Eusebius as a forger.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Secret Alias » Wed May 15, 2019 4:39 pm

On Eusebius pretending to be Pamphilus. Note what Jerome says to Rufinus:
or that You were Translating the Book of Eusebius as if it were Pamphilus'? or that You were Putting Your Own Cover Upon Origen's Poisoned Dish by Lending Your Majestic Eloquence to this Translation of his Notorious Work Peri 'Archon?https://biblehub.com/library/various/li ... at_the.htm
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Secret Alias » Wed May 15, 2019 4:55 pm

I am bring up these points not because I think they proved but as subjects that deserve more attention. I do happen to think the evidence - combined together - makes a pretty solid case that Eusebius altered Christian historical documents. Many of them.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7107
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed May 15, 2019 4:57 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 4:32 pm
Stealing a writer's name in antiquity is the equivalent of stealing someone's credit card today.
So Augustus taking his uncle's name to become Augustus Caesar was equivalent to credit card theft?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Secret Alias » Wed May 15, 2019 5:01 pm

Come on. That's absurd. It's like if I set up an account here as 'Ben C Smith' and always chimed in 'I always agree with Stephan. He's brilliant.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7107
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed May 15, 2019 5:05 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 4:35 pm
On the reason why Eusebius needed Pamphilus - https://books.google.com/books?id=NN5-A ... me&f=false
The link says that Pamphilus collected and disseminated Origen's works. So Eusebius needed Pamphilus because Pamphilus had done some heavy lifting in propagating Origen. Is that what you meant?
Secret Alias wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 4:39 pm
On Eusebius pretending to be Pamphilus. Note what Jerome says to Rufinus:
or that You were Translating the Book of Eusebius as if it were Pamphilus'? or that You were Putting Your Own Cover Upon Origen's Poisoned Dish by Lending Your Majestic Eloquence to this Translation of his Notorious Work Peri 'Archon?https://biblehub.com/library/various/li ... at_the.htm
On its face, this quotation seems to be about Rufinus pretending that Eusebius was Pamphilus. Does this in some way bear a connection to Eusebius himself pretending to be Pamphilus? What is that connection?
Come on. That's absurd. It's like if I set up an account here as 'Ben C Smith' and always chimed in 'I always agree with Stephan. He's brilliant.'
What is going on here? What is this?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6031
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by MrMacSon » Wed May 15, 2019 5:22 pm

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.)
  1. Ken Olson argues that Eusebius forged the Testimonium Flavianum in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 §63-64.
  2. 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.
  3. 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."
Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed May 15, 2019 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7107
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed May 15, 2019 5:33 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 5:22 pm
Paul Hopper's 2014 article adds weight to Olson's argument.
I know that article adds weight to the Testimonium being a forgery. But the weight it adds to Eusebius himself being the forger is minimal at best:

Footnote 10: Eusebius of Caesarea (263–339) is sometimes mentioned as a possible author of the Testimonium and source of the interpolation (see Feldman 1965: 49). This same Eusebius, whose writings contain the first known citation of the Testimonium Flavianum, was also one of the creators of the Nicene Creed and played a central role in the wording and propagation of the creed.

The Testimonium sounds credal; and Eusebius played a part in one of the (many) creeds. That is pretty slender.
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."
These are much better. Thank you. :cheers:
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6031
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by MrMacSon » Wed May 15, 2019 5:48 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 5:33 pm
MrMacSon wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 5:22 pm
Paul Hopper's 2014 article adds weight to Olson's argument.
I know that article adds weight to the Testimonium being a forgery. But the weight it adds to Eusebius himself being the forger is minimal at best:

Footnote 10: Eusebius of Caesarea (263–339) is sometimes mentioned as a possible author of the Testimonium and source of the interpolation (see Feldman 1965: 49). This same Eusebius, whose writings contain the first known citation of the Testimonium Flavianum, was also one of the creators of the Nicene Creed and played a central role in the wording and propagation of the creed.

The Testimonium sounds credal; and Eusebius played a part in one of the (many) creeds. That is pretty slender.
Sure. But I'm pretty sure that's not the crux of Hopper's argument (which, to be honest to be fair, seems to have been initiated by the late DM Murdock / Acharya S; by an approach by her or a conversation with her)

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 5:33 pm
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."
These are much better. Thank you. :cheers:
You're welcome. I'm not comfortable with Allen blaming Origen alone for A.J. XX.200. I think Zvi Baras' commentary has a lot more nuance and context. And I think it the concept of prosopography, or the basis of it, at least, may apply to the Origen-Pamphilius-Eusebius group, at least (I did that post with them and Baras' article in mind in the context of your request to try to dump on one of them: it may not be as simple as one blatant forger or individual forgeries).

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Secret Alias » Wed May 15, 2019 5:52 pm

or that You were Translating the Book of Eusebius as if it were Pamphilus'?
Jerome does not think that Pamphilus wrote the Apology. It was a wholly Eusebian composition. The question is why did Eusebius think he needed to add Pamphilus - his newly appropriated name too - to the book. Why not publish it as his own thought, his own creation? The answer is obvious. Eusebius was misrepresenting Origen. That's Jerome's point. Eusebius was white-washing Origen by means of Pamphilus.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7107
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Eusebius as a forger.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed May 15, 2019 6:08 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 5:48 pm
I'm not comfortable with Allen blaming Origen alone for A.J. XX.200. I think Zvi Baras' commentary has a lot more nuance and context. And I think it the concept of prosopography, or the basis of it, at least, may apply to the Origen-Pamphilius-Eusebius group, at least (I did that post with them and Baras' article in mind in the context of your request to try to dump on one of them: it may not be as simple as one blatant forger or individual forgeries).
This brings to mind, however, one of my objections to pegging Eusebius as a/the forger of the Testimonium:

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47: .... Josephus... even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, since they killed him who was most just.

Eusebius, History of the Church 2.23.20: Josephus, at any rate, did not hesitate to testify this also through his writings, in which he says: "These things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, since they killed him who was most just."

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" 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)?
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Wed May 15, 2019 7:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply