Layman

After reviewing Olson's article, the Proof of the Gospel (Demonstratio Evangelica), Adversus Hieroclem, Church History (Historia Ecclesiastica), and the Theophany, I finally offer my thoughts on his argument that the TF was crafted by Eusebius to suit his primary apologetic purposes.

Olson's article can be found here:

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/files/%22Eusebian%20Fabrication%20of%20the%20Testimonium %22" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/files/%22Eusebian%20Fabrication%20of%20the%20 Testimonium%22</a>

My initial comments, mainly focusing on linguistic considerations and textual traditions, can be found here:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000525" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000525</a>

While Olson has offered some true insights into what Eusebius' apologetic purposes were, he has inaccurately evaluated the importance and use Eusebius makes of the TF. Olson places much more value on -- and makes more creative use of -- the TF than Eusebius ever does.

In this post, I intend to offer some preliminary thoughts and then do some line-by-line responses. Rather than use block quotes for Olson's arguments, I have reproduced them in bold.

Olson spends much time discussing Adversus Hieroclem (AH), Eusebius' earliest relevant writing. Although I generally accept Olson's characterization of the nature of Eusebius' argument therein, it lends no support to his overall argument. As even Olson admits, nowhere in AH does Eusebius cite, quote, refer, or allude to Josephus. Because of this obvious fact, Olson is forced to try and make the AH relevant to the actual references to the TF in other Eusebian writings. This attempt is awkward, forced, and unpersuasive. The fact is that with one unimpressive exception (which actually works against Olson's argument), Eusebius never uses the TF as Olson argues he does.

At the end of chapter four and the beginning of chapter five of the third book of the _Demonstratio Evangelica_, Eusebius promises to refute those who the either deny that Jesus worked any miracles at all or that, if he did, it was by wizardry (GOHTIXA) and deception (D.E. 109). Near the end of chapter five, Eusebius produces the _Testimonium_, which encapsulates the arguments he has made in the chapter, or elsewhere in the book, and attributes them to Josephus.

Despite Olson's characterization, Eusebius never uses the TF to rebut directly an accusation of wizardry against Jesus. Rather, the only language Eusebius ever points to in the TF is the language about Jesus winning over many of the Jews and Greeks. And the awkward way in which Eusebius tries to make the language fit his own argument suggests that Eusebius is making do with the material available rather than inventing the TF to specifically fit his own arguments.

A recent scholar commenting on Olson's argument also noted the disconnect between Olson's characterization of how Eusebius uses the TF with how the TF is actually used in his writings:

J. Carleton Paget, "Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," Journal of Theological Studies, 52.2 (2001), at 562.

Paget is right on with his criticisms. Frankly, when I finally obtained a copy of Proof of the Gospel, I was surprised at just how little use Eusebius makes of the TF and how little it corresponds to Olson's arguments.

"About this time arose Jesus, a wise man;" as we have seen, the "wise man" is for Eusebius the opposite of the GOHS, "wizard" or "deceiver." In_Adversus Hieroclem_ Eusebius argued that if he had to accept the supernatural feats attributed to Apollonius, he must regard him as a GOHS rather than a wise man (A.H. 5); here he has Josephus call Jesus a "wise man" and thus, implicitly, not a GOHS.

While Eusebius's primary concern in AH is with refuting the "wizard" accusation, he never uses the TF (or its reference to "wise man") to make his response. In fact, as discussed above, Eusebius makes no use of the TF at all in AH.

Moreoever, Eusebius never -- in any of his writings -- points to the TF's characterization of Jesus as a "wise man" to respond to accusations of wizardry. Indeed, it seems that Eusebius actually overlooked this argument and passes up an opportunity to use it.

I will recount here Eusebius' entire use of the TF in Proof of the Gospel. However, it should first be noted that it falls in a section designed to show that Jesus actually performed wonderous deeds--not in a section designed to refute the idea that Jesus did those deeds, but used wizardry and deception.

In a section styled, Against those that disbelieve the Account of Our Saviour's Miracles given by His Disciples:

Proof of the Gospel, Bk. III, Ch. 6, 124.

That is it. Eusebius makes no further comment in the Proof of the Gospel about the TF. He nowhere harkens back to the AH argument about Jesus being a wise man and a miracle worker. The only use of the TF he makes is to point out that Jesus gained a large following. In other words, the focus of Eusebius' use of the TF is Jesus' followers, not the TF's account of Jesus' miracles itself. And this falls into line with the preceding argument, which focused on how Jesus' followers recorded his deeds.

But even more problematic for Olson's characterization of Eusebius' use of the TF to refute the accusation that Jesus was a miracle-worker is the fact that Eusebius only discusses that accusation (and refutes it) in the Proof of the Gospel after quoting the TF -- and he never looks back to it.

Almost directly after Eusebius uses the TF to focus on how many people Jesus drew to himself, Eusebius explains that he will leave that point and go on to refute the accusation that Jesus was a wizard:

Proof of the Gospel, Bk. III, Ch. 6, 125(b).

Obviously, Eusebius never uses the TF in the way that Olson implies. Accordingly, the entire line of argument employing the AH and the idea of refuting charges of wizardry provided no incentive for Eusebius to invent the TF.

"if indeed one should call him a man, for he was a maker of miraculous works;" most modern
scholars consider the first part of this quotation a Christian interpolation because it presupposes Jesus' superhuman nature....

As Olson is aware, most scholars that believe in partial-authenticity admit that the first part of this statement is a Christian interpolation. And as I have noted before in my rebuttal to Olson's linguistic comparisons, the language used here for "miraculous works" is Josephan and the use of "maker" -- although a somewhat different use than usual in Josephus, it can easily be explained by the identifiable peculiarities of the assistant Josephus employed for this chapter.

a teacher of men who revere the truth;" Eusebius wants to show that Jesus' disciples, like their master, were not deceivers. They were men who revere the truth.

Olson provides no reference or quotations demonstrating that Eusebius ever used the TF for this purpose. And he cannot, because Eusebius simply never uses the TF to make this point. He only uses it to point out how many followers Jesus gathered.

"and he won over many of the Jewish and even many of the Greek [nation]." It is sometimes argued that a Christian author would have known that Jesus did not attract many gentile followers during his ministry, but this is contradicted by Eusebius' testimony. Elsewhere he reports of Jesus that "by teaching and miracles He revealed the powers of His Godhead to all equally whether Greeks or Jews" (D.E. 400). The paired opposition of Jews and Greeks is especially common in the first two books of the _Demonstratio_, where Eusebius claims, "Christianity is neither a form of Hellenism nor a form of Judaism" (D.E. 11). It is, in fact, the re-establishment of the religion of the patriarchs, who worshiped the one God but did not have the restrictions of the Mosaic law, and thus was "that third form of religion midway between Judaism and Hellenism" (D.E.: Ferrar 8, Migne 25a). The MEN. DE construction used in the _Testimonium_ situates the "nation" founded by Jesus nicely between the two other religions.


Olson has hit upon the one use that Eusebius makes of the TF in Proof of the Gospel. But he's flat wrong. Eusebius' use of this part of the argument is -- at best -- awkward. The TF clearly states that Jesus amassed many Greek and Jewish followers during his ministry. As Professor Robert Van Voorst puts it:

Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the Gospels, at 90.

The Gospels are clear that Jesus' ministry was to the Jews, and it was his followers that were charged with taking the Gospel to the Greeks. And Eusebius know this very well. In fact, Eusebius relies on the Acts of the Apostles to show that it was Jesus' followers who actually attracted Greeks to Christianity.

As Paget asks, "if Eusebius was the forger of the TF why would he have chosen not to emphasize those parts of the passage which Olson highlights as central to his concerns, emphasizing instead a part of the TF which appeared historically problematic?" Paget, at 562.

"He was the Christ;" few or no modern scholars accept that this is Josephan as it stands. This is almost universally admitted to be an interpolation by a Christian writer, although it is not
necessarily Eusebian.

Obviously this section does not help Olson's argument. And, in fact, it poses a problem for it. If Eusebius invented this overt attestation of Josephus' belief in Jesus as the Christ, why does he take no advantage of it at all? Again Eusebius misses an opportunity to make any use whatsoever of his literary creation.

"and although Pilate, upon an accusation from our rulers, condemned him to the cross, nevertheless those who had loved him earlier did not stop;" following a suggestion in Meier, I have translated the genitive absolute as a concessive, rather than a temporal, clause (Meier, 78, n. 35). Meier does not go on to explain why the author of this passage should choose to highlight Jesus' followers in the main clause and relegate Jesus' crucifixion to a subordinate position. The
mention of the crucifixion in this sentence establishes under what conditions Jesus' followers did not abandon him. This is Eusebius' central argument in D.E. 3.5. Eusebius' opponents were not
denying that Jesus was crucified by the Roman and Jewish authorities; this was probably a main part of their argument that Jesus was a GOHS. Eusebius, however, cleverly inverts this argument. If Jesus had been a deceiver, and his followers had been deceivers, would not self-interest have compelled them to abandon his teachings after they had witnessed the manner of his death at the hands of the authorities? The fact that they did not abandon Jesus after witnessing the punishments he had brought upon himself can only mean that the disciples had recognized some greater than normal virtue in their teacher. This argument is developed at great length in D.E. 3.5, but I shall quote only a part of it here, "Perhaps you will say that the rest were wizards no less than their guide. Yes - but surely they had all seen the end of their teacher, and the death to which He came. Why then after seeing his miserable end did they stand their ground?" (D.E. 111).

As noted above, what is significant about this argument is that Eusebius never actually makes use of the TF to defend it. As I noted above, it is only after Eusebius uses the TF and moves on to another topic that he brings forth his arguments against the idea that Jesus was a wizard or deceiver: "Such being my answer to the first division of the unbelievers, now let us address ourselves to the second body. This consists of those, who while they admit that Jesus worked miracles, say that it was by a species of sorcery that deceived those who looked on, like a magician or enchanter." And, Eusebius never looks back. That is, he never once again refers to the TF and certainly not to refute this accusation against Jesus.

Additionally, Olson gives no consideration to the fact that Josephus' probable motivation for even mentioning Jesus at all was because of the presence of Christians. "The 'Antiquities' was written about the year 93 when the Christians constituted a larger, widespread sect in Judea, Rome, Asia Minor and elsewhere." Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, at 56. Indeed Josephus was faced with something of a problem. He wanted to avoid writing about Jewish messianic expectations, but also would have found it hard to ignore the origins of the sect of Christians, which Romans and Jews alike knew was linked to Judaism. He did not want to be too critical of Christians because of their being linked to Jews, but could not be to praiseworthy of them because he was a Pharisee. "He would not praise -- because he was a Pharisaic Jew, and he would not blame -- because in his days his Greek and Roman readers still confused the Christians with the Jews, nor as we have seen, was it agreeable to make mention of the messianic beliefs of a certain Jewish sect." Id. at 60.


for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, the divine prophets having foretold these and also myriads of other wonders about him." Nearly all modern scholars consider this a Christian interpolation. It is typical of Eusebius' apologetic arguments, especially in the first two books of the _Demonstratio_, which are primarily directed at Jesus' Jewish critics. As Norris observes, "[Eusebius] follows both Justin and Origen in suggesting that ancient prophecy, specifically Jewish prophecy, had indicated who Jesus would be and what he would do. His miracles are not to be set aside as based on magic but are to be accepted as predicted by the prophets" (Norris, 526).

Again we see that Olson has offered no reference to the Proof of the Gospel to show how Eusebius uses the TF to support his argument about prophecy. And again it is because he cannot do so. Eusebius never refers or alludes to the TF to support this argument. In fact, the TF appears in a completely different section of the Proof of the Gospel than any arguments concerning prophecy. The argument from prophecy is made in Book II, the TF does not appear until Book III.

"From that time to now the nation of Christians has not failed." In Adversus Hieroclem, Eusebius asks that those who consider Apollonius "a divine being and superior to a philosopher, in a word as one superhuman in his nature" to point out any of his effects that have lasted "to this day" (EISETI NUN; A.H. 7). Jesus according to Eusebius, has left such effects (EISETI KAI NUN; A.H. 4 x2). The word "Christians" is not found anywhere in Josephus, but "nation (FULON) of Christians" is found in Eusebius (H.E. 3.33.2, 3.33.3). In the first book of the _Demonstratio_, Eusebius argues that the Christians are the "nation" promised to Abraham (D.E.: Ferrar 10, Migne 25c). He uses the terms FULON, EQNOS, and LAOS, pretty much interchangeably, to describe Christianity.

I have elsewhere responded to the linguistic arguments, but once again we have Olson referring back to an argument in the AH that Eusebius never links to the TF and does not repeat in the Proof of the Gospel. And it's very unlikely that Eusebius would have to "invent" a source to support this argument. It was -- of course -- obvious to anyone that Christianity had survived to that day. Eusebius -- writing in the Fourth Century -- himself was evidence enough of that, but even by the time of Eusebius' earliest writing Christianity had spread throughout the Roman empire -- which was much more authoritative a testament to Christianity's endurance than would have been a small notation from a First Century historian giving a small mention to Jesus and Christians.

After reviewing Eusebius' writings, it is obvious that Olsons' argument that "the _Testimonium_ follows Eusebius' line of argument in the_Demonstratio_ so closely that it is not only very unlikely that it could have been written by Josephus, but it is unlikely it could have been written by any other Christian, or even by Eusebius for another work" is demonstrably untrue. Eusebius makes little use at all of the TF in Proof of the Gospel, and he continually overlooks and ignores the "line(s) of argument" that Olson thinks are so amazing. What is amazing -- and problematic to his argument -- is that none of these links seem to have occurred to Eusebius.

Finally, Olson gives only glancing considering to the fact that the TF is quoted differently in the Proof of the Gospel, Church History, and the Theophany. Many scholars have followed Eisler in concluding that the variations in Eusebius' citations were due to the fact that he had more than one manuscript of Josephus' Antiquities.

J. Spencer Kennard, "Gleanings from the Slavonic Josephus Controversy," Jewish Quarterly Review 39 (1948-49): 162

In conclusion, the "apologetic purposes" of Eusebius lend no support for Olson's argument and, instead, give strong reasons for doubting the idea that Eusebius was the interpolator of the TF. Or, as Paget puts it, "his attempts to describe the motive for the forgery are unconvincing." Paget, at 578.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Hi Layman,

I have put Josephus on the back burner for now. I still have to read the Demonstratio Evangelica and have to find Olson's original CBQ article. I have saved your article, and I hope to come back to this matter later. Feel free to continue your posts in discussing the arguments for or against the authenticity of the Testimonium in relation to the current version of my essay. Other readers on this board can share their thoughts. And I will develop and share mine eventually.

best,
Peter Kirby

godfry n. glad

Nice piece, Layman. I should like to see Ken's reply. Would you mind if I forwarded it to him?

Peter, Ken's article in the CBQ is:

"Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavium"
_Catholic Biblical Quarterly_, 61(2):305-2, April 1999.

godfry n. glad

Layman

Would not mind at all. He was nice enough to respond to my first post -- mostly addressing the linguistic evidence. However, Im not sure if he was impressed enough to think a second response would be worth his effort.

godfry n. glad

Thanks, Layman.

Yeah, I know, he's been more than patient with many of us lay historians. I suspect there may be little in the way of a response, as I understand he's actively preparing to defend his thesis for his Ph.D.

We can always try.

Best,

godfry n. glad

Layman

Peter,

Take your time. This post is not going anywhere. I may also put on hold my comments on the Pro-Partial-Interpolation arguments until we resume the topic.

Toto

Layman, you have argued (correctly as far as I can see) that Eusebius did not make much use of the TF in arguing against the charge the Jesus was a mere wizard. But this is true whether or not he forged the TF himself or found it more or less as it is.

Is it your argument that he would be more likely to use it if he had forged it himself? I can see a counter argument: the fact that he did not rely on what should have been a good support for his argument shows that he knew there was something 'off' about it, because he forged it himself.

This is all speculative, even for ancient history, but on the whole it is not obvious whether he would have been more or less likely to use the TF if he had forged it himself.

Layman

Actually, I have argued more than that.

Eusebius made little use of the TF in his apologetics arguments. He did not use it for any of the apologetics purposes that Olson focuses on, except one -- to show that Jesus had Jewish and Greek followers. And he could only use this part awkwardly because Eusebius well knew that Josephus was inaccurate on this point. Moreover, the "impulse" to invent a source (and remember, despite his use of many confirmed sources, there is no other evidence that Eusebius invented his sources) would be at its weakest on a point that was painfully clear. There could have been no doubt in Eusebius' readers minds that Christianity had drawn many Greek followers to it, becuase most Christians of that day were Greeks.

Besides, I was really doing was refuting Olson's argument that Eusebius invented the TF to support these arguments, thus attempting to back up the rather weak linguistic evidence. Since Eusebius did not use the TF to support his apologetics arguments, the idea that he invented the TF to do just that is very weak.

Ummm, of course, since the only reason to invent it would have been to use it. And this was precisely Olson's theory.

Very weak counter.

If you are going to invent a source to suit your apologetics purposes, you intend to use that source to reinforce your apologetic purposes. The failure to use that counterfit to support your argument eliminates the motive (and the "coincidence" argument) to make the interpolation.

But Eusebius doesn't do that at all. He leaves the TF out of every single apologetic argument Olson focuses on but one (where he does so problematically). It's like you are accusing a poor counterfitter who needs money of intentionally making a fake bill so obviously a counterfit that he knows he could never use it.

To suppose that the only reason that Eusebius did not use the TF as Olson imagines he should have is unpersuasive. It just may never have occurred to Eusebius that he could make all the uses of the TF that Olson imagines. Eusebius may have wanted to avoid the TF's use of the word for "miracles" that could also be used to mean deeds done by wizardry (thus lending support to the very claim he was trying to refute). Eusebius may have thought he had better sources to make the same arguments. And he may have realized that statements like "He was the Christ" and "if it be wise to call him a man" were too good to be true and suspected that they were not original to Josephus.

Actually, I think its obvious to any unbaised observer that -- as I explained above -- Eusebius' failure to use the TF as Olson imagines he shoud or could is damaging to Olson's theory.

But even if you were right and its a wash, you've failed to produce any evidence that Eusebius is the interpolator. Olson's theory is refuted either way. You equate the two position.s Thus, according to you, if the TF had been used to to maximum effect to help Eusebius make all of his apologetic arguments, you are claiming that this would not indicate a forgery or authenticity. Of course, also according to you, because Eusebius ignores the TF on most of his arguments, this does not indicate forgery or authenticity as well.

If you are correct, then you've eliminated the crux of Olson's theory -- that Eusebius' extensive use of the TF to support his arguments indicates its a forgery. You are left simply assuming that the TF was forged by Eusebius because it suits your own biases. Which, of course, is not very persuasive.

Toto

I am not trying to argue here that Eusebius was the forger. I leave that to the professionals who read Greek.

But I thought that Olson's argument was that the TF had to have been forged by Eusebius because it matched his thinking patterns so closely.

From Olson's argument on the JM page:

I think that Eusebius' simple quotation of the passage in his works has to count for using it, even if he doesn't parse through it or emphasize the key words you think he would have.

But I think that your argument does come out as a wash, unless you can explain why Eusebius would not have made greater use of the TF if he had not composed it himself. In particular, why did Eusebius not use the TF in his earlier work, Adversus Hieroclem, and then quote it in a later work? One possibility is that he hadn't gotten around to composing the TF passage when he wrote Adversus Hieroclem.

Layman

I did this. You ignored it.

I would like to see why you think a poor counterfitter would intentionally make a bill so fake he knew he could never use it to buy something.

And have you read the AH?

And if he finally "got around" to forging the TF after the AH he never "got around" to using it in the way Olson imagines he should have.

And I still don't understand your point. You are basically saying that if Eusebius had used the TF to support his arguments it would tend to show he invented it and the fact that Eusebius did not ues the TF to support his arguments tends to show he invented it.

So are you saying that every argument about apologetic purposes shows he invented the TF or are you saying that any argument about apologetic purposes cannot show if he invented it or not?

A little consistency would be nice.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>