Is there a core text of the Testimonium Flavianum?

[MrMacSon]

To summarize, Eusebius sees Christ (AKA the Logos) as the mediator between a transcendent God and material creation. It was Christ that created the material world and since creation, it has been Christ who has appeared in human form to bring the truth or true religion (AKA the knowledge of the Father) concerning the one God to human beings, in ancient times to the pre-Mosaic Hebrew patriarchs, then to the remaining “Hebrews”, such as the prophets, who lived among the Jews. Finally, Christ appeared as the man Jesus to bring the truth to all the nations of humankind, not just the Jews.

• < . . snip . . >

Let me give some examples of the data to be explained:

Historia Ecclesiastica 1.2.23:

He did and suffered the things which had been prophesied. For it had been foretold that one who was at the same time man and God should come and dwell in the world, should perform wonderful works, and should show himself a teacher to all nations of the piety of the Father

Demonstratio 3.6.27:

what does it mean, then, to suggest that the Teacher of true religion to men, Who worked such miracles in the period of His earthly life, and did the extraordinary prodigies which I have lately described, was born actually endowed with (131) such power

Demonstratio 9.11 (comment on Deuteronomy 18.15.19):

It must be noticed that no prophet like Moses has ever arisen among the Hebrews, who was a lawgiver and a teacher of religion to men, except our Saviour, the Christ of God. Therefore at the end of Deuteronomy it is said: "There has not arisen a prophet in Israel like unto Moses," though, of course, many prophets succeeded him, but none were like him. And the promise of God recognizes the whole future, that one only, and not many, should arise and be like him. And it implies that he will be a lawgiver and a teacher of religion to men, such as none but our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has been proved to be, being lawgiver and prophet of the God of the Universe (444) His Father at the same time.

... the Demonstratio at the end of 3.3 to beginning of 3.4

But the above inquiry has had to do with Christ as if He only possessed ordinary human nature, and has shewn forth His teaching as weighty and useful----let us proceed and examine its diviner side.

WE must now proceed to review the number and character of the marvellous works He performed while living among men:

What’s happened here? ...

I would like to ask a wider question: Is Eusebius's Christology his own??

Let's look at Eusebius's 'Letter on the Council of Nicaea', supposedly to 'the people of his Diocese.'

... we have been obliged to transmit to you, first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves, and next, the second, which [the Fathers] put forth with some additions to our words. Our own paper, then, which was read in the presence of our most pious Emperor, and declared to be good and unexceptionable, ran thus:—

2. As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Laver, and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this :—

• 3. We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made; Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost:

believing each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, 'Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' [Matthew 28:19]. Concerning Whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching.

4. On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He confessed moreover that such were his own sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word, One-in-essence, which moreover he interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father in the way of division, or any severance; for that the immaterial, and intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view to the addition of One in essence, drew up the following formula:—

• The Faith dictated in the Council.
  
  We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—
  
  And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and comes to judge quick and dead.
  And in the Holy Ghost.
  
  And those who say, 'Once He was not,' and 'Before His generation He was not,' and 'He came to be from nothing,' or those who pretend that the Son of God is 'Of other subsistence or essence ,' or 'created' or 'alterable,' or 'mutable,' the Catholic Church anathematizes.

5. On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced "of the essence of the Father", and "one in essence with the Father". Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed, that the phrase "of the essence" was indicative of the Son's being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not however a part of His essence. On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term "One in essence", peace being the object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the orthodox view.

6. In the same way we also admitted "begotten, not made"; since the Council alleged that "made" was an appellative common to the other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness ...


8. So much then be said concerning the faith which was published; to which all of us assented, not without inquiry, but according to the specified senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor himself, and justified by the forementioned considerations ....


10. Nay, our most religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in being even according to His divine generation which is before all ages, since even before He was generated in energy, He was in virtue with the Father ingenerately, the Father being always Father, as King always, and Saviour always, being all things in virtue, and being always in the same respects and in the same way.



About this page
Source. Translated by John Henry Newman and Archibald Robertson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.
<http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2804.htm>.

Note the references to the Emperor: here are 3 of the 5 references -

• "our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements"

• "And such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view to the addition of One in essence, drew up the following formula":—
  
  • The Faith dictated in the Council.
    
    We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—
    
    And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and comes to judge quick and dead
• 10. ...our most religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in being even according to His divine generation which is before all ages, since even before He was generated in energy, He was in virtue with the Father ingenerately, the Father being always Father, as King always, and Saviour always, being all things in virtue, and being always in the same respects and in the same way.

---

The writings of Josephus seem to have been a focus of Eusebius, and others of the times or immediately preceing times, as Ken noted that Alice Whealey noted

Since Eusebius used Josephus more extensively than any non-Biblical writer except Origen, and since he 'quoted' the Testimonium three times in his works, it would be surprising if Josephus’ language had not generally influenced his own language in some way. In particular, the language of the Testimonium may have influenced how Eusebius described Jesus in his own works, or how he thought non-hostile Jews perceived Jesus. (Alice Whealey, "Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum ", p. 73-116, at 76, in & Böttrich Herzer (eds.), Josephus und das Neue Testament (Tubingen Mohr Siebeck, 2007).

Whealey then said "Thus any study of this topic may ultimately leave us with rather inconclusive results", but perhaps any study of these topics should look at other influences on Eusebius, such as his revered Emperor and, in turn, influences of him and them collectively (and, of course, views contrary to Whealey's -ie. that Josephus did not write the TF).

---

Note in section 5 of Eusebius's Letter on the Council of Nicea -

• "On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term "One in essence", peace being the object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the orthodox view."

Constantine had been at war. Perhaps he was tired of it(?) (and had also been reading Josephus's accounts of the first Roman Jewish War).

---

These quotes previously provided elsewhere by Ken Olson seem to be pertinent to Eusebius's letter about the Council of Nicea, and to the Council per se -

As T.E. Pollard summarizes Eusebius' theology of the incarnation:

The purpose of the incarnation of the Logos, then, is that the Logos, by coming in human form, may re-affirm the pure religion and make known to all men that there is only one true God and that he has an only-begotten Son. The Logos is the bringer of eternal truth to men, formerly through the prophets, and now in these latter days by coming and dwelling among men. (Johannine Christology in the Early Church, 293)

Pollard, like many scholars, is very critical of Eusebius' christology and consider it inadequate:

The failure of Eusebius to give an adequate place in his system to the incarnation, redemption and eschatology reveals the inadequacy of the cosmological Logos-doctrine as a basis for Christian theology ... The cross and resurrection occupy no place at all … and the last day is not to be looked for in the future, for it is already here now that the pure religion of the patriarchal age has been re-established (Johannine Christology, 297).

Or as the theologian Christoph Schönborn (currently the Cardinal-Archbishop of Vienna) puts it:

How shall we sum up the Christology of Eusebius? … The purpose of the Incarnation consists in leading mankind back to knowing the truth. The Logos, through the instrument of his flesh, has manifested himself above all in order to instruct, to move man’s free will toward conversion. The aspects of redemption, of ransom, of the gift of grace, are substantially deemphasized. (God's Human Face, 72).

viewtopic.php?p=50303#p50303

[arnoldo]

Interestingly, Origen refers to Josephus' account of John the Baptist yet neglects any mention of Jesus.

It is referenced already by Origen in the middle of the third century (Against Celsus, 1.47), who places it in the 18th book of the Antiquities, with these words.

"I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite."
http://peterkirby.com/john-the-baptist-authentic.html

Perhaps Josephus alleged account of Jesus was simply a scribal note in a copy which was not available to Origen at the time?

[Ken Olson]

Ben Smith wrote:

I have to admit that I also wonder whether I might be able to cheat a bit and peek forward to the end of the chapter: if I were to concede wholesale that your argument from Eusebian Christology makes him look like the forger, but then counter that the argument from his citation practices elsewhere makes it look like he would not do that sort of thing, would you

Hi Ben,

I see you've returned to the forum. It looks like the question you were posing above got truncated. Would I what?

Best,

Ken

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben Smith wrote:

I have to admit that I also wonder whether I might be able to cheat a bit and peek forward to the end of the chapter: if I were to concede wholesale that your argument from Eusebian Christology makes him look like the forger, but then counter that the argument from his citation practices elsewhere makes it look like he would not do that sort of thing, would you

Hi Ben,

I see you've returned to the forum. It looks like the question you were posing above got truncated. Would I what?

Oops. I have fixed it now. "I have to admit that I also wonder whether I might be able to cheat a bit and peek forward to the end of the chapter: if I were to concede wholesale that your argument from Eusebian Christology makes him look like the forger, but then counter that the argument from his citation practices elsewhere makes it look like he would not do that sort of thing, would you be able to break the apparent tie between those conflicting notions?"

(That is, by poking enough holes in Eusebius' generally correct citation practices to make his forgery seem more likely than the apparent coincidences of Christology.)