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.
Jerome, Apology Against Rufinus 1.8: 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.
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).