. 130) Seth born at 205 years begat Enos. (Heb. 105) Enos 190 begat Cainan. (Heb. 90) Cainan 170 begat Malaleel. (Heb. 70) Malaleel 165 begat Jared. (Heb. 65) Jared 162 begat Enoch. (Heb. 162) Enoch 165 begat Mathusala. (Heb. 65) Mathusala 187 begat Lamech. (Heb. 187) Lamech 182 begat Noah. (Heb. 182) Noah 500 begat Sem, Cham, and Japheth. (Heb. 500) Noah 600 entered the ark. (Heb. 600. The Flood.)

Therefore, those whom I named above follow this Scripture, and even more recent ones are added to these. Pererius collects only 2242, because he subtracts 20 years from Mathusala on the authority of D. Jerome and D. Augustine, who had noted that that number was already corrupted among the Septuagint. Since Africanus, greater than both, had read 187 among them, which the Greek Fathers, especially Jerome and Augustine (who had read 167 and thought it ought to be corrected to the Hebrew codex), moved by censure, followed. The Aldine edition, however, retained the ancient and incorrupt reading of 187. Nicephorus, our Alexandrian Chronicle, the manuscript written in Latin by Anastasius, Contius, and others confirm the same.

III. He prophesied here.

The Book of Enoch, marked by the censure of the Church, has lost authority and is ranked among the apocryphal writings; it is not, indeed, openly rejected, nor does it deserve a full testimony of truth, because it has been corrupted by Jews and heretics, just as the Apocalypses of Moses, the *Apocrypha* of Elias and Jeremiah, and others like them, regarding which consult D. Augustine, *De Civitate Dei* [bk. XV, ch. 23], and D. Jerome to the *Epistle of D. Paul to the Ephesians*. That these were not entirely proscribed and damned is evident from the testimonies of the Apostles, who carried some things from them into their own writings and epistles; just as this passage of Jude is taken from Enoch, and S. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians translated that from the apocrypha of the prophet Elias: "Things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard," etc. In the Epistle again to the Galatians, from the Apocalypse of Moses: "Neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature," etc. And to the Ephesians, from the apocrypha of Jeremiah: "Arise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall enlighten thee."

There is a most beautiful passage brought forward by Syncellus from the corrector of times, which I shall translate and transcribe. "These things (he says) [are] from the first book of Enoch concerning the watchers; even if one ought not entirely to pay attention to apocrypha, especially the simpler sort, both because they have some things superfluous and at variance with ecclesiastical tradition, and because they have been corrupted by Jews and heretics. Nevertheless, even the blessed Paul used some passages from apocrypha sparingly, as when he says in his first Epistle to the Corinthians: 'Things which the eye hath not seen, and which the ear hath not heard, and [which] have not ascended into the heart of man,' and"

what follows from the apocrypha of Elias. And again in the Epistle to the Galatians, from the Apocalypse of Moses: 'Neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.' And in the Epistle to the Ephesians, from the apocrypha called by the name of Jeremiah: 'Arise, thou that sleepest, and rise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee.' These things have been cited by us not to give license to those who wish to read them differently—far be that. For many have been harmed by believing all that is in them. Whence the holy Church of God and the choir of our God-bearing Fathers forbade the reading of them, just as they did the other divine in Scripture. And we have cited the aforementioned passages only to show the transgression of the Watchers, and the impiety of the giants, of which the divine Moses also makes mention, and [to show] that it was for their sake that the worldly flood came to pass. ^A

Thus I translate: These things, indeed, [are] from the first book of Enoch, regarding the *egregoroi*, or watchers. Although faith is not to be placed in apocrypha in every respect, especially by the more simple, partly because they contain certain futile things alien to the common custom or tradition of the Church, and partly because they have been corrupted by Jews and heretics. Nevertheless, blessed Paul himself sometimes used testimonies from certain apocrypha, just as when he says in the first Epistle to the Corinthians: 'Things which the eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it ascended into the heart of man,' and those things which follow from the apocrypha of blessed Elias. The same [apostle] again to the Galatians, from the Apocalypse of Moses: 'Neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.' And to the Ephesians from the apocrypha of Jeremiah, which are called: 'Arise, thou that sleepest, and rise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee.' Hence these things have been said by us, not to confirm the temerity of those who wish to read these things without discrimination and judgment—far from it! For many, while believing all the true things contained in them, have received great detriment from them. Whence both the holy Church of God and the entire senate of the Fathers forbade these being read by the rank and file, that is, by the simple and unlearned. We therefore have used the testimonies written above only for this purpose: to show the scelerities of the watchers or leaders, and the impiety of the giants, of which the divine Moses also makes mention when he writes that because of it the world was inundated by waters. These things [are] from Syncellus. Furthermore, two hundred Watchers are recorded, of whom the leaders or decurions are numbered as twenty, whom the corrector of times, Semixas, Atarcuph, etc., names in the Eusebian Treasury from the first book of Enoch, where there is much regarding the Watchers, although [it is] corrupted by Jews and heretics. ^B

IV. *Seeing that the angels of God [took] the daughters of men.* With perfect orthodoxy our chronographer argues and refutes those who interpret [these] as angels—celestial spirits—whom we properly call angels, which he affirms to be an impious sentiment, together with the universal Church, which calls the pious men born of Seth "angels" and "sons of God." Suidas notes, from an ancient writer, that the sons of God, or those angels, were the sons of Seth, Enoch, and Enos; these are the words: "Let Seth, Enoch, and Enos be understood as the children, the sons of God, who, being overcome by intemperance, entered in unto the daughters of Cain, from whom were born the giants, from the matching intermarriage; from the just, indeed, strong and greatest, but from the unjust and profane, wicked and most evil." Let the children of Seth, Enoch, and Enos be understood as those called the sons of God, who, captured by the love of the daughters of Cain, copulated incestuous marriages with them, from whom were born the giants—for their fathers, indeed, were just, strong, and most tall; but because of Cain, who was wicked and defiled with the blood of his brother, they were degenerate and most evil. ^C

As concerns the Scripture, among the Septuagint it was formerly read "angels of God"—which today does not exist in the Carafiana, but blessed Augustine, Cyril, and others testify that it was so written. Aquila translates "sons of the gods," that is, of the angels or of the holy ones. Symmachus [translates] "sons of princes," [or] "sons of the powerful." The author of our Chronicle recognizes both readings, but gives the same explanation for both. He condemns, however, those who teach that celestial spirits were captured by the love of women. For there were some who said that the holy angels descended from heaven wounded by the love of maidens; and that they were composed of natural [bodies] of their own, not simulated ones. There were others who interpreted them as fallen demons, but also clothed in their own body. Others think the sons of God were demons who, having assumed the form of bodies fashioned from air, entered [unto] the women—whether this can happen and a human be procreated from it, N. Serarius discusses at length, quest. 4, c. 6, on Tobit. Philo, who calls the geniuses clothed in aerial body "giants," thought that angels were concreted from mind and body; with this agrees Josephus, book 1, *Antiquities*; Justin Martyr; Clement of Alexandria, book 1, *Stromata*; Tertullian, *On the Apparel of Women*; Lactantius, book 2, c. 15. Hence they think the fables of the poets arose, who concocted the metamorphoses, and the unions, and the adulteries of the gods with men, as Eusebius reports, *Praeparatio Evangelica*, c. 4, b. 1; Julian, according to Cyril. But of this question, enough has been said here in passing. Read the most learned Commentaries of Pererius on Genesis, c. vi, on the causes of the flood.

Why, however, Seth was called "God," I find three causes. The first I drew from a fragment of the Chronicle received from the Palatine library by Hoeschelius: that Seth, in the fortieth year of his age—that is, the 270th of Adam—was suddenly raptured by an angel and for forty days (like Moses) was not seen, during which time he learned divinely that his sons, called "Watchers" (whom they also called sons of God), were going to sin, and that the whole world was to be inundated by waters and was going to perish (a few excepted), and that the author of salvation, Christ, was also going to come; and that he explained all these things to his parents, Adam and Eve, which he had received from the angel; and in that celestial encounter he was encircled with a splendor which he retained for the rest of his life, just as Moses veiled his face for forty whole years. This, therefore, is the first cause they allege for why Seth was called "God," which I leave pending, fearing that it might be excerpted from the books of the Sethians (who were heretics), who reported the rapturing of Seth, although they added other absurdities which are not touched upon here. Read Epiphanius, *Heresies* 39 and 40, against the Sethians and Archontics. ^D Suidas brings a second [cause] under the word *Seth*, where he shows that Seth was deemed worthy of the name of God on account of his supreme piety, justice, and holiness. A third he adds, on account of [his] knowledge and science of celestial and sidereal matters. Indeed, they do not refer the name of God to Seth, but to God himself, because the good and just are also called "sons of God" elsewhere in the sacred Scriptures: "I have said: Ye are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High." By the same reasoning, angels are called "sons of God," as it is in Job, and in John 1, and in many other places.

V. Among the Chaldeans, the first of their leaders [was] Alorus. Berosus first published the names of the princes of the Chaldeans who ruled before the flood, although Syncellus thinks otherwise. Berosus, as Tatian testifies, was born a priest of Belus while Alexander of Macedon was ruling over Babylon, under Antiochus III, after Seleucus; he wrote three books regarding the affairs of the Chaldeans and their kings. Following him were Abydenus, Apollodorus, Alexander Polyhistor, and Josephus, whose fragments are read in the Eusebian Treasury. Regarding Berosus, however, there exists a singular, albeit supposititious, disputation, which, however, not everyone follows. Goropius reports [it as] false, among others.

VI. Alorus (7). From Apollodorus, the ten first leaders are numbered. I believe [the original text at this point says] *dose*.

Our author considers these individuals to be the giants of whom the divine Scriptures make mention, but ones who were famous among all men before the flood. ^A Since the order itself and the Greek exemplar show this—not in the three thousand and fortieth year, as the copyists [have it], but (a manifest error, not of Methodius) that in the second millennium there arose men, inventors of evil arts, unjust and full of every wickedness, from the sons of Cain, such as Jobeth, Tholucel, sons of Lamech, who was blind, who also killed Cain; over whom the devil ruled, later turning them to every magical art and every sort of musical composition.

VII. That there was much wickedness of men upon the earth. The secret [books] of Enoch report that the giants, besides other sorceries, crimes, and abominations, had tasted human flesh and were anthropophagi. ^B *After these things the giants began to eat the flesh of men.* Saint Methodius the martyr enumerates more, whom no one refutes in vain because of the lack of chronological reason. It must be noted that there is no error in the reckoning of time in Methodius, but in his expositor Comestor (and those who follow him), who, having poorly understood the reasoning of Methodius, invented as many thousands of years as Methodius never imagined. I will recite the very words of Methodius and subjoin the false glosses of Comestor. ‹ "It must be known," says Methodius, "that Adam and Eve, when they left paradise, were virgins. Then, in the thirtieth year of their expulsion from paradise, they begat their firstborn and his sister Debora. Then, in the one hundred and thirtieth year of the life of Adam, Cain killed his brother Abel, and they made lamentation over him. Adam and Eve also [lived for] one hundred years [in that state]. In the two hundred and thirtieth year of the first millennium, which is the first century, Seth was born, a giant, in the likeness of Adam. In the five hundredth year, in that same first chiliad, the sons of Cain abused the wives of their brothers in excessive fornication. In the six hundredth year of the same millennium, men [engaged] in great disgrace of lust and fornication, and their women collapsed or dispersed and turned toward madness, etc. Truly, in the eight hundredth year of the life of Adam, the pollution of fornication from the sons of the fratricide Cain was spread upon the earth. But Adam died in the nine hundred and thirtieth year of his life in the first millennium. And then the generations were distinguished from one another, as for example the generation of Seth from the kinship of Cain. And Seth took his own kinship up to a certain mountain, which was near to paradise. But Cain and his kinship lived in the plain, in which he also perpetrated the nefarious fratricide." › ^C You notice, reader, that the times of the years were justly weighed by Methodius, following the number of the seventy Fathers. But that Peter Comestor turned everything upside down when he explained those words of Methodius: "in the five hundredth year of the first chiliad"—that is, says Peter, "after the first chiliad," which is as far from the mind and words of Methodius as Gades is from the Ganges, or heaven from earth. For Methodius calls the first chiliad the years beginning from Adam and ending at the thousandth. Therefore, those words ("in the five hundredth year of the first chiliad") must be referred to the five hundredth year of the life of Adam, not to the one thousand five hundredth after Adam. For it follows that Adam died within the first millennium, not after the first millennium; for he died in the year 930. Seventy years were still lacking for a full first chiliad. Methodius subjoins later: "In the four hundredth year in the times of Jareth, he passed the first millennium or the first generation." Most correctly; for Malaleel in the year of the world 960 begat Jared; therefore in the fortieth year of the age of Jared, the first chiliad of years passed.

It follows in Methodius: "But in the five hundredth year of the second millennium, all men in the camps of Cain still burned with nefandous fornication, etc.; but in the seven hundredth year from the year of the time of Jareth, that is, of his life, in the second chiliad, the malignant and hostile devil plotted to add the war of fornication to the sons of Seth, that they might covet the daughters of Cain, and the giants were born poured forth upon the earth from Seth, who, having fallen into the pit of sin, were most atrocious. And the Lord God was angered, and in the completion of the second millennium, the flood of waters happened, etc."

You have read that the flood happened at the completion of the second chiliad, that is, in the two thousand two hundred and forty-second year [MMCCLXII], as it is read today among the Septuagint, and as it was read of old, and as the most excellent chroniclers write, although the Hebrews and the Latins today read 1656. Methodius therefore posits less rather than more, according to the custom and reason of the Greek Church, when he writes that the flood happened in the completed second chiliad, that is, in the two thousandth year. The interpreter of Methodius was crude and barbaric; the numbers were edited most faultily, perhaps not even understood by the interpreter. The author Methodius was a man of huge genius, doctrine, and sanctity, who, according to Suidas, [was] the son of Olympius, born at Patara in Lycia, was bishop of Tyre, and under Decius and Valerian, while they were raging against the Christians, he suffered death for Christ at Chalcis. He is praised by Saint Jerome, Photius, and Suidas. Concerning this little book of Methodius, Wolfgang Aitinger, a cleric of Augsburg, wrote five chapters long ago, as he himself inscribed his name at the end of the book. ^D But concerning the causes of the flood, all, both Greeks and Latins, [have written] so broadly that it is not worth adding a word here. Whether this little work is the genuine offspring of Methodius, I do not dispute; I have only complained about the iniquitous interpretation of Comestor, by which he led others also into error.

VIII. From the flood until the building of the tower, six hundred and fifty-nine years are counted. Nicephorus adds two. "After the flood," he says, "in the second year, Shem, the son of Noah, being born, begat Arphaxad [at] one hundred years." But Nicephorus is not consistent with himself, since he said above that Shem was born in the five hundredth year of Noah, and the flood happened in the six hundredth, in which year Shem was one hundred. He did not therefore beget Arphaxad in the hundredth year, but in the one hundred and second, which year is 661. Indeed, from the translation of Contius, the Greek codex of Nicephorus rightly has one hundred years. *After the flood, Shem, the son of Noah, being [the age of] 100 years, begets Arphaxad.* In the same way, the manuscript of Athanasius sets the very hundredth year of Shem. So that I wonder how Contius in this place adds two years. Since from Gen. ch. 11, Moses affirms indeed that Arphaxad was begotten by Shem in the second year after the flood, but he does not say that Shem was then 102, but only one hundred, although the holy Scriptures report that the flood was in the 600th year of Noah, in which year Shem was already one hundred years old, therefore [it was] two years after. Did Moses, neglecting two years, follow a round number?

A gem must be noted in this place: that Luke, in recounting the genealogy of Christ, when he numbers seventy-seven patriarchs, followed the Scripture of the Seventy Elders, when he wrote Cainan as the son of Arphaxad, who is found neither in the later Hebrew codices nor in the Latin Vulgate editions. When the interpreters of the divine Scriptures treat this controversy, it is surprising how much they dissent among themselves.

Our Pererius, in his commentary on the sixth chapter of Genesis, sets forth the opinions of nearly everyone and explains them diligently, and he concludes in the end that the difficulty appears insurmountable. Cardinal Toletus, having enumerated and set forth the same opinions regarding Luke, determines as follows: "I would rather judge it to be said that this generation, which was indeed read, is missing in the Hebrew, and was translated into Greek by the Septuagint; it is not credible that the Septuagint not only counted Cainan, but also the years of his life, if they had not read it in the Hebrew. They read it, therefore, and those exemplars had it as such; nor is it new that they read things differently even then, which now are not held due to the fault of the scribes, a thing which must also be said of the Vulgate; for we must believe the evangelist who affirms this, and there is less danger in saying that Hebrew exemplars are not held to be perfect in that part than in asserting that even the slightest error or falsehood is found in the Gospel." Salmeron adopted the same opinion in his work on the four evangelists, as he discourses copiously on this matter, following the Abulensis and Albertus Magnus. Contius ^A here triumphs over the *papyrotas* and inveighs too bitterly against the Hebrew codices. Certainly, by this place and the evangelist Luke, the authority of the Septuagint Fathers is wonderfully confirmed, which, not undeservedly, both the Eastern and Western Churches—the Greek and the Latin—have followed in this and certain other places over the Hebrew; so, however, that it has always attributed, and continues to attribute, more in a general sense to the Hebrew as the source than to the Greek derived from it. I wonder at this, that it is affirmed by more than one that the generation of that Cainan, about which there is a question here, is not read in the Carafa edition, since it is read twice in the tenth and eleventh chapters of Genesis. I will recite the very Greek words. In the tenth chapter: "These are the sons of Ham, in their tribes, according to their tongues, in their lands and in their nations. And to Shem was also born, as to the father of all the sons of Heber, the brother of Japheth the elder. The sons of Shem: Elam, and Assur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and Cainan. And the sons of Aram: Uz, and Ul, and Gater, and Mosoch. And Arphaxad begat Cainan. And Cainan begat Sala. And Sala begat Heber." And in the eleventh chapter: "And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years. And he begat sons and daughters. And he died. And Arphaxad lived one hundred thirty-five years. And he begat Cainan." There is no ground, therefore, for what he relates when he says: "The ancient and emended codices of the Septuagint Translators (such as the one that has recently appeared in Rome by the authority and care of the most illustrious Cardinal Carafa) do not have the generation of Cainan." Furthermore, what he brings forth from Epiphanius regarding the 55th heresy against the Melchisedecians does not appear firm, since the same Epiphanius in the *Ancyratus* most explicitly sets forth his name in these words: "Shem, having been preferred, begat Arphaxad, as we said. Arphaxad begat Kina (read: Cainan), Kina begat Sala, Sala begat Heber, and the building of the tower occurs." Semus, endowed with the prerogative, begets Arphaxad, Arphaxad [begat] Cinam (or Cainan), Caina begat Sala, Sala [begat] Heber, under whom the work of the tower was begun. In the same manner in the *Panarion*: "Shem therefore begets Arphaxad, Arphaxad the Kena, Kena [begat] Sala, Sala [begat] Heber," etc. But that he omitted Kaina in the 55th heresy seems to have been done on account of the Samaritans, against whom he disputes there from their volume, who used Hebrew exemplars in which Kaina is missing. Read the Greek *Chronicon* of Eusebius, in which the words from the Samaritan exemplar are set forth.

IX. Concerning those who were, and what parts of the world they divided and inhabited. The partition of the world that follows is taken from Epiphanius, Eusebius, Josephus, Africanus, and others. Whence also two anonymous Latin or "barbaro-latin" chroniclers described their own divisions of the earth, one of whom is contained in the second volume of the *Antiqua Lectionis* of Henricus Canisius with this inscription: *Historical Chronological Collection from an anonymous author who lived under the Emperor Alexander Severus, compiled by a certain Gallo during the times of Charlemagne.* The other is in the *Thesaurus Eusebianus* with this title: *Most useful excerpts from the first book of the Chronicon of Eusebius and Africanus, and others, translated into Latin by a barbarian,* etc. They are completely identical—those which you will read here in our *Chronographus* and those two—at least as far as these migrations and colonies of the first men are concerned. I omit here those who have written Commentaries on Genesis, nor do I recount the exotic Pausanias, Ptolemy, Strabo, Phrynichus, Stephanus, Pliny, Solinus, Mela, and others who defined lands in their books, led out peoples and colonies, which is the discipline of surveyors and geographers.

X. Concerning astronomy. Next follows the mythical or fabulous age according to exotic writers, in which, if the Latins do not agree with the Greeks, and the Greeks among themselves, it should not seem surprising, because it is fabulous. Sacred history is continued item by item through the families of the Hebrew patriarchs.

XI. From the stock of Shem. The divine Scriptures hand down that Cush was born from the blood of Ham, I therefore correct our *Chronicon*. Cedrenus in this place relates the same things as ours concerning Saturn, Picus, Faunus, Mercury, Venus, Belus, Zoroaster, Mars, Perseus, and others, and adds much more, except that in the case of Zoroaster our author does not remain consistent with himself, as he affirms him to be once the offspring of Ham, and another time of Shem. Other Greeks also make mention of them. Whence, moreover, Epiphanius deals copiously with the statues.

XIII. Thara, according to the LXX, begat Abraham, in the year of the world 3334. Latin and Greek chroniclers vary in a wonderful manner in the years from Adam to Abraham (9).

^D The Vulgate edition of Jerome from the Hebrew sets the years at 1948. The Jews, in order to complete the forty-ninth jubilee and to begin the fiftieth, add two days. In which Contius is vehemently mistaken in many ways. First, if you divide 1950 by 50, you will not collect anything but thirty-nine jubilees, whereas Contius posited forty-nine. Then, Eusebius does not posit forty-nine, as Contius affirms, but adds two years to 1948 so that they become 1950, which, from the false calculation, counts forty jubilees, when there are only thirty-nine. Furthermore, the period of a jubilee consists of seven times seven years, which make 49, not 50; if you divide 1950 by 49, you will collect 39 jubilees. Therefore, if you calculate the jubilee years in the true way, that is by seven times seven, or by fifty years, a fortieth jubilee will never emerge. Contius therefore erred by a full ten jubilees. Eusebius by one, if he includes fifty solid years in a jubilee. If properly, nonetheless by a decade.

The Hebrew edition (inserted, however, according to the opinion of Marianus Scotus, with the Cainan family), that is, with 130 years, counts from Adam to Abraham 1978 years. Among the Septuagint, as they are read today, 3314, from the emendation of Origen.

XII. "A single light was intellectual." The place here is completely corrupted by the fault of the copyists, which we have nonetheless wanted to express as it is read today in the manuscript codex. But here it is helpful to call upon Aesculapius and to heal the affected parts of the writing from other authors—Cedrenus, I mean, Suidas, and especially from St. Cyril, whence this testimony was transcribed from Trismegistus. Let us hear Cyril, but in Latin, for the instrument of the Greek codex was missing. "A single intellectual light existed before the intellectual light, and it is always the effulgent mind of the mind, and it hit nothing else than the unity of this, always existing in itself: it always contains all things by its own mind, and light, and spirit." (And after other things he says): "Outside of it there is no God, no angel, no demon, no other substance whatsoever. For it is entirely the Lord, and father, and God, and source, and life,"

and truth, and light, and mind, and spirit, and everything is in him and under him." (And above): "For his Word, proceeding, existing perfect and fruitful, and creator, falling into fruitful nature, also made the fruitful water fruitful." From this passage of Cyril it will be easy to purge the faulty pen of the copyist. For I separate that one word *prophōtos* and distinguish it in a way that includes [the preposition], *pro*, as it is also read in Suidas. There follow: "and he always is" (in Suidas it is read *v* for *esti*), "and he was the mind of the mind, radiant; let there be removed, therefore, the (kai) interjection between *nous* and *noos*, just as it is not found here in Cyril, nor in Suidas. Therefore you shall write it correctly in this way: *Kai ēn aei nous noos phōteinos*. What follows is thoroughly corrupt, but it retains traces through which we may arrive at the true writing. *Kai ouden heteron ēn ē toutou henotēs aei en heautō on*. "And there was nothing else (namely, the Mind) than his unity always existing in himself." Correct again what follows *aei tē autou noei*, write *aei tē heautou noi* "always in his own mind." Cyril's interpreter reads that *pantōn gar Kyrios* as *pantos* "entirely." But ^B *pantōn* is just as conveniently retained: "for he is the Lord of all."

The prayer of Trismegistus is ascribed by Cyril to Orpheus, not to Trismegistus. "I adjure thee, O Heaven, wise work of the great God. I adjure thee, O Word of the Father, which he spoke first, When he established the whole world with his counsels." Cyril says that Orpheus spoke these things to Musaeus, where, having execrated the idolatry which he had previously followed against his mind in the celebration of the gods, he conceived a better sense regarding God. Others, such as Suidas and Cedrenus, transcribe these same things with our Trismegistus. I do not find these verses of Orpheus among his works edited by Henri Estienne, but only the *Argonautica*, the *Hymns of the Gods*, and *On Precious Stones*. Other things from his testament are praised by Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr. Suidas places this whole passage a little otherwise, as you read here: "There was a mental light before the mental light, and there was always a radiant mental mind, and there was nothing else than his unity. And the Spirit contains everything; outside of this, there is no God, no angel, no other substance whatsoever. For he is the Lord of all, and Father, ^C and God, and everything is under him and in him. For his Word, being all-perfect and fruitful, made the water pregnant with water. And having said these things, he prayed, saying: 'I adjure thee, O Heaven, wise work of the great God; I adjure thee, O Voice of the Father which he first uttered, when he established the whole world. I adjure thee by the Only-begotten Word and by the Father who contains everything, be propitious.'" Cedrenus also varies a little: "There was a mental light before the mental light, and there was always a mind, the cause of the mind, and there was nothing else than his unity, always being in himself, always with his own mind, and with light and spirit he contains everything." And presently: "And everything is under him and in him, etc." And: "I adjure thee, O creator of the great heaven, etc." Furthermore, regarding those lines from Orpheus: "I adjure thee, O Voice [Word] of the Father, which he spoke first, when he established the whole world with his counsels," D. Cyril expounds them with these words: "He calls the Voice of the Father, which he spoke first, his Only-begotten Word, which always exists with the Father. For there was no time when God and Father was understood to be existing without his own Word; and in him he demonstrated that God is the the creator of all things."

XIV. On Melchisedec. Cedrenus and Glycas affirm him to have been born to Sida, King of Egypt, where he also brings forward his etymon. Epiphanius, lib. II, tom. II, haer. 67, writes that Melchisedec was born from the lineage of Sidon and the Canaanites. The Samaritans think that he is Sem himself, the son of Noe, others [think he is] Heraclam the father; they say Asdaroth or Asteria was the mother of Melchisedec. Epiphanius, in heresy 55, [says] the Hieracites believed [he was] the Holy Spirit, whom Epiphanius refutes. Origen and Didymus thought he was an angel, others the Son of God. On this, Pererius, *ch. xiv on Gen.*, tom. III, p. 715 et seq., and Villalpandus, tom. III, P. 1, ch. 1, p. 52 et seq., ^D show that with the Samaritans Melchisedec was Sem himself the son of Noe, but he refutes Ignatius in any way [he can]. See also Dionysius the Areopagite. Regarding the city of Salem, the same Villalpandus, tom. III, P. 1, ch. 7 et seq., writes learnedly. Saint Ignatius transmits that Melchisedec died celibate and incorrupt, and [those] who followed Ignatius [concur].

XV. xxvi. "For first they took Joseph." Observe, reader, the numbers which correspond to the ten temptations of Joseph are at the beginning of the verse; after the enumerated misfortunes of Joseph they must be placed together, not in the order in which they were placed in the autograph, which we did not want to change in the context itself. For it is not even true that the individual events happened in the years to which the number is ascribed. For the Sacred Scriptures come to the contrary in Gen. xxxvii, where it is read that Joseph was destined for death by his brothers, cast into a cistern, and sold on one and the same day, although here three years are attributed to these three evils. By the same reasoning, chapter 39, other false things are detected. Accordingly, the numbers are to be placed thus after those words: "There follow ten of Joseph's afflictions." In the year of Levi XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI, XXXI. 1. "For first they took his brothers" 2. "Then they accused." 3. "They decreed to kill him." 4. "They threw him into a cistern." 5. "He was sold to the Ishmaelites." 6. "He was sold by the Ishmaelites in Egypt to Potiphar." 7. "Then his mistress began to plot and to lay him bare before her, and to solicit him." 8. "When she caught him alone, with all the doors closed, she grabbed him naked, and used force." 9. "She deserted her mistress, and conducted herself before her master." 10. "Placed in custody." cc. The Year of the Promise. [index: entries preserved] XXXIX. In this year, Levi 120, Jacob 130, Joseph was 31 years old. XVI. "He stands before Pharaoh." Indeed this happened in the following year. For in Gen. XLI it is clearly narrated that the Pharaoh's butler first remembered Joseph, his interpreter, after two years. But I have warned about anachronisms of this kind in the preface to the reader. XVI. "The initiation of the cup." That it was customary in Persia and Egypt, already from the times of Picus or Jupiter, to practice divinations by means of a cup, basins, water, and other things of this genus—as the historian Brutius, as well as the Sacred Scriptures, teaches in the history of St. Joseph: "The cup which you have stolen, it is that in which my Lord drinks, and in which he is accustomed to augur." The method of auguring with cups and basins seems to be almost the same as that of which Pliny speaks, lib. xxx. Nicephorus relates a huge prodigy concerning a magic basin in these words: "But it will not be at all off the point if I connect the miracle of that most famous martyr Glycerias and of the martyr herself with this prodigy. A certain man, whose name was Paulinus, born in an obscure place, but very well educated in liberal disciplines, was detected to have been plunged into the chasm of impostors and evildoers. This enchanter and magician had a silver basin, in which, receiving the detestable blood, through it he himself, with apostate powers, used to hold conversation. As necessity demanded, he sold that vessel to silversmiths. Having counted out the price, they received that dish, and offering it for sale, they gave the open opportunity for anyone passing by before their doors to buy it. It happened, however, that the Perinthian bishop was in Byzantium, and he purchased that basin as it was being sold. And so, with the purchased vessel, he returned to his seat, and out of reverence for the ointment of the martyr Glycerias, having taken away the previous bronze vase, he replaced it with this silver one, judging that it especially befitted the worship of the divinely flowing ointment. And he indeed did this thus. But the river of ointment ceased."

The martyr herself, having detested the sacrifice, restrained that grace and gift. For it was by no means right; for she said silently that the pure should be defiled by the impure. After the bishop learned that this had been happening for many days, he took it very grievously, and turned over various anxieties in his own mind, if by his fault the Church should be deprived of so great a benefit. Therefore, having turned to tears and prayers, he besought God that He might take away so grave a matter, and show the hidden cause of the deed. God, however, duly removing that abomination, and legitimately pursuing the wickedness through mercy, manifests the sacrifice of the basin to the prelate in his sleep. He immediately removes the silver phial, and restores that former brazen one—just as it was, pure and, as it were, a virgin and immaculate minister—to religious worship. And behold, the ointment suddenly trickles again, and the latex of miracles flows forth anew. But the execrable sacrifice is openly brought into the light, and is set forth no differently than if it were carved upon public columns, and its glory is returned to the city. When that matter was reported to the ears of the Emperor through the bishop of the primary see (it was John "the Faster"), the prince was spurred on by that same bishop to punish those guilty with capital punishment (for he wished to correct the crime with repentance and penance); therefore, a great trial is convened, and a huge multitude of evildoers is brought forward. Being cast into a grave prison, they were handed over to punishments in order to pay the penalties due. Among whom Paulinus, having been placed upon a stake gaping at the top, ended his life shamefully, after he had previously been a spectator of the slaughter of his own son. Indeed, he had also abundantly imbued him with the portents of impious imposture and witchcraft. And this is how that was done. John, also, in Cedrenus, was a patriarch of lecanomancy, as Cedrenus left written in *Theophilus*, and Nicetas consulted ventriloquists concerning Andronicus, who prophesied from a basin. Let Delrio be read, *Disquisitiones Magicae*, book IV, chapter 2, question 6, section 4, and the preceding [section] concerning the vessel. Furthermore, concerning Picus and the fabulous age and the origin of fables and the worship of the gods, [consult] almost all chroniclers and mythologists.

XVIII. When the tenth [day] of the first month falls.

Thus he teaches below that Saint John the Baptist was born in the year of the world 5507, on June 24, a Monday. He adds 1 to the epact, [and] the days of April 50, May 31, June 24; from which 86 are collected, which divided by 7 produce 12 [with] two, which indicate the second day of the week. In a similar way he proves that God was conceived by the Virgin on March 25. To the epact 15 add 13, and another 7 and 5, [and] 40 are born. Cast out thirty, 10 will remain. Therefore the tenth moon falls on March 25, on which it was commanded that the lamb be prepared. Therefore 15 was the new moon, 25 the tenth moon, 29 the Passover. By the same reasoning he disputes about the birthday of Christ, about [his] baptism, and his ascension into heaven.

XIX. Prometheus.

XX. Nomenclature of the consuls.

XXI. Elias the Thesbite.

ANNO DOMINI DCXXX GEORGIUS PISIDA DIACONUS CONSTANTINOPOLITANUS.

The writings of Pisida, which are listed below, were published in the new Appendix to *Historia Byzantina*, containing works by Pisida himself, Theodosius the Deacon, and Corippus Africanus, with notes, edited by Pietro Francesco Foggini, Rome, 1777, in folio. However, the specific editor of Pisida is Giuseppe Maria Querci, as is clear from the title: *Georgii Pisidae de expeditione Heraclii contra Persas acroases tres; ejusdem Bellum Abaricum; ejusdem hymnus acathistus; ejusdem in sanctum Jesu Christi Domini nostri resurrectionem; ejusdem Heracliadis acroases duæ; ejusdem Hexaemeron, sive de opere sex dierum; ejusdem de vanitate vitæ; idem contra Severum; ejusdem encomium in Anastasium martyrem; ejusdem Senariorum fragmenta.* All of these, having been transcribed from manuscripts, were collected, emended, translated into Latin, and annotated by the Florentine Giuseppe Maria Querci. The historical writings of Pisida, that is, *Expeditio Persica*, *Bellum Avaricum*, and *Heraclius*, recognized by Immanuel Bekker, were published in the new edition of the *Scriptores Historiae Byzantinae*, instituted under the counsel of B. G. Niebuhr and others, and continued by the authority of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences. Bonn, 1837.

PREFACE BY GIUSEPPE MARIA QUERCI OF FLORENCE CONCERNING GEORGIUS PISIDA AND HIS WRITINGS.

^A Georgius, who was later a deacon in Constantinople, had his origin in Pisidia, which was a region of Asia Minor established between Lydia, Phrygia, and Caria, from which place he is called by the surname Pisida. Many cities, and those not of little importance, are mentioned by ancient geographers in Pisidia; but since Georgius nowhere revealed his own fatherland, he is to be named Pisida from the region itself rather than from any city. Moreover, this surname is found written in various ways in manuscript codices: *Πισσίδου*, *Πισίδου*, *Πισιδίου*, *Πησίδου*, *Πισίδαι*, *Πισιδεῖς*. Stephanus Byzantinus in *De Urbibus* shows that those who were from Pisidia were called *Πισίδαι* and *Πισιδεῖς*, a point which Lucas Holstenius confirmed in his corrections to that same Stephanus, referring to a coin existing in the collection of Pyrrhus Ligorius, on which Minerva holds two lions, with the inscription ΠΙΣΙΔΑΙΩΝ. In Strabo, book 1, page 60, those who are from Pisidia are also called *Πισιδικοί*. But in Clement of Alexandria, Volume 1, page 61, the Stoic philosopher Cleanthes is called *Πισαδεύς*, because he was born from Pisidia, just like our Georgius; therefore, Sylburgius and Menagius did not correctly think that *Ἀσσεύς* should be substituted there for *Πισαδεύς*, although it is certain that Cleanthes was born from the city of Assos in Lycia: Clement preferred to call him a "Pisadean" from the province rather than an "Assean" from his native city. Furthermore, one consenting voice of all is that the Pisidians were once called Solymi; and Eustathius, in his *Commentary on the Iliad* 11, 876 (Polite edition, p. 802), left testimony that in his own times also, certain peoples lived in Lycia whom the locals called *Τζελύμους* more barbarously. But what the correct name of this people might be, the same Eustathius seems to have defined in his *Commentary on Dionysius Periegetes*, verse 858, saying: "He calls the *Πισιδέων πεδίον* 'fertile,' which some say are the Solymi... the Pisidians are said to be named from a certain Pisidus, expressed with one 's', and sometimes in the contracted form, and sometimes in the extended form in the first syllable." ^B Therefore, others call our Georgius *Pisidam*, others *Pisidem*, others *Pisidium*, and others *Pisidensem* or *Pisidiam* incorrectly; we shall call him *Pisida* or *Pisides*. He lived, being famous, around the year of Christ 630, in the times of Patriarch Sergius and the Emperor Heraclius, for which fact his writings provide undoubted proof, in which he heaps praises upon them even to satiety. It must be said that he attained the favor of both, as he, having been born in Pisidia, later obtained dignities in the Great Church of Constantinople. For he was a deacon and *skeuophylax* in the church of Saint Sophia, by which titles he is found to be designated in Vatican Codex 1126. I am aware, indeed, that around these times the Constantinopolitan clergy had increased to such an extent that Heraclius, by his own sanction in *Novels* 2 and 4, decreed that the deacons as well as other orders, having been increased beyond measure, so that the *staseis* or seats assigned to them were scarcely sufficient, should be reduced to a certain number. Wherefore I would wonder less that Georgius Pisida was received into the Great Church if he had been co-opted only among the deacons, but since he was also *skeuophylax*, he clearly inspires a greater opinion of himself in us. For the *skeuophylax*, the keeper of the church’s treasures or vessels…