Eusebius and the Apology for Origen

[Secret Alias]

This all reminds me of the Eisler reworking of the bit about Marcion acting as the secretary for John. Assuming the validity of Eisler's reconstruction for a moment, it would be hard to say to what degree Marcion corrupted John or faithfully reproduced John's ideas in his MS. Another thing it reminds me of is the bit from the Passing of Peregrinus where letters of Peregrinus were continuing to emerge from an associate or the bit at the beginning of Adversus Marcionem where it is alleged the original author saw his original manuscript floating around in a corrupt state and had to correct it back to its original integrity. Hard to know what the Apology 'really' goes back to other than two men sitting in a prison cell and one being the master and the other his subordinate. Perhaps we can see it is unlikely based on precedent that a rich man acted as his own scribe or that the prison allowed him to engage in detailed scribal activity while imprisoned.

[Peter Kirby]

... your conclusion ...

By the way, did you have an opinion about the conclusions I reached? Agree / Disagree / Other?

[Ben C. Smith]

... your conclusion ...

By the way, did you have an opinion about the conclusions I reached? Agree / Disagree / Other?

If you mean these...:

This seems like the natural progression, then:

(i) Eusebius writes five books of Apology for Origen while in prison, while Pamphilus is with him. Mentions Pamphilus his benefactor in the preface.
(ii) Eusebius writes a sixth book after being released from prison and when Pamphilus is dead, and then publishes it.
(iii) Eusebius is suspected for his Arianism, and, [shortly [or, longly]] after his death...
(iv) Pamphilus is claimed to be co-author, changing the authorship claim on the "title" to joint author and/or full author.
(v) But the sixth book never gets ascribed to Pamphilus, as it contains the statement that Pamphilus was dead (think of Joshua and Moses here...).
(vi) Pamphilus also did not make copies himself, personally, of Origen, but had them commissioned and was given credit.
(vii) Socrates quotes them as belonging to both Eusebius and Pamphilus, so Eusebius' role is not forgotten there.
(viii) Jerome generously gives Pamphilus credit for the only work that could claim to be his, in his Lives. (So have I. Nobody's perfect.)
(ix) Rufinus claims that the first book he publishes is Pamphilus, not Eusebius, because of the stain on Eusebius.
(x) Jerome now has good reason to get to the bottom of it, and he presents the arguments that Eusebius is the author throughout the six books.
(xi) With the Origenist controversy now long in the past, Photius records the common understanding about the book, gained from reading it and the claim in the current copies, that Pamphilus is claimed as co-author of the first five books, while together in prison with Eusebius, while all six had the involvement of Eusebius, and the sixth was written after Pamphilus was dead.

There doesn't seem, to me, to be any reason to claim that Eusebius attempted a forgery in the name of his patron. The separation of the sixth book as being written after the death of Pamphilus, speaks well in favor of its authorship by Eusebius and towards the improbability that a fraud could have been or would have been attempted regarding the authorship of the other five (which were by Eusebius, published under Eusebius' own name).

Both of Jerome's arguments seem fairly strong, and the quote especially seems to be exact, with its meaning plain. If Eusebius could have praised his literary skills, when writing three books to honor his patron, I think he would; to do otherwise would be a great dishonor. As to why Eusebius did not see any contradiction in his statement, I think it's probably because Eusebius never thought Pamphilus was the author of Eusebius' own books, just his patron and therefore not the author at all.

...then I regard them as eminently sensible. I cannot think of any evidence so far to disconfirm them, and I think there is much to commend them. One request: can you comment on the handwriting issue?

[Secret Alias]

But where does this come from:

Eusebius writes a sixth book after being released from prison and when Pamphilus is dead, and then publishes it.

This is ridiculous. Why wouldn't Jerome have mentioned it if it was so obvious?

[Secret Alias]

Where does this come from?

Pamphilus also did not make copies himself, personally, of Origen, but had them commissioned and was given credit.

Why does Jerome specifically mention the 'handwriting of Pamphilus'? I guess I know too much.

[Secret Alias]

I wish people could get outside of their body and see that they are engaging in the act of story-making. This whole list looks like the outline of a movie script. It's like what Oliver Stone did with JFK. There are all these little bits of information but to write a compelling story you have embellish around the edges. My reconstruction embellishes (if you want to call it that) by saying Jerome must have regarded the handwriting as matching. But this list is fabricating connective tissue over and over again. It's your board. Fine.

[Peter Kirby]

One request: can you comment on the handwriting issue?

1) I think that the writings at Caesarea that were thought to be "in the hand of Pamphilus" probably were not literally in his hand but rather in the hand of his scribe or even Eusbeius.

2) I do not know whether Jerome ever saw the original (or thought-to-be original) of the Apology for Origen. Jerome doesn't use an argument about handwriting publicly (he uses two other arguments instead), so I don't know if that was a factor for Jerome in coming to the conclusion that the text was by Eusebius.

But it's interesting and seems plausible, I think.

This is ridiculous.

No, it isn't. I don't know what your agenda is here...

Why does Jerome specifically mention the 'handwriting of Pamphilus'?

You tell me. You're talking about when he found the "Commentaries" in the hand of Pamphilus, right? And thought it treasure like Croesus'? Seems to be he thought so at the time. Honestly:

Pamphilus also did not make copies himself, personally, of Origen, but had them commissioned and was given credit.

Again where do we disagree? Do you not also say that Pamphilus wasn't the copyist?

Please explain yourself...

It's your board. Fine.

Drama llama....

My reconstruction embellishes (if you want to call it that) by saying Jerome must have regarded the handwriting as matching.

I think it's a good idea. I'm not bashing it.

[Secret Alias]

Jerome mentions the handwriting of Pamphilus in one of his commentaries on Origen. Sorry that I know stuff. Knowing stuff helps in reconstructing the situation.

[Secret Alias]

Here is Photius's entry for the Apology:

117. Read an anonymous work defending Origen and his abominable writings, in five volumes. The style is neither clear nor pure and contains nothing deserving of mention. The author brings forward on behalf of Origen and his dogmas Dionysius of Alexandria,1 Demetrius,2 Clemens, and several others, but chiefly relies upon Pamphilus the martyr and Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. This apology is not a refutation of the charges against Origen for the most part, but rather supports the accusation, since he is not altogether free from his blasphemous opinions. Thus, he asserts that souls existed before bodies, supporting this nonsense by passages from the Scriptures and Fathers, and imagines the taking up of other bodies. In regard to the Holy Trinity, however, he is orthodox; he asserts that Origen was not guilty of error in his opinions on the subject, but that he was opposing the Sabellian3 heresy, which at that time had spread extensively, and that, in his endeavour to show that the Trinity of Persons was quite clear and differed in many ways, he allowed himself to be carried away beyond what was right in the opposite direction. However, in regard to Origen's other dogmas, to which he does not even venture to give a specious assent, and to which he does not think it possible to adapt his defence, he takes great trouble to prove that they were only intended as a rhetorical exercise, or that they were foisted into his writings by certain heterodox persons. In proof of this he quotes Origen himself as loudly protesting, for he says that even when he was alive he discovered that such reckless statements were made against him. The counts on which he asserts that he was falsely accused are fifteen in number, which he declares to be mere slanders, proving it by quotations from his writings in his fourth book, and refuting them by the evidence of others on his behalf in the fifth. The counts are as follows. He is charged with teaching that prayer should not be offered to the Son, and that He is not absolutely good; that He does not know the Father as Himself; that rational natures enter into the bodies of irrational beings; that there are migrations from one body into another; that the soul of the Saviour was the same as the soul of Adam; that there is neither eternal punishment nor resurrection of the flesh; that magic is not an evil; that astronomy is the cause of events; that the Only Begotten has no share in the Kingdom; that the holy angels came into the world by falling down from heaven, not to render service to others; that the Father is unseen by the Son; that the Cherubim are the ideas of the Son; that the image of God, in reference to him whose image it is, qua image, is untrue. He rejects these charges, as already stated, as slanders on Origen, and does his utmost to prove that he is an orthodox member of the Church. But, my dear sir, if any one is shown to be not altogether impious, this is no reason why he should escape punishment for obvious blasphemies.

118. [Pamphilus & Eusebius, Defense of Origen]

Read the Defence of Origen 1 by Pamphilus the martyr and Eusebius.1 It is in six books, five of which were written by Pamphilus when in prison in the company of Eusebius. The sixth is the work of Eusebius alone, after the, martyr, having been deprived of life by the sword, was removed to God for whom his soul longed. Many other distinguished persons at that time also wrote in defence of Origen. It is said that Origen, during the persecutions in the reign of Severus, wrote to his father Leonides, urging him to martyrdom, and that he ran nobly in the race and received the crown. It is added that Origen himself made ready with all zeal to enter into the same struggle, but that his mother checked his ardour in spite of his protestations, as he himself testifies in a letter. Pamphilus the martyr and many others who have written an accurate account of Origen, as given by those who knew him, assert that he quitted this life by a glorious martyrdom at Caesarea during the cruel persecution of the Christians by the emperor Decius.2 Others say that he lived till the times of Gallus 3 and Volusianus, and that he died at Tyre in the sixty-ninth year of his age and was buried there. This is the truer account, unless the letters supposed to have been written by him after the Decian persecution are spurious. They say that he studied and taught every branch of knowledge. He is said to have been also called Adamantius, because his arguments were linked together like chains of adamant. He attended the lectures of Clement, the author of the Stromateis, and succeeded him as head of the catechetical school at Alexandria. It is said that Clement was the pupil of Pantaenus and his successor as head of his school, and that Pantaenus heard teachers who had seen the apostles, and had even heard them himself.

It is said that the movement against Origen originated as follows. Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, had a high opinion of Origen and admitted him to his intimate friendship. But when Origen was about to leave for Athens without the permission of the bishop, he was ordained by Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, contrary to the rule of the Church, with the approval of Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem. This incident changed the love of Demetrius to hate and his praise to blame. A synod of bishops and some presbyters was summoned to condemn Origen. According to Pamphilus, it was decided that he must not remain in Alexandria or teach there, but that he should be allowed to retain his priesthood. But Demetrius and some Egyptian bishops, with the assent of those who had formerly supported him, also deprived him of his sacred office. After he had been banished from Alexandria, Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, welcomed him, allowed him to live at Caesarea, and gave him permission to preach. Such are the reasons which Pamphilus gives for the attack upon Origen.

The Apology for Origen was composed, as we have said, by Pamphilus when imprisoned together with Eusebius, and addressed to those who were condemned to the mines for the sake of Christ, the chief of whom was Patermythius, who shortly after the death of Pamphilus ended his life at the stake with others. Pierius was the teacher of Pamphilus, the head of the catechetical school at Alexandria. It is said that he suffered martyrdom together with his brother Isidore, and that a church and houses of prayer were built in his honour at Alexandria. The holy Pamphilus was a presbyter, and is said to have copied most of Origen's commentaries on Scripture with his own hand.

I must be insane. I don't see where on earth you get your business about book six being blah, blah, blah or whatever you wrote. Photius puts forward an assertion which isn't explained. That's all. And Jerome six hundred years earlier didn't make mention any of it so it must have been a very subjective assertion.

[Secret Alias]

This:

The sixth is the work of Eusebius alone, after the, martyr, having been deprived of life by the sword, was removed to God for whom his soul longed.

Leads to you concluding this:

Eusebius writes a sixth book after being released from prison and when Pamphilus is dead, and then publishes it.

Sure. Amazing detective work. But Jerome doesn't 'pick up' on any of this? Must have been a very compelling argument from Book Six.