Freethought & Rationalism Archive

11-15-2004, 09:10 AM

Jay, just for the record and for reasons that have been frequently explained (here, for instance) I find your arguments totally unconvincing. They don't work if we accept an undoctored TF, anymore than the arguments for silence over Tacitus hold either. Neither does Olsen's textual case rest on anything except Olsen's subjective opinions with which anyone can subjectively disagree without the need to elaborate.

B

11-15-2004, 09:22 AM

Quote:

I found Jerome suggested in letter LXXXIV that Eusebius may have forged a work by his master Pamphilius. Apparently, his near contemporaries appreciated his modus operandi more than our contemporary theologians.

Jay, you have an amazing ability only to see what you want to in any text you read.

The letter claims that a chunk of a work everyone acknowledged to be by Eusebius (from the sixth book of his defence of Origen) turns up in a work attributed to Pamphilius. Furthermore, the forgery is obvious because the forger adds to the text of Eusebius, views that Eusebius himself does not hold. In other words, the forger was anybody but Eusebius.

B

Jehanne · 11-15-2004, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

Jay, you have an amazing ability only to see what you want to in any text you read.

The letter claims that a chunk of a work everyone acknowledged to be by Eusebius (from the sixth book of his defence of Origen) turns up in a work attributed to Pamphilius. Furthermore, the forgery is obvious because the forger adds to the text of Eusebius, views that Eusebius himself does not hold. In other words, the forger was anybody but Eusebius.

B

Are you saying that the text in question is authentic, that is, it comes from "the pen" of Josephus? If so, why did Josephus not convert to Christianity?

Toto · 11-15-2004, 11:58 AM

Jerome's letter LXXXIV

Quote:

10. Moreover, when they speak of Pamphilus as one who praised Origen, I am personally much obliged to them for accounting me worthy to be calumniated with that martyr. For if, sirs, you tell me that Origen’s books have been tampered with by his enemies to bring them into discredit; why may not I in my turn allege that his friends and followers have attributed to Pamphilus a volume composed by themselves to vindicate their master from disrepute by the testimony of a martyr? Lo and behold, you yourselves 181 correct in Origen’s books passages which (according to you) he never wrote: and yet you are surprised if a man is said to have published a book which as a matter of fact he did not publish. But while your statements can easily be brought to the test by an appeal to Origen’s published works; as Pamphilus has published nothing else, it is easier for calumny to fix a book upon him. For shew me any other work of Pamphilus; you will nowhere find any, this is his only one. How then can I know that it is by Pamphilus? You will tell me, that the style and tone ought to inform me. Well, I shall never believe that a man so learned has dedicated the first fruits of his talent to defend doubtful and discredited positions. The very name of an apology which the treatise bears implies a previous charge made; for nothing is defended that is not first attacked. I will now bring forward but a single argument, one, however, the force of which only folly and effrontery can deny. The treatise attributed to Pamphilus contains nearly the first thousand lines of Eusebius’s sixth book in defence of Origen. 2607 Yet in the remaining parts of his work the writer brings forward passages by which he seeks to prove that Origen was a Catholic. Now Eusebius and Pamphilus were in such thorough harmony with each other that they seemed to have but one soul between them, and one even went so far as to adopt the other’s name. 2608 How then could they have disagreed so fundamentally on this point, Eusebius in all his works proving Origen to be an Arian, and Pamphilus describing him as a supporter of the Nicene council, which had not yet been held? It is evident from this consideration that the book belongs not to Pamphilus but to Didymus or somebody else, who having cut off the head of Eusebius’s sixth book supplied the other members himself. But I am willing to be generous and to allow that the book is written by Pamphilus, only by Pamphilus not yet a martyr. For he must have written the book before he underwent martyrdom. And why, you will say, was he accounted worthy of martyrdom? Surely that he might efface his error by a martyr’s death, and wash away his one fault by shedding his blood. How many martyrs there have been all the world over who before their deaths have been the slaves of sins! Are we then to palliate the sins because those who committed them have afterwards become martyrs?

11-15-2004, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jehanne

Are you saying that the text in question is authentic, that is, it comes from "the pen" of Josephus? If so, why did Josephus not convert to Christianity?

Sorry Don. Jay and I went off on a tangent as we are wont to do from time to time. What you quoted is on another issue entirely.

Back to the case in point: I do not believe the TF as we have it now came entirely from Josephus's pen. It was glossed by a Christian scribe whose glosses were then taken into the text next time it was copied. This happens a fair bit, apparently, and is not considered deliberate forgery - just carelessness and seeing what you want to (a bit like Jay himself does). A few posts back I linked to a long and learned article on the TF which you may find of interest.

Toto, I fear you have missed the point in your quote mining. Eusebius was Pamphilus's pupil and took his name in honour of his master (hence Eusebius Pamphili). This has nothing to do with forgery or mis-attribution and it is not the point Jay is making (assuming he understood that bit, and I give him credit that he did). Rather he misunderstood the point about the forgery that used a recognised work of Eusebius and was exposed because the forged bits conflicted with Eusebius's stated views on Origen. Jay didn't read carefully enough as he wanted to see evidence for Eusebius the forger (which of course deosn't exist but he sees it everywhere).

Yours

Bede

Toto · 11-15-2004, 12:52 PM

I have a hard time figuring out what Jerome claims, behind what appears to be sarcasm. Is it that Pamphilius (alt spelling Pamphilus) was an alter ego of Eusebius, and some other forger added something to the Eusebian text, including a reference to an event that happened after Pamphilus' martyrdom?

The standard Catholic version is that Eusebius and Pamphilius were co-authors of the piece in question, and Jerome was mistaken or confused on this issue. Pamphilius was Eusebius' teacher, and somehow Eusebius escaped martyrdom during the Diocletian persecution where Pamphilius died.

St. Pamphilus

Quote:

Eusebius's life of Pamphilus is lost, but from his "Martyrs of Palestine" we learn . . . . .

. . . He also composed, in collaboration with Eusebius, an "Apology for Origen" in five books (Eusebius afterwards added a sixth). . . .

. . . St. Jerome stated in his "De Viris illustribus" that there were two apologies–one by Pamphilus and another by Eusebius. He discovered his mistake when Rufinus's translation appeared in the height of the Origenistic controversy, and rushed to the conclusion that Eusebius was the sole author. He charged Rufinus, among other things, with palming off under the name of the martyr what was really the work of the heterodox Eusebius, and with suppressing unorthodox passages. As to the first accusation there is abundant evidence that the "Apology" was the joint work of Pamphilus and Eusebius. Against the second may be set the negative testimony of Photius who had read the original; "Photius, who was severe to excess towards the slightest semblance of Arianism, remarked no such taint in the Apology of Origen which he had read in Greek" (Ceillier).

Most of the sources on this martyred saint go back to Eusebius.

Vorkosigan · 11-16-2004, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

The trouble is a whole lot of that is rather controversial. AFAIAC, the Jesus/Agbar letters fall into the 'not intended to be anything other than spirtually uplifting' category, as do the various fictional Acts.

Oh? Reading the minds of long-dead authors, are we?

Quote:

Likewise, you are taking a few clear forgeries

"A few clear forgeries"....Let's note again -- all the gospels redacted and edited, one constructed out of several other texts, all with insertions -- all the NT epistles except the 'authentic' Paulines forged in someone else's name -- a host of forged texts and extracanonical documents, Christianized pre-Christian Jewish documents, interpolations in the rabbinical writings....... Christianity has found it hard to break the habit of altering texts, one that continues down to the present day.

Quote:

and using tham as evidence that forgery has occured elsewhere where the prima facie case is much harder to justify.

The prima facie case for the TF is extremely strong, which is why a minority of scholars continues to think that it is entirely forged. In any case, a profession that bought the James Ossuary isn't in a position to tell me what is a fraud and isn't.

Quote:

This gets you a lot of alleged forgeries but is the scholary equivalent of rounding up a lot of black people in London to get the crime rate down.

I sure hope that this provocative and racist comment isn't as provocative and racist as it looks....please tell me you meant something else.

We do have a nice little derail going, don't we? Sorry, Andrew.

Quote:

Neither does Olsen's textual case rest on anything except Olsen's subjective opinions with which anyone can subjectively disagree without the need to elaborate.

Bede, that is simply not true. Making this statement does not do much for your credibility. Olsen has carefully built up a case based on usage patterns and style.

Vorkosigan

gregor · 11-16-2004, 06:41 AM

How can Bede ignore the rampant forgery in the whole of the NT and then retort to Jay Raskind:

"you have an amazing ability only to see what you want to in any text you read"?

PhilosopherJay · 11-16-2004, 10:31 AM

Hi Toto,

This may help,

from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0...tm#P449_282059

Testimonies ofthe Ancients against Eusebius, Post Nicene Fathers Series 2 Volume 1.

Quote:

Jerome, in his Epistle to Ctesiphon against the Pelagians

[referring to Rufinus]
"He did this in the name of the holy martyr Pamphilus, that he might designate with the name of the martyr Pamphilus the first of the six books in defense of Origen which were written by Eusebius of Caesarea, whom every one knows to have been an Arian."

The same, in his Second Book against Rufinius

"As soon as he leaves the harbor he runs his ship aground. For, quoting from the Apology of Pamphilus the Martyr (which we have proved to be the work of Eusebius, prince of Arians)," etc.

We can also look at Rufinius's side:

http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/...3/NPNF2046.HTM

Rufinus' Apology in Defence of Himself. Post Nicene Fathers, Series 2 Volume III

Quote:

7. Now as to another matter. I am told that objections have been raised against me because, forsooth, at the request of some of my brethren, I translated certain works of Origen from Greek into Latin. I suppose that every one sees that it is only through ill will that this is made a matter of blame. For, if there is any offensive statement in the author, why is this to be twisted into a fault of the translator? I was asked to exhibit in Latin what stands written in the Greek text; and I did nothing more than fit the Latin words to the Greek ideas. If, therefore, there is anything to praise in these ideas, the praise does not belong to me; and similarly as to anything to which blame may attach. I admit that I put something of my own into the work; as I stated in my Preface, I used my own discretion in cutting out not a few passages; but only those as to which I had come to suspect that the thing had not been so stated by Origen himself; and the statement appeared to me in these cases to have been inserted by others, because in other places I had found the author state the matter in a catholic sense. I entreat you therefore, holy, venerable and saintly father, not to permit a storm of ill will to be raised against me because of this

Both Rufinus and Jerome agree that Rufinus did not translate stuff that made Origen appear Arian.. Rufinus thinks someone added stuff to make Origen seem Arian and Jerome thinks these passages were orginally Origen's. Rufinus thinks the original work was by Pamphilus and Jerome thinks it is by Eusebius.

In other words, Jerome recognizes the work as Eusebius's, and not Pamphilus's, but he says that the Arrian passages are by Origen himself and not interpolated by Eusebius. Thus Rufinus is guilty of suppressing Origen's Arianism in his translation. On the contrary, Rufinus says that the work is by the orthodox martyr Pamphilus and not by the Arian Eusebius, but someone else has added the Arian passages later.

If Jerome admits the proposition that Eusebius wrote in Pamphilus's name and added passages, then he cannot accuse Rufinus of suppressing Origen's Arianism. On the other hand, if Rufinus admits the proposition, then he cannot say that Pamphilus, an orthodox martyr wrote supportively of Origen. Thus Jerome comes up with the phantom forger who has changed a Eusebean work into one by Pamphilus, and Rufinus comes up with a phantom forger who has added Arian sounding passages to Origen. I would imagine they both had a pretty good idea who their phantom forger really was.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I have a hard time figuring out what Jerome claims, behind what appears to be sarcasm. Is it that Pamphilius (alt spelling Pamphilus) was an alter ego of Eusebius, and some other forger added something to the Eusebian text, including a reference to an event that happened after Pamphilus' martyrdom?

The standard Catholic version is that Eusebius and Pamphilius were co-authors of the piece in question, and Jerome was mistaken or confused on this issue. Pamphilius was Eusebius' teacher, and somehow Eusebius escaped martyrdom during the Diocletian persecution where Pamphilius died.

St. Pamphilus

Most of the sources on this martyred saint go back to Eusebius.

Toto · 11-16-2004, 11:39 AM

I would like to know what is behind this statement: "As to the first accusation there is abundant evidence that the "Apology" was the joint work of Pamphilus and Eusebius."

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

11-15-2004, 09:10 AM	#21
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Jay, just for the record and for reasons that have been frequently explained (here, for instance) I find your arguments totally unconvincing. They don't work if we accept an undoctored TF, anymore than the arguments for silence over Tacitus hold either. Neither does Olsen's textual case rest on anything except Olsen's subjective opinions with which anyone can subjectively disagree without the need to elaborate. B

11-16-2004, 06:41 AM	#28
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	How can Bede ignore the rampant forgery in the whole of the NT and then retort to Jay Raskind: "you have an amazing ability only to see what you want to in any text you read"?

11-16-2004, 11:39 AM	#30
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I would like to know what is behind this statement: "As to the first accusation there is abundant evidence that the "Apology" was the joint work of Pamphilus and Eusebius."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.