PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

First, note this:

Would you not agree that Eleutherus became Bishop of Rome in 175-177 on Eusebius' chronology and therefore we would have to place Hegesippus' writing of his Memoirs at least to this time?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorksigan,


My suggestion regarding the reading of the temple line has to be seen as a solution to a comprehensive series of problems with the text. Here are two more: "The Self Reference Problem" and "The Order Contradiction Problem"

1. The Self Reference Problem:
2:23.8: This reference to the work under construction by its title is quite unusual. One would expect Hegesippus to refer to the seven sects as having been mentioned by me "earlier," or "earlier in this work," or even mentioned by me earlier in "these Memoirs." But for an author to reference the title of the work shows a distance from the work that the author does not normally possess.

It would make perfect sense for Eusebius to say some of the seven sects existed among the people and were mentioned in "The memoirs," but makes no sense for Hegesippus who is producing "The memoirs" to reference it this way.

As with the problem with the Temple statement, Eusebius has mixed up what he would say with what his imaginary Hegesippus would say: In the temple passage he wants to say that the monument exists down to his day, but mixes in the Temple reference because that is something Hegesippus' would say. Here he wants to say that the Sages have already been mentioned in "The Memoirs" but mixes in "mentioned by me" because that is what Hegesippus would say.


2. The Order Contradiction Problem.
Eusebius cites two passages from Hegesippus where James gets referenced. At 2:23, he describes the killing of James in graphic detail. At 4:22, he starts a quote from Hegesippus with the words, "And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom..." It is clear that the passage at 4:22 is meant to follow the description of James death at 2:23.

However in the passage at 2:23, Hegesippus says he has already mentioned the seven sages. Yet in the passage at 4:22 Hegesippus brings up the Seven Sages for what is obviously the first time. This means that 2:23 must be after 4:22. But the order from the seven sages reference directly contradicts the order extablished for the passages from the James the Just reference.

4:22 cannot be both after and before 2:23. The solution to the problem is that Eusebius wrote 2:23 and while writing 4:22 got the idea about the seven sages and referenced back to 2:23, where he then added it. Again he became confused between his own writing and what he imagined Hegesippus would write.

I pause to give readers a chance to digest these anomalies and to make comments. I caution that bigger ones are on the way.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

While pondering other problems with the text of Hegesippus, we must also consider this one which I call "The Incredible Disappearing Bishop's List." It can be deduced most easily from the writing on
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf...i.ix.xxii.html

It involves the very last communication/quote from Hegesippus by Eusebius before Hegesippus disappears completely from history. I am not certain who is writing the footnotes. I am assuming it is not Philip Shaff, the editor of History of the Christian Church, Series 3, Nicene and Post Nicene Christianity, and that it is the translator Rev. Arthur Cushman Mcgiffert, writing circa 1890. I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong about this.

Consider the seemingly innocent sentence (at 4:22.3): According to Mcgiffert in footnote 1229:

Although McGiffert admits that the only possible translation of the text is "a composition of a catalogue" and all Greek and Syrian manuscripts agree, McGiffert has changed the translation to have it mean that Hegesippus went to Rome until the time of Anicetus, as opposed to writing a Roman Bishop's list until Anicetus. This emendation seems to have been motivated more by Anti-Catholic Church prejudice than good philological considerations.

In 4:19-20, Eusebius is talking about the succession of Bishops at Rome after Anecitus and other churches. At 21, he points out the many Christian writers around at that time. He writes, "From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from apostolic tradition." This is what he wants to prove.

At 22. He tells us that Primus corrupted the Church at Corinth. Now at 4:1, Eusebius has told us that Primus ruled from approximately 109-119. McGiffert is apparently unaware of this, as he says in footnote 1228

The sense of the passage is that Hegesippus traveled to Rome with Corinthians before Primus corrupted the Church. Thus he comes to Rome 109. That he stayed till the Bishopic of Anecitus circa 156 is nice to know, but certainly not information relevent to prove Eusebius' point of the "Sound and Orthodox Faith received from Apostolic Tradition." That Hegesippus got the true faith before he went to Rome and made a list of the successive Bishops of Rome until Anicetus is proof that the "Sound and Orthodox Faith" continued under the watchful eye of Hegesippus.

Of course, any real writer named Hegesippus would have no reason to brag about producing a list made up of 12 names covering the succession of Roman Bishops from the Apostles, and to add the last two names of Soter (circa (167-176) and Eleutherus (176-189) to it.

Imagine someone writing in their Memoirs, "I have kept a list of all 16 Presidents of the United States from Washington to Lincoln." The idiocy of such a statement is mindboggling. On the other hand, because there is a rabid dispute going on in Eusebius' time over the early history of the Church, Eusebius needs such a list to prove his Perfect Church Theory.

While proving that the last quote of Hegesippus is a construction of Eusebius does not prove that every quote of Hegesippus is by Eusebius, it strongly supports that hypothesis.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Vorkosigan

GA Williamson said: On arrival in Rome I pieced together the succession down to Anicetus....

The Trip to Rome, juxtaposed with Primus.....the passage is clear about when Hegesippus made that trip. Here is it in my Penguin:

The Corinthian church continued in the true doctrine until Primus became bishop. I mixed with them on my voyage to Rome and spent several days with the Corinthians, during which we were refreshed with the true doctrine. On arrival at Rome I pieced together the succession down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus.....

The first line is an offhand comment about Primus. H's voyage took place during the time of Anicetus, as he himself says. You can, be reading only the remarks about Corinth, see the passage as having an "I-went-there-before-Primus" flavor. But clearly when H arrived it was during the reign of Anticetus, as he indicates elsewhere. It is internally consistent.

It is written in a synthetic style that is consistent with what I have seen among thinkers in pre-industrial societies, where one line follows another connected by a chain of free-association logic that requires one to be intimately connected with the other mind to follow. My students write like this all the time. H is simply vomiting up what he knows and what he has done, triggered by association with the word "Corinthians." How it reads to me is that H (or E) has mentioned that Primus corrupted the Corinthians, then realizing that he has insulted his fellow believers, he quickly adds a corrective in the next sentence, explaining that he met them at a later point and they all adhere to the True Doctrine.

However, it does have the flavor of an invented passage, I agree. The problem is proving that the invention is E's, not (the author of) H's. There is nothing inconsistent here with 2nd or 3rd century invention...

Several things struck me. One is the use of the phrase "True Doctrine." Is that used of Christianity as early as the middle of the second century? Isn't that what Celsus calls it a century later? I Iooked through Tatian and Iranaeus and couldn't find that exact phrase. Indeed, "truth" and "doctrine" occur only once in the same sentence in the latter that I saw (I searched the word "doctrine"). Are the other examples from the second century?

The second is the last sentence. "In every line of bishops and in every city things accord with the preaching of the Law, the Prophets and the Lord."

That just stinks of later invention, back projection of a perfect Church onto the past. But is it E's invention? Only a stylistic analysis would prove that.

Maybe. Unless he was one of those pissant, anal chroniclers that pops up from time to time.

The problem is that E may simply be selective with his sources, choosing only those that support his political beliefs. Or the source was forged, but prior to E. In other words, you've detected forgery, but not E's forgery. The reason it cohere's with Clement of A's story is that it is a forged expansion of it written in the third century.

The quote is internally consistent, Jay. It does not say that H went to Corinth in Primus' time, but in the time of Anicetus.

I personally suspect what we're look at is a mid-third century forgery. That would explain why it didn't get preserved, because people were aware it was fake.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Certainly. But my solution to that problem is outlined above.

Vorkosigan

The passage is obviously bullshit history. But there is no internal inconsistency there. It is not clear to me that H is bringing it up for what is "obviously" the first time. It looks to me like part of a meandering line of thought that has reached back to reflect on information that has gone on before. E is simply plucking out paragraphs that support his ideas.

This paragraph is probably a forgery based on Justin Martyr:

"Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names; each called after the originator of the individual opinion, just as each one of those who consider themselves philosophers, as I said before, thinks he must bear the name of the philosophy which he follows, from the name of the father of the particular doctrine." [Trypho]

Note that the four sects named here occur in the same order in Justin's writing. The later author has simply expanded on the original passage in Trypho by adding sects active in his time, just as his story of James is an expansion of Clement. Are the other passages similar expansions?

There perhaps IS an out and out anachronism in H. E says H names various sects -- "Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbotheans, Samaritans, Sadducees, and Pharisees" that were hostile to Xtians in H's time. But it is my understanding that the Sadduccees basically disappeared after the destruction of the Temple. So what's going on? Is H simply relaying history, or perhaps E has read into H something that isn't there....

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

And what period of time would that be? If there is a lot of activity going on? If its a busy place? would that shorten the period?

In any event, I think the commonsense you speak of cuts both ways. Common sense tells us that the phrase "... they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple." uses "temple" to mean a temple, not a "temple site" or a "ruined temple".

But you can also import common sense in the form of assumed contextual information and say this is BS, he meant "temple site" and proceed to make emendations to the text to sanitize it.

So, you prefer the latter. Hmmm....

Plus, referring to himself as H as mentioned by yummyfur can be chalked down to results of Freudian slips - if E had difficulty identifying himself subconsciously from H, maybe H was in E's mind and not existing concretely in reality as a separate entity.
1. This would bring to question why E chose him given that Clement also had a version of the story which E dismissed. Barring further evidence, we have no reason to believe E found H more accurate except because H was probably an eyewitness to James' death.

2. H doesn't mention his sources, or whether he was told about Jame's slaying. He just writes it as it happened like an eyewitness.

Vorkosigan

Maybe, but that is a common folktale motif, right? ....and there it stands to the present day...

Jacob, there are hundreds of place-names on Earth that refer to vanished things, where the sense still lingers. For example, consider this passage about Sigiriya Fortress in Sri Lanka from a recent news report:

A Tourism Ministry proposal backed by the US and Norwegian governments to be implemented in the garden at the entrance to the Sigiriya fortress has run into a storm with strong protests from the Archaeology Department and the Central Cultural Fund (CCP).

Now, that place has been ruins for centuries. Do you this news report's usage of Sigiriya Fortress indicates that this event took place in the 5th century? I should add that there is no garden at the base of Sigiriya Fortress; it too is in ruins. I can come up with thousands of similar examples. H's usage is consistent with ordinary human usage.

I have not emended the text, Jacob. The text says Temple (my penguin translation has "by the Sanctuary)." Common sense frequently has people referring to destroyed sites in simple ways.

Is this true? Raskin's translation says
"Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs:"

But mine does not say "have been mentioned by me in the memoirs but "which I described before." Is the word Memoirs present in the Greek of Eusebius?

We don't know why E found H more reliable, because he doesn't say. Your remarks are speculation. They are sensible, but still unfounded. Equally, he found H more congenial because H's account was earlier than the one in Clement.

What specific details in the account give it an eyewitness-like quality? H never says was there.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

I did not mean 'emend' in a literal sense.
common folktale motif? maybe.
If you can show that Eusebius elsewhere uses the word temple to refer to "temple ruins" or "ruined temple", you will have settled this case.
The Sigiriya fortress is a false analogy in the context we are examining E: its unclear when H lived, but we know "that place has been ruins for centuries"
Reasonable premises may lead to reasonable conslucions.
How early? And how do you know?

H never says he was told.

Vorkosigan

E is not unclear when H lived, he is totally clear. During the reign of Hadrian, when Antinous lived, whom H says "was his own contemporary." Justin also mentions Antinous.

E says H lived before C of Alex. Ergo, I conclude it is more reasonable that E selected H because he predates C of Alex. Although neither of our speculations is supported by E, who never tells us why he likes H. Of course, E might like it simply because it has more detail than C of Alexandria's.

In that short excerpt, no. But the entire event takes place in the past, and the excerpt ends with the comment that immediately after that V began to besiege them. The "them" is indicative of narrative distance. There's nothing in there to say that H witnessed these events, and nothing that conflicts internally with H's account.

Raskin's reading of the "seven sects" comment is not supportable from the text. I re-read all the passages again. There is no indication in the "Seven Sects" list that it contradicts the comment in the long section on James' death that H already narrated them before. E does not say where H wrote that information. The error on the order of writings is E's, not H's.

It may well be that E forged H, but there is no way to tell from the text as it now stands. H is entirely fanciful, and is probably a third century forgery, not E's. Basically, when I read E, he is so stupid and credulous I find it hard to believe he could get away with forging several passages in a long text like the EH, and still keep everything straight.

Vorkosigan