Toto

A transparent net seems to be part of the humiliation that female martyrs were subjected to in this sort of holy porn. It has its basis in the classical world:

From The Passion of Perpetua:

footnote 22 notes: I'm not sure which way this cuts in terms of Eusebius inventing Blandina.

Ben C Smith

Nor am I. In fact, I would say that being clad in a net to face wild beasts is not even a significant enough link between the two stories to prove borrowing one way or the other. It looks like a common enough feature of martyrdoms to be mentioned independently in different ways.

Likewise the motif of feeling no pain, which is yet another martyrological notion found in different places (the martyrdom of Polycarp, for example, and the execution of Jesus in the gospel of Peter).

That is not to say that borrowing has not occurred here. These particular motifs just do not seem strong enough on their own to prove a direct connection.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Specialists base their conclusions on the evidence. You can support yours either directly by citing the evidence that Eusebius was aware of Tertullian later became a Montanist or indirectly by citing a specialist who has made such a claim. Here, you merely claim that anonymous specialists should support your so-far-unevidenced assertion. That's not good enough for this forum.

Keep in mind that Eusebius's knowledge of Latin Christianity was rather poor due to the language barrier. See, e.g., Andrew Carriker's The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (or via: amazon.co.uk), pp. 261-2.

This would be an example of the "ecological fallacy," an improper inference from the general case to the specific. For Eusebius, the way in which he lauds Tertullian is specific evidence negating your general claim.

And your powers of deduction continue to be on display.

Stephen

jgibson000

But it is to say not only (1) that Jay has once again shown himself sufficiently unversed in, and fundamentally ignorant of, the historical particularities of events and circumstances that he makes claims about (in this case, what historically did and did not go on in public humiliations of females, and previously what activities did and did not go on in the Temple), but also (2) that Jay is wholly unqualified to make any judgments on the realism of "net stories" and that the judgment he does make is worthless.

Jeffrey Gibson

aa5874

It is a fallacy and illogical to claim that awareness of Tertullian by Eusebius negates his knowning of Tertullian's 'heresy'.

mountainman

Hi especially back Philosopher Jay,

I can only applaud your efforts by providing
a series of questions and assorted comments:

QUESTIONS:

1) What is the purported date of the letter?
2) To whom is it purportedly addressed?
3) Who was the Roman Emperor (see below)?



COMMENTS:
1) In terms of setting a consistent examination
of the Eusebian fiction postulate, IMO we must
regard the "martyrologies" as "horror stories"
which were released as part of the "monstrous tale"
that Julian refers to as "the fabrication".

2) Eusebius takes extraordinary measures and steps
of DISSEMBLAGE in the treatment of the Roman Emperor
Marcus Arelius, or as some know him, M.Antoninus.
The reason for this appears to be related to the
overall popularity that this emperor enjoyed in his
readers, just as he still enjoys today. We may be
able to perceive this as an attack against either
the person or the literature of this author (of the
purple 160-180 CE) by the Constantine/Eusebius regime
of the fourth century. From memory the letter is
purportedly derived from this period, but as I do
not have my notes handy ...

3) It will be never one item in its isolation that
will provide a reasonable set of evidence that the
author Eusebius (or a related party) conducted a
mass of forgeries under the regime of Constantine.
Rather, as I suspect you well know, it must indeed
be a collection of such examples, this being just
one. To this end, IMO your analyses, here and
elsewhere, will provide valuable stepping stones
to that future place of consolidated analysis.

And best wishes (your post brightened up yesterday's
public holiday here: Australia Day)



Pete

mountainman

Eusebius is credited by Arnaldo Momigliano as having invented the
canon of ecclesiastical historiography, so we already know he was
effectively in a league of his own, imperial sponsorship aside.

The classical historiography of Herodotus and Thucydides would
have generally reported the facts that Jay suspects Eusebius of
having omitted. There is a big difference between the two forms
of historiography.

jgibson000

Well, let's set your asumption as a formula.

X wrote works A B C D, E, F, J. and believed H I J K L M N

Y is aware of X.

Y is aware that X is a writer.

Therefore Y is aware of everything X wrote believed.

How sound is this conclusion?

Well, let's apply it, using me as X and you , A man, as Y, to see.

I have written and published a variety of things in well known and widely available academic journals and have expressed a variety of beliefs in those publications.

You are aware of me.

You are also aware of me as a writer.

Therefore, it is absolutely certain, and indisputably fallacious to deny. that you are aware both of everything I have written and published as well as everything I have said and professed in those published writings.

But is this conclusion valid, let alone true? Are you actually aware of any, let alone all, of my publications? And even if you are, do you really know what I said in all of them, especially the parts that are in Greek?

My money says no. And if it is no, then by analogy, your claim above holds no water.

JG

PhilosopherJay

Hi S.C.,

I would like to go into the idea of a Eusebius having a Latin translation problem a little deeper.

As far as I can tell the problem was originally hypothesized by Lightfoot:

(from http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eu.../lightfoot.htm)

He very rarely quotes the works of heresiarchs themselves, being content to give their opinions through the medium of their opponents’ refutations. A still greater defect is his ignorance of Latin literature and of Latin Christendom generally. Thus he knows nothing of Tertullian’s works, except the Apologeticum, which he quotes (ii. 2, 25, iii. 20, 33, v. 5) from a bad Greek translation (e. g. ii. 25, where the translator, being ignorant of the Latin idiom cum maxime, makes shipwreck of the sense). Of Tertullian himself he gives no account, but calls him a “Roman.” Pliny’s letter he only knows through Tertullian (iii. 33), and is unacquainted with the name of the province which Pliny governed. Of Hippolytus again he has very little information to comniunicate, and cannot even tell the name of his see (vi. 20, 22). His account of Cyprian too is meagre in the extreme (vi. 43, vii. 3), though Cyprian was for some years the most conspicuous figure in western Christendom, and died (AD. 258) not very long before his own birth. He betrays the same ignorance also with regard to the bishops of Rome. His dates here, strangely enough, are widest of the mark in the latter half of the 3rd century, close upon his own time. Thus he assigns to Xystus II. (d. AD. 258) eleven years (vii. 27) instead of eleven months ; to Eutychianus (d. AD. 283) ten months (vii. 32) instead of nearly nine years; to Gaius, whom he calls his own contemporary, and who died long-after he had arrived at manhood (AD. 296), “about fifteen years” (vii. 32) instead of twelve. He seems to have had a corrupt list, and he did not possess the knowledge necessary to correct it. With the Latin language indeed he appears to have had no thorough acquaintance, though he sometimes ventured to translate Latin documents (iv. 8, 9; comp. viii. 17). But he must not be held responsible for the blunders in the versions of others, e.g. of Tertullian’s Apoloqeticum. Whether the translations of state documents in the later books are his own or not does not appear. But as Constantine was in the habit of employing persons to translate his state papers, speeches, &c., from Latin into Greek (V.C. iv. 32), we may suppose that Eusebius generally availed himself of such official or semiofficial versions.


Here Lightfoot says "he appears to have had no thorough acquaintance [with Latin] though he sometimes ventured to translate Latin documents. In the passage Lightfoot cites, Eusebius himself tells us, (from H.E.4.8.8) "After these words the author referred to gives the rescript in Latin, which we have translated into Greek as accurately as we could."

So it does appear that Eusebius could either translate himself or get Latin works translated when he wanted to.

My question is how big a problem was this. How many Christian works would Eusebius have really have wanted to translate? According to Peter Kirby's website -- WESTERN WRITERS OF THE THIRD CENTURY --(http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ection1-6.html)
there appears to be only a handful:

Tertullian, Cyprian, Commodianus, ,Arnobius, Lactantius, Hyppolytus, Novatian, Reticius of Autun, Victorinus of Pettau, a few treatises by Pope Victor (according to Jerome) and a few letters by Third Century Popes.

Eusebius knows about Tertullian, Cyprian, Hyppolytus and Novatian. These are really the major writers as the rest have only a few rather minor works. So Eusebius does know something about the major Latin writers and has read at least a few of their works.

I am wondering if anybody has actually done a study looking for evidence of real knowledge of them on the part of Eusebius?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

jgibson000

Unfortunately for your claim, that is not what M. says. He speaks of a new type of work, not a new set of criteria for what is and what is not considered appropriate for historians to do when they are writing.

Besides that, if Eusebius did create new canons of historiography, then how does Jay know what Eusebius should or should not have done when he writes what he writes?

They would have, would they? Can you show some examples of where they do?

And why, if Eusebius was doing something new, would he have felt himself bound by what the "classical historiography of Herodotus and Thucydides" would have demanded he do?

And what do you make of the fact that in the "historiography" of "classical" and Hellenistic Jewish historians such as that of the authors of 1 & 2 Samuel ! & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles (and, I believe, the authors of 2 & 3rd Maccabees and Josephus) we find the use of formulae that are formally and thematically of a piece with what we find Eusebius using in Jay's cited passage (i.e., the prescinding from documenting certain claims through the notice of, and appeal to, the fact that such documentation can be found in the Book of Jashar or the book of the Wars of Yahweh or the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah/Israel and Judah, the histories of Nicholas of Damascus, etc.), what we see Eusebius doing seems to be regarded by ancient historians as perfectly acceptable?

Jeffrey Gibson