Eusebius
used Josephus’ works extensively as
a
source for his own Historia Ecclesiastica.
Recently I
outlined, in my article rather boldly considering the controversial proposal:
Might
we take Joseph of Arimathea a step further, to include Josephus?
(3) Might we take
Joseph of Arimathea a step further, to include Josephus?
a biblical progression from the rich young man of the
Gospels, through the goodly Cypriot Levite, Joseph Barnabas, and on to Joseph
of Arimathea (possibly also including Joseph Barsabbas). Thus:
….
Biblical
evolution of Joseph
Fairly
seamlessly, so do I think, may one progress from a recognition of the rich
young man of the Gospels, a ruler, as being the same as the Cypriot Levite,
Joseph Barnabas:
Was Apostle
Barnabas the Gospels’ ‘rich young man’?
(7) Was Apostle
Barnabas the Gospels' 'rich young man'?
and
then from there on to:
Joseph of
Arimathea a perfect match for Apostle Barnabas as the Gospels’ ‘rich young man’
(7) Joseph of
Arimathea a perfect match for Apostle Barnabas as the Gospels' 'rich young man'
followed
– albeit somewhat more tentatively – by:
Can Joseph
Barnabas be extended to incorporate Joseph Barsabbas?
(8) Can Joseph
Barnabas be extended to incorporate Joseph Barsabbas?
In the process I had to sort out the geographical problem of
how a Cypriot (Barnabas) could have hailed from Arimathea, a town generally
thought to have been in Israel.
….
Summing
it all up: Saint Joseph of Arimathea, as Joseph
Barnabas, may thus have hailed from Amathus (Amathea), a city of the Jews in
Cyprus.
All
of this was followed with reasons why I thought that the composite Joseph above
could also have been the famed Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus.
Tentatively,
now, so far, I have the important Flavius Josephus as, all at once, the rich
young man (a ruler) of the Gospels; the Levite Joseph Barnabas; Joseph of
Arimathea; and, possibly, Joseph Barsabbas.
In
a different article, I had already wondered about the possibility of
historically fusing:
Josephus and Eusebius
Given the
conventional difference in time between Flavius Josephus (died c. 100 AD) and
Bishop Eusebius (born c. 260 AD), such an historical fusion would be a
proposition far bolder and more radical than attempting to connect the C1st AD
Flavius Josephus with Joseph of Arimathea.
I began the
article by suggesting five possible comparisons between Josephus and
Eusebius. Thus:
….
Parallel Lives
Amongst my various
historical identifications for the patriarch Joseph is Den:
Joseph also as
Den, ‘he who brings water’
(2) Joseph also as
Den, 'he who brings water'
Joseph, son of Jacob, must
thus have been, unlike Moses, a veritable Pharaoh.
Moses, for his part, was
Vizier and Chief Judge in Egypt, but the ruler still had the power of life and
death over him:
Joseph in Egypt’s
Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty
(3) Joseph in
Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty
Now, Den’s various names
are most instructive for Joseph:
-
He
was Usaphais (Manetho), that is Yusef/Yosef, Joseph.
-
He
was Khasti, “foreigner”.
-
He
was Den (Udimu), “he who brings water”.
In other words, he was Joseph,
the Foreigner, who Brings Water (to a Parched Egypt).
Think, for instance, of
the Bahr Yusef canal, still flowing today.
Now, Manetho’s Greek name
for Joseph, Usaphais, reminds me of the name Eusebius.
-
And
that is my first comparison between Josephus and Eusebius, the like
names.
-
The
second comparison is that Josephus and Eusebius hailed from
Palestine.
Josephus is thought to
have been raised in Jerusalem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
While the precise origins
of Eusebius are unknown:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius
“Most scholars date the
birth of Eusebius to some point between AD 260 and 265. …. Nothing is
known about his parents”.
“He was most likely born
in or around Caesarea Maritima. …”.
-
My
third comparison is that Josephus and Eusebius greatly admired, and
became attached to, a victorious emperor - Josephus famously in the case of
Vespasian, even to adopting the name Flavius, and Eusebius in the case
of Constantine.
-
My
fourth comparison is the contiguity of their historical writings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
“Eusebius, who used
Josephus’ works extensively as a source for his own Historia
Ecclesiastica”.
-
Finally
(so far), my fifth comparison concerns the famous reference in Josephus
to Jesus, known as the Testimonium Flavium. Ken Olson, for instance,
thinks that Eusebius actually wrote it:
https://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-testimonium-flavianum-eusebius-and.html
….
My highly controversial
biblico-historical revision would not be complete, however, if I were unable to
propose some arguments, as well, for the emperor favoured by Josephus,
Vespasian, being the same ruler as the emperor favoured by Eusebius,
Constantine.
For a start on this intriguing set of parallels, see my article:
Eusebius and Constantine like a parallel
version of Josephus and Vespasian
(3) Eusebius and
Constantine like a parallel version of Josephus and Vespasian
No comments:
Post a Comment