The New Testament text of the demonstratio evangelica

Citation preview

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. U M I films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type o f computer printer. The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality

illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send U M I a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.

Also, if

unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back o f the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact U M I directly to order.

UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/7614700 800/521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT OF THE DEMONSTRATE EVANGELICA

A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University in candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, by Harold S. Murphy, May 1951.

i

j

\

| Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

UMI Number: 9622184

UMI Microform 9622184 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI

300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

to MARIAN

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PREFACE

Without the assistance of many I should not have been able to bring the pages which follow to completion. in New Testament:

I am very grateful to my teachers

Professor Millar Burrows, Chairman of the Department of

Near Eastern Languages and Literature at Yale; Dr. Clarence T. Craig, formerly Professor at Yale and now Dean at Drew Theological Seminary; and Professor Carl H. Kraeling, formerly Professor at Yale and now Director of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Professor

Robert H. Casey of Cambridge University, formerly of Brown University, made methodological suggestions which have expedited the analysis of the variants. I cannot omit my friends in the Yale Graduate School whose help has been no small part of this investigation.

Mr. Robert H. Ferrell has

made his contribution in many ways, not the least of which has been with the typing.

The careful work of Reverend Reuben J. Swanson helped me to

make a complete check of all the collations. Most of all I must thank Dr. Paul Schubert, Buckingham Professor

v

! i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale, at whose suggestion the present investigation was begun.

I am deeply indebted to him for

perspective, methodological approach, and help in many ways not the least of which was the encouragement to independent research which from the beginning was a constituent part of his guidance and technical advice.

vi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

CONTENTS

page v-vi vii vii4-x 1-7

Preface Table of Contents List of Tables Introduction PART I THE DEMQNSTRATIO EVANGELICA AND THE NEW TESTAMENT §1. Theme, Occasion, and Contents § 2. Date of Writing § 3 .Text and Manuscripts of theDemonstratio § 4. The Place of the New Testament in theDeroonstr&tio § 5. New Testament Citations

8-17 17-22 23-28 28-34 35-39

PART II THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT OF TJffi DEMQNSTRATIO EVANGELICA § § § § § § §

6 .Methodology 7. The Text of 8 . The Text of 9. The Text of 10. The Text of 11. The Text of 12. The Text of

Matthew Mark Luke John Acts the Pauline Corpus

Summary and Conclusion Bibliography

40-43 43-56 76-87 88-102 102-109 HO 110-128 129-132 134-138

vii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

L IS T OF TABLES

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

X.

Variants of the Matthean Text of the Demonstratio Evangelica from the Textus Receptus and Attestation.

45-56

Agreement of the Matthean Text of the Demqnatratio with one or more Members of Fam © and/or the Neutral and Western.

60

Agreement of the Matthean Text of the Demonstratio with 6 and/or the Neutral and Western.

61

Frequency of Support by the Several Witnesses to the Matthean Text of the Dfmonstratio.

64

Singular Variants in the Matthean Text of the teralEaftte*

65-72

Sub-singular Variants in the Matthean Text of the D«3gforftU°«

73

Matthean Passages from the Demonatratio Evangelica Identical with the Textus Receptus.

74

Variants of the Marcan Text of the Demonstratio Evangelica from the Textus Receptus and Attestation.

77-80

Agreement of the Marcan Text of the Demonstratio with one or more Members of Fam © and/or the Neutral and Western.

El

Frequency of Support by the Several Witnesses to the Marcan Text of the Demonstratio.

84

viii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

page XI.

XII.

XIII.

Singular Variants for the Marcan Text of the PpBgaataftUp*

85

Variants of the Lucan Text of the Demonstratio from the Textus Receptus and Attestation.

89-93

Agreement of the Lucan Text of the Demonstratio with one or more Members of Fam © and/or the Neutral and Western Texts.

98

XIV. Agreement of the Lucan Text of the Demonstratio with one or more Members of Fam 0 and/or the Neutral and Western Texts including W. XV.

XVI.

XVII.

XVIII.

XIX.

XX.

XXI.

XXII.

Frequency of Support by the Several Witnesses to the Lucan Text of the Demonstratio.

97

98

Singular Variants in the Lucan Text of the

Lucan Passages from the Demonstratio Identical with the Textus Receptus.

101

Variants of the Text of the Gospel of John in the Demonstratio Evangelica from the Textus Receptus and Attestation.

103-104

Agreements of the Text of the Gospel of John in the Demonstratio with one or more Members of Fam 0 and/or the Neutral andWestern*

105

Frequency of Support of the Several Witnesses to the Text of the Gospel of John in the Demonstratio.

106

Singular Variants in the Text of the Gospel of .John in the Dgmonstratio.

107

Passages from the Gospel of John in the Demonstratio Identical with the Textus Receptus.

109

ix

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

page XXIII.

XXIV.

XXV.

XXVI.

XXVII.

XXVIII.

Variants of the Text of Acta of the Demonstratio £x&Bfig3JLg& from the 2S2&4S. Receptus and Attestation.

111

Agreement of the Text of Acta in the Demonstratio with the Neutral and Western.

112

Frequency of Support of the Several Witnesses to the Text of Acts in the Demonstratio.

113

Singular Variants in the Text of Acts in the Demonstratio.

114

Variants of the Text of the Pauline Corpus of the Dsm£PS.tr&tio Evangelica from the Textus Receptus and attestation.

115-118

Frequency of Support of the Several Witnesses to the Text of the Pauline Corpus of the

121 XXIX.

XXX.

XXXI.

XXXII.

XXXIII.

Agreements of the Text of the Pauline Corpus in the Demonstratio with the Neutral and Western.

122

Singular Variants in the Text of the Pauline Corpus in the Demonstratio.

123-125

Passages of the Pauline Corpus from the Deroonstrjfttio Identical with the Textus RSSSB&US,*

126

Frequency of Support of the Several Witnesses to the Text of I Corinthians in the Dgmonstratio.

127

Agreements of the Text of I Corinthians in the Demonstratio with the Neutral and Western.

128

x

I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Introduction I

The investigation of patristic evidence has long been regarded as

| one of the most important sources for the establishment of the New TestaI | ment text. In fact, the quotations from the New Testament to be found in the literature of the beginning of the Christian era, especially in | the writings of the Church Fathers, are indispensable for the reconstruc| tion of the original New Testament text.

The dating and localising of

j

I text-types cannot be carried out successfully without patristic evidence. I i The ecclesiastical quotations make it possible to go behind the Greek I uncials of the fourth century, to which a primary place has been accorded i | in establishing the New Testament text, back to the third and even the i

; second century.

Kirsopp Lake has indeed raised the question of whether

;

I) According to Nestle, "Francis Lucas of Brugge [fi. A.D. 1606] was the first to explore the writings of the church Fathers for the express purposes of textual criticism." Further, "They Cthe writings of the Fathers] are referred to in four notes found in the Complutensian Polyglot. In | his edition of 1516 Erasmus cites a whole series of Patristic witnesses— i Ambrosius, Athanasius, Augustine, Cyprian, Gregory of Naslanzen, Origen i Theodoret." Sberhard Nestle, M r o . 4ttgtj.op ta J&S. Textual Criticism o£ | gXSSK g£S Im SMZUL* trans. from the 2d ed. by William Edie and ed. with a preface by Allan Menzies, (London, 1901), p. 1A6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

2

it is to the evidence of the ecclesiastical quotations, along with the versions, that we should turn for the original text of the New Testament: Formerly the Greek uncials, which go back to the fourth century, were re­ garded as the most important source of evidence, and were supposed to have the decisive vote; but now it is becoming plain that still more important, though unfortunately much less complete is the evidence of the versions and of quotations by early writers. Both of these point to the existence in the 3rd and even 2nd century of types of text which differ in very many points from anything preserved in Greek MSS. let there is no doubt that both of them ultimately represent Greek MSS which are no longer extant. The question therefore, is whether we ought not to base our text on the versions and ecclesiastical quotations rather than on the extant Greek MSS. Evidence for an affirmative answer has been submitted but recently in a most interesting article by Pere Boismard whose conclusion, based on the study of a number of variants in the Fourth Gospel, is that ”gi l ’on !

besM

la psJjas da islsasr

Peres. on SSaS&ftte 9 B 2 U ££&&&£ » ssU sl is&

Skss sL fig-Us

Isa sifefl.Up.g9 mLiaasp, dsa aflg. cjoiMe. fccflrifolop

si ss&a

iMtMe.USJ. alasi im

fesafettsfi la Further, it is patristic evidence which holds the solution to the central text theory problem of our day— the problem of the Caesarean text. This problem cannot be solved until we know the New Testament text of Origen and Eusebius.

The thorough and extensive examination of the New Testament

quotations in the writings of the church Fathers has been and remains one of

2) Kirsopp Lake, ’Bible*, Jfeg. Encyclopedia Brlttannlca. 11th ed., Ill (1910), 885f. 3) R. P. M.-E. Boismard, ’Critique textuelle et citations patrlatiques,’ as, LVII (1950), 383.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the indispensable teusks of New Testament text criticism. The utilisation of patristic evidence is not easy, however. is beset with many difficulties.

The task

Particular readings of a writer are

always subject to such vagaries as arise from allusion, paraphrase, quota­ tions from memory, conflation of parallel passages in the gospels and of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament to the Old Testament text, quotations from Harmonies and Lectionaries, variants in the MS. tradition of the writer, and conscious and unconscious aberrations of the quotation arising from a doctrinal, homiletical, or exegetical tendency, of which no writer is free.

Analysis of individual readings is the chief task of

the study of patristic evidence, and the success of this analysis depends upon the soundness of judgment brought to the task.

This analysis must

then be followed by correlation of the individual analyses on a basis as large as possible, but no larger than the evidence warrants; until this is done the treatment of the patristic evidence is incomplete.^ This investigation takes its starting point from the fact that the treatment of patristic evidence is a critical procedure.

In this respect,

h) This is conation knowledge but has been called to our attention again in the prolegomena work to the International New Testament Manuscript Project. "Furthermore, unless the individual citation can be related to the Father*s text as a whole, and to the New Testament manuscripts, it is not of very great value." Robert M. Grant, *The Citation of Patristic Evidence in an Apparatus Criticus,* Ngw ed. M. Parvis and A. P. Wickgren, (Chicago, 1950), p. 120.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

I

4

patristic research stands second to none among the branches of text criticism.

Any useful statement about the New Testament text-type of a

writing resolves itself into multitudinous judgments about individual quotations and readings:

whether a given variant is significant or simply

the result of loose quotation; which of two differing citations of the same passage represent the writer5s New Testament (if either), or whether he knew more than one text, or whether he was simply careless in quoting; whether an omission is significant or whether the writer simply omitted something deliberately because it was irrelevant to his purpose.

These

questions and many others call for judgments; but sound judgments cannot be made without knowledge.

Since it is not possible to state a priori

all the factors which may have influenced the form in which any given New Testament citation is found, sound criticism must begin with as full relevant knowledge as is possible. For this reason examination of the New Testament text of a writing cannot be done effectively without 1 ) orientation to the writing in question and 2) an analysis of the place which the New Testament has in that writing. This preliminary work then will lay the foundation upon which we shall proceed to the treatment of the writing for present consideration— the i&EPpgtEatjp gaangfiliSft

Eusebius of Caesarea.5

In the light of the present status of New Testament text criticism

J5

Caesarea in Palestine.

Eusebius died in A.D. 339.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

5

there are probably no patristic writings more important for investigation than those of Susebiua of Caesarea.

This is because of the crucial role

which his writings play in the elucidation of the so-called Caesarean texttype first isolated by the late B.H. Streeter.^

Previous to the work of

Streeter the classification of text-types made by the monumental labors of Westcott and Hort hold the field. These four text-types were? Syrian, 7 Neutral, Alexandrian and Western. Though much research was put into the problem of the text of the New Testament after Westcott and Hort, the bulk of which was in connection with the investigation of the Western Text, the most ambitious attempt at a reclassification of the types of text was that of H. P. von Soden. of labor.

Von Sodon*8 efforts represented a prodigious amount

Though his general theory of the text and his treatment of the

materials failed to win full approval from the scholarly world? his analyses of what he called the I text-type were to capture the attention of the text

6) 7)

B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels. 1st ed. (London, 1924), pp. 91ff. See B. F. Viestcott and F. J. A. Hort, New Testament in the Original Creek. II, Introduction, 2d ed. (Cambridge, 1896). 8 ) It is not possible to go into the reasons for this here but see e.g. K. Lake, 'The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark,' HTR. XXI (1928), 338ff. and especially H. C. Hoskler, 'Von Soden's Text of the New Testament,’ «jFT3. XV (1914;, 307-326. The theory and apparatus of von Soden are to be found in his work, £ & SghEiftfiB S«S JfeMSS 2feglfiffigHfea iQ & & § £ ' n s k l l t o I s a t o M A taWfftflULIi fiu£ Q m t i ibE&C Textgeachichte. I Teil: Untersuchungen; (Gottingen, 1902-1910). II Teil: Text und Apparat; (Gottingen, 1913).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

6

critics and lead to the identification of the Caesarean text-type. It was Streeter who, by pointing out that the text of fata 6 ^ could be identified with the text used by Origen— after he moved from Alexandria to Caesarea in A.D. 231, made the most important modification in the theory of text-types since westeott and Hort.^

Streeter held that this text-

type was the local text of Caesarea, independent and coordinate with the Western and Neutral.^

Since this very important discovery by Streeter much

effort has gone into the investigation of the Caesarean text-type.

Clearly

the validity with which a text-type can be localised in Caesarea depends upon the adequacy of our knowledge of the text used there.

This was a weak

link in Streeter’s hypothesis because his conclusion was based primarily upon his investigation of Origen’s text of the Gospel of Mark though he also 12 examined a small portion of Grigen’s Commentary on Matthew. In the conclusion of the most thorough study made of the Caesarean text the authors state that "perhaps the most important piece of work which remains is the double task of collecting and studying the quotations from the other gospels in Origen and Eusebius.

9) e, X, q>7 28 , 565, 700

The studies which we have published

et al

10) The full history of the isolation of the Caesarean text-type is given by B. M. Metsger, ’The Caesarean Text of the Gospels,* JBL. LXIV (1945), 457489. 11) Kirsopp Lake and Silva New, however, while agreeing generally with Streeter, regarded the Caesarean text as "merely a correction of the V.'estern by the Neutral." K. Lake, Ttig, Text o£ l&e. jggg Testament. 6th ed., rev. by Silva New (London, 1928k), p. 84. 12) Streeter, o j j clt., p. 585.

.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

7

have been intentionally limited to the text of Mark, and their results cannot safely be applied to the other gospels.

Of late the investiga­

tion of the Hew Testament text of Origen has been carried f o r w a r d t h e present study concerns itself with the New Testament text of Eusebius. Vhile the writings of Eusebius are somewhat less significant for the examination of the Caesarean text, than those of Origen by being later in date, they are somewhat more significant by virtue of their better manuscript tradition and their being free of the complications in Origen,s text arising from his removal from Alexandria to Caesarea. The Demonstratio Evangelica qualifies itself as of central interest for the study of Eusebius' New Testament text by its richness of quota­ tions, and fortunately it is available in a critical edition prepared in the Berlin Corpus.

Thorough analysis of the Demonstratio. standing as

a unit of composition among the writings of Eusebius, as well as each of his other writings must necessarily precede generalization about Eusebius* New Testament text as a whole.

13) Kiraopp Lake, Robert P. Blake and Silva New, 'The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark*, gift, MI (1928 ), 328. ll) See inter allaKfrL Kim, *Origen *s Text of John in His fin Prayer. Commentary 03 Matthew, and (Against Celsusf* JTS, N.3., I (1950), 71-84; R. V. G. Tasker, 'The Text of the Fourth Gospel used by Origen in his Commentary 03 John.' JTS. XXXVII (1936), 146-155.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PART I THE DEMONSTRATIO EVANGELICA AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

Effective understanding and utilization of the New Testament text of the Demonstratio require a knowledge of its l) theme, 2) date, 3) manu­ script tradition, 4) use of the New Testament, and its 5) New Testament citations.

§ 1*

Theme. Occasion and Contents.

The Demonstratio Evangelica. or the "Proof of the Gospel",

15

is

1 5 ) The "Proof of the Gospel" is probably the best rendering of EYAfTEAIKH AH0AEISI2 , the Latin of which is Demonstratio Evangelica. A7to6et^tq (from cwrobeiKvupu ) is of old vintage, going back to Eurinades(Hjppolytus. 196), Herodotus (H poborou... tcrroptnq arro6 et{;iq Proem.) and Thucydides (1.97) where it has the meaning "show: ing forth", "Exhibiting", and "exposition", as well as to the Greek logicians where it is to be rendered "proof" in the sense of a deductive proof by syllogism. ££. Aristotle (Analytics Posteriora. 71b 17 al.). (See H. G. Liddell, Robert Scott and H. S. Jones, a Greek English Lexicon [New ed.; Oxford, 1940], I, 195.) In the New Testament artobeiljts is a coral; Aeyovievov , occuring in 1 Cor. 2:4, where it is commonly rendered ’demonstration*. It is this New Testament passage which provides the motif for Eusebius* usage. The word is found later in the second and i third centuries in P. Lond 921 10 meaning "proof" and among the inscrip­ tions (Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. 923 93) meaning "display". (See

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

undoubtedly one of the most broadly conceived works of the early church written in defense of Christianity.

The Demonstratio constituted the

concluding part of an apology on the grand scale, the first part of which was the Praaparatio Evangelica.

The ffcftegflgaUg was directed against the

attack upon Christianity made by the "polytheistic Gentiles" who accused the Christians of apostasy from the ancestral gods and of honoring the work of barbarians more than that of the Creeks.

16

Eusebius remonstrated

that the Christianas desertion of the ancestral gods and devotion to the oracles of the Hebrews was on solid ground because it was not due to emotion and unexamined impulse but to sober reasoning and sound judgment.

17

The Praeoaratio was "a guide, by occupying the place of elementary in­ struction and introduction, and suiting itself to our recent converts from among the heathen. The Demonstratio. however, has a somewhat different end in view; for Eusebius tells us that it is adapted "to those who will have passed beyond J. H. Moulton and George Milligan, £hg S£ & £ fiaafc Testament ££23 PasssikfiD& 2l M 32B$S£a. Part X, [London, 1914], pp. 60f.). By virtue of the historical connotations associated with arcobet^t? it is quite aptly used for the type of proof employed by Eusebius. 16) The reference is to the recognition of the Jewish Scriptures by the Christians. 17) D, E. X. 1. (11). All quotations from the Demonstratio are from the translation by «. J. Ferrar, ££& £r°2f. Si SM gSSSSl B s l M Demonstratio Evangelica of Stfg&iaa. °£ Caesarea. Im a ti§U2Ba 2l Qkgfc&tfiB MisialMES., Sorias 1, fic§eK (London, 1920), I & II. 13) P. E. 3 b. All English quotations from the Praeoaratio are given from the translation by E. H. Gifford, fiygsfeii gBffiBteUi jfoSagg.liSftg. Prenarationia (Qxonii, m. cm. iii), III, Pars Prior.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

10

this [the stage of those for whom the Praeparatio was planned], and are already in a state prepared for the reception of the higher truths.” Demonstratio will Hconvey the exact knowledge of the most stringent proofs of God’s mysterious dispensation in regard to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ";*^ will "present the Proof of the Gospel from the prophecies extant among the Hebrews from the earliest times";2® and "supply a complete treatment of the Proof of the Gospel from these Hebrew theologians".^ If the Praeparatio was directed against the attacks of the Greeks, the Dey.nS-tratiQ was directed against the attacks of the Jews who "claim to be justly incensed against us, because we do not embrace their manner of life, though we make use of their sacred writings."22 From these statements it is possible to form a rather clear notion of the general object which Eusebius has in mind in the Demonstratio. His title fairly sets it forth as the Demonstration of the Gospel, if the Gospel is understood in the broad sense of "Christianity".

Christianity could

indeed well be characterised as "the Gospel"; for it was their proclamation about Jesus Christ which distinguished the Christians, especially from the Jews.

Eusebius himself attempts to give a definition of what he means by

"the Gospel"2^ but as is often the case in the details of his work he is more noble in conception than in execution.2**

19) 20) 21) 22) 23$ 2A)

lki£.,3c. D. S., I. (2). Ibid.. I. 1 . (8 ). Ibid.. I. 1. (11). P. B. 2 a. So also J. B. Lightfoot, ’Eusebius of Caesarea,* A Dictionary of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

11

This greatness of conception in over-all plan coupled with the ambiguity attaching to details of its structure comes out nowhere more clearly than in Eusebius* delineation of the object of the Demonstratio. The fact that at times he writes as though he would give a transcendental^ demonstration from the Hebrew prophecies of the truth of Christianity, while at other times he writes as though his object were to answer the objections and attacks upon Christianity peculiar to his times reveals that he has not thought through this aspect of his task.

The Demonstratio indeed

incorporates elements of both objects; but the relationship between these ends is not made clear by Eusebius. It was undoubtedly the alarm sounded by Porphyry in the name of the tradition and philosophy of an ancient and proud culture threatened by a new and growing phenomenon which provided the occasion of the Praeoaratio and Demonstratio. The criticism of that Neoplatonist who essentially, if not consistently was a thorough-going rationalist, occasioned what is called by Lightfoot "probably the most important apologetic work of the Early Church."2^

An accusation to which Eusebius returns repeatedly is that "i:e

are unable logically to present a clear demonstration of the truth we hold, and think it enough to retain those who come to us by faith alone...and

Christian Biography, Segta and Doctrines ed. by William Smith and Henry Wace, II (London, 1880), 331. 25) £.&. as with Kant, a priori, necessary and universal. 26| Lightfoot, oj2. fi&., p. 329.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

27

call them the faithful because of their faith as distinct from reason.” This is the taunt of Porphyry.

In all probability it x*epresented the view

of the cultural elite; and it may be safely affirmed that it gave rise to Eusebius* defence of Christianity.

The ’’blind faith” of the Christians

was not tho only thing objectionable to the silver age of the ancient world; for the Christians* disregard of ancestral traditions, their accep­ tance of the myths of the Jews, their disregard of the virtuous and cultured and their recognition and welcome of the sinful and ignorant were equally distasteful. «Mle the Pragp&ratlo and the femonatralio together, indeed, find their occasion in Eusebius* attempt to make a reasonable case for Christian­ ity, in reply to a type of criticism whose leading exponent was Porphyry, Bidez erects something of a false antithesis when he says that ’’nominally directed against the Jews, the Demonstratio quite as much as the Praeparatio is really aimed at Porphyry*s treatise Against the

.28

27)D.E.I. 1. (10). This passage from the Demonstratio is assigned along with others by Hamack to Porphyry's Contra Christianos which is no longer extant. It is Fragment 73; but see Fragments 1 and 52 which also chide the Christians for their blind unreasoning faith. Adolf von Harnack, Porphyrius, "Gegen Die Christen,” 15 Bucher Zeugnisse, Fragments und Referate, Abhandlungen i&njglj^h Pjcgusgiphgjn g££ Eissepschaften. glasse.. No. I , (Berlin, 1916). For further fragments see Adolf von Harnack, "Neue Fragments des kerks des Porphyrius Gegen die Christen," 3&gangfi&erkpfr£e Berlin Akaderde. (Berlin, 1921), pp. 266-281 and P. Nautin, *Trois autres fragments du livre de Porphyre "Contre les Chretiens”*, Rg, LVII (1950), 409-116. 28) J. Bidez, 'Literature and Philosophy in the Eastern Half of the Snpire*, Angjeflk History. XII (1939), 612.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

13

«v

The Demonstratio alone has as its immediate object defense of Christianity aimed at the criticisms made by the Jews as may be seen from the fact that its whole argument, especially in contrast to that of the Praeraratio. is based upon the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Hebrew Old Testa­ ment in Jesus and in Christianity.

Eusebius takes considerable pains to

justify the Christian's acceptance of the Hebrew Scriptures and their rejection of Judaism as well as to prove that Judaism, because its central rites were localised in Jerusalem, was unsuitable for a world religion. While Porphyry "emphasised the distinction between Jews and Christians, and the necessary conclusion that the latter party was a third sect, neither Jews nor Greeks,**2^ and assailed the claim of Christianity to the greatest antiquity "on the ground of its late origin in history and its i

debt to the Jews",^0 the argument of the Demonstratio is both explicitly and implicitly couched in terms whoBe fundamental appeal is to the Jews.

When Eusebius tells us in the Demonstratio. nl made a natural

division of the calumnies of our position...(and) on the one 1 placed the attacks of the polytheistic Gentiles...and on the other side I set the accusation of the Jews" and "I met the first so far as 1 could in my Preparation for the Gospel...and now I have to defend myself against the second class of opponents55^

29) tlon . 30) 31)

it is clear that he is following the division

A. B. Hulen, Porphyry's Woj& Against tag fiMflilSSS: (Tale Studies in Religion, Ho. 1, 1913), p. 38. Ibid.. p. 50. 0. E. I. 1. (10), (11).

As M£I££2fc&~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

14

of the non-Christian world made famous by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 1-2 where indeed

cwtobeijjts

is alone found in the New Testament.

Because, then, of

the comprehensive nature of Eusebius* apologetic, the directing of the Demonstratio to the Jews is hardly to be regarded solely as a rhetorical device.

"D£e gauge

32 HgMg.t. ijge, Mlfie gSflgfl §!§. MsXk'"

Eusebius describes his apology as a new departure in methodology.-^ He speaks of his predecessors as having used refutations and contradictions of opposing arguments, exegesis, and homiletical expositions of the Scripture and the controversial advocacy of the Christian doctrines.

He,

however, will reject all deceitful and sophistical plausibilities and produce proof free of ambiguity, of a more logical kind. Taking the point of departure for his task from a dubious exegesis of the one place in the New Testament where arrobet^iqis found, 1. Cor. 2:4, Eusebius will not use argument of plausible and sophistical words, but the proof of manifest works which is beyond all question.

The actual fulfillment of prophecy

must be more powerful than any words. It is not altogether clear for Ferrar

in what sense Eusebius

considered his approach to be new, however, for the Demonstratio comes at the end of a long apologetical tradition and most of its arguments are to be found in one form or another in the apologies of Justin, Athenagoras,

32) Ivar A. Heikel, Bfflporafeprt,l& gyaa^USft SrlaBMfiPhSJB Christlichen Schriftsteller (Leipzig, 1913). p. ix. 33) ££. P. S. 1. H i . 6 . 34) Ferrar, 2S. elt.. p. XIV.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Aristides, Tatian, or Origen.

The Demonstratio is a more thoroughgoing

application of the proof from prophecy found already in the Trypho and the Contra Celetua.

Often the prophecies are explained in language almost

identical with the earlier apologists.

The Christian,s rejection of

Judaism, but his acceptance of the Jewish Scriptures had been treated by Justin, and the insistence that Christianity was based upon reason as well as faith was, of course, the point of view of Clement, Origan, and the Alexandrian school. VJhat Ferrar fails to fully appreciate, however, is the comprehensive scale upon which Eusebius1 apology was planned and above all the point in history at which it was written^ Eusebius sees the coincidence of the universal Roman empire and of a Christianity to be but the providential fulfillment of prophecy. Suseb 1st sich bewusst, dass diese grosaangelegten Angriffe gegen das Christentum, die ihre politlsche Auswirkung in der diokletianiechen Christenverfolgung fanden, nicht nach der prlmitiven Art der Apologeten dee aweiten Jahrhunderts abgetan werdan konnen. Sr distanziert sich aeshalb auadrucklich von diesen fruheren Apologeten und bringt hier su Anfang ein Argument vor, das wie kein anderes ein deutliehes Licht auf die Gesinnung des Euseb su werfen imstande 1st. Mit dem sieghaftesten Bewusstsein sagt er, die Superior!tat des Christentuma 1st einfach achon dadurch geradeau geschichtlich manifest geworden, dass ndt dem Erscheinen des Christentuma gleichseitig der Sleg der Pax Augusta uber die Vielsahl der Volker hergesteUt worden 1st, und dass damit der ewige Krieg unter den Volkern zu Ende ging. In gleieher Weise hat bei seinem Erscheinen der Logos, der den elnen Gott, den Honothelsnais brachte und den wahren