Ted Hoffman

Well, the bullshit is challenging your idea that "E's presentation of H is internally consistent", you can't just bullshit away what you don't like. I see no reason why H is not bullshit if we can see so much bullshit in H .

Bede

Isn't this exactly what you were doing when you claimed E dropped some balls. Admittedly, there is always something a bit ad hoc about explaining a 'mistake', but at least we know that we have other cases of Christian writers embellishing their sources, but very few of them inventing them outright.

B

Ted Hoffman

I was answering your question which was more like - if Jacob is such a genius, how come he fails some exams? I was merely stating in response that Eusebius was a limited, fallible human being trying to shape a young church and trying to please a fiery, powerful Emperor. I don't see how that is ad hoc.

yummyfur

I dont' think Eusebius does anything different for H than any of the authors he uses, he either wants to paint them as true and faithfull to orthodox beliefs, or as heretics. and he tries to make his case for each author.

That said, I don't think merely making this case, which he does for every author, would have been good enough for an unkown early author. He would have had to provide the whole work at the very least. It's not like all the christians at the time are blank slates with no memory or passed down history, or all in agreement with Eusebius' brand of christianity. I certainly think Eusebius could get away with selectivly qouting, misconstrueing, making slight additions, I just don't think he could get away with wholesale forgery of that scale.

yummyfur

I don't think Eusebius was concerned with being accurate in any modern sense of the word. Clement of Alexandria had sources Eusebius felt were early enough. Despite the fact that Clement of Rome lived at the right time, would he actually have been a witnes to James death, being that he was in Rome? If Clement of Alexandria used a source who Eusebius believed was there, that would be more accurate to him than a non-eyewitnes.

As far as the possibility of there being any confusion on who Eusebius is qouting, I can't really see any. In Book III he covers all the works by Clement of Rome and says, that only the First Epistle is his work, and that he possibly translated into Greek the Epistle to the Hebrews. He then goes on to disparage other works attributed too him, certainly not what you would want to do if you you were going to try to pass of Outlines as his.

When I read Eusebius two years go I had no confusion, and I'm a 21st century athiest, I really doubt any of Eusebius' readers at the time would be confused at all. Jerome writes only a few decades later and certainly knows exactly who wrote the Outlines. It's true that Eusebius could have done better at distinguishing, but this is a common problem with authors, who know their subjects too well, that they fail to see they aren't distinguishing as clearly as they could. Certainly Josephus can be 10 times more confusing, with his use of names, than anything Eusebius does.

In book I and II Eusebius just uses his standard citation method, the authors name and the book. He has discussed no other Clements yet, so he has no need to distinguish. He then brings up Clement of Rome in Book III, and realizes he needs to distinguish, and so calls him Clement of Rome. Then he starts calling Clement of Alexandria by this more specific name. This seems to me a natural progression of writing to me. He could have gone back and edited his earlier citations to include the city, but it probably didn't dawn on him.

Vorkosigan

JA, how can you tell whether E is copying nonsense, or making it up? Where is the direct, commonsense, prima facie contradiction in E's presentation of H? So far no one has pointed it out.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

The temple was standing when H started writing his memoirs.
He wrote his memoirs for a century and more.

Vorkosigan

Raskin's case depends on reading the word "Temple" in an extremely restricted and non-commonsensical way. The text itself refutes Raskin's position with its comment that the monument may still be seen at the present. That is not something one says of a structure that was recently built, but only of a structure about which some period of time has passed, in which one might conclude that there is some chance it has disappeared. That is consistent with H's representation of himself as someone who was a contemporary of Hadrian's Antinous. It is Eusebius, not H, who uses the word flourit to describe this time relationship. H also says that he was in Rome c. 170, again there is no problem with aged men traveling (wasn't Philo about 60 when he went to Rome in 39-40?)

Further, nowhere in H's excerpt does he claim to be an eyewitness nor does E place him in that time period. If H were actually an eyewitness E would certainly have informed us of that fact; he'd have been delighted by it.

I don't see any strong piece of evidence here. Did any come out on the JM list?

Vorkosigan

PhilosopherJay

The Litmus Test for whether Clement (of Alexandria) needed to be distinguished from Clement (Bishop of Rome) is not the readings of a 21st century Atheist with footnotes and encyclopedias at hand, but the ability of the early 4th Century reader to distinguish the two. There was some kind of need as Eusebius calls Clement, "Clement of Alexandria" when introducing all other written works of Clement of Alexandria, except for the "Outlines."

But I think you are right that it does appear that it was clear in his mind that Clement of Alexandria was the author of "Outlines" and not Clement, Bishop of Rome. I think we can discount my supposition, at least for the moment, that he was trying to deliberately create ambiguity or suggest Clement of Rome was the author.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

First, note this:

Would you not agree that Eleutherus became Bishop of Rome in 175-177 on Eusebius' chronology and therefore we would have to place Hegesippus' writing of his Memoirs at least to this time?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin