andrewcriddle

Eusebius quotes the TF from Josephus on three occasions. In the Church History in the Demonstratio Evangelica and the Theophany. The Theophany is clearly the latest. It is less clear which is the earliest.

Ken Olson partly bases his argument that Eusebius invented the TF, on the Demonstratio Evangelica being the first use by Eusebius of the TF, but I think he is probably wrong.

The Demonstratio Evangelica was written after the Praeparatio Evangelica which itself seems to have been written shortly after the 313 victory of Licinius over Maximinus, ie probably in 314 CE. IE the Praeparatio was probably written during the early period of friendship between Constantine and Licinius. The later Demonstratio with its references to oppression of Christians was probably written in the period shortly after 316 where estrangement between Constantine and Licinus led to difficulties for Eastern Christians.

Now the Church History took its final form c 325 CE after the defeat of Licinius by Constantine. However it had gone through several editions, the later of which have left traces in the textual tradition.

The TF was IMO not part of the earliest editions of the Church History, it was probably added in the 315 CE edition which updated the History to include the defeat of Maximinus by Licinius and subsequent events such as the rededication of the church at Tyre. (Note how the TF is used here as part of an attack on the Acts of Pilate forged at the instigation of Maximinus.)

However a use of the TF in the 315 CE edition of the Church History would still be earlier than the probable date of the Demonstratio Evangelica. Hence I think it likely that Eusebius first used the TF in the Church History not the Demonstratio Evangelica.

Andrew Criddle

(I've sketched the evidence for some of these points. If asked, I'll try and expand them.)

Minimalist

Does it really matter? There are people who insist it was there for two+ centuries in spite of the fact that no one ever heard of it.

Jesus' lack of demonstrable history probably did not become an embarrassment to the powers-that-were until the 4th century.

Notsri

If by "the powers-that-were" you mean those in the church, then I would ask, When has the church, or its "powers-that-were", ever felt embarrassed by the lack of Jesus' demonstrable history?? Haven't the gospels alone functioned more than well enough in that demonstrative role for the average Christian?

To put it bluntly, I think this supposed embarrassment is a chimera.

ApostateAbe

In 248 CE, Origen wrote in Contra Celsus, Book I, chapter 47, that Josephus was a writer who wrote about John the Baptist, and Josephus is described by Origen as: "although not believing in Jesus as the Christ..." This indicates that the phrase in the TF, "He was the Christ," was originally, "He was not the Christ," true to the religious leanings of Josephus. And, if Josephus wrote about John the Baptist, then he is very likely to have written about Jesus. This theory seems to fit a much more likely scenario, that a Christian copier slightly revised a passage that would otherwise be blasphemy, because it is less sinful to deceive in Jesus' favor than to help propagate a blasphemous lie. To wholly invent a passage from nothing would be an unlikely straight-out deceit. Josephus wrote the original TF, and it was revised in favor of Christianity sometime between 248 CE and Eusebius. Eusebius may have been the one who made the revision, but it was more likely someone before him, since Eusebius writes like he has no knowledge that the TF is not the original.

Minimalist

Yes. The early church put out a story that this shit really happened and insisted that people believe it at sword point. Perhaps "embarrassed" is the wrong word. How about "inconvenienced?"

Roger Pearse

Interesting thoughts, Andrew.

I have a note from somewhere: that the HE was composed in 311, and went through 4 editions, the last appearing after the fall of Licinius in 323 and involving removing complimentary material about him from the text. But some of this material survives in a family of mss, which seems to have been corrected against a copy of the 3rd edition. All this, I think, is discussed in Schwartz' GCS edition? I never got around to reading that, tho, so don't know what the evidence is. If you do, I'd be interested to hear it.

Roger Pearse

There is a list of GCS volumes online here:

http://www.paginasprodigy.com/asesor...a/gcs_list.htm

It includes the Schwartz version of the HE, which is here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IdooAAAAYAAJ

(German readers must not access this, as their government is opposed to them seeing stuff for free online; non-US readers will find it difficult unless they use an anonymous proxy; US readers, of course, can just get on with it while the Euro-luddites scrabble for paper copies).

DCHindley

Andrew,

Are you sketching this out to get a reasoned response? Here?

There are a lot of "probably"s in this exposition. While I do not necessarily dispute the chronology you lay out, which authority (or authorities) are you relying upon for this relative order?

I'd be more careful how you deal with the allegedly forged Acts of Pilate published by co-emperor Maximinus around 311 CE. Your language is loaded, essentially mirroring Eusebius' opinion about it. English translations of Church History vol 1.ix.4, such as Kirsopp Lake's, also buy into this kind of loaded language by speaking of "the crime of the Saviour's death" when crime is not even implied in the Greek.

The clause TA PERI TO SWTHPION PAQOS AUTOIS TOLMHQENTA PERIEXEI is rendered "They relate that the crime of the Saviour's death ..." by Lake (1926). Philip Schaff was much closer, IMHO, with "the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour ..." (1890). How that passage got twisted into "crime" is beyond me, other than the influence of Lake's personal religious faith.

The thing Maximunus' Acts of Pilate "dared" to say was that the date of the crucifixion took place in "the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign" (21 CE). Eusebius counters this claim by citing Josephus, "if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed ...," which has Pilate appointed to his post in Tiberius' 12th year. Eusebius is basing his derision on the fact that Maximinus' date contradicts the tradition of the church, which places it squarely in Pilate's administration. There has to remain the possibility that church tradition, which placed it in Pilate's rule, is the one that is wrong. That may have been Maximinus' whole point! "Forgery" is a charge, not a fact. His stating it as a fact reflects his value judgement and rhetorical flair.

Please don't allow yourself to be likewise carried away by this fervor for "truth," or you may have to delve into long, tedious and relatively shaky arguments regarding the reliability of the received text of Josephus or the nature of its chronological inconsistencies, and the equally shaky counter explanations for them. OMG, we are now simply rehashing Carlson's charge against MS!

BTW, for the curious, the TF in Eusebius' Church History is in Book 1.xii.7-8, or 2 chapters down the pike.

DCH

andrewcriddle

Actually the claim about the forgery of the Acts of Pilate occurs twice in Book 1 first in chapter ix then immediately after the TF, two chapters later in chapter xi (not xii), we have Hence the use of the TF is closely associated here with a reference to the Acts of Pilate.
Andrew Criddle

the_cave

Agreed that it seems like the TF was probably related to Maximinus' (now-lost) Acts of Pilate--as though it were a direct response to it?

I remain puzzled by Eusebius' claim that the TF follows the account of John. Is this really what the Greek says? Here is the text and translation from Textexcavation:

Ταυτα περι του Ιωαννου διελθων, και του σωτηρος ημων κατα την αυτην του συγγραμματος ιστοριαν ωδε πως μεμνηται·

Hactenus de Iohanne. sed et de salvatore domino in eisdem historiarum suarum libris idem Ioseppus ita scribit:

After going through these things concerning John, [Josephus] also makes mention of our savior in the same work* as follows: