Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 5:52 pm

or that You were Translating the Book of Eusebius as if it were Pamphilus'?

Jerome does not think that Pamphilus wrote the Apology. It was a wholly Eusebian composition.

Yes, I know that. As Jerome himself affirms:


Eusebius himself obviously did not forge anything in Pamphilus' name. That would be like Marcion publishing the epistles of Paul and simultaneously claiming that Paul never wrote an epistle. This is why, according to Jerome, it is down to Rufinus making the switch (as Jerome specifically says), not Eusebius. Rufinus had, according to Jerome, falsely attributed a thoroughly Eusebian book to Pamphilus.

I am not sure this captures the original argument cited from Jerome. The sense is that Rufinus took a book written by Eusebius which was passed off as Pamphilus's composition. I am not sure you can extrapolate from that that Rufinus was necessary guilty of doing anything. The book passes as a joint composition now. The fact that Eusebius doesn't record Pamphilus as writing anything is irrelevant. Eusebius was the one trying to pass off a book that he wrote (i.e. with his own hands) as being by Pamphilus.

And Joe I am not sure you should insult Stephen Carlson so much in this thread. Sometimes we don't know whom we bump into in a dark room.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 7:16 pm I am not sure you can extrapolate from that that Rufinus was necessary guilty of doing anything.

I am not actually going that far. I am saying that Jerome thought/claimed Rufinus guilty of doing something.

Eusebius was the one trying to pass off a book that he wrote (i.e. with his own hands) as being by Pamphilus.

I think that Eusebius did want to grace his Apology with the authority of Pamphilus, but he in no wise pretends that Pamphilus was actually the author. He aspires to joint credit, but does not pass the Apology off as having been composed by Pamphilus (he does not pretend to have found it in Pamphilus' collection or anything and innocently published it).

Oh come on. He first steals his name and then put the name Pamphilius 3 times on every page. Have you actually seen the book? Eusebius is speaking for Pamphilus. I can't prove he misrepresented Pamphilus but boy that Eusebius likes writing on behalf of people.

This is like seeing Michael Jackson walking hand in hand with a 12 year old.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 8:02 pmThis is like seeing Michael Jackson walking hand in hand with a 12 year old.

It's like if I set up an account here as 'Ben C Smith' and always chimed in 'I always agree with Stephan. He's brilliant.'

Your similes are really not landing tonight. Maybe try again tomorrow?

Have you actually seen the book?

Yes. It has been a while, but I have access to the Scheck translation. But "the book" in this case is simply the translation of Rufinus' version, right? The original has not survived?

That's not the issue. MJ supoosedly just liked kids because he was a kid. Eusebius wants to speak on behalf of Pamphilus because he is Pamphilus. Literally. How do explain the name appropriation? Ancient gay marriage?

I am sure you don't.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 8:38 pm I am sure you don't.

What is this in reference to?

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 8:37 pm That's not the issue. MJ supoosedly just liked kids because he was a kid. Eusebius wants to speak on behalf of Pamphilus because he is Pamphilus. Literally. How do explain the name appropriation? Ancient gay marriage?

The name appropriation would simply be a matter of Eusebius taking on the name of his mentor as a way of claiming to be his intellectual and/or spiritual heir. This is why I mentioned Augustus, who took on the name of Caesar as a way of laying claim to being Caesar's political heir (if he had stuck just to inheriting the estate, I doubt he would have changed his name). I cannot be 100% certain that this is why Eusebius took on Pamphilus' name, but your original reaction to the comparison...:

Come on. That's absurd.

...is nonsensical. It may be wrong (in which case you may show it to be wrong any time you please), but it is clearly not absurd. The motivation is clearly possible.