Alexis Comnenus

Toto, I treat Eusebius like any other ancient historian. I expect him to select the material that suits his purpose, to be true to his ideological stance and to tell the story as he understands it. Unless I have solid evidence, I am not going to accuse him of forgery or encouraging people to lie.

Your problem is you are unfamiliar with pagan ancient historians so judge Eusebius by modern standards instead of those of his time. But we find that the Augustan Histories are grossly inaccurate, Caesar is carrying out an exercise in self aggrandisement and of the great Tacitus my Latin professor says "Enjoy him, don't believe him". So if you were being anachronistic you could attack Eusebius for inaccuracy and pushing his point (although not forgery). Trouble is that you'd need to point out that in this Eusebius was par for the course.

Yes, all this makes ancient history quite difficult but we cannot do a cop out and refuse to believe anything. We need to use historical method of the sort I did a post to Turtonm about.

Regards

Alex

Roger Pearse

I received an email yesterday about this, and another today, and I wonder if I might be permitted to add a comment or two about the text of Eusebius being passed around, and my comments on it?

Richard Carrier writes: [snip ]It is in Eusebius, and is the very chapter heading of that section, repeated in the Table of Contents to the PE, also written by Eusebius.

In ancient literature in general, the chapter titles and chapter divisions found in the medieval manuscripts, through which they are transmitted to us, are not authorial, or so I understand. This seems to be the consensus; why it is so, I have never been able yet to determine. (I am interested for another reason, to do with some chapter titles in a work of Tertullian, so I have been collecting literature on the subject - and a mangy collection it is).

There are exceptions, it appears. I have before me the introduction to the French Sources Chretiennes text of the Praeparatio Evangelica. (SC206, p53, ed. SIRINELLI and DES PLACES, 1974). This tells me that scholars in general consider the chapter titles of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica to be authorial. It does not, however, say why. On the other hand, I also have before me the introduction to CAMERON & HALL's translation of Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Oxford 1999. Apparently the chapter titles cannot be authorial (p.52).

Returning to SIRINELLI etc, I learn that the authenticity of the chapter titles has been fiercely debated since the 16th century, with one 19th century scholar going so far as to reject the chapter divisions also. SIRINELLI's opinion? He's for authenticity. But it's plainly a moot point at best.

I'm for authenticity, in principle, but I can't see a methodology in all this. Since lots of people doubt it is sound, we can't attribute it to Eusebius, unless we have a good reason. Can we?

(Convince me, by all means).

RC: The translation in fact is my own, from the actual Greek itself.

The translation given of the chapter title is fair enough, and indeed very close to that of Gifford, in the only English translation of the PE. I did feel that running the title and the text together was likely to mislead. The translation of Plato and Eusebius' comment on it is somewhat different to that of either Gifford or the Loeb editors of Plato, and I refer you all back to my collection of data on this subject,
<a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/pe_data.htm" target="_blank">here</a>. The main caveat I have is with the translation of pseudos, which is translated as 'falsehood' or 'lie', which it can mean, but in context more naturally means 'fiction', and is so translated by the Loeb Plato editors.

The idea that Eusebius wishes to say that the bible lies is a curious one [for his evil evil purposes], but perhaps something on which everyone may decide for themselves.

I don't think I can deal here with the idea that Eusebius forged the TF, but I've never seen this idea elsewhere, and I rather think the tide of scholarship has moved to 'genuine but authentic' these days.

RC: Incidentally, the Pearse article that has been cited is wrong about the statement by Eusebius "That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach." Pearse admitted this to me personally almost a year ago. I have contacted him to ask why his essay remains unchanged.

I think Richard's memory has misled him here, or perhaps my own has. At all events I was unaware that he had an issue with that page until yesterday. I understand that people think I was saying the chapter title isn't in the MSS. But it is, and I have never thought otherwise. Rereading it today, I have modifed the words in a few places where it seems people have been able to confuse what I was saying. It's interesting how people can misunderstand, when it was written a year ago. It doesn't give a lot of confidence about understanding ancient documents, does it? I think we have to avoid forcing them in any way.

Incidentally, I wasn't certain from the SC text that the chapter titles are actually in the body of the text. They *are* at the front, in a table of contents. Richard, from where did you get your info that they are in the text in the MSS?

I don't know if people are interested in the MSS at all. There is one 9th century one, and 3 15th century ones. It's good to see people happy to work with a text on such a limited text tradition; and indeed why not?

RC: I am open to contrary arguments that bring in evidence qualifying my impressions here. Send them via email, and remember it is only evidence I am interested in, not conjectures or logical maneuvers.

The data is indeed the thing. If anyone *does* have some more information on chapter titles, I want it! I really mean that. But until we know, how can we damn a man for something he may not even have written?

I've posted here, since the comment about me was posted here. I'll email it in as well. Only fair!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

(Now I've learned how URL's work, I've edited it to fix that. Otherwise unchanged)

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Roger Pearse ]</p>

Alexis Comnenus

Roger,

Thanks for that. It seems the matter is more up for debate than either Mr Carrier or I thought.

Needless to say the translation as 'fiction' rather than 'lie' totally alters the way we read the passage. While I have no idea what either Eusebius or Plato meant, I'd still suggest that Eusebius's examples show he did not mean lie as he would never claim that the bible lied (just as Josephus would never claim Jesus was the Messiah) but might admit it contained fictive language.

Regards

Alex

Roger Pearse

Good grief, that was a quick response!

I hit the post key, before I'd actually finished editing. I knew there were only 4 MSS, and stuck down a rough note (thank heavens it made sense), but I forgot that this part of the PE is not in the 9th century MS, and I'd put SIRINELLI down while typing. Grovelling apologies to you all. Here's a correction.

Here are the MSS (from SIRINELLI, t.206 p.57-8).

I: Marcianus Graecus 341 (15th century, paper)
O: Bononiensis University 3643 (13th century, bombazine paper)
N: Neapolitanus graecus II A 16 (15th century, paper)
D: Parisinus graecus 467 (16th century, paper).

D is marked against the text in brackets, but I can't see why.

[AC] Thanks for that. It seems the matter is more up for debate than either Mr Carrier or I thought.

[AC] Needless to say the translation as 'fiction' rather than 'lie' totally alters the way we read the passage.

I'm grateful to Richard Carrier for giving me the impulse to learn some Greek, which this did. Some day I must write a QuickGreek program. Any volunteers to enter dictionary entries in Greek?

I thought so too, when I saw the other possibles, and read the earlier parts of the same book (online at the PE_data page). Take a look at how the Loeb translators rendered it. That said, I think *Plato* is definitely considering the idea that falsehood might be in some cases OK. But the general theme is education, and I think Eusebius simply ignores that bit, just as in the following chapter he ignores the stuff about women being incapable, and just comments on the last bit.

[AC] While I have no idea what either Eusebius or Plato meant, I'd still suggest that Eusebius's examples show he did not mean lie as he would never claim that the bible lied (just as Josephus would never claim Jesus was the Messiah) but might admit it contained fictive language.

In fact I am told that MS discoveries of the Syriac, which agrees with the Latin, indicate that the 'He was the Messiah' bit of the TF is corrupt, and the correct text was 'He was believed to be the Messiah' (credebatur esse Christum). The verb was lost, leaving esse Christum, and a copyist 'corrected' the infinitive to the indicative, and la voila. No malice - just stupidity/incompetence. Probably the corrector knew of no other MS.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

"Fiction" = a polite term for "lie"?

I think you are straining against the clear meaning. People are to be told things that are not true, for their own benefit, because they need that sort of medicine.

Haran

Toto, ever hear of the word "parable"?

I think that is what "fiction" means in this particular context.

Haran

Toto

Plato does not say that sometimes a "parable" helps explain things. Parable (or a fictional story known to be fictional) makes no sense in this context. A fiction that is presented as fact (a lie) does make sense.

I don't have the exact quote, but one of those eastern gurus said something like - all religions are based on lies. It's like someone is sitting inside their dark house refusing to go out into the sunshine, because they don't believe it will be any better. So you tell them a lie, you say the house is burning down, to get them outside. Once they are outside, they realize how much better it is.

I think that is the sort of lie Eusebius meant.

Haran

You might take this issue up with Pearse. I believe that he mentions that this "fiction/lie" is possibly closer to what we would think of as a "parable". Then again, maybe I'm just off my rocker, but I thought he mentioned something like this.

Haran

Toto

Pearce confuses HTML with UBB code, so I will hyperlink his page for ease of access:

Data for discussing the meaning of pseudos and Eusebius in PE XII, 31

All he says is

I suggest that "ill-intent" is not the relevent criterion - a well-intentioned lie is still a lie, although we may be polite and call it a "fiction" or a "fable". I think is is only the negative implications of the word "lie" that cause Pearse (and you) to assume that Eusebius might have been talking about parables, or fiction recognized as such.

We don't usually call Santa Claus a lie, because we think he is benign. But there are anti-Santa factions who phrase the matter as "don't lie to children," while the pro-Santa faction will speak of Santa as fiction or a fable. In either case, Santa is not literally true.

After all, the mystery religions, which were common at that time, typically had an "outer mystery" for the initiates who were not mature enough to hear the real truth. After sufficient study, the initiate might be ready to hear the real truth, which was that the original story was not literally true.

In out modern age, we have become much more literal minded. We want straight scientific facts. I don't think that this value was in Eusebius' (or Plato's) mind at all.

Haran

Actually, Toto, I was thinking of the following from his article Eusebius the Liar? :

I've read Eusebius' works and I would not classify him as a liar. When he is unsure of a story that he is telling, he usually states so. I find his works honest. Have you read Eusebius, Toto?

Haran

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>