Eusebius and the Apology for Origen

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Secret Alias »

Jerome accused Eusebius of pretending to co-author the Apology of Pamphilius (he even took his name) when it was written wholly on his own initiative.
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 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 Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν [Against Rufinus 1.8]
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Secret Alias »

Apparently also Eusebius was gay ;)
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.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Secret Alias »

More from Book Three:
About the book of Pamphilus, what happened to me was, not comical as you call it, but perhaps ridiculous; namely that after I had asserted it to be by Eusebius not by Pamphilus, I stated at the end of the discussion that I had for many years believed that it was by Pamphilus, and that I had borrowed a copy of this book from you. You may judge how little I fear your derision from the fact that even now I make the same statement. I took it from your manuscript as being a copy of a work of Pamphilus. I trusted in you as a Christian and as a monk: I did not imagine that you would be guilty of such a wicked imposture. But, after that the question of Origen's heresy was stirred throughout the world on account of your translation of his work, I was more careful in examining copies of the book, and in the library of Cæsarea I found the six volumes of Eusebius' Apology for Origen. As soon as I had looked through them, I at once detected the book on the Son and the Holy Spirit which you alone have published under the name of the martyr, altering most of its blasphemies into words of a better meaning. And this I saw must have been done either by Didymus or by you or some other (it is quite clear that you did it in reference to the Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν) by this decisive proof, that Eusebius tells us that Pamphilus published nothing of his own. It is for you therefore to say from whence you obtained your copy; and do not, for the sake of avoiding my accusation, say that it was from some one who is dead, or, because you have no one to point to, name one who cannot answer for himself. If this rivulet has its source in your desk, the inference is plain enough, without my drawing it. But, suppose that the title of this book and the name of the author has been changed by some other lover of Origen, what motive had you for turning it into Latin? Evidently this, that, through the testimony given to him by a martyr, all should trust to the writings of Origen, since they were guaranteed beforehand by a witness of such authority. But the Apology of this most learned man was not sufficient for you; you must write a treatise of your own in his defence, and, when these two documents had been widely circulated, you felt secure in proceeding to translate the Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν itself from the Greek, and commended it in a Preface, in which you said that some things in it had been corrupted by the heretics, but that you had corrected them from a study of others of Origen's writings.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Secret Alias »

The argument seems to be (if we can read between the lines of Jerome's parallel attack against Rufinus) is that Eusebius was so scared to defend Origen that he wrote a work and published the book (or at least the most controversial parts) under the name of an already dead martyr (so the authorities couldn't assault him).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote:The argument seems to be (if we can read between the lines of Jerome's parallel attack against Rufinus) is that Eusebius was so scared to defend Origen that he wrote a work and published the book (or at least the most controversial parts) under the name of an already dead martyr (so the authorities couldn't assault him).
Since Jerome, in the excerpts which you quote, accuses Rufinus ("you") of crediting Pamphilus instead of Eusebius for the authorship of the defense of Origen, actually saying nothing of the kind against Eusebius himself, this "reading between the lines" would qualify as exactly the same kind of "soft" argument already adduced by Olson (and not the same kind of "hard" argument adduced by Peter to the effect that Eusebius can trust his forebears too much): a possibility, but not a smoking gun.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Secret Alias »

Perhaps. But if you look at this carefully it is clear (or at least appears to be clear) that the copy of the Apology which Jerome saw in the library was ascribed to Pamphilius (despite the apparent reference to 'Eusebius's Apology for Origen' initially:
But, after that the question of Origen's heresy was stirred throughout the world on account of your translation of his work, I was more careful in examining copies of the book, and in the library of Cæsarea I found the six volumes of Eusebius' Apology for Origen. As soon as I had looked through them, I at once detected the book on the Son and the Holy Spirit which you alone have published under the name of the martyr, altering most of its blasphemies into words of a better meaning. And this I saw must have been done either by Didymus or by you or some other (it is quite clear that you did it in reference to the Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν) by this decisive proof, that Eusebius tells us that Pamphilus published nothing of his own. It is for you therefore to say from whence you obtained your copy; and do not, for the sake of avoiding my accusation, say that it was from some one who is dead, or, because you have no one to point to, name one who cannot answer for himself. If this rivulet has its source in your desk, the inference is plain enough, without my drawing it. But, suppose that the title of this book and the name of the author has been changed by some other lover of Origen, what motive had you for turning it into Latin?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Bernard Muller »

Eusebius, H.E., 2.23.20.
Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.

Eusebius took this quote not from Josephus but rather, at second hand, from Origen (Commentary on Matthew 10.17).

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101610.htm
And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.
I always thought that "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ." was a paraphrase by Origen, but
"that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ." from Eusebius was a quote of the (interpolated) passage.

Where did I go wrong?
In any case, Eusebius cannot be said of quoting Origen, because the wording is significantly different.

And because Origen is on record about preferring blaming the fall of Jerusalem on Christ having been crucified rather than on James' execution:
"The same Josephus, ... when he was enquiring after the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the demolition of the temple, and ought to have said that their machinations against Jesus were the cause of those miseries coming on the people, because they had slain that Christ, ... If, therefore, he says the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews for the sake of James, with how much greater reason might he have said that it happened for the sake of Jesus?" (Id. Contr. Cels.)
I doubt Origen invented the passage I quoted first (the one starting by "These things happened to the Jews ...".

I also noted that the alleged quote by Eusebius would fit well right at the end of Antiquities, book 20, Chapter 11, section 1, as such:
But then what actions we were forced to do, or what miseries we were enabled to suffer, may be accurately known by such as will peruse those books which I have written about the Jewish war.
"These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ."

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Secret Alias »

Interestingly we can take what Jerome says about Eusebius writing on behalf of Pamphilus (and passing it off as a work of Pamphilus) one step further:
At this point Jerome depended on Eusebius for his knowledge of Pamphilus.15 But Jerome's brief note on Pamphilus in De viris illustribus, written when he knew the library of Caesarea at first hand, records that “the presbyter Pamphilus burned with so much love of the divine library [Scripture], that he copied the greater part of Origen's works, as preserved down to the present the library at Caesarea, in his own hand.”16 Presumably, too, it was from Pamphilus that Eusebius derived his habit of collecting Origen's letters, arranging them “in separate roll containers” to protect them and listing them.17

It also seems clear that this collection was Pamphilus's own project. Origen may well have brought a substantial working collection of books to Caesarea, and the Hexapla certainly formed part of it there. He also had stocks of texts by Philo and others that he, like Eusebius, knew at first hand. Origen’s letterto Pope Fabian, which we have already examined, shows how much time he and his benefactor Ambrose dedicated to the pre-eminently bookish task of correcting manuscripts. But no evi-dence suggests that Origen set special store by copying his ownor anyone else’s books, or that he compiled formal catalogues of his holdings. Pamphilus had to chase down and collect Origen’s writings—clear evidence that they had not been systematically collected and preserved by their author. To this extent at least, Pamphilus emerges as a distinct figure—an eager intellectualdisciple who spent much of his capital and his immense ener-gies on preserving the works of an earlier Christian writer.The wider boundaries of Pamphilus’s activities as collectorand copyist remain somewhat indistinct. Jerome, for example,owned twenty-five manuscripts (volumina) with Origen’s commentary on the Minor Prophets, “written in Pamphilus’s hand.”

He described these books as a possession that filled him with asmuch joy as if he had the wealth of Croesus.18 We have noway of knowing whether they were duplicates, produced by Pamphilus for some friend or benefactor, or strays from the col-lection at Caesarea. One bit of evidence, moreover, hints boththat Pamphilus did not limit himself to collecting Origen, andthat at least some of his manuscripts of other texts came fromthe collection of his favorite author. The acts of a supposedcouncil held by the apostles in Antioch bear the title: “The holy martyr Pamphilus’s copy of the acts of the synod of the apostlesin Antioch, that is, part of the canons of the synod, as found inthe library of Origen.”19 It is at least possible that other prizesand pyrites in Pamphilus’s collection came to Caesarea in Or-igen’s time, passed through his hands, and inspired forgers andlibrarians to claim this exalted provenance for their books.https://books.google.com/books?id=Jbcuq ... 22&f=false
This article notes the parallels that exist between Pamphilus's collecting activity and Eusebius's own. The author takes it as self-evident that the library was originally established by Pamphilus. But let's look at this claim critically for a moment.

When did Pamphilus die? He died during the persecutions of Diocletian on February 16, 309. Eusebius is said to have been by his side when he died, a devoted 'lover.' So when the question of who assembled all these Christian books arose after Pamphilus's death it was said that they belonged to the deceased martyr. How convenient.

It is noteworthy that during the course of hostilities that broke out between Rufinus and Jerome the authorship of an 'Apology of Origen' necessary arises. The book must have been ascribed to Pamphilus (like the library). Rufinus says that only part of the work was written by Pamphilus, the rest by Eusebius. Jerome goes one step further and says that the entire work was written by Eusebius.

But the broader debate between them is with respect to the correction of the works of Origen. Jerome says Origen was a heretic and that Rufinus has altered the wording of the books of Origen that he translated to make them seem less heretical. But with respect to the Apology of Origen he says that someone came along after Eusebius (who was an Arian) and purged the text of any 'Arianisms' which he presumes must have been there at one time. He puts forward Rufinus or Didymus as possible forgers.

But I wonder whether Eusebius not Pamphilus was responsible for establishing the library and it was he who removed much of the heresy (specifically Arian) from the texts. The presumption that because Eusebius was favorable to Arius doesn't mean that he didn't see which way the wind was blowing and 'correct' all the 'errors' himself and placed the new creations in the library.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Secret Alias »

So the question is whether Eusebius's pseudepigraphy extended beyond the Apology. Was 'Pamphilus' - a name which Eusebius himself appropriated (he is after all ) - a pseudonym by which Eusebius edited texts? Read this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=yrwqf ... 9D&f=false

'Pamphilus' is responsible now for establishing the exact reading of many manuscripts. Could this have really been Eusebius rather than his 'lover'?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF

Post by Secret Alias »

Some more information. Jerome completed Lives of Illustrious Men at Bethlehem in 392-3 CE. In this book he expresses his joy at seeing the writings of Origen in what he originally presumes to be Pamphilus's handwriting - “I embrace and hold on to [it] with suchjoy that I believe I am in possession of the riches of Croesus.” But ten years later he tempers that naivete by acknowledging that Eusebius might have written works ascribed to Pamphilus.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply