Toto

From the thread "What are the implications of this passage?"

I am reading this book now (which I recommend to all of you), and the first thing that struck me when I read about the Eusebian Tell was that passage from 1 Cor 15:

It's not exactly the same wording, but as I recall some of Jay's examples were a similar sort of phrase with the same idea - some of those people are still alive, you can go check for yourself.

judge

Eusebian tells are easily disproved. There is no possible way such alterations could have made it inot the peshitta if they were the work of Eusebius.

Unless someone is prepared to propose a way they might have at this late stage?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Bingo!

This happens to be one of the first lines from Paul that Eusebius quotes in his History. He quotes it in the chapter right after his quote of the Testimonium.

12.3 Matthias, also, who was numbered with the apostles in the place of Judas, and the one who was honored by being made a candidate with him, are like-wise said to have been deemed worthy of the same calling with the seventy. They say that Thaddeus also was one of them, concerning whom I shall presently relate an account which has come down to us. And upon examination you will find that our Saviour had more than seventy disciples, according to the testimony of Paul, who says that after his resurrection from the dead he appeared first to Cephas, then to the twelve, and after them to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom some had fallen asleep;but the majority were still living at the time he wrote.

I think Eusebius' use of this passage this early in his History shows how important the passage was to him. It has really nothing to do with what he is talking about. He seems to be trying to introduce Thaddeus as one of the Seventy. What does Paul's statement of who saw the risen Christ have to do with that? It is not logical for Paul to introduce the statement here, so why does he do it?

Actually in the book, I analyze this passage (pg 502-504), I conclude that it was originally two lists:

List 1.
1. Cephas
2. All the Apostles
3. James

List 2:
1. James
2. All the Apostles
3. Cephas

Why did Eusebius combine the two lists and add the five hundred? My best guess is that this was written some time shortly after the Council of Nicea. The Emperor Constantine brought together over 300 Bishops at that Council. I think that Eusebius was trying to suggest that every one of those Bishops were related to a follower of Jesus. He might have picked the number 500 because he expected the next council to have that many Bishops and he wanted to include the new ones. Alternatively, it may have been just before Nicea and he was expecting 500 Bishops to show up.

In any case, I would put the phrase "most of whom are still alive" in the E.T. category and would suggest that Eusebius may be regarded as having added this passage to Paul's letter.

Thanks so much for pointing this out.


Warmly,

Philosophe Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi Judge,

Please explain what you believe the relationship of the Peshitta is to Eusebius? What are your sources for dating the Peshitta before Eusebius?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

RUmike

How can one person be responsible for introducing something new to entire corpus of a letter of Paul as late as the 4th century? Weren't there copies of this letter in geographically seperated places that he couldn't have altered? How was it that only his line of alterations survived? Or maybe I'm not understanding something properly?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Rumike,

This is a good point. There were very few people who had the motive and opportunity to change letters of Paul after the Third Century. Having the Emperor as his Patron and Friend provided Eusebius with a unique opportunity to fine tune the New Testament and have his changes accepted throughout the Empire. Nobody really had that power afterward, and few before.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

S.C.Carlson

First Corinthians 15:6 is extant in P46, a manuscript about a hundred years older than Eusebius. Eusebius cannot have authored it without a supernatural miracle.

Stephen Carlson

Toto

That's what I thought might be the case.

How firm is the dating of P46? Is it possible that Eusebius liked the passage because it reflected his own thinking, but it was actually interpolated by someone else? It definitely seems to stick out like a sore thumb.

Toto

Dating of P46Darrel Doughty:

S.C.Carlson

P46 is usually dated c. 200, which should be viewed as plus or minus fifty years. Some people want to argue the early side, but even the late part of the range predates Eusebius. (Compare this with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are either contemporary or just later than Eusebius.)

The "until this very day" Eusebianism is εις ετι νυν but in 1 Cor 15:6 the phrase is different εως αρτι. Under standard criticism, it is indeed thought to be an interpolation, but an interpolation by Paul of an earlier tradition. I haven't thought of a scribe glossing Paul before--does William O. Walker have anything to say about it?

Stephen