St. Euphrosyne: Possible History or Fable? More Flippant Non-Answers from Mr. Lundahl
Kevin R. Henke
September 15, 2022
In Henke (2022a), I list four hypotheses to explain the Talking Snake story of Genesis 3. Hypothesis #3 compares the Talking Snake story to an ancient work of fiction or a “campfire story” that was mistakenly taken by the ancient Israelites as being real. I also linked to a webarticle by Jimenez (2014), which argues that some Roman Catholic saints are likely examples of works of fiction that were eventually taken as being true. Here is the relevant section from Hypothesis #3 from Henke (2022a):
3. The Talking Snake of Genesis 3 was part of a made-up campfire story, a parable or based on a pagan myth that eventually was taken as fact by the ancient Israelites, like how President Reagan and his fans mistook fictional stories from World War 2 as real. William Tell (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-search-of-william-tell-2198511/ ) and a number of Roman Catholic saints (https://listverse.com/2014/05/17/10-beloved-saints-with-fictitious-biographies/ ) are probably also myths.
Lundahl (2022c) then responded to this section from Henke (2022a):
“Modern scholars dispute the historicity of William Tell and Protestant scholars dispute that of lots of Catholic saints (and the modern scholars you provide are culturally Protestant. I may take up separate posts when trying to deal with these links, but Smithsonian Mag is not my best academic resource for European History of the Middle Ages and Listverse is trusted when providing lists, but not quite as trusted with backing up each detail on each list with good scholarship.”
This statement is from an individual that relies on Wikipedia (e.g., Lundahl 2022d; Lundahl 2022o), deliberately avoids using the actual peer-reviewed references that I give him, and shuns providing bibliographies (e.g., Henke 2022at; Henke 2022e). Mr. Lundahl has no idea what good scholarship is.
In Henke (2022b), I replied to Lundahl (2022c):
“In my discussions of Hypothesis #3 in Henke (2022a), I mentioned that stories about William Tell and some Roman Catholic Saints are additional examples of works of fiction that are now widely misinterpreted as historical fact. I linked to the following webarticles:
In Search of William Tell (Robert Wernick, Smithsonian Magazine)
Listverse: 10 Beloved Saints the Church Just Made Up by Larry Jimenez and fact checked by Jamie Frater.
Lundahl (2022c) complains about the reliability of my references (Smithsonian Magazine and Listverse). He also states that he may give a separate response on these topics later.
Granted, my preliminary links on William Tell and some of the Roman Catholic saints were not articles from peer-reviewed journals. They simply provided some background information on how these individuals were probably not historical. Nevertheless, Mr. Lundahl could consult Jean-François Bergier’s Guillaume Tell (1988), which is mentioned in the Smithsonian Magazine article, if he did not like the summary in the article. The Listverse article on the Catholic saints also contains links with additional information and documentation. Nevertheless, here’s a journal article that discusses more about the origin of William Tell:
Hughes, S.C. 2012. “The Limits of Cultural Nationalism: Italian Switzerland from a Risorgimento Perspective”, Nations and Nationalism, v. 18, n. 1, pp. 57-77.”
I further discuss the William Tell story in Henke (2022ek). In this essay, I reply to comments in Lundahl (2022n) about another one of the ten Roman Catholic saints discussed in Jimenez (2014) and how she might not have ever existed. Of course, Mr. Lundahl, being a conservative Roman Catholic, does not like any Bible stories and probably not any Roman Catholic saints being identified as likely myths. Lundahl (2022n) then attempts to defend the authenticity of the stories about the ten questionable saints identified in Jimenez (2014).
In Henke (2022eL), I previously discussed St. Veronica, #10 on the list in Jimenez (2014). St. Euphyosyne is #9 on Jimenez’s list. Here is what Lundahl (2022n) says about St. Euphyosyne and I’ve appropriately distinguished the quotations from Mr. Lundahl’s sources and his opinions:
“Jimenez (2014) states:
‘9) St. Euphrosyne was the daughter of Paphnutius, a wealthy citizen of Alexandria. ... Her perfect ascetic life impressed the abbot, and when Paphnutius came to him seeking comfort in his sorrow, the abbot directed him to the care of Smargadus. Paphnutius unknowingly became his daughter’s disciple. Euphrosyne was soon known for her holiness and wisdom. On her deathbed, in A.D. 470, she finally revealed to her father her true identity. Paphnutius thereafter became a monk himself and lived in his daughter’s cell for the remaining 10 years of his life.’
Mr. Lundahl: Any real problem?
Jimenez (2014) states:
‘So goes the story of St. Euphrosyne, but she represents a whole class of cross-dressing female saints.’
Mr. Lundahl: Is St. Joan of Arc a retold story of this group too?
Mr. Lundahl: Georges Bernanos took pride in descending from her brother.
Jimenez (2014) states:
‘It seems that medieval folk were fascinated by women successfully impersonating men to elevate their status in the sight of God. Modern scholarship dismisses Euphrosyne’s story as pious fiction and even concludes that St. Euphrosyne never existed.’
Mr. Lundahl: OK ... modern scholarship is the alleged reason for rejecting her (and her father St. Paphnutius') existence. Have you tried tea leaves?”
Although I think that the St. Euphrosyne story sounds somewhat plausible, Lundahl (2022n) should have tried checking on what modern scholarship actually says about her before flippantly dismissing the conclusions in Jimenez (2014). Even the Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic Answers refer to her story as belonging to a “group of legends.” Now, I recognize that Mr. Lundahl would probably consider these Roman Catholic sources as “too liberal” for him. However, when even the academic experts and leadership of his own Church question the veracity of the stories about these saints, I think that Mr. Lundahl needs to seriously reevaluate his own assumptions.
As a side note, websites, such as this one, often claim that the only sin that the Inquisition could find against Joan of Arc was that she dressed as a man. This supposedly violated Deuteronomy 22:5. However, Wirth et al. (2006) conclude that the Church tribunal improperly applied the Church’s rules on wardrobes against Joan of Arc and that she was not guilty of cross-dressing.
References:
Jimenez, L. 2014. “10 Beloved Saints The Church Just Made Up”, Listverse, https://listverse.com/2014/05/17/10-beloved-saints-with-fictitious-biographies/ (accessed July 25, 2022).
Wirth, R. (ed.), V. Frohlick (peer-review), M. Walsh (peer-review) and A. Williamson (authorial contribution and translation). 2006. Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc’s Male Clothing: Joan of Arc: Primary Sources Series: PSS021806, Historical Academy for Joan of Arc Studies, 34pp.