Eusebius as a forger.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6626
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:15 pm

Ken Olson wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:56 pm
Thanks for adding the translation. I was working on a full response to the entire post, but now I have to ask if you have changed any of the positions you took earlier in the post in light of your translation, in particular: (1) that Ps-H. claim that Pilate "forced very many to death" is derived from this passage in Origen....
Yes, I still think this. (I had already basically translated the passage before posting my interpretation of it, but I wanted to nail down some of the finer details before posting it.) The incident under Pilate is still, for Origen, the premiere example of Jews striving "unto death," and the passage still makes it sound like at least some of them died. We can tell that pseudo-Hegesippus really hated Pilate, and I think he ignored possibly charitable interpretations of things like Pilate washing his hands in Matthew or Pilate being "constrained" to erect an image of Caesar in Origen.
...and (2) that Ps-H. claim that Pilate gave the beginning of its ruin and this is the cause by which the people of the Jews defected from the Roman Empire and hastened destruction for themselves are derived from Origen.
Yes. The answer is pretty much the same as above, with the proviso that pseudo-Hegesippus heightens Pilate's personal culpability beyond anything I have read in any of his possible sources: Josephus, Eusebius, Origen, the NT. But Origen does mention Pilate's audacity (what he "dared" to do), and pseudo-Hegisippus runs with it (speaking of his "not hesitating" in our passage and of his "daring" two sections later).
I have been considering the possibility that Eusebius himself was influenced by this passage in Origen (he at least knew of the Commentary on Matthew).
As I intimated earlier, I suspect the same thing.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Ken Olson
Posts: 202
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ken Olson » Thu Jul 18, 2019 5:51 am

Delayed reply to Ben; split two issues into separate posts.
Ken: I think your argument may be a tad overstated here. I do not need to hypothesize any clairvoyance on Eusebius’ part to suggest that he correctly perceived that, though Pilate is first mentioned as Gratus’ successor in 18.35, the material in 18.36-54 does not mention Pilate at all, and the account of Pilate's governorship of Judea begins at 18.55 with the words “Pilate the governor of Judea.”

Ben: Maybe not clairvoyance, but an overly developed interest in making sure not to interfere with the loose structure of Josephus' narrative. I do not find it very plausible that Eusebius would sacrifice his chronology, something he has staked an interest in, for Josephus' topical treatment of Pilate's governorship, something I am not aware he even mentions or alludes to.
I think this is still overstated. In the Demonstratio, Eusebius claims the Testimonium is to be found in the 18th book of Josephus Antiquities, “in his record of the times of Pilate.” You make it sound as though I’m claiming that Eusebius is concerned with the reconstructing Josephus’ intentions in arranging his narrative and following them at the expense of his own desires. I do not think I’ve said anything to suggest that.

I am hypothesizing that, if Eusebius inserted the Testimonium into the Antiquities, he looked at the text that he had in front of him and saw that 18.36-54 had nothing to do with Pilate and the account of Pilate’s governorship of Judea began at 18.55 so he inserted it after that at the earliest point after that where he thought it would fit.
Ken: What about Eusebius after the Historia? Do you find any evidence that when Eusebius quoted the Testimonium in the Theophany, or refers to Pilate’s governorship elsewhere in his later works, that he is concerned with the issue of whether the episodes of the standards or the aqueducts took place before or after Jesus crucifixion. (That’s a real question – in the sense that I don’t know the answer. I’ve looked at the Theophany but haven’t checked the rest of his later works for evidence of this).

Ben: Not sure, actually. I will let you know if I find anything.
Great. The reason I ask goes back to the issue of context which you reiterated.
Ken: There is an argument that, if Eusebius could insert the Testimonium into the Antiquities, he would have re-arranged the narrative of Pilate’s administration so that the crucifixion came before the stories about Pilate bringing the Roman standards into Jerusalem and using the temple funds to build an aqueduct,

Ben: I agree with this critique; it is not a matter of which work, but of where in that work the Testimonium ought to go. As to that issue, I can tell you that, if I myself had wished to insert the Testimonium into the Antiquities and simultaneously to preserve the idea that Jesus' execution was the cause of the woes under Pilate, I would have chosen a spot after Antiquities 18.2.2 §35, in which Gratus is ushered off the scene and Pilate brought in as his successor, but before 18.3.1 §55, which is where the troubles under Pilate begin, with the standards incident. The death of Phraates is narrated in 18.2.4 §39 as having occurred "at this time" (κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον), the same phrase used in the Testimonium to introduce Jesus' execution. So somewhere in the vicinity of Phraates' death would seem ideal, would it not? That section is a grab bag of historical events; the Testimonium would fit right in, unless I am missing something.
I take it that the argument against Eusebius (i.e.., the post-HE Eusebius) having inserted the Testimonium as a whole into a text which did not have any mention of Jesus (i.e., no 18.63-64), he would not have chosen that location because it contradicts (or just fails to support?) his claim in HE 2.6 that Pilate’s bringing the standard into the city and taking the temple treasury to finance an aqueduct were part of God’s punishment of the Jews for their outrage against Christ.

Is this what you are trying to show -- that it is implausible that Eusebius would have chosen the location at 18.63-64 because, given what we know about Eusebius, other locations would have suited him much better?

I ask because your language is a bit ambiguous: “I can tell you that, if I myself had wanted to insert the Testimonium into Antiquities and simultaneously preserve the idea that Jesus’ execution was the cause of the woe under Pilate I would have chosen a spot after 18.2.2/35 … but before 18.3.1/55.” I have been taking you as claiming that this is what Eusebius would have done (i.e., you have good reason to believe that it is), for the simple reason that no one would care about what you would have done, and, furthermore that Eusebius (if he did compose the Testimonium) was a person such as you describe, one who wanted both to insert the Testimonium into the Antiquities and who would have considered it important to make the text of Antiquities support the idea that Jesus’ execution was the cause of the woes under Pilate.

When you refer to Eusebius having “botched” the chronology, it seems like you take it as demonstrated that Eusebius, if he inserted the Testimonium into the Antiquities after he had written the HE, would also have placed it before the two first Pilate episodes in the text. He would not have been satisfied with leaving the temporal relationship undefined (“As I have suggested the introduction “About this time” indicates. How confident are you about this? Do you think it is implausible that he would have placed it in its current location?

Best,

Ken

Ken Olson
Posts: 202
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ken Olson » Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:08 am

Ken: I’m making an argument about intellectual history or the development of Christian historiography. It involves a particular combination of elements, but it’s broader than that. It’s not that, in the course of writing his book, he happens to use Josephus, and also happens to make the argument that the misfortunes of the Jews in the Jewish War were God’s punishment for the Jews crimes against Christ and his disciples. It’s that, before he started writing, Pseudo-Hegesippus conceived of the project of writing a Christian history, taking Josephus as its major source, and using Josephus to prove a thesis about Jesus and Christianity, which he states explicitly. What inspired him to do that?

Ben: Maybe he simply thought to rewrite Josephus from a Christian point of view; that is not quite the same thing as writing a Christian history and using Josephus for part of it.

But this bit of intellectual history is, I think, your strongest remaining argument for pseudo-Hegesippus knowing and using Eusebius, because I do not think your criticisms of my proposed connection to Origen's commentary on Matthew stand up under scrutiny.
First, Pseudo-Hegesippus is not “simply” rewriting Josephus from a Christian point of view. At one point, Excidio 3.2, he interrupts his narrative about the Jewish War to give an account of Nero’s persecution of Christians in Rome and the martyrdom’s of Peter and Paul during that persecution, before returning to the Jewish War. Please name all of his predecessors who wrote a brief (i.e., pericope length or so) account of the preaching and martyrdoms of Peter and Paul in Rome and placed it within a larger historical narrative of the Jewish War and/or other events going on elsewhere in the reign of Nero. (The only predecessor I can think of in writing a summary about the death of Peter and Paul in Rome in the Neronian persecution is Lactantius in the second chapter of On the Death of the Persecutors.

Second, while you are certainly correct that rewriting Josephus from a Christian point of view is not the same things a writing a Christian history and using Josephus for part of it, I think degrees of similarity have to be considered here. What Christian writer used (quoted, paraphrased or rewrote passages from) Josephus the most before Pseudo-Hegesippus? Who was second and third and by what degree did the first exceed them? Did any of them ever use passages from Josephus (quoted, paraphrased, or rewritten) to demonstrate the thesis that the misfortunes of the Jews were God’s punishment for their crimes against Christ and his disciples.

I find the word “simply” to be misleading here. To suggest that Ps-H is simply rewriting Josephus, and he simply took from the New Testament that the destruction of Jerusalem of Jerusalem was he result of Jesus’ execution, or that (as Andrew has suggested) Pseudo-Hegesippus simply included the story about Peter and Paul’s martyrdoms under Nero because his Roman audience would be curious about how Christianity came to Rome, so he naturally would have included that. This isn’t just simple or natural and no predecessor before Eusebius was doing it. Ps-H was writing a generation after Eusebius. Where did he get the idea to use Josephus’ Jewish War at more than pericope length? Or to use it to illustrate the misfortunes of the Jews which were God’s punishment of the Jews for what they had done to Christ and his disciples.

I agree that the argument from intellectual history is my strongEST argument, but I do not agree with the rest of your claim. This is I don’t think your scrutiny stands up under scrutiny (we could go on like this for a while). I’ll get to that below.
Ken: This is an interesting argument. I think the strongest point in its favor is the density or concatenation of the three elements.

Ben: That impresses me, I admit, though I think there is more to it than just those three elements (see below). For this brief passage alone, your theory would have pseudo-Hegesippus following the Wars, gleaning (I guess) the idea that Pilate was the "first" to bring images into Jerusalem from the Antiquities, gathering either from the Demonstration or from the Chronicon that the images actually went all the way into the temple, and conflating the standards incident with a subsequent, more violent incident on the basis of a misreading of the History; and I think you would agree that pseudo-Hegesippus also knows the New Testament. My theory would have pseudo-Hegesippus following the Wars, reading a single passage in Origen's commentary on Matthew, and supplementing these texts with a connection requiring only the most general knowledge of the New Testament (again, see below)
I think you have overstated our differences here with regard sources. I believe we are agreed that Pseudo-Hegesippus knew Josephus Jewish War and Antiquities and also the New Testament. My argument requires Pseudo-Hegesippus has the text of the Antiquities on hand or clearly in mind, as well as Eusebius HE 2.5-6, and he knows either the Demonstratio or Chronicon, perhaps from memory, from which he got the datum that Pilate brought the images into the temple. You are arguing that Ps-H. used Josephus Jewish War, which he modified according to inferences he drew from Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, along with the general idea that he took from the New Testament that the Jewish War and the fall of Jerusalem are a consequence of the Jews’ crimes against Jesus.
Ken: In agreement with Josephus and Eusebius and against Origen, Ps-H. refers to images of Caesar in the plural being brought into the temple. Origen, in contrast, refers to a statue of Caesar being set up (or even consecrated) in the temple, probably under the influence of the story about Caligula attempting to do this. What Ps-H has in mind seems to be closer to what is found in Josephus and Eusebius, the images of Caesar on the standards simply being brought into the temple. Now, the fact that Ps-H is closer to Eusebius is not decisive, because that element could have come from Josephus, whom he definitely knows.

Ben:Agreed. He is actually rewriting Josephus and merely borrowing either from Eusebius or from Origen (or from both, to be complete). If something in pseudo-Hegesippus overlaps with something in Josephus, then nothing can be made of the fact that it also overlaps with something either in Eusebius or in Origen.
Excellent. I’m glad we agree on that.
Ken: But there’s an argument from silence to be made that Ps-H fails to take over additional the peculiar features of Origen’s account, which may slightly favor Eusebius as a source.

Ben: Origen says that the Jews were "often" (πολλάκις) "resisting" (ἀνθιστάμενοι) Roman attempts to set up a statue in the temple; pseudo-Hegesippus says that they "resisted" (resisteret) Pilate. Origen consciously puts both incidents, under Pilate and under Caligula, in the context of the Jews striving "unto death" (ἕως θανάτου); pseudo-Hegesippus says that Pilate forced many "into death" (in mortem). Origen says that Pilate was the "first" (πρῶτος) who "dared" (ἐτόλμησε) to sully the temple; pseudo-Hegesippus says that Pilate was the "first" (primus) "of all" (omnium) who "did not hesitate" (non dubitaverit) to bring images into the temple. (Josephus, as I intimated in the post to which you are responding, does in the Antiquities — but not in the Wars — affirm that Pilate was the "first" to bring the images into Jerusalem, but there is no explicit sense of his "daring" or "not hesitating" to do so in Josephus. (ETA: The notion of "daring" is even clearer just two sections later in pseudo-Hegesippus, where he asks, "What indeed did he not dare [auderet] who had put even Christ the Lord on the cross...?")

Pseudo-Hegesippus' use of the word omnium makes it sound as if Pilate had been the first of many (and not just of two: Pilate and Caligula); then again, Origen's use of the word πολλάκις comes across in exactly the same way: as if there were many instances of this kind (and not just two).

This is not silence. This is pseudo-Hegesippus absorbing and understanding exactly what Origen is meaning to say.
When I mentioned the argument from silence, I was referring to Ps-H referring to images of Caesar (as would be found on a Roman standard) rather than taking over Origen’s claim that Pilate had erected/dedicated/consecrated a statue of Caesar. Now this is an argument from silence, because it can’t be stated conclusively from this that Ps-H. did not know Origen just because he did not follow him in that particular place.

You argue that there are positive agreements with Origen not found in Josephus or Eusebius, or perhaps I should say better explained as coming from Origen, because I think they can all be explained as coming from Josephus or Eusebius. Ps-H. is silent on the peculiar features of Origen (e.g., if Ps-H. had said Pilate consecrated a statue of Caesar in the temple or had quoted the line from Sirach that would count heavily in favor of your theory).

I take Ps-H.’s resistaret and coegit ad mortem to be from the subsequent aqueduct story, where it is stated that “[they] did not acquiesce (οὐκ ἠγάπων) in the operations that this involved, and tens of thousands of men assembled and cried out against him” (Ant. 18.60 cf. HE 2.6.6) and then stating that “many Jews were smitten and perished from the blows” (Ant.18.62 cf. HE 2.6.7) [I have written cf. in these reference because Eusebius’ ‘quotations’ of Josephus differ considerably from the text of Ant.]. I think your case depends on arguing that it is unlikely that Pseudo-Hegesippus collapsed the two stories, not on Origen offering a closer parallel.

Ps-H.’s primus, as you allow, may have come from the Antiquities “Pilate was the first to bring the images into Jerusalem,” but you miss that his non dubitaverit may easily be derived from “Pilate … took a bold step ( ἐφρόνησε ) in the subversion of Jewish practices.” While one might fault Feldman’s translation here, the meaning of the Greek is clear – Pilate violated Jewish custom intentionally, deliberately, or on purpose.

I find your argument about primus omnium being found together inconclusive for two reasons. First, I don’t really know that Ps-H. had a source for omnium at all, or that he had in mind more than Pilate and perhaps subsequent governors who also brought standards into Jerusalem or the temple. Second, if he did I think the HE 2.5.7-2.6 would provide , where Gaius committed many outrageous acts against the Jews.

Your ETA note helps my case more than it does yours. I take it when you say, ‘the notion of "daring" is even clearer just two sections later in pseudo-Hegesippus, where he asks, "What indeed did he not dare [auderet] who had put even Christ the Lord on the cross...?"’, you are suggesting that Ps-H’s auderet in Excidio 2.5 is from Origen’s ἐτόλμησε . If you’re not saying that, I can’t tell what relevance “the notion of daring” has to our conversation. But what does Pilate’s daring in relation to the crucifixion, found between the account of Pilate’s massacre of the Samaritans and the account of John the Baptist’s death (having nothing to do with Pilate) have to do with Pilate’s daring in relation to entering the temple? The association of Pilate and daring? But if we think Ps-H’s auderet is based on a Greek source with the word τολμάω in it, the closer parallel would again be HE 2.5, “Pilate, under whom the crime against the Saviour was perpetrated,” (crime … was perpetrated = τετόλμητο) where τολμάω is associated with Pilate and the crucifixion.
Ken: I think it is far more likely that Ps-H took the bit about Pilate forcing many of the Jews into death came from the episode about Pilate and the aqueducts, which follows the episode of the standards in Josephus and Eusebius, and in which many Jews are killed, than that he simply inferred that many Jews must have been killed from Origen’s quotation of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, even though Origen does not actually say so.

Ben: Origen explicitly links the quotation of Sirach with the Jews' reaction to Roman attempts to defile the temple:


• He says that, "inasmuch as" (ἅτε) the Jews "hold as dogma" (δόγμα ἔχοντες) the saying in Sirach, which he quotes in full at this point, they "resisted" (ἀνθίσταντο) the gentiles who conquer them. He then gives the incidents under Pilate and Caligula as examples of this resistance.
• He emphasizes this link by using the same word for "resisting" the Romans in particular (ἀνθιστάμενοι) that he has just used for the action taken by Jews against gentile conquerors in general.
Thus, according to Origen, the Jews' reaction to Pilate was the/a keynote example of their following Sirach's instruction to strive "unto death.”
Your case seems to be that Origen explicitly says something from which Ps-H could have plausibly inferred that many Jews were killed. My case is that there is a text in Josephus (and the HE) that explicitly says Pilate gave orders that resulted in many Jews being killed.
Ken: I think it Is more likely that Ps-H collapsed the two Pilate episodes into one.

Ben: I disagree; pseudo-Hegesippus' reading of Eusebius would have to be based on a mistaken reading; this is, of course, certainly possible, but his reading of Origen would be a perfectly plausible one on its own merits; it may, in fact, be exactly what Origen meant. (After reading this section through the first time, I had to refer back to Josephus to make sure there were no deaths mentioned in connection with this episode, since it really sounded to me like Origen thought there had been.) This is, at best (for your theory), a tie.
I am not by any means trying to demonstrate that you cannot make your theory work. I think you can. You have now added that Eusebius might have been influenced by this passage in Origen. I agree. My point, though, is not that it is implausible for someone to have interpreted Origen as you suggest, but that the actual agreements between Eusebius and Ps-H. suggest the latter’s dependence on the former.

I would add that, on your reading, I think Ps-H must know he is contradicting what Josephus said in the episode of the standards when he adds that Pilate forced many into death. Both of us are arguing for a mistaken or, I would say, deliberately tendentious reading.
Ben: Origen says that the first to go against custom and violate the temple was Pilate (as opposed to Gaius), who handed over Jesus. Does Origen make any explicit causal connection between Pilate’s violation of the temple and the subsequent misfortunes of the Jews?
He explicitly names Pilate's violation of the temple as the first example of a "drastic thing" that had not happened while the Jews were still hedged in as God's vineyard, still observing and being surrounded by what the prophets had spoken. This necessarily means that something changed during Pilate's tenure (or, to be logically complete, slightly before it; but this is not the option that Origen selects). What was it that changed? Origen offers the handing over of Jesus. Pilate's tenure is, then, the chronological beginning of "drastic" things. Pseudo-Hegesippus would not even be misreading Origen on this point; this is clearly what Origen means for us to understand.
Again, I think you evade the force of my argument about the agreement between what Eusebius and Ps-H explicitly state by saying what Origen explicitly stated something else, but another writer could have plausibly inferred from it. Are you claiming that a plausible inference carries the same evidentiary weight as something explicitly stated? If so, please clearly state it (and I will disagree with you).
Ken There is no explicit causal connection in Origen between Pilate’s violation of the temple and the Jews handing Jesus over to Pilate.

Ben: Why is he putting them in the same sentence, do you think? What is his point? Alternately, what causal connection in pseudo-Hegesippus between Pilate's violation of the temple and the Jews' actions toward Jesus are you seeing that is present in Eusebius but not in Origen?
(1) I do not know why Origen connected them. He evidently wanted his readers to know the Pilate who violated the temple was the same Pilate under whom Jesus was crucified. This could have been to emphasize how awful Pilate was (a man who would do that would do anything). It could be that he wanted to clarify that the violation of the temple and the crucifixion happened around the same time. It could be, as you seem to wish to interpret it, that these events led to the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem. It could be any, all, or none of thee reasons.

(2) I am not seeing *any* causal connection within Excidio 2.3 between Pilate’s violation of the temple and the Jews’ treatment of Jesus because the Jews’ treatment of Jesus is not mentioned there. What I am I *am* seeing is a connection between Ps-H saying Pilate’s violation of the temple was the beginning of the ruin of Jerusalem and the subsequent destruction of the Jewish people and Eusebius saying that the misfortunes of the whole nation began with the time of Pilate and the crimes against the savior.

I do not *need* to bring in Jesus to make the connection because Pilate’s violation of the temple and the subsequent misfortunes of the Jews in the Jewish War because the connection is already stated in Ps-H. and Eusebius.

I *think* the reason you want to make the connection between Pilate’s violation of the temple and Jesus crucifixion Origen is that there is no obvious connection between Pilate’s temple violation and the subsequent Jewish War and destruction of Jerusalem, but if you link Pilate’s violation of the temple and Jesus’ crucifixion under Pilate, then you can argue that Jesus crucifixion was the cause of the later destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, because that is implied by the New Testament.
Ken: Perhaps more importantly, I see a Origen drawing a connection between Pilate’s violation of the temple and Gaius’s, but I don’t see the link with the subsequent misfortunes of the Jews resulting in the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.

Ben: Origen has only to name the incident under Pilate as the first "drastic thing" (that is, the first such thing resulting from the Jews' ceasing to observe and be surrounded by what the prophets had spoken) and then to connect that incident to the Jews' handing over of Jesus to Pilate; and Origen makes both of these connections. The New Testament does the rest, explicitly connecting the Jews' treatment of Jesus to the fall of Jerusalem. (So, for that matter, does Origen himself in Against Celsus, but it is unnecessary to suppose that pseudo-Hegesippus knew Against Celsus when he obviously knew the NT.)
But you do not know what the series of events which started Pilate’s “drastic thing” actually was, or at least I don’t. It may mean others violated the temple by bringing images into it as Caius would later do and Origen says. It may be something else. Again, my point is that while Ps-H. could have interpreted Origen in such a way, he might have interpreted it another way, or he might have expressed it in a way that differs far more from Eusebius’ claim than it does.

Two other questions:

Do you see any other places in or on the text of Ps-H. that show the influence of Origen’s commentary on Matthew?

Out of curiosity, which passages of the New Testament do you see as *explicitly* connecting the fall of Jerusalem to the Jews’ treatment of Jesus. (I can think of several passages that imply it, and from which I would infer it, but I’m wondering where it’s stated *explicitly*). Luke 19.41-44 is the closest I can think of offhand, but that’s still not what I would call explicit.

Best,

Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6626
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:46 am

Ken Olson wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 5:51 am
Delayed reply to Ben; split two issues into separate posts.
Ken: I think your argument may be a tad overstated here. I do not need to hypothesize any clairvoyance on Eusebius’ part to suggest that he correctly perceived that, though Pilate is first mentioned as Gratus’ successor in 18.35, the material in 18.36-54 does not mention Pilate at all, and the account of Pilate's governorship of Judea begins at 18.55 with the words “Pilate the governor of Judea.”

Ben: Maybe not clairvoyance, but an overly developed interest in making sure not to interfere with the loose structure of Josephus' narrative. I do not find it very plausible that Eusebius would sacrifice his chronology, something he has staked an interest in, for Josephus' topical treatment of Pilate's governorship, something I am not aware he even mentions or alludes to.
I think this is still overstated. In the Demonstratio, Eusebius claims the Testimonium is to be found in the 18th book of Josephus Antiquities, “in his record of the times of Pilate.” You make it sound as though I’m claiming that Eusebius is concerned with the reconstructing Josephus’ intentions in arranging his narrative and following them at the expense of his own desires. I do not think I’ve said anything to suggest that.
All I am doing here is questioning the following argument:
I am hypothesizing that, if Eusebius inserted the Testimonium into the Antiquities, he looked at the text that he had in front of him and saw that 18.36-54 had nothing to do with Pilate and the account of Pilate’s governorship of Judea began at 18.55 so he inserted it after that at the earliest point after that where he thought it would fit.
I do not think that Eusebius, if he cared about the causal connection between Jesus' death and the Pilate incident, would have had any reason to hesitate to insert the Testimonium before the standards incident and after Gratus' departure (and Pilate's actual introduction). There would have been a soft landing spot for the Testimonium in that section, and it would have preserved the causal connection in a clear way. He could even have placed it right after the three "grab bag" episodes (the construction of Tiberias, the death of Phraates, and the death of Antiochus) but still before the standard incident. In that case, the Testimonium would have been flanked by one episode about Pilate and another not about Pilate, same as it is in our extant text. I am just not seeing any good reason for Eusebius to have placed the Testimonium after the standards incident, but a potentially good reason for him to have done the opposite; that is all.
Is this what you are trying to show -- that it is implausible that Eusebius would have chosen the location at 18.63-64 because, given what we know about Eusebius, other locations would have suited him much better? .... How confident are you about this? Do you think it is implausible that he would have placed it in its current location?
No, not that it is implausible, but rather that it is more plausible that Eusebius would have inserted the Testimonium before the standards incident. This is a sliding scale of plausibility, not a toggle switch. It is what makes me hesitate to assign the placement of the Testimonium to Eusebius (on the assumption that Eusebius is its author).

To put it another way, much of your argument for Eusebian authorship involves pointing out how nicely the Testimonium supports Eusebian themes and concerns. However, if the History of the Church preceded the Demonstration, then it turns out that the placement of the Testimonium does not support one of those themes and concerns; moreover, it actually kind of compromises them, when fulfilling them would have been a cinch. It would be negligent of me not to notice that and not to wonder about it.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6626
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:46 am

Ken Olson wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:08 am
First, Pseudo-Hegesippus is not “simply” rewriting Josephus from a Christian point of view. At one point, Excidio 3.2, he interrupts his narrative about the Jewish War to give an account of Nero’s persecution of Christians in Rome and the martyrdom’s of Peter and Paul during that persecution, before returning to the Jewish War. Please name all of his predecessors who wrote a brief (i.e., pericope length or so) account of the preaching and martyrdoms of Peter and Paul in Rome and placed it within a larger historical narrative of the Jewish War and/or other events going on elsewhere in the reign of Nero. (The only predecessor I can think of in writing a summary about the death of Peter and Paul in Rome in the Neronian persecution is Lactantius in the second chapter of On the Death of the Persecutors.
I do not want this to become an issue of mere semantics. How many additions or subtractions are allowed before "rewriting" becomes something else? My point is simply that what Eusebius did with Josephus and what pseudo-Hegesippus did with Josephus are two rather different things, compositionally speaking. Pseudo-Hegesippus follows the Wars virtually book by book before shoving the last three books of the Wars into his own last book. So, for example, you mention pseudo-Hegesippus' addition of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul under Nero; this addition comes early in book 3. Well, why is pseudo-Hegesippus talking about Nero at that point in the first place? Because the beginning of book 3 of the Wars is talking about Nero. Eusebius does nothing like this. I would say that pseudo-Hegesippus is rewriting Josephus, whereas Eusebius is using or citing Josephus as needed. If those terms do not work for you, then mentally replace them with terms that do; but there is a distinction.
Second, while you are certainly correct that rewriting Josephus from a Christian point of view is not the same things a writing a Christian history and using Josephus for part of it, I think degrees of similarity have to be considered here. What Christian writer used (quoted, paraphrased or rewrote passages from) Josephus the most before Pseudo-Hegesippus?
Almost certainly Eusebius.
Who was second and third and by what degree did the first exceed them?
Pseudo-Hegesippus uses Josephus to an unprecedented extent compared to anyone who came before him. Eusebius, the extent of whose use of Josephus pales in comparison, himself uses Josephus to an unprecedented extent compared, say, to Origen. The other authors using Josephus lag far behind even that.
Did any of them ever use passages from Josephus (quoted, paraphrased, or rewritten) to demonstrate the thesis that the misfortunes of the Jews were God’s punishment for their crimes against Christ and his disciples.
The only ones of which I am aware are, in chronological order: Origen, Eusebius, and pseudo-Hegesippus. (After that it becomes quite common, I think, because Jerome used Eusebius and lots of people used both Jerome and pseudo-Hegesippus.)
When I mentioned the argument from silence, I was referring to Ps-H referring to images of Caesar (as would be found on a Roman standard) rather than taking over Origen’s claim that Pilate had erected/dedicated/consecrated a statue of Caesar. Now this is an argument from silence, because it can’t be stated conclusively from this that Ps-H. did not know Origen just because he did not follow him in that particular place.
Okay, yes, that is something that pseudo-Hegesippus did not take over from Origen; or, rather, that is something for which he stuck to Josephus instead of modifying in light of Origen.
You argue that there are positive agreements with Origen not found in Josephus or Eusebius, or perhaps I should say better explained as coming from Origen....
Some I think are better explained as deriving from Origen; most are probably about equally explained either way.
I take Ps-H.’s resistaret and coegit ad mortem to be from the subsequent aqueduct story, where it is stated that “[they] did not acquiesce (οὐκ ἠγάπων) in the operations that this involved, and tens of thousands of men assembled and cried out against him” (Ant. 18.60 cf. HE 2.6.6) and then stating that “many Jews were smitten and perished from the blows” (Ant.18.62 cf. HE 2.6.7) [I have written cf. in these reference because Eusebius’ ‘quotations’ of Josephus differ considerably from the text of Ant.]. I think your case depends on arguing that it is unlikely that Pseudo-Hegesippus collapsed the two stories, not on Origen offering a closer parallel.
Okay, I agree that pseudo-Hegesippus could have derived those details from the aqueduct story. Origen does not offer a closer parallel. The advantage of these details having come from Origen is no more than that pseudo-Hegesippus would have been reading Origen correctly (or at least very plausibly), whereas deriving these details from either Josephus or Eusebius involves him misreading those authors (whether deliberately or accidentally).
Ps-H.’s primus, as you allow, may have come from the Antiquities “Pilate was the first to bring the images into Jerusalem,” but you miss that his non dubitaverit may easily be derived from “Pilate … took a bold step ( ἐφρόνησε ) in the subversion of Jewish practices.” While one might fault Feldman’s translation here, the meaning of the Greek is clear – Pilate violated Jewish custom intentionally, deliberately, or on purpose.
I at least provisionally agree that this is a possible source for the not hesitating in pseudo-Hegesippus. It looks like he could have gotten this detail from either source.
I find your argument about primus omnium being found together inconclusive for two reasons. First, I don’t really know that Ps-H. had a source for omnium at all, or that he had in mind more than Pilate and perhaps subsequent governors who also brought standards into Jerusalem or the temple. Second, if he did I think the HE 2.5.7-2.6 would provide, where Gaius committed many outrageous acts against the Jews.
Because primus is the adjective, not the adverb, it modifies Pilate, meaning that the genitive omnium logically refers to people, not to things or events (that is, it is masculine, not neuter). The impression it gives is that Pilate was one of many, not just one of two (Gaius being the other), to have done this, and this is exactly the same impression that Origen gives. Unless either Josephus or Eusebius somewhere gives the same impression, I do not see how this would not count as a legitimate, unmediated parallel between Origen and pseudo-Hegesippus, the latter of which could easily have gotten that impression from Origen.
Your ETA note helps my case more than it does yours. I take it when you say, ‘the notion of "daring" is even clearer just two sections later in pseudo-Hegesippus, where he asks, "What indeed did he not dare [auderet] who had put even Christ the Lord on the cross...?"’, you are suggesting that Ps-H’s auderet in Excidio 2.5 is from Origen’s ἐτόλμησε . If you’re not saying that, I can’t tell what relevance “the notion of daring” has to our conversation. But what does Pilate’s daring in relation to the crucifixion, found between the account of Pilate’s massacre of the Samaritans and the account of John the Baptist’s death (having nothing to do with Pilate) have to do with Pilate’s daring in relation to entering the temple?
The daring in that section is not directly about the crucifixion; strictly speaking, it is about everything except the crucifixion. "What indeed did he not dare who had put even Christ the Lord on the cross...?" Now, obviously, the crucifixion logically has to be something daring, too, and especially so, in order for the rhetorical question to make sense, but my point is that pseudo-Hegesippus points up Pilate's audacity in a way that looks like it could be reacting to Origen:

Origen: "Pilate dared to sully the temple."
Pseudo-Hegesippus: "Is there anything he did not dare to do?"

This is no smoking gun, obviously. My main reason for referring to this later case of daring was to shore up the possible connection to Origen should "not hesitating" seem to be too distant a connection.
But if we think Ps-H’s auderet is based on a Greek source with the word τολμάω in it, the closer parallel would again be HE 2.5, “Pilate, under whom the crime against the Saviour was perpetrated,” (crime … was perpetrated = τετόλμητο) where τολμάω is associated with Pilate and the crucifixion.
Good one. I was originally reading this part of Eusebius in light of what he says just a bit later about the Jews' "daring crimes against the savior" (that is, it is evident that for Eusebius the crimes were committed under Pilate but by the Jews), but I accept that pseudo-Hegesippus could easily have "misread" the first instance as applying to Pilate.
Your case seems to be that Origen explicitly says something from which Ps-H could have plausibly inferred that many Jews were killed. My case is that there is a text in Josephus (and the HE) that explicitly says Pilate gave orders that resulted in many Jews being killed.
Right, but under a different incident. My case also involves, in other words, that pseudo-Hegesippus would have obviously been reading Origen correctly but Josephus and/or Eusebius incorrectly. You use the term "infer" (both here and elsewhere) in a way that suggests to me that you think that pseudo-Hegesippus would have to have done a bit of work to extract this meaning from Origen; if so, I thoroughly disagree; the meaning is immediately obvious even upon a cursory reading.
I am not by any means trying to demonstrate that you cannot make your theory work. I think you can.
And I can say the same in return, especially given a couple of the potential parallels in Josephus and Eusebius you have most recently dug up.
My point, though, is not that it is implausible for someone to have interpreted Origen as you suggest, but that the actual agreements between Eusebius and Ps-H. suggest the latter’s dependence on the former.
To me the case looks more even than that between the two options, with Origen retaining an advantage in a couple of spots and Eusebius the advantage in perhaps one spot (see below).
I would add that, on your reading, I think Ps-H must know he is contradicting what Josephus said in the episode of the standards when he adds that Pilate forced many into death. Both of us are arguing for a mistaken or, I would say, deliberately tendentious reading.
Yes, that is true of both of our readings with respect to Josephus; pseudo-Hegesippus is ignoring his happy ending to the standards incident.

Where I think that Origen retains some advantage here is that, under the theory I am defending, pseudo-Hegesippus would actually have two contradictory texts before him, with Josephus ending the incident happily and Origen relating the incident in a way that directly implies the opposite. He could have just chosen (for his own obvious purposes) to believe Origen over pseudo-Hegesippus.
Ken: There is no explicit causal connection in Origen between Pilate’s violation of the temple and the Jews handing Jesus over to Pilate.

Ben: Why is he putting them in the same sentence, do you think? What is his point? Alternately, what causal connection in pseudo-Hegesippus between Pilate's violation of the temple and the Jews' actions toward Jesus are you seeing that is present in Eusebius but not in Origen?

(1) I do not know why Origen connected them. He evidently wanted his readers to know the Pilate who violated the temple was the same Pilate under whom Jesus was crucified. This could have been to emphasize how awful Pilate was (a man who would do that would do anything). It could be that he wanted to clarify that the violation of the temple and the crucifixion happened around the same time. It could be, as you seem to wish to interpret it, that these events led to the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem. It could be any, all, or none of thee reasons.

(2) I am not seeing *any* causal connection within Excidio 2.3 between Pilate’s violation of the temple and the Jews’ treatment of Jesus because the Jews’ treatment of Jesus is not mentioned there. What I am I *am* seeing is a connection between Ps-H saying Pilate’s violation of the temple was the beginning of the ruin of Jerusalem and the subsequent destruction of the Jewish people and Eusebius saying ....

I do not *need* to bring in Jesus to make the connection because Pilate’s violation of the temple and the subsequent misfortunes of the Jews in the Jewish War because the connection is already stated in Ps-H. and Eusebius.

I *think* the reason you want to make the connection between Pilate’s violation of the temple and Jesus crucifixion Origen is that there is no obvious connection between Pilate’s temple violation and the subsequent Jewish War and destruction of Jerusalem, but if you link Pilate’s violation of the temple and Jesus’ crucifixion under Pilate, then you can argue that Jesus ....
This is where things can start to get very tangled. Also, you left two of your sentences unfinished above (highlighted), and I am wanting to see what you are trying to say in both cases.

On the one hand, I think you may have a good point about pseudo-Hegesippus potentially having read Eusebius as connecting Pilate himself directly with the Jewish troubles; I mentioned that I had been reading Eusebius' statement in light of his more explicit blaming of the Jews a bit later, but I am totally on board with pseudo-Hegesippus being under no similar constraint. On the other hand, I think you are completely mistaken about how obvious Origen is in his connection of the crucifixion of Jesus to the beginning of the Jewish troubles.

But I want to think about this whole nexus of passage for a bit before responding further, and also get your finished sentences above, if possible.
Do you see any other places in or on the text of Ps-H. that show the influence of Origen’s commentary on Matthew?
Not yet, unless one wishes to replace the NT in my list of sources with other spots in Origen's commentary on Matthew.
Out of curiosity, which passages of the New Testament do you see as *explicitly* connecting the fall of Jerusalem to the Jews’ treatment of Jesus. (I can think of several passages that imply it, and from which I would infer it, but I’m wondering where it’s stated *explicitly*). Luke 19.41-44 is the closest I can think of offhand, but that’s still not what I would call explicit.
I do not think it is explicit in the NT in the way that you seem to understand that term. I would say that it is obvious from passages such as Luke 19.41-44, 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16, and Matthew 27.25; that is to say, such an understanding of those verses was common in Christian exegesis (including that of Origen). Usually Christ's death is seen in such exegesis as the most egregious example of the alleged Jewish tendency to murder prophets; once that concept is in place, then the parable of the wedding feast is also relevant. Oh, and of course there is the parable of the tenants.

I want to add here that, while I am defending pseudo-Hegesippus' use of Origen instead of Eusebius, I am not actually committed to that position, at least not yet. I am committed to it for the sake of the discussion, as a favor to you (since it is always best to consider an alternate theory at its best rather than at its worst), but I am not sure where I will land on the matter once the dust has settled. I always require a recuperation period after a debate so as to be able to see things more clearly, especially in a case like this, given the manner in which this whole Origenic connection came up in the first place: Andrew suggested this passage originally merely as a source for the images making it all the way into the temple as opposed to merely into Jerusalem; but, as I began to read the entire passage, I noticed parallel after parallel that I had not expected ("unto death" being the first of these that struck my eye), and soon there were quite a few. The very unexpectedness of this kind of result can have an effect on one's perception of its force, as can the feeling that one has truly discovered something. (I always feel more attached, especially at first, to those connections which I have discovered for myself than to those which were pointed out to me by some scholar.) So it is entirely possible that my mind is overestimating the significance of these parallels; it is also entirely possible that they are real and that I am correct about their force and implications; but I am not in the ideal spot to be able to determine which possibility is more likely at the present moment, nor will I be until I have had time to let things settle, if that makes sense. Just FYI.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Ken Olson
Posts: 202
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ken Olson » Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:06 am

Incomplete sentences in my previous post now completed.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6626
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:17 am

Ken Olson wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:06 am
Incomplete sentences in my previous post now completed.
Thanks.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6626
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:41 pm

Just laying these out for convenience:


JOSEPHUS

Josephus, Wars 2.9.2-4 §169-177:

169 Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into Jerusalem. 170 This excited a very among great tumult among the Jews when it was day; for those that were near them were astonished at the sight of them, as indications that their laws were trodden under foot; for those laws do not permit any sort of image to be brought into the city. Nay, besides the indignation which the citizens had themselves at this procedure, a vast number of people came running out of the country. 171 These came zealously to Pilate to Caesarea, and besought him to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem, and to preserve them their ancient laws inviolable; but upon Pilate's denial of their request, they fell 1 down prostrate upon the ground, and continued immovable in that posture for five days and as many nights. / 169 Πεμφθεὶς δὲ εἰς Ἰουδαίαν ἐπίτροπος ὑπὸ Τιβερίου Πιλᾶτος νύκτωρ κεκαλυμμένας εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα εἰσκομίζει τὰς Καίσαρος εἰκόνας, αἳ σημαῖαι καλοῦνται. 170 τοῦτο μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν μεγίστην ταραχὴν ἤγειρεν Ἰουδαίοις: οἵ τε γὰρ ἐγγὺς πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν ἐξεπλάγησαν ὡς πεπατημένων αὐτοῖς τῶν νόμων, οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀξιοῦσιν ἐν τῇ πόλει δείκηλον τίθεσθαι, καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀγανάκτησιν τῶν κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ἄθρους ὁ ἐκ τῆς χώρας λαὸς συνέρρευσεν. 171 ὁρμήσαντες δὲ πρὸς Πιλᾶτον εἰς Καισάρειαν ἱκέτευον ἐξενεγκεῖν ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων τὰς σημαίας καὶ τηρεῖν αὐτοῖς τὰ πάτρια. Πιλάτου δὲ ἀρνουμένου περὶ τὴν οἰκίαν πρηνεῖς καταπεσόντες ἐπὶ πέντε ἡμέρας καὶ νύκτας ἴσας ἀκίνητοι διεκαρτέρουν.

172 On the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal, in the open market-place, and called to him the multitude, as desirous to give them an answer; and then gave a signal to the soldiers, that they should all by agreement at once encompass the Jews with their weapons; 173 so the band of soldiers stood round about the Jews in three ranks. The Jews were under the utmost consternation at that unexpected sight. Pilate also said to them that they should be cut in pieces, unless they would admit of Caesar's images, and gave intimation to the soldiers to draw their naked swords. 174 Hereupon the Jews, as it were at one signal, fell down in vast numbers together, and exposed their necks bare, and cried out that they were sooner ready to be slain, than that their law should be transgressed. Hereupon Pilate was greatly surprised at their prodigious superstition, and gave order that the ensigns should be presently carried out of Jerusalem. / 172 Τῇ δ᾽ ἑξῆς ὁ Πιλᾶτος καθίσας ἐπὶ βήματος ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ σταδίῳ καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸ πλῆθος ὡς ἀποκρίνασθαι δῆθεν αὐτοῖς θέλων, δίδωσιν τοῖς στρατιώταις σημεῖον ἐκ συντάγματος κυκλώσασθαι τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις. 173 περιστάσης δὲ τριστιχεὶ τῆς φάλαγγος Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν ἀχανεῖς ἦσαν πρὸς τὸ ἀδόκητον τῆς ὄψεως, Πιλᾶτος δὲ κατακόψειν εἰπὼν αὐτούς, εἰ μὴ προσδέξαιντο τὰς Καίσαρος εἰκόνας, γυμνοῦν τὰ ξίφη τοῖς στρατιώταις ἔνευσεν. 174 οἱ δὲ Ἰουδαῖοι καθάπερ ἐκ συνθήματος ἀθρόοι καταπεσόντες καὶ τοὺς αὐχένας παρακλίναντες ἑτοίμους ἀναιρεῖν σφᾶς ἐβόων μᾶλλον ἢ τὸν νόμον παραβῆναι. ὑπερθαυμάσας δὲ ὁ Πιλᾶτος τὸ τῆς δεισιδαιμονίας ἄκρατον ἐκκομίσαι μὲν αὐτίκα τὰς σημαίας Ἱεροσολύμων κελεύει.

175 After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it. 176 Now when he was apprised beforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal. 177 Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace. / 175 Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ταραχὴν ἑτέραν ἐκίνει τὸν ἱερὸν θησαυρόν, καλεῖται δὲ κορβωνᾶς, εἰς καταγωγὴν ὑδάτων ἐξαναλίσκων: κατῆγεν δὲ ἀπὸ τετρακοσίων σταδίων. πρὸς τοῦτο τοῦ πλήθους ἀγανάκτησις ἦν, καὶ τοῦ Πιλάτου παρόντος εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα περιστάντες τὸ βῆμα κατεβόων. 176 ὁ δέ, προῄδει γὰρ αὐτῶν τὴν ταραχήν, τῷ πλήθει τοὺς στρατιώτας ἐνόπλους ἐσθῆσιν ἰδιωτικαῖς κεκαλυμμένους ἐγκαταμίξας καὶ ξίφει μὲν χρήσασθαι κωλύσας, ξύλοις δὲ παίειν τοὺς κεκραγότας ἐγκελευσάμενος σύνθημα δίδωσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ βήματος. 177 τυπτόμενοι δὲ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι πολλοὶ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν πληγῶν, πολλοὶ δὲ ὑπὸ σφῶν αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ φυγῇ καταπατηθέντες ἀπώλοντο. πρὸς δὲ τὴν συμφορὰν τῶν ἀνῃρημένων καταπλαγὲν τὸ πλῆθος ἐσιώπησεν.

Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.1-2 §55-62:

55 But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Caesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; 56 on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; 57 but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Caesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; 58 and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. 59 But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Caesarea. / 55 Πιλᾶτος δὲ ὁ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἡγεμὼν στρατιὰν ἐκ Καισαρείας ἀγαγὼν καὶ μεθιδρύσας χειμαδιοῦσαν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐπὶ καταλύσει τῶν νομίμων τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν ἐφρόνησε, προτομὰς Καίσαρος, αἳ ταῖς σημαίαις προσῆσαν, εἰσαγόμενος εἰς τὴν πόλιν, εἰκόνων ποίησιν ἀπαγορεύοντος ἡμῖν τοῦ νόμου. 56 καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οἱ πρότερον ἡγεμόνες ταῖς μὴ μετὰ τοιῶνδε κόσμων σημαίαις ἐποιοῦντο εἴσοδον τῇ πόλει. πρῶτος δὲ Πιλᾶτος ἀγνοίᾳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων διὰ τὸ νύκτωρ γενέσθαι τὴν εἴσοδον ἱδρύεται τὰς εἰκόνας φέρων εἰς τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα. 57 οἱ δ᾽ ἐπεὶ ἔγνωσαν κατὰ πληθὺν παρῆσαν εἰς Καισάρειαν ἱκετείαν ποιούμενοι ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἡμέρας ἐπὶ μεταθέσει τῶν εἰκόνων. καὶ μὴ συγχωροῦντος διὰ τὸ εἰς ὕβριν Καίσαρι φέρειν, ἐπείπερ οὐκ ἐξανεχώρουν λιπαρεῖν κατὰ ἕκτην ἡμέραν ἐν ὅπλοις ἀφανῶς ἐπικαθίσας τὸ στρατιωτικὸν αὐτὸς ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα ἧκεν. τὸ δ᾽ ἐν τῷ σταδίῳ κατεσκεύαστο, ὅπερ ἀπέκρυπτε τὸν ἐφεδρεύοντα στρατόν. 58 πάλιν δὲ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἱκετείᾳ χρωμένων ἀπὸ συνθήματος περιστήσας τοὺς στρατιώτας ἠπείλει θάνατον ἐπιθήσειν ζημίαν ἐκ τοῦ ὀξέος, εἰ μὴ παυσάμενοι θορυβεῖν ἐπὶ τὰ οἰκεῖα ἀπίοιεν. 59 οἱ δὲ πρηνεῖς ῥίψαντες ἑαυτοὺς καὶ γυμνοῦντες τὰς σφαγὰς ἡδονῇ δέξασθαι τὸν θάνατον ἔλεγον ἢ τολμήσειν τὴν σοφίαν παραβήσεσθαι τῶν νόμων. καὶ Πιλᾶτος θαυμάσας τὸ ἐχυρὸν αὐτῶν ἐπὶ φυλακῇ τῶν νόμων παραχρῆμα τὰς εἰκόνας ἐκ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ἐπανεκόμισεν εἰς Καισάρειαν.

60 But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. 61 So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition. / 60 Ὑδάτων δὲ ἐπαγωγὴν εἰς τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα ἔπραξεν δαπάνῃ τῶν ἱερῶν χρημάτων ἐκλαβὼν τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ ῥεύματος ὅσον ἀπὸ σταδίων διακοσίων, οἱ δ᾽ οὐκ ἠγάπων τοῖς ἀμφὶ τὸ ὕδωρ δρωμένοις πολλαί τε μυριάδες ἀνθρώπων συνελθόντες κατεβόων αὐτοῦ παύσασθαι τοῦ ἐπὶ τοιούτοις προθυμουμένου, τινὲς δὲ καὶ λοιδορίᾳ χρώμενοι ὕβριζον εἰς τὸν ἄνδρα, οἷα δὴ φιλεῖ πράσσειν ὅμιλος. 61 ὁ δὲ στολῇ τῇ ἐκείνων πολὺ πλῆθος στρατιωτῶν ἀμπεχόμενον, οἳ ἐφέροντο σκυτάλας ὑπὸ ταῖς στολαῖς, διαπέμψας εἰς ὃ περιέλθοιεν αὐτούς, αὐτὸς ἐκέλευσεν ἀναχωρεῖν. τῶν δὲ ὡρμηκότων εἰς τὸ λοιδορεῖν ἀποδίδωσι τοῖς στρατιώταις ὃ προσυνέκειτο σημεῖον. 62 οἱ δὲ καὶ πολὺ μειζόνως ἤπερ ἐπέταξεν Πιλᾶτος ἐχρῶντο πληγαῖς τούς τε θορυβοῦντας ἐν ἴσῳ καὶ μὴ κολάζοντες οἱ δ᾽ εἰσεφέροντο μαλακὸν οὐδέν, ὥστε ἄοπλοι ληφθέντες ὑπ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἐκ παρασκευῆς ἐπιφερομένων πολλοὶ μὲν αὐτῶν ταύτῃ καὶ ἀπέθνησκον, οἱ δὲ καὶ τραυματίαι ἀνεχώρησαν. καὶ οὕτω παύεται ἡ στάσις.

ORIGEN

Origen, Commentary on Matthew 17.25a: 25a "At that time the Pharisees went and took counsel against him, so as to entrap him in a saying" (= Matthew 22.15), and the rest, up until, "And leaving him they went away" (= Matthew 22.22b). The purpose of the present passage, in the literal sense, appears to me to be as follows: the Jews, inasmuch as they held as their own the teaching according to the law of Moses and a polity estranged from the behavior of the gentiles, and held as dogma the saying, "Strive concerning the truth unto death, and the Lord shall war on your behalf" (= Wisdom of Sirach 4.28), resisted the gentiles who had conquered them so as not to transgress the law of God. And they have often risked great danger of being destroyed under the Romans who wished to bring a statue of Caesar into the temple of God, resisting and hindering those who had become stronger than them because the Jews had sinned. And we discovered writings from among the histories concerning the time of Tiberius Caesar, to the effect that the people had indeed risked danger under Pontius Pilate, when Pilate on the one hand was constrained to set up a statue of Caesar in the temple, and they also on the other hand hindered him beyond their power. And it has been written down that the same thing happened also in the times of Gaius Caesar. And we suppose that, as long as the people took care and had been surrounded by the hedge spoken of by the prophets, "the vineyard of the Lord, the house of Israel, and his beloved new planting, a man of Judah," nothing so drastic happened. And the remarkable thing is that the first who dared to sully the temple of God was Pilate himself, to whom they delivered Jesus. / 25a «Τότε πορευθέντες οἱ Φαρισαῖοι συμβούλιον ἔλαβον κατ' αὐτοῦ ὅπως αὐτὸν παγιδεύσωσιν ἐν λόγῳ,» καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἕως τοῦ «καὶ ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἀπῆλθον.» Τὸ βούλημα τῆς ἐκκειμένης λέξεως κατὰ τὸ ῥητὸν τοιοῦτον εἶναί μοι φαίνεται· Ἰουδαῖοι, ἅτε ἰδίαν ἔχοντες τὴν κατὰ τὸν Μωσέως νόμον διδασκαλίαν καὶ πολιτείαν ἀπεξενωμένην τῆς τῶν ἐθνῶν ἀγωγῆς, καὶ δόγμα ἔχοντες τὸ λέγον· «ἕως θανάτου ἀγώνισαι περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ κύριος πολεμήσει περὶ σοῦ,» ἀνθίσταντο τοῖς κρατοῦσιν αὐτῶν ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ παραβῆναι τὸν νόμον τοῦ θεοῦ. καὶ πολλάκις γε ἄρδην ἀπολέσθαι κεκινδυνεύκασιν ἐπὶ Ῥωμαίων βουλομένων ἀνδριάντα Καίσαρος εἰσαγαγεῖν εἰς τὸν νεὼν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀνθιστάμενοι καὶ κωλύοντες τοὺς ἰσχυροτέρους αὐτῶν γενομένους ἐκ τοῦ ἡμαρτηκέναι Ἰουδαίους. εὕρομεν δὲ ἐκ τῶν κατὰ τὸν χρόνον Τιβερίου Καίσαρος ἱστοριῶν γραφάς, ὡς ἄρα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου ἐκινδύνευσεν ὁ λαός, τοῦ μὲν Πιλάτου βιαζομένου ἀνδριάντα Καίσαρος ἀναθεῖναι ἐν τῷ ναῷ τῶν δὲ καὶ παρὰ δύναμιν κωλυόντων· τὸ δ' ὅμοιον ἀναγέγραπται γεγονέναι καὶ κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους Γαΐου Καίσαρος. καὶ στοχαζόμεθα ὅτι, ὅσον μὲν ἐπεσκοπεῖτο ὁ λαὸς καὶ τὸν λεγόμενον κατὰ τοὺς προφήτας φραγμὸν περιτετείχιστο, «ὁ ἀμπελὼν τοῦ κυρίου, οἶκος Ἰσραήλ, καὶ τὸ ἠγαπημένον νεόφυτον αὐτοῦ ἄνθρωπος Ἰούδα,» οὐδὲν τηλικοῦτον ἐγένετο. τὸ παραδοξότατον δέ· αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἐτόλμησε μιᾶναι τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ Πιλᾶτος, ᾧ παρέδωκαν τὸν Ἰησοῦν. / [Vetus Interpretatio:] 25a «In illo tempore abierunt Phrarisaei et consilium acceperunt ut eum caperent in sermone. et mittunt discipulos suos cum Herodianis dicentes: Magister, scimus quia verax es et viam Dei in veritate doces, et non est tibi cura de aliquo, nec enim respicis personas hominum,» et cetera. voluntas loci praesentis secundum textum talis mihi videtur: Iudaei propriani habentes conversationeni ex iege extraneam ab omni conversatione gentium, et habentes praeceptum quod ait: «Usque ad mortem certa pro veritate, et Dominus pugnabit pro te,» ideo contradicebant gentibus dominantibus sibi, ut non transgrederemtur legeni Dei. et frequenter radicitus interire periclitati sunt sub Romanis volentibus statuam Caesaris introducere in templum dei, resistentes et prohibentes fortiores super se factos propter peccata. invenimus autem in historia ludaica, quod in tempore Tiberii Caesaris sub Pontio Pilato periclitatus est populus, Pilato quidem cogente, ut susciperent statuam Caesaris in templum, ludaeis autem et supra vires suas resistentibus; similiter autem scriptum est factum et in tempore Cai Caesaris. aestimamus, ergo, quoniam quamdiu quidem speculabatur populum illum Deus, circumdatus fuerat saepe dominicae tuitionis quasi «vinea Domini Sabaoth,» nihil huiusmodi contingebat eis. in primis autem ipse Pilatus, cui tradiderant Christum, ausus est populum inquinare.

EUSEBIUS

Eusebius, History of the Church 2.4.1: 1 Tiberius died, after having reigned about twenty-two years, and Caius succeeded him in the empire. He immediately gave the government of the Jews to Agrippa, making him king over the tetrarchies of Philip and of Lysanias; in addition to which he bestowed upon him, not long afterward, the tetrarchy of Herod, having punished Herod (the one under whom the Savior suffered) and his wife Herodias with perpetual exile on account of numerous crimes. Josephus is a witness to these facts. / 1 Τιβέριος μὲν οὖν ἀμφὶ τὰ δύο καὶ εἴκοσι βασιλεύσας ἔτη τελευτᾷ, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον Γάϊος τὴν ἡγεμονίαν παραλαβών, αὐτίκα τῆς Ἰουδαίων ἀρχῆς Ἀγρίππᾳ τὸ διάδημα περιτίθησιν, βασιλέα καταστήσας αὐτὸν τῆς τε Φιλίππου καὶ τῆς Λυσανίου τετραρχίας, πρὸς αἷς μετ´ οὐ πολὺν αὐτῷ χρόνον καὶ τὴν Ἡρῴδου τετραρχίαν παραδίδωσιν, ἀϊδίῳ φυγῇ τὸν Ἡρῴδην (οὗτος δ´ ἦν ὁ κατὰ τὸ πάθος τοῦ σωτῆρος) σὺν καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ Ἡρῳδιάδι πλείστων ἕνεκα ζημιώσας αἰτιῶν. Μάρτυς Ἰώσηπος καὶ τούτων.

Eusebius, History of the Church 2.5.7-2.6.8:

5.7 And in the first place he relates that at Rome in the reign of Tiberius, Sejanus, who at that time enjoyed great influence with the emperor, made every effort to destroy the Jewish nation utterly; and that in Judea, Pilate, under whom the crimes against the Savior were committed, attempted something contrary to the Jewish law in respect to the temple, which was at that time still standing in Jerusalem, and excited them to the greatest tumults. / 5.7 Πρῶτον δὴ οὖν κατὰ Τιβέριον ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς Ῥωμαίων πόλεως ἱστορεῖ Σηιανόν, τῶν τότε παρὰ βασιλεῖ πολλὰ δυνάμενον, ἄρδην τὸ πᾶν ἔθνος ἀπολέσθαι σπουδὴν εἰσαγηοχέναι, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς Ἰου δαίας Πιλᾶτον, καθ´ ὃν τὰ περὶ τὸν σωτῆρα τετόλμητο, περὶ τὸ ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἔτι τότε συνεστὸς ἱερὸν ἐπιχειρήσαντά τι παρὰ τὸ Ἰουδαίοις ἐξόν, τὰ μέγιστα αὐτοὺς ἀναταράξαι.

6.1 After the death of Tiberius, Caius received the empire, and, besides innumerable other acts of tyranny against many people, he greatly afflicted especially the whole nation of the Jews. These things we may learn briefly from the words of Philo, who writes as follows: 2 "So great was the caprice of Caius in his conduct toward all, and especially toward the nation of the Jews. The latter he so bitterly hated that he appropriated to himself their places of worship in the other cities, and beginning with Alexandria he filled them with images and statues of himself (for in permitting others to erect them he really erected them himself). The temple in the holy city, which had hitherto been left untouched, and had been regarded as an inviolable asylum, he altered and transformed into a temple of his own, that it might be called the temple of the visible Jupiter, the younger Caius." / 6.1 Ὅσα Ἰουδαίοις συνερρύη κακὰ μετὰ τὴν κατὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τόλμαν. <1> Μετὰ δὲ τὴν Τιβερίου τελευτὴν Γάϊον τὴν ἀρχὴν παρειληφότα, πολλὰ μὲν εἰς πολλοὺς καὶ ἄλλα ἐνυβρίσαι, πάντων δὲ μάλιστα τὸ πᾶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος οὐ σμικρὰ καταβλάψαι· ἃ καὶ ἐν βραχεῖ πάρεστιν διὰ τῶν αὐτοῦ καταμαθεῖν φωνῶν, ἐν αἷς κατὰ λέξιν ταῦτα γράφει· 2 «Τοσαύτη μὲν οὖν τις ἡ τοῦ Γαΐου περὶ τὸ ἦθος ἦν ἀνωμαλία πρὸς ἅπαντας, διαφερόντως δὲ πρὸς τὸ Ἰουδαίων γένος, ᾧ χαλεπῶς ἀπεχθανόμενος τὰς μὲν ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσιν προ σευχάς, ἀπὸ τῶν κατ´ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἀρξάμενος, σφετερίζεται, καταπλήσας εἰκόνων καὶ ἀνδριάντων τῆς ἰδίας μορφῆς, (ὁ γὰρ ἑτέρων ἀνατιθέντων ἐφιείς, αὐτὸς ἱδρύετο δυνάμει), τὸν δ´ ἐν τῇ ἱεροπόλει νεών, ὃς λοιπὸς ἦν ἄψαυστος, ἀσυλίας ἠξιωμένος τῆς πάσης, μεθηρμόζετο καὶ μετεσχημάτιζεν εἰς οἰκεῖον ἱερόν, ἵνα Διὸς Ἐπιφανοῦς Νέου χρηματίζῃ Γαΐου.»

3 Innumerable other terrible and almost indescribable calamities which came upon the Jews in Alexandria during the reign of the same emperor, are recorded by the same author in a second work, to which he gave the title, On the Virtues. With him agrees also Josephus, who likewise indicates that the misfortunes of the whole nation began with the time of Pilate, and with their daring crimes against the Saviour. / 3 Μυρία μὲν οὖν ἄλλα δεινὰ καὶ πέρα πάσης διηγήσεως ὁ αὐτὸς κατὰ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν συμβεβηκότα Ἰουδαίοις ἐπὶ τοῦ δηλου μένου ἐν δευτέρῳ συγγράμματι ὧν ἐπέγραψεν «Περὶ ἀρετῶν» ἱστορεῖ· συνᾴδει δ´ αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ Ἰώσηπος, ὁμοίως ἀπὸ τῶν Πιλάτου χρόνων καὶ τῶν κατὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος τετολμημένων τὰς κατὰ παντὸς τοῦ ἔθνους ἐνάρξασθαι σημαίνων συμφοράς.

4 Hear what he says in the second book of his Jewish War, where he writes as follows: "Pilate being sent to Judea as procurator by Tiberius, secretly carried veiled images of the emperor, called ensigns, to Jerusalem by night. The following day this caused the greatest disturbance among the Jews. For those who were near were confounded at the sight, beholding their laws, as it were, trampled under foot. For they allow no image to be set up in their city." / 4 Ἄκουε δ´ οὖν οἷα καὶ οὗτος ἐν δευτέρῳ τοῦ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου αὐταῖς συλλαβαῖς δηλοῖ λέγων· «Πεμφθεὶς δὲ εἰς Ἰουδαίαν ἐπίτροπος ὑπὸ Τιβερίου Πιλᾶτος νύκτωρ κεκαλυμμένας εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα παρεισκομίζει τὰς Καίσαρος εἰκόνας· σημαῖαι καλοῦνται. Τοῦτο μεθ´ ἡμέραν μεγίστην ταραχὴν ἤγειρεν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις. Οἵ τε γὰρ ἐγγὺς πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν ἐξεπλάγησαν, ὡς πεπατημένων αὐτοῖς τῶν νόμων· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀξιοῦσιν ἐν τῇ πόλει δείκηλον τίθεσθαι.»

5 Comparing these things with the writings of the evangelists, you will see that it was not long before there came upon them the penalty for the exclamation which they had uttered under the same Pilate, when they cried out that they had no other king than Caesar. / 5 Ταῦτα δὲ συγκρίνας τῇ τῶν εὐαγγελίων γραφῇ, εἴσῃ ὡς οὐκ εἰς μακρὸν αὐτοὺς μετῆλθεν ἣν ἔρρηξαν ἐπ´ αὐτοῦ Πιλάτου φωνήν, δι´ ἧς οὐκ ἄλλον ἢ μόνον ἔχειν ἐπεβόων Καίσαρα βασιλέα.

6 The same writer further records that after this another calamity overtook them. He writes as follows: "After this he stirred up another tumult by making use of the holy treasure, which is called Corban, in the construction of an aqueduct three hundred stadia in length. 7 The multitude were greatly displeased at it, and when Pilate was in Jerusalem they surrounded his tribunal and gave utterance to loud complaints. But he, anticipating the tumult, had distributed through the crowd armed soldiers disguised in citizen's clothing, forbidding them to use the sword, but commanding them to strike with clubs those who should make an outcry. To them he now gave the preconcerted signal from the tribunal. And the Jews being beaten, many of them perished in consequence of the blows, while many others were trampled under foot by their own countrymen in their flight, and thus lost their lives. But the multitude, overawed by the fate of those who were slain, held their peace." / 6 Εἶτα δὲ καὶ ἄλλην ἑξῆς ὁ αὐτὸς συγγραφεὺς ἱστορεῖ μετελθεῖν αὐτοὺς συμφορὰν ἐν τούτοις· «Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ταραχὴν ἑτέραν ἐκίνει, τὸν ἱερὸν θησαυρόν, καλεῖται δὲ κορβανᾶς, εἰς καταγωγὴν ὑδάτων ἐξαναλίσκων· κατῄει δὲ ἀπὸ τριακοσίων σταδίων. Πρὸς τοῦτο τοῦ πλήθους ἀγανάκτησις ἦν, <7> καὶ τοῦ Πιλάτου παρόντος εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, περιστάντες ἅμα κατεβόων. Ὁ δὲ προῄδει γὰρ αὐτῶν τὴν ταραχὴν καὶ τῷ πλήθει τοὺς στρατιώτας ἐνόπλους, ἐσθήσεσιν ἰδιωτικαῖς κεκαλυμμένους, ἐγκαταμίξας καὶ ξίφει μὲν χρήσασθαι κωλύσας, ξύλοις δὲ παίειν τοὺς κεκραγότας ἐγκελευσάμενος, σύνθημα δίδωσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ βήματος. Τυπτόμενοι δὲ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι πολλοὶ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν πληγῶν, πολλοὶ δὲ ὑπὸ σφῶν αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ φυγῇ καταπατηθέντες ἀπώλοντο, πρὸς δὲ τὴν συμφορὰν τῶν ἀνῃρημένων καταπλαγὲν τὸ πλῆθος ἐσιώπησεν.»

8 In addition to these the same author records many other tumults which were stirred up in Jerusalem itself, and shows that from that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other in quick succession, and never ceased in the city and in all Judea until finally the siege of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit against Christ. / 8 Ἐπὶ τούτοις μυρίας ἄλλας ἐν αὐτοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις κεκινῆσθαι νεωτεροποιίας ὁ αὐτὸς ἐμφαίνει, παριστὰς ὡς οὐδαμῶς ἐξ ἐκείνου διέλιπον τήν τε πόλιν καὶ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν ἅπασαν στάσεις καὶ πόλεμοι καὶ κακῶν ἐπάλληλοι μηχαναί, εἰς ὅτε τὸ πανύστατον ἡ κατὰ Οὐεσπασιανὸν αὐτοὺς μετῆλθεν πολιορκία. Ἰουδαίους μὲν οὖν ὧν κατὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τετολμήκασιν, ταύτῃ πῃ τὰ ἐκ τῆς θείας μετῄει δίκης.

Eusebius, Demonstration 6.18: 18 But who would not be surprised at the fulfillment of a prophecy which revealed that the Jewish people would undergo these sufferings in the days of the Lord? For as soon as Jesus our Lord and Savior had come and the Jews had outraged Him, everything that had been predicted was fulfilled against them without exception 500 years after the prediction: from the time of Pontius Pilate to the sieges under Nero, Titus and Vespasian they were never free from all kinds of successive calamities, as you may gather from the history of Flavius Josephus. It is probable that half the city at that time perished in the siege, as the prophecy says. And not long after, in the reign of Hadrian, there was another Jewish revolution, and the remaining half of the city was again besieged and driven out, so that from that day to this the whole place has not been trodden by them.

Eusebius, Demonstration 8.2: 2 And the same writer says elsewhere: "Pilate the Governor" (meaning the Pilate of our Savior's time) "brought the images of Caesar into the Temple by night, which was unlawful, and caused a great outburst of tumult and disorder among the Jews." 11 Which Philo confirms, saying: "Pilate laid up in the Temple by night the imperial emblems, and from that time the Jews were involved in rebellion and mutual troubles." And from that time a succession of all kinds of troubles afflicted the whole nation and their city until the last war against them, and the final siege, in which destruction rushed on them like a flood with all kinds of misery of famine, plague and sword, and all who had conspired against the Savior in their youth were cut off; then, too, the abomination of desolation stood in the Temple, and it has remained there even till today, while they have daily reached deeper depths of desolation.

PSEUDO-HEGESIPPUS

Pseudo-Hegesippus, On the Downfall of Jerusalem 2.3.3: 3 And because it has been proposed by us to reveal the causes, by which the people of the Jews defected from the Roman empire and hastened destruction for themselves, the event indicates that Pilatus the governor of the province gave the beginning of its ruin, seeing that the first of all he did hesitate to bring into the Jerusalem temples the images of Caesar. When the people disturbed by this resisted and he decreed the images had to be received. he forced very many into death. / 3 Et quia propositum nobis est aperire causas, quibus populus Iudaeorum a Romano imperio desciuerit sibique exitium accelerauerit, Pilatum prouinciae praesidem initium ruinae dedisse res indicat, quandoquidem Caesaris imagines Hierosolymitanis aedibus inferre primus omnium non dubitauerit. Quo motus populus cum resisteret atque ille recipiendas censeret imagines, plurimos in mortem coegit.

Pseudo-Hegesippus, On the Downfall of Jerusalem 3.5.2: 2 What indeed did he not dare, who had put even Christ the lord on the cross, coming for the salvation of the human race, pouring forth upon men with many and divine works the grace of his mercy and teaching nothing other, unless that he should make peoples obedient first to god, and then to emperors? A raving man who was the servant of the madness of sacrilege, and who killed the author of salvation. And so through him the the state of the Jews as destroyed, through him there was ruin for the nation and a hastened destruction for the temple. For if Herodes, who handed over Johannes to be killed, paid the price for his treachery and cruelty (by being) thrown out from the royal power and given into exile, by how much more headlong fury is the action to be understood given (against) him who killed Christ? / 2 Quid enim non auderet, qui etiam Christum dominum ad salutem humani generis aduenientem, multis et diuinis operibus profundentem in homines misericordiae suae gratiam nihilque aliud docentem, nisi quod primum deo, deinde imperatoribus faceret populos oboedientes, cruci suffixerit? Demens qui minister esset sacrilegi furoris et interficeret auctorem salutis. Ex illo itaque Iudaeorum res perditae, ex illo exitium genti temploque maturatum excidium. Nam si Herodes, qui Iohannem neci tradidit, perfidiae et crudelitatis suae pretium luit deiectus regno atque exilio datus, quanto magis praecipitibus furiis actum intellegi datur eum qui Christum occiderit?

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6626
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:25 am

I do not know why Origen connected them. He evidently wanted his readers to know the Pilate who violated the temple was the same Pilate under whom Jesus was crucified. (A) This could have been to emphasize how awful Pilate was (a man who would do that would do anything). (B) It could be that he wanted to clarify that the violation of the temple and the crucifixion happened around the same time. (C) It could be, as you seem to wish to interpret it, that these events led to the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem. It could be any, all, or none of thee reasons.
I have lettered the three hypotheses above. Only one hypothesis explains what had changed under Pilate. Origen supposes that nothing as drastic as the violation of the temple under Pilate and Gaius had happened while the Jews were still careful and being protected. He specifies that Pilate was the first under whom such a thing had happened. This raises the obvious question: what had changed in connection with Pilate that had removed the hedge of protection from the Jewish nation? Unless the crucifixion of Jesus is the thing that had happened which removed the hedge of protection, Origen leaves this question unanswered. I am going with the more likely option: Origen is answering this question when he notes the "remarkable" coincidence that Pilate is the one under whom Jesus had been executed.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Ken Olson
Posts: 202
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ken Olson » Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:13 pm

I started a long reply to Ben's last long post a while back, but I realized I was mostly just repeating points I'd already made (though possibly worded better). That gets dreary after a while. So I'm going to put out a new bit of data (excerpted from the long reply) for Pseudo-Hegesippus's knowledge of Eusebius which is, admittedly not conclusive by itself but may add weight to the argument.
4. But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable — all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets [Daniel 9:27] stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire — all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus (Eusebius HE 3.5.4)
I’ve included that last bit because of Eusebius’ claim, not only that the prophecy from Daniel 9.27 referred to the destruction of the temple by fire, but that you can find this in Josephus. Now, of course Josephus describes the destruction of the temple by fire in his work, and a Christian interpreter like Eusebius might well understand this to be a description of the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy, but Josephus does not explicitly connect the destruction of the temple by fire to Daniel’s prophecy about the abomination of desolation, as one might well understand Eusebius to be claiming.

The reason this is pertinent to the current discussion is that Pseudo-Hegesippus has Josephus (not the narrator of the Excidio, but Josephus the character within the narrative) give a speech in which he explicitly identifies the destruction of the temple by fire with Daniel’s prophecy about the abomination of desolation. What gave him the idea to do this?
Iosephus wept at this, he beseeched Iohannes, he lamented the condition of the country, he entreated with tearful speech, he called upon him as a fellow citizen although more stubborn than the rest, he bore witness that by the grace of omnipotent god he would be safe with his men, if only he would cease to arouse the Roman military to the overthrow of the city. When he was unable to prevail upon him: "It is not a wonder," he said, "Iohannes, if you persist all the way to the destruction of the city, since divine aid has already abandoned it. But it is a wonder that you do not believe it is about to be destroyed, since you may read the prophetic books, in which the destruction of our country has been announced to you and the restored greatness again destroyed by the Roman army. For what else does Daniel shout? He prophesized not indeed what had already been done but what would happen. What is the abomination of devastation which he proclaimed would be by the coming Romans, unless it is that which now threatens? What is that prophecy, which has been often recalled by us announced by god on high, that the city would be utterly destroyed at that time, when its fellow tribesmen will have been killed by the hands of the citizens, unless that which we see now being fulfilled? And perhaps, because it no longer pleases for the temple polluted with forbidden blood to be defended, it pleases that it be cleansed by fire.” (Excidio 5.31).
Best,

Ken

Post Reply