PhilosopherJay

Hi All and Especially Pete,

I present what I believe is some evidence that Eusebius forged the Vienne/Lyon Martyrs' Letter that he presents exerpts from in chapter 5 of his Church History.

I base this on 1) the parallels between Blandina and Perpetua, 2) the historical parallel of the Christian Attalus from Pergamum and the Greek Attalus from Pergamum and 3) Eusebius' refusal to give more names or even the number of the martyrs and/or survivors of the persecution.

If we look at the structure of the letter, we find strangely that the lead character appears to be a woman - Blandina. More is said about her than any other martyr. This naturally leads us to group the letter with Tertullian's "Acts of Perpetua" which also has a woman as its main martyr. Here are five narrative parallels that allow us to say that Blandina has been constructed based on Perpetua:

1. Both declare themselves Christians with the phrase "I am a Christian":

Perpetua:

2.2 Hilarianus said, 'Are you a Christian?' And I replied, 'I am a Christian.'

Blandina:
5.1.19 But the blessed woman, like a noble athlete, renewed her strength in her confession; and her comfort and recreation and relief from the pain of her sufferings was in exclaiming, `I am a Christian, and there is nothing vile done by us.'

2. Both are dressed in a net, tossed by a bull, feel no pain and survive.

Perpetua:
6.3. Moreover, for the young women the devil prepared a very fierce cow, provided especially for that purpose contrary to custom, rivalling their sex also in that of the beasts. And so, stripped and clothed with nets, they were led forth. The populace shuddered as they saw one young woman of delicate frame, and another with breasts still dropping from her recent childbirth. So, being recalled, they are unbound. Perpetua is first led in. She was tossed, and fell on her loins; and when she saw her tunic torn from her side, she drew it over her as a veil for her middle, rather mindful of her modesty than her suffering. Then she was called for again, and bound up her dishevelled hair; for it was not becoming for a martyr to suffer with dishevelled hair, lest she should appear to be mourning in her glory. So she rose up; and when she saw Felicitas crushed, she approached and gave her her hand, and lifted her up. And both of them stood together; and the brutality of the populace being appeased, they were recalled to the Sanavivarian gate. Then Perpetua was received by a certain one who was still a catechumen, Rusticus by name, who kept close to her; and she, as if aroused from sleep, so deeply had she been in the Spirit and in an ecstasy, began to look round her, and to say to the amazement of all, "I cannot tell when we are to be led out to that cow." And when she had heard what had already happened, she did not believe it until she had perceived certain signs of injury in her body and in her dress, and had recognised the catechumen.

Blandina:
5.1.56 And, after the scourging, after the wild beasts, after the roasting seat,44 she was finally enclosed in a net, and thrown before a bull. And having been tossed about by the animal, but feeling none of the things which were happening to her, on account of her hope and firm hold upon what had been entrusted to her, and her communion with Christ, she also was sacrificed. And the heathen themselves confessed that never among them had a woman endured so many and such terrible tortures.


3. After their encounter with the Bull, both die sacrificial deaths:

Perpetua: The rest indeed, immoveable and in silence, received the sword-thrust; much more Saturus, who also had first ascended the ladder, and first gave up his spirit, for he also was waiting for Perpetua. But Perpetua, that she might taste some pain, being pierced between the ribs, cried out loudly, and she herself placed the wavering right hand of the youthful gladiator to her throat.

Blandina: 5.1.56: she also was sacrificed.

4. Both are martyred along with one other female:

Perpetua: 5.1 Felicitas
Blandina: 1.25 Biblias

5. Both Die alongside two other Christian Men who wish for the “crown” of martyrdom and survive tortures:

Perpetua – Revocatus and Saturus:
6.2 Saturninus indeed had professed that he wished that he might be thrown to all the beasts; doubtless that he might wear a more glorious crown. Therefore in the beginning of the exhibition he and Revocatus made trial of the leopard, and moreover upon the scaffold they were harassed by the bear. Saturus, however, held nothing in greater abomination than a bear; but he imagined that he would be put an end to with one bite of a leopard. Therefore, when a wild boar was supplied, it was the huntsman rather who had supplied that boar who was gored by that same beast, and died the day after the shows. Saturus only was drawn out; and when he had been bound on the floor near to a bear, the bear would not come forth from his den. And so Saturus for the second time is recalled unhurt.

Blandina – Maturus and Sanctus:
5.1.38 Both Maturus and Sanctus passed again through every torment in the amphitheater, as if they had suffered nothing before, or rather, as if, having already conquered their antagonist in many contests,35 they were now striving for the crown itself. They endured again the customary running of the gauntlet36 and the violence of the wild beasts, and everything which the furious people called for or desired, and at last, the iron chair in which their bodies being roasted, tormented them with the fumes.
39 And not with this did the persecutors cease, but were yet more mad against them, determined to overcome their patience. But even thus they did not hear a word from Sanctus except the confession which he had uttered from the beginning.
40 These, then, after their life had continued for a long time through the great conflict, were at last sacrificed, having been made throughout that day a spectacle to the world, in place of the usual variety of combats.

One might argue about which account came first, but we cannot seriously argue that one character has not been created from the other. There is no need to make up a Platonic argument that they both used an unknown original earlier source.

A second interesting aspect of the letter is the second most important character Attalus from Pergamon. Here we find no parallel in the "Acts of Perpetua". This is because the author has gotten it from history.

Here is Eusebius' description of the Christian Attalus, followed by a passage on the Greek Attalus from Wikipedia:

43 "But Attalus was called for loudly by the people, because he was a
person of distinction. He entered the contest readily on account of a
good conscience and his genuine practice in Christian discipline, and
as he had always been a witness for the truth among us.

44. He was led around the amphitheater, a tablet being carried before
him on which was written in the Roman language 'This is Attalus the
Christian,' and the people were filled with indignation against him.
But when the governor learned that he was a Roman, he commanded him to
be taken back with the rest of those who were in prison concerning
whom he had written to Cæsar, and whose answer he was awaiting...

50. But the people being enraged because those who formerly denied now
confessed, cried out against Alexander as if he were the cause of
this. Then the governor summoned him and inquired who he was. And when
he answered that he was a Christian, being very angry he condemned him
to the wild beasts. And on the next day he entered along with Attalus.
For to please the people, the governor had ordered Attalus again to
the wild beasts.

51. And they were tortured in the amphitheater with all the
instruments contrived for that purpose, and having endured a very
great conflict, were at last sacrificed. Alexander neither groaned nor
murmured in any manner, but communed in his heart with God.

52. But when Attalus was placed in the iron seat, and the fumes arose
from his burning body, he said to the people in the Roman language:
'Lo! this which you do is devouring men; but we do not devour men; nor
do any other wicked thing.' And being asked, what name God has, he
replied, 'God has not a name as man has.'...


3.2. It runs as follows: "For a certain Alcibiades, who was one of
them, led a very austere life, partaking of nothing whatever but bread
and water. When he endeavored to continue this same sort of life in
prison, it was revealed to Attalus after his first conflict in the
amphitheater that Alcibiades was not doing well in refusing the
creatures of God and placing a stumbling-block before others.

3. And Alcibiades obeyed, and partook of all things without restraint,
giving thanks to God. For they were not deprived of the grace of God,
but the Holy Ghost was their counselor." Let this suffice for these
matters.

From Wikipedia, we read this about the most famous Greek Attalus before this
time:

According to Pausanias, "the greatest of his achievements" was the
defeat of the "Gauls"(Γαλάται)[5]. Pausanias
was referring to the
Galatians, immigrant Celts from Thrace, who had recently settled in
Galatia in central Asia Minor, and whom the Romans and Greeks called
Gauls, associating them with the Celts of what is now France,
Switzerland, and northern Italy. Since the time of Philetaerus, the
uncle of Eumenes I and the first Attalid ruler, the Galatians had
posed a problem for Pergamon, indeed for all of Asia Minor, by
exacting tributes to avoid war or other repercussions. Eumenes I had
(probably), along with other rulers, dealt with the Galatians by
paying these tributes. Attalus however refused to pay them, being the
first such ruler to do so.[6] As a consequence, the Galatians set out
to attack Pergamon. Attalus met them near the sources of the river
Caïcus[7] and won a decisive victory, after which, following the
example of Antiochus I, Attalus took the name of Soter, which means
"savior", and claimed the title of king. The victory brought Attalus
legendary fame. A story arose, related by Pausanias, of an oracle who
had foretold these events a generation earlier:

Then verily, having crossed the narrow strait of the Hellespont,
The devastating host of the Gauls shall pipe; and lawlessly
They shall ravage Asia; and much worse shall God do
To those who dwell by the shores of the sea
For a short while. For right soon the son of Cronos
Shall raise a helper, the dear son of a bull reared by Zeus
Who on all the Gauls shall bring a day of destruction.

Pausanius adds that by "son of a bull" the oracle "meant Attalus, king
of Pergamon, who was styled bull-horned".[8] On the acropolis of
Pergamon was erected a triumphal monument, which included the famous
sculpture the Dying Gaul, commemorating this battle.

We know that Eusebius was familiar with Pausanius and therefore familiar with the Greek Attalus from Pergamon. We may assume that when he wrote the martyr's letter, he was making some kind of statement regarding the historical Attalus from Pergamon.

Finally, I would like to note this strange passage that seems to show bad faith on the part of Eusebius:

(5.4.3.) 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.


As an historian, it was encumbant upon him to give the names of those killed or at least tell us the number. Also, by telling us the number of confessors who did not die, we could get a sense of how terrible or light the persecution actually was. If a 1,000 confessed and only the nine mentioned names of martyrs died, we could see that these were specially chosen. However if only 12 confessed and nine died, we could get a sense of how lucky the survivors were. As a Christian, he should have been glad to pronounce the names of those who died for Christ so gloriously. Eusebius assures us that he has already published the names and number in another work where we can find the whole letter. But really, how could Eusebius be sure his reader could have access to his other work. Eusebius has spent more than 60 paragraphs telling.
us the most minute details of the torture of his martyrs, yet refuses to tell us the size of the persecution. Imagine an historian who tells us that he will not tell us the size of troops in a battle because he has listed it in another place. Note that if the letter did not contain this information, we could excuse Eusebius for not informing us, but he instead informs us that it does, and yet does not give it to us.

The "Collection of Martyrdoms" to which Eusebius refers us to no longer exists. Nobody in antiquity ever read it either.

Thus, we add suppose from the relationship of Blandina to Perpetua that the letter is a work of fiction, and from the fact that it includes the historical character Attalus, it is likely to have been written by an historian familiar with the works of Pausanias, and from his refusal to give us the most elementary information about the persecution (number of people involved) that it was forged by Eusebius himself.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

S.C.Carlson

How do you know that Perpetua isn't a rip-off of Blandia?

PhilosopherJay

Hi S.C.

Good point. It is possible, but just going by my impressions, Perpetua seems to be the much more in-depth character. The writing is much sharper in the Acts. It is actually a fairly realistic and almost believable portrait. Blandina seems much more of a quick sketch, kind of a knock-off of the original. It's like when there's a cheap copy of a successful movie and you can tell that a lot of time and effort wasn't put into it.
Other then that, I'm relying on those who make Tertullian the author of Perpetua. If he's writing around 204, than obviously Eusebius circa 320 is the copycat.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

S.C.Carlson

The problem with making Eusebius the copycat is that there is no evidence that Eusebius was familiar with Perpetua, despite his voluminous writings. Granted, it was originally composed sometime in the third century, but it was also originally written in Latin. Eusebius's Latin was rather poor, which is why he neglected so much of relevant Latin literature in his history (including Perpetua). There is a Greek translation, but it is unclear whether it was translated in the third or even the fourth century (i.e. too late for Eusebius).

jgibson000

Says who?

JG

PhilosopherJay

Hi S.C.,

Thanks for raising these pionts.

I don't really see this as a serious problem. I have read books by over 1,000 authors, but I doubt if I show direct evidence of having read more than 100 of them in all my public writings. Eusebius was widely read and it would be surprising if he was not familiar with one of the greatest and most prolific Christian writers of the previous century.

Eusebius' lack of quotations of Tertullian's work probably has more to do with Tertullian's poor reputation, than with Eusebius' unfamiliarity with it. Tertullian was considered a traitor and heretic for his embrace of Montanism. Politically, it would not have been wise for Eusebius to show too much interest in him. Eusebius was already in deep trouble for his association with Origen and the Arians.

Also, keep in mind that Eusebius studied Origen intensely, even writing a defense of him, and Origen, as I recall, said that he read Tertullian every day.

As far as the Greek/latin thing, I don't think it would have been a problem at all for a Bishop of a major city to get a work in Latin translated into Greek. It is most probable that there were hundreds of people in his Church in Caesarea who were fluent in both languages. Greeks and Romans frequently intermarried and children of bilingual parents tend to pick up both languages

His claim to have a book called "The Collection of Martyrdoms" probably represents a desire to produce such a work. It is hard to believe that he would not have asked about such works and come across Tertullian's Perpetua. It is a little bit like someone spending much of his life researching a book on whales and never coming across Moby Dick.

I should also point out the while Perpetua was dressed in a net, Blandina was enclosed in a net. While the first makes sense, the latter doesn't. This seems to me the type of mistake which someone with a poor knowledge of another language might make. So here I take Eusebius' poor skills in Latin as pointing towards him as the forger rather than away from him.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

jgibson000

But how reliable or accurate are your impressions? Are you basing what you say on an analysis of the style of the original Latin text of Perpetua and that of the Greek text of Eusebius or only on that of the particular English translations of Perpetua and Eusebius that you have reproduced in your previous message?

Can you tell me what criteria you use in determining when an ancient portrait is "realistic and almost believable" and when it is not?

But aren't you begging the question in assuming as you do that the only way to account for the (forced and linguistically unproven) similarities you see between the two accounts is that one is based upon the other?

Why cannot the "similarities" with respect to the number of martyrs, the form of public testimony, the particular means of public humiliation and torture be due to a historically standardized manner of carrying out of public examinations and persecutions?

On your grounds, we would have to say that any given story of an execution actually carried out subsequent to an earlier one carried out in, say, Texas -- where there is a set procedure for executions in place and where, given the means of execution, the physiological response of people executed by this means is frequently the same -- had to be forgeries that were based upon that earlier one, since the reports of the procedures of execution and the response of the ones executed follow the "narrative" pattern that the earlier one evinced.

JG

PhilosopherJay

Hi JG,

If you had thought about it, you would have realized that it was Eusebius himself who felt that it was necessary to name or give the numbers of the martyrs. That is why he asks the rhetorical question and that is why he directs people to his work "The Collection of Martyrdoms".

As far as such question as "Says who?" is concerned, I know a boy who is six years old and really quite bright. However, when he does not understand something, he asks "why?" When you give him the answer, he repeats "why? He will continue this pattern for quite some time, as long as you continue to answer him. After playing the game once or twice, I became annoyed at his scepticism and simply told him to ask someone else. I believe it is a form of autism, but I am really not sure how to cure it.

jgibson000

You made a similar claim about the gospel reports about Jesus teaching in the temple (i.e., that they "didn't make sense"). But as was pointed out to you your judgment on this matter was absolutely worthless, grounded as it was in an inexcusable lack of knowledge about Temple practice.

So why should we trust this claim about what makes sense and what makes doesn't? How much have you actually investigated the use of nets in the sorts of public persecution that Blandina is said to have been subjected to?

Moreover, are you sure that your statements about Perpetua and Blandina and nets are accurate? Is "dressed in a net" what the Latin text of Perpetua says?

JG

jgibson000

So he did do what you say he didn't do?

Thank you for avoiding my question.

Please tell me by what canons of ancient historiography it would have been encumbant on Eusebius to do what you claim it was his duty as an historian to have done where you say he should have done it.

JG