Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 01-22-2013, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

we are obliged to rely upon the critical commentary of Ephrem the Syrian, writing a century later.

Eusebius also discusses Bardaisan. And, indeed, lists bishops from Mesopotamia. He had good connections with the Syriac speaking world, as is shown by the fact that one of his works is extant in Syriac translation in a copy written in 411 AD (!)

How does an English translation of this compare to the English translation in the public domain? (Or was it used in reconstruction?)

Do you happen to know whether there many differences?

I don't understand the question - sorry. English translation of what? The Theophania? There is only the one English translation of that. Or the Book of the Laws of the Countries? (confused)

Quote:

..and his Church History in Armenian is based on a Syriac version written even earlier.

So how much before 411 CE would this be?

The earliest Syriac manuscript of the Church History dates to 462 A.D. The Armenian translation was made from a somewhat different Syriac version some time around 400 A.D. This means that the Church History was translated into Syriac some time before 400. Since Eusebius died ca. 336 A.D., I suppose we could put it any time between those dates? (See. W. Wright, A short history of Syriac literature, p.62).

Quote:

And do you have any idea why Eusebius Greek Church history appears on the list of prohibited books in the Decretum Gelasianum?

Not really. But a reason is given earlier in the DG (I made an English translation of it longer ago than I can remember):

"Here added below is on the works of the holy fathers, which are received in the catholic church.
...
likewise the chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea and the books of his church history, however much he fell flat in the first book of his narration and [although he also] afterwards wrote one book in praise and to excuse Origen the schismatic, however on account of his narration of remarkable things, which are useful for instruction, we do not say to anyone that it must be refused.
...
The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics: ..."

I.e. because of his enthusiasm for Origen. But the list of apocrypha may well be of different authorship; it does, after all, contradict the text above.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman · 01-22-2013, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

we are obliged to rely upon the critical commentary of Ephrem the Syrian, writing a century later.

Eusebius also discusses Bardaisan. And, indeed, lists bishops from Mesopotamia. He had good connections with the Syriac speaking world, as is shown by the fact that one of his works is extant in Syriac translation in a copy written in 411 AD (!)

How does an English translation of this compare to the English translation in the public domain? (Or was it used in reconstruction?)

Do you happen to know whether there many differences?

I don't understand the question - sorry. English translation of what? The Theophania? There is only the one English translation of that. Or the Book of the Laws of the Countries? (confused)

Sorry my confusion here. I had Eusebius's "Church History" in mind, but you have answered all my questions below. Many thanks Roger.

Quote:

..and his Church History in Armenian is based on a Syriac version written even earlier.

So how much before 411 CE would this be?

The earliest Syriac manuscript of the Church History dates to 462 A.D. The Armenian translation was made from a somewhat different Syriac version some time around 400 A.D. This means that the Church History was translated into Syriac some time before 400. Since Eusebius died ca. 336 A.D., I suppose we could put it any time between those dates? (See. W. Wright, A short history of Syriac literature, p.62).

Thanks for that. The reason I ask BTW is to try and get an upper bound in regard to the latest date any of Eusebius's preservers could have made alterations (or even reconstructions) of Eusebius's original work. From the above this appears to be c.400.

Quote:

And do you have any idea why Eusebius Greek Church history appears on the list of prohibited books in the Decretum Gelasianum?

Not really. But a reason is given earlier in the DG (I made an English translation of it longer ago than I can remember):

"Here added below is on the works of the holy fathers, which are received in the catholic church.
...
likewise the chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea and the books of his church history, however much he fell flat in the first book of his narration and [although he also] afterwards wrote one book in praise and to excuse Origen the schismatic, however on account of his narration of remarkable things, which are useful for instruction, we do not say to anyone that it must be refused.
...
The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics: ..."

I.e. because of his enthusiasm for Origen. But the list of apocrypha may well be of different authorship; it does, after all, contradict the text above.

I find myself in agreement with this. The Origenist Controversy was quite substantial at that time and Eusebius's implication in the authorship with Pamphilus of the Apology for Origen might have resulted in such censorship.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.