"Paulinus is quoted as saying that 'Helena was guided by Divine counsel, as the result of her investigations show'."
I pkut all of those quotation marks there too.
So he didn't read the material. It's not even Eusebius who said it. So his little lecture about what a lousy scholar I am is wasted because he's not even dealing with the right soruces and he clearly did't read the entire New Advent Article.
I admit I should not have trusted secondary soruces. But think at the time I put up the page I knew that Polinus made the quote. But it's been five years since I wrote that and did the original reserach. it took a bit to remember what I'm dealing with.
Lot of water under the bridge.
I do owe a retraction, however, because I did exercise poor scholarly judgemnt. I put that quotation under a label that said "Eusebius" giving the impression that Eusebius said it. In reality, New Advent did confusse me they way they laid it out. In the middle of a long paragrpah talkinga bout how Helnea found the site they say
The temple was torn down, the ruins were removed to a distance, the earth beneath, as having been contaminated, was dug up and borne far away. Then, "beyond the hopes of all, the most holy monument of Our Lord's Resurrection shone forth" (Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", III, xxviii).
So the quote Eusebius as though he sait it. Actually htey were quoting him because he said "beyond the hopes of all, the mkost holy monument of our Lord's Resurrection shone forth." But it makes it appear that he said the whole thing. In reality it was another writer who documents Helena's find and I have no idea how he knew that.
So so who reads all the material? apparently none of us do.
BTW the title "have tomb will argue, but not very well" was an admition that I had goofed. So LO's chiding is uncalled for. But I say it openly. I blew it. I wasn't careful enough on this one.
I will change the pages on Doxa accordingly.