Ecclesiastical History

THE EPISTLE.##

“ if we look at that edition. For what has ever been published more corruptly? I experienced this often six years ago, as one who delighted in the reading of his Greek text; and though it is easily believed that the manuscripts were not yet so corrupted in the time of Rufinus Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 345–410 AD) was the first to translate Eusebius into Latin, though he famously edited and expanded the text to suit his own purposes.; finally, I had called Musculus Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563), a Protestant theologian whose translation was criticized by Catholic scholars for perceived sectarian bias. himself into consultation. Yet I was so far from being helped by their versions that I discovered that the former—as Jerome Saint Jerome, a contemporary and rival of Rufinus, frequently criticized him for his loose and inaccurate translation style. rightly reproves—showed himself to be insufficiently upright in rendering Eusebius; and that the latter [Musculus] not only failed to notice even the slight errors of a faulty Greek manuscript, but introduced infinite errors of his own into the translation, partly through laziness, and partly by design, so that he might favor his own partisans.” And a little later, he pronounces thus concerning the interpretation of Christopherson John Christopherson (died 1558), the Catholic Bishop of Chichester, who produced a Latin version intended to counter Protestant translations.: “I would not have begrudged the public interest the corrections of his book for so long, had I not judged that the promised interpretation by Christopherson should also be awaited. For I was hoping—because I heard he was a well-learned and Catholic man, and furthermore aided by good manuscripts—that he would not only release some distinguished and reliable version, but would also add annotations of various readings and corrections for the amendment of the published Greek codex, a task which usually is not omitted by any translator. But it turned out far differently than I expected. For, to say only this for now about his edition: while it is reasonable to believe it is indeed pious and Catholic, it is incomplete rather than exact or perfect for many reasons. Thus, I see that little or almost no benefit returns to the public from the better manuscripts which he himself used, since he does not provide notification in the proper places, as was fitting, of how much he followed, changed, or added to them—whether for the restoration of the Greek text, or for establishing the credibility and authority of his own version.” Peter Halloix Pierre Halloix (1572–1656), a Jesuit scholar known for his work on the lives of the Eastern Church Fathers. also, a man of singular erudition and diligence, in Volume 2 (in which he encompassed the lives of the illustrious writers of the Eastern Church), in the Notes to the life of Saint Hegesippus A 2nd-century Christian writer and chronicler of the early Church; only fragments of his work survive, largely through Eusebius., chapter 3, feels the same as Curterius Jean Cureterie (Curterius), a 16th-century French scholar and editor of Greek patristic texts. regarding the version of John Christopherson. “In one word,” he says, “almost all the errors of Christopherson, which are not few, adhe-