FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-20-2004, 04:52 AM   #21
Casper
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 430
Default

Were there two different accounts that Eusie had confused (or intentionally merged) as one Hegesippus? Was Eusebius a victim of early interpolation, or more likely, guilty of it?

To Jacob's point:
Quote:
Bernard, based on the above arguments, why should we rely on anything Eusebius tells us is coming from Hegessipus?
I think it may be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, although we only want to keep the baby, not the water. If there actually is a baby under all the soapsuds....
Casper is offline  
Old 08-20-2004, 06:49 AM   #22
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

When I think about this, I think it is significant that Hegesippus's work, containing first hand knowledge of people close to the Savior, was not copied. We know that Christians selectively copied documents involving thier history. They copied Josephus because he was a source of the events in the first century, and because their was a mention of Jesus. Why would they not have preserved Hegesippus?

But here is another argument from Raskin on the JM list:

Quote:
Incidentally, as another proof that Eusebius is our master forger: here are the endings of Eusebius' Testimonium to James and Testimonium to Jesus.
2.23.18: And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.
1.11.7-8: And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day.
Note the similarity in phrases: (a) = James passage, (b)=Jesus passage

1)(a)Jesus is the Christ -- (b)He was the Christ,

2) (a) both to Jews and Greeks -- (b)attached himself to many of the Jews and many of the Greeks

3) (a) He became a true witness -- (b)He appeared to them alive on the third day [in other words he became a true witness]

4) (a)his monument still remains by the temple -- (b)the race of
Christians...continues down to the present day.
Ken Olson has identified Eusebius as the author of the TF in Josephus; one of his points is that "Jews and Greeks" was a recurring theme in Eusebius.
Toto is offline  
Old 08-21-2004, 02:36 PM   #23
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
Hardly. Eusebius thinks the Apostles lived until the 90s with John the last to go in the reign of Trajan (IIRC). Therefore, H is probably born immediately after they died. Not 'active' immediately after they were active, but E doesn't say that. Still, I'd like to see the Greek and I fear that is a bit beyond Raskin's expertise. We are presently arguing over an English translation and English idiom which can be very misleading.

Yours

Bede
Jay Raskin has emailed me this response to Bede (although it refers more to Bede's first post than the one above):

Quote:
I guess the relevent information is that I have a BFA in filmmaking, a Ph.D. in Philosophy, ten years teaching experience in Humanities and Philosophy, and I've been studying ancient texts for some thirty years.

While not fluent in Greek, when arguing a point, I find that if the translation of a Greek word is at issue, it is quite easy to look it up on the Perseus website or ask my wife who is Greek. My arguments are based on analysis of narrative structures and patterns and their relationships to narrative construction and chronological ideological variation. They rarely depend on an unusual application of a word.

In this particular case it is up to Bede to demonstrate that the Greek word Eusebius used for "Temple" may better be understood as "Temple Site." The word makes perfect sense as it in context, while changing the translation, as Bede suggests, creates multiple deep problems. For example, why would Jews build a monument to the brother of Jesus after killing him next to their temple and why would the Romans keep such a monument there after raising the city in 136 C.E.? One would also have to explain the coincidence of Eusebius' well known interest in monuments and relics from the Jesus era and Hegesippus just happening to mention this in connection with the seemingly unconnected subject of James' death.
IMHO Raskin's theory has a lot of explanatory power. Could Bede or someone else provide the names of prior scholars who realized the problems with the dates and have an alternative explanation?
Toto is offline  
Old 08-22-2004, 02:27 AM   #24
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It is pointless to argue with a Jesus Myther, as we all know, but I see that Raskin is really basing his entire case upon the monument to James. The rest I have already refuted.

Romans, as a rule, did not go around trashing local temples and monument and generally let local religion do what it liked unless they had good reason not to. So they destroyed the Temple in c. 70AD but there is no reason to suppose they razed the area until 136AD when we can be pretty sure any monument to James would have been trashed too. This tells us that H saw the monument (or his source did) before 136AD which is hardly unlikely given he was writing c. 160AD. As for temple site, Raskin is clutching at straws if his whole case hinges on this. It shows he has the kind of excessively literal mind that makes him a bad textual critic. If he is confident and so well qualifed, let him publish his wrok in a respected journal and not on the Jesus Mysteries list.

Could Raskin also confirm that he dates the Letter to the Hebrews before 70AD due to its mentioning the Temple in the present tense. I assume he cannot countenance any other explanation. The lesson is you need more than one slight anomaly in an ancient text to start making big claims. Finally, we do have the notes form 16th century libraries to show the memoirs survived. I have done a lot of recent work with medieval librray catalogues and find this reasonably convincing. We also find the pope list in H is repeated in Iraeneus and other sources which is an early multiple attestation (well before Eusebius). Can Raskin also confirm he has checked the standard works like PG for all other references to H and possible quotations? I think he will find there are a few.

Yours

Bede
 
Old 08-22-2004, 12:44 PM   #25
Amaleq13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
The rest I have already refuted.
I've gathered your arguments into one place to make it easier for everyone to determine whether they agree with your opinion of your efforts.

Hegesippus created by Eusebius

1. Eusebius wouldn't have made the mistake of creating an author and depicting him writing over the course of a century.

2. Eusebius couldn't have fooled Jerome into believing Hegesippus was real.

3. Notes from 16th century libraries indicate Hegesippus memoirs were present.


Hegesippus reference to James monument indicates the Temple still stood

1. Hegesippus meant "remains by the remains of the Temple" when he said "remains by the Temple".

2. The monument was likely not razed until 136CE


Eusebius identifies Hegesippus as writing just after the apostles

1. Eusebius meant that Hegesippus "was born immediately after the apostles" when he wrote that Hegesippus "lived immediately after the apostles".

2. Eusebius meant that he liked Hegesippus account better than Clements when he called it "more accurate".

3. Eusebius considered Hegesippus account more accurate because he may have known that Hegesippus had Palestinian experience.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 08-23-2004, 01:54 AM   #26
Ted Hoffman
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Bede, Hebrews is dated pre-destruction of the temple so there is nothing peculiar wrt the temple as mentioned in it.
Quote:
The lesson is you need more than one slight anomaly in an ancient text to start making big claims.
What authority are you referring to in this case? Or is it simply your opinion?

In addition, are you admitting that there is an anomaly?

Quote:
So they destroyed the Temple in c. 70AD but there is no reason to suppose they razed the area until 136AD when we can be pretty sure any monument to James would have been trashed too. This tells us that H saw the monument (or his source did) before 136AD which is hardly unlikely given he was writing c. 160AD.
You haven't answered these two questions related to this c.160 date of writing:

1. "If Hegesippus wrote in 160 and Clement before 100, why would Eusebius believe that Hegesippus was more accurate?" [your earlier answer, that Eusebius used Hegessipus because his emotional disposition ['liking'] led him to do so, was defective, cavalier, non-factual and far from satisfactory]

2. Why should we believe that when Hegessipus writes: "they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple", he actually means :"And they buried him on the spot, by the ruined temple, and his monument still remains by the ruined temple" - yet Hegessipus offers us no reason to believe the temple is ruined at the time of his writing?

Amaleq, nice work of summarizing. Since Bede claims he has refuted ('rebutted' is better), lets examine his refutations, shall we?

Hegesippus created by Eusebius

Quote:
1. Eusebius wouldn't have made the mistake of creating an author and depicting him writing over the course of a century.
We have no reason to believe this especially given the fact that Eusebius claimed a letter was written to Jesus and Jesus send a reply to it - Eusebius, clearly, was a man given to stating fiction as fact without batting an eyelid.

Eusebius is also known to have said publicly that lying for Jesus was ok. This, clearly, was a man without any reliable code of ethics or morality.

Quote:
2. Eusebius couldn't have fooled Jerome into believing Hegesippus was real.
Jerome's magnum opus was the Vulgate and his main occupation was translating theological writings. As far as translating Eusebius' work is concerned, the Catholic Encyclopaedia tells us about the constraints he had and the quality of the job he did:
Quote:
For the first three centuries Jerome depends to a great extent on Eusebius, whose statements he borrows, often distorting them, owing to the rapidity with which he worked.
So, Jerome was hardly a Eusebius Scholar - and he didn't have time to be anyway - with mounds and mounds of books to translate - including the bulky bible.

Secondly, Jerome had no training in literary, textual, form or source criticism. So Eusebius could have spun a yarn and pulled it over Jerome's eyes without the latter noticing anything was going on.

Thirdly, Jerome (a Christian) had no reason to doubt Eusebius (a Christian). That made his usage of Eusebius' work uncritical hence his radar (assuming he had any) picked nada regarding the memoirs stretching accross a century, contradicting history and contradicting Josephus.

Fourth, Jerome didn't even notice that Hegessipus' account contradicted what we find in Joesphus: The reference to the Pharisees as taking part in action against James contradicts Josephus' account which stated that they protested James' death.

Fifth, Josephus states clearly that James died c. 62 CE. Hehessipus states that Vespasian's siege of Jerusalem (c. 68 CE) took place "immediately" after the death of James. This places the death of James, according to Hegessipus, c. 66-67 CE, which contradicts Joesphus.

Quote:
3. Notes from 16th century libraries indicate Hegesippus memoirs were present
There is no evidence of this. The link that was provided by Bede does not prove this.

Hegesippus reference to James monument indicates the Temple still stood

Quote:
1. Hegesippus meant "remains by the remains of the Temple" when he said "remains by the Temple".
Hegessipus' quote is not consistent with a temple that is in ruins. Unless eisegesis and telepathy is being employed as a method here.
Quote:
2. The monument was likely not razed until 136CE
There is no reason to believe this ipse dixit and it is irrelevant because the argument is about the temple, NOT the monument.

Eusebius identifies Hegesippus as writing just after the apostles

Quote:
1. Eusebius meant that Hegesippus "was born immediately after the apostles" when he wrote that Hegesippus "lived immediately after the apostles".
This is an apalling case of making claims that fly in the face of available facts.
Quote:
2. Eusebius meant that he liked Hegesippus account better than Clements when he called it "more accurate".
This serves to cast doubt on the reliability of Hegessipus. If Eusebius could ignore earlier writers and use the works of an old writer to get accounts of things that happened in the past, this questionable selectivity in the face of good sense undermines the idea that Hegessipus, as a source, was as neutral as Clement.

It means Hegessipus was tailor-made to satisfy whatever agenda Eusebius had - thats why Eusebius could rely on Hegessipus even when other writers were better placed chronologically to know certain events better and more accurately.
Quote:
3. Eusebius considered Hegesippus account more accurate because he may have known that Hegesippus had Palestinian experience.
Evidence shows that 'Hegessipus' is wrong on a number of facts regarding 'Palestinian experience' (he contradicts Josephus and history) thus Eusebius could not have used him for this reason.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 08-23-2004, 02:34 AM   #27
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This issue is a great example of why the Jesus Myth is not taken seriously. Preaching to the choir at JesusMysteries or here is one thing. Convincing anyone who knows the material is another. Gross mischaracterisations of texts, such as Raskin is doing here, don't help the JM case. It may be wrong that the JM is partly ignored because so many of the things that its proponents say are laughable (just read the JM list for some laugh a minute giggles). But until JM proponents start to show some descretion and ability to sort the wheat from the chaff, they will go nowhere. This is what made Doherty's review of The Christ Conspiracy such as disaster for JM proponets.

Of course, I don't care much. Presently I am having to tell everyone I know that actually Jesus didn't retire to the south of France with his wife and kid, so the Jesus Myth isn't cutting much ice.

But ask this. Do Jesus Mythers want to escape the ghetto of internet atheists into mainstream acceptance, or are they happy to remain utterly irrelevant to academic scholarship? If they do want to make an impact they need to start learning Greek, doing PhDs and writing in journals other than JHC. Somehow, I doubt they will be doing any of these things soon.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason
 
Old 08-23-2004, 02:54 AM   #28
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Of course, I don't care much. Presently I am having to tell everyone I know that actually Jesus didn't retire to the south of France with his wife and kid, so the Jesus Myth isn't cutting much ice.
Et in arcadia ego, eh? Man, I loved that stuff....when I was 13.
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 08-23-2004, 03:23 AM   #29
Bede
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan
Et in arcadia ego, eh? Man, I loved that stuff....when I was 13.
Yeah. The Holy Blood and Holy Grail was great fun.

Do you know the feeling when you walk past a toy shop or have to start buying for your own kids and see the same toys you used to play with still going strong? This is the feeling I get with the Da Vinci Code and Dungeons and Dragons - it's weird to find it still around long after I stopped playing the game myself.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason
 
Old 08-23-2004, 04:27 AM   #30
Ted Hoffman
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Bede,
Your issue about Jay Raskin publishing his 'finding' in a peer-reviewed journal, IMO has merit and is worth exploring. I hope Jay gets to read this thread and takes it up. IMO as a Layman, Raskin's case is a solid one.

However, Raskin has not grossly mischaracterized any text - unless you would like to demonstrate exactly how and where. The "Jesus Myth" is a demon you keep blaming for your explicit incapacity to offer any substantive responses to the issues raised. Blame it away if it eases the discomfort that accompanies being in a helpless position with the faceless public gazing, perhaps with relish, at your tackiness and arrogance. This thread, you may notice from the murky depths you are operating under, is not a Jesys Myth thread.

Regarding the red-herring you have introduced in the name of Doherty's review, Doherty's reviews are not presented as fact or research-based theories and he expresses his reservations about some of the works he reviews. You might as well criticize his favorite colour.

Your recourse to red-herrings and other baseless claims about irrelevant issues like the Jesus Myth is a glaring evidence of your apalling inability to argue your position wrt the matter at hand: that Eusebius usage of Hegessipus make it unlikely that such a memoir existed. It shows complete lack of thought on your part when you chose to dispute Raskin's argument because evidently, you have no rational basis for objecting to Raskin's argument.

It is important, at least for someone who purports to be rational like you, to argue from facts and take positions that you can defend using sound arguments without lashing out wildly or flailing uncontrollably like you are doing. Your posts have been content-free and have successively failed to address the issues raised.

For whatever its worth, I have myself undertaken to learning Greek. We are laymen here and that eliminates the need for scholarly credentials. If you are so qualified yourself, have you learnt Greek? Have you published in peer-reviewed journals? Why do you feel that it is ok to raise the bar for Jesus Mythers beyond a level you can reach yourself? And most importantly, unqualified as we are, you can hardly dent the arguments made. One wonders what good your vaunted "recent work with medieval librray catalogues" is given all you can ask are general questions and insult Raskin and Jesus mythers.

Quote:
Do Jesus Mythers want to escape the ghetto of internet atheists into mainstream acceptance, or are they happy to remain utterly irrelevant to academic scholarship?
Darrel Doughty (professor of New Testament at Drew University) said he would recommend The Jesus Puzzle to his students. Doherty has at least three New Testament Professors that have read his work and take it seriously and have publicly stated so.

Phrases like "ghetto of internet atheists" are characteristic of your ad hominems and cheap rhetoric. I doubt that anyone here is swayed or impressed by them. You have called Raskin's argument "rubbish heap", "truly pathetic" etc but have offered zero substantive response with regard to its merit.

Cheers.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:46 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.