1 Which "lost passage"? H.E. 2.23.20b? Isn't H.E. 2.23.20b the implication of A.J. XX.200/9.1 ??Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 6:08 pm
... one of my objections to pegging Eusebius as a/the forger of the Testimonium:
Origen describes a passage from Josephus which is not found in any extant manuscript of Josephus. Eusebius, who elsewhere always lets us know where to find his quotations of Josephus, does not do so here, implying that he did not know where to find this quotation. If Eusebius was bold enough to interpolate the Testimonium into the Antiquities, why did he not (also) interpolate this "lost passage"1 into Josephus somewhere, or at least invent a location for it in Josephus (as some feel he may have done with the Testimonium: not as the actual interpolator of the manuscripts, but rather as the inspiration for such interpolation by having invented a false citation)?
Note the point that Zvi Barras made -
2 historiosophy = historical interpretation based on a particular theological viewMrMacSon wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 5:22 pmBaras noted
< . . snip . . >
Baras pointed the finger more at Origen, but noted Eusebius's H.E. II 23.20 elaborates on Origen's Contra Celsus 1.47, even changing it to direct speech, and says
- "In the hands of Origen and Eusebius the incident [described in A.J. XX.200, which Baras defined as or says] has been defined as "the martyrdom of James", became through 'Christian historiosophical interpretation', the [proposed] 'main cause' for the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple."
- "The changes [to the accounts of James] for purposes of Christian historiosophy",2 proposed by Origen and carried out by Eusebius in the story of James' martyrdom, are not without bearing on the Testimonium itself.
- "It seems plausible that Eusebius treated the Testimonium in a similar way to what he had done with the story of James martyrdom. He seems to have been concerned only with the need of the hour; being preoccupied with the Christian historiosophy shared by Origen and himself . . ."
Baras provides another Josephean passage of note, -
Zvi Baras wrote: Ant XI, 297-305/ chap. 7, 1 contains many elements that are relevant to 'the' Christian 'historical interpretation' - a high priest causes the death of [a] Jesus, as [supposedly] in the case of Jesus and his brother, James. It offers clear causal argument for the miseries that befell the Jews.
I think Stephan's point about Eusebius pretending to be Pamphilus opens up a number of possibilities. As I've said, the Origen-Pamphilus-Eusebius group could well be a murky one with various things that origenated (sic) with Origen or Pamphilus being attributed to Eusebius unwittingly or deliberately to shore him up as the prime authority; and even things that were settled post-Eusebius being attributed to him.