Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 05-24-2012, 11:14 PM

It's probably a minor point but maybe it points to a broader problem. In Book 5 Eusebius says:

Quote:

In the tenth year of the reign of Commodus, Victor succeeded Eleutherus, the latter having held the episcopate for thirteen years. In the same year, after Julian had completed his tenth year, Demetrius received the charge of the parishes at Alexandria.

But at the beginning of Book 6 he writes:

Quote:

It was the tenth year of the reign of Severus, while Lætus was governor of Alexandria and the rest of Egypt, and Demetrius had lately received the episcopate of the parishes there, as successor of Julian.

Can the almost fifteen year gap here be described as 'lately'? What gives here? The term that Eusebius used for 'governor of Alexandria' was only used with governors of Egypt. No one has ever heard of a praefect named Laetus in this period. The two known figures of this name died in the previous century. Is Eusebius recycling the account of Demetrius receiving his post in the tenth year of Commodus now in the tenth year of Severus?

Another 'tenth year' is mentioned in association with Demetrius during Eusebius long account of Demetrius:

Quote:

It was in the tenth year of the above-mentioned reign that Origen removed from Alexandria to Cæsarea, leaving the charge of the catechetical school in that city to Heraclas. Not long afterward Demetrius, bishop of the church of Alexandria, died, having held the office for forty-three full years, and Heraclas succeeded him. At this time Firmilianus, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, was conspicuous.[6.26]

I have always had a difficult time putting together Origen's life according to Eusebius's timeline. The 43 year reign of Demetrius seems fictitious too. I wonder whether we can lop off ten years owing to a counting error somewhere - i.e. 189 (the 10th year of Commodus) to 232 CE as opposed to 242 CE.

stephan huller · 05-24-2012, 11:28 PM

It is also worth noting that around this time (c. 231 CE) Demetrius was said to have excommunicated Origen by some sort of synod. Jerome, in his letter to St. Paula (Letter 33) states: "He stands condemned by his bishop, Demetrius, only the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia dissenting. Imperial Rome consents to his condemnation, and even convenes a senate to censure him..." Further, in his Apology Against Rufius (Book II) he describes a letter of Origen, in which Origen complains about being excommunicated "The object of the whole letter is to assail Demetrius the Pontiff of Alexandria, and to inveigh against the bishops throughout the world, and to tell them that their excommunication of him is invalid. ...He is contending, then, against the Bishops of the church generally, because they had judged him unworthy of its communion." The Empire descended into anarchy in 235 CE. I think it is pretty hard to believe that Demetrius, who was so close to the Imperial government managed to last through the crisis of the third century.

stephan huller · 05-25-2012, 01:26 AM

I wonder if Eusebius's source meant Laetus the prefect of the Praetorian guard?

Quintus Aemilius Laetus (died 193) was a prefect of the Roman imperial bodyguard, known as the Praetorian Guard, from 191 until his death in 193. He acceded to this position upon the deaths of his predecessors Regillus and Julius Julianus, by appointment of emperor Commodus. His name suggests that his family received Roman citizenship from Marcus Aemilius Lepidus.

stephan huller · 05-25-2012, 01:29 AM

I think this must be a Roman history and Laetus is meant and Origen was 17 in 189:

Quote:

1. Many things might be said in attempting to describe the life of the man while in school; but this subject alone would require a separate treatise. Nevertheless, for the present, abridging most things, we shall state a few facts concerning him as briefly as possible, gathering them from certain letters, and from the statement of persons still living who were acquainted with him.

2. What they report of Origen seems to me worthy of mention, even, so to speak, from his swathing-bands.

It was the tenth year of the reign of Severus, while Lætus was governor of Alexandria and the rest of Egypt, and Demetrius had lately received the episcopate of the parishes there, as successor of Julian.
3. As the flame of persecution had been kindled greatly, and multitudes had gained the crown of martyrdom, such desire for martyrdom seized the soul of Origen, although yet a boy, that he went close to danger, springing forward and rushing to the conflict in his eagerness.

4. And truly the termination of his life had been very near had not the divine and heavenly Providence, for the benefit of many, prevented his desire through the agency of his mother.

5. For, at first, entreating him, she begged him to have compassion on her motherly feelings toward him; but finding, that when he had learned that his father had been seized and imprisoned, he was set the more resolutely, and completely carried away with his zeal for martyrdom, she hid all his clothing, and thus compelled him to remain at home.

6. But, as there was nothing else that he could do, and his zeal beyond his age would not suffer him to be quiet, he sent to his father an encouraging letter on martyrdom, in which he exhorted him, saying, Take heed not to change your mind on our account. This may be recorded as the first evidence of Origen's youthful wisdom and of his genuine love for piety.

7. For even then he had stored up no small resources in the words of the faith, having been trained in the Divine Scriptures from childhood. And he had not studied them with indifference, for his father, besides giving him the usual liberal education, had made them a matter of no secondary importance.

8. First of all, before inducting him into the Greek sciences, he drilled him in sacred studies, requiring him to learn and recite every day.

9. Nor was this irksome to the boy, but he was eager and diligent in these studies. And he was not satisfied with learning what was simple and obvious in the sacred words, but sought for something more, and even at that age busied himself with deeper speculations. So that he puzzled his father with inquiries for the true meaning of the inspired Scriptures.

10. And his father rebuked him seemingly to his face, telling him not to search beyond his age, or further than the manifest meaning. But by himself he rejoiced greatly and thanked God, the author of all good, that he had deemed him worthy to be the father of such a child.

11. And they say that often, standing by the boy when asleep, he uncovered his breast as if the Divine Spirit were enshrined within it, and kissed it reverently; considering himself blessed in his goodly offspring. These and other things like them are related of Origen when a boy.

12. But when his father ended his life in martyrdom, he was left with his mother and six younger brothers when he was not quite seventeen years old.

Roger Pearse · 05-25-2012, 09:32 AM

Look it up in Eusebius' Chronicle and see if that gives better details.

As Alden Mosshammer makes clear in his dry but excellent book on Greek Chronography, the Greek chronographic tradition was in total meltdown by the time of Eusebius, and, considering the problems it faced, no wonder.

Eusebius utilised the newly available big parchment codex format to draw up tables of years and kingdoms and events, and synthesised the first universal world chronology from that.

He had terrible trouble, since no-one even agreed when the year started or ended, or what it was called, or even how long it was. Naturally his work contains what we now know to be errors, but it's pretty good all the same.

He based the statements of this kind in the HE on material gathered for the Chronicle. We're looking at lists of bishops with years on them, plainly, just as he uses king lists in the same format. But such lists are very dodgy, because a king who only reigned for a few months may still issue edicts dated "in the first year of king X", which means that it's pretty easy to gain a year in your counting.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 05-25-2012, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Look it up in Eusebius' Chronicle and see if that gives better details.

As Alden Mosshammer makes clear in his dry but excellent book on Greek Chronography, the Greek chronographic tradition was in total meltdown by the time of Eusebius, and, considering the problems it faced, no wonder.

Eusebius utilised the newly available big parchment codex format to draw up tables of years and kingdoms and events, and synthesised the first universal world chronology from that.

He had terrible trouble, since no-one even agreed when the year started or ended, or what it was called, or even how long it was. Naturally his work contains what we now know to be errors, but it's pretty good all the same.

He based the statements of this kind in the HE on material gathered for the Chronicle. We're looking at lists of bishops with years on them, plainly, just as he uses king lists in the same format. But such lists are very dodgy, because a king who only reigned for a few months may still issue edicts dated "in the first year of king X", which means that it's pretty easy to gain a year in your counting.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

If you think about it what you say about Eusebius does NOT make much sense.

Eusebius should have been using sources that were ALREADY composed with the time of bishopric for bishops and time of reign for Emperors so it does NOT matter what calender Eusebius used.

For example, If I used Church History attributed to Eusebius for the time period for the reign of Severus then it does NOT matter what kind of calender I am presently using today.

Quote:

7. Severus, having held the government for eighteen years, was succeeded by his son, Antoninus...

It is irrelevant whether or not Eusebius had a calender if he had credible historical sources.

stephan huller · 05-26-2012, 03:57 PM

I think I found something. A little later in Book Six Eusebius mentions a lost work by a figure named 'Judas':

Quote:

At this time another writer, Judas, discoursing about the seventy weeks in Daniel, brings down the chronology to the tenth year of the reign of Severus. He thought that the coming of Antichrist, which was much talked about, was then near. So greatly did the agitation caused by the persecution of our people at this time disturb the minds of many

.

I seem to recall that Clement of Alexandria is supposed to have quoted this text. Have to figure out where I read this.

stephan huller · 05-26-2012, 04:00 PM

Here is the curious reference in Book One of the History of the Coptic Patriarchs:

Quote:

Now there had come to Alexandria, in the room of Pantaenus, a new governor whose name was Clement; and he remained governor until those days. And this Clement composed out of his own head books, in which he overthrew the received chronology. Then a Jewish scribe, named Judas 40, who had read in the book of the Visions of Daniel, in the tenth year of the reign of Severus, explained the years and dates mystically up to the epoch of Antichrist, on a system of his own, and declared that the time was at hand, on account of the deeds of Severus, the hostile prince.

la70119 · 05-27-2012, 03:44 PM

I checked out Jerome's Letter to Paulus. In it we read:

Jerome, Letter 33 To Paula, Pgh. 4

Quote:

4. So, you see, the labors of this one man have surpassed those of all previous writers, Greek and Latin. Who has ever managed to read all that he has written? Yet what reward have his exertions brought him? He stands condemned by his bishop, Demetrius, only the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phenicia, and Achaia dissenting. Imperial Rome consents to his condemnation, and even convenes a senate to censure him, not— as the rabid hounds who now pursue him cry— because of the novelty or heterodoxy of his doctrines, but because men could not tolerate the incomparable eloquence and knowledge which, when once he opened his lips, made others seem dumb.

This is NOT some conclave of cardinals contemporary to Jerome he was talking about here, but rather Imperial Rome, the Government, contemporary to Demetrius and Origen, in 231 CE. Something is very fishy in the state of Denmark, Jerome is clearly stating here that the Senate was giving its citation of approval to the bishops' decision. Which means there had to have been one branch of Christianity that was tacitly left alone and even nurtured by the Government.

mountainman · 05-27-2012, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

.... Jerome is clearly stating here that the Senate was giving its citation of approval to the bishops' decision. Which means there had to have been one branch of Christianity that was tacitly left alone and even nurtured by the Government.

Not necessarily since Jerome is known for his embellishments to received tradition of the history of Eusebius. He was tutored and taken under the wing of Pope Damasius in the later 4th century. Pope Damasius's personal army had killed sufficient numbers of the personal armies of other people competing to become the bishop of Rome. It was a prestigous tax-exempt position in the later 4th century, and it was worth fighting for.

Jerome was a pawn.

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

05-24-2012, 11:28 PM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It is also worth noting that around this time (c. 231 CE) Demetrius was said to have excommunicated Origen by some sort of synod. Jerome, in his letter to St. Paula (Letter 33) states: "He stands condemned by his bishop, Demetrius, only the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia dissenting. Imperial Rome consents to his condemnation, and even convenes a senate to censure him..." Further, in his Apology Against Rufius (Book II) he describes a letter of Origen, in which Origen complains about being excommunicated "The object of the whole letter is to assail Demetrius the Pontiff of Alexandria, and to inveigh against the bishops throughout the world, and to tell them that their excommunication of him is invalid. ...He is contending, then, against the Bishops of the church generally, because they had judged him unworthy of its communion." The Empire descended into anarchy in 235 CE. I think it is pretty hard to believe that Demetrius, who was so close to the Imperial government managed to last through the crisis of the third century.

05-25-2012, 01:26 AM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I wonder if Eusebius's source meant Laetus the prefect of the Praetorian guard? Quintus Aemilius Laetus (died 193) was a prefect of the Roman imperial bodyguard, known as the Praetorian Guard, from 191 until his death in 193. He acceded to this position upon the deaths of his predecessors Regillus and Julius Julianus, by appointment of emperor Commodus. His name suggests that his family received Roman citizenship from Marcus Aemilius Lepidus.

05-25-2012, 09:32 AM	#5
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Look it up in Eusebius' Chronicle and see if that gives better details. As Alden Mosshammer makes clear in his dry but excellent book on Greek Chronography, the Greek chronographic tradition was in total meltdown by the time of Eusebius, and, considering the problems it faced, no wonder. Eusebius utilised the newly available big parchment codex format to draw up tables of years and kingdoms and events, and synthesised the first universal world chronology from that. He had terrible trouble, since no-one even agreed when the year started or ended, or what it was called, or even how long it was. Naturally his work contains what we now know to be errors, but it's pretty good all the same. He based the statements of this kind in the HE on material gathered for the Chronicle. We're looking at lists of bishops with years on them, plainly, just as he uses king lists in the same format. But such lists are very dodgy, because a king who only reigned for a few months may still issue edicts dated "in the first year of king X", which means that it's pretty easy to gain a year in your counting. All the best, Roger Pearse

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.