Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-07-2010, 04:18 AM

Eusebius of Caesarea's "Interpretatio Christiana" of Philo's De vita contemplativa
Sabrina Inowlocki, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 97, No. 3 (Jul., 2004),
pp. 305-328 (article consists of 24 pages)

NOTE: There also appears to be a substantial amount of the beginning of this article available here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by extract of article

Philo of Alexandria's De vita contemplativa (henceforth VC) is one of the philosopher's most debated treatises. Indeed, it raises difficult questions of authorship and interpretation. Much scholarly attention has been devoted to the subject, (1) investigating the authenticity of the attribution to Philo, (2) the identity of the so-called "Therapeutae," the plausibility of their actual existence, (3) and their possible relation to Christian monasticism and Essenism. (4) In particular, as Jean Riaud has pointed out, in modern times, theological and apologetic agendas motivated the identification of the Therapeutae as either Jews or Christians.

The belief that the Therapeutae were in fact Christians originated with Eusebius. In the second book of his Historia ecclesiastica (henceforth HE), (5) Eusebius deals extensively with Philo's VC. After reporting the foundation of churches in Alexandria by Mark, (6) Eusebius introduces Philo's account of the Therapeutae, which he views as a description of the first Christians in Egypt. (7) Although Eusebius's interpretation of Philo's text is now rejected by modern scholarship, (8) it remains worthy of study as an example of Christian appropriation of Jewish literature. Surprisingly, despite the tremendous importance of Eusebius's interpretatio Christiana of VC in later Christianity, from antiquity up to modern times, little attention has been devoted to the methods he uses to appropriate Philo's description of the community of Lake Mariut. This essay will attempt to fill that gap.

The concluding comments summarise the main idea ...

Quote:

p.327

Summary and Conclusion

The contours of Eusebius's project to Christianize Philo's De vita contemplativa (VC)
for the glory of Egyptian Christianity should now be clear.

...[trimmed all but final few sentences]...

Also, it seems to me that Eusebius's interpretatio Christiana of VC may explain, at least partly, [148] Philo's popularity among Christians and the preservation of his works by the latter. Just as the preservation of Jopsephus's writings owed much to the "Testimonium Flavianum", so did Eusebius's interest in VC as a source for reconstructing an early phase in "the life of our people" help to ensure the survival of Philo's works.

Toto · 12-07-2010, 08:04 AM

What do you mean by Christianize here? I don't think that there is any great controvery over what Eusebius did - he tried to identify an early version of Christianity in the Theraputae described by Philo.

Eusebius clearly did not turn Philo into a Christian.

stephan huller · 12-07-2010, 08:41 AM

The topic of Philo of Alexandria is extremely interesting. Yes, Eusebius does interpret Philo's description here in terms of Christianity but the original report isn't really all that Christian. It is worth noting that if you dig deeper into the description you will see that the community had a 364 day calendar solar calendar (i.e. where the first day of every eighth year is one of those Jubilee celebrations described in the text). This connects them not only with the sectarians at Qumran but also the surviving Ethiopian Coptic tradition (which employs the Book of Jubilees as a holy text and Saturday and Sunday services) 'down stream' on the Nile (Axum is literally near one of the tributaries of the Nile).

All of this tends to argue for the authenticity of the surviving manuscripts of Philo. Eusebius's INTERPRETATION of Philo's writings is another matter.

avi · 12-07-2010, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't think that there is any great controvery over what Eusebius did - he tried to identify an early version of Christianity in the Theraputae described by Philo.

Gosh, I think, completely the opposite of you:

a. if you genuinely believe that Philo described an early version of Christianity, then, I profoundly disagree.

b. I also disagree with your notion that there would be no great controversy, regarding Eusebius' actions.

That's the whole point of this thread: so naturally it is going to be controversial, how can you write, oh, there's nothing particularly contentious about this issue? This is a huge problem: Eusebius is exposed as a liar. Plain and simple.

There was no christianity in 50 CE. That is fiction. There were no gospels, no letters from Paul, nothing. Zero.

The important point here is this:

WHAT do we know, with confidence, that Philo wrote, regarding the Therapeutae, a group of ascetics, which, as best I can determine, were Jewish?

Once we have a concise, and accurate description of who these folks were, then, the next step, is to examine what Eusebius wrote about them, and then, finally, try to understand why he would seek to convert them, a few hundred years post mortem, to Christians?

avi

Toto · 12-07-2010, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't think that there is any great controvery over what Eusebius did - he tried to identify an early version of Christianity in the Theraputae described by Philo.

Gosh, I think, completely the opposite of you:

a. if you genuinely believe that Philo described an early version of Christianity, then, I profoundly disagree.

No, I don't, and I don't know anyone who does.

Quote:

b. I also disagree with your notion that there would be no great controversy, regarding Eusebius' actions.

What do you think the controversy is?

Quote:

...This is a huge problem: Eusebius is exposed as a liar. Plain and simple.

Why is this controversial? It is, in fact, boring. Roger Pearse may show up and try to defend Eusebius, but most people know that Eusebius invented stuff. Many historians of the era invented stuff. That's why relying on documentary evidence for ancient history is unreliable.

Quote:

There was no christianity in 50 CE. That is fiction. There were no gospels, no letters from Paul, nothing. Zero.

I would agree. Most people would agree that there were no Christian texts before 50 CE.

Quote:

The important point here is this:

WHAT do we know, with confidence, that Philo wrote, regarding the Therapeutae, a group of ascetics, which, as best I can determine, were Jewish?

Once we have a concise, and accurate description of who these folks were, then, the next step, is to examine what Eusebius wrote about them, and then, finally, try to understand why he would seek to convert them, a few hundred years post mortem, to Christians?

avi

Eusebius was a propagandist and a spin doctor. He tried to find respectable roots for his religion, and sometimes this involved reframing Jewish texts or inventing pagan-Christian connections. I don't see this as particularly novel or controversial, at least for this forum, and it provides no support for Pete's agenda of showing that Eusebius invented Christianity.

If you can access the entire article at access my library (which you should be able to do by entering the name of a library in your zip code) you can read more about this - start with this section

Quote:

* Eusebius's Handling of the De vita contemplativa

A close parallel reading of the texts of Eusebius and Philo permits a better understanding of Eusebius's methodology in appropriating VC and of the specific techniques he employed. Eusebius's account of VC is a mix of loose paraphrases, summaries, and quotations in oratio recta and obliqua. In this section, I wish to explore how these different forms are used in order to pursue the apologetic purpose aimed at by the HE. It is necessary to examine in detail how Philo's material is organized and reproduced by Eusebius.

avi · 12-07-2010, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No, I don't, and I don't know anyone who does.

Thank you.

I simply misunderstood your previous sentence:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't think that there is any great controvery over what Eusebius did - he tried to identify an early version of Christianity in the Theraputae described by Philo.

Ok, now I understand, you don't mean to imply that Philo described an early version of Christianity involving Therapeutae, as Eusebius sought to identify.

You intended to write that Philo described a group of Jews, the Therapeutae, who were then misrepresented, (falsification for those who are interested in such matters) as early Christians, by Eusebius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Eusebius was a propagandist and a spin doctor.

No. Here I cannot agree.

Eusebius was a forger, a fraud, a deceiver, and a man wholly immersed in the fine art of falsification.

He lied about Mani. He lied about Josephus. In my opinion, he forged texts of both men. He certainly misrepresented the Therapeutae. That's not comparable to "propaganda". That's not putting a positive spin on negative news. That behaviour is pathological. It is the essence of falsification.

avi

Toto · 12-07-2010, 02:36 PM

There are pathological liars, who lie for no good reason, but we have no reason to think that about Eusebius. His lies and spin doctoring were for a purpose, which he thought was good.

If you want to just fulminate about how wretchedly and profoundly evil Eusebius must have been to have deceived you, go ahead, but don't waste my time with it. It's not going to help you understand anything.

And please do not start up with the discussion on "falsify."

aa5874 · 12-07-2010, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are pathological liars, who lie for no good reason, but we have no reason to think that about Eusebius. His lies and spin doctoring were for a purpose, which he thought was good.

When you say, "we have no good reason to think that about Eusebius", who exactly is "WE".

What good were the lies of Eusebius? You mean mankind would be far worse off without the lies of Eusebius?

Philo would have been a contemporary of the so-called Jesus and the FALSE claim by Eusebius or the author of "Church History" that there were Christians who believed in Jesus at that time may have helped or was likely to have helped to promote a most heinous lie that Jesus a man without a human father was a God who created heaven and earth and died for the sin of mankind.

Toto · 12-07-2010, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are pathological liars, who lie for no good reason, but we have no reason to think that about Eusebius. His lies and spin doctoring were for a purpose, which he thought was good.

When you say, "we have no good reason to think that about Eusebius", who exactly is "WE".

The community of disinterested observers

Quote:

What good were the lies of Eusebius? You mean mankind would be far worse off without the lies of Eusebius?

I just mean that from Eusebius' point of view, he was doing the right thing.

Quote:

Philo would have been a contemporary of the so-called Jesus and the FALSE claim by Eusebius or the author of "Church History" that there were Christians who believed in Jesus at that time may have helped or was likely to have helped to promote a most heinous lie that Jesus a man without a human father was a God who created heaven and earth and died for the sin of mankind.

No one drew that conclusion from what Eusebius wrote.

stephan huller · 12-07-2010, 04:21 PM

I like Eusebius because he seems at least to be a real recognizable person. A phoney yes a la Tony Blair, Hilary Clinton, Mitt Romney but that's what life demands to be successful at playing the game. I prefer to deal with reality rather than idealistic wishful thinking which results from a lack of biographical detail (Irenaeus, Hippolytus etc.).

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

12-07-2010, 08:04 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	What do you mean by Christianize here? I don't think that there is any great controvery over what Eusebius did - he tried to identify an early version of Christianity in the Theraputae described by Philo. Eusebius clearly did not turn Philo into a Christian.

12-07-2010, 08:41 AM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The topic of Philo of Alexandria is extremely interesting. Yes, Eusebius does interpret Philo's description here in terms of Christianity but the original report isn't really all that Christian. It is worth noting that if you dig deeper into the description you will see that the community had a 364 day calendar solar calendar (i.e. where the first day of every eighth year is one of those Jubilee celebrations described in the text). This connects them not only with the sectarians at Qumran but also the surviving Ethiopian Coptic tradition (which employs the Book of Jubilees as a holy text and Saturday and Sunday services) 'down stream' on the Nile (Axum is literally near one of the tributaries of the Nile). All of this tends to argue for the authenticity of the surviving manuscripts of Philo. Eusebius's INTERPRETATION of Philo's writings is another matter.

12-07-2010, 02:36 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There are pathological liars, who lie for no good reason, but we have no reason to think that about Eusebius. His lies and spin doctoring were for a purpose, which he thought was good. If you want to just fulminate about how wretchedly and profoundly evil Eusebius must have been to have deceived you, go ahead, but don't waste my time with it. It's not going to help you understand anything. And please do not start up with the discussion on "falsify."

12-07-2010, 04:21 PM	#10
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I like Eusebius because he seems at least to be a real recognizable person. A phoney yes a la Tony Blair, Hilary Clinton, Mitt Romney but that's what life demands to be successful at playing the game. I prefer to deal with reality rather than idealistic wishful thinking which results from a lack of biographical detail (Irenaeus, Hippolytus etc.).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.