S.C.Carlson

You're assuming that Tertullian wrote Perpetua, but, even if he did, the only work of Tertullian that we have any evidence of Eusebius knowing was a bad Greek translation of the Apologia. Tertullian's prolific Latin output was otherwise unknown to Eusebius.

Nope. Eusebius does quote Tertullian five times, all from the Apologia because he actually had a copy of it in Greek translation. Eusebius does not evidence any other information about Tertullian that could not be found in or inferred from that text. This means that there is no evidence that Eusebius even knew of Tertullian's embrace of Montanism, and he laudatory comments about Tertullian (H.E. 2.2.5 and 5.5.5) tends to negate any assertion that Eusebius nonetheless knew of Tertuallian's "heresy" and yet suppressed it.

Without any evidence that the advice included Perpetua (and that Tertullian actually wrote it, which is disputed), it's not worth a whole lot.

We're not talking about any bishop, but one who has left us a huge amount of writings. An actual analysis of those writings, on the other hand, shows a rather poor awareness of Christian literature originally composed in Latin.

Given Eusebius's interest in martyrology, it's even harder to believe that had Eusebius been aware of Perpetua he would have neglected to mention her.

:huh: Being enlosed in a net makes more sense. People don't usually wear a net but they do get ensnared one.

Stephen

aa5874

You admit the Eusebius quotes Tertullian.
Eusebius did write about Montanism.
It is likely that Eusebius knew or read that Tertullian did become a Montanist.

Your reasoning is extremely weak, you seem not to have read anything about Tertullian or Eusebius and their importance to early Christianity.

S.C.Carlson

Your syllogism is invalid. There is no evidence that Eusebius knew or read any of Tertullian's works from his Montanist period.

Your conclusion about my reading is a fine testament to your powers of deduction.

Stephen

Roger Pearse

Assertion and inventing vague 'parallels' are the staples of the crank. Please don't do this. Whatever is your opinion of 'likely' worth? (Or mine?)

A rather unfortunate comment, given whom you were addressing. Stephen even knows that Eusebius knew the Apologeticum of Tertullian only in a poor Greek translation, not the original. This is a fairly obscure bit of knowledge.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Huon

In his OP, PhilosopherJay makes an incursion in hagiography, martyrology. It is well known that these pieces of literature are very far from history. At best, the first written report of the death of a martyr (real or supposed) is much later than the alleged date of the martyrdom. All the details of torture are reported only to show how great were the sufferings of the martyr, and simultaneously, how great is the religion for which he/she suffered.

I would think, as an ignorant of this literature, that the most enriched texts are the latest, bringing embellishments on the less detailed and less horrific descriptions of older writers. But this opinion is not the proof of anything, so, if somebody says the exact opposite, well, possible...

Second point : PhilosopherJay attacks Blandina ! Since the days of Michelet, an historian of the 1850s, Blandina and Joan of Arc are two main figures of the history of France ! Horror and putrefaction !:devil1:

More seriously, if some crumbs of history can be gathered from the story of Blandina, it is possibly (and discutably) this :

Christianism reached Gaul at Lyons, around 150 CE. The first bishop of the christian community was a certain Pothinus, between ~150 and 177. The successor of Pothinus was Irenaeus (died 202). It seems that these two bishops were born in Asia Minor, and were acquainted with Montanists. Pothinus and Blandina died in 177, under Marcus Aurelius.

Third point : Perpetua is not exactly the same as Blandina. Blandina was a slave, Perpetua was a noble woman. She died in 203, under Septimus Severus, at Carthage. Her martyrdom can be similar to that of Blandina (and reciprocally, the stories are later than 203), but the historical background is different.

Ben C Smith

Unbelievable. This one will stick with me for a while.

Ben.

PhilosopherJay

Hi JG

Here is the relevant paragraph:

5.1.3 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.

When somebody states rhetorically "why should I do X," he/she is acknowledging that there is some question about obligation and that someone did or might ask them to do X". In this case Eusebius is acknowledging his obligation to give the names and number of the witnesses. He is acknowledging it, not as an eyewitness or a Bishop, but as an historian. That is why I said, "As an historian, it was encumbant (sic) upon him to give the names of those killed or at least tell us the number." Perhaps, I should have said more precisely, "Eusebius, as an historian feels that he has an obligation to relate the names and number of martyrs."

Now your question "Says who?" implies that Eusebius did not feel he was under an obligation to relate the names and number of martyrs. Unless you have a quite different understanding of what Eusebius is saying, the question is irrelevant to my point about how Eusebius fulfilled his obligation. My conclusion was that you had not bothered to read what Eusebius actually said, but had asked a general question without following my argument.


I did answer what I considered an irrelevant question. Your response is to again misunderstand the argument I presented and to accuse me of not answering the question. You then present another irrelevant question.

As I recall this happened a number of times before. I have the impression that you are more interested in eristics than the subject matter at hand.

The effect of asking and answering irrelevant questions is to distract from the actual arguments. Since I am interested in furthering and refining the arguments, I regretfully feel the necessity of refusing to answer questions that are irrelevant to my arguments. I will continue to answer relevant questions as I always try to do.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Roger Pearse

I have never been able to obtain a satisfactory account of how the genre of hagiography works. By satisfactory, I mean one grounded in primary sources rather than assertions by people who are not hagiographers. Does anyone know of one?

...is not a word in English. We understand you, vraiment, but the word is Christianity. Anyone using this gallicism would sound very odd to most people.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

Anyone who has studied Eusebius, Tertullian, the Churches that were affliated with Rome, the Church of Asia and Phyrgia and the conflicts of Montanism would realise that it is likely the Eusebius was aware that Tertullian was a Montanist.

Montanism was a Church problem and would have been a dominant issue which early Church fathers, including Eusebius, would have known of, bearing in mind that Tertullian was a high profile figure in the Church and written records claim correspondence betwen the Chuch and the Montanist.

The available information is more likely to imply that Eusebius knew of Tertullian's heresy. These facts cannot negate such likelyhood in anyway.

Again, your reasoning is extremely weak.

PhilosopherJay

Well, first let me apologize to whoever might think I have attacked Blandina. If I have done so, it has been quite inadvertant.

I agree that there are certain historical gleemings that may be taken from the literature of martyrology, but I think the gleemings are quite a bit sparser.

For a similar case, one might ask what historical gleemings we may get from the story of King Kong. If we say that a giant ape fell off the Empire State Building in 1933 and another giant ape fell off the Empire State Building in 2005, we shall be very far from history.

Certainly there are big differences between Marion Cooper's King Kong and Peter Jackson's King Kong. For one thing, Peter Jackson's King Kong knows how to ice-skate while there is no indication that Marion Cooper's King Kong ever learned the trick. Naomi Watts' Ann Darrow knows how to tumble, while Fay Wray's Ann Darrow doesn't. These differences does not indicate historical origins.

One expects differences even in the most similar literary borrowings. It is the similarities, especially in their story functions, that bring out the literary origin of characters. Thus one can find enormous differences between Batman and Superman, for example, Batman is rich, while Superman is a middle-class worker, but it is the similarity of the superheroe roles they play within their respective stories that mark them as literary creations. Thus Blandina and Perpetua are certainly different, but it is the similarities in the roles they play in their respective stories that mark them as literary creations. They both are ideal Christian women with supernatural powers to resist tortures and that marks them as literary creations. Besides this role in the story, they have not other reason d'etre. They have no other history. That both Blandina and Perpetua feel no pain after being gored by a bull indicates the directness of the literary borrowing that was involved in the creation of one of them.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay