Ambiguous Christians and Their Useful Texts: Tatian, Bardaisan, Symmachus, and Rhodon in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History

David J. DeVore
{"title":"Ambiguous Christians and Their Useful Texts: Tatian, Bardaisan, Symmachus, and Rhodon in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History","authors":"David J. DeVore","doi":"10.1515/zac-2023-0025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Eusebius did not represent all heretics in the Ecclesiastical History as equally pernicious. This paper presents close readings of Eusebius’ chapters about three relatively benign heretics, namely Tatian (Historia ecclesiastica 4,29), Bardaisan (4,30), and Symmachus (6,17), and I also explore Rhodon (Historia ecclesiastica 5,13), a student of Tatian whom Eusebius never labels a heretic. Three inferences emerge from these readings. First, rather than condemning all heretics as equally demonic, deceitful, morally depraved, and worthless, Eusebius considered some heresies less dangerous than others. Second, Eusebius commended some heretics’ useful writings, which in each case Eusebius quotes in his own œuvre; he thus retained some of Clement’s and Origen’s openness to heretics’ ideas. Third, the case of Rhodon shows that Eusebius assumed no obligation to classify all Christian thinkers as orthodox or heretical: as with Rhodon, Eusebius elides the ecclesiastical status of Tertullian and Ammonius (Historia ecclesiastica 2,2,4; 6,19,9–10), two other Christians of questionable orthodoxy. For Eusebius, in sum, the usefulness of an author’s texts sometimes superseded the harm of that author’s questionable orthodoxy, especially when that author hailed from a less-harmful heresy or was not clearly a heretic.","PeriodicalId":202431,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity","volume":"33 1","pages":"413 - 448"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zac-2023-0025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Eusebius did not represent all heretics in the Ecclesiastical History as equally pernicious. This paper presents close readings of Eusebius’ chapters about three relatively benign heretics, namely Tatian (Historia ecclesiastica 4,29), Bardaisan (4,30), and Symmachus (6,17), and I also explore Rhodon (Historia ecclesiastica 5,13), a student of Tatian whom Eusebius never labels a heretic. Three inferences emerge from these readings. First, rather than condemning all heretics as equally demonic, deceitful, morally depraved, and worthless, Eusebius considered some heresies less dangerous than others. Second, Eusebius commended some heretics’ useful writings, which in each case Eusebius quotes in his own œuvre; he thus retained some of Clement’s and Origen’s openness to heretics’ ideas. Third, the case of Rhodon shows that Eusebius assumed no obligation to classify all Christian thinkers as orthodox or heretical: as with Rhodon, Eusebius elides the ecclesiastical status of Tertullian and Ammonius (Historia ecclesiastica 2,2,4; 6,19,9–10), two other Christians of questionable orthodoxy. For Eusebius, in sum, the usefulness of an author’s texts sometimes superseded the harm of that author’s questionable orthodoxy, especially when that author hailed from a less-harmful heresy or was not clearly a heretic.
模棱两可的基督徒及其有用的文本:尤西比乌斯《教会史》中的塔提安、巴尔达桑、西马库斯和罗顿
摘要 尤西比乌斯并未将《教会史》中的所有异端都视为同样有害的。本文仔细解读了尤西比乌斯关于三个相对良善的异端的章节,即塔蒂安(Historia ecclesiastica 4,29)、巴尔达桑(Bardaisan)(4,30)和西马库斯(Symmachus)(6,17),我还探讨了罗顿(Rhodon)(Historia ecclesiastica 5,13),他是塔蒂安的学生,尤西比乌斯从未将其称为异端。从这些解读中可以得出三个推论。首先,尤西比乌斯并没有谴责所有异端都是恶魔、骗子、道德败坏和毫无价值的,而是认为有些异端比其他异端危险性小。其次,尤西比乌斯赞扬了一些异端有用的著作,尤西比乌斯在自己的作品中都引用了这些著作;因此,他保留了克莱门特和奥利对异端思想的一些开放态度。第三,罗顿的情况表明尤西比乌斯没有义务将所有基督教思想家划分为正统或异端:与罗顿一样,尤西比乌斯忽略了良和阿莫尼乌斯(Historia ecclesiastica 2,2,4;6,19,9-10)的教会地位,这两位基督徒的正统性值得怀疑。总之,对尤西比乌斯来说,作者文本的实用性有时会超越该作者可疑正统性的危害,尤其是当该作者来自危害较小的异端或并非明显的异端时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信