Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:26 am
... 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.)
- 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.
If anyone has other concrete passages (attended by concrete arguments) to add, I will happily append them to the list.
Paul Hopper's 2014 article adds weight to Olson's argument.
As does NPL Allen's 2015 PhD,
Clarifying the Scope of Pre-5th Century C.E. Christian Interpolation in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaica (c. 94 C.E.), (and publications arising, eg. Josephus on James the Just? A re-evaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1
Journal of Early Christian History, 20187,
7; 1-27)
Zvi Baras' 1987 chapter, "The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James", in
Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, Feldman, Louis H.; Hata, Gōhei (eds), pp. 308-313, sounded a few warning bells. Baras noted
- "it is imperative to draw attention to the contradictions of...Eusebius and Origen" [to each other]
- " ..it is obvious that in the days of Origen the text of the TF had not yet been subjected to Christian emendations and corrections, such as found in the vulgate version quoted later by Eusebius."
- "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."
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
- "The changes [to the accounts of James] for purposes of Christian historiosophy", 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 feels
Ant XI, 297-305/ chap. 7, 1 - where Josephus recounts the death of [a] Yeshua at the hand of his brother, Yohanan, a high priest - led Origen to say Josephus should have corrected his historical interpretation about why God punished the Jews by enslaving them and by desecrating the Temple.
This story -
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.
Baras noted 'Origen first refers to Luke 21:20, where Jesus [is said to have] foretold the destruction of Jerusalem'.
He noted in
C.C. II.13, Origen (i) again infers Josephus says "Titus captured Jerusalem . . . on the account of James the Just, the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ", and (ii) then asserts "in reality it was on account of Jesus the Christ of God". But Baras calls this an "interpretation developed through stages...and hardly unintentionally [that] culminated in Origen's concept of 'universal history'...presented in
C.C. IV.22 [where] Origen states ... the destruction of Jerusalem was a just retribution for the mistreatment of Jesus."