Vorkosigan

What was the exact word/term Carrier allegedly mistranslated here?

Vorkosigan

Bede

Carrier translated a word as "falsehood" when the standard Greek translations of the same passage of Plato are "fiction".

Toto accepts this and is now claiming that anyone who claims that fictional stories can be used in teaching is a forger or liar. Or else he has forgotten to withdraw this allegation against Eusebius.

B

Roger Pearse

>As for Eusebius, considered by most historians an unreliable
>source,

Perhaps this assertion could be documented? I know of no such consensus.

>see Richard Carrier's assessment here.

This has surely been discussed several times already?

>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eusebius is also infamous for saying that it was necessary to lie for the cause of Christianity. In his Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31, listing the ideas Plato supposedly got from Moses, he includes the idea:

That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the Athenian:] 'And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach.
<

So are we supposed to infer from this that:

1. Eusebius says the bible is telling lies
2. That means anyone can legitimately tell lies
3. Which means Eusebius is telling lies
4. And advocating anyone may do so?

Why? It's a whole lot more likely that he's talking about parables, and educational uses of fiction.

> Regarding Eusebius' use of this and other passages in book 12, Edwin Hamilton Gifford says "In Books X-XII Eusebius argues that the Greeks had borrowed from the older theology and philosophy of the Hebrews, dwelling especially on the supposed dependence of Plato upon Moses." (Introduction, Preparation for the Gospel, 1903). So in a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing.
<

It is remarkable, however, that even Edward Gibbon didn't try this one on. Eusebius quotes a whole lot more of Plato than just that. Plato is discussing educational fiction. Eusebius points out the parallel. With Plato's immoral precepts, Eusebius has nothing to do. Indeed he omits the next portion where Plato indicates that lying is easy: rather indicative, surely.

>This summary by Richard Carrier was never refuted.

I really think this has been done to death!

>On page 3 of that thread, "Alexis Comnenus" (remember him?) >says

quote:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that I made a mistake and accept what Mr Carrier says about the chapter headings forming part of the original text. This is highly unusual (I know of no other document where it is the case and an ancient table of contents is also exceptional) but I am sure Mr Carrier has checked.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<

I think otherwise, although I am always willing to be corrected if someone has some hard evidence I do not. (My knowledge of this is based on R. Friderici's book on the topic, plus the colloquium at Chantilly, Titres et Articulations..., and the articles of Michael M. Gorman discussing the subject, with special reference to the works of St. Augustine.)

The chapter divisions and titles are not authorial: no such divisions are known for any work prior to the 6th century, with the possible exception of Aulus Gellius. Technical works often had summaries at the front, and sometimes (not always) these were numbered, and sometimes (not always) had marginal numbers indicating where the topic began, but this does not seem to be the rule in literature.

The summaries of content at the front of each book, on the other hand, may indeed be authorial (it is very hard indeed to be sure), but a comparison of the numbering of the chapters of book 1 with the numbering in the summaries indicates that the chapter divisions were not made by the same person as the author of the summary, for they do not match up.

That the summaries contain the snippet of text in question, and so say that fiction may be used as a teaching method I am quite prepared to believe. That, after all, is what is under discussion in the Republic -- the poetry taught to children. But to mistranslate as 'falsehood' -- as Gibbon did, as Gifford was misled to do, and Carrier does -- rather than 'fiction' -- as the Loeb translators of Plato do -- makes the book into nonsense.

While I am moving to the view that the summaries *are* authorial (the consensus on summaries in general in 1900 was that these were later additions too, and the subject has never been properly investigated), it needs to be considered that this is only a supposition; and even modern books tend to have such apparatus compiled by some underpaid minion, rather than the great man himself...

> The entire thread says everything, so I will not repeat it.
> Eusebius did much more than approve of parables - he
> endorsed outright fiction.

Why is it so important to anyone to ignore his testimony?

But might I say, without offence to anyone in particular, that trying to prove that people one dislikes advocate lying, as an excuse to ignore their testimony, is quite distasteful. People rarely profess deceit. Liars in particularly do not. When I see the attempt made, I find that the main impression given is of malice.

For those interested, the entire Praeparatio Evangelica in English is now online, at Additional Fathers, and probably at CCEL also by now.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

'Pseudos.'

The fault is not with Mr. Carrier, but with Edward Gibbon, who rendered it as 'falsehood', 'lie'. This is a perfectly possible meaning of the word in isolation (look it up in Liddel and Scott), but makes Plato's thought read very strangely if you do this. The other possible meaning is 'fiction', with less pejorative meaning, and this is what Plato is groping towards (or what Eusebius understood him to mean, which of course might not be the same thing!). This is the choice of the Loeb translators of that portion of Plato's Laws.

Even so, uneducated people today often dismiss fiction with words such as 'well it aint true, is it?' This problem was much more acute in antiquity, and accounts for Plato's difficulty at this point. Eusebius follows him no further, and snips the reply to Clinias altogether.

It's relatively easy to see that Eusebius cannot have understood the word as meaning a lie, since he proceeds to use it as a description for bits of the bible. Are we really to suppose that he considers the narrative portions of the OT (to which he refers), not as educational fiction (the topic under discussion) but as lies?

Anyone wanting to show that Eusebius intended the latter description of the OT should surely produce quite a lot more demonstration than just this passage! The idea seems dippy.

In view of the ambiguity, and the partisan nature of Gibbon's translation (it is made in the middle of a vicious attack on his critics), it would seem better to follow the Loeb translators and stick to 'fiction'. It does make better sense, to me anyway, and avoids the commitment to a particular value-label. Parable is I think the idea Eusebius has in mind. But read book 12 and see for yourselves.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I wouldn't have thought so. The Theodosian code is based on earlier legal codes, not extracts from works of literature.

There are English translations of Justinian's legal codes, out of copyright too, but not online.

I find a discussion of the subject in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the cross and crucifix in archaeology

"The punishment of the cross remained in force throughout the Roman Empire until the first half of the fourth century. In the early part of his reign Constantine continued to inflict the penalty of the cross (affigere patibulo) on slaves guilty of delatio domini, i.e. of denouncing their masters (Cod. Th. ad leg. Jul. magist.). Later on he abolished this infamous punishment, in memory and in honour of the Passion of Jesus Christ (Eus., "Hist. Eccl.", I, viii; Schol. Juvenal., XIV, 78; Niceph., VII, 46; Cassiod., "Hist. Trip.", I, 9; Codex Theod., IX, 5, 18). Thereafter, this punishment was very rarely inflicted (Eus., "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xxxv; Pacat., "Paneg.", xliv). Towards the fifth century the furca, or gibbet, was substituted for the cross (Pio Franchi de' Cavalieri, "Della forca sostituita alla croce" in "Nuovo bulletino di archeologia cristiana", 1907, nos. 1-3, 63 sqq.)."

Sources for abolition, then, if I expand those I recognise for the benefit of normal people:

+ Eusebius, Church History book 1 chapter 8 (online)
+ The scholiast on Juvenal, book 14, ch. 78
+ Nicephorus, book 7, ch. 46.
+ Cassiodorus, Historia Tripartita, book 1, ch. 9 (but probably based on Eusebius, I expect)
+ Codex Theodosianus book 9, section 5.18. (However I cannot find any such rescript in that place, so I suspect the ref. in the CE is corrupt). However I see that the edicts are all with the name of the emperor, and the date given.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

Bede - talk about bloody infuriating - that's you and your sock puppet.

I refer you and the readers back to the prior thread, where there was an extended discussion of the shades of difference between lies and fiction, and the difference between Aesop's fables and Santa, and why we don't call Santa a lie even though the Santa myth is a lie.

Whether you translate yeudoV as fiction or lie makes little difference to the point - Eusebius thinks of what he writes as a message with a purpose, and the purpose is more important than scientific or historical accuracy. Eusebius quotes Plato in support of this.

The issue of Eusebius as a forger is a completely separate one.

Toto

The only thing I infer from this is that Eusebius thinks that the Bible is not strictly true, and that it is legitimate to propagate untruths in the service of a higher cause. From which we may infer that Eusebius himself may very well have propagated untruths in the service of his religion. Is that so dippy an idea?

I do not think that he is talking about parables or educational use of known fiction because he says (quoting Plato with apparent approval " if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice."

Mageth

For reference, here's a chapter on Dionysus from Fraser's The Golden Bough.

Roger Pearse

I do not see why we should infer any of this. Where does he say this? Does he even discuss these issues? Rather he says that some bits of the bible are in the form of story -- whether or not they are to be understood literally or allegorically is not discussed here, although I think the 'not always literal' motif is there -- and this is for the same reason that Plato outlines, that thick people need difficult concepts in the form of parables.

Or what, do we suppose, is Plato talking about? Lying? Or education? Context, you know.

Well, that is because this is a mistranslation. Here's Gifford:

"PLATO ‘BUT even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?

‘Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.’

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction." <end Gifford>

Further, did you notice that to make the point, it was necessary to omit the bit Eusebius responds to? -- the 'Truth, O Stranger...' bit, immediately preceding Eusebius' words?

I ask myself a couple of simple questions. Is the Republic about lying? Is this the theme of the Laws? Or is it about education? Is it talking about textbooks? -- Or about poetic fiction?

You see? It requires deep obtuseness, and a determined refusal to consider the literary topic under discussion to reach the conclusion in question. Its nonsense.

Btw, have some relevant data , from various translations. Might be useful, and we at least can all work from the same data.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

Plato appears to be talking about education by the "occasional practice of pious and salutary frauds" (to use the words from your cite). You only resist calling this "lying" because that implies something bad, and a lie for a good purpose is not bad, so you find a different word for it.

I don't see this saying anything different. It was not necessary to omit the "Truth. . ." part. The version I quoted says:

[then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.'

which sounds to me like an agreement that truth is good, but so difficult that some people may need something else. How do you interpret that sentence?

We have a disagreement. I think that you are so committed to your religious convictions and so committed to rehabilitating Eusebius' reputation that you are refusing to give the plain meaning to the words on the page.

I also that you are misstating your opponents position to claim that we think Eusebius approves of lying about anything, anywhere, anytime, which is not my position.

Eusebius clearly approves of using stories for good purposes, as to educate the young - the only question is whether feels that it is necessary to tell the students that the stories are not really true. I read his words as approving of 'pious and salutory frauds.' I think he would have approved of telling American school children that George Washington was a pious Christian, and that he told the truth about chopping down a cherry tree - because this would produce better behaviour in children. We don't call this a parable.

You, however, can only assume that I am afflicted with "deep obtuseness." This does nothing to convince me that your position has any merit.