Great post, Mrvegas. I made almost the same arguments here. So I agree with you.But to answer your question, let's start with what Eusebius says about the TF, rather than the TF quote itself.
In Book III of Demonstration of the Gospel, Eusebius does not use the TF in Chapter 3 about disproving Jesus was a deceiver. He does not use the TF in Chapter 4 when discussing whether the works of Jesus were divine, or wizardry. He uses the TF in Chapter 5 to demonstrate why Jesus would have attracted so many followers. Prior to quoting the TF, Eusebius only states that Josephus “mentions” Jesus in Antiquities. Then, afterwards, he writes:
“If, then, even the historian's evidence shews that He attracted to Himself not only the twelve Apostles, nor the seventy disciples, but had in addition many Jews and Greeks, He must evidently have had some extraordinary power beyond that of other men. For how otherwise could He have attracted many Jews and Greeks, except by wonderful miracles and unheard-of teaching?”
Eusebius does not indicate that Josephus stated Jesus was foretold by the prophets, rose on the 3rd day, or even that he was the Christ. It is not the centerpiece of his argument. It is almost an aside – something of interest to the historian in Eusebius.
Let's now turn to Theophany. The topic division in Book V is very similar to the Demonstration of the Gospel. The section on whether Jesus was a deceiver or magician does not quote the TF. The TF is quoted in the section pertaining to Jesus's disciples. There, he says that Josephus “commemorates” Jesus in the words of the TF. (According the translation I am looking at.) After the TF, again, Eusebius states the following:
“If therefore, as (this) author attests of Him, He was the doer of wonderful works, and that He made His Disciples,--not only the twelve Apostles, or the seventy Disciples, but also attached to Himself,--myriads of others both of the Jews and Gentiles; it is clear, that He possessed something excellent beyond the rest of mankind.”
Again, no mention of the appearance after the 3rd day, foretelling by the prophets, or that Josephus said he was the Christ.
Finally, the Church History, Book I. Eusebius introduces the TF by saying only that Josephus “makes mention” of Jesus. (“After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words . . . “) And then: “Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them? But let this suffice here.” Again, no mention of many of the alleged apologetic elements of the TF.
As is often argued for Origen and other early Christian writers, if Josephus really said Jesus was the Christ, that he appeared again on the 3rd day, and that he was foretold by the prophets, how could Eusebius pass that by without further comment? The answer could be that Eusebius was looking at a TF that didn't say any of those things, and that Eusebius' quote of the TF didn't contain any of those things. This would also potentially explain the lack of interest of earlier Christian writers in the passage. Eusebius was a historian, sitting on top of what might have been the greatest Christian library of the time, so, to him, it was useful for a minor point, but it was not a “highlight” in any of his arguments about that nature of Jesus.
My candidate for the culprit is Acacius of Caesarea as explained here. He was a pupil of Eusebius and he probably wanted to validate the arguments of his master (the arguments he made in Demonstrations of the Gospel) by altering Josephus' passage about Jesus. I assume the interpolation was done in two steps. In the first step, TF contained the phrase "he was believed to be Christ" as witnessed by Jerome and possibly by Pseudo-Hegesippus and the Syriac version of Michael the Syrian. The second step was a change to "he was Christ" and this change was made later (after Jerome made his comment). But I'm not sure when and by whom.Next, let's look at potential culprits for interpolation of Eusebius. We'll start with Rufinus in his own words. ...
I see a complication with the Rufinus hypothesis because Rufinus made the translation of the Church History (with TF) in c. 401 but Jerome and Pseudo-Hegesippus commented about TF sooner.
Statistics: Posted by AdamKvanta — Mon Nov 18, 2024 12:47 am