Eusebius Corrupted the Writings of Clement

[Secret Alias]

In reproducing the monuments of ancient history, the most learned men, from our ranks Clement, Africanus, and Tatian, and from the Jews, Josephus and Justus, have taught that Moses ... was a contemporary of Inachus. Furthermore, Inachus preceded the Trojan War by 500 years."20 Indeed, the only chronographer that Eusebius knew to have dissented from this opinion was Porphyry, the most well known of the church's nemeses. https://books.google.com/books?id=jVyzb ... 22&f=false

[MrMacSon]

Thank you SA for this very instructive thread.

Why was Eusebius so focused on chronology, not only concerning the antiquity of the Jews, but also concerning Jesus and his time? Maybe he has lifted a tip of the veil himself in PE XI: For with those authors whose record of times is inconsistent, the history cannot possibly be true.

Just like his precursors (with Origen as the most important one), Eusebius knew about the chronological problem of the origins of Christianity: a war story that had been disguised as an ‘under Pilate’ story. In Eusebius's eyes this chronological inconsistency caused a major truthfulness problem for Christianity. With the 'under Pilate' story being much less embarrassing in the Roman empire than the rebellion story, maybe Eusebius aimed at definitively settling the plea in favor of the 'under Pilate' story. No more inconsistency, one single chronology, albeit a forged one. To that end he not only created the TF, he also forged several other writings. In the OP text above he casts doubts on the established chronology of the Roman emperors ‘in order to the demonstration of the Saviour’s birth’. John's activity under Tiberius (Lk 3:1) is important in Eusebius's construction, so of course he tries to connect John and Jesus chronologically.

In my opinion the sentence ‘We have to add to our chronology the following’ is highly revealing. Speaking about his chronology, does Eusebius mean that he is just describing the established chronology in his text? Or might this be a slip of the tongue? Maybe Eusebius is telling here what it’s all about: he is creating his own chronology* in an attempt to consolidate the forged chronology* of the origins of Christianity for once and for all. Because Christianity was so important to him and chronological inconsistency would undermine its truthfulness, he felt forced to do so.

I think Frans provides a pertinent commentary.

* re-writing history

The spurious lists of early Bishops are likely part of this, too.

[Secret Alias]

But Andrew's point is also worth considering just to be sure we aren't oversimplifying things.

1. Is Jerome's Chronicle = Eusebius's Chronicle?
2. Did Eusebius change his mind about the dating of Moses?
3. Did the Chronicle change after the death of Eusebius?

Because one interesting thing to note is that Epiphanius used Eusebius's Chronicle and other works in the composition of the Panarion and it is difficult to believe that he would have written what follows if the Chronicle originally affirmed that Moses lived at a much earlier date than Inachus:

During the lifetime of Moses and Nahshon, in the fifth generation reckoned from Levi, Israel departed miraculously from Egypt through the Red Sea, and encamped in the wilderness of Sinai. And when God directed his servant Moses to make a count of men between 20 and 50 who could draw a sword and bear arms, he found as many as 628,500. Inachus6 was well known among the Greeks at that period (κατ' ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ). His daughter was Io, also called Atthis, for whom the present day Attica7 is named. Bosporus,8 for whom the city of Bosporus on the Black Sea is named, was her son as well. The Egyptians call her Isis,9 and also worship her as a goddess. Also with the same name as his is a river called Inachus. 2:6 It was then that the Greeks' mysteries and rites began. They had unfortunately been invented previously among the Egyptians, Phrygians, Phoenicians and Babylonians, but they were brought to the Greeks from Egypt by Cadmus,10 and by Inachus himself—who had previously been named Apis, and had built Memphis.11 They also originated with Orpheus and certain others

It is impossible to believe that Epiphanius did not know and use Eusebius's Chronicle here because he cites the material almost verbatim. Compare Jerome:

Inachus's daughter Io, whom the Egyptians, having changed the name, call Isis and worship. The river Inachus at Argos is named after his father Inachus, the Bosphorus after his daughter Io.

with Epiphanius again:

His daughter was Io, also called Atthis, for whom the present day Attica is named. Bosporus, for whom the city of Bosporus on the Black Sea is named, was her son as well. The Egyptians call her Isis, and also worship her as a goddess. Also with the same name as his is a river called Inachus.

The standard explanation is as follows:

The synchronization of Moses with Inachus was a tradition established by earlier apologists and chronographers, but Eusebius decided instead to make Inachus a contemporary of Isaac and Jacob, thus pushing the chronology of Moses later, contemporaneous with Cecrops.130 Epiphanius assumed the older tradition in an attempt to “correct” what he must have thought was an error in Eusebius's reckoning, but what resulted was a mangled chronology with Cecrops predating Inachus.

[Secret Alias]

I think this is the solution to the problem or at least part of it. If you go down to the 10th year of Moses in the chronology you find this statement:

Some write that Prometheus, Epimetheus, Atlantis the brother of Prometheus, Argos 'all-seeing', and Io the daughter of Prometheus lived in these times; others that in fact they lived in the age of Cecrops, and a few that they lived even 60 or 90 years before Cecrops.

But Io was never claimed to have been the daughter of Prometheus. While there are many tradition which associate her with different fathers it is clear from earlier in the Chronicle Inachus is her father. Thus I strongly suppose that in the original Chronicle 'Io the daughter of Inachus' was read here.

Interestingly the Armenian text of Eusebius has the following:

The Greeks regard the Sicyonians as the most ancient [Greeks]. Their kings [g253] resided at Sicyon. The first king to rule Sicyon was Aegialeus, at the same time as Ninus and Belus, who are the first remembered kings of the Assyrians and of Asia. The Peloponnese was originally called Aegialeia, after this Aegialeus.

And then:

Inachus is said to have been the first king of the Argives, 235 years after the start of the Sicyonian kingdom.

Now during the list of Sicyonian kings we have:

1. Aegialeus, 52 years. The Peloponnese was originally called Aegialeia, after this Aegialeus. He is said to have started to rule Sicyon in the 15th year of Belus, the first king of the Assyrians. According to legend, [Belus] was the son of Poseidon and Libya [g256].
2. Europs, 45 years. He reigned at the same time as Ninus, the son of Belus.
3. Telchin, 20 years. He reigned at the same time as Semiramis.
4. Apis, 25 years. The Peloponnese was then called Apia, after this Apis.
5. Thelxion, 52 years.
6. Aegydrus, 34 years.
7. Thurimachus, 45 years. During his reign, Inachus became the first king of the Argives.
8. Leucippus, 53 years.
9. Messapus, 47 years. During his reign Egypt was ruled by Joseph, as the Hebrews record [g257].
10. Eratus, 46 years.
11. Plemnaeus, 48 years.
12. Orthopolis, 63 years.
13. Marathonius, 30 years. During his reign, Cecrops Diphyes became the first king of Attica.
14. Marathus, 20 years. During his reign, Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt, as will be shown in due course.

[Secret Alias]

Baumgartner has interestingly found evidence which suggests tampering with the Chronicle since the time of Eusebius:

In the quotation from Porphyry in Eusebius (804: 10), it is stated that Semiramis lived either before or during the Trojan War. It is also implied that she lived after Moses, since he lived before the Trojan War. In Jerome's translation of Eusebius' Chronicon, a different date for Semiramis is attributed to Porphyry :

Ex ethnicis vero Me impius Porphyrius in quarto operis sui libro . . . post Moysen Semiramin fuisse adfirmat. Quae apud Assyrios CL ante Inachum regnavit annis. Itaque iuxta eum DCCC paene et L annis troiano bello Moyses senior invenitur.

Among the gentiles, forsooth, that impious Porphyry affirms, in the fourth book of his work ... that Semiramis lived after Moses. She ruled among the Assyrians 150 years before Inachus. Therefore, according to him (Porphyry), Moses is almost 850 years older than the Trojan War.88

This method of dating Moses is to make him slightly older than Semiramis whose date was known. She ruled 150 years before Inachus, and it had been previously stated in the Chronicon that Inachus was 700 before the Trojan War. (One must read 700 with Syncellus' Greek text and not 500 with Jerome's translation or else the arithmetic does not work.) Semiramis is thus dated almost 850 years before the Trojan War, which clearly contradicts Porphyry's statement in 804: 10, taken from the same book of the same work, that she lived either before or during the Trojan War.

[Secret Alias]

I am starting wonder if Andrew might be right after all. Eusebius seems to have revised an earlier 'line up' of texts which supported the Inachus-Moses connection. I am going to start a new thread about the possibility that Julius Africanus might have been responsible for the textual amending just mentioned here. He did after all start a library and was intimately connected with Emmaus which made its way into Luke's extension of Mark.