Huon

I have looked a little more about this letter "transcribed by Eusebius" in his Church history, Book V, Chapters 1 to 4. I found a direct link to the Archbishopric of Lyons :
http://www.sources-chretiennes.mom.f...rs_anglais.pdf
This link contains an english .pdf, with two chapters, one about the execution of Pothinus and friends, based on Eusebius, and not very interesting, the other about the beginnings of the church of Lyons, according to an "orthodox Roman" view.

This chapter seems uneasy with the relations between Lyons and Phrygia and Asia. Why not Rome ? In Chapter 4, Eusebius mentions "a certain Alcibiades" and a Theodotus who were connected with the Montanists. Happily enough (:devil1 they were executed. And we know also that Irenaeus was not a Montanist.

My feeling (no proof !) is that a letter had to be sent to the Phrygian friends of the victims, but also, that it was written or "enhanced" by Irenaeus, and possibly Eusebius. Irenaeus was the leader of the Roman fraction, when the Phrygian fraction was destroyed.
No, There is no other source, except Eusebius.

mountainman

G'day Huon,

Have a look at an earlier post by Philosopher Jay entitled Eusebius Forged the Vienne/Lyon Martyrs' Letter.

The maxim "IN EUSEBIUS WE TRUST ...." may need to be revised.
Especially if Eusebius turns out to be "the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity".

arnoldo

The following writing by Eusebius seems to indicate he is unwilling (or unable) to provide the information which 21st century readers would need to validate his claims.

(5.4.3.) Why should we transcribe the catalogue of the witnesses given in the letter already mentioned, of whom some were beheaded, others cast to
the wild beasts, and others fell asleep in prison, or give the number
of confessors still surviving at that time? For whoever desires can
readily find the full account by consulting the letter itself, which,
as I have said, is recorded in our Collection of Martyrdoms. Such were
the events which happened under Antoninus.

Huon

The Collection of Martyrdoms has disappeared, or never appeared.
A calendarium of the Syriac Church from the year 412 (ed. W. Wright, 1865) shows a list of martyrs, probably eastern martyrs.

avi

Yes, but so have many other works, for example, Marcion's bible. Some manuscripts are quoted by other authorities, is that also the case for this particular "Collection"? Did someone "reliable" like Tertullian or Origen, describe the existence of this "Collection", or is there no source knowledgeable about this tome prior to the rule of Constantine?

avi

Huon

The "Collection of Martyrdoms" is understood as a book written by Eusebius, around 310-320, IF it was ever written.
Tertullian, ca. 160 – ca. 220
Origen, ca.185–254

avi

Thanks very much for confirming my worst suspicions. I am paranoid by temperament, and always view the glass as half empty, so I supposed that perhaps someone before Eusebius had collected a tale of martyrs--hence my reference to Origen and Tertullian.

avi

Huon

Hagiography can be considered from one of three main points of view.

1. Confidence in the story, at least in the elements which do not seem too miraculous, trying not to be too credulous.

2. Hypercritical attitude, rejecting everything which could have been made up, or copied on another legend. Either the hero (heroin) never existed, or there is confusion between several persons of the same name.

3. An intermediate attitude, trying to find what were the goals of the authors of these legends. One goal was clearly the religious and moral edification of the believers, and here, the miracles were a most evident proof of the saintliness of the hero. Another goal was a local goal. It was useful to give an important renown to a place, a monastery, an episcopal seat, or a relic (Shroud of Turin, today, for instance).

mountainman

Despite Eusebius' brave excursions into the field of Christian Hagiography, it is Athanasius and his "Life of Anthony" which Arnoldo Momigliano credits as the inventor of this literary form. (Eusebius is the inventor of Christian Historiography)

Saint Anthony was a literary masterpiece assembled under the name of Athanasius describing the presence of a "Christian Desert Ascetic" in the epoch leading up to that of Constantine. Anthony miraculously preceeds Pachomius and others into the desert and is better understood (IMO) as just another example of "historical retrojection" by the orthodox christians of the later 4th century by which they could claim --- like Rufinus --- that the desert cities such as Oxyrhynchus were full of "orthodox christians".

Of course I would argue that this was false. I think the deserts were full of Graeco-Roman refugees from the oppressive tryanny of the new and strange Christian State religion and the "power of the personally apponited bishops". In Ammianus and not Eusebius we should place some degree of trust.

At the end of the 4th century the Christian orthodoxy are all starting to write and accumulate more and more "Hagiographies". The bones of dead saints and martyrs were a valuable commodity and basilicas were getting names --- not after apostles any more - but after Christian "Saints and Martrys". A good example are the bogus Christian "Healing Saints" Cosmas and Damien.

Local business at the end of the 4th century and then well beyond demanded finding just the right bones to match just the right stories. Both stories and bones, histories and artefacts continued to be fabricated for centuries.

mountainman

The Real Story of the Council of Nicea
(National Catholic Weekly)


Here we find Athanasius being compared to Frodo Baggins
while Arius of Alexandria is compared to an evil wizard.
Long live Tolkien!

Bilbo Jesus Baggins may yet make an appearance.