Eusebius as a forger.
Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 10:26 am
Subject: Pseudo-Hegesippus and the TF
Based on Stephan's recent thread, I want to compile a list of passages for which arguments have been mounted (not merely suspicions coddled) in favor of Eusebius, instead of merely quoting a source, having actually forged that source, or at least added interpolations to it. (I am not concerned with Eusebius having subtracted from a source, since that is the nature of editing, and I am already quite prepared to think that he may have edited tendentiously.)Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:34 pmWhat I would love to see is a reasoned argument in favor of Eusebius having composed something himself while attributing it to somebody else. The example you cite is exactly the sort of thing which proves that Eusebius is capable of trusting other people's references either without checking them for himself or without daring to ask. Is there a similar example which would seem to prove that Eusebius is capable of making something up from scratch without relying on an Origen, as it were?Peter Kirby wrote:By itself, this only shows that Eusebius is capable of quoting Josephus without manuscript support (with high probability, anyway). It leaves open the possibility that Eusebius found this Testimonium somewhere else and thought it something Josephus said or would likely say (or that, like other quotes, it had already "landed"). It is primarily (but not exclusively) the work of Ken Olson that supports the opinion, to the contrary, that the text was more likely composed by Eusebius. And this other example supports the likelihood that Eusebius could quote it with or without first having it in a manuscript.
In his chapter of Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, Ken Olson mentions Life of Constantine 2.5.3–41 as a possibility, of which he writes:
Modern scholars have long been skeptical about Licinius’ speech as recorded by Eusebius. Some defended Eusebius by claiming that he merely reports in good faith what his sources told him. In recent scholarship, however, there seems to be a tendency among commentators to ascribe the composition of Licinius’ speech to Eusebius himself.
But this is hardly a smoking gun, is it? This is a trend in scholarship, is it not? Olson continues:
If Cameron and Hall are correct, Eusebius apparently provided his own allegedly outside witness to the truth of Christianity.
That "if" is the catch here, since if the protasis is incorrect then Eusebius did once again as we can find him usually doing, quoting texts which, when and where we are able to check, do actually exist apart from Eusebius (works by the NT authors, the apostolic fathers, Josephus, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Abgar... the list goes on and on). So... is there a more ironclad example, one of equal weight to the example which demonstrates that Eusebius can misquote through a forebear in the faith?
(Note that this question is quite independent of whether the Testimonium is a forgery; it can still be a forgery without Eusebius having authored it.)
- Ken Olson argues that Eusebius forged the Testimonium Flavianum in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 §63-64.
- Cameron and Hall (as cited by Olson above) argue (or at least summarize the suspicions of some scholars to the effect) that Eusebius forged Licinius' speech in Life of Constantine 2.5.3–41.
- James Corke-Webster argues that Eusebius at least added to the epistle of the churches in Lyons and Vienne in History of the Church 5.1.3-63.