PART 2
Back to my criticism of Dave Allen's paper, points 7, 14 and 15:
(7) Doubts Eusebius would have used "surprising feats" to describe Jesus' miracles
Allen: Whealey [14] explains that this is not a preferred description Eusebius would have used for Jesus, and therefore it looks like he inherited this from the original TF. In Eusebius’ Commentaria in Psalmos (PG23 1033d-1036a) he comments on Psalm 85:8-10LXX. He “characterises many of the prophets as παραδόξωνἔργων ποιητής”, ([those who]wrought surprising feats). He “thereby indicates that παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής was not a term that adequately conveyed the full stature of Jesus, since for Eusebius Jesus was God’s pre-existent logos and not just παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής like all the prophets before him.”[15] An original TF has influenced Eusebius to use this phrase. Olson’s argument that it was made up by Eusebius is refuted by Whealey’s investigation of how Eusebius used this description elsewhere.
Kirby: This isn't convincing to me. I feel like something might be missing in the restatement of Whealey's argument, but it's far from obvious why Eusebius could not use the same terms to refer to the miracles of Jesus and the prophets before him.
Not only is it far from obvious why Eusebius could not use the same terms to to refer to the miracles of Jesus as he used to describe the prophets, it’s not at all obvious that there is any language that could adequately convey the full stature of Jesus. Eusebius says that no account could ever convey the full stature of Jesus (HE 1.2.22), and Whealey does not tell us what sort of language might be able to do so. She’s simply invented a standard of judgment in order to disqualify the theory that Eusebius wrote the Testimonium. It’s also a self-contradictory claim, as she notes that Eusebius uses the same term to describe God. In attempt to rationalize her claim, she posits a hypothetical development in the thought of Eusebius that it was originally inadequate to describe Jesus and only later became adequate to describe God. But why would Eusebius borrow a term from Josephus that he thought was inadequate to describe Jesus? This is a desperate attempt to rationalize the rejection of a piece of evidence that strongly favors Eusebian authorship.
I discussed this earlier here:
viewtopic.php?p=125760#p125760
(14) Argues that the "tribe of Christians" reference contains a mix of Josephus' language (tribe) and later, Christian language
Allen: In a survey of Eusebius’ use of the term φῦλον (“tribe/group”) we find he usually used it for groups of people he disliked such as the examples Whealey [25] provides: Contra Hieroclem 22; praeteritio XIII 15.5; d.e. IV 9.12; Eusebius’ disparaging use of this term makes it likely the term τὸ φῦλον came from the hand of Josephus. Eusebius used his own phrase for “still to this day,” εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν, when interpolating the word “Christians.” It was Louis Feldman who noticed this and saw this as evidence of Eusebius’ tampering. [26] It’s unlikely Josephus used the word “Christians,” as Feldman also noted, “The passage refers to ‘the tribe of the Christians,’ but it is unlikely that Josephus referred to the Christians as a new nation, distinct from Jews and gentiles. The word “Christians” is found nowhere else in the works of Josephus.”
This is another of Whealey’s ad hoc attempts to rationalize her conclusion. If I say ‘band or robbers’ and ‘band of villains’, does this mean the word ‘band’ has a negative connotation and I would not also say ‘band of brothers’ or ‘band of heroes’?
Whealey seems to think so. She argues that that φῦλον is used for groups Eusebius disliked or even hated. Her first example is the “female tribe”(Contra Hieroclem, 22), then she adds that his other uses were for groups he hated even more, notably demons (Allen’s examples Praeperatio 13.5.5, DE 4.9.12). Whealey’s implication that Eusebius disliked or even hated women when he referred to the female φῦλον is unjustified. The Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon lists ‘sex’ (as in gender) as one of the definitions of φῦλον. She also does not does not discuss Praeperatio 7.15.12, where Eusebius does not seem to be denigrating stars when he refers to their “tribes and families.” So there seem to be cases where Eusebius uses the word for φῦλον of groups he did not (demonstrably) hate or wish to denigrate.
Still, what about the tribes of demons? Would Eusebius really have used the same term for a group of Christians as he had for a group of demons. The answer to that question is yes. Whealey notes: “In contrast to his avoidance of phylon for Christians, Eusebius readily refers to Christians as a
laos (d. e. I I ,8), a
genos (d. e. III 6,7), and an
ethnos (h. e. I 4,2; IV 7, I).”(p. 100 n. 70). The problem for Whealey’s argument is that while Eusebius does refer to the Christians as a
genos one time in the DE, he also refers to the group of demons as a
genos in PE 4.5.7, 13.15.1; and Vita Constantini 3.26.1. The fact that he repeatedly refers to the group of demons as a
genos does not mean the word
genos has a negative connotation for him and that he would not use the group of Chrisitans. Whealey was making an invalid inference about
phylon based on limited examples.
It is worth noting that while Allen and others have doubted that Josephus would have referred to the Christians as a new nation, distinct from the Jews and Gentiles, this is entirely congenial to Eusebius, though he does not quite say that they are new, as they follow the ways of the ancient Hebrew, as distinct from their descendants the Jews, in worshipping the one true God but eschewing the unprofitable practices of the Mosaic law (see his discussion of this in the second chapter of Book I of the Demonstratio).
(15) A variant phrase that matches Josephus' vocabulary suggests multiple versions of the TF, with a Josephan original
But Josephus as caught in another manuscript had used his own phrase for “still to this day,” εἰς νῦν, as Whealey has detected and so reconstructed the original Josephan phrase for “until now” as the phrase εἰ τε νῦν was found in Oecumenius’ Commentarianin Apocalypsium that quotes the final sentence of the TF. Whealey thinks the sigma from εἰ was dropped as two of the oldest MSS have the phrase εἰς τε νῦν (W and A).[28] It’s a minor change but does show tampering. Eusebius used the phrase “still to this day” when Josephus used “until now.”
If we grant Whealey her conjectural emendation of the Oecumenius, then we have three witnesses to the reading εἰς τε νῦν. This is never found in Josephus, who, she points out, has εἰς νῦν twice, without the intervening τε . I can see how the fact that there are textual variants might qualify confidence in the Eusebian reading εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν, but how do they prove her case? Where does the τε come from? Is she asserting Josephus wrote something he never wrote elsewhere and that this is more likely than that ἔτι was omitted in three witnesses during the process of transcription? Or that Josephus wrote εἰς νῦν and the τε was added at some point during transcription? It’s a very incomplete argument.
Best wishes,
Ken