Roger Pearse

It was impossible to construct successful paleographic forgeries before the invention of paleography. Paleography, indeed, was invented precisely to discover such. The story may not be known to everyone so is worth repeating.

During the ancien regime in France, the church was very much established, and the various orders fought for position and privilege under the approving eye of the absolute Bourbon monarchs. (Hence the anti-clericalism of the revolution). Oldest of all were the Benedictine monasteries, with holdings dating back to Merovingian times, with charters from the kings to prove it. A Jesuit, Fr. Papebroch, alleged that many of these old charters granting lands to other orders were forgeries, and thus that the lands should 'revert' to the king.

The Dominicans considered this an attack on the church, and requested the intervention of the Holy Inquisition. The Benedictines, on the other hand, took it as a challenge to their scholarship. The Benedictine order had reorganised in France after the Counter-Reformation as the Congregation of St. Maur, with its headquarters at the Royal abbey of St.Germains-des-Pres in Paris, and had acquired a reputation for scholarship that endures to our own day.

The task of verifying the authenticity of the charters was handed to Dom Jean Mabillon, one of the leading Maurist fathers. His approach was to compile a volume of the formal script in dated and dateable charters and books, broken down by historical period and geographical region.

Having done this, a pattern of book-hands related to period of time became instantly apparent. He could see the characteristics of the Roman capitalis and uncial scripts; the various sub-Roman minuscules, Visigothic, Beneventan, Insular, Merovingian; the omnipresent Carolingian minuscule of the period of Charlemagne and later; the Gothic families of the 13th century; and the humanist book hands.

The forgeries among his samples thus stood out like a sore thumb, and could be validly dated. He published his collection as De re diplomatica, which was instantly greeted as a major scientific advance, including by Papebroch. Mabillon acknowledged, however, that the copy of a Benedictine charter of a grant by king Dagobert in 690 was clearly not contemporary with genuine examples of Merovingian minuscule.

Over time the process was refined, and so we get Latin paleography as we now have it.

Mabillon's co-worker, Dom Bernard de Montfaucon, carried out a similar exercise for Greek, inventing the term 'paleography' as he did so. The same approach is used today, and volumes containing collections of samples from "dated and dateable manuscripts" have been published for many languages which have contributed manuscripts to our national collections.

The Maurists sadly did not survive the French Revolution. The mob that stormed the Bastille forced the great gates of St. Germains-des-Pres and forced the monks to flee.

All over France the Directorate hastened to deprive the clergy of their property, but not to safeguard it, and the losses were tremendous. The Maurists' fabulous library of manuscripts was partially plundered by a Russian agent, Petrus Dubrovsky, who sent cases of manuscripts to St. Petersburg. He was denounced to the Committee of Public Safety and escaped 24 hours ahead of the soldiers. He left a further collection with the former Royal Librarian. The latter was guillotined during the Terror. His creditors seized everything, broke it up and sold it for a song. The mss. were scattered all over Paris (as Dubrovsky lamented), never to be seen again. The remainder of the library was placed in the new Bibliotheque Nationale.

Dubrovsky signed many of his acquisitions, and eventually sold the lot to the Tsar. They may still be seen in the Biblioteca Publichnaya in St. Petersburg.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Hello Jay,

Thank you for your note.

(Note that I have added the next sentence of Adv. Ruf. since I believe that the last sentence you quoted is misleading without it.)

Now your interpretation of Jerome doesn't square with how I read it.

The question is not whether Eusebius forged quotations by Origen, but whether *Rufinus* omitted material by Origen -- attested as Origenian by Eusebius -- which Eusebius attests as genuine. Jerome then adds that possibly Eusebius accepted these forgeries, by these hypothetical others, because they were Arianist; not that Eusebius knew them to be fake (the question is not discussed) but accepted them anyway.

I do not see this in what you quote. On the contrary, he is anticipating an objection by *Rufinus*, who is asserting that Origen has been interpolated. Jerome is asserting that he has *not*.

Rufinus is suggesting that heretics interpolated Origen; that Eusebius accepted these interpolations because he was a heretic himself so couldn't tell the difference. Jerome counters with the example of Didymus the Blind, against whom no such claim can be made, who still includes the supposedly 'interpolated' passages.

I don't see where Rufinus said to claim this, tho. *Rufinus* claims that book 1 of the Apology is by Pamphilius. Jerome quotes Eusebius *against this* that Pamphilus wrote nothing but some letters.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

PhilosopherJay

Hi Roger,

Yes, you are quite right. The passage that I gave does not support the contention that I supposed; it does not suggest that Jerome is saying that
he believes Eusebius forged text supposedly by Origen and inserted it into his work on Origen.

Excuse me for getting this wrong. This situation and issues in this Jerome-Rufinus dispute are quite complex. There are all sorts of charges, including charges of heresy, lying, forgery, suppression of information, wrong attribution of authorship and interpolation of passages. While nobody comes out and straightforwardly accuses Eusebius of these things exactly, it is important to note that a text by Eusebius, his "Apology for Origen," is at the heart of it.

In the passage I quoted, Jerome is referring to an earlier statement by Rufinus that he found that heretical passages had been inserted into the text. The statements in these heretical passages did not match other passages in Origen, but directly contradicted him. Jerome is accusing Rufinus of making up the idea that these passages were heretical interpolations. He sarcastically suggests that Rufinus dreamt up the whole thing while in an Alexandrian prison. Rufinus had claimed to have been sent to an Alexandrian prison for his devotion to Catholic doctrine and his anti-Arianism. Jerome is implying that Rufinus is implying that Eusebius inserted heretical passages into the work:

But possibly he being an Arian, took in these additions of the heretics to support his own error, so that he should not be thought to be the only one who had held false opinions contrary to the Church.

Jerome then rejects this possible line of defense by Rufinus by arguing that Didymus was familiar with the work and did not find the heretical passages to be interpolations, but instead found them to be truely by Origen and excusable. He then attributes this position to Eusebius as well:

both Eusebius and Didymus adhere to his views, and defend, as said in a catholic and Christian sense, what all the churches reprobate.

It is more correct to say that, according to Jerome, Rufinus implied that Eusebius interpolated passages.

He does accuse Eusebius of heresy and deception: (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27101.htm)

The real fact is that Eusebius Bishop of Cæsarea, as I have already said before, who was in his day the standard bearer of the Arian faction, wrote a large an elaborate work in six books in defence of Origen, showing by many testimonies that Origen was in his sense a catholic, that is, in our sense, an Arian.

The same charge of heresy and perfidy are repeated and expanded upon
by Photius:

127. [Eusebius, Life of Constantine] http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...otheca.htm#127

Read the Life of Constantine the Great Emperor by Eusebius Pamphili, a eulogy in four books. It contains the whole manner of life of the man, and describes all those acts of his that have to do with ecclesiastical history, from his earliest years till the day when he departed this life, at the age of sixty-four. Even here the author preserves his characteristic style, except that his language is obliged to be somewhat more brilliant, and words are inserted here and there that are more flowery than usual; he does not, however, exhibit much charm and grace in explanation, which is also a defect of his other works. A large number of passages from all the ten books of his Ecclesiastical History are scattered over this work in four books. He says that the great Constantine was also himself baptized in Nicomedia, having put off his baptism till that time since he desired to receive it in the waters of Jordan. He does not state definitely who baptized him. As to the Arian heresy, he does not make it clear whether he still adhered to that doctrine or whether he had changed, nor does he state whether Arius's views were right or wrong, although he ought to have mentioned this, seeing that a great part of the deeds of Constantine has to do with the synod, which again claims a detailed account of them. But he mentions that a "dispute" (as he calls the heresy, to conceal its real nature) arose between Arius and Alexander, and that the pious emperor was very grieved at the "dispute," and strove, by letters and through Hosius, bishop of Cordova, to induce the disputants to abandon mutual strife and such questions, and to restore friendship and harmony amongst them; that, being unable to persuade them, he called together a synod from all parts, and so put an end to the strife that had broken out, and made peace. His account, however, is neither accurate nor clear. Wherefore, as if ashamed and unwilling to make public the facts concerning Arius and the decree of the synod against him or the just punishment of his companions in impiety who were cast out with him, he says nothing about this. He does not even mention the just punishment of Arius 1 inflicted by heaven and seen by every eye. He brings none of these things to the light, and says little about the synod and its proceedings. For this reason, when about to speak of the divine Eustathius,2 he does not even mention his name, nor the audacious and successful intrigues against him. Attributing these also to sedition and tumult, he again refers to the calmness of the bishops who had assembled at Antioch as the result of the emperor's zeal and co-operation and changed sedition and tumult into peace. Similarly, where he speaks of the intrigues against the much-tried Athanasius, in his desire to include these things in his history, he says that Alexandria was again filled, with sedition and disturbance, which were calmed by the presence of the bishops, supported by the emperor. But he does not make it clear who started the sedition, nor its nature, nor how it was put down. He preserves almost the same method of concealment in his narrative of the quarrels of the bishops about dogma or their disagreements in other matters.

For the moment, I won't go into the complex issues regarding the attribution of the work by Eusebius to Pamphilus; as I wish to get on shortly to giving you some of the other evidence I earlier promised you.

In short, we can say that in antiquity, Jerome and Photius accused Eusebius of heresy and deception, while Rufinus seems to have implied that Eusebius forged heretical passages into a work of his own on Origen.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

P.S. Here is what I wrote regarding this issue in the book "The Evolution of Christs and Christianities"

Quote:

2. Jerome In the year 397, a Church elder named Tyrannius Rufinus published a work by a Christian martyr named Pamphilus called “the Apology of Pamphilus for Origen.” Shortly thereafter, another Christian intellectual, and an old friend of Rufinus, named Jerome, declared the work a forgery. He declared that it had been taken directly from a six-book work called “Defense of Origen” by the student of Pamphilus, (and famous historian) Eusebius of Caesarea. This led to a series of books and letters between the two men filled with acrimony and mutual charges of deceit, betrayal, lies, forgery and heresy . Both of these men went on to bigger and better things with Rufinus translating Eusebius’s Church History into Latin and adding some of his own history to it, and Jerome translating Old and New Testament books into a Latin version Bible which became known as the Vulgate. In looking at the claims of the two men over Rufinus’ work, we can reconstruct a bit of the original work which is now missing. It is evident that Eusebius did not include his own name in his work, Defense of Origen. Jerome never charges Rufinus with deleting the name, only with assigning the work to the wrong man. It seems highly unlikely that Rufinus would simply take a published work by Eusebius, the most famous Christian writer of the previous generation, cut out his self-references and publish it as a work by Pamphilus. Rufinus must have genuinely thought that the work was by Pamphilus. While we cannot be sure that Eusebius included passages in the original work to suggest that it was a work by Pamphilus, we can be sure that Eusebius hid the fact that he was the author by not including his name in it. Rufinus does admit to making changes to the original work which must have been by Eusebius. Rufinus admits to cutting out quoted passages in his translation of the original work, but he insists that the passages he did not translate had been forged to make Origen look like a heretic. If Rufinus is correct, we must consider who could have forged these passages. Eusebius had the best motive and the best opportunity. Today, certain writers claim that both Rufinus and Eusebius wrote apologies for Origen or that they collaborated in some way. The later suggest that the affair is just a simple case of misunderstanding on the part of Jerome and may cite Eusebius’s History itself in this: The elder brethren among us have handed down many other facts respecting Origen which I think proper to omit, as not pertaining to this work. But whatever it has seemed necessary to record about him can be found in the Apology in his behalf written by us and Pamphilus, the holy martyr of our day. We prepared this carefully and did the work jointly on account of faultfinders . Both of these claims (dual authors of two works or dual authorship of one work) Sharply contradict Jerome and seem improbable. On the contrary, it seems most probable Eusebius was the sole author of the work. Attacks against Origen came shortly before the time of the Nicene Council in 324 C.E, when he was associated with the Arian Heresy. Pamphilus had been dead a dozen years at this point. It is quite unbelievable that the one and only book Pamphilus supposedly wrote defended Origen against charges that Pamphilus could never have heard or known about. As Jerome points out, “The very name of an apology which the treatise bears implies a previous charge made; for nothing is defended that is not first attacked .” Should we accept the apologetic notion that Pamphilus did indeed write such a work, then we must find Eusebius guilty of stealing the work and publishing it without giving Pamphilus credit. Yet, giving credit to the famous martyr Pamphilus should have been the first thing Eusebius should have done to promote the work. Pamphilus lacked both motive and opportunity. It is evident that there was only ever one work in defense of Origen and it was by Eusebius. Jerome asserts it this way, attacking Rufinus directly. Your Preface tells us that you have also translated the work of Pamphilus the martyr in defence of Origen; and you strive with all your might to prevent the church from condemning a man whose faith the martyr attests. The real fact is that Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, as I have already said before, who was in his day the standard bearer of the Arian faction, wrote a large and elaborate work in six books in defence of Origen, showing by many testimonies that Origen was in his sense a catholic, that is, in our sense, an Arian. The first of these six books you have translated and assigned it to the martyr. I must not wonder, therefore, that you wish to make me, a small man and of no account, appear as an admirer of Origen, when you bring the same calumny against the martyr. You change a few statements about the Son of God and the holy Spirit, which you knew would offend the Romans, and let the rest go unchanged from beginning to end; you did, in fact, in the case of this Apology of Pamphilus as you call it, just what you did in the translation of Origen's Peri 'Arxwn. If that book is Pamphilus's, which of the six books is Eusebius's first? In the very volume which you pretend to be Pamphilus's, mention is made of the later books. Also, in the second and following books, Eusebius says that he had said such and such things in the first book and excuses himself for repeating them. If the whole work is Pamphilus's, why do you not translate the remaining books? If it is the work of the other, why do you change the name? You cannot answer; but the facts make answer of themselves: You thought that men would believe the martyr, though they would have turned in abhorrence from the chief of the Arians . Shortly after in the same work, Jerome cites two writings of Eusebius himself that contradict the idea that Pamphilus wrote an Apology for Origen, or any work at all. Again, he addresses Rufinus directly: I will not suppose that you are ignorant of Eusebius' Catalogue, which states the fact that the martyr Pamphilus never wrote a single book. Eusebius himself, the lover and companion of Pamphilus, and the herald of his praises, wrote three books in elegant language containing the life of Pamphilus. In these he extols other traits of his character with extraordinary encomiums, and praises to the sky his humility; but on his literary interests he writes as follows in the third book: "What lover of books was there who did not find a friend in Pamphilus? If he knew of any of them being in want of the necessaries of life, he helped them to the full extent of his power. He would not only lend them copies of the Holy Scriptures to read, but would give them most readily, and that not only to men, but to women also if he saw that they were given to reading. He therefore kept a store of manuscripts, so that he might be able to give them to those who wished for them whenever occasion demanded. He himself however, wrote nothing whatever of his own, except private letters which he sent to his friends, so humble was his estimate of himself. But the treatises of the old writers he studied with the greatest diligence, and was constantly occupied in meditation upon them ." It is hard to reconcile the statement Jerome finds in Eusebius’s Life of Pamphilus, “He himself however, wrote nothing whatsoever of his own,” with the statement in the History, “the Apology in his behalf written by us and Pamphilus, the holy martyr of our day. We prepared this carefully and did the work jointly on account of faultfinders.” Ironically, a later forger inserted into Jerome’s book on “Illustrious Men,” in the passage on Pamphilus, the assertion “He wrote an Apology for Origen before Eusebius had written his .” This contradicts what Jerome wrote about the affair, that only Eusebius wrote a defense of Origen. It makes Jerome look foolish, but it seemingly helps to exonerate Eusebius. Exonerate him from what? At the very least, we can say that Eusebius published an anonymous work, attempting to deceive the public into believing that someone besides himself was defending Origen. At the most, we can say that Eusebius gave hints in the work to lead people to believe that his teacher, the Christian martyr Pamphilus, had written the work, and that he forged passages attributed to Origen to show support for the Arian views that Eusebius himself held. If the passage from the History is true, that Eusebius and Pamphilus wrote the book together, which seems extraordinarily unlikely, then Eusebius has lied in a rather strange manner in his Life of Pamphilus by claiming that Pamphilus wrote nothing. I should note that none of the people involved in this controversy directly accused Eusebius of any deception in his writings. His Ecclesiatical History was the only one available at the time and had proved invaluable to the faithful and the growth of the Church. It would not have been prudent to suggest that the writer of this great work was involved in forgery or deception. One could be critical of the supposedly heretical views of Eusebius, but one had to stop at the borderline of criticizing his general writing methodology.

Roger Pearse

I agree, and I don't think that we need take all of them very seriously; all this is basically excuses for a personal quarrel.

The whole argument is also somewhat upside down, in that Rufinus is arguing that the words of Origen have in fact been interpolated by heretics because he wants to preserve the reputation of Origen, while Jerom is arguing that the texts have not been interpolated because he wants to use these passages to attack Origen in order to attack Rufinus.

It would depend on whether we read 'took in' as meaning 'accepted while knowing them to be forged'. I'd hate to have my own comments read with that degree of determination to find me guilty of something!

Not sure; lots of implyings going on here!

I do not think we need spend any time on such arguments. He is accused of supporting Arianism -- does either of us *care* about this? (I have snipped all references to heresy in what follows to keep the volume down).

The term 'deception' is your word, but all that I could see that was alleged is a failure to report events with the emphasis that the Nicene writers do. Since he wasn't one, the complaint seems a bit unreasonable.

Do we care what Photius thinks? If so, why?

Note that there is a set invective found in Byzantine writings against heretics, which involves routinely anachronistically accusing them of dishonesty, so I'm not sure that I would pay a lot of attention if we get into that period.

I really don't think that Photius even accuses him of dishonesty, you know.

I'm not sure that Photius qualifies as 'antiquity'; but I didn't see evidence of allegations of deception by Jerome and Photius, and the statement about Rufinus is subjective.

Incidentally renaissance editions of works by Eusebius contain lists of testimonies for and against Eusebius from antiquity. I don't have copies, but such definitely exist.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

JoeWallack

JW:
Apologists often make statements like "We can be reasonably certain of 99% of what was originally written." First of all, "reasonably" and "certain" are words which usually don't go together. Such statements, without proper qualifications, are Misleading, as those not familiar with the Subject will be unaware of related, critical issues.

Often in situations like this it's harder finding the right questions than answering them. For starters Ksen, you need to define "Bible" above.



Joseph

SCRIPTURES, n.
The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Julian

Just as an FYI, when I say 'NT', I am referring to NA27. I always make that assumption when someone says 'bible' or 'NT' (in any discussion that deals with textual issues) unless they specify otherwise. I mean, it doesn't make much sense to talk about textual accuracy in a translation.

Julian

mountainman

Hi Jay,

Just a note to point out that Rufinus actually claims
to have in front of him, while translating Origen from
the Greek to Latin c.400, a letter written by Origen
complaining about the heretics in the third century,
who were altering his works as soon as he wrote them.

You probably already know about this letter from Origen,
which is quoted in full by Rufinus.

Quite an amazing letter.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown