I recently had occasion to spend some time revisiting the works of the Jewish historian Josephus, which was a real pleasure. When working on Josephus, I occasionally come across the “bust of Josephus” that so often serves as an illustration of the historian, as it does on the Norwegian Wikipedia page for Josephus (albeit with an ambivalent caption):
Eusebius mentions that there was a statue of Josephus in Rome (Eccl. Hist. 3.9.2), but there is no indication that this bust has anything to do with that statue. So, how and when did this bust become “Josephus”?
It turns out that there is an excellent chapter in a recent book that tells the fascinating story of this bust:
René Bloch, “Testa incognita: The History of the Pseudo-Josephus Bust in Copenhagen,” in R. Brody et al. (eds.), “A Vision of the Days”: Studies in Early Jewish History and Historiography in Honor of Daniel R. Schwartz (Leiden: Brill, 2023), 419-442.
The bust, which is now in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen, was first identified as “Josephus” by Robert Eisler (1882-1949) in an article written in 1930. This point had already been noted by Steven Fine in 2013, but Bloch takes a deep dive into both the history of the bust itself and into Eisler’s interesting background. The identification was made on the flimsiest of grounds (Eisler believed the bust had a “Jewish-looking face”), and it is remarkable that the claim was ever given any credence.
But Bloch’s chapter is an engaging read full of wonderful detective work. I highly recommend it.
Some of it has been incorporated into the German Wikipedia article connected to this bust.
Variant Readings 
From what source did Eusebius think that there was a statue of Josephus in Rome?
Was there, actually?
Eusebius doesn’t name a source for this claim, and I think the only other person to mention it in antiquity was Jerome (Vir. ill. 13), who probably relied on Eusebius for this datum. So, I don’t think we know if there ever was such a statue.
Whether or not there was a statue of Josephus in Rome, I guess Eusebius had not read the Vita of Josephus, in which Josephus (363) proudly mentions his writings being accessioned into a Rome library (possibly, as has been suggested, e.g., in A Companion to the City of Rome, 2018, 358, in the Templum Pacis?). Josephus did not mention a statue, which–safe bet–he would have. A statue after his death is possible.
Related to what Eusebius knew of Josephus, the 2025 translation and commentary of Antiquities 18-20 by Daniel R. Schwartz, esp. 75-77, affirms the majority view that Josephus mentioned Jesus, but that his text was later rewritten; “Christian copyists refashioned the text to their liking.” If the Christian population estimates of Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, are even ballpark close, there may have been over 50,000 Christians, some in Rome, when Josephus wrote Antiquities, so a mention of Jesus, by then more famous than the mentioned John Baptist or Brother James/Jacob, was plausibly expected.
Well, Josephus would of never mentioned a statue or bust made of him at all. It would of been a big mistake considering his people’s sacred religious laws of “thou shalt not make any engraved images” of things to worship (God). His colleagues and people would of frowned immensely upon such a thing. Josephus died true to his faith. He would not jeopardize his standing with his people and his faith.
It is a fair question whether Josephus would have concealed it, if a statue actually had been made of him. I doubt it. Rabbis later discussed whether it was permissible to go to a bathhouse that had statues. At least some thought it was okay as long as one did not worship statues. I suggest Josephus may have inclined to a similar view.
On a second objection one may have to my comment above: one could argue that Eusebius did read the Vita of Flavius Josephus, because he mentioned gentile names of children by his second marriage. The Vita was written largely for a Roman audience.
In any case, it may be more significant than whether there was a Josephus statue that he was not too shy to mention Jesus, but that his mention was rewritten by Christians, probably before Eusebius.
R. Bloch showed that there is no good reason to identify the sculpture as Josephus.
As to what Eusebius thought he knew about Josephus on Jesus, I suggest he was faced with two different traditions.
Eusebius knew that Origen considered the Antiquities 18 text that Origen read indicated that Josephus was not a Christian.
But the later Christian-modified text of Antiquities 18 that was available to Eusebius was not as certain about that.
Pingback: Volume 12 of The Bulletin of the Bezan Club | Variant Readings