The Testimonium Flavianum

When it comes to non Christian references to Jesus, none is more important than the discussion of Jesus found in Josephus' Antiquities at 18.3.3:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

The passage contains some obvious Christian glosses that no Jew like Josephus would have written, such as Jesus being "the Christ" and "he appeared to them alive again the third day." However, the majority of scholars have concluded that much of the Testimonium Flavianum ("TF") is authentic to Josephus. Perhaps the leading scholar on Josephus, Louis H. Feldman, surveyed the relevant literature on the TF between 1937 to 1980 and found that of 52 scholars, 39 found some portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby's own review of the literature shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards at least partial authenticity. "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist."

Eusebius the Culprit

Ken Olson is one recent commentator who has concluded that the TF is entirely spurious. In fact, Olson has written an article arguing not only that the entire TF is interpolated, but that the interpolator was Eusebius of Caeserea, in whose writings the TF is first recited. At one point, Olson's article was available to the general public, but now it seems to be only available to members of the Jesus Mysteries discussion group. If you are a member, you can read it here.

In this article I respond to Olson's article and conclude that--whatever opinion one holds on the authenticity of the TF--there is no reasonable basis on which to conclude that Eusebius interpolated it.

A. Eusebius' Dependence on Josephus

Olson finds it significant that "it is possible to say that every word in the Testimonium is also found elsewhere in Eusebius" and states that there are three "groups of words" found in the TF that are found in Eusebius but not in Josephus. He also admits that 1) every term (except, unsurprisingly, "Christian") used in the reconstructed Testimonium is also found elsewhere in Josephus' writings; and 2) there are two "groups of words" found in Josephus that are not in Eusebius. Olson, however, gives much credence to the correlations with Eusebius while dismissing those with Josephus. This assumption is problematic. How should we decide what significance to give these "correlations"? Olson does not really address the question. Moreover, he ignores a rather obvious fact that significantly affects the analysis--Eusbius made great use of Josephus as a source. Eusebius had access to all of Josephus' writings and used them extensively as sources for his own writings. Obviously, however, the same is not true for Josephus vis a vis Eusebius.

Furthermore, Josephus is an important source--sometimes the only source--for much of Eusebius' history. "Josephus is Eusebius' main source for the history of the first century A.D. Eusebius is also fond of showing how Josephus supports the history presupposed by the writings of the New Testament." Ed. Andrew Louth, Eusebius, The History of the Church, page 382. Indeed, Eusebius himself acknowledged that Josephus' writings were important to his own. "Since we have referred to this writer, it may be proper also to notice Josephus himself, who has contributed so much to the history at hand...." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Trns. Isaac Boyle, page 96. Accordingly, the possibility that Eusebius was influenced by Josephus' writings seems very high.

The influence of his sources -- including Josephus -- on Eusebius was greater than might otherwise be supposed because he is known for his lack of creativity and a writing style borrowed from the "cut & paste" school of history.

More important though, is to notice what kind of material Eusebius inserts into his historical framework. Here he deserts classical precedent and remains essentially a chronicler (or an archivist). Whereas a classical historian told a story, and made up details such as a general's address to his troops on the basis of plausibility (and the historian's view of the character of the individuals involved and the policy they were pursuing), Eusebius hardly ever makes anything up. He quotes and summarizes. In Book 2 and Book 3 it is mainly Josephus, the Great Jewish historian, whose account (mainly from the Jewish War) Eusebius pillages for the first century.

Accordingly, the heavy reliance of Eusebius on Josephus may explain the similarities in language between Eusebius and the TF. At the very least, Olson's theory should allow for this fact. It does not.

B. The Relevant Phrases

In this section I address the TF phrases that Olson identifies as being exclusive to Eusebius and exclusive to Josephus.

1. The Eusebius terms are:

a. PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS ("maker of miraculous works")

This is less probative than it appears. As many scholars have recognized, the language used in the TF for "miraculous works" is used elsewhere by Josephus -- most notably regarding the deeds of Elisha. The only difference is the term used for "maker" or "doer." So because Josephus is familiar with and uses derivatives of the Greek work which are related to "doer" or "maker," it is not unusual that Josephus would use this phrase.

b. EIS ETI TE NUN ("not extinct to this day")

Last I checked, Olson had not offered a pinpoint site for this. Without it, there is not much to comment on.

c. TWN CRISTIANWN... TO FULON ("the tribe of Christians")

Josephus uses the phrase "tribe of" to describe a variety of different groupings. As R.T. France notes,

Josephus uses the word both for the Jewish 'race' and for other national or communal groups." The Evidence for Jesus, page 30.

Indeed, Josephus uses the term to describe the Jewish people, as well as each of the tribes of the Israel people. He uses it to describe various Gentile nationalities and ethnicities, as well as the female gender (13.16.6). Josephus even uses the term to describe a swam of locusts (2.14.4). Clearly, therefore, this phrase is typically Josephus except for the use of the term "Christian." But that is to be expected. Whereas Eusebius's writing focused on Christians, Josephus only would have mentioned them here. So it is no surprise, and without probative value, to note that this is the only time that Josephus uses the phrase "tribe of Christians."

2. The Josephan terms are:

a. hHDONHi DECOMENWN ("receive with pleasure")

The impact of this phrase is all the more convincing of Josephan style because it fits into a unique emphasis of this term in the latter books of Antiquities. "In particular, Thackeray, the prince of Josephan scholars, who went so far in his study of Josephus' language as to compose a lexicon to Josephus for his own use so as to see how precisely each word is used in Josephus and whether there is evidence of shifts of style in various parts of his works due to his "assistants" or to other reasons, noted that the phrase 'such people as accept the truth gladly' is characteristic of the scribe in this part of the Antiquities, since the phrase appears eight times in books 17-19 (supposedly the work of the Thucydidean assistant) and nowhere else in Josephus." Louis H. Feldman, "The Testimonium Flavianum, The State of the Question," Christological Perspectives, Eds. Robert F. Berkley and Sarah Edwards, page 188.

b. PRWTWN ANDRWN ("principal men")

Since this phrase is so common in Josephus, the fact that it was not used by Eusebius with this meaning elsewhere is very significant. It is not only typically Josephan, but uniquely.

External Evidence of Independent Manuscripts

Another significant problem with Olson's theory is that there existed at least one or two Greek manuscripts of Antiquities which contained the TF but were independent of Eusebius' manuscript. The existence of such manuscripts effectively eliminates the possibility that Eusebius invented the TF from nothing.

The surviving Greek manuscripts and all three of Eusebius' references to the TF declare that "he was the Christ." However, there is persuasive evidence that manuscripts independent of Eusebius' contained the TF. The most telling feature of the other manuscript tradition is that it did not contain the phrase "he was the Christ." Rather, it merely stated that "he was called the Christ."

First, Ambrose -- despite using the TF as a polemic for the divinity of Christ -- never notes that Josephus called Jesus "the Christ." Writing around 30 years after Eusebius, he quotes from the TF early in the fourth century:

"The Jews themselves also bear witness to Christ, as appears by Josephus, the writer of their history, who says thus: 'That there was at that time a wise man, if (says he) it be lawful to have him called a man, a doer of wonderful works, who appeared to his disciples after the third day from his death, alive again according to the writings of the prophets, who foretold these and inumberable other miraculous events concerning him: from whom began the congregation of Christians, yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart and his prejudicial intention. However, it was no prejudice to the truth that he was not a believer, but this adds more weight to his testimony, that while he was an unbeliever and unwilling, this should be true, he has not denied it to be so."

Ambrose has cited from the TF every positive statement about Jesus to use in his argument that Jesus was divine. He notes that Jesus was wise, recites the "if it is lawful" reference, notes that he did "wonderful works," and records that he "appeared to his disciples" and that he did many other miraculous things. However, Ambrose completely fails to note that Josephus claimed that Jesus was the Christ. In fact, he seems to understand that Josephus was clearly an unbeliever. It is very unlikely that Ambrose would have ignored such a strong attestation of Jesus -- if it existed in his manuscript. Clearly, his manuscript did not contain that phrase (though it is possible that he would leave out a statement that "he was called the Christ" because it implied disbelief). So Ambrose' citation of the TF strongly suggests that within 30 years of Eusebius' writings, there existed a Greek manuscript tradition that differed from the one used by Eusebius.

Second, Jerome -- writing at the end of the Fourth Century -- also cites to the TF and explicitly differs from Eusebius' version by noting that Josephus merely stated that Jesus was "called the Christ."

"Josephus in the 18th book of Antiquities, most expressly acknowledges that Christ was slain by the pharisees, on account of the greatness of his miracles.... Now he wrote concerning our Lord after this manner: "At the same time there was Jesus, a wise man, if yet it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of those who willingly receive the truth. He had many followers both of the Jews and of the Gentiles -- he was believed to be the Christ. And when by the envy of our principal men, Pilate had condemned him to the cross, yet notwithstanding those who had loved him at first persevered, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, as the oracles of the prophets had foretold many of these and other wonderful things concerning him: and the sect of Christians so named from him are not extinct to this day."

As with Ambrose, Jerome's manuscript was different than the one used by Eusebius in that it lacked the definitive statement "he was the Christ." As Alice Whealey notes, "the fact that the passage is quoted by Jerome in a slightly variant form in this period, which reads, 'he was believed to be the Christ' rather than the textus receptus' 'he was the Christ' is not proof of Jerome's own doubts about its authenticity, as is occasionally alleged. Rather, it is evidence that in addition to the textus receptus a variant version of the Testimonium in Greek was still in circulation in late antiquity." The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Antiquity to the Present, 2000 SBL Josephus Seminar. Louis Freedman agrees:

"An examination of the citation shows that though he is clearly quoting, Jerome says that Jesus credebatur esse Christus. Hence his text said not that Jesus was the Messiah, but that he was believed to be a Messiah. This would fit the statement, noted above of Origen, to whom Jerome was so indebted, that Josephus did not admit Jesus to be the Christ."

Feldman, op. cit., page 184.

Third, there is a Syriac version of the TF that is referenced in a 12th century work, compiled by the Patriarch of Antioch which lends even more support to Jerome's version of the TF. While tracking our current TF more or less, the Syriac version significantly departs from it by stating that "he was believed to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." And as Whealey notes, "Latin and Syriac writers did not read each others' works in late antiquity. Both, however, had access to Greek works. The only plausible conclusion is that Jerome and some Syriac Christian (probably the seventh century James of Edessa) both had access to a Greek version of the Testimonium containing the passage 'he was believed to be the Christ' rather than 'he was the Christ.'" Whealey, op. cit. at 10, n. 9.

In sum, it appears that the evidence for a manuscript tradition containing the TF that is independent of the one used by Eusebius is very strong. Olson nowhere mentions this counter-evidence, despite its relevance to his argument. Because there are at least three TF references that indicate the existence of a TF independent of the one cited by Eusebius, Eusebius could not have invented the TF. It existed before he wrote his works.

Purported Apologetic Purposes

The centerpiece of Olson's argument is his claim that the TF so perfectly fits Eusebius' apologetic purposes that it must have been his invention. After reviewing Olson's article, I reviewed Eusebius' Proof of the Gospel (Demonstratio Evangelica), Adversus Hieroclem, Church History (Historia Ecclesiastica), and Theophany. While Olson may offer some insights into what Eusebius' apologetic purposes were, he has inaccurately evaluated the importance and use (or non use) Eusebius makes of the TF in furtherance of those purposes. In sum, Olson places much more value on -- and makes more creative use of -- the TF than Euebius ever does.

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.

A. Defending Jesus' Miracles

Olson argues that Eusebius crafted the TF in order to defend Jesus against charges that his miracles were a result of wizardry.

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 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:

Olson notes that the earliest citation of the TF appears in Eusebius' Demonstratio, in the context of a defence of Jesus as a genuine miracle worker against the charge that he was a wizard and deceiver (3.5.102 f.). With this context in mind, he argues that much of the TF can be seen as created to refute precisely this accusation. In this vein he places particular emphasis on the references in the TF to Jesus as a wise man, to the reception of his true message with pleasure, and to the stalwart persistence of the disciples' belief in him after his death. But Olson's observations in this regard are not powerful. While it is true that Eusebius' citation of the TF occurs in the context of an attempt to argue for the genuineness of Jesus' miracles, it is notable that what he chooses to emphasize from the TF are not the phrases which Olson seems to put so much store by. Rather Eusebius picks up on the TF's statement that Jesus attracted to himself many Jews and many Greeks to prove that 'he must evidently have had some extraordinary power beyond that of men.' In fact Eusebius appears to realize that such an assertion about Jesus is problematical, not least because it points to a reality which did not pertain either at the time Eusebius was writing or in Jesus' ministry. Hence he seeks to support the assertion by reference to the Acts of the Apostles and what was known about Christianity up to the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba revolt.

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

Paget's criticisms are on the mark. 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 to support his response. In fact, Eusebius makes no use of the TF at all in AH. Indeed, nowhere in any of his writings does Eusebius refer to the TF's characterization of Jesus as a "wise man" to respond to accusations of wizardry. It seems that Eusebius completely overlooked this argument and passes up every opportunity to use it. Or, he thought he had better sources, such as the Gospels, with which to respond to the criticism.

I will recount here Eusebius' entire use of the TF in Proof of the Gospel. First, though, it should 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:

And here they [the followers of Jesus] have set no false stamp on anything that is true in the incidents of shame and gloom, ought to be regarded as above suspicion in other accounts wherein they have attributed miracles to him. Their evidence then may be considered sufficient about our Saviour. And here it will not be inappropriate for me to make use of the evidence of the Hebrew Josephus as well, who in the eighteenth chapter of The Archeology of the Jews, in his record of the times of Pilate, mentions our Savior in these words: [text of TF deleted].

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?

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

Notably, 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 performed miracles by wizardry is the fact that Eusebius only discusses that accusation in the Proof of the Gospel after quoting the TF. 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:

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. He impressed them with wonder.

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.

B. Jesus' Followers Not Deceivers

Olson argues that Eusebius crafted the TF in order to show that Jesus' followers "were not deceivers."

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. Nor could he. Eusebius simply never uses the TF to make this point. He only uses it to point out how many followers Jesus gathered.

C. Winning Over Jews and Greeks

"[A]nd 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. However, 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, whereas Eusebius knows that is not the case. As Professor Robert Van Voorst puts it:

Anyone remotely familiar with the Gospel tradition knows that Jesus himself did not win over 'many Greeks' to his movement, even though "Greeks" here means Gentiles. While Jesus had a certain appeal to Gentiles, he certainly did not win them over in the same proportion as Jews, as the 'both ... and' construction and the repeated "many" suggest. This statement naively reads back the situation of Christianity at the end of the first century, when Christianity had many adherents from both Jewish and Gentile backgrounds. Once again, a Christian copyist probably would not make such a mistake.

Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the Gospels, page 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, op. cit., page 562.

D. He was the Christ

"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, since supporters of partial authenticity agree that this passage is spurious, 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? Nowhere does Eusebius claim that Josephus, a prominent Jew, believed Jesus was the Messiah. Again, therefore, Eusebius misses an opportunity to make any use whatsoever of his literary creation.

E. Jesus' Faithful Followers

Olson argues that Eusebius crafted the TF in order to show that Jesus' followers were faithful to him.

"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.

F. Prophecy Fulfilled

Olson argues that Eusebius crafted the TF in order to show that Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy.

"[F]or 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, but the TF does not appear until Book III.

G. Survived to "this Day"

Olson argues that Eusebius crafted the TF in order to argue that Christianity's survival to the then present day indicated Jesus' legitimacy.

"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.

H. Missing Arguments

After discovering just how little use Eusebius made of the TF to support his apologetic purposes, it struck me how much Eusebius neglected to include in the TF if he was the interpolator. Indeed, some of Eusebius' most important arguments against the charge of wizardry are nowhere to be found in the TF.

Most notable of the TF's omissions is its failure to mention Jesus' ministry as an exorcist. Eusebius' argues that Jesus and Christians were exorcists who drove demons away -- whereas wizardry requires the assistance of demons. In AH, Eusebius argues that Appollonius must have cooperated with demons to accomplish his "miracles," whereas Jesus and his followers are known for driving demons away (AH 4, Proof of the Gospel, Bk. III, Ch. 6 (132-33)), Eusebius notes that it is well-known that wizardry is accomplished by cooperating with demons (Ibid., Eusebius goes so far as to accuse Appollonius of using demons to accomplish his miracles). Yet, though the Gospels feature many stories of Jesus as an exorcist, nowhere is such a reputation attested in the TF. Such an omission seems unthinkable if Eusebius created the TF to fit his apologetic purposes.

Another unlikely omission is that although Eusebius argues about how important it was that Jesus and his followers would take no money for their works, but the TF nowhere mentions Jesus' teaching on helping the poor. Eusebius also notes, arguing against wizardry, that Jesus' followers were strictly forbidden to tolerate lustful thoughts or engage in sexual immorality, yet the TF make no mention of this. Additionally, Eusebius focuses in on how Jesus never used incantations or incense and that his followers caused others to burn their witchcraft books and leave such a life behind, yet no mention of this is made in the TF. The failure of the TF to mention the content of Jesus' teachings -- especially the selling of worldly goods , the prohibition on accepting support, and commandments against lust -- is also inexplicable given their importance to his apologetics arguments against accusations of wizardry.

I. Summary

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. 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. As Paget puts it, "his attempts to describe the motive for the forgery are unconvincing." Paget, op. cit., page 578.

Conclusion

An examination of three types of evidence reveals that Olson's theory is unpersuasive. First, the internal evidence reveals distinctly, and sometimes uniquely, Josephan language in parts of the TF. Olson's attempt to point to uniquely Eusebian language is unavailing. Two of the phrases are arguably Josephan. Second, Olson completely ignores the probable existence of Antiquities manuscripts independent of Eusebius which also contain the TF. The existence of such manuscripts is fatal to this theory. Third, Olson's more important argument about Eusebius' apologetic purpose is entirely unconvincing. Simply put, Eusebius never uses the TF as Olson's theory predicts. In sum, Olson has failed to offer any serious reason to believe that Eusebius interpolated the TF.

Bibliography

Josephus, Antiquities

Ed. Andrew Louth, Eusebius, The History of the Church

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Trns. Isaac Boyle

Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel

Feldman, Louis H., "The Testimonium Flavianum, The State of the Question," Christological Perspectives, Eds. Robert F. Berkley and Sarah Edwards

France, R.T., The Evidence for Jesus

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

Whealey, Alice, The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Antiquity to the Present, 2000 SBL Josephus Seminar

Van Voorst, Robert, Jesus Outside the Gospels

©2003 Christopher Price

Questions or comments concerning this article or the use of this article should be directed to Christopher Price.