spin

Here we go with another text mangled by Roger Pearse.
Typical use of the same error ostensibly objected to here: press agent for the pot, looking to create a kettle to deflect onto.

This is an interesting comment. It's based on Roger Pearse's mislabeling of the text he provides. He marks one part for Plato and one for Clinias [Kleinias]. In fact, Plato might have written the dialogue but he doesn't participate in it. The words given to Plato are actually said by the unnamed Athenian stranger. So, "Eusebius' comment ignores what Plato says"! He means that it ignores what the Athenian says, but that's just Roger Pearse's wishful thinking. If Eusebius didn't just pluck the passage out of a collection, he would have known that Clinias was merely a foil for the notions of the Athenian.

The "truth", mentioned by Clinias, that is "not easy to persuade men of", is said as a concession to the Athenian's statement regarding falsehood. Eusebius then alludes to biblical passages which give what he considers a false picture of god, linking back to the notion of falsehoods that are "able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly".

This straw construction was responded to by Solo, though its significance was ignored by Roger Pearse. Once again, no, Eusebius isn't calling the bible a fraud, but he is acknowledging thousands of passages which do not reflect reality as Eusebius saw it. They misrepresent god "as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry," (etc.) and, while Eusebius knows better about god, he concedes that these "passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction."

Now the false accusation of the wrong translation, naturally enough not based on any philological evidence.

Another misguided Roger Pearse interpretation: "the strange idea of Eusebius rubbishing the bible". Who in this thread claimed that Eusebius does anything of the sort?

Here is Solo's response:

Solo: Eusebius is not calling the bible a fraud any more than Trotsky called the Bolshevik propaganda a fraud when he wrote his infamous pamphlet titled Their Lies and Ours."

Followed by another Roger Pearse deflection, a foray into philology:

RP: Yet, if pseudos means "falsehood", that is precisely what we are being invited to believe the passage means. That's the point; it *cannot* mean that.

Solo's response had already shown that this Roger Pearse deflection was not necessary: the point was baseless. And of course the dictionary doesn't agree with Roger Pearse either. See verb and noun. Now he might like to actually argue his point against what Solo has already said or even the dictionary, but his bald assertions aren't of any use.

Perhaps, instead of attempting to get other people to do the necessary work, Roger Pearse might like to actually make his argument with some evidence, instead of rhetoric.

Sadly, we have seen those earlier comments. They seem to be subterfuge and "adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction". Surely Roger Pearse can identify with what Eusebius said.


spin

andrewcriddle

FWIW Hanson in the Article Biblical Exegesis in the Early Church in The Cambridge History of the Bible Volume 1 agrees that Eusebius' views in the PE are influenced by Origen. pps 451-452 Andrew Criddle

Solo

Andrew, you are ignoring my point. It is not about being moral absolutist per se. I am not, you are not, most people are not. It is about whether God (or those who utter oaths of God) may have ulterior motives. Plato was not a high ranking priest, Eusebius was.


I don't know what 'deliberate deceit' is. If you are deceitful the intent is assumed. But to recap, you protested first against the indulgences parallel saying, "...the main issue between Papists and Reformers was a genuine difference of belief as to whether Papal indulgences really worked". I replied that there was a deeper theological argument which closely tied to the issue of 'white lies'.
You agreed that the Reformers held that the church was in error but protested that I provided no evidence they held the indulgences represented deliberate 'falsehood'. My response was to provide you with another set of quotes from Luther, one of which explicitly charged that the priests and church teachers deceived those who were not truly penitent, a link to a write-up in which Huss called the indulgence issuing pope 'Anti-Christ' (which certainly was never a title of a well-meaning bungler) and another to Wycliffe who says ia.,

I don't know what else I can say in the matter, that I have not said already.

Jiri

Solo

I looked up on Questia an excerpt of Origen's Jeremiah Homily 20which apparently Eusebius referenced in the PE section under discussion here. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full text. But there is nothing in the first two paragraphs that would even remotely suggest that Origen in calling the OT portrayal of God's emotions as 'immediately unsuitable' would be ready to argue that they involved any form of insincerity or deception. Quite the contrary, Origen seems to say unlike Eusebius later that the mode of instruction allowing God to display human emotions enforces the truth of the word.

It would be good if someone could post the full text of the Homily 20 on the board to dispel any erroneous notions about what Origen said or dd not say that might or might not have misled Eusebius.

Jiri

Roger Pearse

Interested to hear Hanson on Origen. Any idea where Origen says this?

I'm sure that Origenian exegesis is the right direction in which to look. I keep wishing that there was some way to get Origen's homilies online.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

Hi Jiri

You are entirely correct that Wycliffe accused his opponents of conscious dishonesty. I'm sorry, I should have read more carefully the links you provided.

However, Wycliffe appears IMO to be interpreting as dishonesty what can also be seen as a genuine difference of belief. Wycliffe is saying in effect that since (most) bishops cannot possibly believe that they are morally or spiritually comparable to the apostles, they cannot honestly believe their claims to an apostolic authority to remit the penalties due for sins.

However his opponents would reply that their authority as Christian ministers does not in any way derive from their own virtues but entirely from the virtues of Christ. They would plausibly accuse Wycliffe of teaching the Donatist heresy, the view that sinful clergy are bogus clergy.

I'm sure some of the claims made by the supporters of indulgences were consciously dishonest, but Wycliffe's polemic may be an example of the widespread tendency to disbelieve that one's opponents genuinely hold the erroneous and harmful views which they publicly proclaim.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I'll repost the portions of Homilies 19 and 20 that I posted in the previous thread

Homily XIX section 15

Homily XX section 3

Andrew Criddle

Part of the Homilies are online on Google books

Homily 19
Homily 20

Solo

Thanks, Andrew, this is quite helpful. So, yes, Eusebius it appears drew on Origen in making the PE remarks. This does not make the problem of 'dissembling God' go away but it does shift the burden of authorship to Origen. I suppose this sort of maneouvre could handle the problem of parousia never materializing, but I am not sure how one could establish authority of the church with it in people who have a more "binding" idea of personal integrity. This argument of 'you are being lied to for your own good', you realize is an argument from authority, one which cannot be questioned.

Was Origen, or Eusebius FTM, ever dissed on this teaching ? By Epiphanius, e.g. ?

Best,
Jiri

Solo

I think you are on the right track. Wycliffe's unbeatable card was called conscience. 'How can you be so arrogant', he was asking.
But he also had another high trump, which was scripture. It was Wycliffe and not Luther who started to argue with the church powers-that-be on the basis of scriptural authority. Peter was not delegated papal power, Christ proposed to build his church on Peter's humility (says Wycliffe; I am more inclined to Chesterton's view of Peter), not on usurpation of divine grace. Church and pope has no business deciding how much time a petintent will spend in purgatory, if such a thing even exists.

Andrew, I think Wycliffe went further than the Donatists. He questioned the scriptural basis of the church authority, not only the conduct of the priests. The issues are related, and at the bottom I think they talk to the test of faith : what comes between the Lord and I ? Is it the church ?
Or is it nothing ?


So what you are saying is that some genuinely believed in the cause of the indulgencies. Yes, quite probably so. I consider it also quite probable that David Irving genuinely holds that the Holocaust never happened.

I guess that's the problem with some forms of belief.

Best,
Jiri

andrewcriddle

Hi Jiri

This is an interesting point and I'm not sure of the right answer.

Origen was condemned by Epiphanius Jerome et al c 400 CE but not IIUC on exactly this ground

eg Jerome in To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem.
says of Origen (among other things) But although this accuses Origen of undermining Biblical truth by his radical allegorizing, this is somewhat different from the issue we're discussing.

(The "Official" condemnation of Origen in 553 is related more to the views of Origen's later followers than to Origen's own teaching.)

Andrew Criddle